2007-03-26 41 1 8 REPS 0 0 2007-03-26 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 Delegation Reports 1 1 12:31:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 15th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Moscow from 21-26 January 2007. As leader of the delegation, I am pleased to present the report of our contributions to the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum meeting held in January. The delegation included the member for Maribyrnong as deputy leader, the members for Gorton and Maranoa, and Senator Ian Macdonald. The Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum is significant for Australia because it is an assembly of members of national parliaments in our region. Each January, since 1993, it has met to discuss matters of common interest. These meetings provide a valuable opportunity for Australian members of parliament to engage with parliamentarians from the wider region. The APPF member countries are of immediate concern to Australia’s regional strategic and economic interests, and we support the objectives of the APPF meetings. These include: deepening our understanding of the policy concerns of countries in the region; examining major political, social and cultural developments; and fostering the roles of national parliamentarians in building up a sense of regional cohesion and cooperation. I will turn now to the main matters of the meeting. As is customary at these meetings, sessions were broken into three main subject areas: political and security issues, economic and trade issues, and regional cooperation. I spoke on securing peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific and negotiated the final resolution in the drafting committee. It seems clear that the main path to achieving peace and stability is through constructive engagement in regional cooperation, and that forums such as APEC, the East Asia Summit, the Pacific Islands Forum—and, indeed, APPF—contribute to this engagement by developing greater understanding and cohesion in the region. Other agenda topics and resolutions that the delegation proposed, debated and negotiated included: strengthening political and security cooperation; combating terrorism, illegal drug traffic and organised crime; strengthening regional and global economic cooperation; and energy security. Outside the plenary, the delegation participated in a number of successful bilateral meetings with other delegations. These included the delegations from the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and Thailand. I express our special thanks to the Australian Embassy in Moscow, particularly the Ambassador, His Excellency Mr Bob Tyson, and Dr Alexandra Siddall. They managed to anticipate and meet our needs thoroughly. Ambassador Tyson provided excellent briefings and advice and also hosted a reception at which we met expatriates and members of the Moscow community. We are grateful for Dr Siddall’s advice and practical assistance throughout the visit. We also thank His Excellency Mr Sergey Mironov, President of APPF and the Chairman of the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, and his colleagues—in particular, His Excellency Mr Dmitry Mezentsev, His Excellency Mr Ilyas Umakhanov and the APPF15 secretariat staff and liaison officers. They provided excellent meeting arrangements, generous hospitality and a wonderful cultural program for all who attended the meeting. We also thank those closer to home who supported the visit: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Parliamentary Library, the Parliamentary Relations Office and, of course, our excellent delegation secretary, Catherine Cornish, whose support was invaluable. I thank the deputy leader, the member for Maribyrnong, and all members of the delegation. Each of us pressed Australia’s interests through our draft resolutions, our speeches and negotiations, our bilateral meetings and on informal occasions. In short, the Australian team worked hard to promote Australia’s interests and to represent our parliament. Before concluding, I also take this opportunity to note that, prior to joining the delegation in Moscow for the meeting, I made a short official visit to Israel at the invitation of the Speaker of the Knesset, Mrs Dalia Itzik. This visit formed part of the regular bilateral exchanges that take place between the Australian parliament and the Knesset. This regular contact contributes to building and maintaining the relationship and understanding between our two countries and parliaments. During the visit I met with the Speaker, Mrs Dalia Itzik; the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Benjamin Netanyahu; President Mr Moshe Katsav; Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres; and the head of the Israel-Australia parliamentary friendship group, Ms Ronit Tirosh. During the visit I also met with Israeli researchers and academics working in the fields of water and solar energy research, as well as the Australian Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation, Major General Ian Gordon. I made a visit to the UN observation post, OP51, in the Golan Heights, accompanied by an Australian serving with UNSTO, Captain John Bouloukos. I have to say that the Australians serving with UNSTO are performing a valuable role and bringing great credit to Australia through their dedication and professionalism. I should also note that in all of my meetings in Israel there was a genuine appreciation expressed for Australia’s friendship with and support for Israel and for the role Australia plays in working for a resolution of the very difficult and complex problems in the Middle East. Finally, I express my thanks to the Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv, particularly to the Ambassador, His Excellency Mr James Larsen, and also to Jonathon Chew and Alison Drury. The arrangements for the visit were first class, resulting in an excellent and diverse visit program. Mr Larsen provided very thorough briefing and support throughout the visit. I also thank Simon Moore, the Australian Federal Police security adviser who accompanied me on the visit, who is a very professional officer and who is a credit to the AFP. Once again, I thank DFAT, the library and the Parliamentary Relations Office for their support in making this short visit such a success and, for the whole of the visit, I also thank my senior adviser, Mr Chris Paterson. 2 12:38:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to speak to the report of the delegation to the 15th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum this January. My colleague the member for Maribyrnong, who was the deputy leader of the delegation, cannot be present, so I will make some remarks on his behalf, as well as my own. Mr Speaker, you have referred to the role of the APPF and its relevance to Australia and some of the issues that the Australian delegation debated; I would like to focus on some other issues. These are political and security cooperation, which the member for Maribyrnong debated, and energy security, which I covered. In his contribution on political and security cooperation, the member for Maribyrnong referred to the interdependence of regional economies and the influence that had on member states maintaining international stability and upholding international obligations. His view was that we have no choice but to work together in addressing the challenges to its peace and security that the region faces. The debate on energy security at the APPF drew quite a bit of interest. This is understandable because energy security, together with climate change, is amongst the most significant challenges the world is facing. Our region, the Asia-Pacific, is responsible for about 20 per cent of world energy demand and about 50 per cent of the increase in world energy demand in recent years. The implications of energy security are highly significant for our international relations in the future because competition for energy is likely to be the source of tension between states if countries do not have access to a market that can deliver reliable supplies at competitive rates. The challenge of energy security presents us with an opportunity to collaborate to ensure that all countries have adequate access to energy. It is something that is essential for sustainable economic growth and for the alleviation of poverty. We cannot just consider the interests of our own countries; some of us are fortunate to have good access to energy. Australia has a high degree of natural energy security, although, as you know, we are a net exporter of oil. However, other countries, including many of our neighbours, are much less fortunate. The kinds of measures that I called for at the meeting included enhancements to global energy trading by strengthening markets, expanding energy infrastructure, removing impediments to exploration and support for the production of alternative sources. We also need to confront this issue in terms of climate change by promoting the development of new and more energy efficient technologies to allow the ongoing use of fossil fuels while meeting climate change objectives. As parliamentarians in the region we can contribute to progress on the initiatives already undertaken and the development of further initiatives. The value of debating energy security in a forum such as the APPF is clear: it is a global issue requiring global solutions, and these solutions will not succeed unless they are built on understanding and cooperation. Forums such as APPF do more than provide a basis for speeches. Twenty-seven countries in the region are members and all but a few of them sent members of parliament to this meeting. During a meeting we get the chance to debate regional issues and discuss them in depth as we negotiate with our colleagues from around the region. Our interests will never completely coincide but we do manage to increase our understanding of each other and, through a cooperative attitude, find we can agree on many matters of common interest and concern. Mr Speaker, you thanked a number of people, and I would like to add our thanks, especially to the Australian ambassador, Mr Bob Tyson, and second secretary, Dr Alexandra Siddall. We very much appreciated the preparations they made for us, and their advice and support while we were in Moscow. I also thank their Canberra colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their advice and assistance; the research staff in the Parliamentary Library; and the Parliamentary Relations Office. The organising committee and secretariat of APPF15 should also be thanked for their generous hospitality and efficient arrangements. A large conference in Moscow in the middle of winter must have had its logistical challenges but it went smoothly. In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for leading the delegation, and all my colleagues on the delegation. One of the benefits of participating in such a delegation is the opportunity it provides for us to get to know our colleagues within the parliament as well as from other parliaments. Throughout the four-day meeting, our delegates were vocal and highly participative, which ensured, I think, a very effective representation for Australia. 4 Committees 4 4 4 12:43:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I present the committee’s report on its inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs in Australia, together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr KERR —by leave—I believe the committee has sought to present a balanced report. Inevitably, in a report of this nature on the Australian Crime Commission, the focus is on the national law enforcement environment, its agencies, strategies and legislative initiatives, and much of the report concerns supply reduction. In that regard there are a number of important recommendations—for example, an emphasis on supporting Project STOP, in recommendation 12; that there be a standard data dictionary and consistency in collection of analysis of data between the Commonwealth and the states, in recommendations 3 and 15; and that there be a nationally coordinated response to new and emerging telecommunications strategies used by organised criminal networks. The report also addresses the focus of the National Drug Strategy, the overarching strategy under which we need to evaluate our responses to the problem of drugs in our community. That strategy is not aimed at the unachievable goal of eradication of illicit drugs. That point is made at paragraph 3.4 of our report. The National Drug Strategy 2004-09, endorsed by the government, is set out in detail at paragraph 3.6 of our report. In short, there are three elements: firstly, supply reduction strategies; secondly, demand reduction strategies; and, thirdly, harm minimisation strategies. This report draws attention to the imbalance between the funding and resources going into supply reduction strategies—that is, the law enforcement side—opposed to those going to demand reduction and harm minimisation. In that regard, the report makes a number of specific recommendations. For example, recommendation 5 states: … that public education and demand reduction … be factual, informative and appropriately targeted … seeking input from young people … Recommendation 6 suggests: … harm-reduction strategies … receive more attention and resources. If you can conceptualise the National Drug Strategy a three-legged stool, with each leg supporting an overarching objective of minimising the harm from drugs in our community, then presently the balance does not reflect what would be the most effective response. This morning I had the opportunity to go to the launch of CADETLiFe, a program which is addressing problems within the cadets. One of the focuses was youth suicide, which has been a blight not just in this country but also in other countries. Those presenting stressed the importance of organisations committing to programs to build resilience and connectedness contrasted with expulsion and exclusion. Of course, there is a place for expulsion, exclusion and punishment for those involved in serious and organised crime; I do not back away from that. But it is ridiculous and impossible to deal with the over 30 per cent of Australians—our children, people we know, some parliamentarians and people in all walks of life—who have used illicit drugs for personal reasons and do not conceptualise themselves as criminals. Indeed, our law enforcement system would grind to a halt were we ever to operate in that way. We have seen a firestorm of controversy over drug use in the AFL recently. All I wish to say in that regard is that the danger of making scapegoats and isolating people as if they are particular targets for exclusion from our society has to be resisted. Young people are risk-takers. What we need to do is to build those capacities of resilience and connectedness. I hope that those who may have come into some difficulty with managing their use of illicit drugs are assisted to get their lives back on track. But it is not just in the AFL; in every walk of life now, young people are involved. In the military, and even in our agencies that require top secret positive vetting, we have stopped insisting on excluding people with prior drug use. Don Stewart, the former and first chair of the National Crime Authority, has pointed out that we need to focus on a medical approach, which enables people to be rehabilitated into the community, and that zero tolerance has been a dramatic failure. The balance has been wrong, and I hope that the committee’s report will be a positive contribution to a more balanced approach to this debate. (Time expired) 5 12:48:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 0 Mr WOOD —I also rise in support of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD) in Australia. I congratulate the Deputy Chair, the member for Denison, on the report he has just tabled. I also thank the other committee members, in particular, the chair, Senator Macdonald, and Mr Richardson, who is the member for Kingston in South Australia. Mr Richardson is an ex-police officer, and his evidence to the inquiry and his expertise were highly valued. Sadly, Australia has one of the highest levels of methamphetamine use in the world. In recent years, we have seen the usage increasing. The Department of Health and Ageing noted the following from the UN World Drug Report 2005: In comparison with other data presented in the report, Australia has a substantially higher rate of amphetamine use than the other countries listed including the UK (1.6%), USA (1.4%), Netherlands (0.6%) and Canada (0.6%). The annual prevalence of ecstasy in Australia was 3.4% of the population aged 15-64 years in 2001. I am sure that figure has only grown. Deputy Commissioner Simon Overland of the Victoria Police highlighted the scale of AOSD problems in Australia: Our estimation, our intelligence, is that there are somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 tablets of ecstasy being consumed per weekend across Australia. That is exceptionally sad. If you break that down into the 150 electorates, in La Trobe there would be approximately 666 people per weekend who are using some sort of recreational drug. It is very sad; they do not realise the damage that they are doing to themselves and eventually to their families. One in eight people aged between 20 and 29 years has used ecstasy in the last 12 months. The 20- to 29-year age group had the highest proportion of people ever using ecstasy compared with all other age groups. We had some discussions regarding the various terms for drugs used around the country and how various states define drugs. Standardising the terms for drugs is one of the recommendations of the committee. AOSD is defined to include amphetamine, methamphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine. In Australia, amphetamines have historically been associated with street drugs such as speed. In recent years, other forms of methamphetamine have become prevalent, including base and crystalline methamphetamine, commonly known as ‘ice’. Sadly, this has really hit the streets. In my days in the police force four or five years ago, we had not even heard of the drug. Now it is everywhere out there. MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy, also belongs to the family of synthetic drugs. So who is using the drugs? You heard the age groups before, but AOSD users cut across all sectors of society and come from a variety of backgrounds. Users may range from well-educated professionals. For example, ecstasy and methamphetamines are used at dance parties. Ecstasy is called the party drug, but it causes great personal harm, with long-term mental health problems. When you look around the world—and in Australia we are hearing at the moment about AFL football stars—and at the popular stars in America, you see that these people have, no doubt, the ability to get the best sort of advice and support and go to the best clinics for rehab, but I feel very sorry for the people who cannot afford to do that. That is one of the greatest dangers that I foresee. The committee made a number of recommendations—18, I think. One of the great things that came out of this was through the Queensland pharmaceutical guild and their STOP program, which is a database that ensures that all those people who purchase drugs are linked by a photo ID. The ID goes into the database and is circulated, so you cannot have one person going to different pharmacies to buy drugs. I think that is a great initiative which has to be rolled out across the whole country. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member for Denison wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr KERR (Denison) 12:53:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 6 Miscellaneous 6 6 Mr KERR (Denison) 12:54:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 6 Committees 6 6 6 12:54:00 Causley, Ian, MP 4K6 Page NATS 1 0 Mr CAUSLEY —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Griffin Legacy amendments. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 4K6 Causley, Ian, MP Mr CAUSLEY —by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I have the pleasure of presenting our report entitled, Review of the Griffin Legacy amendments. The Griffin Legacy amendments are some of the most significant changes proposed for the future urban planning of Canberra. They seek to restate some of the key planning principles Griffin proposed and articulate specific strategic plans for the central national area. The amendments examined by the committee include amendment 56, the Griffin Legacy—principles and policies; amendment 59, City Hill precinct; amendment 60, Constitution Avenue; and amendment 61, West Basin. The committee supports the broad aims of the Griffin Legacy project. The aim of advancing Griffin’s plan to guide the future urban planning of Canberra through the 21st century is enviable. The committee, however, believes that the Griffin Legacy amendments can be improved. Through the roundtable public hearing, evidence was provided which questioned the adequacy of parts of these amendments. These criticisms are not easily dismissed. In relation to amendment 56, concerns were raised about excessive building height, traffic and transport implications, loss of vistas of national significance and loss of green space. In addition, there were concerns about the scale of the proposed developments and the lack of a rigorous planning rationale. At the same time, the committee’s examination revealed that there were concerns about the adequacy of the NCA’s consultation process. The examination of amendment 59 revealed concerns about the level of detail, issues about public funding, specific concerns about serious disruptions to traffic and excess building heights and loss of vistas. Amendment 60 notes that Constitution Avenue will become an elegant and vibrant mixed use grand boulevard linking London Circuit to Russell. The amendment was supported by key stakeholders including, for example, the Returned and Services League of Australia, the Canberra Institute of Technology and St John’s Church. Each of these groups has made valid cases for supporting the amendment. The committee, however, has noted some of the concerns about the amendment which also cannot be easily dismissed—in particular, the scale of the proposal and the possible negative impact on the vista from Parliament House towards Constitution Avenue, which is perhaps one of the most significant urban vistas in the nation. Amendment 61, West Basin, is notable for its size and scope. It is proposed that part of the lake be reclaimed using infill taken from the proposed Parkes Way and Kings Avenue tunnel. The amendment provides for a land bridge over a section of Parkes Way for streets to extend to the lake. A waterfront promenade will be created, and stepped back from that will be a series of buildings. Building height on the waterfront promenade will be limited to eight metres, a maximum of two storeys. The parapet height of buildings fronting the promenade will be a maximum of 16 metres, and taller building elements a maximum of 25 metres and not exceeding 30 per cent of the site area may be considered. Taller buildings may be considered on sites north of Parkes Way. In considering this matter further, the committee examined the NCA’s 2004 report, The Griffin Legacy, Canberra — the nation’s capital in the 21st century. In that report, the NCA set out a plan for West Basin which is moderate in tone, less dominated by development and much more inclusive through the use of extensive green areas. Evidence to the committee suggested that the scale of development for West Basin should configure more closely to the NCA’s 2004 proposal. As a result of the committee’s findings, the committee has recommended that amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61 be disallowed so that the NCA has the opportunity to further refine the amendments, taking into account issues raised in the committee’s report. This finetuning is necessary and in the interests of Canberra and the nation. I would like to express, on behalf of the committee, our gratitude to all those who participated in the inquiry and to the staff of the secretariat. I thank my committee colleagues for their cooperation and substantial contribution throughout the course of the inquiry. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. 8 12:59:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —It is my pleasure to stand and discuss this report with the House today. In doing so I note the comments already made by the member for Page. Yes, it is true that the committee’s recommendation was for disallowance, but it was basically recommending that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads move that disallowance. I just want to make a couple of things clear on the record here in relation to this report. The committee generally supports the broad aims of the Griffin Legacy project, a product of both the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the National Capital Authority. However, to us on the committee, process is a very important part of the work of this parliament and of our committee. The committee feels very strongly that process may have not been adhered to in quite the way that we would have imagined. In November last year, the minister for territories wrote to the committee, as he would normally do, advising that the consultation process had been finalised and seeking advice from the committee on whether it would wish to inquire into the draft amendments that we are speaking about. That happens each time there are significant—in fact, any—draft amendments that come within the ambit of the committee. The committee wrote back on 30 November, four days later, advising that it did in fact wish to conduct an inquiry into the draft amendments. However, on 6 December, the amendments were tabled in both houses of parliament, subject to a disallowance period which the NCA advised would expire on 29 March—that is, this week. The committee feel very strongly that yet again we are seeing an example where the work of the committee is being circumvented. As the committee report says: The decision by the Minister, on the advice of the NCA, to table the amendments prior to the committee commencing its own inquiry is a break with convention. The minister has in the past waited for advice from the committee, on most occasions, as to whether it wishes to undertake an inquiry into draft amendments, but in this case that was not able to be done. I feel very strongly that these conventions are there; they are important and, for the committee to do its work properly, they should be followed. Due to the process, the committee have now managed, despite that outcome, to hold a roundtable conference here in one day, on 23 February, in our attempt to get across the issues. These amendments—amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61—are probably the most enormous amendments in terms of impact on Canberra that we have seen for decades and decades. They are very substantial. While we, as I said, agree in general with the thrust of these amendments, that does not mean that we should not have the ability to look more closely at what exactly the impacts may be and whether or not those amendments can be improved in some way; hence, our reasons for wishing to have had that inquiry. Instead, we had the roundtable—a very successful roundtable where a number of people from the community, both individually and from appropriate institutions and businesses, came together and discussed very broadly the impacts of these amendments. There is one particular aspect I would like to draw attention to in the brief time I have—that is, a comment regarding the dual planning process we have here in Canberra, where we have the National Capital Authority on the one hand and the ACT planning authority on the other. We had the example brought to the committee’s attention in that roundtable of an independent businessman, a small business man, who has purchased a business on the edge of Lake Burley Griffin—in fact, it is Mr Spokes Bike Hire, which many of us know about. He has paid money for that. He moved into that business only late last year, to now find that it is right in the middle of potentially huge planning changes to West Basin, under amendment 61. The issue became apparent in our roundtable that day: on the one hand, the NCA are drawing up proposals under amendment 61 which could have a massive impact on that businessman, but, on the other hand, he is sitting on a piece of land which is territory land, which is for all planning purposes governed by the ACT planning authority. This is an issue that I hope to bring further to the attention of the House when I have more time, because it is an important issue that needs to be discussed. I want to thank all of those people who participated in the roundtable, and I also want to thank the committee secretariat. As I said, the roundtable was on 23 February, and here we are with a very well-written and researched report put forward by the committee. I want to thank the secretariat and my colleagues on the committee for the very quick but very proficient work that was done in attempting to draw some of the conclusions together in relation to four very large amendments affecting Canberra into the future. (Time expired) 9 9 9 13:04:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee’s report entitled Report 83: Treaties tabled on 20 June (2), 17 October, 28 November (2) 2006 and CO sequestration in sub-seabed formations. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr SOUTHCOTT —by leave—Report 83 contains the committee’s findings on four treaty actions. The committee found all the treaties reviewed to be in Australia’s national interest and, where a recommendation was required, recommended that binding treaty action be taken. I will comment on all the treaties reviewed in report 83. The agreement with Mexico on the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments, and protocol, will benefit investors by offering most favoured nation status with regard to Australian investments. It will also provide guarantees for investors, including on issues such as nationalisation, and establish mechanisms for resolving investment disputes. The committee delayed reporting on this treaty until issues raised by the Queensland government were addressed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Queensland government had concerns regarding the expropriation and compensation provisions of the agreement. DFAT explained that these are necessary to provide protection for Australian investors overseas, that they are common for our other investment agreements and that taxation or revoking permits was unlikely to constitute expropriation at international law. These issues were resolved in February this year. This is an example of the treaties committee holding up a report until all concerns have been satisfactorily answered. The committee takes its responsibility for consultation seriously and, where it can, will address issues raised during its consultation before tabling its recommendation and report. The amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling continue the moratorium on commercial whaling. The committee understands the importance of whale conservation and strongly supports the treaty amendments which give effect to the ban on commercial whaling. However, the committee is concerned by recent events which jeopardise the effectiveness of that moratorium. Iceland’s decision to resume commercial whaling contravenes the convention and Japan’s continued whaling under the scientific research provision of the treaty undermines the object and purpose of the convention. The committee was informed that Japan took 853 minke whales and 20 fin whales as part of its whaling program in the Southern Ocean in 2005. The committee tabled its recommendation relating to the agreement with Cambodia concerning the transfer of sentenced persons in December last year, approximately three months earlier than was required. Report 82 was a short report which consisted mainly of the recommendation that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the agreement. It was important to the committee that any Australian who would apply for prisoner exchange under the agreement would be able to do so as soon as possible. The committee is aware that one Australian serving a prison sentence in Cambodia was arrested in 2005, when he was 16 years old. Cambodia is not part of any multilateral convention relating to the transfer of prisoners and has not completed a bilateral transfer of prisoners agreement with any other country. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Australia’s treaty with Cambodia is a significant achievement and one which will allow Australian prisoners currently serving sentences in Cambodia to serve their sentences in Australia. The amendment to annex 1 to the London protocol will allow Australia and other countries to capture and store carbon dioxide in sub-seabed geological formations. The London protocol protects the marine environment from pollution related to sea dumping. The amendment to the London protocol was required to ensure that carbon dioxide could be captured and stored consistent with Australia’s international obligations under the protocol. Chevron are currently proposing to strip carbon dioxide from the natural gas it recovers and eject it into the Dupuy formation 2,000 metres below Barrow Island. Sub-seabed geosequestration of carbon dioxide is one of a number of practical measures which can reduce atmospheric carbon emissions and reduce the subsequent climate change. I commend the report to the House. 10 13:08:00 Wilkie, Kim, MP 84G Swan ALP 0 0 Mr WILKIE —The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties’ report 83 contains the review of four treaty actions. The agreement with the United Mexican States on the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments, and protocol, is an important agreement which provides certain treatment for investments and is expected to foster increased export and investment opportunities for Australia. Mexico and Australia regard each other as potential strategic partners in areas such as energy, mining and agriculture, based on Australia’s ability to supply coal and liquefied natural gas and the potential for Australian miners to invest in Mexican projects. The amendments to the schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling mean that the ban on commercial whaling is continued for the next year. The committee strongly supports the conservation of whales and welcomes the opportunity to hear regularly from departmental representatives on recent developments in whaling conservation. The prisoner transfer agreement with Cambodia will allow Australians serving prison sentences in Cambodia to serve the remainder of their sentences in Australia. The committee was informed that there are five Australians in prison in Cambodia, one who was 16 years old when he was arrested in 2005. The committee thought it was important for the agreement to enter into force as quickly as possible so that Australian prisoners in Cambodia could take advantage of its terms. As a result, the committee tabled its recommendation only a number of days after the public hearing was held and three months before the report was due. Report 83 includes a detailed discussion of the agreement and the committee’s thoughts on this important development. It also demonstrates the committee’s willingness to act quickly where required and highlights the difficulties for the department and also the government when they try to invoke the national interest exemption clause and argue that there is insufficient time for the committee to examine a particular treaty. For example, the government recently invoked the national interest exemption for the Certain Maritime Agreements in the Timor Sea Treaty. In my view, this is totally unnecessary, given the committee’s willingness to act quickly in the national interest. Geosequestration involves injecting CO directly into underground sedimentary basins which can be either onshore or offshore. Declining or depleted oil and gas fields, saline aquifers and unminable coal seams are potential storage sites. The London protocol is designed to protect the marine environment from pollution relating to sea dumping. The committee was informed that carbon geosequestration was not contemplated when the London protocol was being developed, so carbon geosequestration is currently illegal in the marine environment. The amendment to the London protocol will allow the capture and storage of carbon dioxide in sub-seabed geological formations. It is important to point out that what we are talking about here is geological formations under the seabed or underground on land. It is not the depositing of CO in very deep water, for example, where it could form a jelly-like substance. That needs to be looked at in the future. In conclusion, I would like to thank the secretariat for their involvement and work for the committee. They have done a fantastic job yet again. I would also like to thank those people who put in submissions in relation to these matters. I endorse that binding treaty action be taken and commend the report to the House. Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) 13:12:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 11 11 11 13:12:00 Jull, David, MP MH4 Fadden LP 1 0 Mr JULL —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report entitled Australia’s relationship with Malaysia. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. MH4 Jull, David, MP Mr JULL —by leave—It is fitting that, in the year which marks 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence, the committee has reviewed Australia’s relationship with our near neighbour. A theme pervading this report is that Australia’s relationship with Malaysia is changing from one of support in the early years to the present collaboration of important trading nations. Australia-Malaysia relations received a significant boost when, in April 2005, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Abdullah Badawi, visited Australia. In the same year, another important step was the creation of the Australia-Malaysia Institute. The institute’s aims include increasing knowledge and promoting understanding between the people and institutions of Australia and Malaysia and enhancing people-to-people links. Australia’s defence relationship with Malaysia is underpinned by the Five Power Defence Arrangements and the continuing presence of Australian Defence Force personnel at Malaysia’s Butterworth airbase. The stationing of ADF personnel at the base is of significant value to the Australia-Malaysia relationship. It provides useful mutual understanding at not only the military level but also the cultural level. This defence relationship is overwhelmingly positive and provides substantial benefits for Australia. Malaysia’s strong military professionalism and capacity ensure that it is able to respond effectively to military and humanitarian tasks and to cooperate with the ADF to address security challenges. An example of this was in 2004 when RMAF Butterworth operated as a forward logistics hub for ADF operations in Aceh. The ADF’s facilities at the base, together with locally deployed civilians and deployed units, enabled Australia to rapidly respond to the 2004 tsunami. Australia and Malaysia enjoy a significant trading relationship, with total two-way trade having amounted to $11.35 billion in 2005-06. Malaysia has become Australia’s second-largest trading partner in the ASEAN and ninth-largest trading partner overall. Trade between Australia and Malaysia is complementary. Australia exports to Malaysia natural resources, dairy products and sugar, whereas Australia imports from Malaysia crude petroleum, furniture and electronic products. Malaysia, however, enjoys a significant balance of trade in its favour and especially in the merchandise sector. A growing niche market for Australian primary producers is halal-certified products. As a major primary produce exporter, Australia has an interest in promoting an efficient halal market. To this end the committee has made two recommendations, directed to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, aimed at facilitating the process of halal certification and export of halal produce to Muslim countries. The first recommendation is that the department promote in international fora the adoption of a transparent and efficient international halal standard. The second recommendation is that the department, in consultation with interested parties, provide options to the minister for developing a single halal certifying body within Australia. The committee has identified and discussed several challenges facing trade and investment with Malaysia. These include competition for the investment dollar from China, intellectual property protection and the counterfeiting of goods, Malaysia’s foreign equity rules, and the accreditation of educational courses and qualifications. The committee is aware that these issues form part of the current free trade agreement negotiations. From the evidence provided, the committee believes that both Australia and Malaysia are approaching these negotiations in good faith, with real progress being achieved. A further issue raised with the committee was the need for Malaysian authorities to test Australian wine imports. The committee is disappointed that wine already tested by accredited laboratories in Australia needs to be retested in Malaysia, thereby significantly increasing landed costs. The committee supports efforts by Australian officials to address the issue through the FTA negotiations. Malaysia is the seventh most important source for visitors to Australia. A recent innovation for these visitors has been the introduction of an electronic travel authority, which can be obtained over the internet. Of concern to the committee, however, is an increase in the number of Malaysian passport holders being denied entry and the growth and proportion of Malaysian visitors breaching their visa conditions. The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship review the reasons for these increases and provide strategies to the minister for addressing the problem. I would like to thank all those who provided submissions and gave evidence to the public hearing. I thank my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee and give a special thankyou to the members of the secretariat for this report. 13 13:17:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —I endorse the remarks of the previous speaker, and particularly those about the staff. This committee has been an excellent committee to serve on under the chairmanship of Mr Jull. The committee has done some good work and brought forward a good report. I will comment quickly on some of the matters in the report. The committee considers that the level of interaction between Australia and Malaysia underpins the sound relationship between the two countries. Further links will no doubt be generated as the two countries move towards the establishment of an FTA. One of the areas I was particularly interested in, having transited through Butterworth in 1970 when I served with the Australian forces, is the continuing strength of the defence relationship. The committee commented: Evidence given at this inquiry has indicated that the bilateral defence relationship is overwhelmingly positive and provides substantial benefits for Australia. There is a strong foundation for this relationship to develop further. It also said: Malaysia’s strong military professionalism and capacity ensures it is able to respond effectively to military and humanitarian tasks and cooperate with the ADF to address security challenges. The benefits flowing from the close defence relationship were demonstrated in East Timor, with Malaysia willing and able to operate with the ADF under Australian command. It is incredibly important that Australia continues to work on good relationships with all of our neighbours. The benefits of that were demonstrated by the very close way in which the ADF and the Malaysians worked together to bring relief to those affected by the tsunami. We have also worked very closely together in East Timor. The only negative thing I would say is in respect of tourism. The committee noted that both Australia and Malaysia are working hard to improve tourism links. The committee commented: The Committee considers that Tourism Australia’s recent “Where the Bloody Hell are You” campaign is not appropriate for all cultures. The Committee expects Tourism Australia to mount any tourism promotion in Asian countries in an appropriate manner. The content and presentation of the Malaysian Visitors Guide to Australia shows that Tourism Australia is sensitive to the culture of its target audience. It is important that we run programs that promote Australia as a destination of good choice—safe, with plenty of the wonders of the world to see—but it is important that, when we run these programs, we are culturally sensitive. It is not always possible to pull together one slogan or one ad that is appropriate for all parts of the world, and it is entirely evident that that promotion was not culturally sensitive to Malaysia. The other area that I think Australia and Malaysia have benefited from is education exchange. The committee report says this: Education is clearly both a vital platform for the broader bilateral relationship and economically beneficial for Australia. It is important that the education dimension continues to be maintained and reinvigorated. Many of Malaysia’s leaders in industry, commerce and politics have studied in Australia, and I think that augurs well for a continuing future based on mutual respect, one which hopefully will have beneficial leads for both countries. I commend the report to the House. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr JULL (Fadden) 13:22:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 14 Miscellaneous 14 14 Mr JULL (Fadden) 13:23:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 14 Private Members' Business 14 14 13:23:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 1 0 Mr FORREST —I move: That the House: notes the renewed interest being taken in the potential for cloud seeding to enhance precipitation across Australia; acknowledges that Snowy Hydro has rolled out an extensive cloud seeding operation over the past two winters for snow fall enhancement and that Hydro Tasmania has been undertaking cloud seeding precipitation enhancement operations for several decades; notes that many countries around the world continue to invest heavily in cloud seeding research, whilst in Australia it has not been enthusiastically embraced by the scientific community; and calls for the establishment of an Australian Cooperative Research Centre for weather modification to follow similar models in other countries. Cloud seeding is a subject which I have followed and pursued quite vigorously for a decade now. I am pleased to see that there are at least some initiatives to recognise cloud seeding as an area that is deserving of legitimate scientific research. Cloud seeding is not obscure science, as many are hasty to assert. I have had that assertion put to me regularly. Cloud physicists all agree that it is possible to modify the microphysics of clouds by seeding them with silver iodine and that you can have an immediate influence on the precipitation outcome for that particular cloud—they all agree. The science is not new; it has been the subject of investigative science for 50 years. Indeed, postwar Australia led the world in the research of this area of science: we invented the equipment that is now being used around the world, and we wrote the textbooks on which many of the cloud-seeding operations around the world base their work. Time does not permit me to explain how cloud seeding works. It is sufficient to note that the introduction of the crystalline structure of silver iodine, which is very similar to ice, encourages the cloud to form raindrops; it causes them to coalesce. It is quite simple and it is not a hypothesis anymore: it is recognised science. At the end of a demonstration, there is a discussion about statistics or arithmetic. In Australia we have a short period of rainfall record—notionally 100 years—with all of the variability that appears in weather, because the statistical variables are just so immense. The debate is about proving the science beyond the influence of statistical significance. Because of the problem with the variability of weather, to be deemed efficacious it must at least show that cloud seeding is 20 per cent more likely to result in precipitation than the statistical expectation. There is no other scientific endeavour that I am aware of that is asked to get through an efficacy hurdle as significant as that. That is what the discussion is about. It is not about the science but about the arithmetic, or the statistics, at the end of it.  Considerable effort is being expended around the world on this subject. I had the benefit of a visit to Texas in 2002, after which I tabled a report in this chamber urging the Australian scientific community to show a renewed interest in cloud seeding. The next year I went to Israel. It was interesting last week to meet with Eli Ronen, the chairman of Mekorot, the Israeli water authority. Mekorot have an extensive cloud-seeding operation, with a demonstrable benefit to Israel beyond the statistical expectation. The Israelis are using Australian invented technology, but they have extended it. Here in Australia we have two significant cloud-seeding operations: Hydro Tasmania, which for decades has continued the development of this technology; and, more recently, Snowy Hydro. For the past three winter seasons, Snowy Hydro has been making snow using the same techniques. The world has moved on and is using technology that we have never used in Australia—for example, the use of pyrotechnic flares to distribute the silver iodine in a more accurate and precise way, and the advent of accurate radar with an interpretive capacity so that particular clouds can be targeted. What I learnt from the Texans was that a precise dose in a precise location is the key to getting good outcomes. I am greatly encouraged by the renewed interest in Queensland, with the Premier last year announcing $7½ million to further cloud-seeding research in south-east Queensland. My motion asks for consideration for the establishment of a research facility, which many other countries—including the United States, Israel, China and South Africa—already have. I believe the cooperative research centre model is the way to go, where you can get interested players in and those who are participating in cloud-seeding activity. I commend this motion to the chamber, and I ask all members to support it. (Time expired) 15 13:28:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —This motion is interesting for a number of reasons, as there has been a lot of discussion over the years on cloud seeding, including comments made in the 2004 House of Representatives report Getting water right(s): the future of rural Australia. I also know the member for Mallee was itching to get some cloud seeding done over his patch in 2003, but the science gurus were unconvinced that it would work because of the type of clouds floating across his area and the fact that a number of tests had proven inconclusive. Added to this was the fact that the science on climate change was at that time seen as rather irrelevant, as was noted on Ockham’s Razor—a radio program—this last weekend, in which Sol Encel was talking about the brain drain in Australia. He said: An ironic commentary on the present concern with global warming is the fact that CSIRO closed down its climate change division a year ago, with a resultant exodus of climate change specialists, most of whom went abroad. So I am somewhat amused that the poor member for Mallee, who had been left out in the cold by his own government—who dismissed his requests and saw them as trivial back then—now should be flavour of the month. His motion should be picked up. I hope it is. Tasmania is the home of Australia’s cloud-seeding program, as we have been running trials and actually using cloud seeding over the last forty years. Cloud seeding is a technique used by our hydroelectric commission to increase precipitation over the key hydro generation catchments. Hydro Tasmania has been involved in both operational and experimental cloud seeding over Tasmania and mainland Australia for over 40 years and has developed a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this area. Their own people have estimated the benefits to Hydro Tasmania of our existing cloud-seeding program as being at least six to one. This is a quote from Hydro Tasmania’s submission to the House of Representatives report I mentioned earlier: All clouds in the temperate areas of Australia contain levels of supercooled liquid or water at a temperature less than zero degrees centigrade. It is the amount of this water present and the number of naturally occurring cloud condensation nuclei that determine the probability of precipitation from a cloud. The cloud droplets form small ice crystals on the surface of the cloud condensation nuclei. Once the cloud is suitably seeded, the ice crystals falling through the cloud collide with cloud droplets thus growing in size. Eventually when this ice falls from the cloud it melts as its temperature rises above the melting point or zero degrees and falls as rain. According to Hydro Tasmania’s cloud-seeding people, there are two sorts of cloud treatment. One relates to warm temperatures and one to freezing, the latter being glaciogenic and the most appropriate for Tasmania. Warmer areas would go with hydroscopic seeding, which may be worth investigating for the mainland if this motion is to be considered. Cloud seeding is expensive and does take a lot of flights, as you need to have aeroplanes in the air for some 20 days during autumn and spring and it takes about 60 to 80 flights to find the right conditions. However, once they are found, it can be a very successful way of producing more water out of the clouds that come out of the roaring forties. If these trials are going to take place and if the member for Mallee’s motion gets some interest from the government, I would suggest that the CRC be set up in Tasmania and be sponsored jointly by Hydro Tasmania and CSIRO, who already have the research well underway. Funds could be directed to them to apply their results to mainland conditions. We have the runs already on the board. That makes a lot of sense. In fact, considering the success of the Tasmanian ones, Hydro Tasmania’s paper recommended a new series of trials on the mainland, particularly if they followed closely the guidelines laid down in the CSIRO paper Guidelines for the utilisation of cloud seeding as a tool for water management in Australia. In these low rainfall cycles, Australia must seek a number of ways to manage our water resources. We need to look at water pricing and trading water entitlements, and improve discussions with water users around the nation. We are all seeking answers to our water problems and certainly this is another research consideration. I believe there is an excellent opportunity here and I congratulate the member for Mallee in bringing this to the parliament’s attention. I hope he manages to find some funding for this proposition. (Time expired) 17 13:34:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —It is a pleasure to speak to this motion. I support the four points in the motion and strongly support the idea of more research into cloud seeding and related matters. I would like to correct a small point that was in the good presentation by the member for Lyons. He said that the member for Mallee has no support. Quite the contrary: he has. He has already obtained a government grant to run an international symposium on this matter. Being the only person in the House who has done anything like that, we all owe him a vote of thanks, not oblique criticism. As has been said, Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania have run tests to examine cloud-seeding technologies. I support that. In a time of extreme and prolonged drought and with the nation calling out for water facilities, this is something that we as a nation need to pursue. In my own electorate, we have had some controversy over weather modifications in the form of hail cannons used by the Mundubbera shire. The Central Burnett region is the home of dozens of citrus orchards, and a number of growers in Mundubbera shire have used hail cannons to reduce crop damage from hailstorms. Hail can cause millions of dollars worth of damage to these sorts of crops. Our biggest mandarin exports come from this area, and it can be seen both in Central Burnett and the Granite Belt that the technologies are probably worthy of being trialled. The whole theory is that shockwaves are sent up from these cannons and that that causes the breakdown of the particles of ice and the rain falls as slush or heavy rain droplets. The practice is that the cannons are activated about half an hour before the storm approaches and usually run for about 20 minutes—typically until the storm has passed. Each sends out waves through the air and alters the mix of gases in the air. The shockwaves spread out to a maximum intensity of about three kilometres in diameter, generally at an altitude of 8,000 to 12,000 metres. While there is some anecdotal evidence of hail cannons working, residents and farmers of Gayndah shire to the east say that it has reduced rainfall to their communities—a negative impact. There is a concern that the use of hail cannons has reduced rainfall to the geographic areas of Wetheron, Byrnestown, Gooroolba, Gin Gin, Rosedale, Biggenden and Coalstoun Lakes and over the Paradise Dam. Gayndah shire has just called for further investigations into hail cannon activity across Australia to establish whether similar rainfall patterns are being experienced. Earlier in the year I invited my good friend the member for Mallee to address those two groups. We had a meeting of the two shires and the protagonists in the shire hall at Gayndah. I was very pleased to see that a local working group was formed to monitor the use of hail cannons, record data and seek some conclusive scientific evidence. Mundubbera shire mayor, Bruce Serisier, and Gayndah shire mayor, Bill Mellor, are leading the group, which will include three people from each party. Two years ago the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, as has been previously mentioned, appointed climatologist Roger Stone to see what could be done about various technologies in this field. It will take another year of gathering data before any conclusive results can be reached. It is noted, again as previous speakers have said, that the Queensland government has allocated $7½ million for a study of cloud seeding. Perhaps these two issues, including that of the hail cannons, could be brought together to seek some clarity in the Mundubbera and Gayndah areas. The CSIRO has been involved in cloud seeding since the 1940s and through to the eighties. This has produced a number of mixed but inconclusive results. I remember as a young boy living in Stanthorpe that the apple and stone fruit growers fired silver iodine rockets into hailstorms. Although the results were always inconclusive, some farmers swore by them. The CSIRO has come to the conclusion that cloud seeding is effective in a limited number of weather conditions. However, in his 2001 paper, Paulo Hopper of the CSIRO’s atmospheric research division said: It may be worth again attempting rainfall enhancement experiments in areas where past efforts have failed, but proper planning needs to be done first, along with rigorous independent evaluations. To achieve that, and for the benefit of all Australians, I call for the establishment of an Australian cooperative research centre for weather modifications, similar to those operating in other nations. (Time expired) 18 13:39:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I support the motion and I congratulate the member for Mallee for his perseverance with this particular issue. Nearly four years ago the member for Mallee, and the balance of the committee that I was on—the AFFA committee—moved a motion that the government put in place a cooperative research centre on climate. Four years have moved on and we have done very little in that regard, other than recognise that the climate is changing. Even the Prime Minister last October had a conversion on the road to Damascus and recognised that climate change is a very real phenomenon. Climate change in Australia has been a real phenomenon for many years. When people suggest, as some do, that cloud seeding would be interfering with God’s law, I would suggest, as the member for Mallee has done previously, that we have interfered with God’s law in the past quite dramatically. One of the reasons that we are suffering from a lack of rainfall in some areas in Australia is due to the pollution that human beings have caused. One of the things that cloud seeding is attempting to do—and I know the member for Mallee is well aware of this—is overcome the adverse impacts that pollution has had in terms of rainfall droplets and the formation of rain and, when suitable circumstances do arise, encourage more rain through the artificial insemination of clouds. As you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker—because I think you were the minister in the New South Wales government when a trial was carried out— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Very good minister, too. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —He was a good minister, too. It fell apart a bit after he came down here, but he was a good minister in the New South Wales parliament. I think it might have been under the Deputy Speaker’s hand that a cloud-seeding trial was carried out in the northern part of New England. It was a very successful trial. The clouds were of the correct nature that could be inseminated, and rainfall was recorded. One of the great problems that the member for Mallee and others have had with regard to this, which he alluded to earlier, is the statistical significance of some of the scientific research. In a nation as dry as this one, in a nation that has a great dividing range and a nation that has had the conclusive evidence that has come out of the Tasmanian environment, to have given up on research into this particular climatic occurrence and the way in which to encourage rain, I think is an absolute disgrace. Climate change is an issue in this place now. It is for two major reasons that I believe this issue has been thwarted over recent decades. One is the far-reaching antagonism between the protagonist, Ian Searle, who did a tremendous amount of work on cloud seeding—and I congratulate him—in the early Tasmanian hydro, the Snowy hydro and the trial that happened in northern New England in the mid-nineties, and some people within the CSIRO who had an antagonistic attitude towards the concept. I urge the government to have a very close look again at this particular issue. We are the driest continent and nation in the world and we have not done the research that others have done. The Israelis, the Texans and people in many other parts of the world have carried out research and are still carrying out research to perfect the ways in which clouds can be inseminated and rain can be encouraged. As to the idea that we should not do something that is supposedly unnatural: we have created an unnatural environment in many of our climate systems through the additional pollution that climate change has driven us towards. We need to look at all the options. The Prime Minister keeps saying that: let’s look at all the options in terms of energy and the climate change issues. I urge the government, and support very strongly the member for Mallee, to put in place a cooperative research centre on climate. One of the issues at the top of the list in a drought stricken nation such as ours should be what we can do to aid and abet natural rainfall in areas where it previously occurred. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 19 Statements by Members 19 19 13:44:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon to talk about the Northcote Cricket Club. On Saturday I was delighted to attend the club’s Centenary Gala Night celebrating 100 years as a premier cricket club. Despite a few name changes and several changes of venue, the Northcote Cricket Club can trace its history back to its origins in the mid-1870s, with the first recorded meeting taking place on 17 July 1875 by one of the district’s pioneers, George Plant. The club has a colourful history. Mr Speaker, if you will indulge my pun, it has chalked up a lot of runs on the board, including dismissing an entire team from Preston, which is in another part of my electorate, for just one run. That is a win that even our fine Australian cricket team cannot boast. The club has also fostered new talent who have gone on to earn national selection, including Adam Dale, Mick Lewis and former Australian captain, Bill Lawry, as well as recent test stars Rodney Hogg, Gary Cosier and Richie Robinson. To all the members of the Northcote Cricket Club, I say congratulations on 100 years of cricket. You have certainly hit a six for the community. I also acknowledge that you have survived. Other clubs that have produced more internationals, such as Collingwood, Fitzroy and South Melbourne, have gone under during the last 100 years. You are a successful local community organisation, not only producing international and shield cricketers but also giving our young talent an opportunity to actually do something by their local community. (Time expired) 19 19 13:46:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I rise this afternoon to tell the House of a visit to my office on Friday by Lee and Christine Rush, the parents of Scott Rush, one of the so-called Bali Nine. They presented me with 1,512 names on a petition, which, I am advised by the Table Office, is non-conforming. I intend to raise the subject of the petition further with the Attorney-General. It contains a list of recommendations, and it is my job as a federal member to ensure the views of the people who sign this petition are heard. The Rush family have met with the Attorney-General, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and even the Prime Minister. At the end of it, all that happened to Scott Rush is as a result of the failure of the Queensland judicial system to give him more than just a light tap on the wrist for a series of minor offences. This was a lad who was leading up to something and, sadly, when he did, his parents passed it on to authorities who they thought would act on their behalf and on behalf of an Australian citizen. As this petition outlines, it acknowledges the gross error of judgement by the Australian Federal Police in delivering up to the Indonesian National Police nine young Australian citizens, when they knew that the inevitable consequence of their action would be to expose each of these young people to a death sentence. The petition seeks Australian government cooperation in urging against the death penalty—something which this government has always worked hard to do. As the local federal member for Moreton, I will continue to stand with Lee and Christine Rush, who are good people and who have hit the worst set of tragic circumstances in relation to their son. I seek leave to table the petition. Leave granted. (Time expired) 20 20 13:47:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 0 Ms HOARE —I also rise to table a petition today. The petition was presented to me and to the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Kingsford Smith, by my state member, Jeff Hunter, the member for Lake Macquarie. The petition is signed by over 1,500 concerned local residents who oppose the establishment of nuclear power plants in either Lake Macquarie or the Hunter region. The petition was presented to me and Peter Garrett a couple of weeks ago. The strong support for the petition highlights the depth of the local residents’ opposition to the advent of nuclear power plants in our area. The government is proposing to build 25 nuclear power stations by 2050 on the doorsteps of the nation’s major towns and cities. The message that is being sent to the federal government is that we do not support nuclear power plants in the Lake Macquarie area. The government has made it clear that it is going to build these nuclear power plants on the edges of our urban areas, and the message from the people of Lake Macquarie and my constituents in Charlton is that we do not want them there. The traditional coal-fired power stations around Lake Macquarie have served the energy needs of our area well. We will continue to invest in clean coal and in research to ensure that this remains a viable industry in our area. I seek leave to table the petition. Leave granted. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. We the undersigned petitioners request the Federal Government exclude Lake Macquarie and the Hunter Region as potential nuclear power station sites as these would be high risk generators with disastrous consequences should an accident occur. We therefore pray that the House opposes the proposal to build 25 nuclear power plants in Australia. from over 1500 citizens. (Time expired) 20 20 13:49:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Despite lots of talk by the Rann government about being tough on crime, crime continues to be a concern within the community of my electorate of Boothby. Youth crime, such as speeding, hoon driving, graffiti and anti-social behaviour, continues and, in some instances, is increasing—in particular, the theft of copper from building sites and houses is becoming a real problem and pharmacies are being raided for drugs for the illegal manufacture of drugs. What we need is less empty rhetoric from the state Labor government and more practical action. The state government is responsible for policing and court sentencing, and more needs to be done. The Australian government is doing all it can to invest in crime prevention. The Australian government recognises that the most effective way to fight crime is at the grassroots level. The National Community Crime Prevention Program was launched in May 2004. I am pleased that my electorate and neighbouring areas have now received three projects under the Community Crime Prevention Program. One million dollars has been given to Southern Junction Community Services for two projects which will operate in the Marion and Onkaparinga councils, which include the electorates of Boothby and Kingston. The projects will reduce crime and improve community safety through coordinated intra-agency intervention and will also reduce the incidence and impact of violence and fear in families living in the southern suburbs. There has also been an announcement of $90,000 for a closed-circuit TV camera in Moseley Square. This was awarded to the city of Holdfast Bay in my electorate. (Time expired) 21 21 13:51:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —Last week I received a letter from one of my constituents in which he complained that he had received notification from an organisation called the Liberal Democratic Party that he was an honorary member of that party. It also said, ‘If you are contacted by the Australian Electoral Commission and asked to confirm your membership, please do so.’ This came as a considerable surprise to my constituent, who informed me that he has been voting Labor for 50 years and is looking forward to voting for me later this year. It is an outrage that a political party would seek to put somebody on its membership roll without consultation with that person. That person has no intention of becoming a member of any political party, let alone the Liberal Democratic Party. This morning I looked on the Liberal Democratic Party’s website and found that they are a libertarian party. It is not very libertarian to make somebody a member of that political party without asking what their intentions are. I have today written to the Australian Electoral Commission—and members opposite might think it is a light matter that somebody has been placed on the roll of a political party without their knowledge or permission, but I do not—complaining about this tactic. I call on the Liberal Democratic Party to cease this tactic. Putting people on your membership rolls without their permission or their knowledge is not an acceptable method to ensure your continued registration as a political party. 21 21 13:52:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 0 Mr BAKER —I rise to inform the House of a new task force that has been formed on the north-west coast of Tasmania. Leading industry representatives of agriculture have come together to form the ‘Produce of Heaven’ task force to take advantage of Tasmania’s export potential, particularly in the Asian market. The task force has created the brand name ‘Produce of Heaven’ because of the richest soil, the cleanest air and purest water that it can boast from the region. Working together in this way will allow us to join forces in creating a road map that can significantly change the way we market ourselves on the international stage. We know our region is amongst the world’s best when it comes to good-quality fresh produce. Now under the banner ‘Produce of Heaven,’ we can actively go out and market the region and drive a greater share of the export market, particularly in Asia. As head of the ‘Produce of Heaven’ task force, I have been actively working with the trade commissions of various Asian countries, including Taiwan and Hong Kong. Members of these commissions have also been invited to the area. Through close relationships we will provide the Asian markets and our guests with a feeling of quality and an ability that only Tasmanian businesses can deliver. These Asian markets are particularly interested in Tasmanian produce because they know that Tasmania has been formally recognised as free from fruit fly and tobacco blue mould, as well as a number of other pests and diseases. They also recognise that Tasmania’s quality temperate climate and its low levels of chemical residues make it competitive with the world’s best producers. Beyond hosting these official visits, the ‘Produce of Heaven’ task force has also secured exhibition spaces at some of Asia’s biggest food expos. (Time expired) 22 22 13:54:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —I rise to ask the House to recognise the great win of the Cascade Tasmanian Tigers last week in the Pura Cup final, where Tasmania defeated New South Wales by 421 runs—a record win in this cricket competition. It was a great effort by Tasmania, which finished top of the competition. They would have won the cup if it had been a draw, but of course they went on to win in grand style by 421 runs. It was Tasmania’s first win in 25 years and has really given a lift to all Tasmanians who follow cricket and also to many of the young people in our state who look forward to emulating Ricky Ponting’s and David Boon’s great careers in test cricket for Australia. Luke Butterworth, the young century maker, scored 70 runs in the first innings and also took four wickets. That set a great standard for other young people in Tasmania to follow. It was a great effort, and I am pleased to bring the House’s attention to this great team to get recognition. (Time expired) 22 22 13:55:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I would like to join with the member for Lyons and also draw to the attention of the House the great success of the Tasmanian Tigers. Not only was it their first win in 25 years in the four-day competition; it was in fact their first win ever since joining the competition 25 years ago. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to hooning and antisocial behaviour, which is continuing to take place in parts of my electorate in Northern Tasmania. Since raising this matter in the House last time, I recently held a very successful forum in Launceston’s northern suburbs. I invited the community to, first of all, understand the extent and nature of the problem, as well as to begin to find strategies and ways of dealing with this problem, which is causing ongoing and unacceptable levels of harassment of people living in their homes and in their community—who want to do nothing other than enjoy their lives and get on with them in peace, quiet and comfort—only to be disturbed by hoons from inside and outside the area. In some cases it involves vehicles and, in other cases, people riding unregistered trail bikes up and down their streets, often without helmets in a very dangerous fashion—dangerous to themselves and to other members of the public. I simply raise this matter with the House and pledge my ongoing support for this community. I believe that there is a role here for both the federal and state governments, as well as indeed the local government, in helping— (Time expired) 23 23 13:57:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I had the honour to attend the 2007 Australian International Aerospace and Defence Exposition at Avalon Airport on Sunday, along with 80,000 other people. This largely volunteer-created international defence exposition is a credit to its organisers. There were more than 60 delegations from 30 countries. A record 611 companies from 20 nations were exhibiting at the exposition and 395 of these companies are Australian small and medium enterprises. It was a very good opportunity for these small companies to advertise themselves in the international market. This is a world-class expo, where we saw some fantastic static and flying displays. Particularly seeing the old F111 go to afterburner, even for people who have seen the F111 before, was a great thing. There were over 500 military aircraft on display at Avalon. I want to particularly pay tribute to retired Air Marshal Les Fisher and his great team of volunteers, who are now holding their ninth exposition of the air show at Avalon. I also want to thank Peter Roberts, the former secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, who was— (Time expired) 23 23 13:58:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —On Saturday evening, 24 March, I had the distinct pleasure of officially opening the ‘Glimpse’ art collection at the Gold Coast City Art Gallery. This collection features about 70 artworks from the over 2,000 pieces that are on display and in storage at the Gold Coast Arts Centre. It is a particularly pertinent year because this year represents the 21st year of the establishment of the gallery, as well as being nearly 40 years since the first acquisition prize was introduced by the Gold Coast Arts Centre and the Art Gallery Committee. I particularly pay tribute to Pat and Barbara Corrigan. Pat Corrigan is chairman of the arts committee and has played an instrumental role in securing more artwork for the Gold Coast Arts Centre over the last 10 or so years. In particular, he has donated over 300 pieces, in excess of $1 million, to the Gold Coast Arts Centre. I particularly commend him and his wife, Barbara, for their outstanding tribute to the Gold Coast arts community by playing such an instrumental role in the acquisition of new pieces. I call on the state government to provide extra funding for a new art gallery. (Time expired)   10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 23 Ministerial Arrangements 23 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. He is in New Zealand to chair a meeting of the Local Government and Planning Ministers Council. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will answer questions on his behalf. 23 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 23 14:00:00 23 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with remarks made by the Liberal candidate for Goulburn, Pru Goward, that she cannot deny that Work Choices was a factor in the recent election, that working people were telling her that their shift loadings were being cut and that their incomes were going down? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! In calling the Prime Minister, I note that the question seemed to be asking for an opinion. But the Prime Minister may choose to answer the question. 24 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I am very happy to answer a question on the subject matter that the leader has raised—that is, the value of Work Choices to Australia’s economic future and the relevance of Work Choices in the recent New South Wales election campaign. We introduced Work Choices as a major contribution to the further strengthening of the Australian economy. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition or the deputy leader may say about Work Choices, the truth is that if this reform is reversed it will be the first time in 25 years that a major economic reform in this country has been reversed. It would be akin to reimposing a controlled exchange rate, reintroducing tariff protection or dismantling taxation reform. It would signal not only to the Australian people but also to the rest of the world that this country had downed tools on economic reform. The contribution that Work Choices makes to the future strengthening of the Australian economy is undoubted, and that is why the government remains committed to Work Choices. As far as the New South Wales election is concerned, the evidence is pretty mixed. I do not know what was said to an individual candidate in a particular electorate; I am not in a position to know that. But I am in a position to observe that the National Party secured its greatest vote ever in the city of Broken Hill, which is a quintessential union town. I also note with some interest that there was an average nine per cent swing against the Labor Party in the Hunter Valley. Whilst messages out of the state election are being referred to, perhaps the member for Kingsford Smith might find a message in the fact that the member named Hunter, who is the member for Lake Macquarie, is in danger of losing his seat. Maybe the member for Kingsford Smith should have a look at the anti-coalmining remarks of the Labor member for Lake Macquarie, who is in danger of losing his seat. 24 24 14:03:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 Mr HAASE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on how workplace reforms have helped strengthen the Australian economy? Are there any threats to these reforms? 24 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the introduction of Work Choices, and I am pleased to inform the House that since Work Choices was introduced over 263,000 new jobs have been created. It makes something of a mockery of remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition outside parliament today to the effect that there had not been jobs created as a result of Work Choices. Secondly, real wages—that is, the wages that you receive over and above inflation—have risen by 1.5 per cent, taking to 19.7 per cent the real wage rises that have occurred under this government, compared with the regression in real wages which occurred under the previous Labor government. The ABS has recorded industrial disputes at the lowest level ever recorded, indeed, since statistics began to be collected in 1913. In the face of all of this, the trade union movement of Australia is, not unnaturally, waging a ferocious campaign. It is spending an estimated $30 million on this campaign, no doubt encouraged by the 70 per cent of the opposition frontbench who are former trade union officials and no doubt encouraged by the member for Batman, the member for Hotham and the member for Throsby. They are shortly to be joined by the National Secretary of the AWU and in the Senate by Senator Doug Cameron—and so the list goes on. The member for Charlton made it clear on radio this morning that if Mr Combet replaced her then that would be another illustration of independent voices in the federal parliamentary Labor caucus disappearing. The union movement are angry about Work Choices not because they care about the working conditions of men and women in this country. The union bosses are worried about Work Choices because they want to re-establish union power over Australia’s industrial relations system. Let me quote again, as I did last week, from an article written by Paul Kelly in the Australian, which was otherwise praiseworthy of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Kelly had this to say: Rudd is embarked on one of the most audacious political scams in Australian history: seeking to resurrect trade union power and privileges by abolition of Australian Workplace Agreements, restoring union access to workplaces, saving the award system and entrenching collective union power in the name of work-life balance and family values. The union movement are against Work Choices because they want to reclaim their control of the industrial relations system in this country. It has nothing to do with the rights and the interests of working people in this country. Working families in Australia have never been better off. We have a 30-year low in unemployment. We have had a massive rise in real wages. We have had historically low industrial disputes. In other words, the individual worker is doing well under this government. What is not doing well under this government is the collective called union bosses, and that is why the union movement are hurling a $30 million campaign against the federal coalition government. 25 25 14:07:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and refers to the rights and interests of working families. I refer to the analysis of Australian workplace agreements lodged with the Employment Advocate last year that showed that 100 per cent of these unfair Australian workplace agreements had excluded one protected award condition; 63 per cent of them had removed penalty rates; and 52 per cent had removed shift loadings. Minister, didn’t the government cease this analysis because it showed Australian workplace agreements were stripping away the take-home pay and working conditions of Australians? 25 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 reject the analysis provided by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the reason I reject it is that the analysis failed to take into account other benefits that have flowed, particularly to families, particularly to women and particularly to young people, out of the new regime. It is very hard to put an economic benefit on the value of job-sharing for women. It is very hard to put an economic benefit on the value of shift-sharing for women. It is very hard to put an economic benefit on the value of bringing more long-term unemployed people into the workplace than ever before, and the Labor Party is constantly opposing initiatives that help those most vulnerable in the community. None of our initiatives has had a greater impact on those most vulnerable than our changes to the industrial relations regime. The reason why, as the OECD says, was that the punitive laws of the Labor Party most disadvantaged women and young people who had been out of work for long periods of time. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —They do not like to hear it. They do not like to hear that real wages in the last 12 months have gone up more than under 13 years of Labor. They do not like to hear that 263,000 new jobs have been created in the last 12 months; nearly 90 per cent of those jobs are full time. They do not like to hear that the unemployment rate is 4.6 per cent, at near record lows. They do not like to hear that the level of industrial disputation in Australia today is at its lowest level since records were first kept in 1913. They do not like to hear that the workers are better off under our laws than they would be under the Labor Party. 26 26 14:11:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government’s workplace relations polices are benefiting regional areas, in particular my electorate of Maranoa; and how are regional Australians responding? 26 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. The first and obvious answer to the question is that small business people throughout regional Australia are delighted with the changes that we have made under our workplace policy reforms in terms of getting rid of the unfair dismissal laws that were introduced by the former Labor government in this country that were an absolute handbrake on employment opportunities for young people across regional Australia. I suspect that a lot of the 263,000 jobs that have been created in the economy over the last 12 months since Work Choices was introduced have come from the small business sector and small business in regional Australia. It goes without saying that the policies we have put in place over a number of years, the reforms we have made to the Australian economy in terms of making it more competitive and more efficient, have encouraged greater employment opportunities across the country, particularly in regional Australia. As the Prime Minister just indicated a while ago, we are experiencing the lowest level of unemployment in Australia in 30 years: 4.6 per cent unemployment in the Australian economy; real wages have grown by 17.9 per cent; and the lowest level of industrial disputes on record at a time when there is a coalition government in power in Canberra. The most graphic of all examples is the creation of new jobs in the economy since Work Choices began 12 months ago—263,000 new jobs—and a lot of them have been generated in small business where we got rid of the burden of those unfair dismissal laws that were introduced by Laurie Brereton in the former Labor government. The member for Maranoa asked about regional Australia. In regional Australia job growth has continued in spite of the drought: 63 per cent of regional areas recorded a drop in unemployment in the past 12 months notwithstanding the effects of drought; 63 per cent increased employment in regional Australia; and 64 per cent of regional areas have an unemployment rate of less than five per cent compared to 16 per cent under the former Labor government. That is what is happening in regional Australia because there is more flexibility in the way people want to engage in the workplace, so there are more jobs in regional Australia and that means more security for working families in regional Australia. The Labor Party and the union movement are running a scare campaign on Work Choices and they are also running it around regional Australia. We have seen the orange signs up everywhere, and they are running it hard. The union movement is spending a fortune of their members’ money to try and save their own necks, and many would comment that it is working. I will give a couple of examples of what regional Australians are saying about the policies in Work Choices. I have only to remind those opposite of the result in the seat of Murray-Darling—the old bastion of the Labor Party and the union movement in Broken Hill. For the first time in history at a state level, Murray-Darling is now represented by a member of the coalition and not a member of the Labor Party. John Williams, the Nationals candidate, has done a fantastic job in Broken Hill. He is from Broken Hill. He lives in Broken Hill. But there is more. If you go back, the same campaign was run in the Queensland election last year, and we won the seat of Bundaberg for the first time in a hundred years. In Victoria last year, when the same campaign was run, for the first time we won the seat of Morwell in the Latrobe Valley from the Labor Party. The Labor Party can make all the claims they like, but people in regional Australia know who is best placed to deliver strong economic growth and create job opportunities in regional Australia. 27 27 14:16:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 Ms OWENS —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister direct the Office of the Employment Advocate to recommence the analysis of Australian workplace agreements and publicly release the findings? 27 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 —No. 27 27 14:16:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 Mr KEENAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the long-term effects of the ageing of the population on Australia’s economy? What strategies does the government have to address this challenge? Are there any threats to these strategies? 27 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. The long-term effect of the ageing of the population is that we are going to have a smaller proportion of people of working age supporting a larger proportion of people of retirement age, basically from now right out until 2040 and possibly beyond. Our first Intergenerational report showed that a gap would open up between spending requirements and tax of around five per cent of GDP—around $40 billion per year—as a consequence of that, meaning that either you would have to run a budget deficit of about $40 billion in 2003 dollars per annum or you would have to find another $40 billion per annum of tax revenue in order to cope with the ageing of the population. One of the things that this government announced in response to that was a scheme to start curtailing some of those payments which we know are coming down the track. That is why we established the Future Fund—so that we could begin provisioning now for one element of payment which will start hitting the Commonwealth account in 2020 and onwards. The Future Fund invests money that the government deposits into it, which is managed by guardians, and the capital and the earnings on that Future Fund begin to accumulate so that it can pay future liabilities at 2020 or earlier if we have properly provisioned for those liabilities. Let me make this clear: the more money you take out of the Future Fund, the weaker you will make it, because you lose not only the capital but also the earnings. The first raid on the Future Fund is always the easy one. The second is quite simple after you have done that the first time, and by the third you are really in business. The Labor Party used to complain that the Future Fund was not enough of a locked box and that it could be raided. The member for Lilley used to run around the country saying: We need a Future Fund which is a locked box, where the proceeds of asset sales are placed so they can’t be raided by the National Party. That is what he said on 26 August 2005. We now know that the assets of the Future Fund are not going to be raided by the National Party but going to be raided by the Labor Party. Having announced the first raid of $2.7 billion, the Labor Party is now working up successive raids. When the member for Lilley was asked about this on 22 March, which I think was last Thursday, he said: Journalist: … you and others say that you could use the Future Fund for ‘productive purposes’? What does that mean? Swan: Basically hard infrastructure … He was asked the quite reasonable question today, ‘What is hard infrastructure?’ and his answer was this: ‘I am not buying into that at the moment.’ Let us think of things that are hard infrastructure. Roads are hard infrastructure. Rail is hard infrastructure. Ports are hard infrastructure. The environment is hard infrastructure for sure—irrigation canals. Building a hospital would be hard infrastructure. Hornets are hard infrastructure. Air warfare destroyers are hard infrastructure. If the principle is that anything that is hard infrastructure can be the subject of a raid on the Future Fund, basically you can raid the whole thing; you can take the whole income. And while you are at it, what is the principle that says you can raid the Future Fund for hard infrastructure but not human infrastructure? Human infrastructure may well be more important than hard infrastructure in the future. What we have seen here from the Leader of the Opposition—a proposal to raid the Future Fund and superannuation entitlements—is a policy that has not been taken by any state government or opposition. All the state governments, to one degree or another, are now funding superannuation liabilities. But not one single one of them has ever said that they would raid those liabilities for their election promises. The Leader of the Opposition ought to know this. He was a public servant in Queensland; Queensland has a fully funded superannuation system. They have fully funded their liabilities, and nobody—not Goss, not Borbidge, not Beattie, not Seeney, not Flegg—has ever said that they would raid that fund for their election promises. There is only one political party in Australia that is as irresponsible as that. It is the federal Labor Party, under this Leader of the Opposition. This is economic irresponsibility on a grand scale. 28 28 14:23:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer to the minister’s last answer and his direct and clear refusal to recommence and publicly release the government’s analysis of Australian workplace agreements. The question is: why? Why is the government covering up the impact of Australian workplace agreements on hardworking Australian families? Why are you doing that? 28 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 —If you believe the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we are in a conspiracy to cover up what is in an AWA. The only problem for the Labor Party is that at the end of the year one million people will be engaged in that conspiracy with us, because there will be one million AWAs out there, and one in five Western Australians— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —By the end of the year, one in five workers in Western Australia will be on an AWA. Are you saying that they are part of that conspiracy of silence, or a conspiracy of cover-up? At the end of the year more than two million Australian workers would have signed up willingly to agreements under the new industrial relations regime. What the Labor Party fails to appreciate is that we are about trying to keep the economy prosperous. We are about trying to keep the economy strong. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. My question is about information the government has and refuses to release. Can the minister answer that? Why the cover-up? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. She was asking questions about why, and I think the minister is very much in order. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —What the Labor Party does not understand is that, in order to keep the economy strong, in order to keep the economy prosperous, governments have to make decisions that are in the national interest and not in the interests of the union bosses. Four out of five workers in Australia choose not to join the unions because the unions are more about the interests of the union bosses than they are about the workers. We are about the interests of the workers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics latest data figures have indicated that since the introduction of the new laws real wages have gone up 1.5 per cent. In the 13 years of Labor, real wages went backwards 1.8 per cent. The ABS statistics illustrate that since the laws were introduced the number of jobs created— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker. I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. My question relates to information held by the Office of the Employment Advocate— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume her seat. I have been listening closely to the minister and I believe he is relevant. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —The most authoritative figures come from the ABS, and the ABS figures indicate that, since the introduction of our new laws, wages are up 1.5 per cent, 263,000 jobs have been created in Australia—and nearly 90 per cent of those jobs are full time—and industrial disputation is at its lowest level since 1913. We all know that, when it comes to industrial disputation, because the Labor Party are beholden to the union bosses, they want to see more strikes in Australia, not fewer strikes. 29 Distinguished Visitors 29 14:27:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Indonesia. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 29 14:27:00 Questions Without Notice 29 14:27:00 29 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 Mr SLIPPER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The minister has outlined the success of Australian workplace agreements and the numbers of Australian workplace agreements. Would the minister please outline for the House whether there are any threats to the continuation of these agreements. 29 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 Fisher for his question. I note that by the end of the year nearly two million Australian workers will have willingly signed agreements under the new workplace relations regime and nearly one million workers will be on Australian workplace agreements. These laws were introduced because it is important for the Australian economy to remain competitive with the rest of the world. Economic reform does help to deliver a stronger economy. Of course, the Labor Party and the union bosses were predicting Armageddon when these laws were to start, nearly a year ago. We remember the former Leader of the Opposition saying that there would be more divorce when these laws came into effect. I can reassure him that there is not more divorce in Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that these laws would be bad for the economy. I can reassure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the economy has continued to have reasonably strong economic growth over the last 12 months. Sharan Burrow said, ‘Children won’t see their parents at Christmas.’ I can reassure Sharan Burrow that parents did see their children and children saw their parents—and saw Santa Claus as well—at Christmas. Bill Ludwig from the AWU said, ‘Our children will be going to school with bare feet because parents can’t afford shoes.’ I can assure Mr Ludwig that our children are going to school with shoes. Mr Speaker, it went on and on. There was none better than Bill Shorten, who said it would be ‘a green light for mass sackings’. Bill Shorten is coming into this place to unfairly dismiss the member for Maribyrnong. And now we have Greg Combet, part of the Rudd-Gillard-Combet combo. Greg Combet wants to replace the poor old member for Charlton. Leave her alone! The member for Charlton worried about our unfair dismissal laws. The member for Charlton votes against our laws and then seeks to rely on them, because the Labor Party is the party for union bosses; it is not the party for workers. Seventy per cent of its frontbench are ex union officials, former ACTU heads like the member for Batman; the member for Hotham, right next to him; and the member for Throsby, who is here. And now we have Greg Combet wanting to come in, and Dougie Cameron up in the Senate—have I missed any? ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Bill Shorten and Richard— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Bill Shorten—I have had a strike—and Richard Marles in Corio. The member for Corio will be going for unfair dismissal as well, using our laws. The Labor Party is the party for union bosses and union officials. The coalition has the parties that go in to bat for the workers, better wages and real jobs. 30 30 14:31:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and follows his answer to my previous question. Will the minister give the Australian people one reason—just one reason—why his government will not direct the Office of the Employment Advocate to recommence the analysis of Australian workplace agreements and to publicly release it? 30 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 —Because, with the introduction of AWAs and the changes made under our laws a year ago, no-one has shown me a formula that allows you to compare apples with apples. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I know this is beyond the thought process of the Labor Party, but, under the Labor Party’s old rules, if you took the Labor Party— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —If you took the Labor Party’s approach— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader is on very thin ice. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I’d better go and stand over that side—put her through it! The fact of the matter is this: if you have an AWA, that trades off penalties for higher wages—and bear in mind that Greg Combet said that he regularly traded off penalty rates. So I ask the question: why is it okay for Greg Combet to negotiate a worker’s penalty rates away, but it is not okay for the worker to negotiate on their penalty rates? That is where the Labor Party does not understand the aspirations of everyday Australian workers, those workers who want to be able to negotiate with an employer. Some of those workers will want to have job sharing and shift sharing. There is a whole raft of women in particular who want to go back to work but want to be able to work from home. They want to be in a position where they can have some flexibility in the workplace. The fact of the matter is that you can have a penalty provision but it might be the case that it is never accessed because an employer never lets an employee access the penalty rates. But there might be a bonus pool involved for the staff, at the end of the financial year. That bonus pool might have a value, and we do not know whether it is accessed or not. So the question is: how do you compare apples with apples? If the Labor Party thinks that the solution is to have a one-size-fits-all approach—which is the Labor Party’s approach—to workplace relations that goes in to bat for the union bosses, we reject it and the workers of Australia reject it. 31 31 14:34:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 Mr HARDGRAVE —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the results of the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Review. What does this review indicate about the health of the household sector’s finances, and are there any threats to these finances? 31 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. The Reserve Bank today published its six-monthly detailed assessment of the health of the financial system. It noted that in some countries around the world, particularly the United States, there has been a sharp pick-up in loan arrears in what is regarded as the subprime market. But its finding in relation to the Australian financial system is that it is in very good shape and very stable. To quote the Reserve Bank, it said: In the financial sector, both the banking and insurance sectors continue to record high rates of return on equity, benefiting from continued balance sheet expansion, low levels of non-performing loans and the strong performance of equity markets. The RBA noted that household finances remain very healthy in Australia, saying: ... the household sector remains in good financial shape, which is not surprising given the ongoing strength in the economy. And it noted, of course, that one of the reasons why defaults on loans in Australia are so low by international standards is the very strong employment in this country, with unemployment now down at 4.6 per cent, around the lowest level in 30 years. It is important, however, that in these circumstances, where employment is strong, we take care to ensure that wages do not run away and that inflation pressures in the economy are not heightened. One of the problems in the past for Australia has always been that, in periods of strong economic growth, wages have become unsustainable—certainly that is what happened during the terms of trade boom for the Korean War. It is what happened in 1981, when the metalworkers went after wage demands which were unsustainable, and it was certainly a contributing factor—although not the principal one—to Paul Keating’s recession that the Labor Party gave us in 1990. It is important that we make sure that terms of trade improvements do not result in unsustainable wages. One of the reasons why the government is having some success with this at the moment is the Work Choices policy. The Work Choices policy allows wage increases in highly profitable industries, such as the mining industry, without them being automatically translated back to less profitable industries, such as the manufacturing industry, which is facing competitive challenges at the moment. As former Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane said, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 August 2006: Obviously, it makes the job of monetary policy easier, the more deregulated the labour market is. I would urge the Labor Party to think about that statement. Any reversal of the current industrial relations system, at a time when the terms of trade are strong, risks wages in the general community being unsustainable; risks, therefore, inflation; and risks thereby a monetary policy response. Any move back to the award system or pattern bargaining, which would open up the opportunity of taking a wage settlement from a highly profitable area of the economy back through less profitable areas of the economy, risks unsustainable wages, risks increases in inflation, and thereby risks a monetary policy response—which is why Governor Macfarlane said, ‘It makes the job of monetary policy easier, the more deregulated the labour market is.’ We have had the populist attacks from the Labor Party—but we had populist attacks from the Labor Party when we balanced the budget, and we had populist attacks from the Labor Party when we paid off $96 billion of debt. We had populist attacks from the Labor Party when we introduced the GST, we had populist attacks from the Labor Party when we introduced an independent monetary policy, and we had populist attacks from the Labor Party when we reduced tariffs. We had populist attacks from the Labor Party when we set up the Future Fund, when they claimed that it was not enough of a locked box and could be raided by the National Party. But it was all of those decisions that got the economy to where it is today, and it is the decisions in relation to Work Choices which are important to get it to where it has to be tomorrow, and the decision makers in this country are the coalition. 32 32 14:39:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question also is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer to the minister’s previous answer, where he said there was no methodology capable of comparing apples with apples—comparing AWAs with those employment arrangements that preceded AWAs. Minister, how can the government now claim that workers are better off under AWAs, given that the minister has now told the parliament that there is no methodology available for making any such claim? 32 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 —The Leader of the Opposition is telling a porky pie. I made this point: obviously our new regime is far more flexible than the previous regime. It takes into account far more significant factors, such as the fact that you can negotiate on a range of different provisions, as outlined under the Work Choices regime; but the Labor Party do not like that sort of flexibility for workers. They are opposed to flexibility, they are opposed to fairness and they are opposed because the Labor Party are fairly and squarely about the union bosses. It is not about the interests of the workers. While I am on my feet, I have come across a very interesting news report that has just come out. This AAP report says: A construction union has been fined $20,000 after workers were told they were obliged to become financial members of a union to keep their jobs at NSW sites. The Federal Court today also ordered the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) to destroy all ‘code of conduct’ forms which told union delegates to ‘ensure that all workers on site are financial members of the relevant union’. If this is what is happening when the Labor Party are in opposition, what would happen if the Labor Party, on a dark day, were to get into government? The CFMEU would not be worried about the law; they would be going in, in partnership with the Labor Party, to try to recruit members and to get more money for the Labor Party’s scare campaign. 33 33 14:42:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the government’s reaction to the latest international action on Iran’s nuclear program? 33 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question and for his interest. The government welcomes the United Nations Security Council resolution on Iran, which was passed at the end of last week, and it was passed unanimously. The fact that the Security Council should pass a unanimous resolution in relation to Iran’s nuclear program is very relevant. It draws attention to the fact that Iran has failed to comply with two earlier resolutions which did make mandatory the suspension of all Iran’s uranium enrichment and its reprocessing facilities. I am pleased that this decision was unanimous, and it does impose a range of measures on Iran, including a legally binding embargo on the transfer of arms from Iran and limits on arms transfers to Iran. It also expands the list of individuals and entities which are subject to financial and travel measures. Australia will, consistent with the resolution, implement that resolution to ensure that Australia adheres to these international obligations. Having said all of that, it still remains open for Iran to cooperate fully with the United Nations Security Council and the broader international community. These measures are reversible, but they are reversible only in the event that Iran suspends its uranium enrichment plant. In my view, the problem for Iran is that, as time goes on, Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. This unanimous passage of a Security Council resolution demonstrates that point, but so does the fact that the Iranian military seized 15 British sailors in the Shatt al-Arab waterway in what the British have said—and the Americans have confirmed—was in Iraqi territory. They have taken those British sailors to Iran. I think it would be very wise for Iran to return those sailors as soon as possible to the British, because, by seizing those sailors, the Iranians are continuing to alienate not just the British and Britain’s allies but also the broader international community. The Shatt al-Arab waterway, where these sailors were seized, is from time to time patrolled by Australian ships. An Australian ship, I think the HMAS Toowoomba, has recently been patrolling that waterway. I can only say that therefore we have a particular focus on what has happened to the British sailors, and it is important for Iran that it returns those sailors as quickly as possible. I say those things, in conclusion, before the Australian Defence Force parliamentary internship program and say how delighted I am to see people from our defence force here in question time today who are working with some of our MPs. 34 34 14:45:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question again is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister provide an absolute guarantee to the parliament that the government will not introduce conditions into the federal-state healthcare funding agreements which require that Australia’s 250,000 nurses be pushed onto Australian Workplace Agreements? 34 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —No, I have decided to take it, Mr Speaker. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has the call. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I have considered this matter, particularly in the light of what the deputy leader had to say at the doors, and let me assure her we have no proposal to do any such thing. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Say ‘never ever’! Is that a rock-solid, ironclad guarantee? DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean —That’s code. That’s a ‘never-ever’ promise! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members are holding up their own question time. 34 34 14:47:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 1 Mrs VALE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House on progress of the cervical cancer vaccination program? How does this demonstrate the government’s commitment to the health of Australian women and girls? 34 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the Member for Hughes for her question, and I can inform her that vaccination against cervical cancer will start next week in South Australia and Tasmania and shortly thereafter in the other states. In the next four years the government will spend more than half a million dollars to vaccinate women against cervical cancer, using the vaccine developed by Australian of the Year Professor Ian Frazer. There will be an ongoing program for schoolgirls aged 12 and 13. There will be a catch-up program for older schoolgirls; there will also be a catch-up program for women aged up to 26, delivered through GPs, and that program will start in July. I want to say that the Howard government has an extremely good record on vaccination. The federal government’s spending on vaccination has increased from just $13 million in 1996 to over $200 million in the last financial year. Rates of childhood vaccination have increased from just over 50 per cent, which were Third World levels, to 90 per cent today. I should also point out that the Howard government also has a very good record of protecting taxpayers. As well as preparing her censure motion, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might like to be reminded that, if the government had accepted her advice on HPV vaccine, taxpayers would have been worse off to the tune of some $90 million. Health spending is important, but so is protecting the economy that pays for it. The Howard government is the best friend that Medicare has ever had because we have run an economy that can afford it. I say to members opposite that if they want to see health services they have to have a good economy, and you cannot run a good economy by surrendering to the ACTU. 34 34 14:49:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and I refer to the Prime Minister’s last answer. Why did the government impose Australian workplace agreements as a condition of university and TAFE funding? Given the government did impose the offering of Australian workplace agreements— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —No, we didn’t. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —as a condition of university and TAFE funding, why should— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will resume her seat. The Leader of the House will withdraw that statement. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I said that she was a liar and I withdraw that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you Mr Speaker, and it is what you expect. But I will give the question another go. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader will go to her question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and it deserves an answer. Given the Prime Minister’s last answer, will the minister tell the House why the government imposed Australian workplace agreements— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —We gave people a choice! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —as a condition of TAFE and university funding; and given that it did, why should anybody believe its reassurances about healthcare funding and nurses? 35 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader has asked her question; the Prime Minister has the call. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The premise of the deputy leader’s question is wrong. There was no requirement; there was a condition that it be offered. There is a difference. I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and all those who sit opposite: what happened in respect of university funding was that we overcame a longstanding practice of the academic unions which had required universities to conform to a particular approach. What we said as a condition of funding was that one of the options should be AWAs. Let me emphasise that the conditions that apply in relation to the employment of nurses in our view is quite different and that is why we have absolutely no intention of introducing any conditions, either of the type contemplated in the question that I answered a few moments ago or indeed of the type that were introduced in relation to academics. We have no intention of doing that in relation to nurses. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is on very thin ice. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I happen to take the view that nurses in this country, given their responsibilities and the onerous work they carry out, are grossly underpaid. I happen to think that state governments should be a lot more generous with the nurses of this country, and I would give some advice to the re-elected Premier of New South Wales: you ought to pay nurses more generously. 35 35 14:53:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 Mr FAWCETT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Would the minister inform the  House how the government’s workplace relations system is helping small business create more jobs. Minister, are there any threats to this jobs growth? 35 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 FRAN BAILEY —I thank the member for Wakefield for his question and his very strong support of small businesses in his electorate. I can tell him, and all members in the House, that Work Choices has cut red tape and has delivered the flexibility to enable small business to grow and to employ more people. One year on, Work Choices is still about job creation. It is about low levels of unemployment. It is about continued growth of real wages. Most importantly, it has been about getting rid of unfair dismissal and allowing small business to have the confidence to employ more people. I am talking about small business people like Mr Phil Connelly, a small business man from the Gold Coast. He has said: ‘Following the inception of Work Choices, I have employed six additional staff members. Staff are enjoying the flexibility of AWAs, which includes a number of financial incentives.’ 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton is warned! BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lyons is warned! JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP FRAN BAILEY —I repeat: this includes a number of financial incentives for hard work that cannot be offered under a traditional wage structure. I am asked if there are any threats to this. I have to tell the House that there are very real threats because in 33 days time the national conference of the ALP will be held. That will decide their small business policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Rankin have been wandering around the country making vague statements and pretending that they are listening to small business, when in fact we know that the only people they are listening to are Greg Combet and his mates—and he is on record as saying that there should be no exemptions to unfair dismissal. I notice that, once again, the Leader of the Opposition has turned his back to us in question time. That means that he is actually turning his back on small business at the moment. Mr Speaker, through you, I ask the Leader of the Opposition: do you have the courage to face small business? IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lingiari is warned! JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP FRAN BAILEY —I will repeat my question: does the Leader of the Opposition have the courage to face small business and ask small business if they want unfair dismissals reinstated? I think not. 36 36 14:56:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr TANNER —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports in today’s Financial Review that: The fund is already $20 billion above target and more than three years ahead of schedule, according to Treasury estimates. and that finance minister Senator Nick Minchin has effectively changed government policy on future surpluses, pledging only:  ... this year’s surplus and next year’s surplus will be going into the Future Fund.” When will your government stop its desperate attacks and focus on delivering the high-speed broadband network that all Australian businesses and consumers need? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before calling the Prime Minister, I remind the member for Melbourne that he should not use the word ‘you’. 36 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Melbourne for his question. Let me go through it, and I will start with broadband. I think everybody believes that we should have high-speed broadband in this country. The debate is not about whether we should have broadband; the debate is about how broadband should be provided and by whom, and what investments and assets are used to provide it. The point of departure between the government and the opposition is that we believe that broadband, where it can be provided by the private sector, should be provided by the private sector. We do not believe that taxpayers’ money should be used to subsidise the provision of something that in the normal market operations would be provided by the private sector. We certainly do not believe that there should be investments of taxpayers’ money in something that would, in the normal way, be provided by the private sector. We certainly do not believe that the Future Fund should be raided in order to fund something that should be provided by the private sector. The Future Fund is a provision for our future, as its name implies. What it is designed to do is to assist in meeting the great demographic challenge that this country has through the ageing of her population. No matter how much the member for Melbourne may plead with me, the Treasurer or the Minister for Finance to stop talking about it, we are going to continue to talk about it because we think that there is quite an important principle at stake. That principle is that if you are making provision for future generations you should not diminish that provision in order to satisfy today’s consumption. That is the principle that is involved. What is being proposed by the Australian Labor Party is precisely that. You either have a locked box comprising the Future Fund or you do not. I can assure the House that while ever the coalition remains responsible for these matters, the Future Fund will be used for the very purpose for which it was established. So far as payments into the Future Fund and estimates of when particular targets will be reached are concerned, I am not confirming anything. I simply remind the member for Melbourne that when we established a Future Fund the complaint of his side of politics was that it had not been quarantined enough. And at the first temptation, the Labor Party gives in. As the Treasurer rightly said last Thursday, the first burglary is always the hardest. Once you have robbed the Future Fund once, you will do it again and again. The whole idea that this nation would have the discipline and the self-restraint to put aside some money for the liabilities of our children and grandchildren is a concept that I believe most Australians support and think makes a lot of sense. We are living in very prosperous times at the moment. A lot of commentators are saying, ‘Why don’t we use that prosperity to build for tomorrow?’ One of the best ways of using that prosperity to build for tomorrow is to set aside today’s surpluses to meet tomorrow’s liabilities. That is what the Future Fund is about. We can do that and we can also have broadband. We should not have broadband at the expense of the future of our children. That is what the opposition is advocating, and that is why we are opposed. We are not opposed to broadband; we are as much in favour of broadband as the opposition. What we are opposed to is the methodology that they are employing. We are especially opposed to the idea that taxpayers should fund something that in the normal course would be provided by the private sector. 37 37 15:02:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Would the minister update the House on how the Australian government is working with industry and the community to manage climate change? 37 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr TURNBULL —I thank the honourable member for his question and note his deep commitment to environmental matters, particularly in his electorate. The Australian government is working closely with industry and with the community on practical programs that will ensure that Australia continues to lead in its climate change strategy. The Australian Greenhouse Office is the oldest institution of its kind in the world. One of its key programs is the Greenhouse Friendly program, which encourages companies to invest in greenhouse emission reduction projects and provides businesses with the opportunity to offer carbon neutral products. Indeed, as part of the $31.6 million Greenhouse Challenge Plus program, over 750 members, all Australian businesses, are projected to achieve 15 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2010. That is a reduction of about three per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions from that one effort alone. In the last month, we have seen three very innovative programs which have had the close involvement of Greenhouse Friendly. The first was from V8 Supercars, which are going to offset all of the emissions from their races this year through carbon offsets from planting trees. They are working very closely with the Greenhouse Office to accredit their whole operation—not just the emissions from the cars but the whole operation—as a Greenhouse Friendly project. Then a week or so ago Virgin Blue announced that it was going to be the first Australian airline to offer carbon neutral flights. Customers will be able to tick a box, pay a little more for each flight and, by buying a carbon offset—which will be certified by the Greenhouse Friendly program—offset the carbon emissions from their flights. Then today I announced that CO Australia, an Australian forestry company, will be the first forest carbon sink abatement project to be accredited by the Greenhouse Friendly program. Businesses will be able to invest in CO Australia’s tree planting to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. These are practical measures. We are working with Australian business. This is indicative—typical—of the approach of this government, which is ensuring that Australia will be one of the very few developed countries that is able to meet its Kyoto target without buying in hot air credits from Eastern Europe or clean development mechanism credits from other parts of the world. We will do it through our own efforts. That stands in stark contrast to the attitude of the Labor Party. The member for Kingsford Smith earlier this year famously said, ‘The automatic expansion of the coal industry, such as we have seen in the past, is a thing of the past.’ A few years before that—he has been quite consistent in this area—he said to the National Press Club, ‘Our reliance on coal for energy and exports puts the Australian economy at risk.’ Think of that: our reliance on coal for energy and exports—it is only our biggest export!—puts the Australian economy at risk. So our economy is put at risk by our best export—that is the view of the opposition; that is what the Labor Party has in mind for the coal industry of Australia and for the jobs of Australians. So outrageous were the member for Kingsford Smith’s statements that even the New South Wales Premier, Mr Iemma, had to abandon him, reminding him that in our fight to save the planet we have to be sure that we do not destroy our country. The Australian government is committed, and has been committed for many years, to dealing with the challenge of climate change. We are dealing with it with practical, workable measures that have results. We are dealing with it with substance, not symbols; practical measures, not ideology; protecting jobs, not sacrificing them for a political agenda. 39 39 15:06:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claim that the Future Fund should only be used for funding public sector superannuation with comments from the communication minister, Senator Coonan, yesterday, who said of the super liabilities in the Future Fund, ‘and at a point when they are met you might then consider what else you might do with it’? Does Senator Coonan’s answer fundamentally undermine the Prime Minister’s previous answer? 39 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The answer is no. 39 39 15:07:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —My question is to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education. Would the minister outline to the House what the government is doing to alert young people to the value of trades qualifications? Is the honourable member aware of any alternative policies? 39 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Minister for Vocational and Further Education 1 Mr ROBB —I would like to thank the member for Blair and note that since 1996 in his electorate the number of apprentices has gone from 710 to 2,190. That is an increase of more than 200 per cent in the number of apprentices in his electorate. The member for Blair has worked very hard with the six Australian apprenticeship centres in his electorate, along with all the other initiatives the Howard government plan to increase the participation in his electorate in technical and vocational education. It is all part of the Howard government plan to tackle labour and skills shortages in this country, and it is a plan that is working. Today, 72 per cent more apprentice carpenters exist than did in 1996. Today, four times as many bricklayers started apprenticeships this year than in 1996. What is the plan of those opposite? We are now one-third of the way through this year, on the way to a very important election, with an issue of fundamental importance to the future of the country, and all we have heard from those opposite so far is one lonely policy—that is, to hand the 25 Australian technical colleges over to the states and the unions. Mr Speaker, you know what will happen if the unions get a hold of these colleges. We all know what will happen. The links with industry, which are so important to these colleges, will be severed. They will choke off all the traditional trades, as they have done in the past. We will see a return to the lost generation of Australian trades men and women and a further betrayal of future generations. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 39 Questions to the Speaker 39 39 15:09:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you relating to the obligation of members to declare registrable interests. Can you investigate the reasons why the member for North Sydney did not declare his interest in Babbage Hockey Pty Ltd until 19 February 2007, more than 12 months after the company’s registration? Can you also investigate the reason why the member has failed to disclose his previous directorship of the company? Finally, can you advise the House whether the member’s claim that he was not required to declare the company because ‘we did not know what we were going to do with it’ is consistent with the obligations on members— Honourable members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —they are quite simple questions—to comply with House resolutions relating to the disclosure of interests? It is in the interests of all members of the House to be clear on these things. 39 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not believe that question time is the time to raise that issue; however, I will examine the points that she has raised. I will take those on notice and I will give further consideration to them. 40 40 15:11:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 Mr RIPOLL —Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. On Saturday I was present in the House with my family. I was showing them the highlights and the artworks when I was approached by either the APS or the AFP—which I could only assume because of the blue uniform. It not being a weekday, and not being in customary uniform myself, I can understand that the security person did not recognise me as a member of parliament, which is fair enough. I have to say that I did not recognise him, either. But, given that he was carrying a weapon, I assumed he was an official—although I did not see any identification, nor did I ask him for one. To quote him, he asked me to produce my ID, to which I replied that I was a member. He again asked me to produce my ID, to which I replied that I was a member of parliament, in case he had mistaken my membership for some other place. Without engaging in any conversation he then insisted very directly that he needed to see my ID. At this stage I realised this was not a simple case of not having recognised me as a member. I also have to say that I felt a little perplexed and somewhat intimidated as to what was the next stage, given that I do not have any ID. I rifled through my wallet, which luckily I was carrying—although this is not always the case in the House—to find something that I could use as ID. I could have produced my licence, my Medicare card or my Visa card— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I think the member is making his point. Would he come to the rest of his question. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —Mr Speaker, this is actually pretty important. I only have a few more words. I could have produced my licence, my Medicare card or my Visa card, all of which could easily have been obtained fraudulently, but instead I produced my car park entry card. This car park entry card seemed to be the ID that the security person was referring to. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that in this part of the proceedings members should be raising either a matter of privilege or some other circumstance that entitles them to take this much time of the House. If the member is raising a matter of privilege, he should have said so at the beginning of these proceedings. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for O’Connor. I am listening carefully to the member for Oxley. I believe he is raising something that may be within the administration of the Speaker’s office. I am listening closely. I think the member for Oxley might conclude his question. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —Mr Speaker, as you would be aware, unlike members of staff and others in this place, members of parliament are not issued with any ID. As such, could you enquire as to which ID the security person was referring? Also, if a simple car park entry card would do, what was the point of his demand for ID without even asking my name or who I was at all, either before or afterwards? I would be interested to hear, when we do get about the House, which ID we need to carry. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Oxley. I will give careful consideration to his question, but I would make an observation. I am not aware of members of the parliamentary security staff carrying weapons when they are in this building. Therefore, I will look at it further and I will report back as appropriate. 41 Petitions 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers: 83N GT4 Ms Hall Mr Truss 104 41 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that Carers of disabled veterans take care of their veteran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week of the year. For their dedicated work, these carers receive the sum of $6.76 per day Carers’ Allowance. As a consequence of the heavy work involved in the caring process, Carers find themselves suffering physical disabilities and depression and often need similar care to that which they are giving to disabled veterans. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: Administer and pay Carers’ Allowance to Carers of Veterans through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Provide a health programme for carers of Veterans to cover all aspects of their well being. Provide transport assistance to veteran’s Carers for their return trip home when the veteran is hospitalised and does not return with them. Provide relief from parking fees for Carers when visiting hospitalised veteran. Subsidize accommodation to enable the carers to stay nearby the veteran if their veteran is hospitalized away from their home town. Increase the amount of respite available to Carers of disabled veterans. Remove the abolition of payment of the Carer’s Allowance which ceases after a period of six weeks if the Carer’s veteran is required to stay in care outside of his home. 18 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 18 citizens) 86 GT4 Mr Truss Mr Truss (from 86 citizens) SE4 Mrs Bronwyn Bishop 34 41 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Mackellar draws to the attention of the House, the erection of a new panel antenna measuring more than 3 metres x 3 metres which has been erected on the roof of the TAB building on Barrenjoey Road at Newport as part of Telstra’s new 3G network. The antenna detracts from the visual amenity of Newport, and undermines the community’s attempts to beautify the area. The antenna is also sited immediately adjacent to residences, and we are concerned about the radiation emanating from new 3G telecommunications infrastructure. Your petitioners therefore: Pray that the house, takes action to review the Telecommunications (low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 under which such telecommunications infrastructure is erected. 34 SE4 Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (from 34 citizens) SE4 Mrs Bronwyn Bishop 34 41 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain senior citizens of Australia and electors of the Division of Mackellar draws the attention of the House to our desire to leave our country and our planet to our descendants, both habitable and sustainable. As individuals we are taking the steps to conserve resources, limit pollution and reduce global warming and we note with approval the recent government announcements to build a solar powered power station and reduce emissions from coal fired stations. Your petitioners request the House to heed our expectation that the National Government will become proactive by way of Legislation, example and International Leadership in achieving a major reduction in the production of CO and other atmospheric pollutants; in requiring resource consumption compatible with renewable certainties; and in countering the headlong drive for ‘economic development’ which threatens our survival. We further expect that the National Government will devote its massive surplus to this end, rather than to transient expedients and that it will join with other nations committed to the survival of the species, irrespective of the self indulgent stances adopted by less ethnical nations. We join with the many who now look to our National Government for LEADERSHIP. 34 SE4 Mrs Bronwyn Bishop Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (from 34 citizens) SD4 Mr Cadman 187 42 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain members of St Madeleine’s Church Kenthurst N.S.W. draws to the attention of the House that the Australian Citizen, David Hicks, has been incarcerated in the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay for over 5 years awaiting trial. The British, Spanish and French governments have all refused to allow their citizens to be tried there. As an Australian citizen Hicks is entitled to the full support of his government; the situation is deplorable. Your petitioners strongly request the House to ACT IMMEDIATELY TO BRING DAVID HICKS HOME TO FACE AN AUSTRALIAN COURT. 187 SD4 Mr Cadman Mr Cadman (from 187 citizens) UK6 Mr Kelvin Thomson 143 42 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows : As citizens of Australia and residents of the Federal Seat of Lyne in New South Wales, we exhort all Member to consider the plight of DAVID HICKS an Australian citizen detained by the United States Military for five years without trial. The recently reconstituted Military Commission will not in our opinion, provide DAVID HICKS with a fair trial. The U.S. Congress will not permit its own citizens to be tried by a Military Commission, why is it then possible for an Australian citizen to be subjected to such injustice? Your Petitioners respectfully request the House takes action immediately to have the afore mentioned DAVID HICKS BE REPATRIATED TO AUSTRALIA to be dealt with in accordance with Australian law and jurisprudence. 143 UK6 Mr Kelvin Thomson Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 143 citizens) WF6 Mr Danby 239 42 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House recent statements made by the President of Iran, Mr Moahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he: calls for the destruction of the State of Israel; warns that any Muslims who support the State of Israel will burn in the Umma of Islam; and denies the Nazi genocide against the Jews of Europe and demonise Jews. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: condemn the statements made by the Iranian President; call on the Australian Government to: refer the incitements to, genocide by President Ahamdinejad and other Iranian leaders to the appropriate agencies of the United Nations for account; initiate in the International Court of Justice an inter-state complaint against Iran, for its crimal violation of the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of genocide; and urge the United Nationas to act against Iran’s threats towards the State of Israel; and affirm the principle that no country should be allowed to call for the elimination of another. 239 WF6 Mr Danby Mr Danby (from 239 citizens) 4G4 Mr Downer 2403 42 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The Citizens of Australia would like to draw to the attention of the House, our concerns with regards the overall management of the Murray Darling Basin system. Your petitions therefore request the House to establish one Federal body to control all inland waters associated with, and including the Murray River. That this single body will replace the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council. That this single body will change the fundamental water sharing rules to increase the “Living Murray” water flow to ensure that the yield and consumption of fresh water is managed at a sustainable level across the entire Murray Darling Basin, and to ensure that inefficiencies in the system are mitigated, and more economical and water efficient solutions are instigated to minimise wasteful irrigation practices. 2403 4G4 Mr Downer Mr Downer (from 2,403 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 342 43 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned petitioners request the Federal Government exclude Lake Macquarie and the Hunter Region as potential nuclear power station sites as these would be high risk generators with disastrous consequences should an accident occur. We therefore pray that the house opposes the proposal to build 25 nuclear power plants in Australia. 342 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 342 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 164 43 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned request that the Government take action to improve our health system by reintroducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. The axing of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme was a direct result of a Howard Government decision and has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to reintroduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme as a matter of urgency. 164 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 164 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 36 43 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that free mammograms are not accessible by breast cancer survivors despite the increased risk of breast cancer. Access to free mammograms is also being denied to women over 70 years of age in some parts of Australia. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that mammograms are free to all women in Australia regardless of age or medical history. 36 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 36 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 21 43 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned request that the Government re-open a Medicare Office at Belmont as there is no Medicare Office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of General Practitioners bulkbilling. The closure of Belmont Medicare Office by the Howard Government has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency. 21 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 21 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 31 43 To the  Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: Request that the House take immediate action to guarantee the replacement of General Practitioners in the Shortland electorate which includes Lake Macquarie and the northern part of the Central Coast. Dr Gurcharan Singh Thind who has been practising for more  than 20 years in the Lake Macquarie area and has surgeries in Blacksmiths and Marks Point, is retiring on 31 January 2006. Dr Thind’s replacement is proving to be extremely difficult due to the failure of the Government to issue provider numbers. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest effort is made, as soon as possible, to issue provider numbers for proposed replacements of General Practitioners in the Shortland electorate. 31 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 31 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 61 44 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: Request that the House take immediate action to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest effort is made, as soon as possible, to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas. 61 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 61 citizens) CK6 Mr Hardgrave 4093 44 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We, the undersigned residents of Australia, urge the honourable Speaker and Members of the House to recognise that: Taiwan is a thriving democracy of 23 million people with a world class health care system; Taiwan voluntarily submitted to early compliance with the International Health Regulations (2005); nevertheless, the people of Taiwan remain one of the few people in the world without representation at the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Health Assembly (WHA), largely due to political pressure from China; WHO’s Constitution states that “...the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being...”; moreover, the participation of Taiwan in WHO activities is consistent with the principle of “universal application”, given expression in the WHO’s constitutional mandate to “advance the health of all peoples”; without access to the WHO’s network of preventive, early warning, monitoring and treatment services, the capacity of Taiwanese health authorities to respond to and assist in preventing disease outbreaks is severely impaired; experience has shown that infectious diseases such as avian influenza can spread very quickly by means such as air travel, and that it is only with the cooperation and involvement of all affected parties, including Taiwan, that such diseases can be effectively dealt with; as China exercises no sovereignty over Taiwan, China cannot represents the Taiwanese people in the WHO or the WHA as it has so claimed; given Australia’s strong commitment to promoting democratic governance throughout the world, the Australian Government should maintain this commitment by recognising the democratically-elected Government of Taiwan as the representative of Taiwanese people at the WHA and the WHO; there is considerable support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHO from parliaments and professional medical organisations throughout the world; therefore, Taiwan’s immediate participation in the WHA and WHO is necessary in order to ensure the fulfilment of the WHO’s commitment to human rights, and the safety and security of the 23 million people of Taiwan, and of the people throughout the world. Accordingly, in recognition of the Australian people’s strong democratic traditions, and our respect for human rights, justice and equality, we, the undersigned, urge the honourable Speaker and Members of the House to support Taiwan’s efforts to  participate in the WHA and the WHO. 4093 CK6 Mr Hardgrave Mr Hardgrave (from 4,093 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 17 45 To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the following issues to the attention of the House: There is widespread concern that services and jobs will be cut back if the rest of Telstra is sold, particularly in outer metropolitan, rural and regional Australia. A fully privatised Telstra will focus on profits not people; shareholders will be more important than customers. We therefore pray that the House oppose any further attempts by the Liberal Party and Nationals to sell Telstra. 17 HH4 Mr Jenkins Mr Jenkins (from 17 citizens) HH4 Mr Jenkins 8 45 To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australians should have basic rights at work, including decent minimum wages and awards conditions, protection from unfair dismissal and the right to reject AWA individual contracts and negotiate collectively with their employer. The petitioners also draw the attention of the House to the fact that we oppose the Howard Government’s plans to: Remove employment conditions from awards. Change the way minimum wages are set to make them lower. Use individual contracts to undercut existing rights and conditions. Keep unions out of workplaces and reduce workers’ negotiating and bargaining rights. Abolish redundancy pay and protection from unfair dismissals for the 3 million people who work in small businesses. Reduce the powers of the independent Industrial Relations Commission to settle disputes and set fair minimum standards at work. Take away rights at with laws that unilaterally override and weaken State industrial relations systems, awards and agreements. The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Government upholds Australians’ rights at work and does not implement these plans that we oppose. 8 HH4 Mr Jenkins Mr Jenkins (from 8 citizens) XH4 Mr McGauran 536 45 To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain visitors to and residents of Buchan and District in the state of Victoria points out to the House a temporary tower was installed during the 2003 bushfire crisis. This tower proved invaluable for communications during this time. Swifts Creek, Ensay, Tambo Crossing and Bruthen have all received permanent CDMA base stations from the time of the fire crisis, Buchan’s was however removed. Recently Buchan and districts were without phone services for 4 days due to technical problems, this left the community totally isolated from the outside world. Buchan and district is a significant tourist destination, with over seventy thousand visitors, coming just to see the caves annually. Mobile phone coverage is vital for the effective and efficient response from our emergency service providers, CFA, SES, Red Cross, Ambulance, Police, DPI, Parks Victoria and DSE as well as the security of residence, travellers and our local farming community. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House support the replacement of the CDMA base station to provide mobile coverage in Buchan and district communities. 536 XH4 Mr McGauran Mr McGauran (from 536 citizens) E09 Ms Owens 2270 45 To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: Parramatta has the largest population of homeless outside Sydney’s CBD. There are an estimated 500 homeless people in Parramatta each night and the number of people relying on homelessness services is steadily increasing. Demand for services in the area is clearly outstripping available funds. Many local services are now at risk and a successful 2 year pilot project, Meals Plus is at threat of closing in spite of a recent NSW Government commitment to provide 50% of the required funds. The Federal Government has actually decreased base funding for the homeless under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Agreement (2005-2010), despite an independent evaluation which found that a 15 per cent increase was required just to maintain the viability of existing services. The Federal Government has required states and territories to match its funding, but as needs increased, has steadfastly refused to match additional funding provided by the NSW Government. The Federal Government’s refusal has threatened the viability of essential services for the homeless in the Parramatta area. An urgent increase in Federal Government funding is required to maintain existing services for the homeless in and around Parramatta. Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to: Increase Federal Government SAAP funding so that services are able to meet unmet demand and be better resourced to help homeless persons and persons at risk of homelessness in and around Parramatta. 2270 E09 Ms Owens Ms Owens (from 2,270 citizens) PK6 Mr Randall 15 46 To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, residents of the local community, totally disagree with the proposal of the Lessees, of the Commonwealth land at Jandakot Airport, Jandakot Holdings now controlled by Ascot Capital, to relocate Jandakot Airport, to Hopelands Road, North Dandalup, Western Australia. We request the parliament Assembly to REJECT the unsolicited proposal of a Land Swap, of valuable Commonwealth land hosting a metro community Airport, for a rural Swampy Paddock. 15 PK6 Mr Randall Mr Randall (from 15 citizens) SU5 Mr Vaile 164 46 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: David Kilgour, a former MP and Secretary of State for Asia Pacific of Canada, and international human rights lawyer Mr. David Matas initiated an independent investigation into the allegations of organ harvesting from live victims in China. The report released on 6 July 2006 has come to the conclusion that Chinese officials have been committing crimes against humanity; that the authorities have been harvesting vital organs from thousands of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners and killing them in the process. “Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.”—Pg. 44 of the report. On August 2006 both the Australian Government and Opposition agreed to ask the Chinese communist party to allow an independent investigation into the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO: Australian Government to urge the CCP to immediately release all Falun Gong practitioners; and to give full access without impediment to the Coalition to Investigate Persecution of Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) to conduct an independent investigation into all jails, 610 Offices, labour camps, detention centre, and related hospitals in China. Australian Government to initiate a Senate Committee Inquiry into the allegation of Organ Harvesting; Australian Government to inform and discourage Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants; and prevent companies, institutions and individuals providing goods and services and training to China’s organ transplant programmes; until such time as the CIPFG is satisfied that no organs used have been taken by force against the will of the donor. 164 SU5 Mr Vaile Mr Vaile (from 164 citizens) 47 Private Members' Business 47 47 15:18:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I move: That the House: condemns the Mugabe Government in Zimbabwe for the brutal bashings in police custody of Morgan Tsvangirai and other leaders and supporters of the Opposition Party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC); expresses concern at the ongoing threat of violence as evidenced by the additional vicious beating of MP Nelson Chamisa in recent days; notes that the Mugabe Government has clearly abandoned the rule of law and tolerates no dissent; expresses its concern for the safety of former Australian passport holder Mrs Sekai Holland and her Australian husband Jim Holland, and urges the Australian Government to use its best endeavours to intervene to have Mrs Holland released from custody and safely transported out of Zimbabwe for urgent medical attention; and calls on the Australian Government to have the Mugabe regime’s actions brought before the UN Security Council and if appropriate, the International Criminal Court, and calls on Zimbabwe’s neighbours, particularly South Africa, to take action in support of human rights in Zimbabwe. I thank members of parliament for their support of my motion, which highlights and condemns the ongoing brutality and repression being perpetrated by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. This regime has driven the country into economic ruin, with inflation running above 1,700 per cent, unemployment close to 80 per cent and shortages of food, fuel and foreign exchange. Two-thirds of the maize crop, the country’s staple food, has been wiped out by a drought and now the country is on the brink of widespread famine. Morgan Tsvangirai describes the Mugabe regime as being ‘under siege because so many people are hungry’. ‘Desire for change has never been so strong,’ he stated. Morgan Tsvangirai and Sekai Holland are among the leaders of the Movement for Democratic Change. People have been brutally assaulted in the most recent crackdown on political dissent in that country. The recent bashings occurred after a peaceful protest prayer rally was crushed by riot police. Sekai Holland’s plight reveals the barbarity of the Mugabe regime. She was arrested and beaten after she had gone to the police station to inquire about the wellbeing of arrested colleagues. Sekai Holland studied and lived in Australia, returning to Zimbabwe with her Australian husband, Jim Holland, back in 1980. I know Sekai as a strong, principled and outspoken woman, passionate in her support of the liberation struggle in Zimbabwe, a noted anti-apartheid activist and supporter of the rights of our Indigenous peoples. Her strength and convictions would no doubt place her in the forefront of the protest movement in that country. Sekai was set upon by 16 men and a woman in the police station, which left her with three broken ribs, a broken arm, a broken leg, a fractured knee and multiple bruises and lacerations. Her husband said: How she withstood that, I have no idea. She passed out several times, I am told. But she refused to be cowed, she refused to cry. Sekai, together with another activist, Grace Kwinjeh, attempted to leave Harare to get urgent medical treatment but both were stopped at the airport and returned to police custody at their hospital beds. It was only after a court order that they were allowed to leave, and both are now recovering in a Johannesburg hospital. I want to place on record my thanks to Mark Lynch, the Australian consul, and his staff for their support and assistance. No doubt that enabled Sekai, her colleague and also her husband to eventually leave the country. I understand that Mark Lynch travelled to the airport with the group. Jim Holland said of these bashings: The regime tried to beat Sekai into submission and has totally failed and she knows now that she has won. Sekai’s fighting spirit and optimism is typical of the strength of the resistance that is occurring in that country to Mugabe’s repressive regime. Australia should use the international system to deal with reprehensible dictators like President Robert Mugabe. Labor has urged our government to condemn the actions of Mugabe in a motion to the United Nations General Assembly and to make formal representations to the African Union regarding the persistent oppressive behaviour of one of its member states. We believe neighbouring states like South Africa must and should play a more proactive and constructive role. Labor also support a referral by the United Nations Security Council of Mr Mugabe to the International Criminal Court. Although Zimbabwe is not currently a signatory to the ICC statute, a Security Council referral would enable prosecutors to begin investigations into Mr Mugabe’s human rights violations. This would ensure that President Mugabe and members of his regime would risk arrest and trial if they were to leave Zimbabwe. It would also ensure that a post-Mugabe government could have the former President indicted and held to account under international law. Once again, I thank members of parliament for the opportunity they have given us today to air our concerns in this very important forum. I hope the motion, discussion and commentary by other MPs today will provide comfort to Sekai and her colleagues in their ongoing struggle against the Mugabe government. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 48 15:23:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 1 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I second the motion. Having spoken to a similar motion moved in this parliament by the member for Cook in November 2005 in relation to Zimbabwe, it grieves me to think that, as dire as the situation was then, it has since deteriorated markedly. The only consolation is that, since this motion by the member for Throsby was selected for debate today, the fourth point regarding the safety of Sekai Holland has thankfully progressed, and Mrs Holland has been successfully transported to South Africa and is now receiving treatment for the horrific injuries she sustained at the hands of the Mugabe government thugs. I wish Mrs Holland and her colleagues a speedy return to full health. This motion also condemns the vicious beating of Nelson Chamisa MP in recent days. Many Australians have watched in disbelief at the reports of incarceration, horrendous bashings and torture of those who have dared to exert their democratic rights by forming and participating in an opposition party. The courage and determination of those few brave souls, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, all of whom have continued to pursue a democratic and accountable government, is an inspiration. We are all relieved at South Africa’s willingness to assist Mrs Holland and her colleagues. Both our Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have actively called on the United Nations Security Council and the Human Rights Council to consider the situation in Zimbabwe. Further, representations have been made to key members of the African Union and the Southern African Development Community to use their influence to persuade the Zimbabwean government to respect the rule of law and the political rights of its people. This is not the first time the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have condemned the actions of the Zimbabwean government and called for international action. In 2005 the Australian government referred the actions of the Mugabe regime to the International Criminal Court but received very little, if any, support. This unwillingness to act is very hard to fathom for a country that now has the world’s lowest life expectancy, the highest inflation and in excess of, I think, 1½ million orphaned children with AIDS. AIDS now kills an estimated 3,500 people a week in Zimbabwe. It is a human rights tragedy of monumental proportions and it is a disgrace that, so far, we in the democratic countries of the world have not been able to take action to prevent this ongoing tragedy as it unfolds before our very eyes. I, along with the member for Throsby, would also like to acknowledge the work of the Australian diplomats in the region, particularly the Australian consul Mark Lynch, who have been assisting Mrs Holland and her colleagues. It is difficult to conceive that one of the model countries that makes up the great continent of Africa has fallen so far. This is a country that has made a smooth transition from colonial rule to majority black rule, strongly supported by Australia. It had a strong economy, a model health system, and not only did it grow sufficient food crops for its own consumption but it also successfully exported. It was said to be the food bowl of Africa. Over the past 10 years Mugabe, in seeking power for power’s sake, has brought his people to their knees. Inflation runs at 1,750 per cent and gross domestic product has dropped to $A5 billion, almost half of what it was seven years ago. Ignoring the rule of law and legitimate democratic processes, this despot, Mugabe, has driven white farmers from their land and is now ruling through brutality and fear. These misbegotten policies have seriously eroded food production and employment opportunities. Some three million people are said to have left Zimbabwe, leaving essential services disastrously depleted and, for those remaining, unemployment—running at about sixty per cent—is a serious threat to personal financial viability. If the international community has any genuine concern for the people of Zimbabwe, it will urgently join the Australian government and call for action by the United Nations. I thank the member for Throsby for moving this motion and for the opportunity to speak up for the people of Zimbabwe. 49 15:28:00 Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MP XS4 Fremantle ALP 0 0 Dr LAWRENCE —I have pleasure in supporting this motion. I think all of us are aware that the political and economic crises in Zimbabwe have been worsening at an alarming rate. As has already been said, it already has the world’s lowest life expectancy, at 37, and the highest inflation rate, at 1,700 per cent—dubious records. AIDS is rampant, malnutrition already affects around 40 per cent of the population, unemployment is at 80 per cent and apparently there are 4,000 more deaths than births each week. The International Crisis Group report is blunt: the policies, corruption and repressive governance of President Robert Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party are directly responsible for the severe economic slide, growing public discontent and international isolation of the country. The spiralling inflation that I mentioned followed the decision by the government to print $230 million worth of Zimbabwean currency to pay international debts and sustain operations, with the obvious consequences. I mentioned that unemployment is between 80 per cent and 85 per cent, but poverty is over 90 per cent, and foreign reserves are almost depleted. Over four million persons are in desperate need of food. HIV-AIDS and malnutrition kill thousands every month and, to add insult to injury, the government-sponsored campaign to clear urban slums, as they call them, forcibly deprived more than 18 per cent of the population of homes or livelihoods and badly damaged the informal sector—the street-side stalls—the lifeline for many of the urban poor. Many of you will have read the story of the Gumbo family in today’s edition of the Australian. There have of course been various parliamentary elections recently, largely flawed, with low voter turnout. They have strengthened Mugabe’s power and weakened the opposition even further. With the potential departure of Mugabe in 2008 looming on the horizon, there have been various commentaries on the already chaotic political climate being further exacerbated by the manoeuvring of members of the opposition and ZANU-PF in order to receive maximum benefits from the impending transition, a further tragedy for the people of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe’s ongoing crisis dates way back to 1965, when Ian Smith, the leader of Southern Rhodesia, unilaterally declared independence from Britain and imposed a white minority rule. As many of us will know, international sanctions and a guerrilla war followed. By 1979, that had claimed some 36,000 lives and displaced some 1.5 million people. The peace deal that was brokered saw the 1980 election won by Mugabe, with 57 seats out of the 80. Since then we have seen a gradual coercion of opposition and constitutional changes that have given Mugabe executive presidential powers and turned the country into a de facto one-party state with the consequences that we have seen. Recent years, too, have seen the forcible seizures of mostly white-owned land by so-called ZANU veterans. This has led to a crippling of the economy and to chronic shortages of basic commodities and services, especially since 2000. Following the seriously flawed 2002 presidential election, Mugabe has increasingly resorted to using state machinery, war veterans and youth militias to intimidate, to suppress dissent, to gag the media and to systematically violate human rights. Those elections were denounced by international observers as neither free nor fair, but little was done about it by the international community. Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth, following indefinite suspension—the only major action, it has to be said, by the international community. Repression has cast a shadow on all of the parliamentary elections. Morgan Tsvangirai has faced an on-and-off court trial on charges of plotting to assassinate Mugabe and sedition. We have seen a recent escalation of violence against opposition figures, which we are commenting upon today. Around 50 activists were arrested at a public meeting in Zimbabwe on 11 March. Many of them were severely beaten during arrest, and some were reported to have been tortured while in police custody. We have all seen the images. Police indeed shot dead one of the activists, Gift Tandare, the youth chairperson of the National Constitutional Assembly. Those tortured included Morgan Tsvangirai and NCA chairperson Dr Madhuku. There have been incidents of continuing police harassment of the political opposition and lawyers. Grace Kwinjeh and Sekai Holland were both tortured and prevented from seeking medical assistance in South Africa. They were prevented from boarding the air ambulance, their travel documents were seized and only subsequently have they been allowed to travel to get the necessary treatment. As we have heard, later Nelson Chamisa, the national spokesperson for the MDC, was also beaten by police— (Time expired) 51 15:34:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 0 Dr JENSEN —I rise to support the motion. Robert Mugabe has gone from political prisoner to Prime Minister to President to dictator for life. I support the Prime Minister’s condemnation of the appalling attacks on opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and on Nelson Chamisa. They only serve to highlight the violence and terror that have been hallmarks of the Mugabe dictatorship for some years. According to Statesman’s Yearbook, the rule of law is so banished that international observers declared that the 2002 presidential poll: ... failed to meet international standards for a democratic poll. It goes on to state that these elections: ... were preceded by violence against opposition supporters, the passing of a law limiting press freedom ... and the arrest of Mugabe’s main political rival on charges of treason. Cronyism is rampant. The UK paid Zimbabwe £44 million to buy out white farmers. Only 70,000 Zimbabwean farmers benefited, as 400,000 hectares went to Mr Mugabe’s senior colleagues. He also put his political allies into the High Court after he lost the 2000 referendum. President Mugabe threw white farmers off their land, at first giving them 35 days notice and then only seven days notice and no compensation. He gave much of that land to his loyal foot soldiers—to the terrible and incontrovertible detriment of the country’s economy and wellbeing. But that was not the only appalling decision Mugabe made with regard to the land. The Statesman’s Yearbook continues: In 2005 the government began the mass demolition of urban slums, claiming it would improve law and order and prompt development. Instead, it merely left around 700,000 desperate Zimbabweans homeless. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, pointed out in this place last week, the economy of Zimbabwe has haemorrhaged so badly that there is barely a drop of lifeblood left. According to Statesman’s Yearbook, real output has dropped one-third between 1998 and 2003. Real GDP growth has been negative every year since 1999 and has almost halved since 1995. The real tragedy for Zimbabwe’s people is that it should be a rich country. It has gold, nickel, diamonds and many other materials. It had a vibrant manufacturing industry and a flourishing agricultural sector. The iExplore website concludes: Under other circumstances, Zimbabwe would have one of the most diverse and best-performing economies on the African continent. Instead, under the dead hand of a Marxist dictator, Zimbabwe’s economy is now in free-fall and many of its inhabitants are starving. Ironically, on 16 December 1966 the UN Security Council, I believe for the first time in its history, imposed mandatory economic sanctions on a state; Ian Smith’s UDI regime. The international community, especially neighbouring African states such as South Africa, needs to put similar pressure on Mugabe. South Africa has been propping Mugabe up both morally and financially for some years. However, I welcome Tanzanian President Kikwete’s initiative to meet with President Mugabe and deliver a strong response to the current situation. The Howard government has made strong representations to have the situation in Zimbabwe considered by the UN, especially the Human Rights Council. The Prime Minister has said that the UN must take action against this regime as it did against Ian Smith’s regime. However, what shook me to the core was to find that here in Australia there are those who, for partisan political reasons, are sheeting home the blame for Zimbabwe’s tragic woes not where the blame clearly resides, in its dictator, but in the imperialist West. Rob Gowland, the Sydney district secretary of the Communist Party of Australia, blames white imperialists for the trouble. He claims that land reform was effectively stymied because Britain and the US reneged on their— (Time expired) 52 15:39:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I rise to support the motion put before us by the member for Throsby and also commend her for bringing this important issue before the Australian parliament and ensuring that we debate this very serious issue. Zimbabwe has been beset with horrific ordeals under Mugabe’s 27-year brutal autocracy. Since 1999 the Zimbabwean people have experienced the horrors of extended food shortages, leading to starvation and malnutrition, internal conflicts, political instability and hyperinflation, which was last month officially reported at 1,729 per cent. Life expectancy is only half what it was 15 years ago and the economy has shrunk by 40 per cent since the turn of the century. The urban poor have had their shanty homes bulldozed, and a constant sense of fear of the government permeates across almost every part of society. Zimbabwe is experiencing a humanitarian crisis, and sadly its immediate neighbours and the global community have not done enough to ease the suffering and hardship felt by its citizens on all fronts. I have no doubt that every member of this parliament today is appalled and horrified by what has happened in Zimbabwe, but sadly this alone does not help the Zimbabwean people. What we have to do here today is call for greater action. Mugabe’s regime has attempted to brutally stamp out dissidents and all peaceful opposition and resistance in Zimbabwe. Actively opposing the horror and fear that saturates Zimbabwe lies the Movement for Democratic Change, which, despite the violent suppression and human rights abuses against its activists, has remained the loudest voice in the world calling for change. A little more than a week ago, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, Mr Tsvangirai, was arrested and savagely beaten, along with other activists, during a peaceful prayer meeting. This motion absolutely condemns the brutal bashings of Mr Tsvangirai and his colleagues whilst in police custody and calls upon the international community to take a similar stance. If the international community does not take action immediately, we will see more attacks on members of the Movement for Democratic Change and other innocent people in Zimbabwe, like the attacks against Mr Nelson Chamisa in recent days. On 18 March, Mr Chamisa was assaulted mere hours before he was to fly to Brussels for a meeting with European parliamentarians. This brutal attack came just days after he was beaten unconscious by police officers. Doctors have been reporting increased incidents of violence over the last week or so. Citizens have been reporting severe head injuries and brutal attacks. The threat of violence is clearly an ongoing concern. It will not get better until this regime falls. It is painstakingly clear that the Mugabe government has abandoned the rule of law and will tolerate no dissent. They have refused to grant democratic concessions to the people of Zimbabwe despite sustained peaceful calls for democratic change. On Tuesday, 20 March, Zimbabwe’s foreign minister threatened to invoke the Geneva convention in order to expel Western diplomats from the country. He has accused these diplomats of interfering in Zimbabwe’s domestic affairs and offering support to the government’s opponents, particularly to the Movement for Democratic Change. This is an unprecedented threat that has emerged from the Zimbabwean government and indicates its rapidly diminishing tolerance of opposing views. President Mugabe presides over a regime that allegedly willingly bashed a 64-year-old grandmother in custody. This is a government which later denied that grandmother the right to leave for South Africa to seek medical treatment. We have talked in this motion about Mrs Holland, the secretary for the Movement for Democratic Change, another activist arrested during the prayer meeting on 11 March. Mrs Holland suffered devastating injuries, including a broken arm, a broken foot and three cracked ribs. According to her own reports, Mrs Holland was lashed more than 80 times by police officers. Along with other speakers today, I am heartened by Mrs Holland’s recent transfer to South Africa and her intentions to continue her fight against this oppressive regime. I find her treatment absolutely revolting. I can but imagine how her family or any family in Zimbabwe can cope with these atrocities. I would also like to commend the Australian diplomats who visited her in hospital despite the ban on their offering support— (Time expired) CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave interjecting— 53 15:44:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I thank my friend the honourable member for Moreton for his support. One of the issues raised with me constantly as the member for Fisher is the plight of people in Zimbabwe and the complete and total lack of democracy in that country. In my own street, we have a lot of people who have moved from Zimbabwe and South Africa. There seems to be a very large Zimbabwean community right around the Sunshine Coast. Coming through in their discussions with me is the fact that Zimbabwe has a government—a regime—which is absolutely brutal. The regime has no regard for the rule of law and no regard for human rights. It is a regime that is prepared to tear up the rule book and do absolutely anything to keep itself in power. This regime has been clinically brutal in its treatment of Africans, and its treatment of white Zimbabweans has been equally appalling. It is always disheartening to see nations suffering civil turmoil and hopelessness as a result of a self-serving and oppressive dictatorship. Nations like Zimbabwe are technically wealthy countries, and it could show so much promise and could develop such prosperity if the country had a democratic system where the people of Zimbabwe, black and white, were able to democratically choose their government in the same way as people in this part of the world are able to. Leaders who resort to anything and everything to preserve their own positions are, unfortunately, blind to the needs of their people and to their responsibility as leaders. Sadly, Robert Mugabe is a thug. He is a dictator and, in my view, a criminal. The sooner we get Robert Mugabe before an international tribunal, the better off the world community will be. Frankly, what he has done is absolute savagery. When you hear the stories coming out of Zimbabwe—the way that Zimbabweans, white and black, have been mistreated by this individual—you can only be appalled. That is why I am heartened that people on both sides of the chamber are standing up and being counted. The government and the opposition in this place will not tolerate what is happening in Zimbabwe. We will continue to speak out. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has spoken out. I think the Leader of the Opposition has, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs constantly has spoken out both before the international media and in international fora, including through the Commonwealth. The government of Zimbabwe have claimed that the policies of their regime are supposed to be implemented for the benefit of the black population. They really ought to take a reality check because what is happening is exactly the opposite. What has occurred is that tourism has collapsed. Mineral and agricultural exports are faltering as a result of an unreliable, inefficient and dictatorial government. The ongoing land distribution problems have cut the legs out of the farming sector and created widespread food supply problems. Many of my constituents have had farms confiscated. They say to me that it is bad enough to lose a farm that they have had in their family often for generations, but hundreds of the black population who worked on and who received income from those farms for their family have also been made destitute and turned off as the so-called war veteran friends of President Mugabe march in and take over these highly productive farms and basically turn them into a wasteland which delivers absolutely nothing for the people of Zimbabwe. The leaders of the Movement for Democratic Change are being arrested and beaten. Morgan Tsvangirai recently suffered that fate. Another high-profile incident was the bashing on Sunday, 18 March of Nelson Chamisa, who was at an airport and about to board a plane when he was set upon by two thugs who beat him with crowbars, cracking his skull. I want to place on record my admiration for the archbishop in Zimbabwe who has said that he is prepared to do whatever is necessary. Zimbabwe’s government is a blight on the world and it stands condemned. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 54 54 15:49:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I move: That the House: acknowledges that South East Queensland has the highest growth in traffic congestion of any region in Australia; also acknowledges that the Australian Government has allocated to Queensland authorities over $3 billion in funding under AusLink Round 1 and $18 billion through other road related programs since 1996; expresses its concern for the lack of commitment by Queensland authorities in progressing the work financed by the Australian Government and the redirection of funds away from the authorised projects; further expresses its concern at the unreliable project costing provided by the Queensland Government for infrastructure projects and the failure of the Queensland Government to follow the example of other State governments to value‑add to the Commonwealth contribution to national highway projects with state contributions; and notes the Australian Labor Party plan to only widen the existing Ipswich Motorway to six lanes and keep trucks on the Brisbane Urban Corridor while the Liberals want a solution to interstate transport needs, which will take trucks off the Brisbane Urban Corridor and provide ten lanes of traffic between Brisbane and Ipswich. I move this motion today for a very plain and simple reason. My motivation is very clear: I want to highlight the lack of real progress on the important nation-building infrastructure which needs to be built to underpin the long-term prosperity of south-east Queensland’s economy in particular. I am concerned that, despite the record amounts of funding that have been handed to the Queensland government as the primary manager of these projects, no progress has been realised. I am hoping today that the Australian Labor Party in this place—the federal opposition—will resist the temptation to play a partisan game and back my ambition to see progress. There is absolutely no point in the alternative government of this country—and long may they remain the alternative—maintaining this cyclical game of attempting to blame another. They know, as all Queenslanders know, that the job of planning and implementation when it comes to infrastructure is the job of the Queensland government. They are the manager of these projects. They maintain day-to-day control of the roads that are in question. They are the ones who have the opportunity to take the funds that are allocated and to prioritise their expenditure in the name of all Queenslanders. They should not have created this farcical situation where the first people that are paid and are always paid are the high-ranking bureaucrats in the Department of Main Roads; whether a road is built or not, they get paid. We need to see an end to the circumstance where we are told, as we were in 1994 by the member for Ipswich, the then minister for main roads in the Queensland Goss-Rudd government, that there was a 20-year fix on the Ipswich Motorway in place. It did not even last 20 months—mainly, I suspect, because if you are a bureaucrat in the Department of Main Roads in Queensland, the last thing you want is for things to be fixed for the long term. The last thing you want is for something to be put in place that is going to sustain for many decades; you want a crisis every five to 10 years. Guess what: 20 months is all it lasted. All we have had since then is posturing and talk about widening the existing corridor along the Ipswich Motorway. This is the farcical part. The member for Batman, who I understand will speak after me, has the opportunity to make it very clear once and for all that the federal opposition is opposed to the widening of the Ipswich Motorway starting at Rocklea, because if he is not— LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —You’ll be kidding. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —‘You’ll be kidding,’ he said. Here we have, yet again, a return to the cyclical logic which will drive trucks forever along the Brisbane urban corridor. Here we have a repeat of the policy position they had at the last election, the election before that and the election before that—in fact, all the way back to 1990 and 1993—which consigned heavy B-double trucks past people’s letterboxes, through the electorate of Bonner, along the Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road, and in Moreton through Kessels Road, through Riawena and through Granard Road. The member for Batman and the federal opposition do not understand that the widening of the Ipswich Road corridor is not the only solution for the Brisbane-Ipswich corridor. They have failed to understand that there will be a need for 20 lanes of traffic between Brisbane and Ipswich over the decades ahead. What are they going to do: widen out everything by hundreds of metres along a track that was discovered by Alan Cunningham in the 1840s? The route of the Ipswich Motorway is the road the horses tripped over as they were heading out towards Warwick. It has not changed. I can tell a story in the House about my great-great-grandfather. When he was a farmer at Moggill in the 1860s, he had to row across the river to court my great great-grandmother, who was the Congregational Church minister’s daughter, at Goodna. Nothing has changed. While the Australian Labor Party want to revisit the agro and the cyclical nonsense of partisan attacks, the Howard government have now put $2.3 billion towards creating a link between the Warrego and Cunningham highways and the Logan Motorway. We are determined to expand our toll-free trial on the Logan Motorway and the Gateway Motorway. There are 221,000 fewer trucks thundering along Kessels Road at night because I have been able to secure the funding for that, and I need the Labor Party’s support in this place to urge the Labor Party in Queensland to get real and get fair and put the people of Queensland and their long-term infrastructure needs first. That is what this motion is about today. It is going to be very interesting to see how the Labor party respond to the challenge that I have outlined for them today. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Is the motion seconded? 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 56 15:54:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon as the shadow minister for transport. In doing so, I agree with the member for Moreton on one issue: south-eastern Queensland faces very high growth in traffic congestion. I also agree with him that we have to ease the freight congestion in the Brisbane urban corridor, just as we have to ease that same problem in other major cities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, that face similar challenges. Unfortunately, the solution does not come wrapped in a single road project. The solution must involve a vision that integrates our ports, airports, intermodal freight hubs and the road and rail corridors in order for it to be a long-term solution. Nothing in the member for Moreton’s proposition actually addresses that requirement. I see only a poor attempt to justify a project that many of his colleagues in the Liberal Party do not support, including the member for Ryan, the state leader of the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman. The Ipswich Motorway is a parking lot during peak hours. It should have been fixed years ago and would have been without the interference of the member for Blair. Let me remind members that the Labor Party supported the full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway at the 1998 election, the 2001 election and the 2004 election. More importantly, as we face the 2007 election we remain committed to that project being delivered in full. The member for Moreton wants to shift the blame to the state government for the Ipswich Motorway mess. The truth is that he has not been part of the solution, as we went part of the way in 1998, 2001 and 2004. Now, at two minutes to midnight, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, have suddenly found $2.3 billion to supposedly do part of the job. But that is not what the community wants and needs. They have come over the top of the community with a proposal to spend $1.2 billion more than the community’s preferred project needs—funds that could be spent on solving other problems in south-eastern Queensland. The Goodna bypass will do nothing for more than six years to ease congestion on the Ipswich Motorway or improve road safety for the 100,000 commuter vehicles using it each day. On the other hand, motorists could be driving on sections of the upgraded motorway within three years. Further contracts were recently announced by the minister for transport and his counterpart in Queensland. Federal Labor does not want motorists to wait six years for relief when we could get it on an ongoing basis. They have already waited long enough because of the Howard government’s failure to match Labor’s commitment to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway in 1998, 2001, 2004 and, again, in 2007. The Goodna bypass provides no opportunity for staging, and motorists will not see any benefit until the bypass is opened more than six years down the track. That is why the Queensland government, the Ipswich City Council, the state Liberal leader, and the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, still prefer a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway and why a federal Labor government will seek to work cooperatively with them to achieve that outcome as soon as possible. The upgrade will see the Ipswich Motorway widened to six lanes and a network of service roads established to carry motorists during construction so that more than 90 per cent of the route can be rebuilt away from motorway traffic. Once work finishes, the service roads will be used for local traffic to keep short trips off the motorway—a win for motorway commuters and a win for local communities, with better local roads. While the upgrade is being completed, federal Labor will be working with the Queensland government and local councils on a clear, long-term vision for easing congestion and separating freight corridors from passenger transport in south-eastern Queensland. AusLink is about national infrastructure priorities and cooperative federalism, not the blame game pursued by the members for Moreton and Blair. A nation-building agenda for the transport infrastructure requirements of south-eastern Queensland is too important for the future of Australia to be squandered on pork-barrelling every three years by representatives of south-eastern Queensland such as the members for Moreton and Blair. They are the ones who are responsible for the delays in the upgraded Ipswich Motorway. They have contributed to unnecessary accidents and deaths through their inability in parliament to get on with the job. They are to blame because of their failure to adequately represent the needs of their constituents. They are clearly consumed with pork-barrelling and political survival rather than easing traffic congestion, reducing accidents and reducing fatalities. They stand condemned— (Time expired) 57 16:00:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 0 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to debunk a lot of the nonsense that has just come from the opposition spokesman. We have had quite a long and very deep debate over the Ipswich Motorway issue in south-east Queensland. In November 2001, the Kellogg Brown and Root report into the state government’s plan to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway made the following finding. They said it was impossible, impractical and even undesirable to try and upgrade the upgrade plan, as was being proposed then by the state government and still—what, six years down the track?—is being proposed by members opposite. It was impractical, impossible, for them to upgrade that plan to the point where it could actually deal with the traffic according to national highway standards at its completion. That is what Kellogg Brown and Root said about the upgrade project in November 2001. Furthermore, they said that they would therefore need to seek the permission of the federal minister to accept standards that were below the national highway standards and to be prepared to foist upon people in the western corridor of Brisbane a lower than acceptable national highway standard for the handling of what is now 100,000 vehicles a day on the motorway. It is just incredible. At that time, that was the full extent of the upgrade plan, yet members opposite, six years down the track, after there has been an even greater blow-out in the amount of traffic, are still trying to tell local people in the Ipswich area that it will be sufficient merely to add two lanes to the existing motorway. We heard the member opposite, the opposition spokesman, saying that there would be this mysterious network of local—what did he say?— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Service roads. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —service roads to support the motorway. I can tell you the names of those service roads. In the section through Goodna, it is Smiths Road and it is Brisbane Terrace. Those are existing roads. It is not a new service network; there ain’t no new service network there. They are saying, ‘We’re going to add just two additional lanes on the existing motorway, and we’re going to co-opt Brisbane Terrace and Smiths Road, and they will be our service roads.’ So to all the poor people who rely on those roads for their current service today: ‘Sorry, no, it’s a service road.’ That is the total extent of the Labor Party planning and contribution to what is one of the most important corridors—the growth corridor, according to the state government. There they are directing growth into this corridor, saying, ‘Grow, you corridor,’ and saying that, for people in Ipswich, where the population is going to treble in the next 18 years, it is just sufficient to add two measly lanes and, not only that, to dig up the road for 5½ years to do it. I heard the opposition spokesman saying that he came up with some figure of three years. That is nonsense. Maunsells, the well-reputed engineers, produced a study of the upgrade plan. They said, ‘Sorry, guys, you’re going to need another 18 months of planning if you want to do the upgrade work, and you’re going to need another four years of construction.’ That is exactly the same time frame within which the coalition government can provide six lanes on a whole new route. So we are more than doubling capacity into the corridor in a region where the population is going to more than treble. What are they adding? They are not even adding another 50 per cent to the existing equation. They are taking away people’s local streets in order to provide what they call ‘service roads’. For the local people in that area, this has got to be the greatest con job ever. The concept that I think the spokesman opposite was putting was that—when this was going to occur—they said that they had proposed this as their policy in 1998. If the Labor Party put it forward as their policy in 1998, that was four years after Laurie Brereton and David Hamill opened what they said would be a road that would last for 20 years. That is the short-changing; that is the inadequacy; that is the snake oil that members opposite stand for when they talk about development in the Ipswich Motorway corridor. Bandaid after bandaid after bandaid, and no relief for anyone. Five and a half years of digging up the Ipswich Motorway is their recipe for an outcome which could not meet the traffic on the day it was delivered—and that is according to a forecast that is already six years old. There is an awful lot that the coalition government is prepared to do, and I note that— (Time expired) 59 16:05:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —The issue of the Ipswich Motorway has been the matter of an urgent safety upgrade for nearly a decade. In fact, since being elected to this place nearly nine years ago, I have been campaigning, along with the community, to ensure that the federal government meets its obligations to federal roads and in particular to the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. This campaigning over a long period of time with the community has not been in vain. While the federal government and in particular the federal members for Blair and Moreton have actively sought to derail the safety upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway and prevent all road users from getting the urgent safety upgrade they so desperately need, we have managed to get partial funding for the Ipswich Motorway to the tune of around $600 million. The result is that some stages of the Ipswich Motorway upgrade are to go ahead. These include upgrades along some of the worst sections of the Ipswich Motorway, such as the Gailes-Logan interchange, which has been the cause of many— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the member for Oxley withdraw any suggestion that I have worked against safety upgrades. That is quite incorrect. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—That is not a point of order. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —The essential section upgrades, while they are well overdue, will come as a huge relief for the long-suffering motorists on the Ipswich Motorway. But this only gets half the job done. We need the section into Ipswich between Gailes and Dinmore upgraded to complete the job and finally provide a solution to the chaos, accidents and bottlenecks along the Ipswich Motorway. By doing this, the full upgrade will have cost about $1.7 billion in total. If we compare this to the federal government’s option of the Goodna bypass, at an initial estimate of $2.3 billion, plus the $600 million already allocated between Gailes and Darra, it will take the cost to nearly $3 billion. This is a massive cost that is not supported by the community or the state government and has no consensus or evidence as a solution. The federal government has gone to a great deal of trouble over the past 10 years to ensure that the Ipswich Motorway would not be fully funded or upgraded. The government has run interference at every possible opportunity to prevent the upgrade of the motorway, and it has ignored the core problem. Surely the federal government should be more interested in getting an agreed solution that provides a long-term fix and is better value for taxpayer dollars. There clearly seems to be some other agenda at play by the federal government. To put this into context, let us examine the government’s own report which it used to validate its decision to build a bypass road instead of a full upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. The Maunsell report cost taxpayers $10 million, the terms of reference were dictated by the federal government and it specifically provided that the only possible outcome was one option: the bypass. To make matters even worse, the report cannot make any comparisons between a fully upgraded Ipswich Motorway and the bypass. In this way, the government could always be safe by referring to the report without any fear of unwanted comparisons or other information. This is convenient but very deceptive and a waste of taxpayer dollars to the tune of $10 million. For that sort of money you could get a report to say whatever you wanted and have whatever outcome you desired. The fact is that the federal government has lost credibility on this road issue. It should allow a full and accountable funding process in cooperation with the community and the state, which will be responsible for construction of the motorway. The funding is not Liberal Party funding but taxpayer dollars, and it should be spent in consultation with the community and the state government. The member for Moreton has got one thing right, though, in his motion today. He has acknowledged that south-east Queensland is the fastest growing region in Australia. But he has done nothing about it for the past 10 years. He has always been vocal on state road issues but suspiciously silent on federal road funding matters. After 10 years of road funding starvation on the Ipswich Motorway, the feds finally dump a bucket of money—but in the wrong place. This is typical of the federal government operating blindly from Canberra. The Goodna bypass represents a very expensive and flawed option that does not have the support of the community or the state government. But let me assure the federal government and, more precisely, the members for Blair, Ryan and Moreton: the community is very angry with them and with their bypass road, and they will make their views heard all the way to the next federal election. 60 16:09:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I am certainly pleased to rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Moreton. The motion effectively recognises the Howard government’s significant contribution to the people of south-east Queensland and the great need for funding for roads in Queensland’s south-east corner. We know that the south-east corner of Queensland is the fastest-growing area of our country, and we know that, as a consequence of this growth, residents there—particularly in the city of the Gold Coast—have a great and genuine need for additional road funding. I note in particular that the motion from the member for Moreton, seconded by the member for Blair, expresses concern over the unreliable project costings provided to the Howard government by the Queensland government, who seem completely unable to manage their costings appropriately. As a consequence of the Beattie government’s blow-outs, we see the Australian government being expected, on a continual basis, to pick up the cost of these blow-outs. I listened with great interest to what the shadow minister had to say, because we know that the Beattie Labor government has primary carriage of funding for the road needs of Gold Coast city. So it is the Labor Party at state level that is responsible for improving infrastructure, in particular roads, in Gold Coast city. What did the shadow minister have to say about Gold Coast roads with respect to this motion—a motion that talks about south-east Queensland roads? What did the shadow Labor minister have to say about Gold Coast roads? 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —Nothing. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr CIOBO —The member for Blair is correct: he said nothing. We heard not a single comment from the shadow minister about what the Labor Party is going to do for roads in the Gold Coast, the fastest growing city in Australia. We have heard not a single word from the Australian Labor Party about what it is going to do to improve the lives of residents. That is because the Labor Party does not care. We know that because the Beattie Labor government does not care about residents on the Gold Coast. The Beattie Labor government could today, if it wanted to, provide the funding necessary to ensure that important local roads like the Nielsens Road interchange were built. The Beattie Labor government could start the widening of the M1 from Nerang to Tugun today, if it chose to. But the Beattie Labor government turns its back on it. Paul Lucas, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads in Queensland, would rather keep up his political posturing and political game-playing than actually do something to improve the lives of local residents. I say to Paul Lucas and to the Labor Party: start to understand that Gold Coast residents will not accept your shabby treatment of them. Start to understand that Gold Coast residents know some simple facts. That is, this government has provided to the Queensland Labor government a 119 per cent increase in local road funding. That is our commitment to local roads. If we had our own engineers and our own main roads department, I would have them out there building the roads. But, unfortunately, we have got to rely on the state Labor government, which is completely inept when it comes to project planning and delivery. If you want a case in point—Gold Coast residents know about this—you can look at the absolute mess that was the Tugun bypass, thanks to the Beattie Labor government. That bypass was initially costed by the Labor government at $70 million. That was the initial project cost that the Labor Party put forward. Right then and there, the federal government said, ‘We’ll fund half of that. Here’s our $35 million.’ And then we waited, and we waited, and we waited. The consequence was that, when the Beattie Labor government finally got around to building the bypass, it was no longer a $70 million project but a $500 million project. That is the Labor Party legacy to the Gold Coast residents. That is Labor’s record: massive cost blow-outs that cause massive inconvenience to local Gold Coast residents, and we do not hear one word from the Labor member opposite, who claims that he cares about road funding in south-east Queensland. He spoke about one road, the road to Ipswich, and I say that Gold Coast residents know that the Labor Party turns its back on their needs; they know that the Labor Party cannot control costs and they know the Labor Party cannot deliver roads. I say to my local residents that I will continue pushing for funding increases and I will continue pressuring the state Labor government to do something for them with its 119 per cent increase in road funding. I say to the Labor Party: you stand condemned because of your ignorance of Gold Coast local road needs. 61 16:14:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —Well, ‘some mothers do ’ave ’em’. On the day that the member for Moreton brings forward this private member’s motion for debate, we have banner headlines on the front page of the Courier-Mail quoting the Liberal state leader saying, ‘I don’t care.’ And what didn’t he care about? He was asked yesterday if he was worried that his continued opposition to the bypass proposal being advocated by the member for Moreton would be perceived as disloyalty to the Prime Minister. In response, Dr Flegg said, ‘I don’t care.’ He went on to say: My position has been strong and clear before the feds adopted any position about this matter ... I think my party room and my party would expect I would honour my commitment. The member for Moreton said in his piece that he sought Labor Party support for the plan. The Labor Party has been supporting for years the upgrading of the Ipswich Motorway, as the member for Batman said, in 1998, in 2001, in 2004 and now in 2007. But when it comes to the Queensland Liberal Party it is a case of every man for himself and God help the women and children. They are at each other’s throats over this. This is the blame game writ large, but on this occasion the Liberals are blaming each other. Let me tell you about the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. He said: It is very clear to the people who live in the western suburbs of Brisbane that this will be the precursor to a western Brisbane bypass ... There are alignments on maps now which show where that route would go. This new Goodna bypass announced today will permit a road to go up through the back of Moggill, Bellbowrie, Pullenvale, Brookfield, The Gap, Brisbane Forest Park and into Samford Valley. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane condemns this proposal of the Howard government in the strongest possible terms. He went on to say, in another article: My impression is there has never been a proper comparison of the options and I can’t understand why there hasn’t been, especially if you have the state government, the state opposition and the Lord Mayor all backing an upgrade and it’s an option that costs less. Hear, hear to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. But where oh where is the member for Ryan in all of this? The same article says: ... across the river in the safer electorate of Ryan, where traffic flows will increase, Michael Johnson—not known as a prime ministerial favourite—is battling a backlash. “I’m bitterly disappointed,” he said. “I’m in the process of writing to my constituents explaining that.” So the blame game is the Liberals blaming each other. We have got the member for Moreton and the member for Blair advocating the Goodna bypass, which is absolutely, totally and vehemently opposed by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and by the Liberal leader, the Queensland opposition leader, who says ‘I don’t care’ when people ask him, ‘What if you are seen to be disloyal?’ because he knows that the Labor proposal is the right proposal. I am tempted to move that so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would allow the member for Ryan—the missing Liberal—to come into this parliament and participate in the debate. Where is the member for Ryan? He is opposed to the views and the proposal of the member for Moreton and the member for Blair. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —On a point of order, with all the yelling and ranting I did not hear whether he had actually moved a suspension of standing orders. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—No, I will verify that he has not. There is no point of order. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —I said I would be tempted to. If I thought it would produce a result, I would. But the member for Ryan will not come in here, because he does not have the courage to stand up to his colleagues the member for Moreton and the member for Blair. (Time expired) 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for Rankin will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. 62 Grievance Debate Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 62 62 16:19:00 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 0 Ms HOARE —As we have heard today, this week marks the first anniversary of the commencement of the government’s extreme industrial relations laws, and I wish to grieve about the state of industrial relations and the rights of workers around this nation. The Howard government calls it Work Choices; we call it no choices for Australian workers who are forced to sign Australian workplace agreements. For the past 12 months, reports of families severely disadvantaged by these extreme laws have appeared on current affairs programs, in the newspapers and on television and radio news programs. For the past 12 months, constituents in all the electorates around Australia have been approaching their members of parliament on both sides of the political divide to bring their stories of their experiences of the unfairness of these extreme laws. The government members know these stories only too well but lack the guts to stand up to their leadership to ensure that industrial relations laws in this country are moderated to ensure fairness for all workers. The government MPs in marginal seats are particularly concerned and have been speaking privately for some time about their concerns for their own job security because of the level of public disquiet over these extreme laws. This last Saturday, the electors of New South Wales delivered a repudiation of the Howard government’s extreme industrial relations laws. I congratulate the Premier, Morris Iemma, on an excellent campaign that saw the return of his government. While Mr Iemma readily acknowledges that New South Wales voters were unhappy with problems that have occurred over recent times, and also that Labor had been in office for 12 years, any desire to kick the Labor government up the backside was largely tempered by the very legitimate fears over Peter Debnam’s promise to hand responsibility for industrial relations in New South Wales over to John Howard, which would of course have widened the reach of these extreme laws. An exit poll conducted for Saturday’s election showed that 62 per cent of Labor voters had indicated that Work Choices was a significant factor in their decision to support the state Labor government. The Howard government’s extreme IR laws are unfair and will lead to lower wages and conditions. Australian workers and their families know they tip the balance too far in the favour of employers. Today in question time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on a number of occasions why he and the government would not obtain statistics relating to AWAs from the Office of the Employment Advocate. If AWAs are so good, why does the government refuse to spruik their benefits? The government knows only too well the figures would not be happy reading and would show the truth about AWAs and the conditions and penalty rates that have been ripped away from workers. The Howard government and the minister responsible in particular have showed no honesty when it comes to AWAs and the impact they have on Australian working families. There remain more than 400 unanswered questions on the Notice Paper about this issue. The failure to answer these questions and to release data from the Office of the Employment Advocate shows that the government is scared of the electoral ramifications of having evidence from its own agencies confirming what most Australian workers already know—that is, that Work Choices and the Howard government’s attacks on workers are having a negative impact on the Australian way of life. In the New South Wales state election, voters showed their anger at John Howard’s extreme industrial relations laws. When the federal election comes around at the end of this year, voters from around the country will have the opportunity to lay the blame directly at the man responsible for this ideological attack on the rights of employees and working Australian families. Peter Debnam took the blame this time for John Howard. The ‘man of steel’ will not have the protection of the weak and feeble New South Wales Liberal-National opposition to blame for the loss. He will have to take full responsibility for the anger that will be expressed at the ballot box by working Australians. Whilst the government refuses to release its figures on the impact of AWAs and its extreme industrial relations regime, there is a growing body of research work showing that the economic benefits claimed by the government are false. John Buchanan of the University of Sydney’s Workplace Research Centre has produced excellent research which clearly shows that the claims of the Prime Minister and Treasurer that economic benefits were being gained by the IR law changes are not correct. Wages growth and declining industrial action are all the result of long-term trends and forces. Other statistics available concerning AWAs show that every agreement has resulted in the loss of at least one award condition. Sixty per cent of AWAs have seen the loss of penalty rates for Australian workers, and over half of all AWAs have removed shift loadings from their terms. This is the reality for Australian workers. This is not the workers’ utopia promised by the Prime Minister and his millions of dollars of Work Choices advertising spending. Last week we saw a significant victory for a young woman from the Hunter Valley, who stood up to her unscrupulous employer over the outrageous ‘take it or leave it’ AWA. This so-called agreement stripped Lorissa Stevens of her right to sick leave without providing 12-hours notice, amongst other arduous and completely unreasonable requirements. The company bullied Ms Stevens and threatened her with dismissal if she did not sign the AWA. She was also threatened with the proposition that, if she did not comply with the demands to sign the AWA, she would be ruined and would never work again in a Hunter Valley coalmine. This outrage was redressed last week in a settlement approved by the Federal Court, but it would never have had to come to this if John Howard’s extreme industrial relations laws were not in place. It is cases like that of Ms Stevens that people like the late Jim Comerford and his comrades fought for over the last century. They fought and died for the rights of workers, and now all that toil and all the tears that were expended in the fight for fair conditions and decent pay for decent work are being quickly wound back by the Work Choices regime. The campaign against these harsh and unfair laws is being spearheaded by Greg Combet and Sharan Burrow of the ACTU and the Labor leader and deputy leader, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. The campaign has galvanised the resolve of Australian workers and filled them with hope that the regime of John Howard and his government is not forever. Together we can fight these extreme industrial relations laws and ensure that fairness returns to Australian workplaces. The enormous levels of public support for the Your Rights at Work campaign, and the rallies around Australia, show that ordinary workers and their families are determined not to allow the Howard government to think that it can get away with reducing the conditions and pay of Australian workers. Although I have made some comments about the state election on the weekend, I do want to say something regarding the state seat of Lake Macquarie. The Lake Macquarie electorate hangs on a knife edge today. The sitting member, my very good friend and colleague Jeff Hunter, is under direct threat from the Lake Macquarie mayor and Independent—not a Liberal, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources at the table would have you believe. We all hope that the preferences, postal votes and prepoll votes that are still to be counted will be directed towards Jeff. However, at this time I would like to make some comments on Jeff’s tenure as the member for Lake Macquarie. Jeff was elected as the member for Lake Macquarie in 1991. His father, Merv, was the member before him, and his brother, Alan, is a Labor councillor on Lake Macquarie City Council. The Hunter family has served the Lake community well and with commitment, integrity and dedication, reflecting true Labor values of decency, fairness and honesty. Over these years, we have watched our communities grow from lakeside villages to thriving communities with services that all of us deserve. Since I have worked closely with Jeff, I have seen police stations built, school halls built, security fences erected around schools, ambulance and fire stations built, libraries expanded, police, ambulance and firefighter numbers expanded and, most crucially, we have seen the funding flow from the state government for the clean-up of Lake Macquarie which has seen a huge benefit to our local environment. Two most recent projects that Jeff succeeded in were the building of the Five Islands bridges, alleviating a major bottleneck for commuting constituents, and the proposal of an open-cut mine at Awaba. Along with the community, Jeff resisted this proposal for an open-cut coalmine on the shores of Lake Macquarie, a fight that his father won 20 years earlier. Together with our community, Jeff won the fight and then also succeeded in having the state government declare that there would be no future open-cut mines in western Lake Macquarie. If the seat of Lake Macquarie is lost, our communities and our constituents will have lost one of the hardest-working, committed parliamentarians in the state parliament, and they will really feel it. I am sure that all of our best wishes go towards Jeff at this time and under these circumstances. Mate, I hope that you hold on; I am sure you will. (Time expired) 65 65 16:29:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I rise today in this grievance debate to address the vital issue of the credibility and competence of the opposition on matters of economic policy and financial responsibility. I do so not only on behalf of my constituents but also on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of families and small businesses across Australia who rely on strong economic management and financial responsibility here in Parliament House, in Canberra, by their government, to deliver vital services, jobs, low taxes and continued low interest rates. When Labor was last in office it could not manage money, and it was the battling families and small businesses who paid the price for that failure. They paid with a million people unemployed. They paid with interest rates of 17 per cent for families and 21 per cent for small businesses. They paid with reduced opportunities. They paid right across Australia. Make no mistake: if federal Labor is elected to federal government it will be a rerun of the same old sorry Labor story. From Whitlam to Keating, at the end of the day, all the talk and all the promises always equalled two things—budget deficits and growing government debt. The people of Australia paid the price for that in the ways I have outlined. Labor would have the Australian people believe they can seamlessly take over the strong economy that the coalition has worked hard to help create and then try to manage it as well. This is not credible or believable. If Labor were to take the driver’s seat and grab the steering wheel, rather than continuing to calmly drive down the road of economic growth and opportunity, they would throw the gearstick into reverse, look into the rear-vision mirror and begin backtracking down the economic road we have travelled over the last 11 years. We know this because of Labor’s form in government, because of their approach to policy over the last 11 years and because of their approach and stance today on so many issues. Labor could not cope with the discipline required for economic management when they were last in office. In their last six years of government they took net government debt from $16.1 billion in 1989 to $96 billion when they left office. Their last budget was in a black hole by $10 billion. This never stopped Labor from pledging budget surpluses while they were in office. It never stopped them from promising to pay off net government debt. They did so with breathtaking regularity. It is just that the deficits kept coming and the government debt kept growing. In 1996, before the election, the then Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley, said: We’re operating in surplus and our projections are for surpluses in the future. That was one month before the election and one month before the revelation of the $10 billion black hole Labor left us. In 1990, in similar vein, former Prime Minister Keating, the then federal Treasurer, claimed that by 1993: ... there will be no government debt, domestic or external. It’s an enormous claim I can make on behalf of the Government of Australia. Yet, as I have indicated, by the time Prime Minister Keating left office six years later net government debt had grown to $96 billion. After leaving this trail of economic destruction and losing office, you would think the Labor Party might admit some error and at least adopt a new approach. But Labor have done no such thing. Instead, here in this parliament, from the time they took the opposition benches, Labor have done what they do best—they have dug in and constructed and maintained a mindless political picket line in the federal parliament to oppose every single measure and reform needed to fix the budget and fix our economy. For 11 years they have opposed budget reform, tax reform and tax cuts, waterfront reform and all of the other tough decisions necessary to improve Australia. Today, nothing has changed. Their platform, philosophy, inexperience and volatile frontbench illustrates they have learnt nothing and, in fact—dangerously for Australia—they are pre-programmed to repeat and revisit their incompetence if ever given the chance. Just last week we saw the policy irresponsibility in Labor’s announcement to take more than $2 billion from the Future  Fund—that is, a plan to take funds set aside for future challenges: big challenges that will confront future generations of Australians—and leave those future Australian taxpayers with the bill. This is the first admission that Labor will—as it has always done—splurge out on the national credit card big time and then leave the bill for future Australians. Make no mistake: if Labor gets its hands on the national credit card, it will be future Australians that receive the whopping bill. But equally breathtaking is the failure of the shadow Treasurer, the member for Lilley, to protect a single policy position. As we have heard in question time and since last week’s announcement, in 2005 the member for Lilley and now shadow Treasurer said: If you’re going to have a Future Fund it has to be a locked box. He said: ... a future fund with money from future surpluses or asset sales ought to be absolutely locked away from government control and government influence. Let me repeat the cast iron commitment of the member for Lilley: if you are going to have a future fund it has to be a locked box. It is the shadow Treasurer’s job to demand and maintain economic responsibility in policy making. But rather than hold his ground, he instead moved faster than a rabbit to get out of the road of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Melbourne as they made their dash to trash the Future Fund. If the member for Lilley, Labor’s shadow Treasurer, cannot hold the ground on one policy, we all know—and the Australian people need to know—that he could never hold the ground on the tough decisions necessary to deliver surplus budgets and to maintain economic strength and financial responsibility. But this type of financially irresponsible policy making, laden with costing errors of huge magnitude, is typical of Labor. Take the member for Lalor’s policy, the infamous Medicare Gold, the plan to take over all public and private hospital costs for 1.2 million people over the age of 75. Costed by Labor at $2.9 billion over four years, Access Economics found it economically unsustainable, with not even enough doctors to cope with existing demand. Labor allocated just $1.7 billion to pay for the hospital costs of every person over the age of 75 when the real cost was estimated at $4 billion or more. You do not need to take the word of our ministers or the members on this side of the House. This policy was described by her own colleagues as a ‘turkey’. Peter Botsman described it as having the ‘head of a donkey and body of a wombat’. Even the member for Melbourne admitted that it would have ‘added a very substantial burden to future budgets’. Given his record of budget irresponsibility in the last few days, that is indeed saying something. But the worrying financial credentials go much further than that. Should Labor have its way it would have Senator Kim Carr, or ‘Kim Il Carr’—the name his own colleagues have ascribed to him—in charge of industry policy, despite being known as the most anti-business member of this parliament. Labor’s vision for the future is the Australia of 1996. That is the road it wants to take us on—a road back to higher taxes, higher interest rates, wasteful spending, higher unemployment and higher deficits. Does the place of Australia in 1996 strike you as the place you would want to take your family, your business or your country? Few would agree but, unfortunately, that is the future for the Leader of the Opposition and his team. 67 67 16:39:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —Today I want to talk about two educational outcomes: one bad and one good. The first relates to Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal College, at Yulara, near Uluru. It has campuses at Mutitjulu, Kaltukatjara and Imanpa. There is a fiasco which needs to be discussed in this place. The Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal Corporation, the NAC, was established in 1994 by the Anangu people of the central desert. Its aim was to foster community development and establish economic independence from government handouts for the Anangu communities of Imanpa, Mutitjulu and Kaltukatjara. The NAC identified three main pathways to the future: education, employment and economic development. In order to improve education, the NAC established the Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal College. It was established on four fundamental tenets of educational philosophy: firstly, teaching should be conducted on traditional lands; secondly, there should be a properly functioning boarding college which should be gender segregated in line with cultural traditions; thirdly, appropriate Anangu houseparents from their own community environment should be employed as careers at the boarding college; and, fourthly, education should be secular, having regard to cultural tradition. This was a well-conceived and determined attempt to improve the education outcomes of people in the community. Indeed, this much was noted in a review of the college commissioned by the Department of Education, Science and Training in December 2005. That review concluded: ... this has been a courageous initiative on behalf of the Corporation to meet better the needs of the Anangu indigenous people. Their initiative has provided vital means to a future of hope derived from a sound education which is seen as fundamental for its young people being able in the future to integrate with and contribute to a wider Australian society. The provision of a residential, central campus has been part of that initiative.                 …            …            … ... it must be stated again that the alternative of having no secondary schooling is unthinkable in its consequences. The education so keenly taken by so many young Anangu would be lost, in consequence of which there would be consignment to a life for many of total welfare dependency and little hope for change. In April 2006, the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations, with the endorsement of the federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, appointed an administrator to the NAC. The Anangu Governing Committee was dismissed by the registrar. This was despite the fact that the NAC and the college had at all times been solvent. There had been no concern expressed by members of the NAC or by parents or students of the college about its operations up to that time. I am told that the new administrator has no background in education or qualifications in educational administration. He is an accountant who is currently administering a number of Aboriginal corporations and receiving substantial sums of money from the federal government for doing so. Since the new administrator was appointed, a number of events that can only be called disastrous for the educational hopes and aspirations of the Anangu people have occurred: firstly, the boarding college at Yulara has been closed down and the campuses at the three communities are either not operating or barely operating; secondly, the Anangu parents have become alienated from the college because the administrator and the delegate of the registrar have refused to hold community meetings requested by Anangu or to properly consult with parents about their actions and intentions in relation to the college; thirdly, as a result, parents are not sending their students to school and the funding of the college, which is dependent on student numbers, is now in jeopardy; and, fourthly, there has been a total turnover of teaching staff who have been professionally frustrated by the actions of the administrator. The federal government has thus effectively destroyed a successful model for independent Aboriginal education. It has brought about what the 2005 DEST review described an ‘unthinkable consequence’ for young Anangu students and has sabotaged the hopes of the next generation of Anangu for a new direction. At the time of the appointment of the administrator, the NAC had four fully operational college campuses with a full staff complement, fully funded budgets, some $200,000 in surplus funds and 86 enrolled students. Over the last 10 months the college has had a 100 per cent staff turnover, with staff quitting or on stress leave due to the mismanagement of the college by the administrator. The central campus has not been open for six months, student numbers have collapsed and, with this, the funding for the college. The administration has been an unmitigated disaster for the Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal College, the communities and the children concerned. There have been four college principals since the administrator took control, and it is thought that there are now only 20 students attending the school. Due to the decrease in student numbers, substantial forward education funding will have to be returned to the funding agent in August 2007. This could quite possibly bankrupt the college. This is in fact the only Aboriginal college actually run by the federal minister for Aboriginal affairs, and he has destroyed in 10 months the efforts of its Aboriginal owners to build it over the past 14 years. When are the minister and the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations going to hand the corporation and the college back to their Aboriginal owners? When are they going to restore the educational programs that have been operating in this community? And, when they do that, will the minister ensure that sufficient funds are there to repair damage that has been done over the past 10 months by the administration? This is clearly an instance where things have gone off the rails and, as a result, Indigenous educational outcomes for the poorest and most deserving of Australians have gone out the window. The second matter I want to refer to is a very successful educational opportunity for Indigenous Australians that is run by the Clontarf Foundation. The foundation achieves its outcomes using Australian Rules football. Football academies are established in partnership with mainstream schools. Young Indigenous men between the ages of 13 and 18 are encouraged to enrol in these. Members of an academy are provided with high-quality coaching, specialist physical conditioning, health education and mentoring in life skills, whilst the school caters for their educational needs. In order to remain in an academy, participants must consistently endeavour to, firstly, attend school regularly; secondly, apply themselves to the study of appropriate courses; and, thirdly, embrace the academy’s requirements for behaviour and self-discipline. This academy first began operating in Western Australia some years ago. In 2000 there was one academy catering for 15 students. The academy was founded on the leadership of Gerard Neesham, whom you may well know as a coach of Fremantle. He is also a former schoolteacher. In 2003 there were two academies catering for 119 students. In 2006 there were six academies catering for 424 students. The foundation predicts that by 2008 there will be 1,100 students involved in the program. It anticipates 10 academies in Western Australia to cater for this number. Last week I was fortunate enough to attend the opening of a new academy in Central Australia. Participant numbers have stabilised for the core groups in this particular place, the Clontarf Foundation of Alice Springs: Alice Springs High School, 43 students; Anzac Hill High School, 35 students; and Yirara College, 70 students. Each school is training three mornings a week before school, with breakfast afterwards. Training has been well attended, with the majority of students achieving well over 80 per cent attendance at training. Most significantly, attendance at Alice Springs High School, I am told, has risen to 96 per cent for these students. This is something that we need to understand. What this academy is doing is providing a pathway for young people who would otherwise not be attending school. What this does is address the real issues of intergenerational poverty. The cycle of Indigenous disadvantage is permanently broken by this educational outcome. What we are seeing is the development of potential in these young men who hitherto would not have attended school. They have been attracted to staying at school by being involved in this program, which has been developed by Gerard Neesham and others through the Clontarf Foundation. It is a very rewarding thing to be observing. Last week, as I said, I went to the launch of this fantastic opportunity. I must commend all of those involved, including in particular, of course, Gerard Neesham and his team and the Alice Springs Football Academy Director, Brad Puls, and his staff because of what they are doing to advance the interests of Indigenous kids not only in Alice Springs but also across Australia. I am indebted to them for the work they are doing. I know that the outcomes they will provide for our community will be an example for many others across Australia. I know that the Clontarf Foundation is partly funded by the Commonwealth government and, in this case, the Northern Territory government, but they insist on local contributions. I am enthused by the fact that, as a result of work which the Clontarf Foundation has done in the Alice Springs community, a number of Alice Springs business leaders have decided that they will be involved in a significant way by making a financial contribution to the foundation. Not only do we have community partnerships in terms of the business community but also we have government involved as well as, of course, the community itself through the parents and the students. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of these sorts of initiatives. It stands in stark contrast to what has happened at Nyangatjatjara College. I will conclude by saying that the government needs to keep its eye on the ball, not only in terms of Aussie Rules and the Clontarf Foundation but also most particularly by ensuring that mistakes like those that have been made at Nyangatjatjara College are corrected immediately. 70 70 16:48:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 Mr BARRESI —Today I grieve for the young people in our nursing homes and aged-care facilities across Australia. I also grieve for their families and carers, who willingly put their own lives on hold to devote countless hours of care to their loved ones. At present there are more than 6,300 young people living in aged-care homes across Australia. If this trend continues, there could be more than 10,000 young Australians in this position by the end of 2007. These young people—and I use the phrase ‘young people’ in a liberal sense as it basically refers to anyone under the aged pension age who is in an aged-care facility—have a range of acquired disabilities due to accidents or unpredictable health events or due to a degenerative neurological disease such as MS or Parkinson’s disease. Other people arrive in these homes due to acquired brain injuries. They may, for example, have had a car accident. Others may have been injured in other accidents which have caused permanent spinal injuries or when they have stopped breathing for a time, meaning that they have been left with hypoxic brain injuries which affect physical and cognitive abilities. At a state level, fault based insurance standards mean that young people injured in car accidents are able to sue for compensation. But, if there is no-one to blame, they have no legal recourse, which means that many young people end up in aged-care facilities because there is nowhere else for them to go. It is common at this stage that many of these people, without the private resources to fund private care, rely heavily on their parents and other family members who, out of love, will often take over the role of full-time carer themselves, thereby placing considerable strains upon family life. This is one of the great travesties of our current arrangements. Families and parents are between a rock and a hard place. These people are not martyrs looking for a handout or an easy ride; they are decent people acting in their own best capacity in the worst of circumstances to provide the best quality of care for their children. I take this opportunity to pay homage to their considerable and thoughtful efforts. Young people and their families expected that the care system would be there to take care of them and support them when they needed it most. But in many cases this support has been sadly lacking or, worse still, nonexistent. This has happened for a number of reasons, most notably because existing disability systems were established to deal with the predictability of age related disabilities but are ill-prepared to deal with the complexity and more intensive needs of young people and their families. In the recently tabled Senate report, Funding and operation of the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement, chaired by my esteemed colleague Senator Gary Humphries, one of the submissions which struck at the heart of this issue was that of Melissa, a 31-year-old living in an aged-care residential facility in Victoria. Melissa lives amongst older people, has no friends and, sadly, has lost her zest for life. This feeling of abandonment and isolation comes from not being able to interact with people her own age and in the activities of the centre, which are designed for older residents. Melissa is like so many other young people in this situation because Australia has a system that is based on age, not on need. Developed around the needs of individuals with congenital disabilities, the existing state based disability systems do not have the structures in place as yet to deal with people with acquired disabilities. In my home state of Victoria, for example, specific accommodation for people with neurological disabilities, including acquired brain injuries, represents only 1.5 per cent of the total state based accommodation system. With the exception of Western Australia, these Victorian figures are also sadly typical in other states. This figure indicates that young disabled Australians, with complex support needs, fall through the system’s cracks to end up in aged-care facilities that were never designed to support them or their individual circumstances. The recent COAG agreement made between the Commonwealth and the states means that, in Victoria, $60 million will be committed over five years to provide solely youth based facilities for those under 50. The agreement between the Victorian and federal government will create a new 10-bed facility in metropolitan Melbourne for patients with high clinical care needs. This is a good first step in the right direction towards building a world-class youth based high care system. But more needs to be done. I have for some years now convened the Deakin Aged Care Council. We met recently to discuss local aged-care issues. During this meeting the issue of young people in aged-care homes was raised. Just from the representatives at the meeting I could have filled those 10 new places and still had so many more people left over. The feedback I received from my local, on the ground aged-care professionals was that the current facilities in aged-care homes are not serving young people nor providing the quality of care that is necessary to meet their needs. They advised me that accommodation and support services need to be targeted to the individual needs of each young person. Rather than expecting a young person to accommodate the setting, accommodation should be created to suit their own unique requirements, particularly in areas of rehabilitation and social interaction. A strong advocate for young people in aged-care homes is Ms Dianne Winkler who, in her role as chairperson of the Summer Foundation, has spent much time advocating for youth focused disability reforms. Through her hard work in connecting those under 65 with aid and services, Dianne has an intimate knowledge of this subject area and has pushed this issue towards more positive outcomes. Another individual in my electorate, Mr Alan Blackwood, Operations Manager from the MS Society, whose offices are in my electorate, has also worked tirelessly to advocate for young people’s care. In their recent submission to a Senate committee on disability services, the MS Society rightly argued for young people to be moved into a more user-friendly and better equipped environment to improve their lives. In their submission, they have called for the establishment of a dedicated step-up, continuous care support program for people with progressive degenerative conditions that combines AHCS, disability and aged care programs, aids and equipment, and carer programs. This will provide a pathway through the various jurisdictions. I urge the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Treasurer to look carefully at the submission from the MS Society.  One good example of the approach that should be adopted has been the Western Australian Young People in Nursing Homes Project, which bought 95 young people residing in aged-care facilities back to the community over a period of four years. This joint venture initiative between the federal government and the state government involved funding commitments by both tiers of government. It incorporated comprehensive assessments, transition and evaluation planning, as well as the development of a number of alternative supported accommodation options. Transitioning young people who are dependent because of their disability to a more well targeted and case specific facility is a necessary step that all governments need to heed when dealing with youth disabilities. The demand for these services is strong, and I congratulate Minister Brough for taking a strong stance on this issue and putting it on the national agenda. I agree with his sentiments, when in February he said: For too long the only long-term residential care available to young people with a disability has been in aged care facilities. The minister is right and we need to start moving quickly to redress this problem which has gone on for too long. Community based care that targets individual medical and social needs is vital if we are going to offer proper treatment for young people. I would also urge the states to take a long-term, collaborative approach on this issue. I call on all state governments to get on board and start making big improvements in this area so another generation of young people will not be left behind. Dr Bronwyn Morkham, National Director of the Young People in Nursing Homes National Project, summed up this issue best when, in her position paper entitled Moving young people out of nursing homes, she wrote: It is to be hoped that both tiers of government will put aside the demarcation disputes that have denied young Australians in aged-care facilities their chance for a life worth living, and work together to deliver the dignity and independence these young people have waited so long to have. I fully agree with Dr Morkham’s sentiments and urge all Australian governments to do all they can to help address this need. I would like to reinforce the work of those organisations in my electorate, particularly the Summer Foundation with Ms Dianne Winkler and the MS Society. Their work and their concern in this vital area of young people’s needs is one that should be heeded by all governments from both sides and from all jurisdictions. It is incomprehensible to continue having a situation where young people are placed in aged-care facilities which are highly geared to working with people with problems that are due to age rather than due to congenital conditions or injuries that have been acquired throughout their lives. I urge all governments to take a very close look at this need. 73 73 16:58:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP 0 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I rise today to talk about the cost of Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not want to talk about the financial cost of these conflicts; instead I want to talk about the hidden cost of these conflicts—that is, about the rising number of health related issues that are affecting veterans upon their return from Iraq and Afghanistan. A recent study in the United States titled ‘Bringing the war back home’ has gone a long way to revealing the human cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to veterans of those conflicts. The study was published in an issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine and was carried out by researchers from the University of California and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Centre. The study looked at data from 103,788 US veterans. Of the total, 32,010, or 31 per cent, were diagnosed with mental health and/or psycho-social problems including 25,658 who received mental health diagnoses. More than half were diagnosed with two or more disorders. Post-traumatic stress disorder was the most common disorder. The 13,205 veterans who have that diagnosis account for 52 per cent of mental health diagnoses. Other problems among those diagnosed included anxiety disorder, affecting 24 per cent; adjustment disorder, affecting 24 per cent; depression, affecting 20 per cent; and substance abuse disorder, affecting 20 per cent. The youngest group of veterans, aged 18 to 24, were at greatest risk of receiving mental health or post-traumatic stress disorder diagnoses, compared with veterans 40 years or older. Corresponding with these findings was a recent article in the publication Newsweek, which quoted a number of worrying statistics from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The statistics revealed that approximately 205,000 United States veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are currently receiving treatment for medical problems. Of those, 42.7 per cent have bone and muscle injuries, 35 per cent have mental disorders, 30.7 per cent have digestive disorders and 30 per cent have nervous system disorders. With regard to the mental health of returned US veterans of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, currently 73,157 veterans have received diagnoses of mental health conditions including 33,754 PTSD cases, 28,732 cases of drug abuse, 23,462 cases of depressive disorders and 18,294 cases of neurotic disorders. This number is likely to grow as the US Department of Veterans Affairs has also been reported as suffering from a backlog of over 400,000 claims, with a further 156,000 cases pending appeal. These statistics from the United States do not necessarily reflect the reality for all Australian veterans, as there are differences in location and the roles of our troops. However, there are also a large number of similarities. The statistics I have outlined point to a number of areas of concern that should be noted by the government and planned for accordingly. Unfortunately there appears to be a lot more confusion around the situation for Australian veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, no study has been completed in Australia that has examined the effects of these deployments on our troops, although I understand the Department of Defence is currently looking at this. There have been a number of varying reports about the number of returned veterans of these conflicts who have been granted disability pensions. Last week an article in the Herald Sun titled ‘Hidden casualties of war on terror: our lost diggers’ quoted an Australian Defence official as saying that there had been 121 personnel discharged for health reasons after serving in the Middle East. Of those discharged, it is understood that 23 were suffering from mental health problems. Additional to that, the article revealed that, tragically, two Australian soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan committed suicide after returning from the war zones. The next day the Herald Sun, in an article titled ‘Forces claims double’, claimed that the number of ill and injured veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan making claims for benefits was at least double the number discharged by the military for health reasons. Official statistics from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs dated December 2006 and available on the department’s website reveal that 49 veterans of the war in Iraq and 125 veterans of the war in Afghanistan are now in receipt of a disability pension. This would mean that a total of 174 veterans of these conflicts are receiving a disability pension. In the same month last year, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs was interviewed on ABC radio. He said: ... 236 men and women of the Australian Defence Forces have conditions, illnesses, impairments or injury that have been recognised by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs as being service-related. An article in the Daily Telegraph titled ‘Secret casualties of Aussie war on terror’, from December last year, had similar figures to the minister’s, quoting from documents obtained under freedom of information. That article said: The cost of the war on terror can be revealed, with documents show ing at least 236 Australians who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan being granted disability pensions. It went on to say: Department documents show medical pensions have been granted for mental and physical injuries to 109 individuals who have seen service in the Iraq conflict. A further 171 people who served in Afghanistan as part of the international coalition have also received medical pensions. As 44 of these disability pensioners have served in both conflicts, the total comes to 236. As can be seen, there are a number of different reports about these numbers. Therefore it is not clear what the exact figures are, although we can say that there are at least 174 Australian veterans of these conflicts who have had a claim for a disability pension accepted by the DVA. What I find remarkable is that we do not know for sure the number of veterans from these conflicts who have had their claims for disability pension accepted. When asked for definite numbers at the last hearing, the department could not provide an answer and was forced to take the question on notice. With an issue as important and as topical as this, I was quite frankly stunned that the department did not have these figures readily available. I do understand that measuring the impact of conflicts upon returned services personnel is a very complex matter and it is not always as clear-cut as listing all returned personnel who are now suffering afflictions. There must be a causal link to the conflicts. However, the complexity of measuring these statistics should in no way provide a barrier to the government in trying to gain a better understanding of the human cost of these conflicts. It is a sad indictment of this government that it has not been more active in monitoring these numbers. The government is not monitoring the human cost of these conflicts. I would have thought the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs would have at least instructed his department to get a better indication of these numbers following an embarrassing gaffe he made last year on ABC Radio program The World Today. On that program he wrongly attributed the deaths of two soldiers to suicide instead of their actual cause of death, which was cancer. He later had to correct the record when informed of his mistake. If this was not a good enough reason for him to get across the statistics, I do not know what is. What we can say about these statistics for Australian veterans is that they will only get worse. Sadly, we are likely to see more and more of our younger veterans returning home with debilitating physical and mental conditions that will be with them for the rest of their lives. This point has been made clear by representatives of the veterans and wider defence communities. The Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Veterans Association was quoted in the Herald Sun as saying that they ‘believe the figures would have climbed markedly since those DVA figures were collated late last year’. The Australian Defence Association Executive Director, Neil James, told the Canberra Times last year that he ‘believed that there will be a surge in post-traumatic stress disorder cases among troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan’. He also said that ‘it would be inevitable the disorder would surface as a result of being in such stressful conflicts’. RSL National President, Bill Crews, said on ABC Radio: It will grow into the future, probably to thousands I would suggest if previous experience of other deployments is any indication. The cost is not just financial, it’s human, and that is probably the bigger cost. It’s a loss of quality of life. Anybody who receives any form of income support or compensation payment arising from their service is suffering a reduced quality of life and that will flow onto their families. Similarly, academics have warned about the possible future health problems facing veterans. Professor Hedley Peach, a medical epidemiologist who has worked on veterans issues, said in the Medical Observer Weekly on 6 October 2006: Veterans and their partners are possibly approaching retirement with a greater prevalence of mental and physical health problems than the general population. And: It is a fair assumption that their health will deteriorate faster ... than the health of their contemporaries. I wanted to raise this issue today because too often the debate about the respective conflicts loses sight of the hidden costs of these wars. Too often, politicians will stray away from discussing these facts—they are too unpalatable—yet I believe that these hidden human costs are what we should be discussing first and foremost. The government’s silence on this matter has been deafening. For example, when was the last time anyone can recall a minister from this government speaking about the rising number of veterans of the Iraq war on disability pensions? The department could not answer questions on this topic even during the estimates hearings. We need to provide the very best care and support for our veterans. When we send them to war, we are asking them and their families for a major sacrifice. We should face honestly and squarely what this sacrifice has meant for some veterans and we should work to provide care and support for them to deal with the problems they are suffering. We should also be clear about the strategic rationale for our involvement in these conflicts. The shadow ministers for foreign affairs and defence have made it clear that Labor supports Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan and also that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq. I fully support these positions. I was in Afghanistan in 2004 and have made very clear in previous speeches in this place that I believe there is a very strong strategic rationale for our presence there. However, I cannot accept that there is any logical or strategic rationale for our current involvement in Iraq. We need an exit strategy. I cannot support our continued presence in a conflict which has become a civil war and in which the majority of the local population does not want us involved. The Howard government needs to consider carefully the hidden costs that I have outlined today before it continues to refuse to provide any exit strategy or justifiable strategic rationale for the conflict in Iraq. As respected King’s College professor Lawrence Freedman said: In the end, if the Iraq war had brought the Iraqis a better life and us greater security, then—whatever the costs—it would seem ‘worth it’. Because it has been such a screw-up, then … it seems like a waste. I could not agree more. 76 76 17:08:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr HUNT —I wish to raise three grievances on behalf of my constituents on the Mornington Peninsula and around Western Port and the Bass Coast. The first grievance relates to shameful neglect on the part of the state government of Victoria where Rosebud Hospital is forcing new mothers and their babies out of its facility just four hours after the birth. Peninsula Health does a tremendous job and its different arms serve the community exceptionally well, but the red flag has been flying for a long while warning that the maternity unit at Rosebud Hospital is in desperate need of doctors. Despite that, the state government and the state minister have failed to deliver. The result is that Peninsula Health has been forced to close its obstetrics practice while maintaining a baby and mother unit at Rosebud Hospital. That means mothers on the southern peninsula will have to transfer to Frankston Hospital if they wish to be treated in a public hospital. They will give birth there and, as a result of the closure, will then be transferred from Rosebud Hospital by private car or possibly ambulance within four to six hours of having given birth. I repeat: within four to six hours of having given birth, new mothers and their newborns will be transferred from one hospital to another, potentially by private car. That is what is happening to health on the Mornington Peninsula right now. This is not a surprise. It was foreseen, but nothing was done. The result is that Peninsula Health was wedged by its own government and given no choice. The position is very clear: I call on the Premier and the state Minister for Health, Bronwyn Pike, to redress this situation immediately, to provide the necessary resources so that the obstetrics unit and practice at Rosebud Hospital can be maintained beyond 16 April and to heed the words of mothers such as Sally Anne Gertz, who has given birth to three children at Rosebud Hospital and who is pregnant with a fourth child. She would very much like to give birth to that child at Rosebud Hospital. She has warned that mothers who are bundled into a car four or six hours after giving birth may decide that the trauma is such that they simply want to get home. That presents a real health risk to mother and newborn beyond the inconvenience and frustration for residents of the southern peninsula. This is a real issue that affects numerous families and it is likely to have real and significant consequences if it is not addressed. The front of the latest Mornington Peninsula Leader carries the headline ‘Babies out in four hours’. That is not an acceptable standard today anywhere in Australia. The state government should rethink its practice, its decision and its failure to adequately resource a wonderful local hospital. It should do so immediately so that these services are maintained after 16 April and mothers and babies can be treated properly at Rosebud Hospital on the Mornington Peninsula. The second item I want to raise about health and medical treatment on the Mornington Peninsula relates not only to that area but also to the rest of Victoria. I refer to capital support for families caring for adult offspring suffering from spasticity. Last Friday my wife, Paula, and I had the great privilege of receiving debutantes from Disabilities Opportunities Victoria. The debutantes have significant mental physical disabilities—including Down syndrome, spasticity and other conditions. It was perhaps one of the most enjoyable and certainly most moving events I have been associated with in my time as a member of parliament. It was a debutante ball for people who are often on the fringes of society. They were the focus of the 300 people who attended the function. They were dressed beautifully and were proud of who they are and what they have been taught. In the midst of this celebration, it was made clear to me that the executive of Disabilities Opportunities Victoria, which operates in Rosebud and which works on a non-profit basis for the community, was dumbfounded that it had virtually no access to capital to upgrade buildings that are 20 years old, if not more. Despite this being a core state responsibility, they had no access to any real additional funds. I know from talking with others that this is a real problem not just for this one group but throughout the state of Victoria. The people who suffer are those who have real and significant needs. Those adults with significant mental disability and physical challenges are the people who suffer from precisely this lack of funding. I respectfully but adamantly call on the Premier to reverse this practice of starving organisations that deal with adults with mental disability or extreme physical disability of vitally needed capital. They are volunteer organisations or ones that work on a not-for-profit basis. They are absolutely the foundation stone of our community. The 300 people who were at the debutante ball for Disability Opportunities Victoria last Friday recognise that. They know that something more is needed for these people who in many cases are in great need. This brings me to the third area of concern that I have, which is in relation to our farmers and rural folk on the Mornington Peninsula, around Westernport and in Bass Coast. For many months now, I, along with Russell Broadbent and other members in this House, have been pushing the Victorian government to apply for Commonwealth exceptional circumstances funding for rural communities. The irony here is that we have spent months pushing for the state government of Victoria to seek Commonwealth funding. Because there is a dual-funding mechanism involved here, it is a dual key solution. The state makes a preliminary decision and the Commonwealth approves it. What we saw was a period of enormous delay. Over months, Russell Broadbent and I have been contacted by farmers—such as Stewart Winchester from Anderson in my electorate of Flinders—from Phillip Island, Bass, Woolamai, Lang Lang, Yannathan and so many other small towns. All of them had been told by the state that the state was not in a position to apply. But there was no barrier to the pursuit of funding for exceptional circumstances at Commonwealth level. What did we see? We had to wage a campaign at the local level to force the state to apply for exceptional circumstances funding for farmers on the Mornington Peninsula in the southern regions of the City of Casey, the Shire of Cardinia, the Shire of Bass Coast and the Shire of South Gippsland. It was a bizarre situation in which the state was avoiding seeking Commonwealth funding because it would have triggered a potential liability for itself. The result is that, after many months of pressure, they finally applied and Minister McGauran turned it around within two weeks. The minister for agriculture turned it around immediately and announced last Friday that there would be funding for these areas within Victoria. All of Victoria is now drought declared. Unfortunately, he was not able to do this earlier because the trigger which was necessary had not been pulled by the state. Now we have done that. For some of our farmers, it will be too late. For many of them, I hope that we are able to help with assistance payments and with access to a range of different benefits. But I say to the Victorian government: please, never again delay when our farmers’ livelihoods are on the line. (Time expired) 78 78 17:18:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon to address concerns in the tourism industry about the performance of the industry and, more especially, the lack of performance of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey. Let us first look at the performance of the minister. A search of Hansard reveals that the minister has spoken a total of 10 times in parliament on tourism matters. I note grins on the faces of the Liberal Party members from Victoria, who covet her position on the front bench—which might fall to them at some point in the future should they finally take her out for nonperformance. She did not even manage to walk to the dispatch box once during the years of 2004 and 2005. I must say that I am surprised at this, because walking is a very beneficial exercise that should be encouraged, along with debate in this House. The minister did not speak once over a two-year period and has spoken only a total of 10 times in the last six years. That is a figure I can count on my two hands and exactly one-seventh of the number of times that I have stood before the House and spoken about tourism. I would also point out that I have placed 35 questions on notice relating to tourism and the public record, some of which she is tardily answering. Around a quarter of these were asked before I accepted the portfolio three years ago. I also find it difficult to accept that she has sought to frustrate some freedom of information requests that I have made, despite the fact that I have put forward the appropriate initial contribution to facilitate that process financially. I have also spoken a total of 70 times in contributing to parliamentary debate relating to tourism issues. I note that the member for Moncrieff asked a question about where the Labor Party was on tourism. Perhaps the member for Moncrieff—who also covets the position of tourism minister—should have a quiet word with his colleagues about the performance of the minister for tourism. As a result of her absence from the debate, he is frequently engaged in discussions with the industry and colleagues about the fact that he would do a better job than her, because he also regards her as being missing in action. Let us go to some more serious issues. There is a huge question mark about the performance of the industry in the minds of a lot of people in the tourism industry at this particular point in time. It is about time that we had a factual debate and confronted the sluggishness of the tourism industry both domestically and internationally under the so-called leadership of the minister for tourism. That is the real question that we should be discussing in the House—what is the Howard government doing about the lack of leadership at a federal level from the minister, and what is she going to do about turning this sluggishness around? I moved a second reading amendment to the Tourism Australia Amendment Bill that the House express its concern at the industry’s current poor health. This second reading amendment put on the record the concerns of the industry and the opposition about the tourism industry’s current poor health. The minister, for some strange reason, took exception to this aspect being highlighted in the House—in fact, she took exception to the entire amendment as being ‘very disappointing.’ I must say I am not surprised at her reaction. She does not want a debate on the health of the tourism industry because she knows that, if that happens, she is in trouble for nonperformance and nonleadership. That is why she does not like the opposition to talk about the facts. The fact is that international tourism increased by 0.6 per cent last year—just 0.6 per cent! And that was solely due to—guess what? An influx of tourists from Great Britain who came here for the Ashes series. Where would we have been without that cricket tour? If we did not have that, the minister would be scrambling to explain a deficit in the number of inbound tourists coming to our shores. Even the head of the Australian Tourism Export Council described the increase as ‘low’. He went on to say that, while the aim of attracting higher spending, longer staying visitors was paying off, the lack of growth in market share was a huge concern to Australia. I agree with the head of ATEC: it is a real concern. Global tourism has never been stronger yet we as a nation are not grasping our share of that growth. The rest of the world is increasing its market share but we as a nation are not. New and highly lucrative markets are emerging, and they are there for the taking, yet we are set to become a loser in missing some of these opportunities due to the lack of leadership from the minister for tourism. The minister was also in a rather defensive mode over my call for greater collaboration between the federal and state governments. She effectively said that she is not interested in that approach. I am aware that as a member of federal Labor it may be perceived that I have a natural bias against the federal government. So in my defence against the minister’s claim about this need for partnership—she believes that this aspect of the debate is absurd—I turn to the press. Last year, the Australian Financial Review—which even the opposition would have to agree is a reputable source—reported on two separate occasions that there was a serious case of pork barrelling going on in the Australian Tourism Development Program. Who signs off on that program? The minister for tourism. The rorting in fact benefited the member for Moncrieff, whose electorate received $100,000 to renovate—guess what? Dracula’s Haunted House. I am sure the minister for tourism has visited that tourism opportunity. But that was not the only skeleton in the closet of the government’s pork-barrelling spending spree. The minister’s own electorate of McEwen received the maximum possible amount through the program of half a million dollars for a marketing program. That is not for bad on the pork barrelling for the minister for tourism, especially in her own backyard, which neighbours the member for Scullin’s electorate. In fact, of the 45 grants allocated under the program in the latest round, 30 were made to coalition seats and four were bestowed on Independents. Is this an example of the minister’s collaboration between the federal and state governments? Not from what I hear from state and territory transport ministers. They consider that the government is dishing out taxpayer funded grants totalling $31 million under the program to Liberal seats. I understand the member for Aston is concerned about the lack of attention from his minister for tourism. I would not be upset if I were him. It is not really surprising, then, given all of this, that the minister dismisses the opposition’s call to heed caution in accepting a broadening of the ministerial powers regarding the termination of board members. On the basis of our concerns about her signing off on tourism grants, we should express concern about the minister being given additional powers. The Australian public and the tourism industry in particular should be worried about giving greater powers to this minister. This is a minister who travelled in deluxe style to London last year on tourism business and left the Australian taxpayer behind to pick up a tab of over $30,000 for her first-class flights alone. Accommodation for her lavish three-day trip totalled over $8,000. She obviously likes to live the high life. All up, the minister managed to rack up a daily bill of around $16,000. I am not sure, on the basis of her performance, that she is actually worth $16,000 a day. I think that sort of spending definitely constitutes a high-yield tourist but not a high-performing minister for tourism in the form of Minister Fran Bailey. I raise these issues because they are serious issues of concern to the tourism industry and to the Australian taxpaying public at large. They are about accountability and a potential loss of investment and jobs in Australia. That is obviously something that is of vital concern to the future operation of Tourism Australia. We will be closely monitoring potential vacancies that come up around the middle of this year to Tourism Australia appointments. It is about making sure that the Tourism Australia board is filled with people from the industry who have the capacity to contribute to growth. I will also say in conclusion that applications are currently open for further grants under the Australian government’s Australian Tourism Development Program. I only hope that, on this occasion, the grants are awarded on the basis of merit, not whether they are coalition seats and where they sit on the electoral pendulum. The tourism industry is too important to be a political football, for the minister to try to curry votes on the coalition side on the parliament or for the purposes of pork barrelling with the fast approaching election. I also note in that regard that she has held back a considerable amount of money, which should have already been made available to the industry for key tourism projects around Australia, for the purposes of massive pork barrelling in the second half of this year in the lead-up to the election. That money should not have been held back; it should have already been used in the tourism industry to assist a struggling tourism industry, both domestically and internationally. The minister stands condemned for nonperformance. (Time expired) 80 80 17:29:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —Salaam alaikum. Earlier this month, I was privileged to attend the farewell to regional task force No. 2 to Afghanistan in the presence of Major General Ash Power and Brigadier Andrew Smith. Many units have assisted in the preparation for RTF2—these things just do not happen by themselves—including assistance from volunteers such as Vanessa Laverty and Michelle Potter, who have taken the initiative to form a support group named Partners and Families of Soldiers in Afghanistan. Assistance also came from Defence Material Organisation, Defence Community Organisation, Defence Housing Authority, 2nd Health Support Battalion, Gallipoli Barracks Dental Unit, Headquarters 7 Brigade and the garrison units, JLU-South Queensland, Defence Support group, and JMCO Brisbane. I was very impressed with the speech given by Lieutenant Colonel Harry Jarvie, who is the CO of the reconstruction task force, and I want the parliament to hear what he told all of us who were present that afternoon at Gallipoli Barracks, Enoggera. He said: First of all, congratulations on being selected to play for Australia. At some stage, every Aussie kid dreams of playing for Australia, and I am now beginning to understand how proud and excited Ricky Ponting and George Gregan must feel when they pull on the green and gold, and lead their teams into a World Cup campaign. Like the Wallabies, we scoured the country to find the best players available, and have brought together the most powerful and capable combined arms group possible, drawn from over 35 units of the Army, Navy and Air Force. On the 8th of January this year, we came together and started training with the objective of turning a team of champions into a champion team. We have not done this on our own. And in particular, I would like to recognise the efforts of the Commander 7 Bde, BRIG Smith and the team at the Combat Training Centre and the other units which have provided the specialist coaching that was necessary to allow me to be on the paddock training with my team. Its early days yet. We have just finished pre-season training, and over the past two weeks we have had a good hit out against the guys at the Combat Training Centre. But no-one can predict how the rest of the year will pan out, and I for one do not underestimate the enormous challenges that lay before us. However, what I would say is that this is the best team Australia has ever fielded, and I for one am enormously proud to be a part of it and to lead you onto the paddock. And you should be proud of yourselves too. You were selected for this mission because you were the best man or woman for the job. You have trained hard, and you have been tested on the recent Mission Rehearsal Exercise, and found to be well and truly ready for the task ahead. Like every other Australian Soldier before you, you probably have some questions in your head about whether you’re good enough, or whether we are good enough. That’s good, because it means you want to be even better. But rest assured, I have worked with a lot of other armies in my time, and I can guarantee that you are the best trained, best equipped and best supported task force ever raised. The final point I would like to make is regarding the importance of this mission. In our democratic society, there will always be debate about how the ADF should or should not be used. So let me make my views clear. The people of Afghanistan have suffered more than a quarter of a century of wars, starting on Christmas Eve 1979 when Russia occupied the country. When the Russians withdrew in 1989, the power vacuum was filled by warring factions. By the mid 90’s, the Taliban had gained the ascendency and ruled through terror and brutality, perverting the Islam faith to achieve their own political ends. They destroyed what was left of the education and health infrastructure in the country, and they denied women their basic human rights. Moreover, they offered a lawless sanctuary where international terrorist organisations were able to train and operate with relative impunity. We know this now, because we all bore witness to the result on September 11, 2001, and then closer to home on October 12, 2002, when the Bali bombings killed 202 people including 89 Australians, and left 209 others with serious injuries. Twenty odd years ago, I joined the Army because I wanted to do something in the service of my nation. And right now, I am absolutely certain that there is nothing more important in terms of protecting the safety of Australians world-wide, than the mission that we are about to embark upon. There are a lot of good people in Afghanistan, and Australia has a longstanding relationship with the Afghan people, dating back to early white settlement when the Afghan camel trains would move stores through our deserts, and are now honoured by the name of the Ghan Railway that travels between Adelaide and Darwin. We will give the people of Afghanistan a chance to choose a better future for their children. We will support the new democratically elected Government of Afghanistan, as it works to repair the damage of over 25 years of war, and we will show the people of Uruzgun Province that the future is far better without the Taliban. At the end of our mission, Uruzgun Province will be a safer place, and the people there will be able to see the value of working in partnership with the international community which will ultimately lead to the defeat of the Taliban and the criminals who would otherwise try to bully and intimidate the people into supporting them. In the end, it will be the people’s choice, but we must set the conditions to give them the freedom and courage to stand up for themselves. Colonel Jarvie went on to say: Ladies and Gentlemen, I would now like to focus my attention on our families and friends. You are the backbone of our organisation. Without your support we would not have been able to train and prepare, and we would not be able to focus our complete and undivided attention on the task before us. Earlier, I drew parallels between RTF2 and our national teams such as the Australian Cricket team or the Wallabies. In that context, I see our families and friends as the “Fanatics”. That bunch of Aussies who will support the Australian Team come what may. As a husband and father, and my mother’s son, I recognise the enormous burden we place on our families each time we head overseas to do our job, and the sacrifices that we collectively make. But equally, I also know that you are strong, and that you will stand shoulder to shoulder with us. And through you, we will draw strength; the strength that comes from unity of purpose and a shared commitment to a safer and more secure world. I thank Colonel Jarvie for those wonderful words to his troops. The RTF2 is an amalgam of D Company 1st Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, Big Blue 1, 2CER, which is providing the construction-engineer element, and the 2nd/14th Light Horse Brigade based at Enoggera. These wonderful people have all come together as a team. I pay tribute to the modern Australian Defence Force. In the last month we have seen the 1st Battalion—an infantry battalion—simultaneously deploy to three different theatres. One company went to Iraq, one went to Afghanistan and one went to Timor. It would have been unheard of just a few years ago to think that that could ever have happened but these days, with the mix and match capability of our operational commanders, with the flexibility that exists in the Australian Defence Force, we can have this wonderful outcome where we can send the best people to the places which will best use their talents, and we are able to do that with the minimum of fuss. Earlier in the speech I said that, in this particular deployment, people were drawn from 35 different units. It is a great tribute to the current operational capability of the Australian Defence Force. I conclude on another note. The future of another team augurs well indeed. Today I am wearing the tie of the North Queensland Cowboys, the premier rugby league team in the competition, They have opened the season with two magnificent wins. Certainly, people in North Queensland are supporting our cowboys. That team has the largest number of Indigenous players and has the largest number of first-grade players in higher education. It is a wonderful achievement for the North Queensland Cowboys, and I wish them well in the coming season. 82 17:38:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —In this grievance debate I will allow the cowboys comment to go through, but there can be no grievance about the comments made by the member for Herbert in wishing well those ADF personnel who were deployed from Townsville, many of whom would be in his electorate. I do have a grievance that the government, through the Prime Minister, has not made a major statement about those deployments in this place for quite some time. This is a theme that I will return to until it is done, because I think that it is appropriate for there to be proper parliamentary scrutiny of government policy. But the main thing today, in supporting the comments of the honourable member for Herbert, is to indicate that those on this side who might have some differences about some aspects of the deployment have no differences in wishing well those who serve on behalf of our country. We know that they are professionals, we know that they are well trained, we hope that they are well kitted and equipped and we wish them all the best and a speedy return. 10000 Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question agreed to. 83 Bills R2732 83 Bills R2687 83 Bills R2682 83 Bills R2685 83 Bills R2683 83 Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 83 Committees 83 83 83 17:40:00 Corcoran, Ann (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Corcoran) —Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. I do not propose to read these messages, which will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 83 Bills R2706 83 Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be considered at the next sitting. 83 Bills R2673 83 Bill returned from the Senate with a request for amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be considered at the next sitting. 83 Bills R2674 83 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 84 Bills R2684 84 Bill returned from the Senate with a request for amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be considered at the next sitting. 84 Bills R2721 84 Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Mr Andrews: That this bill be now read a second time. 84 17:43:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —The Migration Legislation Amendment (Information and Other Measures) Bill 2007 is fairly straightforward and makes various minor amendments to various pieces of legislation, but it raises some concern about the government’s administration of this portfolio and, as has been put by members from this side, given the fact that the government believe there to be serious deficiencies in some of the amendments that they made in early 2004, why has this legislation taken three years to come to this place? The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s second reading speech indicated that, with respect to those measures which were put in place by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Identification and Authentication) Act 2004: The provisions impose criminal penalties in relation to the access and disclosure of personal information, unless that access or disclosure is expressly permitted. The minister went on to say: It has become apparent that the list of permitted disclosures and access grounds is too limited. My department’s ability to continue normal working practices is being seriously hampered. This was because they could not get access to the information on personal identifiers such as signatures, photographs, height and weight measurements, fingerprints, iris scans and audio and video recordings for some of the processes that they would require to investigate and prosecute under other pieces of migration legislation. So we have the situation in which, three years down the track, we are having some appropriate changes put in the legislation to enable this data to be used. We have the situation in which there is an amendment to ensure that somebody who asks for the disclosure of their own identifiers can do this without having to resort to an FOI application. The bill also makes amendments to other pieces of legislation—such as the Fisheries Amendment Act, the Torres Strait Fisheries Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—of a similar nature to enable those things that have been done in the pursuit of illegal fishers to be carried out. I think that we have seen the need for strong legislation in this area that stacks up against appropriate privacy provisions and that is as transparent as is possible. Other agencies and even the Defence Force have to be able to use the pieces of legislation with some certainty to ensure that the tasks that they have been given are able to be carried out. The pursuit of illegal fishers, especially in northern waters, has become a very important activity. It is an important activity not only because of economic reasons, environmental reasons and damage to the fishing areas but also because of the fact that there is a large crossover between illegal fishers and the potential for these boats to be illegally used for the movement of human cargo, as desperate asylum seekers pay these illegal fishers to reach our shores. As I said, the Navy need to be certain, for instance, that when they are carrying out their tasks, they have legal backing. Over the last 12 months or so we have had discussion on floating brigs in northern waters. Fortunately, I think there has been dampened enthusiasm for that, and we are continuing business as usual. There needs to be sufficient ability and capacity for the boats that are making the interventions to bring illegal fishers onshore to the detention facility in Darwin, for instance. The capacity of the Navy, through the change from the Fremantle class to the Armidale class vessels, is important in this endeavour. I have been interested in following this debate, and last Thursday I was a little surprised by the intervention by the honourable member for Moreton in this debate which, despite the narrow nature of the piece of legislation, has managed to be a wide-ranging debate about the nature of our migration program. I thought it was a little over the top for the honourable member for Moreton to characterise the attitudes to migration of either side of this place as being something of great difference and moment. For instance, he made the assertion that the Liberal and National parties see migration as a nation-building exercise, whereas—he went on to say—the Australian Labor Party, through their efforts in office, have always seen it as a constituency-building exercise. I thought that was pretty much low-rent. I did not think that it added anything to the debate, especially coming from the member from Moreton who, as a former minister in this portfolio area, should know a great deal better. It ignored the history of modern Australian migration. It ignored the important decisions that have been made in the past by the Australian Labor Party, where there had to be conscious change of policy to move towards a non-discriminatory attitude to migration. We have always seen migration as an important aspect of the way in which this nation progresses. To characterise our attitude in the way that the honourable member for Moreton did was monstrous. If we look at many of the areas that are represented in this place by members of the Australian Labor Party, we see that members on this side represent parts of Australia that are as diverse as we can imagine. To dwell on the electorate of Scullin, which I have the honour of representing in this place, the diversity of background of the people of Scullin is one of its great strengths. These are people who have migrated over the last 60-odd years, from before the Second World War, with a large burst of migration, mainly from southern European countries, post the Second World War. We have then seen waves from every part of the globe which continue to this day and will continue in the future. These people have undoubtedly made a contribution to the way in which Australia has developed economically. But, importantly, they have made a great contribution to the way in which Australia has developed culturally. That is something that people cannot argue about. It is there; it happens. It is of no use to talk about the types of words that we use for it. At the end of the day, my electorate is multicultural. But those people absolutely understand that they are Australian, that they play a part and a role in the development of Australia in the 21st century. And they understand that their migration to Australia and the contribution of their families are part of a nation-building exercise—a nation-building exercise that has had the support, right throughout the decades, of the Australian Labor Party. The member for Moreton then went on to regrettably indicate that he believed that, in some way, when there are concerns expressed about the support given to new arrivals, if this was done by a state government agency or somebody representing a state government, it was a form of shifting the blame. At the end of the day, the migration program is something that is controlled by the Australian government. Welcoming new arrivals and assisting them to stand on their own within the communities that they live is a shared responsibility, and I acknowledge that. But it is dictated by the level of migration that the Australian government decides on and the regions to which these new arrivals go. The member for Moreton gave us an example, from when he was the minister, of a discussion he had in Shepparton about Iraqi arrivals getting drivers licences. He has to understand that even in small numbers the addition of those Iraqi women in a relatively small township like Shepparton is something that would stretch the resources of that community. Whilst there is and has been for quite some time an Iraqi community in Shepparton, what was really being put to him as minister was that assisting these people into the community requires additional support and that the Commonwealth government, the Australian government, could act in partnership with local agencies and the local community. Later in his speech, the member for Moreton, in talking about his local area in Brisbane, gave an example where he lauded intervention by the Commonwealth government in assisting new arrivals with haircuts, of all things. I am not being demeaning, because this is something that must have been a problem for the local community. It is something that we take for granted, something that is not earth shattering, but for cultural reasons the local community needed to address it. It is proper and appropriate that the Commonwealth government is involved in partnership to address those sorts of problems. The northern MRC cover my electorate and a large part of northern Melbourne. They were quite proud that they were educating new arrivals on what the city of Melbourne had to offer for recreation and the like. They thought they were opening doors in Melbourne for new arrivals. They would put the latest batch of new arrivals on a bus, take them down through the member for Melbourne’s electorate to places like Lygon Street and then to Melbourne Ports, to St Kilda, and different places in the city. When the MRC did a follow-up, they found that none of the families on those introductory tours had ever left their homes in East Preston, Thomastown or Lalor, and the MRC said, ‘Are we wasting our time?’ They realised they had done these people a disservice by hiring the bus, putting them on it and taking them to these places. With a bit of lateral thinking, they found it was of greater value to take them on excursions using public transport, introducing them to public transport. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not think I need to tell you that, whilst that is an interesting aside, local communities with limited resources have great difficulties in assisting these people. My contention is: if you take the northern suburbs of Melbourne, for all of the post-World War II period, whether it be the inner suburbs of Carlton, Fitzroy or Collingwood, right out to the outer northern suburbs of Epping, Mill Park, Lalor and Thomastown, we have received and welcomed greater than our fair share of new arrivals. That is the nature of the migration program. It is not earth shattering, it is not rocket science, but some communities are called upon to have greater input and responsibility than others. If the member for Moreton, a former minister for multiculturalism, cannot see that the Australian government needs to be involved with those communities in providing opportunities for new arrivals, I think he misunderstands the nature of modern migration in Australia in the 21st century. If people arriving in Australia with little concept of paper money are told that in order to gain Centrelink benefits they have to have a bank account, it is a completely alien notion to them. They are then told that their bank account will be accessed through a plastic card that they put in a machine. These are very large hurdles that take a great deal of time to explain to and educate people about the way things are done in the Australian context. These are simple matters in the day-to-day lives of new arrivals, but when we have to house these people, assist in training them to gain economic benefits through fulfilment in employment, these are extensive hardships on local communities that have ended up taking greater numbers of new arrivals. Having been enraged by the comments of the member for Moreton, I hope that, in further discussions about this important area of public policy—that is, migration—we do not have sideshow debates that inflame people into thinking that there are any improper motives for promoting migration. It is important that, when we have a large debate going on, people are reminded of the tolerance and harmony that have welcomed new arrivals to Australia. I would much prefer that the honourable member for Moreton look at the speech of his colleague the honourable member for McMillan, who talked about the positive nature of migration and the positive efforts that are made by local communities to welcome those new arrivals. To the extent that the provisions within the legislation that we are debating tonight are delayed a little, they are at least appropriate. I hope they are covered sufficiently by the overarching privacy legislation but enable the use of the information in proper and appropriate ways so that this piece of legislation can go forward. One of the great challenges that the Australian parliament will face is the way in which the forms of identifying information that are spoken about in this legislation, illegal migration matters and the like are expanded upon to the wider community. As a transit passenger through Los Angeles airport three or four weeks ago, I was fingerprinted and a photograph was taken of my retina. After 14 hours on a plane, I did not have the opportunity to argue the toss about what the information was going to be used for. There are going to be large databanks throughout the globe that have this information. What this debate today has to be about—and continue to be about—is the appropriate use of that legislation to ensure that those who have done something wrong pay a penalty and that those who have not done anything wrong do not have their information misused. With those comments, I indicate my support for the legislation. 87 18:02:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 Mr TANNER —We are dealing with a number of amendments to the Migration Act this evening in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Information and Other Measures) Bill 2007, which the opposition broadly supports. These amendments relate to the requirement for people who are seeking to enter Australia’s migration zone unlawfully to provide identifying information upon apprehension. These identifying requirements refer to things such as photographs, fingerprints and the like. There are also some technical changes proposed to the rules governing records of individual movements and some changes with respect to offences relating to illegal fishing. The immediate backdrop to the provisions that are put before the parliament this evening is the ongoing debate about asylum seekers and people smuggling, the requirements of border protection in this country, and section 457 visas and the introduction of temporary skilled—and, in some cases, not that skilled—workers into Australia for the purposes of filling positions in areas of skills shortage. These issues that I have identified as the wider backdrop are highly charged. There has been vigorous debate both inside and outside the parliament over a number of years about precisely how the government ought to deal with these questions of asylum seekers, border protection, illegal fishing, immigration arrangements and skilled workers. I would like to deal with a matter this evening that is part of the wider backdrop to these debates from a more historical perspective. It is an important element in the wider picture of debate about the rules for immigration in this country and our attitude towards multiculturalism, race and immigration. Some of these issues were canvassed by my friend the member for Scullin; they are all part of the same wider picture. I speak this evening without any intention to criticise the government on some of its positions on these matters—not that I am uncritical of the government on a number of aspects of its policy in this areas, but that is for another time. This evening, I want to place on the record some observations with respect to a very important historical event that occurred yesterday: the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire. Legislation was passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords in 1807, and that decision really set an underlying foundation for a whole lot of debates—both in Britain and in countries that are derived from Britain, such as ours—over the ensuing 200 years. It has echoed throughout those debates on race, immigration and racial discrimination for 200 years. It is very important that we in this parliament acknowledge the crucial nature of that decision and its importance to the evolution of attitudes in our nation, particularly as it occurred at a very early stage of Australia’s history and reflected the role of a number of people, including those who were crucial to the establishment of Australia. It is an important thing for the Australian parliament to acknowledge. Britain was not the first nation to abolish the slave trade. It is probably true to say that there were some societies and communities in that era where slavery was unknown. It is important to recognise that the first substantial nation to abolish slavery was France, in 1794. On 4 February 1794, the Jacobin regime, after having already seriously restricted the slave trade, voted to completely abolish slavery throughout the French Empire. Sadly, that decision was one that was ultimately reversed by Napoleon, and it was not until 1848 that the French Empire finally returned to its position of 1794 of complete abolition of slavery. It is also important to note that several of the British colonies, as they then were, in the United States—they were in the process of moving from being British colonies to being part of the United States—had abolished slavery prior to the British decision. They included New Jersey and Delaware, which abolished slavery outright, and Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island, which abolished the slave trade. Also, apparently, Denmark abolished slavery in March 1792, with respect to both its own territory and its colonies, although it is probably true to say that Denmark was not exactly a major imperial power at that time and there were probably not very many slaves within Danish jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that the Danes were early movers on this very important front. Given the British heritage that is still proudly at the heart of the Australian nation and certainly something that I hold very dear, and given the ongoing debates in this country about race, multiculturalism and the nature of immigration, I think that the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery is a very important milestone and one that the Australian parliament should acknowledge. It is worth noting that slavery was made illegal in the United Kingdom itself in 1102—a very long time ago—and the practice of villeinage, as it was called, endured until the early 17th century, but the formal institute of slavery was abolished at a very early stage in Britain. In 1562 Sir John Hawkins led the first British slave voyage, which kidnapped people from what is now Senegal and Sierra Leone and took them to British colonies in the Caribbean. By the early 18th century, slaves were being brought to the UK to serve as domestic servants in cities like London and Edinburgh, and there were thought to be somewhere between 10,000 and 14,000 slaves—overwhelmingly black Africans—in Britain at that time. But in 1772 Lord Chief Justice Mansfield ruled in Somerset’s case that a slave who had been in the United Kingdom and had escaped could not be returned to his erstwhile owners because British law did not recognise slavery and there was no legal entitlement on the part of the slave’s owners to reclaim his person. That was an important landmark in British law in the process of the abolition of slavery. The antislavery campaign in the UK originated with the Quakers, interestingly enough, in the American colonies in the 1740s and 1750, and then spread from the American colonies into Britain itself. In 1783 the Society of Friends, or the Quakers, as they were called, petitioned parliament against the slave trade, established a campaign committee and began to distribute leaflets and undertake lobbying against slavery. In 1787 the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was established. Other groups such as the evangelical or Clapham Sect wing of the Anglican Church and the Wesleyan Methodists began to be drawn into the campaign during this period in the mid-1780s. In 1787 Lord and Lady Middleton, who had been drawn into the campaign by their own priest, persuaded William Wilberforce, who was a Tory, to move in parliament for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. He was also influenced by a number of other key figures who had become very prominent in the campaign, such as Thomas Clarkson, who in many respects deserves recognition as perhaps the great unknown hero of the campaign to abolish slavery. Wilberforce, rightly, is revered around the world for his role—and there is no challenge to that on my part—but many others were involved in the campaign and often received little serious acknowledgement for their contribution. I will refer to Clarkson again in a little while. Wilberforce moved his motion, and in 1788 parliament voted on it. Because Wilberforce was ill at the time, William Pitt the Younger took over as the mover of the motion. The motion was supported by such luminaries as Edmund Burke and Charles James Fox—so some of the great figures of the day in the British political scene supported the motion. It passed the House of Commons but failed in the House of Lords, which was a fate that would meet subsequent attempts to abolish the slave trade on a number of occasions. The campaign continued and attracted support from other very prominent figures in British society, such as Josiah Wedgwood and John Wesley. It is interesting that Wilberforce was a Tory—he was a conservative—but largely relied on the Whigs for his support, including many of the most prominent figures of the day: Henry Brougham, who went on to be a major education reformer, Richard Sheridan and William Grenville. Several attempts were made, particularly around 1804-05, to pass the legislation, but, again, the Commons passed the legislation but it was lost in the Lords. Finally, after an extended period of Tory government and notwithstanding Wilberforce being a Tory—Wilberforce was unable to persuade enough of his own party to support his position—there was a brief interlude from 1806-07 of Whig government under Lord Grenville and finally the legislation that had been so long promoted by Wilberforce and others passed the House of Commons and then the House of Lords. The campaign continued in that this legislation was merely to abolish the slave trade, so it did not actually remove the status of ‘slave’ from individuals who were legally in the British Empire as slaves. What it did was to abolish the capacity for people to trade—to buy and sell. It was not until 1833 that, finally, the legislation was passed to abolish slavery altogether throughout the British Empire. Sadly, in that year William Wilberforce died. Several years later, in 1839, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society was established, and it continued the battle to oppose and eradicate slavery throughout the British Empire, because the mere passage of legislation by itself was not necessarily a guarantee of what would occur on the ground, particularly given the far-flung and disparate nature of the British Empire at that time and, subsequently, in the latter part of the 19th century. To conclude on this point, there are a number of points that I think are worth noting. The first is the enormous role played by slaves themselves in their own liberation, the most famous of which is of course the slave revolt in 1791 on the then French island of Saint-Domingue, now Haiti, led by one of the most amazing early revolutionary leaders, Toussaint L’Ouverture. That revolt in effect established Haiti as the first independent nation in the Caribbean and was perhaps the trigger for that 1794 decision by the French regime, the Jacobins, to abolish slavery altogether. It is also important to note that, sadly, as well as black Africans playing a major role in opposing the slave trade, fighting against it and resisting it, many were of course involved in the trade. We need to acknowledge that it was not just Westerners, it was not just imperialists, but there was a very substantial involvement in the institution of slavery, in the trade of slavery, on the part of people in places like Ghana, Senegal and the like. Also, slavery and the slave trade did persist in many parts of the British Empire after these decisions, in some cases with the active connivance of the British authorities. For example, in Mauritius, which was captured from the French in 1810 and which had a slave based economy, there was active looking the other way with respect to the continuation of the slave trade for some time. It is also important to note that, sadly, slavery can be found in many guises in many parts of the world today. That is something that we ought to keep in our minds when we are considering this very important 200th anniversary. I mentioned Thomas Clarkson before. It is important that we acknowledge that, although Wilberforce has ended up being the person who has received the credit for this decision and for the campaign, and he clearly deserves all the credit he has received, there are many others who also deserve credit and who have largely lacked it. Thomas Clarkson is perhaps the most outstanding example—a man who literally spent years hanging around the docks in Liverpool and in Bristol, gathering evidence of the appalling nature of the slave trade, the appalling denial of human dignity, the appalling denial of human rights. He gave hundreds of public lectures. He put together enormous dossiers of factual material, exhibits of things like leg-irons, and diagrams of slave vessels and the extent to which individuals were crammed together in circumstances that are almost beyond belief. Clarkson also organised what is possibly the first known consumer boycott, where somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000 Britons signed up to a campaign to refuse to buy and use slave-produced sugar. So he is a really crucial figure in this history and is very little known. I think it is important that we acknowledge the contribution of both him and others. It is also important to acknowledge that—as came out in an article by Keith Windschuttle in the Australian on the weekend—numerous key figures in early Australian history had a significant position on these issues. Prior to the settlement of Australia, Governor Arthur Phillip—who of course led the establishment of the colony at Sydney Cove in 1788—set out very clearly in a memo to Lord Sydney, the Colonial Secretary, that he would vigorously oppose any slavery in Australia. That is not as silly as it sounds, because at that time slavery was a widespread element in British colonies in many parts of the world, particularly in the Caribbean. So that position on the part of Governor Phillip is important to acknowledge. Equally, there was Governor Lachlan Macquarie, whose second wife, I think, inherited some slaves. Macquarie and his wife took the decision to free those slaves. Other governors of early New South Wales also took a strong position in opposition to slavery. It is important to keep in mind that, at that stage, the governors of New South Wales were part of a military establishment and, in a sense, moving backwards and forwards between Britain itself, other posts and New South Wales, so they were part of a wider debate that was going on within the British Empire about the institution of slavery. We can be proud that the people who were the early leaders of what became the Australian nation actually played a role in opposing slavery and contributing to the public debate that ultimately led to its abolition within the British Empire. I think this debate is a very important part of our history both as a nation and as part of the wider British Empire for an extended period of time. It also reminds us how important it is that we take action on issues of slavery in the modern era. It reminds us of how insidious, how appalling, how vicious the notion of racial inferiority is and what appalling human consequences it has led to both in recent times and also, more particularly, in that awful era from the mid-16th century through to the 19th century. In that era, thousands upon thousands of human beings from Africa were kidnapped, treated with the most unbelievable brutality, torn apart from their families, in many cases killed or starved, and mistreated beyond belief—all as the basis to establish an economic advantage in the New World; all as the basis to build a plantation economy in many parts of the Caribbean and other parts of the New World. It was all based on values of greed and brutality and total contempt and disdain for the lives, the communities and the families of others because they were different, because they were not industrialised, because they lived in a different social context, because they did not have the same military technology and were susceptible to being conquered, brutalised and mistreated. So it is very important for us today to acknowledge this part of our history, to acknowledge the great courage and the great dedication, commitment and persistence of the William Wilberforces and the Thomas Clarksons of 200-odd years ago. Their dedication has helped to shape the modern era and helped to make us realise just how crucial these issues are, how awful racial discrimination is and where ultimately it can lead. I just wanted to acknowledge the importance of these sentiments, as we debate the intricacies and the details of issues like asylum seekers and immigration, and acknowledge that people of goodwill on both sides of the parliament consider them. We must commit ourselves always to eliminating all forms of racial discrimination; to ensuring that nobody, anywhere in the world, suffers from slavery; to ensuring that we treat people of different races who come to this country with compassion and decency; and to ensuring that our children are free of the kinds of racist mentalities that, in years, decades and centuries gone by, have led to the kinds of barbarities of which slavery is perhaps the most extreme. 92 18:23:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Assistant Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —I would like to acknowledge the member for Melbourne for his illustrative and informative speech about the ugly past of involuntary immigration, which is slavery. He spoke of the 200-year anniversary of the abolition of slavery. In summing up the Migration Legislation Amendment (Information and Other Measures) Bill 2007, I would like to thank members on both sides of the House for their contributions to the second reading debate on this bill, and I thank the opposition for their support. The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 and mirror provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 to address serious limitations in the provisions dealing with access to and disclosure of identifying information. Identifying information includes personal identifiers such as a person’s photograph, fingerprint or signature. Under all four acts it is an offence to access and disclose identifying information unless the access or disclosure comes under a list of permitted accesses and disclosures. The limited grounds upon which this information can be accessed and disclosed is affecting my department’s ability to continue a range of normal working practices, such as disclosing photographs and signatures to other very important agencies. The bill deals with this problem by adding some additional access and disclosure grounds to the four acts. These additional grounds are targeted at alleviating the most pressing difficulties being experienced under the current arrangements. For example, access and disclosure will be permitted where it is done to prevent or lessen a serious or imminent threat to life or health. My department will be able to disclose identifying information to the Migration Agents Registration Authority to assist in investigations into complaints against migration agents. Disclosure of identifying information to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will also be permitted to assist in investigations and prosecutions. The amendments in the bill to replace ‘noncitizen’ with ‘person’ in various disclosure grounds is to ensure that a permitted disclosure can still occur after the noncitizen from whom the information was collected has become a citizen. However, the act will continue to allow personal identifiers to be collected only to identify noncitizens. The bill will also broaden the ability of my department to disclose to a person that individual person’s movement records, thereby avoiding the need for the person to access their records through the freedom of information process. This will improve the service my department can provide to clients. The bill will also amend the definition of ‘fisheries detention offence’ in the Migration Act to ensure that enforcement visas are granted to noncitizens who have been brought to Australia in relation to new fisheries offences recently incorporated into the fisheries legislation. In summary, by expanding the currently limited grounds upon which identifying information can be accessed and disclosed, we will improve the efficiency of the operations within the department. The bill will also enhance client service by enabling the disclosure of an individual’s movement records to the individual to whom they relate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 93 Ms GAMBARO (Petrie —Assistant Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) 18:27:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 93 Bills R2642 93 Debate resumed from 11 October 2006, on motion by Mr Robb: That this bill be now read a second time. 93 18:28:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP 0 0 Mr BURKE —The Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 proposes measures to enhance identity verification at Australia’s immigration clearance points and to streamline immigration processing. The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Migration Act 1958 is to enable certain persons with an eligible passport to choose an automated system or a clearance officer in immigration clearance and to identify who may use an automated system. The bill also seeks to amend the Migration Act so that a special purpose visa may cease at a time specified by the minister, whereas currently the visa would only cease at midnight on the day of the ministerial declaration. The special purpose visa regime was designed to facilitate lawful travel and entry for low-risk groups of travellers. Persons eligible include crew members of non-military ships, air crew, foreign dignitaries and visiting members of overseas armed forces. The bill remedies the current situation where a declaration is made by the minister that a noncitizen should not remain in Australia, but action to detain that person for removal cannot occur until midnight on the day on which the declaration is made. Labor will be supporting the bill. The bill allows for the expansion of the government’s voluntary SmartGate system—that is, facial recognition technology—to all Australians citizens and selected noncitizens, provided they hold an eligible e-passport. While Labor will be supporting the bill, and while we support measures to enhance security verification and the speed of passenger clearance at Australia’s immigration clearance points, we are not convinced that the SmartGate system as proposed will actually deliver on those aims. I will discuss this in more detail later. The Australian Customs Service’s annual report of 2005-06 states that SmartGate is an automated passport-checking system which enables travellers with the appropriate eligible passports to move through passport control. Following a trial of the system, which was completed in June 2005, the version of SmartGate is to be progressively implemented throughout 2007. The system will only initially be available to holders of Australian e-passports, although it is planned to subsequently make it available to holders of eligible passports from other countries. The use of SmartGate is dependent on having, as I said, an eligible passport which at first, in other words, is an e-passport. This bill refers to the fact that an eligible passport will be determined by the proposed new section 175A, and the use of these automated systems by travellers will rely on the e-passport. Launched on 25 October 2005, the biometrically-enabled e-passport has a microchip embedded in the centre page which contains the digitised facial image and personal details of the passport holder. The microchip can be read electronically by facial recognition technology. When launching the e-passport the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that, as the processing facilities are progressively introduced in Australia and at overseas airports, the new technology will strengthen border security and streamline the movement of passengers through airports. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states on its website the advantages of the e-passport over the Australian passport, including that it provides greater protection against fraudulent misuse and tampering, that it reduces the risk of identity fraud—currently estimated to cost the Australian economy more than $1 billion each year—and also that it enhances the protection of Australia’s border through speedy and secure verification of incoming Australian passport holders. The introduction of e-passports internationally will continue to assist in streamlining international travel. For example, the Australian e-passport complies with changes in the Visa Waiver Program. The Visa Waiver Program in the United States enables travellers from certain countries who travel to the United States for tourism or business purposes and who stay for 90 days or less to do so without a visa. The Australian e-passport also complies with the United States’s requirements for e-passports introduced in October 2006 and has received initial United States Department of Homeland Security certification. The automated system will temporarily store the data electronically read from the embedded information stored on the microchip in the e-passport. This is only while it is used to process the relevant passenger. The information is then destroyed shortly after. The automated system will not collect—that is, permanently store—the relevant personal identifiers from these passports. This remains in keeping with the current policy intention, where passengers are required to present identification rather than have it collected. This creates a problem with the bill which is now being sought to be rectified through government amendments. The problem, where you set up the precautions that you will not actually collect personal identifiers, is that the signatures contained on passenger arrival cards are identified as being personal identifiers. Certainly it is not the intention that those passenger cards will be automatically destroyed in the same way that that computer information will be. With that in mind, the government has indicated it will be moving its own amendments to the bill, as certain amendments contained in the bill as it stands have that unintended consequence of actually preventing the collection of passenger cards from citizens and noncitizens arriving and departing Australia because they contain signatures. Signatures are defined, as I said, to be a personal identifier for the purposes of the Migration Act. The amendments being moved by the government to this bill preserve the current policy intention by allowing the collection of a person’s signature, but not any other personal identifier. The amendments also clarify that clearance is not restricted to wholly one or the other of the automated system or the immigration clearance officer. This clarifies that a passenger can hand their passenger card to an officer and still be cleared through the automated system. In accordance with this, Labor will be supporting those amendments. As I mentioned earlier, Labor supports the move towards the use of biometric technology for the purpose of identification. However, Labor does note that there has been some teething problems with SmartGate, the automated processing system to be used by the Australian government. The reliability of the technology, such as that used in the SmartGate system, has not been without criticism. On 5 September last year, the Australian Financial Review noted that industry insiders had identified: ... gaps in biometrics such as excessive error rates, a poor ability to find database matches and high sensitivity to varying conditions. The article referred to a senior policy analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology that has estimated that the accuracy rate for facial scanning is in fact only 90 per cent, whereas for fingerprints it is 99 per cent and for iris scanning it is 97 per cent. This 90 per cent accuracy for facial recognition carries the understandable problem that when you are checking facial recognition the expression somebody is holding on their face is going to be relevant to whether or not it is in fact recognised as matching the data that are being stored. The reliability and effectiveness of the SmartGate system was directly questioned by Dr Roger Clarke, a visiting fellow in the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology at the Australian National University, on ABC radio’s PM program back on 5 May last year. Dr Clarke stated that SmartGate will face difficulties because it is built on the assumption that a person’s face will always appear the same, when in reality that is rarely the case. He stated that this is particularly challenging when you are trying to do it in volume with large numbers of people passing through—and that is assuming that a person is not actively trying to confuse the machine. In the 2005-06 annual report, Australian Customs maintained that, although there were problems initially, by the time SmartGate comes into full operation next year, all the creases will be ironed out. Hopefully that statement was not unduly optimistic. To that extent, the Howard government is asking us to take the Customs assurances of successful IT contract management on faith and on face value. The problem is that we have just had the release of an audit report into Customs’ last IT project, which was the Customs cargo management system. That project was approved without a financial management plan, costed on the basis of a stab in the dark, and delivered years late and approximately $200 million over budget. Labor has good reason to question the government’s ability to manage the implementation of systems technology in this area. Risk profiling people coming into this country is critical for national security. We need to know who is coming into our country so we can do the background checks before they arrive. The same is true for sea and air cargo. Customs analyse sea and air cargo in Australia by computer to look at the cargo reports and check them against risk profiles. They have risk profiles for quarantine threats like fire ants and foot-and-mouth disease; there are health threats like anthrax, Ebola virus and bird flu; there are criminal threats like child pornography, cocaine, heroin, guns and ammunition; and there can be terrorism threats like nuclear material, precursor chemicals and bomb components. I would imagine, therefore, that the Australian people would be more than a little horrified to learn that the Howard government had actually disabled the security profiling for 12 days. Unfortunately that is precisely what happened. We heard in Senate estimates last month that, for 12 days, the Howard government turned 3,200 separate risk profiles off—they flicked the switch—when the Customs computer crashed as a result of the minister ordering that a half-ready and inadequately tested IT system be turned on. When Customs went back and risk profiled the sea cargo reports after the event, an indeterminate number of air cargo reports and import declarations were never checked. Whether or not they were valid, we just do not know. Is it any wonder that the Australian National Audit Office found that: 6.31         The deactivation of over 4,000 risk profiles over a period of several days presented a considerable risk to Australia’s border security and Customs’ revenue collection responsibilities. These profiles covered areas such as counter terrorism, illicit drugs, revenue, prohibited items and compliance. The rush to introduce technology to streamline processes such as this instance surely is a warning to the government about uncertain technology in other areas. The concern over the cargo risk profiling technology that left the security gates wide open for 12 days is that it was clearly implemented before it was ready. The government cannot tell us what might have got through because they do not include themselves. With a track record like that, it is very difficult for Labor to accept the government’s assurances that the same thing will not happen again. As international travel increases and security becomes more demanding, streamlined processing, while also enhancing identity verification, is clearly something we ought to be pursuing. However we have to ensure that it is accurate, feasible and robust. The national director of border intelligence for the Australian Customs Service commented in May 2006 that the biometric technology is urgently needed to deal with the increasing number of people arriving at Australian airports. The director stated that facial recognition technology has high accuracy levels. Unfortunately what the director would not reveal at Senate estimates was exactly what the level was during the SmartGate trials. In fact the director added that the system has been set so that it is more likely to reject somebody who should have been accepted rather than the other way around. You can understand those parameters being set. You want to make sure that people who need to be rejected in fact are. It was around this question of robustness that Senator Joseph Ludwig, then shadow minister for justice and customs, raised concerns that SmartGate may actually run the risk of causing undue delays to processing rather than alleviating congestion. SmartGate is intended to be an automated processing system to provide a voluntary alternative to manual processing at the border. The concern is that if this expensive technology is so sensitive to being confused and therefore more likely to direct people to manual processing than to automated processing then it does not actually appear to be that much of a ‘smart gate’ at all. In answers to questions on the implementation of SmartGate following the trial, an Australian Customs Service official stated during Senate estimates on 31 October last year: The idea is, at this stage, that the first implementation will be at the end of February next year in Brisbane. As I said, it is a development implementation to develop the model fully. Then we intend to move to Sydney and Melbourne after that. But that will be a few months off. It will probably be in the latter part of the next calendar year. So following the trial, the implementation of the system is, and I quote: ... a development implementation to develop the model fully. So we have had the trial and the implementation will be ‘a development implementation to develop the model fully’. The question is: why has the government chosen to proceed to legislation without having a fully developed model first? It is true that, despite concerns with the technology more generally, governments in countries such as Britain, the United States, Germany, Israel, Brazil and Singapore are rolling out biometric authentication systems in customer-facing departments such as customs, social services and health. Why, then, are we reinventing the wheel here? The government has to explain whether these models have been tested by Customs for effectiveness and efficiency. The other main purpose of this bill is with regard to special purpose visas. The bill will enable the minister to specify a time when a special purpose visa will cease to be in effect. Currently, if the minister declares that it is undesirable for a person or persons to travel to, enter or remain in Australia, the visa does not cease until midnight on the day on which the declaration is made. Labor supports this amendment. The ability to cancel a special purpose visa immediately, however, is unfortunately overdue. Currently, foreign non-military maritime crew and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. Special purpose visas are currently granted by operation of law. At present, maritime crew are granted the special purpose visas on arrival in Australia following checks against the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s movement alert list. This process does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crews of these ships are allowed to enter Australia—an issue that Labor has been saying for some time needs to be addressed. While the government introduced the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill recently, which allows the government to introduce a checked visa for maritime crew, Labor questioned why it had taken almost 6½ years since 11 September 2001 for the government to introduce it. The government only recently adopted what has been a longstanding Labor party policy—to vet foreign maritime workers. During the debate on the maritime crew bill, I pointed out that Labor has consistently raised concern with foreign vessels, whose crews had not been security vetted, carrying thousands of tons of explosives around coastal Australia. 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. This is a warning Labor has repeatedly made to the government. 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. Labor have also pointed out that Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah have acquired the skills and 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. On the latest 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. The measures in the maritime crew bill were another example of the government adopting longstanding Labor policy in order to address a security related issue. This government continually neglects to monitor and regulate necessary micro-national security issues. The government is spending considerable money on immigration and customs related IT systems. However, based on the IT systems contract management we have seen to date, it is simply not up to scratch. Simply spending money does not address a problem or an issue. It must be targeted, robust and effective. While Labor supports the move to biometric authentication systems, we do have concerns with the government’s approach to go it alone internationally and to iron out identified problems with the SmartGate system during its introduction. While Labor supports the bill, as it will facilitate the ability for people with eligible passports to choose to use an automated processing system for immigration clearance to Australia, it remains wary of the system the government has chosen and of the government’s ability to administer that system. Labor will be monitoring the performance, cost and international compatibility of the SmartGate system closely. We support the bill and the government amendments to it. 98 18:49:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —The Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 is important legislation. It adds another layer of protection for the Australian community. What is more, it sets out to provide convenience so as to ensure that the Australian people who have a good reputation can get back into Australia with a reduced amount of inconvenience. The member for Watson spent quite a lot of time talking about the administration of the new Customs software. It is universally recognised that that particular process left much to be desired. There were reasons for that. I would expect that we would not implement SmartGate, as it has been termed—and it is part of this legislation—on a national level, as the Customs arrangements were virtually obliged to be. We will probably have the opportunity to do so on an incremental basis. Furthermore, this is a choice that people will make. Many will retain their own passports and present to an immigration officer in the way in which they are accustomed. The phase in and the testing of this new software will thus be a lot easier. I recently was in the company of a large number of English people who were travelling around Australia on a cruise vessel. As they left Singapore, Australian immigration agents boarded the vessel and did face-to-face checks on them as they were travelling towards Australia. One might think that people would be rather annoyed by that process. They were so happy to think that such a process existed and each and every one whom I happened to meet said, ‘I wish it was like this in our country.’ They wished there was someone checking the people who turn up in the United Kingdom from all over the place. It appears nobody knows they are there. As good citizens these people were pretty angry about that in their own country. So there is worldwide support amongst the democracies for strong and properly administered border protection. I think there are times, when it comes to personal identification, when it is harder to corrupt a computer chip, which holds a lot of personal details and will be applicable in the SmartGate system, than it is to change a photograph on a passport and say you are still the same person but you look different, even though the photo looks like you. So all of these things will improve border protection and at the same time improve the speed with which Australian citizens in particular can re-enter the country. As other nations may or may not pick up this particular technology, I guess we will see other people coming to Australia on the same arrangements. But we do go through border protection. I think our workers in Immigration and Customs do a great job. We experience that personally from time to time. This will make their task somewhat simpler. The other amendment relates to some changes to the arrangements where special visas are granted to crew members of ships. The administration of these is an important factor when one considers the growth in the cruise tourist industry and the number of people who consequently work on those vessels. To the extent that they can get ashore they represent tourists the same as passengers. It is essential we have a sensible arrangement there. But there may be suspicions about an individual already in possession of one of these special visas that they might be deserting, which would be a common problem. Otherwise, there may be information available at the last minute but their special visa could not be cancelled until midnight. That is of course archaic and this new legislation makes it appropriate for the minister to declare the cancellation of that visa at any time, but they cannot cancel it retrospectively. In other words, they must only cancel it at a time prospective from the time of them signing the document. That is worth while. I welcome the fact that the Australian Labor Party for a change are actually going to support a bit of border protection. I had a bit of discussion with their previous leader on this matter. I could not understand why he had voted against some other steps to improve our border protection. That became a matter of some public interest. But I am of the view that this time the House is combined on this. I think the member for Watson’s concerns are unwarranted. This is not the same requirement of administrative need as applied to Customs—more particularly, implementing it just before Christmas. I am sure that our immigration authorities will be able to make good use out of these new arrangements, I think SmartGate is a good idea and it will add to our border protection. I support the bill. 99 18:56:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —The Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 makes a number of positive amendments to the Migration Act which we as the Labor opposition support. In the main those amendments are non-controversial but they are important. One of the curiosities of this debate is that a number of the changes that the government said were urgent and ones of great moment have not come forward for over three years since the government introduced legislation that it now says was deficient in key areas. Thus far the only explanation we have heard in relation to that matter is that legislative drafting priorities were otherwise. It does seem an extraordinary situation that the government can come before this parliament claiming urgency in relation to the debate that is presently before us, point out that there are significant defects in its own legislation—which did have administrative difficulties and problems—and in some manner avoid the criticism of this House for having circumstances of that nature exposed. So, whilst the opposition does broadly support the legislation that is presently before it, it does so with some small sense of irony. As a member of this House I also want to put on record a concern that I have personally about the way in which this particular matter has proceeded. When the underlying legislative changes were brought in enabling the collection of quite intrusive forms of information about those who would enter this country, we were given in this parliament the ‘cross my heart, spit and swear to die’ assurances that there would be no further extensions of these provisions. Now, three years later, we are told that the act was drafted in a way that was inconveniently narrow, that in fact it has created a great degree of difficulty for the administration of immigration and related areas of law enforcement and the terms in which this parliament passed the legislation were too narrow. I do not mind that we address a deficiency once exposed, but I am particularly concerned about what one of my former colleagues, Senator Barney Cooney, used to call ‘legislative creep’. This is where government introduces a particular measure and gives to the parliament absolute binding, ‘cross your heart, spit and swear to die’ assurances that it will never re-extend it in any other area, that its reach will be narrowly prescribed. The House accepts the legislation on those assurances and then, as sure as shooting, it turns up a year or two later and discovers that the government proposes a much wider range of persons who can have access to that information. It would be far more honourable and honest if, in these debates, the government came forward with the real range of its objectives in the first place. I cannot believe that it was not within the minds of those who were proposing the legislation initially that it would need an extension of the kind that is now being proposed. The situations in which this information is collected are when people are applying for an Australian visa, when they are going through immigration clearance, when a noncitizen is put into immigration detention or where a person is suspected of being an unlawful noncitizen. In those circumstances, personal identifiers are collected. ‘Personal identifiers’ is a euphemistic way of describing a whole range of information about what the person looks like, their biometric details and fingerprint details—all kinds of personal information. The 2004 amendments said that this was extraordinarily intrusive and, therefore, it would be prohibited from being accessed or disclosed, except where the act expressly permitted it. Indeed, we were told that any disclosure beyond that which was so narrowly prescribed would attract up to two years imprisonment. The bill before us widens the disclosure provisions significantly. There are three new exemptions to the unlawful disclosure regime that was proposed three years ago. The first is where a person who accesses the information believes on reasonable grounds that the access or disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of that person or any other person. This is a perfectly sensible extension. It would apply, for example, where there has been a threat against an immigration official or an Australian embassy. The department might hold a photograph of the person or it might hold some other information—in fact, it would hold a significant amount of other information and it could disclose that. The second provision is where the disclosure is reasonably necessary for the enforcement of a criminal law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory. This amendment would fix the problem that the government says has emerged where the department cannot disclose signed incoming passenger cards to the AFP or to the Commonwealth DPP to assist, for example, with cracking down on drug smugglers. The provision is much wider than in relation to the smuggling of drugs. When this regime was put in place, there would have been some realisation that it was deliberately narrowed—only to immigration related matters—because of the concern that this collection under requirement of law was not to be used for general law enforcement purposes. Now we propose to permit it. I am told that this has been the subject of consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. I have no reason to dispute that; but, nonetheless, we have again taken a regime that was promised to the parliament to be restricted for the narrow purpose for which it was created and extended it across the whole range of Commonwealth law enforcement responsibilities. The third new disclosure provision is where the disclosure is required by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory. This can open up a wide range of permitted disclosures. The Commonwealth can continue to pass laws which authorise such disclosures. Interestingly, in relation to the provision about the disclosure required under the law of a state or territory, I understand that, in briefings to the shadow minister, the department said the phrase ‘required by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a state or territory’ refers to such state or territory laws that validly bind the Commonwealth. This is why the word ‘required’ rather than ‘authorised’ is used. But, in a sense, that is a circular argument because only when the Commonwealth permits access to information of this kind can a state have the legislative capacity to demand it. The definition, whilst providing that it relates to information required by or under a law of a state or territory, implicitly authorises states and territories to so require it. Having, by such means, implicitly authorised the states or territories, no doubt it will be used. So states and territories will also be able to access—by way of search warrants and various other means authorised under their legislation—information that this parliament was told originally would be used exclusively for immigration related matters. Here I am referring to the sorts of issues—the Alvarez type matters—where, colleagues were advised by the government, certainty of identity is known in order to prevent abuse of our borders by people who are within Australia illicitly or who are staying too long. This is with respect to the general implementation of the laws of not only the Commonwealth, in this instance, but also the territories and the states. I understand and accept this extension; however, as I have mentioned, I have some concerns about the manner in which it has been proceeded with. We have seen this sort of legislative creep in a whole range of areas. Currently, this parliament has before it the prospect of legislation to introduce a national identity card. It is now being said that it would be limited to a whole range of narrow purposes and would not extend beyond those. But, having been a member of this House for some 20 years and having seen the manner in which those undertakings are routinely shredded, I do not have any faith in that statement whatsoever. When such measures are proposed, I think we have to look at how they will actually be implemented—not on the undertakings initially given, but on a reasonable prediction of the demands and expectations of the law enforcement community and those Commonwealth and state agencies that believe they have a legitimate interest in accessing that information. In this area we have already seen information that was promised to be restricted in the narrowest of terms now being made available in wide terms. It is a lesson that those of us who have had membership in this House for a long period need to convey to newer members, to warn them that there is this experience, to warn them that assurances given in the course of one parliament do not necessarily adhere to the commitments of the government in the next parliament. Indeed, sometimes they do not adhere within the life of a single parliament. But, in this instance, they certainly did not last across the lives of two parliaments. I understand why these measures are put in place, and I do not want to dwell exclusively on those particular measures. A number of other matters, particularly the e-visa scheme, have been put in place and there are convenient arrangements that apply to New Zealand which have immediate and strong support from the opposition. This is really a tidying up exercise. There are some odd provisions in the legislation. If you go to the regulations and look at the brief prepared for the parliament by the Parliamentary Library, you discover a very interesting regulation about special purpose visas which, essentially, are visas that you get automatically, without the need to apply. They extend to various classes of people who come in and out of the country, without the requirement of preclearance. But, if you look at the actual list, under regulation 2.40, ‘persons having a prescribed status for a special purpose visa’, you will see it lumps together a quite extraordinary range of people, including members of the royal family, who, in some way, are in the same grouping as members of the crew of ships being imported into Australia and airline positioning crew members and— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr Hardgrave —I’m an egalitarian. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr KERR —The member for Moreton says he is an egalitarian. Well, bring on the republic, Comrade, and I will be with you, Son. An interesting provision is that members of the royal family are dealt with as having a prescribed status for a special purpose visa, notwithstanding the constitutionally anomalous position of our head of state. I am content to support the remarks of the shadow minister. He has welcomed this legislation. I think nine-tenths of it deserves that welcome; I am prepared to let the other one-tenth pass into law without objection given that, from a law enforcement perspective, I do understand the rationale for it. But I do express great concern about the way in which this parliament is repeatedly abused by undertakings that are given to it—promises that new, intrusive forms of surveillance will be applied only in particular areas—and which are trashed so routinely, so quickly and with so little regard for any excuse. There is no explanation, no rationale, no reason why an event that is said to have caused considerable difficulty in the law enforcement environment was not dealt with quickly in the same parliament, with an apology for a failure of prescience to plan for that. We are just simply given the legislation and told that there is a crisis that we as parliamentarians need to respond to quickly. When we inquire a little, the only reason we are told that it was not brought forward earlier is that the government could not get priority to have the bill drafted in three years. It could not get a draftsman to have a look at the legislation in three years. That is not a priority, in my view. What seems to be common to this and other instances which I have experienced as a member of this House is this pattern of abuse of the House and abuse of the chambers, where we are given undertakings and then they are breached without any reason being advanced for the breach and, given those previous undertakings, without even the slightest word of recognition of the seriousness of the step that has been taken. As we increase the volume of our statute book, as we increase the degree to which those living in Australia are subject to surveillance, subject to the possibility of intrusive actions by law enforcement personnel, we forget those undertakings too readily. It is so easy to say, ‘We will never extend this in this area,’ and then come back a few years later and say, ‘This has caused a great problem.’ Often the members of the House who passed the legislation in the first place can be expected to have forgotten the commitments that were given by the previous government. So, piece by piece, thread by thread, we lose some of the understandings of the importance of individual entitlement that used to be taken as bedrock rights that we as citizens held in common. And piece by piece, thread by thread, we build a new maze of regulatory environments, regulatory obligations, a capacity for exchange of intrusive information across law enforcement agencies and departments of state. Then we cover all this with commitments that are given lip service to for freedom of information and privacy protection, which extend to areas where governments do not have any great interest but, in reality, which are flouted in areas where the citizen seeks to enforce their rights. So, in areas, for example, of freedom of information you can access your own personal information—on your Centrelink file, for example—but, if you try to get some information about government policy and the government objects to its provision, it is refused and it is made difficult and expensive. If you look at other areas where privacy rights are an entitlement, you see that a number of quite stringent provisions are imposed on the private sector but that government exchange of information of this kind is facilitated. We do not have a significant debate about the terms of that facilitation, and we certainly do not have any acknowledgement that it is in breach of commitments that were given publicly to the community and to this House to explain why we are pressed into a circumstance in which we are told that there is now urgency, when the plain fact is that the government acted with no urgency. The government did not immediately recognise that it had given an undertaking that was too extensive and did not come back to the House. That would have been the honourable thing to do. Instead, it says that it identified this problem three years ago but has had a problem finding the drafters to fix it. That is not a situation of any urgency, as I see it, and it certainly does not explain why we are told that this now creates a problem of such weight that we do not have an effective explanation for that delay. With those remarks, I will close my speech and invite the honourable member for Moreton, who is tapping his hand impatiently, waiting for his turn, to make an important contribution to the debate. 103 19:16:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I am impatient only to offer admiration for the honesty of the ambition of the learned gentleman from Denison! I would remind the House and the three or four people suffering over dinner, listening to the parliament tonight, that the awkwardness of reality defeats the ambition. I take up some parts of the theme of the closing comments of the learned gentleman and put the case that my grave concern is that too much executive power is in fact developed away from those accountable to this place. This parliament is the place where all authority of government conduct should be afforded. My grave concern is that over the last 20 or perhaps 30 years we have seen too much yielding—although to many fine people within the professional Public Service—to people from whom we then try to gain the information, as the member for Denison has rightly pointed out. So I thank the honourable gentleman for reminding us of the ambition of proper accountability and, I dare say, consistency in our conduct in the development of public policy. But staying one step ahead of those who seem determined always to thwart all of our attempts to administer well for the law-abiding—the role of criminals and others who seek to pervert every ambition we have for good conduct in society—is a very real challenge in the world today. We are tonight again dealing with further amendments to our Migration Act and with the integrity of that act. We are tonight again further underscoring the importance of all of those passing through our migration system, even those on a temporary visit to Australia, doing so in such a way that all of us who live in this country are confident they are here for the right reasons, that they are good people and that they are indeed who they say they are. I suspect that the two matters contained within the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, which seeks to strengthen Australia’s border integrity, could be summarised in a way that says they are about common sense—that is, to deal with the special purpose visa. Currently, when a decision is made regarding the revoking of the special purpose visa, it is current until midnight on the day on which that decision has taken effect. In other words, you end up with a circumstance where someone whose visa we may seek to revoke still has that visa under the law until some hours after that revocation takes place. That is a nonsense in itself, and this bill seeks to ensure that a timely circumstance is attached to any decision to revoke that visa. That is very important for those who may be in receipt of the special purpose visa. The member for Denison outlined who some of those people might be. That circumstance might apply to crew members of non-military ships, aircraft crew, guests of the government and people who come here for participation in events such as the Commonwealth Games or other great international events, such as the swimming titles taking place in Melbourne at the moment. As it stands currently, anybody who may have been afforded a special purpose visa would, if it were to be taken from them, still have that visa until midnight on the day of that decision. In this timely and very exacting world in which we live, that is a nonsense that we are, through these measures, dealing with. This bill will also amend the Migration Act to allow for choice. So we will have common sense and choice. We will be allowing for an automated border processing system, which people can opt to use, known as SmartGate. Citizens holding an e-passport or selected noncitizens arriving and departing from Australia will be able to clear migration processes by having their identity and their visa or Australian citizenship status verified by an automated computer system, the SmartGate system. They can, of course, still opt to front the Customs officials who do all the front-line processing for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship at airports and seaports all around this country. But they also—and this is particularly good for Australian citizens, I suspect—have the option of going down the SmartGate path. In that regard, the items before us are very important, as indeed are all of the matters this government brings to this place for discussion and for disclosure to the people of Australia. As a representative of one of the most culturally diverse electorates in Australia—there are probably 20 or 30 that are more culturally diverse than mine but in the state of Queensland I am No. 1 in that distinction—I think this integrity aspect of our migration process is absolutely vital. There is no doubt about it in my mind. It is important to look back on some of the other measures that we have taken when it comes to establishing the integrity of those who have migrated to this country. This side has been involved in a nation-building exercise when it comes to migration, and those opposite have been very soft on these integrity issues. I will give some examples of that claim. Back in the early nineties there was a genuine failure by the Labor Party in government to deal with these sorts of issues. At a time when law enforcement and border protection should have been boosted, the Hawke and Keating governments cut staff numbers in Customs by more than 1,000 between 1990-91 and 1994-95. This seriously undermined the ability of Customs officers, who are the people who do the processing on behalf of Immigration, to ensure the integrity of our borders. The Labor government’s bad economic management—the recession we had to have—saw the needs of our law enforcement agencies being unfulfilled, leaving Australia a soft target for transnational crime syndicates, organised crime and people smugglers. This has been a blight on Australia’s borders in years past, but because of the decisive approach that this government has taken to the nation-building exercise of migration and to the protection of the integrity of every person who passes through this country, people-smuggling operations have been thwarted by our very coordinated, forward-looking and flexible approach to border security. Those opposite have had several dollars each way—I will update the two bob each way analogy. It has taken me a few years to come back and talk about this, because I have been a member of the dreaded executive, around on the blue carpet, for the last five or six years. I will never forget being confronted, at the time of the border protection bill’s introduction in August 2001, with Nazi slogans being uttered by people like the member for Grayndler, who said, ‘Sieg Heil’—and it is in the Hansard, and I invite people to see it. It is offensive terminology; he should have been thrown out that day. The Speaker of the day, Mr Andrews, apologised to me afterwards. At the time I was in favour of that border protection integrity measure for one reason: because of the cultural diversity in my electorate I did not want any one of those faces from other places—the people new to Australia in particular, people who had come out of Africa, the Middle East and countries which could be typecast by others in society—to be under any doubt that their status was being enhanced by everything this government was doing. That is what our border integrity measures have always been about. On one occasion, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, said in the Hansard, on 29 August: ... this country and this parliament do not need a carping opposition; what they actually need is an opposition that understands the difficult circumstance in which the government finds itself ... That referred to the arrival of the Tampa on the national agenda. But within the space of a few hours, the Left had locked him into a completely different position and Mr Beazley made a spectacular backflip and said that the opposition would not support the Border Protection Bill 2001. He completely confirmed in the minds of Australians that, with the flip-flop and uncertainty in the face of crisis, there could not be a consistent decision and it would be the sort of style he would bring if he were elected at the 2001 federal election. It was proof positive to the people of Australia that the government’s claims about his ability to make a tough decision when it had to be made were true. I simply remind the House of these things because the Australian Labor Party, if given a chance at administering Australia, would not be able to make the decisions that need to be made. Their concept of a coastguard or ‘coastguide’, as I know the foreign minister always refers to it, would be a disaster. It would see Australian taxpayer resources meeting unauthorised arrivals in Australian waters and showing them the way to port, the way in. It would see an end to the very real and successful process of the so-called Pacific solution, which has been a demonstrable deterrent to people smugglers. This would be a green light for people smugglers to bring people to this country. The measures we are dealing with tonight are very much about nailing down in an incremental sense another set of steps to enhance the standing of people who pass through our borders. It is about knowing that technology is not necessarily the friend of the law abiding—although it should be—but often the friend of the law breaker. It is about the need for government to keep one step ahead of people such as those organising people-smuggling. I know that the member for Kalgoorlie would be very aware of the monstrous north-west coastline of fantastic, productive lands with a great tidal power of possibilities that is also so open a flank for those who want to prey on our good nature and good fortune as a country, drive people ashore in unseaworthy boats and risk the lives of women and children on some promise of better times in this great land of milk and honey. Tonight we are further enforcing and taking the opportunity to protect our borders, our national security. We are about building on our already strong record of border security. Major expansions in new technology used by Customs, the front line of the immigration process into Australia, and of course the Australian Federal Police, have meant that we are able to more efficiently process passengers. We are able to assist in the detection and prevention of terrorism and serious crime. We are able to map all of those who are coming into this country—and all of those who are going out—with the certainty that I think everyday Australians would demand of us. We are able to take action to shield the people of this country from developing trends in criminal activity in areas such as identity fraud. When my electorate office at Moorooka was broken into a few years ago, one of the greatest concerns I had was that my old passports had been taken. Heaven knows if anybody would ever want to claim to be me—I wish they would pay a few of my bills—but I make the point that identity fraud is now so easy for those in the criminal world to prosecute against any one of us who are law-abiding citizens. If we are not careful, we may be innocent lambs taken to this identity fraud slaughter. SmartGate processing, involving further biometrics and allowing people to have a passport with those biometrics, ensures that we are able to guarantee the integrity of the system. As much as I agree with the ambition of the member for Denison that we stop legislating and we say, ‘Enough is enough; what is true today will be true for the next five years,’ there can be absolutely no guarantee that we will not have to be back here again in six months time legislating in a way that further enhances integrity measures and that further underscores our ambition to provide certainty, security and dignity in the migration process. There can be absolutely no guarantees about that because the criminals are not cooperating. They are not ringing us up and saying, ‘Look, there’s a moratorium; we’ll be right for the next year or two.’ It does not work like that. As I said, I admire the ambition of the member for Denison, but the shock of reality must have surely set in by now. We are also taking action to shield the people of Australia from developing criminal trends such as the manufacture of synthetic illicit drugs and money laundering. I was with the member for Denison on committee work six or seven years ago when I saw the superb work that is being done by Australian authorities regarding money laundering. The process of ensuring that people passing through our borders meet our expectations is absolutely important in that particular part of international criminal detection. If we are able to map the movements of people with the certainty that we want—and we will be able to enhance that through this legislation—then we are able to take away the proceeds of crime and map the movement of criminal activity by identifying those who are coming into and going out of this country. We have now developed one of the toughest aviation security systems in the world to protect Australians and overseas travellers. I recently returned from a constituent visit to Taiwan—I have the largest constituency of Taiwanese-born people of anyone in this parliament—where I was talking with constituents. I found it interesting that, hopping on the China Airlines flight, they were talking about the security at Taipei airport but they said, ‘When you get to Australia, it is going to be even tighter again.’ Everything that is brought into this country is further screened and mapped so we know what materials are being brought into Australia. This bill adds to that combined interdiction effort by the AFP, Customs and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to ensure that Australians of all background and beliefs and of all experiences and lengths of time in this country—whether they have been here for a year or 10 generations—can be confident that everybody new who comes to this country is coming on the terms and conditions we outline. I am very pleased to see the government maintaining its determination to enhance our border integrity, because when it comes to migration we are involved in a nation-building exercise. I note that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism is in the chamber. She is a great minister and is doing a great job. She would be very pleased to know that the number of arrivals and departures at Australian international airports is forecast to increase by up to 23 per cent by 2009. The measures in this bill we are debating tonight will ensure that people have a choice to either front the Customs officer working for Immigration or make use of the SmartGate e-passport concept. Either way, I am sure that the minister for tourism would want to make sure that not only everyone visiting Australia is doing so on the proper visa and that they leave before that visa is up but also their first experience in Australia—customs halls all around this country—is such a positive one that their reaction stays with them for their entire trip and that they tell all their friends. A lot more than the tens of millions of dollars already generated by international tourism to this country is coming our way. I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I understand that the frustration of getting these things drafted in the time that suits the member for Denison is now a matter of public record. I hope that the member for Warringah, the Leader of the House, was listening to the debate and that he will ensure that further resources are given to the parliamentary draftspeople. They do a great job. As long as people in the executive can feed them the right information the first time, they will get it drafted and drafted well. I commend this bill to the House. 107 19:36:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —Firstly, let me acknowledge the contribution of the member for Moreton. He touched on a whole range of matters that I intend to come to myself: border protection, protecting our national security, the Pacific solution and the Tampa. He did not mention ‘children overboard’, although he might as well have—but I will come to those issues a little later. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, which aims to improve Australia’s border integrity by implementing two measures. The first is in relation to special purpose visas, and it gives the minister the power to make a declaration that a person is undesirable and that he wishes to revoke the automatic visa. I noted the contribution of the member for Denison in relation to that discussion, where he referred to the category of people—including the members of the royal family, as I recall—and it is an extensive list. Labor will be supporting these measures, the second of which is the rollout of SmartGate series 1, allowing anyone holding an eligible passport—that is, an e-passport—to use this facility, although I note that there have been some concerns expressed about the efficacy of the SmartGate system. I note that in his contribution the shadow spokesman talked about the question of the efficacy and reliability of the technology. He observed that an article in the Financial Review of 5 September noted that industry insiders have identified gaps in biometrics such as excessive error rates, a poor ability to find database matches and high sensitivity to various conditions. The article referred to the work of an analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology who has estimated that the accuracy rate for facial scanning is 90 per cent. For fingerprints it is 99 per cent and for iris scanning it is 97 per cent. Dr Roger Clarke, a visiting fellow of the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology at the Australian National University, questioned the effectiveness of the SmartGate system on ABC radio, in its PM program on 5 May last year. Dr Clarke stated that he believed the SmartGate system would face difficulties because it is built on the assumption that a person’s face will always appear the same, when in reality that is rarely the case. He said: The angle of a person’s head, the distance of the person’s head from the camera has got to be completely consistent with the angle from which the original photograph was taken that you’re trying to compare it to. He observed: ... this is a very challenging thing to do, especially when you’re trying to do it in volume, with large numbers of people passing along. And that’s assuming that the person isn’t actively trying to confuse the machine. He made what sounded like an amusing aside when responding to the interviewer, who said: Even if they weren’t trying, things like smiling, laughing, what does that do? Roger Clarke observed: Well, it’s quite likely that it will confuse— and he laughed— the device. Of course, we hope that is not the case, but we do observe that concerns have been expressed about the efficacy of what is being proposed. The question is how we deal with people seeking asylum who may be coming to Australia or others who may breach our border security and what happens to them. I note that the title of this legislation refers to border integrity. The question was writ large in 2001 with ‘children overboard’ and Tampa, and what followed from that were decisions that were taken by this government which related specifically to my electorate. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my electorate, the seat of Lingiari, includes all of the Northern Territory except Darwin, all of its coastline and all of its waters, as well as Christmas and Cocos islands. That is important, because many of the decisions that have been taken by this government in the name of border protection have directly affected the communities of Christmas and Cocos islands. Both have been the site of reception facilities for illegal immigrants or people seeking to come to Australia who have been caught on the high seas in most instances, but not all. They have been transferred to Christmas and Cocos islands. There used to be a temporary facility on Cocos Island which was used to house people who had been detained. It was an old quarantine station and it was not an unreasonable place to stay, I might say. I am sure people were reasonably comfortable. It was close to the beach and they were allowed to go fishing. It was not 12-foot wide, and there were no electrified fences. There were none of the sorts of security measures—razor wire et cetera—that currently exist in the new facilities. Indeed, on one particular occasion, the detainees wandered down the street in a protest. Of course, there was nowhere to go; they could not get off the island. It was a fairly moot point as to who they were protesting to, because I believe that most people on the island would probably have been fairly sympathetic to the cause. It will be recalled that when people came onto Christmas Island—and the Tampa was the obvious case—they were housed in the gymnasium. Discussion with the community led to the building of a temporary facility which was opened in September 2001; it is still in existence. This building was used to provide accommodation for the expected surge of unauthorised boat arrivals. It was mothballed in late July 2005 and then reopened in November 2005 to hold seven Indonesian asylum seekers. These seven—four men, one woman and two infants—landed at Honeymoon Beach near Kalumburu, on the far north coast of Western Australia. The men had waded ashore to ask for directions. They were then picked up by HMAS Geraldton, delivered to Darwin and subsequently flown to Christmas Island. What we have now is a new facility which is designed to house 800 people. It is a purpose-designed facility which will open, as I understand it, in the middle of this year, in June or July. It is unlikely to have anyone in it, which is a major cause of some concern and, I would have thought, of Australian taxpayers’ interest—although of course the community of Christmas Island welcomed the investment in the economy. But as a public policy initiative it raises some significant questions, given decisions which have been taken by this government in recent days. In May 2006, the figure being reported for the construction of this new facility was $210 million. This was subsequently revised upwards to $267.7 million, and last month in Senate estimates it was made clear that the cost blow-out was now $396 million—a blow-out of 40 per cent of the original cost estimates. With all the other attendant infrastructure which was being built along with this facility and which was required in the community, it is clear now that the government’s investment is probably well over $400 million. I recall the discussion which went on when the then minister for territories, Mr Tuckey, and the then minister for immigration, the current Attorney-General, visited Christmas Island—and I went with them—to talk to people about the development of this facility and all of the benefits that this was going to bring to the community. We know that there were significant benefits which came to some people eventually, over time. Some businesses had invested large amounts of money but, because of delays in the project, they were left out of pocket. Subsequently, though, although the major contractor was a Queensland based company, Baulderstone Hornibrook, and it employed staff who largely came from the mainland, there were a number of people who secured employment on the site and a number of small businesses which benefited directly as a result of this massive investment. But it leaves open the question: what is it that the government proposes to do with this facility? In recent times, the 43 Papuan refugees who arrived on the north coast of Australia—from memory, in the Torres Strait—were then transferred over to Christmas Island. I met these people on Christmas Island at the interim facility. They were subsequently admitted as refugees to our country. But the government then took the decision, under pressure from the Indonesian government, that we would not accept this sort of occasion lightly in the future, and since then any asylum seekers who have made it to the mainland have been whisked off to Nauru, out of the view of the Australian people and outside the operation of Australian migration law. If they are not at Nauru then, of course, there is always Manus, which has been mothballed. We are told that the cost of maintaining the operation at Nauru is $24 million a year and the cost of maintaining Manus in a mothballed state is $3 million a year. This facility on Christmas Island, I might say, is extremely sophisticated. It is the highest security detention centre ever built in Australia. In the words of Pamela Curr, of the Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, published in the Age on 25 November 2006: There is no maximum-security prison (in Australia) that has electric fences, microwave probes, cameras with microphones in every room, electric doors and a direct link to the control room in Canberra ... What does it sound like—Guantanamo? We are not sure what is going to happen if in fact this facility is ever used. What happens to families in this situation? Clearly you would hope that children and families would not be held in this detention facility, but that has not been made clear to us. We know that the facility is 24 kilometres away from the major centre of the community. We know also that, according to the immigration department website, as of the ninth of this month there are 458 people being held in immigration detention centres: Villawood, Maribyrnong, Perth, Baxter, Christmas Island and the Northern IDC in Darwin. There were—there are no longer—in the Christmas Island facility 84 people, including 83 Sri Lankans. We know that these Sri Lankans have now been transported across to Nauru, although the government was reportedly having secret talks with officials in Jakarta to send these asylum seekers back home via Indonesia. I certainly accept the need for us to secure our borders and to have strong border protection, but there is a very open question about the merits or otherwise of the Pacific solution—the idea that we can transfer people, at great cost to the Australian taxpayer, across to the small island of Nauru. There will inevitably be problems. How can you describe the lack of humanity in the case of Muhammad Faisal, who spent years in protection in Nauru? He fled Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2001 and was incarcerated in the facility in Nauru after being assessed as a security threat by ASIO. It was only earlier this year that he was released after ASIO reviewed its initial assessment. As the Sydney Morning Herald said: ... Australia has tried to act tough and has ended up just looking mean. When we talk about how to deal with these issues into the future, there is an open question, and I know it is a question that is on the minds of the people on Christmas Island: what is the government’s intention in relation to that facility? If the government is intent on ensuring that no-one who comes to Australia’s shores is actually processed in Australia—apart from the cursory processing that took place on Christmas Island, such as identity checks, health checks et cetera—but is flown across the Pacific, at whose cost is that to be? And what, then, is the purpose of the facility on Christmas Island? How much will it cost to transfer the 83 Sri Lankans? A plane to transfer eight Burmese asylum seekers from Christmas Island to Nauru cost $225,000. For the 2005-06 financial year, the cost of charter flights to relocate asylum seekers was $4.9 million, almost $5 million. If the government is not going to use the facility on Christmas Island for the purpose for which it was supposedly built, what will it be used for? And what will the cost be of maintaining this facility in a mothball situation over time? If it costs $3 million to maintain a mothball facility on Manus Island, what is it going to cost the Australian taxpayer to maintain the facility on Christmas Island? I am happy that people on Christmas Island will benefit from the employment which will be created, one would hope, from the maintenance of the facility—and there will be high maintenance. But, like me, the Christmas Island community want to know what the government’s intention is with this facility in the short term, the medium term and the long term. The government has a responsibility to tell us how it proposes to deal with it. One thing is for certain: the community of Christmas Island do not want their island to be seen as the Alcatraz of the Indian Ocean. They would like to see tourism as an option currently and into the future. The government is keen on border security, and I ask it to tell us what it is going to do with Christmas Island. 111 19:56:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —The fact is that the Australian people trust the current government with immigration and border management. They do not trust the Australian Labor Party, and that is the fact of the matter. I think the attitudes of the Australian Labor Party have been demonstrated here tonight. They are not quite sure whether this is the right measure. They want to qualify it; they want to vary things in a way that would basically start to unpick the strong border regime that the current government has put in place. The Australian people gladly welcome refugees and temporary residents of all types. We have a very open and welcoming community. We have generous-hearted people, and nowhere are they more generous hearted than in Tasmania, where they took stacks of refugees in, in difficult circumstances, and welcomed them. But that generosity is dependent upon being certain that it is being offered to people who are in genuine need. The goodwill of the Australian people can only be maintained, endorsed and encouraged if they are certain that those to whom they are offering support and assistance are in genuine need—that they have suffered from difficult circumstances and that they genuinely need help. We are not talking about refugee programs or boat people tonight. What we are talking about is: how do we manage our increasing immigration and the traffic flow of travellers through Australia—basically on temporary visas? Of course, the immigration program itself has to have a high degree of integrity, and the processes undertaken to examine the background and circumstances of an intending permanent resident are very thorough. They go to police checks and Interpol checks to determine whether there are damaging factors known about a person who is applying for Australian permanent residency—whether someone has conducted themselves as a criminal or whether there are factors that would deny them permanent residency—so that those factors are known or can be ruled out. We have to be diligent with people who are coming here temporarily. People coming to Australia on a temporary basis have to be identified. We have to keep out those who should not come, we have to keep ahead of the smugglers who would sneak people into Australia and we have to make sure that the gangs and criminal elements who want to abuse Australian hospitality do not take advantage of an open system. The period of the previous Labor government was the period during which the triads gained entry to Australia. That was because there was a slack system. It is nice to be nice to people, but you have to be sensible as well as generous. That is what this legislation, the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, is about. It is about being sensible. Here are just a few statistics about the visitor visa applications for Australia: there were 2.7 million tourist visas with electronic travel authorities last year, there were 13,900 sponsored family visitors and there were about half a million tourists or visitors with non-electronic authority. So we are looking at well over three million people on tourist visas each year. Add to that about 180,000 business visitors and almost 200,000 business visitors with non-electronic travel authority, and you are looking at four million wanting temporary access to Australia. It is a large number of transactions to process, and it is a large number of whom we need to be certain, because at the other end of the scale we have to look at those who do not go home when they should. We do not want to run that risk with people who want to abuse Australian hospitality—who overstay for good or for bad reasons. We need to look at the following countries. These are the countries from which overstayers are most likely to come. I am going to read these out, because the Australian people need to know. They are well known; they are published by the department of immigration. The highest proportion of those who do not return are from Samoa, followed by Poland, Tonga, Turkey, Kiribati, Romania, Cyprus, Kenya, Belgium and Cambodia. Those are people who tend not to go back when they come here as visitors. Those who are the best visitors, who are most likely to return to their country, are from these countries, and I will read the best performers first: top of the list is Kuwait, followed by Japan, Mexico, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, Argentina, Thailand and South Africa. Those countries have great records of returning. The other ones, which I read previously, have not got a good record. So we have to identify those people who are at risk. One of the best ways of identifying whether people are fair dinkum or not is the way the Customs officer or the immigration officer looks at them as they come in through the front gate. We have all been through the airport. The passport is handed over; the officer looks at the passport, looks at that photograph and asks, ‘Is this who is in front of me?’ They scrutinise you, then read what is on the passport and verify that you can gain entry. So they check the veracity of the visa you are travelling on, the quality of the passport and then the personal identification. This front gate assessment is just part of a whole system which includes the advanced passenger processing, which is the identification of the person when they apply to come to Australia, whether it be through an electronic travel authority or not. It is a way in which the passenger is assessed by the airline as being a suitable person to travel to Australia. So there is the prior notification. Then there is the universal visa for all noncitizens entering Australia, including those transiting Australia. That is another way. The issue of that visa and the person applying for the visa saying their age and name and identifying themselves to Australian authorities is another check. We are dealing tonight with the check that happens at the border coming in, where a person is scrutinised and their travel documents assessed, and where it is decided whether or not they should gain entry to Australia. It verifies as far as possible that all noncitizens arriving have valid visas. That is the process. What we are looking at tonight is the way that can be implemented. The Australian Labor Party is not too keen on this sort of thing, but it is going to back this legislation. I am pleased it is, because what is added to a smart passport—an e-passport—is the biometric dimension, which means that instead of having an officer scrutinising you as you enter you are going to have a camera which, with the use of biometrics, is going to be able to pretty nearly identify whether the person presenting is the person whose photograph is on the passport and whose information is contained in a microchip within the passport. That is the simple system that we are adopting tonight. It is technically sophisticated; it is supposed to be one of the best and safest systems in the world. But then again there is discussion about whether the biometrically enabled passport, as it is called, is able to provide all the measures and protections that we would require. This process has gone through a fair bit of testing. First it was tried with Qantas crews, who were volunteers. How good was it with them? It was very good indeed. Then it was tried in Melbourne with a whole bunch—a hundred-odd thousand people who volunteered—of frequent flyers. And it worked out very well with them too. So it has been adopted universally, and that is what we are legislating tonight. It is something that has been trialled and has been effective and that enhances the current system, adds to the process and allows us to process the more than four million people coming to Australia on a temporary basis every year. So we are legislating for the use of the SmartGate, which is dependent on having an eligible passport, an electronic travel document. It is also dependent on that document containing the appropriate information. The microchip within the e-passport, embedded in the centre page, contains the digitised facial image and personal details of the passport holder. The microchip can be read electronically and will enable the implementation of cutting-edge facial recognition technology. That is the way it is going to work. So the facial recognition factors are there together with other details about the person seeking to gain entry. It is said that the advantages of this type of passport are very significant. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on their website say that the e-passport: provides greater protection against fraudulent misuse and tampering People do fiddle with their passports and try to change the photograph, the name, the date or things like that. One only has to talk to Customs officers to realise that this sort of thing goes on all the time. Some of it is very crude but some is very sophisticated. There is no doubt about it: the more sophisticated the crime and the more money involved in a criminal activity, the more likely there is to be fraudulent abuse of and tampering with passports. So this protects against this process. As a previous speaker, my friend Gary Hardgrave, the member for Moreton, said, this is about staying one step ahead of the criminals. It is a smart thing to do to be ahead of the criminals. That is why this is called SmartGate. Foreign Affairs and Trade also say that this reduces the risk of identity fraud, where somebody is stealing somebody else’s identity, which is currently estimated to cost the Australian economy about $1 billion a year. I know that with particular ethnic groups it has been difficult for Australia to become accustomed to facial identification. I know that they have trouble identifying the differences between people of a European background. I will not get too specific, but I have seen biometrics in use and it is possible in fact through the use of biometrics to look at people who are related and pick out similarities between related people where a normal individual would not be able to see an immediately recognisable similarity between people—for example, choosing brothers and cousins, or uncles and nephews. Under this system, age differences vanish and differences of gender vanish and it is easy to form links between family groups when they are travelling. So fraud, which currently costs us about $1 billion a year, and identify theft are reasons why we should be introducing this measure. This measure also enhances the protection of Australia’s borders through speedy and more secure verification of incoming passport holders, particularly those passport holders who hold Australian passports—whether they are bodgie passport holders, whether they are genuine passport holders or whether there has been some abuse of a passport system to allow them to gain access to an Australian passport. All of those three measures—protection against fraudulent use, protection against identity theft, and speedier and more secure verification—are tremendous advantages for moving the huge number of people who are coming through Australia each year. Australia is one of the most desired destinations in the world, and we must not forget that it is a precious thing we have and we need to protect it. We do not need people taking advantage of our generosity and our kindness, whether they be pseudo refugees, asylum seekers or others. The Australian e-passport has also been tested in Los Angeles at the airport there. It is compliant with the US provisions. So we have a capacity to use biometrics on people as they arrive in Australia using an e-passport, and the Australian e-passport is a useful travel document and one that is valued around the world. It has been extensively tested and fits in in a harmonious fashion with the systems being used elsewhere in the world. This legislation has an application for special purpose visas. There is a narrow application for special purpose visas and special category visas. The use of biometric technology and the new Australian e-passport and the use of SmartGate are the crux of what has been happening and what I am speaking about tonight. When the minister was introducing this legislation, he said: The proposal to use automated systems in immigration clearance marks an important strengthening of Australia’s border control measures. Mr Robb went on: At present, the immigration clearance process at the border is performed manually by the primary line officers. However, extensive trialling of the automated border processing system presently in use at Sydney and Melbourne airports, the SmartGate system, has proven the viability of using facial recognition and new passport technology at the border. So, when we come to look at the automated processing time, it is not possible to further decrease the amount of time of the current manual system without having some sort of impact on the integrity of the border processing function. So if we were to stick with a manual system and we wanted to go faster, we would diminish the security that we require. Our border agencies, which have taken up SmartGate, are happy with it. So we can maintain that level of integrity and also make sure that we can move passengers quickly. The aim of SmartGate is to enhance border security and improve passenger flow—and it will have that effect. The role of appearance at the gate has been questioned by some in authority. There have been questions about whether the system adopted by Customs is the most appropriate system for Australia to adopt. That debate has flowed backwards and forwards. I have heard both sides of that argument, and time will tell. I only hope that Customs is not sticking to a particular system regardless of criticism because there is so much personal capital invested in the decision that has been made. I know that the biometric system is good. I trust that we in Australia will have the best type of biometric system available in the world and that it will produce the results that we expect it to produce. The Australian Labor Party has made mistakes over time. Mr Beazley, for instance, was absolutely opposed to some of the border protection measures that we have adopted. I am pleased that the Australian Labor Party has chosen—in a grudging sort of way—to support this legislation. It will enhance immigration management. In particular, it will assist with the management of those four million temporary visas that are issued each year to people who come and visit Australia and who should leave again. That includes working holiday makers. I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation. I want to compliment the government for the creative way in which a problem has been handled and for the way in which we have been able to work with other related nations to establish an international system in which their passports and our passports are interchangeable—the e-passport concept. The electronic travel authority is more in use. With safer security measures, the secure movement of people in a rapid manner—which is conducive to them—is advanced by this legislation. 115 20:16:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to comment on the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006. I listened to the member opposite talk about the virtues of this proposed piece of legislation. There are indeed provisions that are acceptable and reasonable, however late they are and however long it has taken the government to put them before the parliament. The opposition sees some merit in these particular provisions, but we have questioned—quite rightly—not only the delay but some of the issues that go to the new technology that is being proposed. Particularly when we are talking about national security, it is very important that when we consider using technology to improve our security the technology is foolproof and watertight and will not allow any breaches to occur or any deliberate intrusions to occur by people who would like to obviate that security. The bill has been delayed and, while we understand that there have been some excuses to do with drafting, in the end, if we are going to lay the blame at the feet of somebody, it will ultimately have to be laid at the feet of the minister. The two main provisions of the bill—namely the effort to redesign the special purpose visa regime in order to facilitate the lawful travel and entry of low-risk groups of travellers and the proposition to enhance identity verification at Australia’s immigration clearance points and to streamline processing—are matters that should be before this House and that should be debated. We want to have a secure and efficient process for entrance to and egress from this country. We should not have needless delays for visitors or people returning to this country. It is clear that there needs to be attention drawn to unnecessary delay. More importantly, we should have the best technology, complementing our specialised and experienced immigration security staff, strengthening the border. That can be done by various means. The proposed act before us introduces biometric technology. The bill amends and introduces provisions to allow citizens and noncitizens to use an automated system in immigration clearance. Certain past legislative developments enable the operation of the current bill, which allows persons who are citizens or noncitizens to use an automated system when entering or leaving Australia. The purpose of the former act was to remove legal obstacles to the use of electronic transactions. It ensures that transactions are not invalid merely because they take place by means of an electronic form of communication. The act provides a framework to facilitate the use of electronic transactions, to promote business and community confidence in such transactions and to enable business and the community to use electronic communications in their dealings with government. There has been some support for the introduction of this biometric technology. The use of the so-called SmartGate is dependent upon having an eligible passport—in other words, the e-passport. The bill refers to the fact that whether a passport is eligible will be determined by proposed new section 175A. The use of those automotive systems by travellers will rely on the e-passport. While we would argue that the consideration of this technology is not only sensible but ultimately necessary, there has been criticism of the SmartGate system in relation to the reliability of technology. It is important to bring to the attention of the House that, according to certain media reports, industry experts have identified gaps in biometrics such as excessive error rates, a poor ability to find database matches and high sensitivity to varying conditions. Indeed, a senior policy analyst at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has estimated that the accuracy rate for facial scanning is 90 per cent, for fingerprints it is 99 per cent and for iris scanning it is 97 per cent. So clearly there is a long way to go to perfect the system that would ensure a 100 per cent guarantee that the detection by technology of the person standing before that technology is indeed the person so described on the passport. I saw only yesterday a program where a photographer was looking not for identical twins but for two people who look almost identical but are not genetically related. He scanned the world to find two people who are so similar as to give them a fright when one was introduced to the other. They are not related, they have never met each other, but they look almost identical, certainly facially. The program that I caught a glimpse of yesterday prompts the question: how confident are we that this system will be foolproof to people who are not the person as outlined on the new e-passport? Some questions about the reliability and the effectiveness of the SmartGate technology are expected. Dr Roger Clarke, a visiting fellow in the faculty of engineering and information technology at the ANU, commented in a recent interview: SmartGate is destined to fail because it is built on the assumption that a person’s face will appear the same, when in reality that is rarely the case. Indeed, he says that it is quite likely that actions like laughing and smiling may confuse the device. I know that we are usually asked not to smile when we are having our photograph taken. For some, that is definitely an improvement. Whether it is an aesthetic improvement or not, the point the academic is making in this respect is that there are ways in which even technology may be confused in terms of whether the photo matches the person. I think that, again, requires close consideration so that we can ensure that the security of our immigration process is watertight. That is not to say that Labor opposes the proposition. We have to make sure that we use the best technology available. But I would hope that, when this bill is enacted, the government would not think it was advisable for this technology to replace the basic skills, instincts and experience of people who have been staffing our borders and immigration outlets for many years. There is no doubt that it is more than just whether you detect someone digitally on an electronic passport. Clearly, it is more than that. It is therefore something that will complement the skills required of personnel who staff our airports and entry points into this country. There has been, as I said, a number of concerns raised with respect to the technology. There have not only been concerns expressed by people and academics who are experts in the field. Murray Harrison, the Customs chief information officer, was concerned that the matter was still unsettled—that is, that the technology was still not certain. He declared last year: SmartGate doesn’t enhance security. It helps flow and efficiency in the limited space available in airports. Clearly, he does not view the technology as being up to scratch and has made it clear that there are still outstanding concerns. SmartGate is a form of biometric technology, an automated border processing system that enables travellers with the appropriate eligible passport to move through the passport control. The use of SmartGate is dependent on having an eligible passport—in other words, as I said earlier, an e-passport. The passport has a microchip embedded in the centre page which contains the digitised facial image and personal details of the passport holder. That microchip can be read electronically and will enable the implementation of facial recognition technology. The process was trialled for a year on Qantas air crew. Again, the results were, I have to say, extremely controversial. For the most part, the only information released about the detail of the trial was contained in the statements by the minister. Roger Clarke, as I referred to earlier, was concerned about that particular process. He went on to say, beyond what I have already quoted him as saying: The SmartGate pilot is misconceived, it has been misrepresented, and it uses technology that has not been and cannot be effective. Any large-scale implementation of such a system, based on such flawed technology, would be an utter fiasco. So there you have a visiting professor, who is an expert in the field of engineering and information technology, suggesting that, whilst there has been a trial in place, that trial was not sufficient to guarantee the security of the system. I think we must listen to these experts, who have no vested interest in concerning themselves about this particular matter except the concern about the system failing or otherwise. It does not mean that we abandon the process. What it does mean is that we must be vigilant in ensuring that any bugs in this system are found and any deficiencies are rectified. There is no doubt that in recent times our tendency to rely on technological solutions to apparent problems is even more pronounced when we feel vulnerable. For whatever reason—and the reasons are quite obvious to some—we in this country and in other countries feel more vulnerable today than perhaps we did a decade ago. You would agree with that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. People do feel less certain. There have been acts of violence and acts of atrocity against people in countries that we are close to. Indeed, there have been acts of violence and atrocity against our own citizens in places not too far from our shores. In such an environment of anxiety—and in the hope that we have found the silver bullet—we should not place too much confidence in technology that has been subject to criticism by people of repute. They are concerned that the technology has insufficient capacity. In the opinion of at least some experts, the pilot that was used to substantiate the view that the system would operate was clearly insufficient. It is very important that the government consider reviewing this area, that it not take the system for granted and assume that it is foolproof or that technology can prevent problems from occurring. It needs to realise that the technology should be improved upon, if it is possible to do so, and that it is a tool to be used to supplement our existing system so that we can provide security for the nation and also a more efficient way of processing people who enter this country. The bill has been a long time coming, and that has been blamed upon a number of things, including drafting. We understand the reasons for the bill and accept the two main provisions—that is, the amendment provision that goes to special purpose visas and the more substantive provision in support of biometric technology. We caution the government not to rely too heavily on the notion that the technology is infallible; it is clearly not infallible. It may well be state-of-the-art technology but it has not been tried and tested. I had the good fortune on Friday, as part of a public inquiry, to visit the tower at Canberra airport and to view the technology used by the air traffic controllers to regulate aeroplane traffic in and out of Canberra. The technology is dated—it was built 40 years ago—but it still works, I am happy to say. The tower needs to be rebuilt, and that is being proposed. We certainly accept that objective. The point I would like to make is that, if we are going to replace technology that has been used for many years with new technology, on the face of it, it should be an improvement. There should be a net improvement to the way in which air traffic controllers regulate flight in and out of Canberra as a result of the introduction of new technology. As someone said to me when I was visiting the airport tower: it has had 40 years to find its bugs; it has had 40 years to see what the problems are with that technology. While it needs to be changed, no doubt there will be more bugs in the new system than there are in the old system, which has been there since the 1960s. By way of comparison, I make the point that there is always an argument for going to a more technologically advanced system, but if it has not been used widely or in a comprehensive way for any length of time then we should expect—although we certainly should not hope—the possibility of some breakdown of, or some deficiencies in, the system. No pilot, like the one being used by the Qantas aircrew staff, will remove the possibility of a new system having some failings. I warn the government to keep a very close eye on the way in which this system will operate. I say to those who are overseeing the system, the experts in the field: do not rely too heavily on the technology being infallible; rather, be sceptical of it and challenge the system because it might have failings. This will ensure that not only will faults be detected but improvements will be made and, therefore, there will be better security in this country. 118 20:35:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise today to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, which will amend the Migration Act 1958. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen Australia’s border integrity. The importance of ensuring that our borders are secure, and also the safety of Australians and visitors to this country, is on the minds of all of us. The bill does two things: firstly, it enables the introduction of automated border processing by using a system referred to as SmartGate; secondly, it amends the Migration Act to allow a declaration which ceases a special purpose visa to take effect at a time specified in the declaration. I will first cover the introduction of SmartGate and e-passports. This will make clearance through immigration much more streamlined—currently around 5. 5 million visitors arrive each year through our borders—and will aid combating identity fraud. In this day and age, what is important to every person who is travelling is that their own identity is protected. By 2009, it is anticipated international arrivals and departures will increase by up to 23 per cent—that is, almost 6.8 million people who will enter and depart our borders. That amounts to a daily average of around 18,500 people who will require immigration processing. Of course, 18,500 people on a daily basis amounts to many queues and the need for many Immigration officers. Each of those people need to be correctly identified and obviously, legally, require authorisation to enter Australia. The aim of the SmartGate system is to enable holders of prescribed e-passsports to have their identity verified by an automated system without the need for a clearance officer to be present. Prescribed e-passports will be available not only to Australian citizens but also to citizens from countries which also have the e-passport system in place, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States as well as to selected New Zealand citizens, who will be able to have their special category visa granted automatically. Such eligible passports will contain embedded information stored on a microchip, which can then be accessed by the SmartGate system. I emphasise that this data is temporarily stored in the SmartGate system to process the relevant passenger information—such as the passenger’s name, their country of origin, their arrival or departure details—and then the information is destroyed. SmartGate does not store any personal information collected from the passport. This will certainly assure people that their privacy is protected. This amending legislation will give eligible e-passport holders the opportunity to be cleared by an automated system, which will speed up the clearance time, rather than having to be cleared by an appointed officer. This automated system will of course reduce queues for not only international tourists but also tourists returning home to Australia and will make their return trip to Australia, or first experience of Australia, a lot more pleasant. And, from a security point of view, it will reduce the number of potentially fraudulent passports. So it will make it a lot easier for people who are re-entering or entering Australia whilst, at the same time, protect people’s identity and reduce the potential for fraud. The microchip which forms part of the e-passport will contain information that is currently found on our passports such as a photograph, name, gender, date of birth, nationality, passport number and the expiry date. Anyone who holds an e-passport will be able to approach SmartGate, where their face will be checked using biometric technology, which will perform a face-to-passport check which will verify their identity. Once verified, the passenger will then move on to the next stage of immigration processing. The passport details scanned through the SmartGate system will have been forwarded to Customs, as well as to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship border systems, which verify the passport and visa details, and the person can continue with the process such as clearing Customs. If for any reason a person cannot be immigration cleared or their special category visa cannot be granted, SmartGate will refer the person to a clearance officer for manual processing. This will be particularly critical in the early stages. I remind those opposite that this will be a voluntary alternative. If a person wishes, they can choose to go through the immigration process manually and have an immigration clearance officer process them as required. The Howard government here offers choice whilst not jeopardising our border security, unlike the opposition which between 1990 and 1991, and 1994 and 1995, actually cut the number of staff employed by Customs by over a thousand and which undermined the vital work preformed by Customs to protect our borders. This decision and action by the opposition, the then Labor government, jeopardised our border security. By contrast, the Howard government is absolutely committed to prioritising the protection of our borders and the people of Australia. The second part of the bill, which I support, amends those provisions relating to the special purpose visa and is provided for in section 33 of the Migration Act. This will allow for specified persons, or members of specified classes, to be taken to hold a temporary visa. The special purpose visa applies to people such as airline crew, the crew of non-military ships, guests of government and participants of events such as the Commonwealth Games. If it is believed a person should not travel to or remain in Australia and they are holding a special purpose visa, a declaration under section 33(9) of the Migration Act can be made and the visa can cease. This is often the case when a crew member from a foreign ship may be considered at risk of deserting a vessel in Australia or may have a character, national security or health concern. Currently, provisions of the Migration Act mean that the special purpose visa remains in place until the end of the day when the declaration is made. This in effect means, for example, that if a person is classified as a desertion risk at 9 am, the special purpose visa will not necessarily cease and the person cannot be detained until after midnight. It is self-evident that this person may then be free to desert, and then it becomes extremely challenging to find and identify them. This is certainly unacceptable and undesirable. We want border integrity that will protect the people of Australia from people who wish to desert for whatever reason, where they may be a threat to our security and where people may be engaged in criminal activity or have the potential to traffic in drugs. How can we prevent this from happening when, legally, we cannot detain the person until the next day? That is why this bill is important and I support it. The amendments will mean that the special purpose visa will cease at the time specified in the declaration and officials will be able to detain the person immediately. The Howard government, like all Australians, wants our borders protected. It is because of strong economic management that the Howard government is able to protect our borders and invest in this state-of-the-art technology. I commend the amendments put forward to the House in this legislation. I fully support these amendments, as they are in the best interests our national security, our border protection and everyone who lives here and who travels to Australia. Again, it is important to note that the Howard government’s priority is to protect our borders. 120 20:47:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 0 Mr HAASE —I rise tonight, albeit for a shortened period of time, to support the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006. Australia has the world’s most comprehensive entry system, basing its success on a multilayered approach. Our government takes the safety of this country and its citizens very seriously. We have funded major expansions in new technology used by Customs and the Australian Federal Police to increase border protection measures. Funding has also been put towards more efficient passenger processing and terrorism and serious crime detection and prevention. We have taken action to shield the people of Australia from developing criminal trends such as identity fraud, the manufacture of synthetic illicit drugs and money laundering. We have developed one of the world’s toughest aviation security systems to protect Australians and overseas travellers. One example is the universal visa system for all noncitizens entering Australia, including transiting passengers. Another is the system of visa verification by airlines prior to a flight’s departure to Australia. At this point, I think it is important to remind the House of the opposition’s track record on border security—it is nothing to be proud of. During their time in office, Labor’s bad economic management meant that the funding needs of our law enforcement agencies were unfulfilled, leaving Australia a soft target for transnational criminal syndicates and organised crime. At a time when federal law enforcement and border protection should have been boosted, Labor cut staff numbers in Customs by more than 1,000 personnel between 1990-91 and 1994-95. This move seriously undermined the ability of Customs to do its vital work in protecting our borders. There were quarantine breaches, and exotic diseases came to Australia. The worst example of Labor’s border security policy—or lack of one—is from August 2001, when the Border Protection Bill 2001 was introduced. Initially, Labor supported it, saying: ... this country and this parliament do not need a carping opposition; what they actually need is an opposition that understands the difficult circumstances in which the government finds itself ... Then, a few hours later, the former leader, Mr Beazley, announced the opposition would not support the Border Protection Bill. I realise I am giving the House a history lesson, but border security must be treated as the important issue that it is. Protecting this country and its people from unauthorised arrivals and deterring would-be people smugglers for the sake of their victims are too important to play politics with. I am proud of the work that this government has done and will continue to do to keep Australia safe. I know it is important to the Australian people, because my constituents have voiced their views on numerous occasions about what we are doing to protect our borders, and they are extremely positive with their support. The Australian government’s tough stance on border security is benefiting the federal electorate of Kalgoorlie in two specific ways. The first is the hard line we have taken on the issue of illegal fishing incursions off the north coast. This has been a significant problem to the communities along the northern coastline in my electorate, in addition to the financial impact on the commercial fishing industry. In last year’s budget $388.9 million was allocated to combat illegal foreign fishing in northern Australian waters. That new funding brought the Australian government’s total commitment to fighting illegal fishing to more than half a billion dollars. I had been pushing for that funding, explaining to the minister and my colleagues how detrimental illegal fishing is to our northern waters and the communities that rely on fishing. The funding has been put towards improved detection and surveillance. Money has been used to upgrade the processing facility in Broome and for disposal of illegal boats, in addition to our policy of destruction of vessels at sea. Civilian charter vessels have been funded to tow apprehended illegal foreign fishing vessels to shore in the case of vessels unsuited to sinking at sea. Local Indigenous groups have been engaged to help monitor the coastline and any landings of illegal fishers. There is increased officer training and equipment money to address the risks associated with boarding foreign fishing vessels. On top of the funding, the Australian government has been working with Indonesia to discourage illegal fishing at its source. Additional officers from Customs, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have been working with their Indonesian counterparts to discourage the fishermen from setting out for Australian waters in the first place. An expanded border protection command unit controls and coordinates all activities for civil maritime security. There were 40 per cent fewer sightings of illegal fisherman in 2006 compared to 2005, even though we funded an increase in surveillance flights. For the first two months of this year, sightings were down by 68 per cent compared to the first two months in 2006. Those figures are supported by those on the ground, by the two leading fishing groups. Firstly, Rob Lowden, chair of the Northern Shark Industry Association, wrote to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, the Hon. Senator Abetz, on 16 November 2006 saying: Our association would like to thank the Minister and the Howard Government for allocating the resources to tackle the Indonesian poaching problem in our northern waters. Our members have advised that they have not seen any Indonesian fishermen over the last two months. This is great news. In an interview with the ABC on 26 February this year, the chairman of the Kimberley Professional Fishermen’s Association, Bob Masters, said that the government’s strategy appears to be working. He said: I wouldn’t say it’s all sorted. I would say we’re definitely going in the right direction, it will be all sorted when we don’t have any incursions into our waters or any theft of our fish resources. We will continue working on this problem until it is solved and we will continue to strengthen Australia’s borders to keep our country secure. The second direct effect on the electorate of Kalgoorlie is the letting of the Port Hedland detention centre. The centre has been mothballed since 2004; it has been on standby in case of illegal arrivals and the need to accommodate them in a secure environment. Because we have been so successful in reducing the arrival of unauthorised boat people, with the Howard government’s strong and successful border policy, the centre is not required in the immediate future for detainees. I am very pleased to tell the House that it will now be let as temporary accommodation for workers in the Hedland area. The reason for this is that the state Labor government in Western Australia has failed to meet its responsibility to provide low-cost housing for the people of the Pilbara. There is a severe shortage of available accommodation and rents are out of control, with prices rivalling those in Sydney. The centre can house up to 400 single people and will make a considerable difference to the accommodation crisis in the area. I have spoken to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship about the issue over a long period, and in February he ordered an urgent review of the facility. That review has now been completed and the report concluded that there is no immediate need for the centre to remain available for illegal immigrants because we have being doing the job and presenting a tough barrier to those would-be people smugglers. I thank the minister for making this decision, as the housing situation in Hedland is desperate. These are both excellent examples of how this government’s border security policy is working, but more can be done. The Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 proposes to amend the Migration Act 1958 by adding two measures which will further strengthen Australia’s borders. The first is a declaration ceasing a special purpose visa and the second is the introduction of an automated border processing strategy. The special purpose visas allow for specified persons, or members of specified classes, to be taken to hold a temporary visa. For example, special purpose visas apply to crew members of non-military ships, airline crew, government guests and participants of events such as the Commonwealth Games. The minister can cease a special purpose visa by making a declaration under section (33)(9) of the Migration Act that it is undesirable that the person, or a class of persons, travel to, or remain in, Australia. Most commonly, this power is used when a foreign sea crew member may be considered at risk of deserting a vessel in Australia or where there is a character, national security or health concern about the person. Where such a declaration is made, the current provisions of the Migration Act state that the special purpose visa remains in effect until the end of that day on which the declaration is made. This is an anomaly in the visa regime; no other type of visa remains in effect until the end of the day on which it is ceased. As a consequence, the person cannot be lawfully detained until the end of that day, even if that person poses some threat to the Australian community. This is of particular concern where, for example, a master of a vessel has reported a crew desertion. In such circumstances, Department of Immigration and Citizenship officers would usually cease that person’s special purpose visa and commence processes to locate the person. However, if the person is found on the day their special purpose visa is ceased, the officer cannot detain the person until midnight of that day—a ludicrous situation. The Australian Government Solicitor has advised that the common-law principles of natural justice should be applied in relation to declarations made to cease a special purpose visa. The second amendment relates to the introduction of an automated border processing system. Immigration clearance is the process that regulates the entry of people into Australia. It ensures that those persons who enter have authority to do so, are who they claim to be and that they provide other information if required to do so. There are new technologies available which will retain the quality of border control but automate systems to make the process quicker and easier. At present, the immigration clearance process at the border is performed manually. It is impossible to cut the manual process time any further without comprising the system’s integrity. Border agencies had to look at other alternatives, and the automated system called SmartGate is one of the strategies to be used in the medium to long term. SmartGate is the process by which the insertion of a chip within the passport document held by a passenger will allow the passenger to process themselves electronically, without the presence of an immigration officer. The detail contained within the chip will reveal all. Debate interrupted. 123 Questions to the Speaker 123 123 21:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Earlier today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question to do with a member’s declaration of interests. A resolution of the House sets out the requirements in respect of the declaration of members’ interests. This resolution requires that, at the commencement of each parliament and at other times as necessary, the Speaker shall appoint an officer of the Department of the House of Representatives as the Registrar of Members’ Interests. That officer also serves as Secretary to the Committee of Members’ Interests. Apart from appointing the registrar, as Speaker I have no role in respect of members’ declarations. 123 21:00:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr HOCKEY —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, following the matter you referred to being raised with me by journalists over the weekend and again in the House after question time today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I have made inquiries and obtained detailed advice from my wife’s accountant and legal advisers. I have discussed the matter with the registrar and informed him of the details of the advice I received. In light of the advice provided to me and my discussions with the registrar, I am confident in assuring the House that I have acted with propriety at all stages in this matter. 124 21:01:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, it appears this was at worst a potential minor breach of the pecuniary interest register. The purpose of my question to you today was to confirm that technical compliance, if needed, had now occurred. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has so assured the House and I am satisfied that the minister has fully complied with the requirements of the House. 124 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being past nine o’clock, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 124 124 21:02:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I rise to speak tonight on the issue of communities and, more specifically, the relationship between communities and economic development. In particular, I will be speaking tonight about the community of Kilburn, in my electorate of Adelaide. This is a working-class community with more than their fair share of battlers. They have a lot of pride and community spirit but they also have their fair share of challenges. One of these challenges is pollution. Residents in this community have been complaining for years about pollution from local industry amidst fears that their health was suffering as a result. They formed the Kilburn Residents Environment Group, which is led by a remarkable local man, Mr Emmanuel Psaila. The residents of Kilburn are victims of poor planning decisions of the past. These decisions have led to circumstances where industry, including a foundry, is situated alongside public housing. I believe that we must take every opportunity to address poor planning decisions of the past and not entrench them for the future. Finally, in 2005, after much lobbying by residents and their elected representatives, the state’s Environment Protection Authority agreed to do some research and monitor pollution levels in the area. In the meantime, however, one of the local industrial sites, the Bradken foundry, devised a plan to significantly expand their operations. The foundry seeks to triple their output from 12,500 tonnes to 32,000 tonnes per annum. This is a massive expansion by any measure. This project was granted major project status by the state government—and I will return to this in a minute. Meanwhile, the residents and elected representatives from all three tiers of government were growing increasingly curious about the results of the EPA environmental testing. Eventually, I applied under freedom of information legislation for access to the test results. After trawling through the 3,440 documents that I obtained, it is no exaggeration to say that these results were deeply disturbing. The results showed that, amongst other problems, national environmental standards were being breached in Kilburn, where PM10, or small particulates, was at alarming levels. Whilst this may not sound like much to you or me, I did a little digging around to research what the consequences of these heightened PM10 levels are. I found, in a paper prepared for the National Environment Protection Council, that increased levels of PM10 lead to increases in total mortality as well as in mortality from respiratory or cardiac disease, increases in hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiac conditions, increases in hospital casualty and medical surgery visits for asthma and other respiratory conditions, and increases in the daily prevalence of respiratory symptoms. Despite these shocking results and despite the fact that we are yet to determine the effect that this pollution has had, if any, on the local community, the approval process for the expansion of the Bradken foundry continues. Surely we must first examine the consequences and determine if Kilburn is an appropriate place for industry in the future. I have made my position quite clear. I believe that, whilst it is fantastic that this company is doing so well and seeks to expand and create more jobs, this expanded foundry should be situated in one of Adelaide’s designated industrial precincts. In the last few weeks, I have sought out the views of the residents of Kilburn for inclusion in my submission to the planning approval process. I have been inundated with an astonishing number of responses. I want to share a couple of things that the residents have shared with me. One resident wrote in saying: ‘I have asthma and often suffer from the bad smell around my area. I need walking every day, but sometimes the polluted air makes me feel sick and I have to go back inside the house.’ Another said: ‘Every month, my children need to go to the doctor because their lungs are affected by the pollution. They have asthma and have problems breathing. I often get headaches, and I think it is because of the smell and the noise.’ Further, one resident wrote: ‘I have lived in Kilburn since 1963. I came here with a clean bill of health. With everything in the air, I contracted asthma, which has resulted in me being on 24/7 oxygen and finding it very hard to breathe.’ I understand that this will be a tough issue for the state government and, though we have gone through some pretty rocky patches throughout this process, I do appreciate the manner in which they—and in particular the Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Paul Holloway, and his department—have listened to my constant badgering and ensured open communication between the levels. I have always been adamant that I will fight for the best interests of the community that I represent—no matter who that means opposing or what party they are in. My message tonight is this: we as elected members must absolutely work for continued economic development. But this prosperity must have a purpose. The point of economic development is to enrich our lives and increase our wellbeing—not to come at the expense of this. (Time expired) 125 125 21:07:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 0 Dr JENSEN —The member for Grayndler, in a media release, criticised my ‘off-the-top-of-my-head’ suggestion that if the concern about anthropogenic climate change were correct we should look at potential solutions to reduce the warming, including ‘shadecloth in orbit’, instead of just looking at CO abatement. ‘Wacky’, waxed Don Quixote, also known as the member for Grayndler. I refer to him by this name for his fixation on windmills, along with other renewable electricity generation methods. Let us have a look at why the idea of reducing solar radiation using an orbital shadecloth, which has been around for 20 years, is so wacky. This is not only my suggestion; it has also been suggested by Edward Teller, Gregory Benford and various other scientists. Not only that,  in April last year NASA funded research into just such a scheme, but with smaller shadecloths, or reflectors, placed at the L1 Lagrange point. I have no doubt that the member for Grayndler would not have a clue what this means, so I will explain. The Lagrange point is about 1.5 million kilometres away, where the sun and the earth have the same gravitational strength. Additionally, the Russians are launching two satellites, AKS1 and AKS2, in May, that will deploy reflectors, one of the reasons being to test shielding the earth from the sun’s radiation. The member for Grayndler, in similar fashion to Labor itself, would not have any idea about actually thinking through issues or thinking of new ideas. The Labor Party just carry on with the same tired old rhetoric in the hope that it will substitute in the electorate’s mind for good policy. You oppose our ideas but have no solutions of your own. Don Quixote and his colleagues in the Labor Party are utterly unable to think through issues, come up with new ideas or determine the potential consequences of some of their nutty policy ideas. Let us think about global warming. The Labor Party would have us believe that this is the most significant threat facing not only Australia but mankind. Would you not think that, if that were true, we should evaluate all potential ways to mitigate the effects of global warming? But, no; nuclear power, for example, is expressly ruled out by the Labor Party. It is clear, therefore, that when assessing Labor’s position based on actions, not words, they do not believe that global warming is that serious an issue, as they refuse, for purely ideological reasons, to even contemplate the safest method of generating power. But maybe, to give them their credit, the Labor Party believe that nuclear power is incredibly dangerous, unbelievably dangerous—so dangerous that the dangers relating to nuclear power significantly exceed the dangers inherent in global warming, which they continue to tell us is the greatest threat facing mankind. Wow! Clearly Labor believe that nuclear power—and all elements relating to it—is utterly beyond the pale and we should have nothing to do with it. Surely that is Labor’s position, isn’t it? But, no; they believe we should export the fuel for this industry, which they believe is so dangerous that it even supersedes the greatest threat facing mankind. This is hypocrisy of the highest order, made even worse by the fact that Labor, believing that nuclear power is so dangerous, have such a lack of ethical and moral fortitude that they are willing to sell this product to supposedly unaware nations that are not as advanced as we are. It is far too dangerous for Australia, a nation that takes pride of place at the very summit of safety on almost any measure, but not too dangerous to foist on others. So, Don Quixote from Grayndler thought that he would have a shot at me, but all that he has done is to exhibit ineptitude, a lack of critical or logical thinking and a lack of any ethical or moral balance an either nuclear power or global warming. Instead of blowing hot air and exacerbating the problem that Labor believe faces the planet, perhaps they could come up with a consistent policy position on the issues. Global warming is clearly only important to Labor in political point scoring. 126 126 21:12:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 0 Ms KING —I want to congratulate the organisers of the Total Girl Soccer Tournament held over the weekend in my electorate. Total Girl Soccer is the biggest all-girl soccer tournament in Australia. The film Bend it like Beckham may have brought girls’ soccer into the public conscience but Total Girl has given a whole generation of girls in Australia the opportunity to give soccer a go. It is the brainchild of a dedicated group of Ballarat parents who became frustrated that, whenever they attended soccer tournaments, the girls always seemed to be an afterthought—drawn at grounds at the very back of venues. The tournament commenced in Ballarat in 2005, with 370 players, and it has rapidly grown. There were 780 young women players in 2006, and this year 1,050 young women under the age of 16 participated, with some 3,000 spectators. These young women came from right across the country, with clubs from country Victoria, Melbourne, New South Wales and Queensland. The team from Queensland—Waterford—coming the furthest, had to hold sausage sizzles for some 12 months in order to raise the money to attend. Next year, clubs from New Zealand and Kuala Lumpur will be participating. The Total Girl Soccer Tournament has distinctive pink soccer balls, pink safety padding around the goalposts and pink T-shirts, which I would like to show the House—they have ‘No boys allowed’ on the T-shirt—and now they have special pink strips. These things have made playing soccer a really cool thing for girls in Ballarat to do. Since the Total Girl Soccer Tournament started in 2005, the number of registered girls playing soccer locally has risen from 45 to 300, and the number is expected to double in the next two years. The girls play each Saturday, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I have had the opportunity to see the great skills these girls have developed, having visited them at a training session last year. At a time when we are desperately looking for ways to get young people to increase their participation in sport, Total Girl Soccer has managed to provide a great outlet for girls playing sport. They have provided a supportive, safe environment for them to learn the skills of soccer but also to experience the fun of participating in a team and a tournament where they get to test their skills against girls from right across the country. Because Total Girl Soccer is a club tournament, it provides the average club player with the experience of a large tournament rather than what normally happens, which is that representative teams of the best players are sent. I want to congratulate the tournament coordinator, Bryan McCormick, and all the volunteers who worked so hard to put the tournament on, from referees, to coaches, to people staffing the food stalls and providing and organising the accommodation and all the myriad tasks that make up such a huge event. It was no mean feat for a group of volunteers to put on an event with 1,000 players and some 3,000 spectators. The tournament, the highlight of Total Girl, is what we the public see, but the real work lies in all that is done in providing to clubs the information to participate, setting up the tournament, finding the volunteers, assisting the clubs to come and, most importantly, encouraging and supporting the girls in the game of soccer. Total Girl has also added greatly to the local economy in Ballarat, with every hotel and motel room booked out over the weekend, and I am sure all of our food outlets experienced the benefits as well. As the tournament has grown so rapidly, there is a need for financial assistance to administer the event. I will certainly do all I can to try and assist Total Girl to secure funding from state and federal government sources. I encourage any sponsors who may be listening to this debate to have a good look at Total Girl if you are interested in finding a grassroots sporting event to support. Again I want to congratulate Total Girl Soccer for bringing soccer to a whole new generation of girls. In Bryan McCormick’s words: ‘What has become obvious is that, given the opportunity, there are very large numbers of girls who wish to play soccer. The aim of Total Girl is to make sure that they are given that opportunity.’ Total Girl Soccer in Ballarat has certainly done that and much more. 128 128 21:16:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —I rise to raise, through this House, a matter that should be a worrying concern to many small businesses throughout Australia, particularly those in the franchise business. The issue concerns the trade practices of a well-known franchisor in Australia, Bakers Delight, and allegations of unconscionable conduct on their part and that of the bank involved, the ANZ, which has agreed to withhold closure till the case goes to court. The case surrounds Mrs Deanne Deleeuw, who purchased a Bakers Delight franchise in Vincentia, in my electorate of Gilmore, in December 2001. In the ensuing period two more outlets were purchased, one at Kiama and another in Shellharbour. I have been given certain information that suggests that the principals of the franchisors of Bakers Delight engaged in practices that I can only describe as not only dishonest but possibly criminal. It is a case that is worthy of further pursuit, and I will be doing this in the days ahead. I make the following assertions. In this particular case, the franchisors, Bakers Delight, engaged in unconscionable conduct in various ways—that is, fraudulent accounting that reduced profitability; removal of any marketing and other support, based on a bogus breach, whilst still requiring weekly payments of marketing and royalty fees; collusion with the ANZ bank to create financial duress; inducing financial distress in order to arrange a fire sale of the business, causing financial catastrophe; and controlling the sales, in collusion with the bank, thus increasing a bogus ‘debt’ of around $1 million. This has now escalated to its current level—that is, in excess of $1.35 million. Overall current losses are in excess of $2 million. On the personal side are intimidation and threats, both physical and financial, condoned by the franchisor—matters serious enough to be referred to the NSW police. These are serious allegations, and I suggest that they are only the tip of the iceberg. I have material being forwarded to me from other franchisees of Bakers Delight, all suggesting similar questionable practices which require further detailed investigation. I have brought this matter to the attention of the ACCC and have asked that they investigate the allegations as a matter of urgency. I will also be asking other agencies to bring their attention to the allegations raised. Whilst it appears that there have been serious breaches of the Trade Practices Act, particularly with regard to the unconscionable practices, I would also suggest that grounds exist where there may have been breaches of criminal law. In any case, the actions of Bakers Delight have brought Mrs Deleeuw to the brink of devastation and bankruptcy. It seems that this has occurred without due scrutiny or concern with regard to the alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act. Mrs Deleeuw now has insufficient funds to challenge the orchestrated robbery of her business, which has been engineered to cause failure so that it can be resold at a profit by Bakers Delight. Small business is the backbone of this country and needs to be protected by the full weight of the law. It is totally unacceptable that Mrs Deleeuw has been put in this position. It is totally unacceptable that Mrs Deleeuw can be exploited in the way that she has been. It is totally unacceptable that a large franchisor like Bakers Delight can conspire to induce a breach of contract simply to make a fire sale, just to generate a large profit for themselves. It is totally unacceptable that any small business can be subjected to intimidation, commercial or criminal, without recourse to some form of effective protection. It is totally unacceptable that an organisation that engages in practices such as these is allowed to continue trading. It is totally unacceptable that a large, dominant entity can resort to standover tactics with impunity. Very serious allegations have been raised, and if Mrs Deleeuw has been brought to a stage where she cannot be given her day in court because she has been sent to the wall by deceit and lies then this government must intervene on behalf of all small businesses. It is unacceptable that, because Mrs Deleeuw cannot find the funds necessary to challenge Bakers Delight in court, they can be allowed to get off scot-free. I will not allow this to happen, and I warn Bakers Delight that they are under scrutiny. I will be raising more specific details of this case and others that have been brought to my attention and will continue doing so until justice not only has been done but also has been seen to be done. 129 129 21:20:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 0 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —Tonight I want to talk about the effects of climate change and the very real sense of crisis that surrounds the growing problem of water shortages in Australia. Many local residents living in my electorate of Calwell have written to me expressing their concerns over the water shortages affecting our region and our country and the lack of federal government leadership and action when it comes to tackling climate change. I share their concerns. Climate change has become one of the defining issues of our time and one of the greatest collective challenges we face as a nation. Failure to cut Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions will have dire consequences for generations to come. It will hurt our economy, our environment and our children’s future, and those constituents who have written to me clearly understand that. Experts predict that global warming will lead to a three-degree rise in average temperatures over the coming decades, with the Australian Greenhouse Office predicting a six-degree rise in temperatures by 2070. In Australia, temperatures have already risen by an average of 0.8 degrees, with five of the hottest years on record occurring in the last seven years alone. A three-degree rise in temperature will mean more extreme weather patterns, increased flooding, a rise in sea levels along our densely populated coastline and more prolonged and more severe droughts. The CSIRO predicts that we will be left with a 40 per cent reduction in the livestock-carrying capacity of Australia’s native pasture systems, flows to the Murray-Darling Basin falling by between 16 and 48 per cent, and the possible extinction of the Great Barrier Reef. Despite these warnings, Australia lags far behind other developed countries when it comes to tackling climate change. Whilst the EU has set a target of cutting greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, Australia’s greenhouse emissions are expected to soar by 27 per cent by 2020. A decade of warnings about the dangers of climate change has been matched by a decade of denial and inaction by the Howard government. Tackling climate change requires national leadership and a government that understands the severity of the problem we face. With its climate change blueprint, federal Labor has put forward a series of responsible, long-term solutions aimed at tackling climate change. In government, Labor will ratify the Kyoto protocol, becoming an international partner in what remains the most significant global effort to date to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have undertaken to cut Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by 2050. We will establish a national emissions trading scheme and significantly increase the mandatory renewable energy target with a view to encouraging, among other things, greater use of solar and wind power. At present, Australia is missing out on the economic benefits associated with carbon trading and the development of a renewable energy industry. In addition, Labor recently announced its $500 million clean coal fund, to promote cleaner coal and to protect jobs in this sector, as well as its new $500 million green car innovation fund that will throw a lifeline to Australia’s struggling car industry and see federal investment in the development and manufacture of low-emission cars in Australia. This promises significant benefits for Calwell, which is heavily reliant on Australia’s car industry for local jobs. The water crisis that now affects many parts of Australia has undeniably focused our attention on the very real effects of climate change. According to the CSIRO, water supplies in Melbourne and Sydney will drop by 25 per cent by 2030 as a result of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation rates due to climate change. In the meantime, their populations are expected to rise by 30 per cent. In my electorate of Calwell, residents now face stage 3(a) water restrictions. Like millions of other Australians who have undertaken to conserve water at home and in the workplace, they are carrying the lion’s share of the burden and doing most of the work when it comes to saving water. We have a responsibility in this place to match those efforts by delivering clear policies that provide long-term solutions to Australia’s water crisis. We need to conserve the fresh water that we have, maintain healthy water flow in our rivers, wetlands and estuaries and fully utilise the huge volumes of waste water that can be recycled. I believe that water recycling, for both domestic and commercial use, has a critical role to play in conserving Australia’s fresh water supplies; yet, under the Howard government, we still lack a clear and comprehensive set of national guidelines for water recycling in Australia. Such guidelines would go a long way towards building public confidence in water recycling. In contrast, Labor has already committed itself to setting a national target of recycling 30 per cent of waste water by 2015. In the area of climate change and water management, Australians need to make a choice. Do we as a nation continue along the current path of inaction and denial when it comes to tackling climate change or do we invest in our future by taking steps to protect our environment and natural resources? 130 130 21:25:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 0 Mr LAMING —The electorate of Bowman is Moreton Bay based, and one of the great passions of anyone who lives around Moreton Bay is, of course, access to the bay for fishing and other recreational activities. Moreton Bay currently stands under a shadow because the state government is conducting a Moreton Bay Marine Park review. No-one would disagree for a moment that we need a sustainable bay for the future. The great concern of local fishermen and anglers from fishing clubs, including Redland Bay, the Capalaba Muddies and Victoria Point Sharks, is a simple one: is all the science going to be considered? This has been a six- to eight-month battle. Ever since the environment minister announced the review, the great concern has been that there would be a one-sided analysis and that great tracts of Moreton Bay would be locked up. History tells us it can happen. I would like to congratulate the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation for funding up to $195,000 to make sure that evidence on fishing activity in Moreton Bay is considered and is available so that we can be certain that there is not going to be lock-up based on very limited science. We have already seen leaking to the Courier-Mail of pro-environmental articles which are clearly anecdotal, often spurious and far from a complete picture of what is happening on the bay. Hundreds of thousands of people use that wonderful resource responsibly—fishing in wonderful locations, teaching their children to fish—and I think it would be a great loss if the marine park were to be extended purely on limited science, without consideration of the very renewable and sustainable activities that occur on the bay at the moment. The second great issue for Redlands—as you would know well, Mr Speaker—is traffic and roads. The southern part of Redland Bay and Victoria Point is one of the few 20,000 population communities that have single-lane roads leading out of them. Slowly, that is changing, but Pinklands exit is one significant bottleneck that was never fixed. We had a state government that was effectively nickel-and-diming the council and calling this important sporting exit a ‘driveway’ for which it had no responsibility. That is exactly how it would have stayed for three or four years, as local families tried to negotiate this dangerous intersection. I am delighted to say that that impasse was broken. It cost in the order of $30,000 to extend that intersection, to broaden it and to provide turning lanes. It was a simple solution and it should have happened years ago. It took a petition, and it took the netball club, the rugby league club, the Yurara art group, the bridge club and the pony club an enormous amount of work which was simply talked down as politicking before the solution was provided. Finally, in Redlands we share something with the rest of the country, and that is a belief in the importance of chaplaincy and pastoral care. I will never truly understand, being on this side of the House, the curious equivocation about pastoral care that exists on the other side of the chamber—the sense that it does not have a really important role to play in government schools. You only have to walk into a schoolyard to see just how important it is. You only have to recall your own childhood to remember just how important it was to have someone that you could talk to, to trust and to recount some of those stories of crisis times to. I am not saying for a moment that you cannot do that with teaching staff, but there is something wonderful about the presence of a chaplain providing that sort of moral support—from breakfast right through to when kids go home in the afternoon—and providing a quiet place to go and talk about things that cause enormous stress. We are already discovering just how large a proportion of morbidity can be ascribed to mental health issues, and it starts from school. We know that chaplaincy plays a significant role. Late last year, it looked like there was no hope. Chaplains all around the country were running chocolate wheels and sausage sizzles to try to pull together a living wage. That has changed. It changed with the $70 million announcement by the Prime Minister last year, and it was rolled out in time for the 2007 school year. That is funding that every school, government or non-government, can apply for. It will be funding new chaplaincy services to schools that have never had them before. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. 131 21:30:00 House adjourned at 9.30 pm 131 Notices The following notices were given: HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter to present a bill for an act to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to regulate the relationship between horticulture growers, traders and retailers, and for related purposes. (Trade Practices Amendment (Horticultural Code of Conduct) Bill 2007). HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter to move: That the Trade Practices (Horticultural Code of Conduct) Regulations 2006, made under the Trade Practices Act 1974, contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 376, be disallowed. 2007-03-26 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4 pm. 133 Committees 133 133 Debate resumed. 133 16:00:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —The Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission report entitled Inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs (AOSD) in Australia is a combination of a lot of submissions produced by law enforcement agencies, members of the public and concerned parents. In this inquiry I was able to bring some of my experience not only of having acted for many years for police officers in most of the state and territory police organisations but also as a parent. The present statistics for drug taking are quite horrific. Australians are among the highest per capita users of amphetamines in the world. The statistics released to this committee—and we have no reason to doubt them—show that one in eight people between the ages of 20 and 29 have used ecstasy. That is a phenomenal increase on what the original intelligence was indicating. It also goes to show that in the minds of young people it is the drug of choice and it is being considered like alcohol, despite the harmful nature of the various substances which go into the manufactured product which they are consuming. I also brought to this committee something to bear as a parent. Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, my children have grown up. But when my kids were growing older they were going out in various social groups. When we grew up, pubs and clubs were closing at 10 o’clock. These days young people do not seem to go out anytime before then. On one occasion my son, who was 19, went into Sydney with a couple of his football mates for a night out. Parents get used to their kids coming home at around 5 o’clock. At 5 o’clock the following morning I was taken aback to get a phone call from my son to see whether I could pick him up from a hospital. He went to St Vincents Hospital with his mate. His mate, unfortunately, took what was known then as a speed ball, which is ecstasy. He did that in a nightclub in Sydney. His mate actually collapsed on the floor. He was dragged out by the security people or the doormen. He was unconscious. Nine days later he died. I knew this kid’s parents and this really brought it home. Every parent is concerned about the prevalence of a drug of this type in the community, the fact that it is so readily available, and the fact that a lot of young people do not see anything wrong with it. So I and my family owe young Brock a huge debt of gratitude for seeing what occurred there. For the rest of the guys in that football team a very heavy price was paid. That was an example of what can occur when you go out and not know what you are taking. As I said, at the moment figures show that one in eight people have consumed ecstasy in the last 12 months. According to Deputy Commissioner Simon Overland of Victoria Police, who gave evidence before the committee, police intelligence indicates that 100,000 ecstasy tablets are being consumed per weekend across Australia. That is a devastatingly high figure, which indicates that young people are not making the link between this drug and the consequence of overdosing. For many young people in this country who simply do not know what is in ecstasy or of its effect when mixed with alcohol, the drug is proving to be lethal. One of the things that concerns police—and I say this with some knowledge—is that at the moment nationally we have produced the Model Criminal Code. It is the desire of the Commonwealth that state and territory governments would enact as closely as possible the tenets of the Model Criminal Code to enable police to be consistent in the way they handle issues of criminality. The Model Criminal Code is certainly designed to look at issues of drug based legislation and also at penalties as a result of criminal activity associated with drugs. One of the things which came through loud and clear to the committee, one of the things which regrettably is affecting our ability to properly police the use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs in this country is the inconsistency, as it presently stands, through the state and territory police jurisdictions, of criminal legislation. As most people know, crime does not know any state boundaries. Criminals will operate in various states and move across state borders. The lack of consistency in criminal legislation is hampering the ability of police to reduce the supply of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs in our community. Sure, a lot of drugs are imported into the community, and the Commonwealth applies Customs to pursue the importations. Therefore, an increase in domestic production of speed is occurring in this country. That being the case, we are seeing more and more police trying to target the small, domestic drug laboratories which are popping up all around the place. These can be quite small. They are certainly very mobile and that is why there is a need for consistent legislation to particularly enable their investigations, and also prosecutions, to shut down drug laboratories to stop the production of drugs. One of the other things where, quite frankly, it is essential there is some consistency of approach is how we monitor and police the precursor chemicals which go into the manufacture of synthetic drugs. Drugs rely on a lot of precursor chemicals which are being imported. We do not have presently a consistent regime on foot that actually appropriately monitors the infiltration of these precursor chemicals. Some states simply have legislation which will make any possession of precursor chemicals a crime in itself whereas other states do not. These are things, quite frankly, that are an impediment to policing. They are certainly an impediment to successful prosecution with a view to putting those who would seek to use these chemicals out of business. I commend the report. It is one which has been produced with a view to doing something positive about reviewing state and territory criminal law to give some consistency to police in the way they may go about their function in shutting down this illicit industry. (Time expired) 134 16:10:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 0 Mr RICHARDSON —I rise to speak on the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission inquiry into the manufacture, importation and use of amphetamines and other synthetic drugs in Australia. I would first like to thank the secretariat of the parliamentary joint committee and the witnesses, either in writing or attending in person, across the nation for their assistance and integral input into the terms of reference. A key function of the Australian Crime Commission parliamentary joint committee is to examine trends and changes in criminal activities, practices and methods and report to both houses of parliament any change to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the Australian Crime Commission which the committee thinks desirable. The terms of reference for the AOSD project were extensive and need to be read in conjunction with the recommendations provided in the amphetamines and other synthetic drugs report. The committee’s report makes 18 recommendations which flow from the inquiry’s findings on the importation, manufacture and use of AOSD in Australia. Eight recommendations relate directly to the functions, structure, powers and procedures of the ACC and, as such, require consideration and responses from the ACC. It is a fact that Australia has one of the highest levels of methamphetamine use in the world. In recent years it has seen usage increasing. The Department of Health and Ageing, DOHA, noted the following from the UN World drug report 2005. In comparison with other data presented in the report, Australia has a substantially higher rate of amphetamine use than the other countries listed, including the UK, 1.6 per cent; the USA, 1.4 per cent; the Netherlands, 0.6 per cent; and Canada, 0.6 per cent. The annual prevalence of ecstasy use in Australia was 3.4 per cent of the population aged 15 to 64 years in 2001. According to the report, the rates for Australia are well above those presented for the UK, at two per cent; the Netherlands, at 1.5 per cent; the USA, at 1.1 per cent; and Canada, at 0.9 per cent. I must say that I was very concerned to hear Deputy Commissioner Simon Overland of the Victoria Police highlight the scale of the AOSD problem in Australia. He said: Our estimation, our intelligence, is that there are somewhere in the vicinity of 100,000 tablets of ecstasy being consumed per weekend across Australia … Similarly, DOHA noted that one in eight persons aged 20 to 29 years had used ecstasy in the last 12 months. The 20- to 29-year age group had the highest proportion and number of persons ever using ecstasy compared with all other age groups. There were approximately 100,000 more recent ecstasy users in 2004 when compared with 2001. I would like to highlight two very successful ongoing operations by law enforcement in Australia which should be adopted Australia-wide. As a former police officer I have seen firsthand how operations such as this can assist in the battle against drugs of all kinds. In Perth the committee heard that police have brought the issue of contamination of premises to the attention of the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia. Sergeant Gill Wilson, drug education officer with the Alcohol and Drug Coordination Unit of the Western Australia Police, told the committee: Just recently we have introduced a strategy whereby we have brought the situation to the attention of REIWA—the real estate industry organisation here. This strategy is very worth while ... you can understand that real estate agencies through their property management teams can become realistically the third policeman. They have the opportunity of inspecting premises and may come across situations that they can report through Crime Stoppers ... In Queensland, Project STOP has recently been instituted and tested. It was developed jointly by the Queensland branch of the PGA, the Queensland police and Queensland Health. The scheme involves recording pseudoephedrine purchaser information on a pharmacy database called Epothecary. This tracks purchases of pseudoephedrine products. The system allows pharmacists to identify persons who may be pseudo-running, using the products illegally or operating a clandestine laboratory. If a transaction arouses suspicions, they may refuse the sale. The submission from the PGA indicates that, since the pilot program for Project STOP commenced in November 2005, over 40,000 entries have been put through the system and there have been over 2,500 refusals of sale by pharmacists. Further, the submission states that between January and March 2006, only a three-month period, Project STOP resulted in the generation of more than 100 police investigative files, with 12 offenders being arrested on 114 drug related charges, together with six counts of trafficking, three illicit laboratories being detected and a number of suspected pseudo-runners being summonsed to attend the Australian Crime Commission in the ACT for coercive hearings. I have a significant concern regarding any endorsement of pill testing. While the committee acknowledges that pill-testing proponents are well intentioned, a majority of the committee consider that such programs have yet to overcome a number of legitimate and serious concerns. These are: one, the perception that official conduct and sanction of such programs are akin to condoning drug-taking behaviour; two, that such programs could expose conducting authorities, bodies or individuals to liability for harm arising to users of pill-testing services; and, three, that there are questions over the accuracy of the testing procedures employed. The committee was also concerned that, despite pill-testing proponents pursuing a neutral information based approach, users of such services will tend to use the information provided to decide simply whether or not to ingest a particular MDMA pill. Given the critical and unpredictable role that individual physiology plays in cases of adverse or even fatal reactions to MDMA pills, the committee was concerned about the extent to which MDMA users might use the information provided by pill testers as the basis of, or to confirm, a decision to ingest a particular MDMA pill. I concur with the member for Werriwa, my Labor parliamentary colleague, who just shared the experience of a mate of his own son who took a speed bomb in a nightclub and unfortunately paid with the ultimate loss of his life. He did this by going along with the crowd. If there had been a pill test involved, he may have done it because of the fact that the pill was tested and found to be okay. It may be okay for one person but, as I have repeatedly said, the physiological make-up of individuals can be vastly different. I strongly believe our sports men and women, who our young people hold as mentors and role models, and the press who describe AOSDs as social or party drugs need to be aware that possession of these types of drugs is illegal and that these drugs can have and have been proven to have disastrous effects on an individual. The AFL should not have a three strikes and you are out rule. On the very first occasion a player tests positive or his club becomes aware of a possible dependence on or use of an illegal—and may I be careful in saying—party drug, his parents, the club doctor and coach need to be aware and to provide the necessary support mechanism to ensure that player does not fall between the gaps as in the case of Ben Cousins, a champion young footballer of this era. We all hope to see Ben overcome his addiction and play football again. Everyone can do more in this area, and I support the many recommendations that our committee has provided. 136 16:20:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —Ice, ecstasy and speed are commonly used terms for similar and related but different drugs. As the honourable member before me indicated, the use of these drugs in Australia is very concerning. The annual prevalence of ecstasy use in Australia was 3.4 per cent of the population aged between 15 and 64 in 2001. But the rates for Australia are well above those presented for the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, America and Canada. In addition, there are other figures of concern. Recent use of methamphetamines in the population rose from 2.1 per cent in 1995 to 3.2 per cent in the year 2004. The use of ice by methamphetamine users increase from 12 per cent to 45 per cent of those individuals between the year 2000 and 2003-2004. The number of hospital admissions for methamphetamine usage increased from 155 per million to 181 per million over a similar period of time. These are statistics, but each statistic represents a real person. As the deputy commissioner of police in Victoria indicated to the parliamentary committee, it is their estimate that every weekend 100,000 ecstasy tablets are taken across this country. That is 100,000 sons and daughters, brothers and sisters risking their lives every weekend. This is not a drug which matches stereotypes. The predominant users of this drug are young, well educated and in stable, well-paid jobs. They are people who, from Monday to Friday, nine to five, many people would not suspect of using drugs but on weekends use drugs of great danger. The crystal form of methamphetamine, ice, is a particularly insidious drug. It was first detected in this country six years ago, although it had been detected in Asia for many years before that. It is a particularly virulent form of the drug and a particularly concerning form of the drug. I was drawn to the finding of the committee that the purity of ice makes it a particularly potent and active form of the drug. The use of ice is increasing in social groups that have traditionally not been associated with hard drug or amphetamine use, particularly because it is ingested in a number of ways. In contrast, heroin traditionally has been injected—which has limited it to the small number of people who are willing to inject themselves, which is estimated to be 0.5 per cent of the population. Ice can be taken in anyone number of ways; it can be smoked, injected and, perhaps most commonly, taken as tablets. The honourable member for Kingston referred to the media and references to party drugs. I do recognise his point, but I would also make the point that there are several parts of the media which deserve to be congratulated for their treatment of the drug ice. I have seen references to the drug ice on 60 Minutes, in a particularly powerful episode; Four Corners and also on A Current Affair. They have played a very useful role in educating the broader population about the evils of the drug ice and about the need to educate young people. Again, I was drawn to evidence given to the committee by Detective Chief Superintendent Denis Edmonds, of the South Australian Police. He told the committee: What I do perceive is that there is a lack of knowledge across the community about drugs, their short- and long-term effects and the legal status of some of them. It really does come down to education. Effective education will impact on demand. As I said at the outset, we are talking about a commodity that is out there because there is a demand for it within the community. If we reduce the demand, we reduce the problems. I was also drawn to the submission to the committee by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, which said: There is a need for the targeted dissemination of culturally appropriate and credible information on the types of drugs and the range of harms associated with their use, particularly the considerable risks associated with frequent use and use by injection. With that in mind, we must all do what we can to educate people about the effects of the drug ice in particular. On 18 April I will be hosting a forum in my electorate for families concerned about the drug ice. I am particularly encouraging families to bring their children to this forum. It will be addressed by Dr Gilbert Whitton, who is one of the foremost Sydney experts on illicit drugs. It will also be addressed by Mr Beaver Hudson, who is a clinical nurse at St Vincents Hospital, and by a former ice addict, whom I will not name in this forum but who has agreed to come and talk at that forum. I thank all of them for giving their valuable time to this forum. I also thank Smithfield RSL for making the meeting place available to me. Over this week and next week, I will be circulating an invitation to every household in my electorate to attend this forum. It is a small step, but I believe we all have an obligation to provide as much information as possible to all people in the community about this particularly insidious drug and to provide support to parents who are worried about whether their children might be taking it, who perhaps do not know for certain but may have suspicions that their children might be involved in taking these sorts of drugs and who are concerned and do not know where to turn or who to talk to. One of the roles of this forum is to provide information to parents about who they can talk to if they do have those concerns. It is also, of course, to provide information to younger people about who they can talk to about their concerns about their friends or brothers and sisters or, indeed, if they are having a problem with ice and feel they are being pressured to take ice or may be becoming addicted to ice and want to find out what they can do about it. I commend this report and the members of the committee. I am not a member of this committee but, because of my interest in the matter, my attention was drawn to the report, which I have read. It is a comprehensive analysis of the issues and I commend it to the chamber. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 138 138 Debate resumed from 26 February, on motion by Mr Robb: That the House take note of the document. 138 16:28:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Speaker’s response to the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure Media coverage of House proceedings, including the chamber, Main Committee and committees and to its recommendations. As Manager of Opposition Business—and I did not have this position at the time of the inquiry by the committee—I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the report in this debate. Access of the media to the proceedings of our national parliament is an important issue. It is how Australians in their homes and in their workplaces find out what happens in the House of Representatives. It is also the case that in 21st century Australia the media has a seemingly insatiable demand for content. Of course, we have seen new media develop in terms of technological change, and therefore the guidelines regarding access to the House proceedings need to reflect that change and continue to facilitate the access that they were designed to give. The competing interest is of course in ensuring that the House of Representatives is not damaged by a level of access that dilutes the public’s ability to focus attention on the proceedings there. It is also important to protect the integrity of the House and to prevent the media from needlessly focusing on elements of parliamentary proceedings not relevant to its business. It is of course a right the media demands and a right, which I respect, to determine what is and is not relevant. Certainly, one can understand the frustration of some sections of the media. It is a frustration that we as the opposition have also felt from time to time, when photographic records of important business in the House have been kept out of the media by outdated guidelines. As the Manager of Opposition Business I want to go through the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and give a response to the Speaker’s response, if you like. There are six recommendations in the report. The first recommended updating previous resolutions to reflect current House arrangements and asserting the authority of the Speaker in administering guidelines for media access. There is no response from the Speaker to that recommendation. Recommendation 2 was for a modernisation of the language to recognise the change from film to digital technology. It also recommended removing words from the preamble to the guidelines which concern media responsibility and the Speaker’s authority in relation to disallowing the publication of photographs which impact on the dignity of the House. The Speaker’s response is that the guidelines were amended in October 2005 to partially reflect this recommendation. Recommendation 3 was that the Speaker introduce a 10-week trial to extend automatic photographic permission for ministerial statements, MPIs, divisions and adjournment debates. This trial has been going on since 26 February and it is being done on the basis that any photographer accessing the House at that time inform the Serjeant-at-Arms when he or she enters the gallery. Recommendation 4 was that television bureaus be provided with access to isolated feeds produced by Department of Parliamentary Services broadcasting staff on request. The Speaker has not agreed to that recommendation on the basis that isolated feeds are already provided to bureaus on request but that the production of the official broadcast should be considered first before other media interests. Recommendation 5 was that the Parliamentary parliamentary press gallery Committee consult with DPS staff to improve access to different camera feeds from the House. It recommended that the committee evaluate any new arrangements after they had been in operation for six weeks. The Speaker has broadly supported that recommendation; however, he has reserved the right to approve a trial of any changes to the current arrangements. Recommendation 6 was that the Department of Parliamentary Services install cameras in the House of Representatives committee rooms to allow increased television coverage. The Speaker has broadly supported that recommendation but has asked the Department of the House of Representatives to examine that. The recommendations of this report, we believe, are fairly innocuous. It is appropriate, I think, that there be access to the House, and certainly, in relation to recommendations 5 and 6, I think that we do need to have more concrete action considered. This is a process that has now gone on for several years. It is more than a couple of years old. We now have recommendations from the Speaker that we are debating here in the chamber for the first time. Certainly, the opposition would welcome feedback from the media as to how we might improve the guidelines if the current process does prove to be inadequate for dealing with their legitimate concerns. I will leave my remarks there, on that note. 139 16:35:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —This debate gives us an opportunity to talk about the way in which we think parliament should be portrayed to the public. Obviously, if we are talking about media coverage of House proceedings, that is at the core of any discussion. I think that it is incumbent upon a parliamentary institution in the 21st century to make sure that the way it projects itself takes advantage of all the tools that are available to it, and I think that much of that is about the modernisation of our parliament. The interim report of the Procedure Committee carried out in 2004 and released back in October 2005 goes over much of the history of the way in which this place has been covered by the media. Some of us have not been here long enough to have known the phenomenon of when proceedings were covered by the print media in a much fuller way than they are now—because, outside of the radio broadcast, the only way that people could actually know and understand what was happening in the parliament was to get a feel in the print media for the matters discussed, much of what was said and what their local representatives were putting to the parliament. There was very little replaying of the radio broadcast, only replaying of question time. So this was important to the way in which messages out of the institution of parliament actually got back to electors. We then saw the great revolution that occurred when we moved up the hill to this building and had access to visual technology—TV and the like. This has radically changed the way in which people can interact with this institution. For instance, last Tuesday, when there was the delay to question time because of the condolence motions, the coverage by the ABC was also delayed, and a number of people made comments about that to their respective representatives. So people who do not have pay TV have access to question time on a rotating basis between the Senate and the House of Representatives; those that have pay TV can, through the facilities of Sky News, actually see the whole proceedings of the House of Representatives and, I think, the whole proceedings of the Senate if the House of Representatives is not sitting. The original report by the Procedure Committee went to the nature of the rules and guidelines for the coverage of proceedings. The issue arose because of the difficulty the print media had with still photography of an incident in the chamber. It is true that, for those who are taking still photographs in this place, the guidelines are fairly generous compared to those for the video feed that is made available to television and now, as technology moves on, to other forms of digital presentation of the place. I have a view that, in the case that caused the Procedure Committee to look into the coverage of House proceedings, the guidelines were right. In this case a person jumped from the gallery as a form of protest. Coverage of that sort of incident or the display of banners in the gallery has been outside the guidelines. I can understand the media’s desire to be able to cover these types of things—because we are not disputing whether they are newsworthy—but a decision must be made balancing whether these things should be covered against the protection of the dignity of the proceedings of the parliament. In that case I have an understanding of and sympathy for the way in which the guidelines are framed. Other objections from time to time have been made by members who believe that the coverage by still photography has in some way demeaned them. The guidelines indicate that photography should not lead to embarrassment or a portrayal in some way that does not go to the dignity of the chamber. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if a member is down in the chamber and nodding off and there is a photograph of that then that is something that the member has to wear. I would see that as a legitimate part of the proceedings of the parliament. If it is about a member, and a member in fact puts him or herself in an embarrassing situation, why do they necessarily need or deserve protection? So, in that, I am indicating that I believe there could be a freeing-up of still photography. This then leads to the problem—which, quite legitimately, television broadcasters have put before the parliament; and this was looked at by the Procedure Committee—that television broadcasters can only take the feed from the parliamentary broadcaster. I understand this concern and I understand that, quite correctly, the Procedure Committee attempted to free up the accessibility of the incidental feed from different cameras that might be made available. So I understand that, much in the way in which a host broadcaster would broadcast a sporting event, there is some opportunity for those who are taking the host broadcaster’s feed to take other elements of the images that are captured. I think this was in fact the intent of the Procedure Committee back in 2004-05, and I note that this recommendation has not been agreed to by the Speaker. In part, the Speaker’s response to the committee goes to matters to do with the Department of Parliamentary Services broadcasting staff and what their prime objective is and what their prime duties are as against being able to provide this type of broadcast. But I think that is something we should consider. It is something that would even enable us to expand the way in which the business of parliament—whether it be this place, the main chamber or committee work—is actually able to be taken out and viewed by electors. What is the way forward? We have had an interim report of the Procedure Committee which, while it is a small report, is a very good one in the way that it can be used as a basis for looking at what the opportunities are for media coverage of parliament. We have a response from the Speaker. Regrettably, given the way in which this place works, this is a response that was tabled. There is really no avenue for the Speaker to be able to enter into a fuller discussion, in the formal sense of the procedures of this place, on the background and the reasoning behind what he provides to us in two pages. That is not a criticism; that is just a reflection on the way in which this place works. I think these are matters that are not resolved and finalised. I think there is a fair degree of scope for us to consider these matters and to see ways in which we can make improvements. I have been a small ‘c’ champion of the notion of us having a modernisation committee akin to the one that was put together at the turn of the century by the British House of Commons. I understand that this committee in the Commons may not have been as successful as its proponents had hoped for in the first place—and as I perhaps naively thought it might have been able to operate—and that is to do with the personnel involved. But I believe this is something on which the House, along with the Speaker and with the members of the parliamentary parliamentary press gallery, could continue to have a dialogue to look at ways in which we can improve things. At the time of that original decision and of other decisions of previous Speakers there was much derision by some of the satirical programs on television indicating that we were trying to put a wall around ourselves so we could not be observed in our primary tasks in the parliament. I think we should make sure we are not doing things that would lay us open to that type of charge. That is why I believe that anything that is happening in the chamber, in this Main Committee or when we are doing our committee work that is to do with the central core of the business of those venues should be open to scrutiny by all forms of media. That is a difficulty with regard to video presentation because there are physical restraints. And I think it is appropriate, given that we would be sending a feed live to air, that the parliament should continue to have control over the way in which that is put out to the electorate. But I think the minutiae of other views of the chamber, things that might be seen as incidental but of some merit to what is happening in the chamber, can also be portrayed. As I said from the outset, the most important thing for us in considering the good work that has been done by the Procedure Committee and the response that has been made by Speaker Hawker from his view in his role as the Speaker, who not only has an obligation to defend the dignity of the parliament but at the same time to achieve what he thinks is an appropriate balance in giving media organisations access to the way in which they capture what is happening in the parliament, is to see this as an institution operating in the 21st century that has some very exciting ways in which it can be covered. I will digress slightly by relating an experience I had three or four weeks ago when I was in Belize, of all places, with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s study group on parliamentarians and the environment. As best I can ascertain, there seems to be only one radio station that the Belizeans listen to, and it is entitled Love FM, of all things. For most of the week that I was there it played all sorts of different Caribbean beats—I learnt that there are more than one. But on the day we were leaving, which was budget day in Belize, we were in the bus going off to the airport and I heard the parliament on the radio. I asked, ‘What station is this?’ They reported that it was Love FM. During the course of that discussion, I came upon a radio interpretation of what was happening in the chamber which made me feel very much at home—this is not a reflection on the present Speaker or on previous speakers. There was an incident where the leader of the opposition in the Belizean parliament raised a point of order asking the Speaker whether, if the opposition were raising points of order, they would actually be listened to, because they said, ‘Man, we don’t think that we are getting a proper listening to.’ This is now portrayed on the net very much with the proper intonation and lingo of the Caribbean. I give that case as an example to show that there is interest, whether it be in Belize or Australia, in what is happening in the national parliament. We should be using all forms of media to ensure that such coverage occur. Of course we should look at ways to free up access via the internet—again, video feed is the most appropriate—so that parliament is displayed in a relevant form to those who depend upon that viewing for an understanding of what is happening, presenting parliament as an important institution carrying out important work in the 21st century. 142 16:51:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —Some might be amazed to know that when it comes to media coverage of House proceedings—including the chamber, the Main Committee and committees—I take a conservative view. I am not one who believes in the unrestricted access of the media to those venues. We have seen an opening of the access of the media to our courts over recent years—and I note that recently one higher court judge, whose name escapes me, was talking about the access of the media to his court and welcoming it. I think it is to be welcomed. I think the televising of parliament and still photographs of proceedings are important to convey the message of the parliament to the community. They should be part and parcel of the monitoring of parliament. But I am not a great fan of the paparazzi. The paparazzi now seem to have unrestricted access when it comes to public figures and not such public figures. They are prepared to camp outside people’s homes, sometimes for weeks on end, looking for particular pictures or for a camera view of particular people—ex-politicians and others. I have to ask myself: what purpose is to be served by the parliament allowing unrestricted access? I disagree with some of the things the member for Scullin said.  If unrestricted access is allowed and members are in parliament for a lengthy period of time, or not so lengthy a period of time, it is inevitable that photographs could be taken showing them in awkward positions—with their eyes closed, having a cat nap or whatever. This could be taken totally out of context—you would not know whether the photograph was of a late night sitting. What purpose would be served in that instance, other than bringing the parliament and the particular member into disrepute? I have no intention of being on my guard every minute the parliament is being broadcast when I happen to be in the chamber, worrying about whether a TV will focus on me having a bit of shut-eye or whether a still photographer is going to focus on me. I do not think that adds one iota to the broadcasting of the parliament and I do not see it as a necessity. There are limitations in the broadcasting of court proceedings. We have not allowed cameras to show the accused or complainants being examined or cross-examined. In my view, that would cross the barrier. That could have an effect on the proceedings. That could distort the reporting of those proceedings. It is not the same if you are not at the game. We have an open parliament. There is a parliamentary press gallery from which journalists can report; there is a public gallery for members of the public to observe proceedings, but it would be a distorted view if you were to allow unrestricted access to those who wish to use cameras in the parliament. I cannot see the purpose of it. The purpose should in effect be the reporting of proceedings. It is about the dignity of parliament. It is not a matter of trying to claim a special privilege. I would like to have a still photographer follow the parliamentary press gallery around for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, monitoring them while they are stuck in their workplace for the 18 hours a day that they might work, with a view to taking a picture of someone falling asleep or picking their nose or doing whatever. No workplace can withstand that level of scrutiny. And what is it all designed to do? It is designed to bring the particular subject into disrepute, to put them up for ridicule. None of us is immune from tiredness. The parliamentary press gallery certainly are not. That is why I will not be lectured by the parliamentary press gallery about unrestricted access to the parliament. With regard to televising of parliament and the taking of photographs, this is a place that deserves to be viewed in a dignified way. If someone wants to make faces or whatever while the camera is on him, that is part and parcel and integral to the proceedings as they are being broadcast. If someone wants to make a noise with their mouth or speak gobbledegook or whatever, and the camera is on them and it is integral, that is part and parcel of the proceedings. I am not saying that we should take that out of the proceedings. You focus on the subject who is delivering the speech. You get photographs if there is a ceremonial occasion. You get overviews of the parliament if you have visiting dignitaries. All of this is within the proper parameters. Let us not fall for this nonsense that we need to give unimpeded access every minute this place is open. I do not believe in cameras in the workplace to the extent that some people want cameras in this particular workplace. It is a massive invasion of privacy. If I am off the pace or I am not central to the proceedings, I do not see why television or print journalists need to concentrate on me if their purpose is to photograph or broadcast or cover the proceedings of the parliament. You cannot stop people from coming in and doing all their work up there in the gallery, and many of them do that when there are important votes, and I have no problem with photographs being taken on important occasions such as when the native title legislation went through the House of Representatives. The photographers got up in the gallery and took a photograph of those proceedings. Everyone in the chamber was photographed. There is nothing wrong with that. They are not the things I am talking about; they are firmly allowed within the guidelines. I am not saying that the guidelines should not be tweaked and broadened occasionally as a case is made out. I am saying to those in this place: do not fall for this nonsense that we should give uninterrupted, unimpeded access to still photographers and to the media in general for the televising of these proceedings. Ask yourself and ask them for what purpose they want it. As I said to you, the test is: what other workplace would allow that. We are public officials on public exhibition, and I accept and respect that, but for what purpose do some in the gallery seek to obtain extensions? What purpose is served if the member for Hinkler after a long day or whatever—it might not even be a long day—is captured having a power nap or a catnap? What purpose does it serve? I do not think it is all that newsworthy by the way, but the point is that if he is not central to the proceedings of the parliament at that time in giving his speech then he should be free to do that which he wants to do. If he wants to do other things, that is also fine, but to give unlimited access to still photographers and the television cameras—to pan the chamber, to photograph every angle of the chamber at any time of the proceedings, which is what some people want—is a monstrous invasion and I do not support it. I ask those who bleat because they do not have it whether they would accept that sort of intrusion into their workplace and into the hours of work that they have to perform on a daily basis. What purpose does it serve? It is actually about reporting the proceedings. Can you imagine a courtroom where you have an unlimited use of still photography or an unlimited use of television cameras spanning the courtroom? I cannot and I do not support it, and I do not apologise for that. We limited some of the recommendations in this Procedure Committee report on Media coverage of House proceedings and I know that there are some who would say that we should have gone further. My view with all of these things is: one step at a time; do them gradually. What is the overriding theme? The overriding theme has to be the proper reporting of parliament, getting parliament out there and not getting a distorted view of the parliament. It is distorted already, but who is to blame in question time? The members of parliament are to blame. We as a parliament deserve all we get for that, because I do not believe question time, as it is televised within the guidelines at the moment and when it is conducted in front of schoolchildren who come to this place, places this parliament in a good light at all. I think we are diminished by the conduct of question time. Former Prime Minister Keating was right about the televising of parliament, but at the end of the day it is the MPs themselves who are to blame because of the way they conduct themselves. The sorts of things that I have talked about relate to people who are not necessarily central to the televising of the parliament at the time it is being televised. Why bring them into the picture? There is no need. I have no problem with still photographers concentrating on the speaker who is delivering the speech in full flight or whatever—I think that is fair game—but what is the need for a broader picture? Are we going to show an empty chamber? Of course we will show an empty chamber. Why will we show an empty chamber? Because we are all in our rooms doing work on committees, meeting schoolchildren or whatever and it is not a necessity for everyone to be in the chamber 10 hours a day, four days of the week. That is not a productive use of the member’s time. We come in when we are making our speeches, when we are wanting to interject on others making their speeches, when it is question time and when there are divisions. That image of itself of an empty chamber, unexplained, sends out a bad image to the community. It is not something that I, frankly, can see the necessity for. As I said, I think the television and media coverage should be about the central focus in the parliament at the time and the reporting of that. Someone might ask whether, if we have a brawl in the parliament, that should be televised. I would say yes, because it is central to those proceedings. If we start a punch-up as happens in some of the parliaments in our neighbourhood, I think it is legitimate to focus on that. Maybe that is outside the guidelines, but that is the case. I say to you that that is integral to the reporting of parliament at that particular time. If an incident happens, if someone jumps from the gallery, it is not allowed to be broadcast because it is not within the guidelines. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr Neville —It’s a security breach. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —It is also about not having copycats. There is a rational explanation for that, so let us not apologise for that either. It is about copycats and, as the honourable member for Hinkler said, security. These are all factors that outweigh the unrestricted use of media coverage of House proceedings. I commend the report to the parliament, as limited as it is. I am not saying there are not other things that can be done, but there are some basic principles and I do not believe in a free-for-all. 145 17:06:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 0 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I wish to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in supporting the limited recommendations put forward by the Procedure Committee in its final report, Media coverage of House proceedings, which were referred to by the member for Banks in his passionate oration just a few moments ago. This is an important report which reflects the crucial role that the media plays when it comes to ensuring that members of the general public are able to follow debates and the decisions taken by those in this place who are elected to represent them. The terms of reference for the Procedure Committee’s inquiry—‘To inquire into and report on all aspects of media coverage of the House, including proceedings in the House, Main Committee and committees of the House’—were broad in scope. In particular, the Procedure Committee undertook its inquiry with a view to addressing some of the problems that have arisen in the past as a result of the current guidelines regulating media coverage of the House. More broadly, the inquiry was framed by a shared recognition of the crucial role that the media plays in enhancing public knowledge about the business of the chamber, the Main Committee and the parliamentary committees. The final report tabled by the Procedure Committee lists six recommendations that are intended both to ease some of the restrictions limiting the media’s access to the House of Representatives chamber and to better facilitate the media’s ability to adequately cover House proceedings. Before looking at each of these recommendations individually, as well as the Speaker’s response to them, I want to first take a few moments to highlight some of the problems associated with the current arrangements regulating media coverage of the House. As it stands, proceedings in the House are covered by televised broadcasts, print news and live radio broadcast. Crucially, however, the degree of access to the House that each arm of the media has is radically different, and this is where many of the problems associated with media coverage of the House originate. As the Procedure Committee’s final report makes clear, radio broadcasts of House proceedings are relatively straightforward and the current guidelines for radio broadcasting generate little if any controversy. In contrast, however, most problems surrounding media coverage of the House relate directly to restrictions affecting televised broadcasts of the House and its proceedings as well as restrictions limiting the access that press photographers have to the gallery. Taking television first, under current arrangements television stations have access to footage of the chamber as provided to them by the broadcasting section of the Department of Parliamentary Services. The chamber is equipped with eight cameras that are mounted into the walls and operated by remote control by staff working for the DPS. These cameras continue to record what goes on in the chamber. Switching between the cameras, DPS broadcasting staff are able to mix different images taken from the eight cameras to produce a single feed of video footage from the chamber. This single feed is broadcast on the House monitoring system and is also made available free of charge to commercial television stations. The capacity also exists for DPS broadcasting staff to produce what is commonly referred to as an iso feed, or additional footage, when it is requested by one or more of the television bureaus, though this can be difficult during busy periods in the chamber, as would be the case for question time. The rules that apply for camera operators and still photographers in the chamber regarding how they treat their subject matter are essentially the same. Both can focus on the member with the call as well as take panning shots of members listening to the debate, member reaction shots and wide angle shots. As it stands, DPS is thus responsible for recording and editing all video footage of the chamber’s proceedings. No commercial television cameras are allowed in the chamber—that is common knowledge. It was made quite clear by the member for Banks that there would be strong opposition to such free access of commercial television cameras to the chamber at all times. Television bureaus, however, have expressed dissatisfaction with the feed produced by DPS broadcasting staff for the way it lacks drama or newsworthiness and because occasions have arisen in the past where the short grab required for a particular news story is unavailable on the DPS feed made available to the media. In response, television bureaus have suggested that they be given access to the separate feeds produced by each of the eight cameras individually, allowing them greater freedom to edit footage taken from the chamber rather than having to rely solely on the single feed produced by the DPS. As the standing committee notes in its report, however, providing bureaus with eight separate feeds taken from the eight cameras in the chamber is presently impossible given the inadequate number of tie lines or feed lines that carry video footage from the chamber to the parliamentary press gallery. The committee found that installing extra feed lines from the basement DPS studio to the parliamentary press gallery would be expensive and as such was not a practical option at present. An alternative suggestion put forward by at least one of the television stations was for the House to allow television crews to enter and exit the public gallery at will for the purposes of filming proceedings in the chamber. At issue here, however, are both the disruption that roving television crews may create for members of the public who are watching chamber proceedings from the public gallery and the lack of available room in a gallery to house television crews and their equipment. Given these constraints, recommendations 4, 5 and 6 of the report tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure attempt to provide alternative solutions aimed at accommodating demands made by the television bureaus for more access to video footage of the chamber’s proceedings. In essence, recommendation 4 focuses on increasing awareness of current arrangements allowing television bureaus to request additional iso feeds from the DPS broadcasting staff beyond the single feed that they are routinely provided with. The committee recommends that: … the Speaker write to the television bureaus represented in the parliamentary press gallery to offer them the use of isolated feeds produced by DPS Broadcasting staff on request. It also suggests that the supply of iso feeds during busy periods in the chamber such as question time may be undertaken on a user-pays basis should increased demand for these feeds warrant additional resources. In view of the impossibility of providing television viewers with eight separate feeds taken from the eight cameras located in the chamber, recommendation 5 suggests that: … the Parliamentary press gallery Committee consult with the Broadcasting Section of DPS in relation to improving the content of the existing feed for television excerpt purposes and to explore the possibility of additional feeds focusing on the speakers at the despatch boxes; and that the committee evaluate any such new arrangements after they have been in operation for six sitting weeks. In essence, it flags the possibility of DPS broadcasting staff providing television bureaus with permanent iso feeds from the chamber and encourages further consultation towards this end. The report cites Mr Neil Pickering from the DPS broadcasting section, who suggests that DPS broadcasting staff may be able to provide television bureaus with two permanent iso feeds from cameras 2 and 6 in the chamber. These cameras focus on the two dispatch boxes in the chamber and would thus better facilitate clean grabs when a member is talking. A further suggestion from Mr Paul Bongiorno from Channel 10 is that television bureaus could possibly pool their resources to create two independently operated television cameras in the chamber galleries. The procedure committee argues in section 3.31 of the report that its preference would be to first trial the iso feeds option before any consideration is given to installing television cameras in the gallery. Of course, not all House business occurs in the main chamber. A substantial amount of House business takes place in the various committee rooms that parliament provides for. The key problem here, however, is that only one of the committee rooms—namely, the Main Committee—is equipped with cameras. In relation to the lack of cameras in the other committee rooms in which House business occurs, recommendation 6 of the report recommends: that the Department of Parliamentary Services install inbuilt cameras in additional House of Representatives committee rooms to allow increased television coverage of committee proceedings. I wish to lend my strong support to each of these recommendations because I support practical solutions aimed at better facilitating media coverage of House proceedings, solutions that give the Australian public greater access to what goes on in this place. I agree with the report’s conclusion that the right balance needs to be struck between, on the one hand, protecting the dignity of the House and, on the other hand, ensuring that the general public have greater access to the House and the work that is done by those who are elected to represent them. The current guidelines regulating media coverage of the Australian parliament are clear in their call for fair and accurate reporting and in their prohibition on parliamentary material being used for political advertising, ridicule, satire or commercial uses. Alongside the need to make sure that these guidelines are rigorously adhered to, we in this place also have a responsibility to ensure that the Australian public have better access to the House and its daily business. We should be encouraging practical solutions that allow the general public to better follow what goes on in this place— QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Hear hear! 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms VAMVAKINOU —and I hear the Chief Opposition Whip agreeing with me—including the decisions we make and the numerous debates we engage in. All of them are matters of public importance. Questions of accountability and transparency are fundamental to Australia’s parliamentary system of government and to the health of our democracy. Transparency in the dealings of parliament is vital when it comes to safeguarding the people’s ability to hold their elected representatives accountable. For me, the central role that the media plays in making parliamentary proceedings more transparent for the Australian public is paramount in any debate on media coverage of House proceedings. In this sense, I agree with Mr Malcolm Farr, the President of the Parliamentary press gallery Committee, when he argues that parliament is: … a public meeting, it is a meeting funded by taxpayers, it is the most important public meeting in Australia and taxpayers, through their newspapers, radio, TV services and the Internet increasingly, have a right to know what goes on at this public meeting in words and in images. As such, I note with concern the Speaker’s rejection of recommendation 4 in the Procedure Committee’s report relating to the iso feeds and their potential to facilitate greater televised coverage of chamber proceedings. I also note the Speaker’s cautious approach to recommendation 5 and his decision to subject recommendation 6 to further review by the House of Representatives. Another area relating to media coverage that has caused problems in the past is the limited access that photographers from the major Australian papers have to the chamber. Still photographers rightly argue that gaining access to the chamber is far harder for them than it is for other media outlets. Provisions currently exist for a limited number of photographers to take pictures during question time and other ‘significant’ debates in the House. Current guidelines bar photographers from taking pictures of disturbances or acts of protest in the chamber in line with the belief that giving publicity to these acts will only encourage others to consider similar actions. When it comes to still photography, the guidelines regulating the use of photographs taken in the chamber are often stretched, and there have been instances where these guidelines have been blatantly transgressed. This has generated a sense of distrust between the media and some members of parliament. The key areas of contention over current guidelines regulating access to the chamber by still photographers are as follows. The first deals with question time. Before question time, photographers need to give correct names to the Serjeant-at-Arms office to ensure that the security guards will admit them into the chamber. In the event that a photographer is suddenly called away to another job, a newspaper can only send a second photographer to the chamber to cover question time if his or her name is correctly recorded at the Serjeant-at-Arms office. This arrangement is needlessly complicated and inflexible. Permission for a photographer to enter the chamber outside of question time must be obtained from the Speaker via the Serjeant-at-Arms office. This can often be time consuming and hinders the ability of newspaper photographers to capture the news as it happens. In response, recommendation 3 of the Procedure Committee’s report recommends that: … the Speaker revise guideline (c) of the rules for still photography in the chamber to extend automatic permission for still photographers to take photographs during ministerial statements, discussions of matters of public importance, divisions and adjournment debates for a trial period of 10 sitting weeks. This recommendation is intended to undo the complex rules and procedures that continue to hinder the access press photographers have to the chamber. It also recognises that some of the most important debates of the day can occur and do take place outside of question time—during MPIs, ministerial statements or adjournment debates, for example. I support this recommendation, including its provision that automatic permission be extended to still photographers to enter the chamber during these times. Whilst agreeing to a trial period of 10 sitting weeks, the Speaker has rejected this provision for automatic admission, instead adding the requirement that photographers still register their names with the Serjeant-at-Arms office before entering the chamber. This undermines the very spirit of the recommendation, for exactly the same problems and complications that I have mentioned before will remain, including the delays that photographers have complained about when they have to register their names and gain prior permission to enter the chamber, as well as the problems that arise in the event that a photographer is suddenly called away and needs to be substituted by another photographer. The only way to ensure that we do not hinder the work of photographers during these times is to grant them automatic permission. We on this side of the House support such a provision. Recommendation 1 of the Procedure Committee report is to change the existing resolutions of October 1991 and May 1996 to better reflect the fact that the Speaker acts on behalf of the House in administering and implementing all guidelines relating to media access to House proceedings. This seems an entirely sensible move. In addition, recommendation 2 refers to the need to update the language used in the guidelines relating to still photography to include the use of digital cameras and recommends that guideline (l) be moved to the preamble. This guideline places the onus of responsibility on the photographer to ensure that all photographs he or she takes are consistent with the guidelines. In conclusion, I support the recommendations put forward by the Procedure Committee in its final report on media coverage of House proceedings. These recommendations go a long way towards addressing some of the problems hindering media coverage of the House. I want to congratulate members of the committee, in particular the Chair, Margaret May, and the deputy chair, on the report. 150 17:21:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —Firstly, I must say it is great to speak in the Main Committee and have the visitors gallery overflowing with visitors—if not overflowing, at least there is some participation. That is great. I hope it is not forced. I am also pleased to acknowledge that we have the honourable member for Calwell and the honourable member for Charlton in the chamber. One is a serving member and the other is a former member of the Procedure Committee. I would like to acknowledge their contribution. We need from the start to understand that we have lost the debate about the televising of parliament and, in particular, question time. That change has occurred; whether people like it or do not like it, it has happened. We have a symbiotic relationship with the media, but we cannot complain about the media coverage of this parliament if we are forever putting hurdles up against that coverage. It is very interesting that the Procedure Committee thought—and I am a guilty party—they were making a real breakthrough in relation to the televising of question time by recommending that the media have access to iso feeds. Of course they do not have access to iso feeds. Part of the current guidelines means that if the honourable member for Calwell asks a question, the TV cameras can focus on her for the period of her asking the question, but there can be cutaways so you will only hear the voice of the honourable member for Calwell. If the honourable member for Charlton is answering the question, the same applies. So under the current guidelines, the TV channels are not guaranteed a clean shot of the person asking the question or the person answering it. At times they may get a back of the head shot of either party. That is totally unsatisfactory to them, and we should be concerned about it. It is disappointing that so far the Speaker seems resistant to acknowledging that problem. There is the recommendation that the parliamentary press gallery consult with the broadcasting section of DPS. This has been a longstanding issue for the TV bureaus that currently has no solution. In fairness to the Procedure Committee, if we had had any inkling that DPS and the Speaker would be so resistant to this issue, no doubt we would have explored the issue of a pool camera for the bureaus. That was recommended to us by the media when we sat down and talked to them. They came up with their problems, but when we investigated it with making no changes we found that it represented a serious health and occupational hazard to accommodate that request. I regret to say that DPS has been intransigent with the problem. I was going to say ‘indifferent’ but perhaps that is too harsh when in fact I do not think the Speaker is indifferent. If we cannot provide the TV channels with these clean shots, at some point we are going to have to investigate other solutions which involve pool cameras in the galleries. If that means we need to remove some of the seating to facilitate that, so be it. The loosening of the arrangements for the still photographers is working very effectively. Happily, they are able to shoot from the cut-out section at the back of the public gallery and that does not constitute an occupational health and safety issue. One of tragedies about this parliament concerns the committees. I have not spoken to a member of parliament who has served on a parliamentary committee who has not wanted to encourage greater media attention of the work of committees. But the cameras in the committee rooms have been removed. The only way that you can get any coverage for committees is if there is an agreement to put a pool camera in there. If you are really lucky you will get three of them in there. Lots of committees do lots of good work in hearing evidence and questioning witnesses, but because there are no TV cameras there the media do not get access to it. It goes unrecorded. We have a question time—and, although we can be critical of it, it will always have some argy-bargy—that is the one thing that the public focus on. Others would like to see more balance in people’s understanding of what occurs in this place. Committees, I think, rescue our reputations. But we are not moving with the times. Any institution has to hang onto its core values, but we need to adapt and change. We cannot be strangled by tradition, by inertia or by a refusal to accept. I certainly think we need to go even further than the committee has recommended. The Procedure Committee has a tradition of making unanimous reports and its secretariat is serviced by Chamber Research. I very much regret and am somewhat surprised that the Speaker rejected the reasonable suggestions that the committee carefully and rigorously explored in both its interim and final reports. Every member of parliament is interested to know when the in-built cameras will be restored in the committee rooms. This has been going on for a long time. Whilst I am not saying that there is any antipathy by the Speaker to the recommendation, I think members want to be kept up to date about progress. I want to make it very clear that we have a federal election coming up and should there be a change of government I hope our side will move with clarity; we will not sit on our hands. We think it is important for the institution of parliament itself that the good work of committees is able to be broadcast and publicised. The recommendations on still photographers are working very well. I think they are very appreciative of the changes that have been implemented. On reflection, I would recommend that the Procedure Committee have another roundtable with the gallery at the beginning of the term, just as we did for our interim report, to hear the latest concerns and see whether or not we are able to meet them. I do not think that anything they have requested to date is inconsistent with a fuller coverage of the activities of the parliament. In this new century of our existence as a parliament, it seems ironic that we want to somehow gag, limit or censure what is going on in the parliament. It is completely inconsistent with the explosion of information in the age we live in. Can I again make the point that the current guidelines to provide the feed that is broadcast simultaneously with question time does not permit what the media want because DPS focus for a time on the questioner and the answerer but are required to sweep the chamber to get off them. That is good for a balanced broadcast and shows the reactions and what have you. These changes, by the way, supersede previous guidelines which insisted that the only thing you could focus on was the person asking the question and then the person answering the question. I am not saying that the guidelines should in any way be changed from how they currently exist for the broadcasts that DPS put out, but we do need to service the media. If they cannot do it with iso feeds, with additional cameras in the chamber, then we have to accommodate a pooled camera from the TV channels because I think they are entitled to that. Why should not the Prime Minister or the Treasurer of the day have his answer being recorded directly for all of the answer? Why should they show a prime ministerial back of the head or swing away to someone else? That is what the guidelines require at the moment and what the TV channels are saying they cannot use of a night-time—and, I think, fair enough. I am not critical of what we are seeing of the chamber outside question time, but I am critical of the fact that we are not helping the media to do their job. We can disagree with them, we can argue with them, we can object to them, but they have a job to do. TV is the way parliament predominantly communicates with the people of Australia. The one thing most Australians understand is what question time is all about. I would certainly like to encourage and ensure that there are not restrictive guidelines so that the media can report on other aspects of the parliament which show us in a much better light, wanting to do the best thing for the people of Australia, in particular the constituents we represent. I understand that there are sensitivities. I understand that there can be misuse of these feeds. There are ways and means of dealing with that. This is the people’s House and the people of Australia have the right to see what we are doing. The best way for that to happen is by allowing greater media access to what we do. 152 17:35:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to comment upon the report tabled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure on its inquiry into the way in which the media covers House proceedings. I have listened closely to some of the earlier contributors to the debate—in particular, the members for Scullin and Banks and now the Chief Opposition Whip. It is important that we find a proper balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the parliament and, indeed, parliamentarians are not brought into disrepute by the abuse of access by the media to the parliament and, on the other hand, ensuring that the media can provide the public with access to their parliamentarians—that is, their representatives. As the Chief Opposition Whip indicated, this is the people’s House and therefore it is critical in this day and age that proper access is provided to the public via the media. Of course, that means that the media must act properly and not abuse its privilege in being the deliverer of such information and coverage of the parliament. I note that concerns were expressed by the member for Banks and others that on occasions the media seems more focused on trying to find a parliamentarian dozing off than on national public debates. That really should be discouraged. Therefore, it is critical that there be guidelines to ensure that the media focus on the debate of the day rather than involve themselves in immature and shallow efforts to get a pathetic story in their newspaper or in the electronic media. I do not necessarily see televising court proceedings and parliament in the same way. I am an opponent of televising court procedures. The American system of allowing television cameras in trials is nonsensical—indeed, it besmirches the process and the participants, particularly the accused. I was in the United States in early 1995 and was able to watch every moment of the OJ Simpson trial. The irony was that I was able to watch more of it than the jury because the voir dire would not allow the jury to see the bits that I could see. We had the bizarre situation in which the people who were to determine the facts of the case were denied access to some matters—which they should have been—and we understand why. However, the rest of the country was watching this case, which became increasingly sensationalised by the efforts of both sides to act salaciously. They diverted attention to matters that should not have been their primary consideration in representing the accused or prosecuting the case. It was going one step too far. The thing about the Americans is that they do a lot of good things. America is a relatively young country and its citizens often look at something and say, ‘Why don’t we change this?’ But they have got it wrong by allowing television cameras into courts. We certainly should not follow their lead in that regard. There is a difference between the parliament and the courts. We should be able to get the balance right to protect the privileges and rights of members of parliament and at the same time ensure that the public gets what they deserve, which is of course access to the debates of the day and the proceedings of this place. They should have access to what the government and the opposition are doing in our main chamber—that is, the most significant chamber in this country. We need to find a balance. I have been reading the history of the coverage. I found, for example, that the first live televised segment of the parliament was the joint sitting in 1974, which of course would have been a very historic sitting, just after the election that was called early. Indeed, there had to be an amendment to the act to enable the media to televise those proceedings. I think that not only was that a sensible amendment but it is important that we record very significant matters in our history. There was a time when we did that by transcribing and publishing books—and we will hopefully continue to do that—but because we have technology that can record on digital film the proceedings of very historic moments it would be foolish of us not to avail ourselves of that technology. Those particular matters should be recorded for future generations, for posterity, and indeed for the public at the time. I think that all question times should be televised. There has now been some consideration of the way in which still photography can be used, and that has waxed and waned over the last 12 years, as I understand it. There have been attempts by the media to push the boundaries to allow photos to be taken of members who are not central to a particular matter—that is, members without the call. That rule is due to concern that the photographers might not really be there to record the main proceedings but rather some side issue, something that should not be focused upon by the media. I accept that there have to be some restrictions so that the privileged access that the media proprietors have is not abused, but it would be foolhardy of any parliament not to ensure that the media had sufficient access to provide proper reporting of the events of the day. For example, I think the parliament’s refusal to allow the media to record or televise points of order should not be in existence, and I do not believe that there should be a prohibition on recording withdrawals of statements. Whilst the recordings of points of order or withdrawals might not place parliamentarians in the best light, perhaps the media, in the same way that the galleries of the past did, can provide a mechanism by which parliamentarians learn to behave more properly, if that is what it takes. I do not think those things should be proscribed in terms of the public’s access via the media. I do accept there have to be some restrictions on the way in which still photos are used, but I accept the recommendation made by the committee that ‘the Speaker revise guideline (c) of the rules for still photography in the chamber to extend automatic permission’ for photographs during ministerial statements, discussions of matters of public importance, divisions and adjournment debates for a trial period of 10 sitting weeks. I think, on the face of it, those things should be allowed, but I accept that the reason why the committee has recommended a trial is as much to do with the way in which the media decides to use that opportunity. I think the media should pay attention to that. This is a 10-week trial in order to give the public, via the media, access to this place in a more expansive way, but it should not be abused. If it is abused, I imagine that the decision on the recommendation after those 10 sitting weeks is likely to be that it should not continue. There is responsibility with privileges, and the media has a responsibility not to abuse the privilege of changes that occur as a result of the government adopting recommendations following the tabling of this report. Other amendments may be made, if the recommendations are accepted by the parliament, in the form of changes to the Speaker’s guidelines, as I understand it. I am a traditionalist when it comes to cricket, but I can recall the need for Packer cricket to revolutionise the way in which we viewed that game. Whilst I do not want to compare cricket with politics—although from time to time we seem to allow them to overlap because of their significance in this country—I think that, in the 21st century, people who want to access the proceedings of the parliament should expect to have 21st century technology to do so and it is therefore incumbent upon us to ensure we use that technology. For example, a friend of mine, an academic at St Andrews in Scotland, wondered why he could not download on an iPod speeches made in the Australian parliament in the way he is able to download speeches made in the British houses of parliament. I said to him: ‘That’s a good point. Why haven’t we iPodded’—if I can create a verb from that word—‘the parliament?’ I accept that there is a good system in place for finding our speeches, but we are falling behind. We should be ensuring that students, particularly of history and politics, not only across this country but also beyond these shores—expats like my friend, for example—are able to download our speeches, and not just of the audio but of the audiovisual. It is not difficult. The technology is there. This should be done as a matter of course. This is not within the purview of the committee’s terms of reference relating to this particular inquiry, but the parliament at some point must consider ensuring that we use technology that is available to us to allow people access to contributions made by members in this place. Ensuring that people could download speeches, in an audiovisual sense, onto iPods would be an improvement in access. It would also mean that people then would not necessarily rely upon traditional media outlets. Obviously, this place currently digitally records question time and speeches made in this parliament anyway, but it does not provide access to them. However, if access were provided, people could go direct to the parliament without having to go via Fox News, Channel 9 or Channel 7—although I tend to do that sort of thing. Younger people, you will find, will use less traditional means to access the parliament and will use that opportunity. They want to be able to use this technology that is not available to us but is available in other countries. It is about time that we turn our minds to that. I conclude by saying that the report into media coverage of proceedings of our parliament allows for opportunities to expand the present coverage. It allows for greater access but with a caveat—that is, it expects the media to use the new expanded access in a way that would not be seen as bringing the parliament or, indeed, parliamentarians into disrepute. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 154 17:49:00 Main Committee adjourned at 5.49 pm 155 Questions in Writing 155 155 4038 155 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, 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. 155 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 Fran Bailey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There were no contracts granted to Crosby/Textor in 2004-05 or 2005-06. No contracts have been awarded to Crosby/Textor for 2006-07 or 2007-08. Not applicable. 155 155 4090 155 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 6 September 2006: In respect of the provision of fire fighting services at Australian Airports: (a) has the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued any non-compliance reports against any provider of these services at any airport; if so, (i) which providers, (ii) at which airports, and on (iii) which dates; and (b) for each airport around Australia, who provides fire fighting services. 155 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes & (iii) PROVIDER AIRPORT DATES Airservices Australia Adelaide 14/11/03 and 09/03/06 Airservices Australia Alice Springs 23/09/04 and 30/07/05 Airservices Australia Ayers Rock 05/08/05 Airservices Australia Brisbane 19/03/04 and 7/02/06 Airservices Australia Cairns 15/08/03 and 30/06/06 Airservices Australia Canberra 23/01/04 Airservices Australia Coolangatta 20/02/04 Airservices Australia Darwin 23/04/04 Airservices Australia Launceston 30/07/04 Airservices Australia Mackay 21/05/04 Airservices Australia Maroochydore 09/09/05 Airservices Australia Melbourne 24/10/03 and 12/05/06 Airservices Australia Perth 27/06/03 Airservices Australia Rockhampton 29/04/05 Airservices Australia Sydney 03/06/04 and 16/12/05 Airservices Australia Townsville 26/08/05 Administration of Norfolk Island Norfolk Island Airport 07/03/05 Broome International Airport Broome Airport 24/06/05   All Australian airports with international air services or those airports with passenger numbers exceeding 350,000 in the previous financial year, meet the criteria for a regulated aviation rescue and fire fighting services (ARFFS). Airservices Australia provides ARFFS at 19 of the 21 airports that meet this criteria: Adelaide, Alice Springs, Avalon, Ayers Rock, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Coolangatta, Darwin, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Maroochydore, Melbourne, Perth, Rockhampton, Sydney and Townsville. At the other two airports that meet the ARFFS criteria, fighting services are provided at Broome by Broome International Airport, and at Norfolk Island Airport by the Administration of Norfolk Island. Smaller and/or regional airports that do not meet the criteria for a regulated ARFFS may also have some fire fighting services. CASA does not maintain details of who provides fire fighting services at all these airports. 156 156 4102 156 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 6 September 2006: In respect of the domestic sugar levy of three cents per kilogram: what sum was collected in each month from February to August 2006; what is the total sum collected under the levy since its introduction; how many sugar farmers have left the industry since the introduction of the levy; and is there any barrier to these farmers re-entering the sugar industry. 156 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: Monthly collections of the sugar levy from February to August 2006 were: Month Sum Collected February $1,435,401.05 March $1,972,506.40 April $ 349,525.69 May $4,941,571.56 June $1,070,973.03 July $3,362,814.24 August $2,212,136.49   As at 31 August 2006, $70.24 million had been collected since the introduction of the sugar levy in January 2003. As at 8 September 2006, 516 canegrowers had accessed exit assistance under the Re-establishment grant component of the 2002 and 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Programmes. There is no data available on other sugar farmers who may have left the industry since the introduction of the levy. Under the terms of the Sugar Industry Reform Programme 2004 Re-establishment grant, those growers who receive a grant must give an undertaking not to re-enter the sugar industry for a period of at least five years. 157 157 4142 157 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Community Services in writing, on 7 September 2006: What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office in 2005-06. What was the name and postal address of each media monitoring company engaged by the Minister’s office. 157 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Parkes NATS Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr John Cobb —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: In 2005-06 my ministerial office spent $11,328.47 on media monitoring and clipping services. This service was supplied by Media Monitors Australia Pty Ltd Level 3 219-241 Cleveland Street Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 AAP News Centre 3 Rider Boulevard Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 157 157 4191 157 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 14 September 2006: What was the total cost of entertainment expenses for the 2005-06 financial year for the Minister’s (a) department and agencies and (b) office. Will the Minister provide a breakdown of entertainment expenses incurred by the Minister’s (a) department and agencies and (b) office in the financial year 2005-06, listing: (i) purpose; (ii) outcome, (iii) expenses; including alcohol, tobacco, contracts and transport; and (iv) persons present. 157 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)    Total cost of entertainment expenses for the 2005-06 financial year was $469,609.39. (2)    The breakdown of entertainment expenses is at Attachment A. Please note: The departmental policy does not allow for the purchase of tobacco. Data for persons present is unquantifiable as DIAC’s financial system does not permit for or capture such information. The system records for Fringe Benefit Tax purposes based on cost rather than individual attendance. Departmental policy prefers events to be attended by more external parties than by internal. ATTACHMENT A Breakdown of entertainment expenses for the 2005-06 financial year Purpose Persons present Total ($) Foreign Delegation/Officials -promote & foster goodwill, cooperation & information sharing between government agencies Airport Liaison Officers, Principal Migration Officers and foreign officials 129,165.76 Meals/catering provided to Community groups/ state govt/award ceremonies DIAC and non-DIAC staff 128,197.14 Catering for training, in-house briefings, extended meetings and seminars, functions and misc expenses DIAC and non-DIAC staff 197,823.33 Minor gifts and associated expenses Clients and/or foreign officials 14,423.16 Total cost of entertainment expenses for the 2005-06 financial year 469,609.39   158 158 4401 158 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 14 September 2006: How many credit cards have been issued to employees of the Minister’s department and agencies in each financial year since 1 July 2000. Of the credit cards identified in Part (1): (a) how many have been reported lost; (b) how many have been reported stolen; (c) have any been subject to fraud; if so, what was the total cost of each fraud incident; (d) what is the average credit limit for each financial year; (e) what was the total amount of interest accrued; and (f) have any employees been subjected to criminal proceedings as a result of credit card fraud. 158 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows: The Department has used 2 separate providers for credit cards since 1 July 2000, ANZ and CBA. Since 1 July 2000 until the termination of the Department’s contract with ANZ a total of 760 were issued to DIAC employees. Since the CBA contract came into operation a total of 978 have been issued to Departmental employees. and (b) – The number of cards reported as lost or stolen from 1 July 2000 until 30 June 2006 between both providers is – ANZ – 26 CBA – 46 No causes of fraud have been identified. $2,000 per transaction and $20,000 monthly limit is the average limit on each card issued. Currently the department pays no interest as the CBA withdraws the amount charged to department cards. The cost of interest accrued from the use of ANZ cards from 1 July 2000 until the expiration of the contract was $530.78. No departmental officers have been subjected to criminal charges as a result of credit card fraud. 159 159 4432 159 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, what was the total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Minister’s department and agencies. 159 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Since July 2000, the Australian Office of Financial Management, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Inspector General of Taxation, National Competition Council and the Productivity Commission have not incurred any expenses relating to fuel purchases for Commonwealth cars as these agencies do not have any Commonwealth cars. Australian Bureau of Statistics Figures are only available in calendar year for the Australian Bureau of Statistics as Lease Plan’s reporting is only available in this manner. LeasePlan has not been able to provide fuel information on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ fuel purchases prior to January 2001. Year Amount (GST Inclusive) 2000 Not Available 2001 $ 221,383.39 2002 $ 161,630.94 2003 $ 153,208.35 2004 $ 154,165.55 2005 $ 174,101.13 2006 $ 183,509.09   Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Please note that sourcing information prior to 2001-02 and beyond will require manual intervention, as invoices are archived, at significant cost to the agency. Financial Year Amount (GST Exclusive) $ ‘000 2002/03 56.37 2003/04 67.83 2004/05 58.86 2005/06 70.86   Australian Securities and Investments Commission Financial Year Amount (GST Exclusive) 2000/01 $21,503.00 2001/02 $26,762.00 2002/03 $41,373.00 2003/04 $37,015.00 2004/05 $32,293.00 2005/06 $25,879.00   Australian Taxation Office The figures below are provided by calendar year, not financial year. Lease Plan’s reporting is only available by calendar year. LeasePlan has not been able to provide fuel information on the Australian Taxation Office’s fuel purchases prior to January 2001. Year Amount (GST Exclusive) 2000 Not Available 2001 $2,635,699.78 2002 $1,749,660.51 2003 $1,492,846.40 2004 $1,370,496.48 2005 $1,469,943.20 2006 $1,233,320.75   Corporations & Markets Advisory Committee The accounting system only gives information from 2002 onwards in financial year. Information is not available from 2004 as CAMAC did not operate any Commonwealth cars from this year onwards. Financial Year Amount (GST Exclusive) 2001/02 $2115.00 2002/03 $1685.00 2003/04 $1170.00   Royal Australian Mint The Royal Australian Mint became a prescribed agency from 1 July 2005. For financial year 2005-06, the total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Royal Australian Mint was $2,800.79 (GST exclusive). Treasury The Department of Treasury (Treasury) acquires its cars through LeasePlan which administers and provides details of fuel purchases to Treasury. LeasePlan’s computer system can only report on fuel consumption data by calendar years (not by financial years as requested in this question). LeasePlan has not been able to provide fuel information on Treasury’s fuel purchases prior to January 2001. Year Amount (GST Inclusive) 2000 Not Available 2001 $66,453.28 2002 $65,581.78 2003 $60,360.42 2004 $27,423.59 2005 $9,210.78 2006 $4,108.08   161 161 4439 161 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, 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. 161 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Fleet Monitoring Body from the Department of Finance have been liaising with Leaseplan on behalf of the Commonwealth and have provided the data for this response. DIAC Calendar Year Amount 2000 Not Available 2001 $ 268,918.62 2002 $ 275,166.19 2003 $ 282,387.39 2004 $ 317,683.89 2005 $ 367,438.07 2006 $ 399,721.81   Please note: LeasePlan’s IT reporting configurations require the data to be presented in calendar years (not in financial years as requested in the question). LeasePlan has not been able to provide information prior to 2001 (i.e. information pertaining to the period 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2000 is not available). 161 161 4575 161 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, 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 many employees were placed by these agencies and, of those, which were employed on (i) an ongoing and (ii) a non-ongoing basis. 161 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information sought in the honourable member’s question is not readily available. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task, and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required. 161 161 4579 161 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: which employment agencies has the Minister’s department engaged; what was the total cost of engaging employment agencies; and how many employees were placed by these agencies and, of those, which were employed on: an ongoing and a non-ongoing basis. 162 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: (a) 2000 – 01 Adecco Australia Pty Ltd ORIX Australia Corporation Limited Alectus Personnel Paxus Australia Pty Ltd Catalyst Recruitment Professional Careers Australia Careers Unlimited Quest Employment Solutions Pty Ltd CBC Staff Selection Spherion Recruitment Solutions Pty Ltd Desktop Vision Spherion Technology Pty Ltd Drake Australia Staffing and Office Solutions Dunhill Management Services Group Pty Ltd Tarakan Consulting Effective People Pty Ltd The Green and Green Group Employment National TMP Worldwide eResourcing Hays Accountancy Personnel Universal Express Group Interim HR Solutions Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Interim Office Professionals Wizard Personnel and Office Services Kowalski Recruitment   2001-02 Acumen Alliance (ACT) Pty Ltd Manpower Services Australia Pty Ltd Adecco Australia Pty Ltd Pasus Australia Pty Ltd Alliance Recruiting Australia Professional Careers Pty Ltd Careers Unlimited Say the Word Productions Catalyst Recruitment Sherion Recruitment CBC Staff Selection Sirius Telecommunications Ltd Damovo Australia Pty Ltd Smalls Recruiting Effective People Pty Ltd Spherion Outsourcing Solutions Pty Ltd Employment National Spherion Technology Pty Ltd Frontier IT Recruitment Hays Accountancy Personnel Staffing and Office Solutions The Green and Green Group Inter Staffing Services TMP Worldwide eResourcing Kelly Services (Aust) Ltd Westaff Kowalski Recruitment Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Link Recruitment Wizard Personnel and Office Services L Waples   2002-03 Acumen Alliance (ACT) Pty Ltd L Waples Adecco Australia Pty Ltd OZ Jobs Allstaff Australia Professional Careers Australia Careers Unlimited Public Affairs Recruitment Company Catalyst Recruitment Sirius Telecommunications Ltd CBC Staff Selection Spherion Recruitment Solutions Pty Ltd Damovo Australia Pty Ltd Spherion Technology Pty Ltd Drake Australia Pty Ltd Staffing and Office Solutions Dunhill Mangement Services Group Pty Ltd The Farm Shed Effective People Pty Ltd The Green and Green Group Employment National TMP Worldwide eResourcing Excelerated Consulting Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Hays Accountancy Personnel Wizard Personnel & Office Services Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd United Group HR Services Pty Ltd Kowalski Recruitment Universal Express Group   2003-04 Acumen Alliance (ACT) Pty Ltd L Wapes Adecco Australia Pty Ltd People Bank Australia Pty Ltd Candle IT & T Recruitment Professional Careers Australia Careers Unlimited Ross Human Directions Limited Catalyst Recruitment Sirius Telecommunications Ltd Damovo Australia Pty Ltd Spherion Outsourcing Solutions Pty Ltd Design Emergency Staffing and Office Solutions Drake Australia Pty Ltd The Green and Green Group Effective People Pty Ltd The One Umbrella Pty Ltd Forstaff Ozjobs Recruitment Agency TMP Worldwide eResourcing Hays Accountancy Personnel United Group HR Services Pty Ltd Hudson Global Resources (Aust) Pty Ltd Universal Express Group Julia Ross Personnel Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Kowalski Recruitment Wizard Personnel & Office Services   2004-05 Acumen Alliance (ACT) Pty Ltd Kowalski Recruitment Adecco Australia Pty Ltd L Waples Alliance Recruiting Australia MAD Recruitment Ausdoc Information Management Pty Ltd Manpower Services (Aust) Pty Ltd Benchmark Debtor Finance Pty Ltd People Bank Australia Pty Ltd Candle IT&T Recruitment Proactive Staffing Solutions Pty Ltd Careers Unlimited Professional Careers Australia Catalyst Recruitment Recruitment Management Company CBC Staff Selection Ross Human Directions Limited Damovo Australia Pty Ltd Sirius Telecommunications Ltd Drake Australia Pty Ltd Smalls Recruiting Effective People Pty Ltd Spherion Outsourcing Solutions Pty Ltd Forstaff Ozjobs Recruitment Staffing and Office Solutions Frontier Group Australia The Green and Green Group Hays Accountancy Personnel The One Umbrella Pty Ltd Hoban United Group HR Services Pty Ltd Hudson Global Resources Universal Express Group Informed Sources Pty Ltd Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Jobwire.com.au Wizard Personnel & Office Services   2005-06 Acumen Alliance (ACT) Pty Ltd Kelly Services (Aust) Ltd Adecco Australia Pty Ltd Kowalski Recruitment Alliance Recruiting Australia L Waples Ascent Governance Pty Ltd MAD Recruitment Ausdoc Information Management Pty Ltd Manpower Services (Aust) Pty Ltd Benchmark Debtor Finance Pty Ltd Michelle Minaroy Pty Ltd By Jingo Business Services Omega Personnel Pty Ltd Candle IT & T Recruitment Pegasus IT Consutling Pty Ltd Careers Unlimited People Bank Australia Pty Ltd Catalyst Recruitment Precruitment CBC Staff Selection Proactive Staffing Solutions Pty Ltd Clayton & Shuttleworth Professional Careers Australia Damovo Australia Pty Ltd Recruitment Management Company Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ross Human Directions Limited Design Emergency Ross Logic Pty Ltd Drake Australia Pty Ltd Select Australasia Effective People Pty Ltd Signature Staff Ernst and Young Sirius Telecommunications Ltd Forstaff Group Smalls Recruiting Forstaff Ozjobs Recruitment Agency Staffing and Office Solutions Frontier Group Australia The Green and Green Group Hays Accountancy Personnel The One Umbrella Hoban United Group HR Services Pty Ltd Hudson Global Resources Westaff Informed Sources Pty Ltd Wizard Information Services Pty Ltd Jobwire.com.au Wizard Personnel & Office Services Pty Ltd   (b) 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 $3,136,056 $4,354,210 $3,698,101 $3,941,816 $4,567,934 $7,324,919   None. All ongoing vacancies within the Department are advertised in the Public Service Gazette and press (if applicable) and a merit selection process is conducted. The Department does not have statistical data which provides an accurate response for non-ongoing staff employed through these agencies on a short term basis. All non-ongoing vacancies within the Department which are available for more than 12 months are advertised in the Public Service Gazette and press (if applicable) and a merit selection process is conducted. 164 164 4593 164 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, 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. 165 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 9 Wentworth Street, Parramatta, New South Wales 565  Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia 9 Wentworth Street, Parramatta, New South Wales : 1 July 2006 (two months rent free period expired end of August) Refurbishment work and fitout works to be completed prior to occupation in May 2007 $139,583.85 (excluding GST) 31 August 2013 565 Hay Street, Perth, Western Australia: 1 February 2006 Occupied 26 November 2006 following completion of refurbishment works. $11,925.00 (excluding GST) 31 January 2011 165 165 4618 165 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 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. 165 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: There has been no occasion in FaCSIA where employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation. Due to Machinery of Government changes, the department currently does not have resources to provide information relating to the period before FaCSIA came into existence. FaCSIA employees are not able to access personal or customer files without being detected or leaving a record of their access. Access to electronic records is logged in the system audit files. Audit trails exist within electronic systems and are available for review by authorised staff. 165 165 4838 165 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 30 October 2006: What instruments have been signed by the Attorney-General or his predecessors under subsection 9(2) of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. When was each instrument signed. Have any instruments signed under subsection 9(2) of the Act been revoked and if so, when. 165 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I have signed no instrument under subsection 9(2) of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978 and I am advised by officers of my Department that, after conducting a search of the Gazette and Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, that one instrument has been made pursuant to subsection 9(2) of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act. This instrument was made by former Attorney-General Lionel Bowen on 20 July 1989 and was gazetted in the Special Gazette on 24 July 1989 (Special Gazette S253 24 July 1989). The instrument provides that it is in the interests of the defence of Australia to permit the Government of Papua New Guinea to recruit persons in Australia to serve in or with the Papua New Guinea Defence Force for the purpose of facilitating the use of 4 Iroquois helicopters supplied by the Australian Government. The instrument also provides that the declaration is made subject to the condition that the Government of Papua New Guinea shall not recruit members of the Australian Permanent Naval Forces, the Australian Regular Army, the Regular Army Supplement or the Australian Permanent Air Force. Refer to (1) above. 166 166 4845 166 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 31 October 2006: Is she aware of a letter titled ‘The Iraq deaths study was valid and correct’, which was published in The Age on 22 October 2006 and which was written by 27 leading medical researchers in Australia in response to the article titled ‘Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey’, which appeared in The Lancet, October 2006; if so, is the letter correct in its assertion that the Lancet study’s methodology is sound and that its conclusions should be taken seriously. Are the authors of the letter referred to in Part (1) respected members of the Australia’s medical science research community; if so, should their considered opinion on subjects within their fields of professional expertise be seriously considered. Do the authors of the letter referred to in Part (1) represent Australia’s best understanding of medical science research methodology, as it relates to collection of health data. Do the authors of the letter referred to in Part (1) receive public funding for their research activities. Have any of the authors referred to in Part (1) received Commonwealth recognition for their work. Is she aware of any reasons to dismiss the findings of the Lancet article; if so, (a) what are the reasons and (b) to what extent would any such reasons modify the conclusions of The Lancet’s study. Does the Department of Education, Science and Training have any strategic priorities concerning (a) certainty and continuity for researchers and (b) strengthening national and international linkages and collaboration; if so, would rejection of the scientific methodology used in The Lancet’s study, referred to in Part (1), be consistent with the priorities of the department. 166 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: and (3) It is not part of my portfolio responsibility to monitor the methodology adopted by The Lancet, or the collection of health data. I am not in a position to comment upon the standing of individual researchers within their own research community. The following researchers have been named, in varying roles, on proposals approved for funding under the National Competitive Grants Programme administered by the Australian Research Council (ARC): Professor James A Angus, Professor Peter Brooks, Professor Alan Lopez, Professor AJ McMichael, Associate Professor Peter Sainsbury, Associate Professor Mike Toole, and Professor Anthony Zwi. See answer to (4). It is not part of my portfolio responsibility to monitor the methodology adopted by The Lancet, or the collection of health data. The ARC, which falls under the education, science and training portfolio, identified in the ARC Strategic Plan 2006-08 one of seven objectives which is to “contribute to high-quality research training and foster career opportunities for Australia’s best and brightest researchers.” This is reflected in one of ten key performance indicators identified in the plan, namely, “development, attraction and retention of high-quality researchers across disciplines, able to pursue careers within universities, industry, government and other sectors of the economy.” Another of the ARC’s objectives identified in the ARC Strategic Plan 2006-08 is to “encourage and extend cooperative approaches to research and improve the use of research outcomes by strengthening links within Australia’s innovation system and with innovation systems internationally.” This is reflected in the key performance indicator, “a high incidence of collaboration between ARC-funded researchers and those within other sectors of the national and international innovation system, including innovative companies.” The Department of Education, Science and Training also recognises the importance of strong national and international linkages in achieving a high quality research system. The Department’s International Science Linkages programme, for example, supports Australian scientists to collaborate with international partners in order to contribute to Australia’s economic, social and environmental wellbeing. The Lancet’s study has no bearing on the ARC or the Department’s strategic priorities. 167 167 4851 167 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 1 November 2006: Can he confirm that Australia will host the G20 meeting of finance ministers in Melbourne on 18 and 19 November 2006. Can he confirm that the G20 has previously stated that it “should play an active role in addressing critical development issues” and has committed to a “shared vision for global development”. Can he confirm that, at its 2005 meeting, the G20 determined it would “carry the momentum forward” on combating poverty. As Chair of the 2006 G20 meeting, (a) what specific measures will he take to ensure that the statements made by the G20 and referred to in Parts (2) and (3) are given effect. How will he ensure that the critical issues identified in the G20 Accord for Sustained Growth – namely, empowering people and reducing poverty through education, access to credit, water, sanitation and basic health services – are given sufficient attention at the G20 meeting. What indicators of success will he seek to measure the extent to which the G20 has “carried the momentum forward” in the global fight against poverty. 167 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 18-19 November 2006, Australia chaired the meeting of G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Melbourne. and ( 3) The 2005 G-20 Statement on Global Development Issues states that “the G-20 should play an active role in addressing critical development issues”, is “ committed to this shared vision for global development” and determined to “carry the momentum forward”. and (6) As evidenced in the 2006 G-20 Communiqué, important progress was made on many development issues under Australia’s chairmanship. The Communiqué can be found at: http://www.g20.org/documents/communiques/2006_australia.pdf 168 168 4858 168 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 2 November 2006: Further to the Minister’s response to Part (1)(a) of question No. 3822 (Hansard, 30 October 2006, page 126), what are the full details of the importation of an inert grenade at Sydney International Airport, including (a) the date of importation, (b) the country of origin of the inert grenade, (c) the country at which the device was loaded onto an aircraft and (d) whether the inert grenade was imported on board an international freight or passenger flight. Can the Minister advise whether the individual(s) involved in the importation of an inert grenade were Australian citizens or non-citizens; if so, what are the full details of the individual(s), including (a) country of origin, (b) reasons for importing the device and (c) from whom the device was obtained; if not, why not. Was the discovery of a grenade aboard an aircraft made before the aircraft landed at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the full details, including the date and time of the discovery; if not, where and when was the discovery made. Did (a) an Australian Federal Police (AFP) officer, (b) an Australian Customs Service (Customs) officer or (c) some other person discover that a grenade was, or had been, aboard an aircraft; if the discovery were made by a person other than a Customs or an AFP officer, (i) what was the occupation of that person, (ii) what were the incident reporting obligations of that person and (ii) what are the full details of any action taken following the discovery. Which (a) government departments, (b) agencies, (c) officers or (d) other domestic or international organisations assessed the status of the grenade and concluded that it was inert. Was the conclusion that the grenade aboard the aircraft was inert made before that aircraft landed at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the full details; if not, where and when was this conclusion reached. Will the Minister provide full details of the rank of the officer, employee or other person who concluded that the grenade was inert, including the details of (a) that person’s qualifications, (b) any standard procedures that the officer, employee or other person was obliged to follow, (c) any written report, (d) any oral report, (e) to whom each report was made, (f) the date of each report and (g) the action taken by the recipient(s) of each report; if not, why not. Can the Minister advise whether the grenade was screened prior to cargo being loaded, and/or passengers boarding the relevant aircraft; if so, (a) was the device detected, (b) why was it allowed on board and (c) has the Government liaised with other domestic and international authorities to prevent future occurrences where such devices are loaded on board a passenger or freight aircraft; if so, what are those details. Can the Minister confirm that court proceedings against the individual(s) involved in the importation of the inert grenade have either commenced or been concluded; if so, what are the full details of each case, including (a) the court in which proceedings were conducted, (b) the conclusions and orders of the court and (c) whether an appeal has been brought against any of the decisions and if so, what are the details of each appeal; if not, why not. 169 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: On 20 April 2006, an inbound passenger declared an inert grenade to the Australian Customs Service (ACS) on arrival at Sydney Airport. The inert grenade was originally purchased in Florida, USA. The inert grenade was loaded onto an aircraft from Toronto, Canada. The inert grenade was transported on an international commercial flight that originated from Toronto, Canada, travelling via Los Angeles, to Sydney. The passenger that travelled with the inert grenade is an Australian citizen, who has resided in Canada for the past five years. The passenger was accompanied by his father. The passengers are Australian citizens, travelling on Australian passports. The inert grenade was purchased as a souvenir. The item was purchased from a military disposal store in the USA in 2005. About 7:30am on 20 April 2006 an incoming passenger card was presented to the ACS declaring “Goods that may be prohibited – firearms/weapons”. The ACS located a grenade in the passenger’s luggage and contacted the Airport Operations Coordination Centre. The AFP was then called to provide assistance. The grenade was not discovered prior to the arrival of the aircraft into Sydney. The grenade was located within the passengers “checked bag luggage”. The discovery of the grenade was made by an ACS officer. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) Senior Ammunition Technical Officer conducted an appraisal of the grenade and determined the grenade was inert. The appraisal of the grenade was conducted within the Security Restricted Area (SRA) of Sydney Airport after the aircraft had landed and after the baggage was unloaded. to (g) The additional detail you have sought in relation to this question would result in an unreasonable diversion of AFP resources. On inspection of the passenger’s bags by ACS it was established that the bag containing the inert grenade was searched by the Transport Security Administration (TSA) in Los Angles, USA. The box containing the inert grenade remained unwrapped and appeared untouched. Whether or not the grenade was detected is unclear. Neither the AFP nor the ACS is in a position to answer this question. The Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) has raised this event with the United States Transport Security Authority as a screening failure. Prior to departing Canada, the passenger made enquiries with South Australia Police regarding the necessary lawful process of importing the inert grenade into Australia, such as obtaining a “B709B” form. This information has been confirmed with SA Police. As such, the AFP does not intend to pursue criminal proceedings against the passenger. 169 169 4859 169 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 2 November 2006: Further to the Minister’s reply to Part (1)(b) of question No. 3822 (Hansard, 30 October 2006, page 126) what are the full details of the trespass incident at Sydney Domestic Airport including (a) the date of the trespass, (b) the prohibited areas accessed by the trespasser, (d) the circumstances under which the trespasser was able to enter a prohibited area and (e) whether the same access point to any prohibited area has previously been utilised by another trespasser. Can the Minister advise whether the trespasser referred to in Part (1) is (a) a non-citizen member of the public, (b) a citizen member of the public or (c) an employee of any organisation whose workplace is located within Sydney International Airport; if so, what are those full details; if not, why not. Did the trespasser referred to in Part (1) have any form of security clearance to enter other restricted areas within Sydney Domestic Airport; if so, what are those full details; if not, why not. Do all prohibited areas within Sydney Domestic Airport have CCTV cameras installed to record any irregularity or impropriety within, or around, those areas; if so, what are those full details; if not, why not. Is there CCTV footage of the trespasser’s actions immediately prior to, during and following the trespass and what does that footage reveal; if not, why not. Has an inquiry been undertaken by (a) the Australian Federal Police (AFP), (b) any government department or agency, (c) Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) or (d) any other organisation to establish the reason for this trespass; if so, what were the findings, conclusions and recommendations in respect of this episode of trespass; if no inquiry has been conducted, why not. In respect of the incident of trespass referred to in Part (1), is the Minister able to say how long the trespasser was within a prohibited area before being discovered; if so, what are the full details; if not, why not. Did (a) an AFP officer, (b) an Australian Customs Service (Customs) officer or (c) some other person discover that the trespasser was in a prohibited area; if the alert was given by a person other than a Customs or an AFP officer, what was the occupation of that person and what were the incident report obligations of that person. Will the Minister provide details of the officer or employee who discovered the trespasser in a prohibited area, including details of (a) any written report, (b) any oral report, (c) to whom each report was made, (d) the date of each report and (e) the action taken by the recipient(s) of each report, including the date upon which each action was taken; if not, why not. Can the Minister confirm that court proceedings against the trespasser referred to in Part (1) has either commenced or been concluded; if so, what are the full details of the case, including (a) the court in which proceedings were conducted, (b) the conclusions and orders of the court and (c) whether an appeal has been brought against the decision and if so, the details of the appeal; if not, why not. 170 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The trespass occurred on 25 July 2006. The trespasser accessed the Security Restricted Area (SRA) of Sydney Airport. A Qantas catering vehicle was departing the SRA via Gate 7 when two vehicles approached from a public road and entered the airside area of the airport, via the vehicle exit gate. There has been no further report to the AFP of trespass by way of this vehicle exit gate. , (b) and (c) This person is an Australian citizen. There is no information to suggest he was or is an airport employee and did not hold an Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC). It has been confirmed that neither of the two vehicles, nor the four civilians travelling within, had authority to enter the airside area or other restricted areas within the airport. and (5) The Airport operator, Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL), is responsible for the CCTV camera installation and maintenance around the Domestic precinct of Sydney Airport. The AFP Counter Terrorist First Response (CTFR) responded to the incident and was notified by the single occupant of the lead vehicle that he was being chased by the three occupants of the second vehicle and feared for his safety. The occupants of the second vehicle stated they were following the first vehicle to obtain identification as a result of a road rage incident. The AFP investigated this matter fully and has recommended prosecution of all individuals involved. The two vehicles were quickly intercepted by Qantas staff on the apron of the Qantas Jet Base. The AFP CTFR members were notified and attended the scene within five minutes. A Qantas security guard detected the initial trespass and immediately notified the SACL airside security patrol who then contacted the AFP. The additional detail you have sought in relation to this question would result in an unreasonable diversion of AFP resources. (a), (b) and (c) All three occupants of the second vehicle were summonsed to appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 19 September 2006. All three persons entered a plea of guilty. The driver was convicted under regulations 3.17 (4) of the Aviation Transport and Security Regulations (ATSR) and fined $1000.00. The remaining two occupants of the second vehicle were convicted under regulations 3.17 (2) of the ATSR and fined $1000.00 each. These persons were also ordered to pay court costs. On 3 October 2006, the driver of the lead vehicle entered a plea of not guilty. He failed to appear for subsequent mention hearings and the matter was adjourned until 12 December 2006. On this date he again failed to appear in court and was convicted ex-parte, fined $1500 for driving a vehicle into an airside area without permission of a regulatory officer, contrary to s3.17(4) of the ATSR, and ordered to pay court costs. 171 171 4862 171 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 2 November 2006: Further to the Minister’s response to Part (2)(a) of question No. 3822 (Hansard, 30 October 2006, page 126), what are the full details of the 16 incidents involving narcotics at Sydney International Airport, including (a) the date of each incident, (b) whether each incident was isolated or connected and (c) the circumstances leading to each discovery of narcotics. Can the Minister advise whether the incoming international passengers involved in each of the 16 narcotic incidents at Sydney International Airport were citizens or non-citizens; if so, what are their full details, including country of origin; if not, why not. Can the Minister advise the grade and quantity of narcotics concerned in each of the 16 incidents at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are those details; if not, why not. In respect of each of the 16 narcotic incidents at Sydney International Airport, can the Minister advise whether (a) the Australian Federal Police, (b) any government department or agency or (c) any other organisation or official was alerted by overseas authorities or agents to the presence of narcotics in the luggage, or on the body, of those persons referred to in Part (2); if so, what are those details; if not, why not. Can the Minister provide full details of the court proceedings dealing with each of the 16 narcotic incidents at Sydney International Airport, including (a) the court in which proceedings were conducted, (b) the conclusions and orders of the court and (c) whether an appeal has been made against any of those decisions, if so, what are the details of the appeal; if not, why not. 172 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:   Question 1 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) Incident Date Isolated or connected Circumstances leading to discovery of narcotics 1. Importation of cocaine in poles of windsurfer 17Oct04 Isolated Australian Customs Service (ACS) detection 2. Importation of heroin in the soles of shoes 5Sep05 Isolated ACS detection 3. Importation of heroin in luggage 17Apr04 Isolated ACS detection 4. Importation of heroin in body pack 13Feb05 Isolated ACS detection 5. Importation of cocaine in false walls of suitcase 25Aug03 Isolated ACS detection as unclaimed luggage 6. Importation of cocaine impregnated in lining of suitcase 23Apr04 Isolated ACS detection 7. Importation of MDMA1 impregnated in wine bottles 22Jun04 Isolated ACS detection 8. Importation of RSAD2 tablets – derivative of MDMA in luggage 15Apr05 Isolated ACS detection 9. Importation of cocaine in luggage 27Sep04 Isolated ACS detection 10. Importation of cocaine - internally 29Sep04 Isolated ACS detection 11. Importation of heroin in luggage 3Feb05 Isolated ACS detection 12. Importation of heroin in lining of suitcase 3Feb05 Isolated ACS detection 13. Importation of MDMA – strapped to legs 24Jul04 Isolated ACS detection 14. Importation of heroin in luggage 28May04 Isolated ACS detection 15. Importation of MDMA tablets in luggage 24May04 Isolated ACS detection 16. Importation of credit cards in luggage3 4Jun04 Isolated ACS detection   Question (2) Incident Citizen Yes/No Full details of incoming passenger including country of origin 1. Importation of cocaine in poles of windsurfer No Carlos Mella – Spanish citizen – arrived from Buenos Aires 2. Importation of heroin in the soles of shoes Yes Selliah Bojan – Australian citizen- arrived from Singapore 3. Importation of heroin in luggage No Daniel Hazlett – Canadian citizen (Irish passport) arrived from Kenya 4. Importation of heroin in body pack No Adeyemi Olayode Fawole – USA citizen arrived from Hong Kong 5. Importation of cocaine in false walls of suitcase No Alan Pal – USA citizen arrived from London 6. Importation of cocaine impregnated in lining of suitcase No Monica Guisado Montero – Spanish citizen arrived from Johannesburg South Africa 7. Importation of MDMA impregnated in wine bottles No Van Muoi Le Thi Nguyet, and Van Minh To - British citizens arrived from London 8. Importation of RSAD tablets in luggage No Minh Quang Vuong – Canadian citizen arrived from Japan 9. Importation of cocaine in luggage No Dimitrios Topalis – Greek citizen arrived from Argentina 10. Importation of cocaine – internally No Jose Luis Lopez Fontan - Spanish citizen arrived from Chile 11. Importation of heroin in luggage No Julian Clares Perez – Spanish citizen arrived from Hong Kong 12. Importation of heroin in lining of suitcase Yes Paul John Bangura - Australian citizen arrived from Kuala Lumpur 13. Importation of MDMA – strapped to legs No Erna Ang – Indonesian citizen arrived from Jakarta 14. Importation of heroin in luggage Yes Thi Thinh Cap – Australian citizen arrived from Saigon, Vietnam 15. Importation of MDMA tablets in luggage No Richard Raymond De Valence – South African citizen arrived from South Africa 16. Importation of credit cards No Jesengar Pulinggam – Malaysian citizen arrived from Kuala Lumpur   Question (3) Incident Grade and quantity of narcotic4 If not why not 1. Importation of cocaine in poles of windsurfer 2.8 kg of cocaine 2. Importation of heroin in the soles of shoes 1.8 kg of heroin 3. Importation of heroin in luggage 2.05 kg of heroin 4. Importation of heroin in body pack 1.5 kg of heroin 5. Importation of cocaine in false walls of suitcase 4.9 kg of cocaine 6. Importation of cocaine impregnated in lining of suitcase 801.2gram of cocaine 7. Importation of MDMA impregnated in wine bottles 5.6 kg MDMA 8. Importation of RSAD tablets – derivative of MDMA – in luggage 11.9 kg of RSAD Ring substituted Amphetamine Derivative 9. Importation of cocaine in luggage 1.95 kg of cocaine 10. Importation of cocaine – internally 750 gms of cocaine 11. Importation of heroin in luggage 1116 gms heroin 12. Importation of heroin in lining of suitcase 2.1 kg heroin 13. Importation of MDMA – strapped to legs 2.4 kg of MDMA 14. Importation of heroin in luggage 192 gms of heroin 15. Importation of MDMA tablets in luggage 5000 MDMA tablets 16. Importation of credit cards Not applicable Nil narcotics –False Credit Cards and Travellers cheques 1 MDMA - Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine. 2 RSAD - Ring Substituted Amphetamine Derivative - believed to be a designer derivative of MDMA. 3 Question No. 3822 Part 2(a) (Hansard, 30 October 2006, page 126) related to alleged criminal behaviour at Sydney International Airport.  16 incidents were reported; 15 relating to narcotics and the other to counterfeit credit cards. 4 The grade of narcotic is not included as this would require lengthy manual checking and an inappropriate diversion of resources. Question (4) (a) Alerted by overseas authorities as to the presence of narcotics? Incident AFP 1. Importation of cocaine in poles of windsurfer No 2. Importation of heroin in the soles of shoes No 3. Importation of heroin in luggage No 4. Importation of heroin in body pack No 5. Importation of cocaine in false walls of suitcase No 6. Importation of cocaine impregnated in lining of suitcase No 7. Importation of MDMA impregnated in wine bottles No 8. Importation of RSAD tablets in luggage No 9. Importation of cocaine in luggage No 10. Importation of cocaine – internally No 11. Importation of cocaine in luggage No 12. Importation of heroin in lining of suitcase No 13. Importation of MDMA – strapped to legs No 14. Importation of heroin in luggage No 15. Importation of MDMA tablets in luggage No 16. Importation of credit cards No   (4) (b) and (c) The AFP cannot answer on behalf of other government departments or agencies or organisations or their officials. Question (5) Incident (a)Name of Court (b) Conclusion and orders of Court (c)details of any appeal 1. Importation of cocaine in poles of windsurfer Downing Centre District Court Sentenced to 8 yrs imprisonment with a NPP5 4 yrs and 6 mths 2. Importation of heroin in the soles of shoes Sydney District Court Sentenced to 8 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 5 yrs 13Oct06 appeal lodged on conviction and sentence 3. Importation of heroin in luggage Downing Centre District Court Sentenced to 10 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 6 yrs and 5 mths 4. Importation of heroin in body pack Sydney District Court Sentenced to 7.5 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 4.5 yrs. 5. Importation of cocaine in false walls of suitcase Sydney District Court Sentenced to 9 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 6 yrs 6. Importation of cocaine impregnated in lining of suitcase Sydney District Court Sentenced to 8 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 5 yrs 7. Importation of MDMA impregnated in wine bottles Sydney District Court Van Le sentenced to 12 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 7 yrs and 6 mths. Van To deported to UK 6.5.05. Thi To found not guilty 8. Importation of RSAD tablets in luggage Sydney District Court Sentenced to 9 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 5 yrs 9. Importation of cocaine in luggage Downing Centre District Court Sentenced to 8 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 5 yrs and 2 mths 10. Importation of cocaine – internally Downing Centre District Court Sentenced to 5 yrs and 9 mths imprisonment with a NPP of 3 yrs and 6 mths 11. Importation of cocaine in luggage Sydney District Court Sentenced to 9 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 5 yrs and 6 mths 12. Importation of heroin in lining of suitcase Sydney District Court 18Aug06 Trial - hung jury 30Sep06 Trial - hung jury 15Dec06. CDPP entered Nolle Proesequi. Matter dismissed. 13. Importation of MDMA – strapped to legs Downing centre District Court Sentenced to 8 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 4 yrs and 10 mths 14. Importation of heroin in luggage Downing Centre District Court Sentenced to 7 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 4 yrs and 8 mths 15. Importation of MDMA tablets in luggage Sydney District Court Sentenced to 6 yrs and 6 mths imprisonment with a NPP of 4 yrs and 4 mths 16. Importation of Credit cards Sydney District Court Sentenced to 6 yrs imprisonment with a NPP of 3 yrs and 8 mths. Appeal 10May06 NSW CCA – acquittal -blank cards not ‘counterfeit card’.   176 176 4864 176 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 2 November 2006: Further to the Minister’s reply to Part (2)(a) of question No. 3822 (Hansard, 30 October 2006, page 126), what are the full details of the investigation into an alleged drug syndicate operating within Sydney International Airport, including (a) the nature of the allegations, (b) the date on which the allegations were made, (c) the occupation and employer(s) of the persons subject of the allegations and (d) the specific restricted areas within Sydney International Airport from which the syndicate is alleged to have operated. Can the Minister advise the grade and quantity of drugs concerned in the drug syndicate allegations referred to in Part (1); if so, what are those details; if not, why not. Can the Minister advise whether a corrupt baggage-handler involved with narcotics at Sydney International Airport was involved in the alleged drug syndicate; if so, what are the full details, including any advances made by the corrupt baggage-handler to government officers, agents or other airport staff; if not, why not. Can the Minister advise whether the investigation into allegations of a drug syndicate operating within Sydney International Airport has concluded; if so, (a) what were the inquiry’s findings, conclusions and recommendations and (b) who conducted the inquiry; if not, (i) when will the inquiry conclude and (ii) will the findings, conclusions and recommendations be made public, and if not, why not. Can the Minister be certain that the alleged drug syndicate did not operate from those baggage make-up areas in Sydney International Airport where CCTV cameras were discovered to be pointing in the wrong direction or out of focus; if so, why; if not, why not. Is the Minister able to say how long the drug syndicate was operating from Sydney International Airport before an allegation was made and action taken; if so, what are the full details; if not, why not. Did (a) an Australian Federal Police officer (AFP), (b) an Australian Customs Service (Customs) officer or (c) some other person first suspect, or become aware, that a drug syndicate was operating from Sydney International Airport, and when was this discovery made; if the discovery was made by a person other than a Customs or an AFP officer, what was the occupation of that person. Will the Minister provide full details of the rank of the officer, employee or other person who observed, or suspected, that a drug syndicate was operating from Sydney International Airport, including the details of (a) any written report, (b) any oral report, (c) to whom each report was made, (d) the date of each report and (e) the action taken by the recipient(s) of each report, including the date each action was taken; if not, why not. Is there CCTV footage of those taking part in the alleged Sydney International Airport drug syndicate and what does the footage reveal; if not, (a) why not and (b) which areas within Sydney International Airport do not currently have CCTV surveillance capable of detecting potentially corrupt or irregular behaviour. 177 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Broad allegations of drug importation through Sydney airport were made to a private citizen by an APS employee – Gary Lee-Rogers who was facing fraud charges. On 23 April 2004 Ms Christina Schwerin referred to Mr Lee-Rogers’ allegations during the NSW Coronial inquest into his death. Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown. Insufficient information supplied to AFP to properly investigate. No Yes The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation found no evidence to support Mr Lee-Rogers’ allegations. The Commonwealth Ombudsman. (i) It has concluded (ii) Full details of the investigation were not made public. The final report was supplied to the NSW Coroner and the employee’s family. It was referred to in the 2004 NSW Coronial inquest concerning the death of Mr Lee-Rogers. The full report is held by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the release of the report is a matter for the Commonwealth Ombudsman. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 177 177 4883 177 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 27 November 2006: What is the contribution to the Australian economy of the meat processing industry in respect of the processing of (a) sheep and (b) beef, in terms of (i) the value of product and (ii) contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP). Did the export of live sheep to Saudi Arabia cease in August, September and October 2003; if so (a) was any research conducted into the effect of cessation upon the price of sheep in Western Australia and; if so, (b) what did that research reveal. For the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06, what was (a) the average gross unit value, in terms of price per kilogram of carcass weight, of lamb sold in Australia for meat processing and (b) the gross unit value, in terms of price per kilogram carcass weight equivalent, of sheep sold in Australia for processing into mutton. What is the level of spare processing capacity in abattoirs in Western Australia and South Australia. Has any research been conducted into the potential impacts of the cessation of the live sheep trade; if so: (a) how many additional sheep would be available for processing at abattoirs in Western Australia and South Australia; (b) what would be the effect on sheep prices obtainable by farmers of the influx into the market of additional sheep; (c) what would be the value of the meat processed from those sheep; and (d) what would be the effect of the additional meat processing on (i) GDP and (ii) employment. Will he provide a detailed breakdown of the expenditure of government funding in the Middle East to improve animal welfare for those animals exported from Australia for slaughter. Has the Government undertaken a review of animal handling, holding and slaughter facilities in livestock importing countries in the Middle East; if so, will he table that report. 178 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 latest census done for the meat processing industry was completed in the 2003-2004 financial year. These figures indicated that the meat processing industry contributed $10,034 million dollars to the economy as sales and service income, with a total net value-added contribution of $1,658 million. The available data does not distinguish between the beef and sheep components of the economic contributions of the meat processing industry. Yes No N/A The figures on Gross Unit Value are listed in table 2. Table 2: Gross Unit Value or Prices of Farm Products: Livestock for Slaughter Year Lamb c/kg (a) Mutton c/kg (a) 2004-05 352 166 2005-06 340 175 a. average saleyard price (dressed weight) Source: ABARE   The department does not hold data on spare processing capacity of abattoirs in Western Australia and South Australia. No The Government has funded projects in the Middle East, and other regions, to improve animal welfare and handling in key markets. This has included funding commitments under bilateral agreements on live animal trade (Memoranda of Understanding, MOUs) signed with trading partners in the Middle East. These MOUs ensure animal welfare concerns associated with delays in unloading live animals are mitigated. The projects funded by the International Agricultural Cooperation – Live Animal Trade Programme were reported in the DAFF Annual report 2005-06, pages 351–352. The Government has engaged an international consultant to undertake a stocktake of feedlot and animal handling facilities in the Middle East region to support Australia’s efforts to assess and manage post-arrival animal welfare risks in Middle East countries that import Australian livestock. We have not yet received a report. 178 178 4894 178 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 27 November 2006: Have formal complaints been lodged with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) by Mr Michael Brereton or Mr John Cornell in respect of the leaking of their personal tax affairs to the media. What investigation has been undertaken into allegations that the private tax affairs of Mr Brereton and Mr Cornell were leaked by the ATO. Has the anonymous information provided to journalists for the Australian and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers been seized so that it may be forensically tested to determine its source; if not, why not. Have court injunctions commenced against the Australian and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers to prevent further leaks of Australian taxpayers’ personal tax affairs to the media; if not, why not. Can the media groups and journalists involved in the leaks be prosecuted under section 8XB of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. In respect of the 27 ATO staff who admitted last year to accessing taxpayer records inappropriately, did the ATO permit 12 of those staff to resign on the spot, instead of prosecuting them for breaches of privacy. Were any of the 27 ATO staff referred to in Part (6) at any time part of Operation Wickenby. Was any information accessed by the 27 ATO staff referred to in Part (6) part of the Operation Wickenby investigation. 179 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Dutton —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No As per the answer which was provided to question on notice 4084 (tabled 28 Nov 2006), the Project Wickenby agencies, (ATO, Australian Crime Commission, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Australian Federal Police and the Australian Securities & Investments Commission), through the issue of a press release issued by the Commissioner of Taxation on 29 August 2006, have provided public assurances that there is no evidence to support the allegation that taxpayer information was inappropriately provided to the media by someone within Project Wickenby. There is no evidence to suggest any inappropriate release has occurred that would support such action See answer to question 3. See answer to question 3. Twelve employees exercised their common law right to resign from the ATO during the course of investigations. Formal prosecution of these matters is a decision for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. No. No. 179 179 4900 179 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 27 November 2006: Has the Goods and Services Tax treatment of funerals changed; if so (a) when and (b) why. What revenue will the changes generate each year. 179 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No, the goods and services tax (GST) treatment of funerals has not changed since the start of the GST in July 2000. As the GST treatment of funerals has not changed, the question does not arise. 180 180 4917 180 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 Mrs Elliot asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 27 November 2006: Are there any plans to create a solar city in the federal electorate of Richmond or Page. 180 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr Turnbull —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No proposals were received from the federal electorates of Richmond or Page. Submissions for Solar Cities proposals have now closed. 180 180 4938 180 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 30 November 2006: What was the cost to the Commonwealth Government of the conduct of the inquiry by Commissioner the Hon Terence R.H. Cole into Certain Australian Companies in relation to the United Nations Oil-For-Food Program. What salary and other remuneration have been paid to (a) Commissioner Cole and (b) Counsel Assisting the Commissioner. 180 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Commissioner Cole completed his Inquiry and provided his report to the Australian Government on 24 November 2006.  The Attorney-General’s Department understands that all expenditure by the Inquiry has been identified.  However, there may still be claims outstanding to finalisation.  Expenditure to 28 February 2007 not including legal assistance to witnesses is detailed in the table below: Expenditure for 2005-06 $6,297,000 Expenditure for 2006-07 $3,656,148 Total Expenditure to 28 February $9,953,148 The total salary and other remuneration paid to: Commissioner Cole is $852,865 Counsel Assisting the Commissioner (4) $2,452,078 180 180 4955 180 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 5 December: Has the Minister read a discussion paper by the Australian Greenhouse Office titled Sulphur Hexafluoride and the Electricity Supply Industry; if not, why not. Is the Minister aware that sulphur hexafluoride is 23,900 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is a significant contributor to global warming; if not, why not. Can the Minister advise of the sulphur hexafluoride emissions in Australia in (a) 2001, (b) 2002, (c) 2003, (d) 2004 and (e) 2005; if not, why not. Did the Government provide financial support to facilitate the introduction of a leak camera to detect sulphur hexafluoride leaks; if so, what are those full details; if not, why not. 180 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr Turnbull —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, I have read the discussion paper by the Australian Greenhouse Office titled Sulphur Hexafluoride and the Electricity Supply Industry. The Government is aware that sulphur hexafluoride has a high global warming potential and that emissions of sulphur hexafluoride currently contribute around 0.1% to global anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Australia’s emissions of sulphur hexafluoride are calculated by applying an annual leakage rate to an estimated installed capacity. As the size and extent of the electricity supply network remains stable year on year, these assumptions are held constant for the entire time-series. In the years 2001-05 the annual emissions of sulphur hexafluoride were 521,020 CO-equivalents tonnes per year. In FY 2000/01 the Government offered members of the Greenhouse Challenge Programme dollar for dollar funding up to $50,000 for the use of Laser Imaging Cameras (LIC) - possibly through the engagement of an external consultant to undertake a sulphur hexafluoride audit with a LIC to identify leaks. No Challenge members in the electricity transmission industry took up the offer. However, I understand that at least three Australian companies have invested in LIC technology that cost in the order of $250,000. These companies also provide a cost effective leak detection service to other utilities, and many utilities have taken advantage of these services. In addition, the Department of the Environment and Water Resources is currently working with industry to develop best practice guidelines for sulphur hexafluoride management. Australia’s principal electricity supply association, the Energy Networks Association, has agreed to take a leading role in this project. The guidelines will address all aspects of sulphur hexafluoride management over the life cycle of the equipment, including emissions monitoring and end of life disposal considerations. This document will ensure that companies approach sulphur hexafluoride management in a consistent manner and will provide a foundation for an ongoing commitment to the achievement of best practice. 181 181 4966 181 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 Mr Andren asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 6 December 2006: Is he aware that (a) West Australian canola growers now receive $50 more per tonne for their Genetically Modified (GM)-free canola than for Canadian GM canola and (b) the introduction of GM canola will reduce the profitability of Australia’s canola growers; if not, why not. Can he provide the relevant data to prove that GM canola provides greater yields than conventional and triazine tolerant (TT) canola; if not, why not. Can he confirm that (a) GrainCorp is a shareholder in the crop protection company Nufarm, and (b) that Nufarm recently purchased a licence to develop and commercialise Roundup Ready canola in Australia; if not, why not. If GM canola is approved to be commercially grown in Australia, can he explain (a) how Graincorp proposes to test canola at its delivery point to ensure segregation of GM-free and GM canola and protect farmers’ and consumers’ right to choose whether they grow or consume GM-free or GM-canola; and (b) whether growers, grain harvesters, seed graders and other supply chain contractors will be liable for any contamination of non-GM crops that occurs. Can he explain the procedures that were put in place to ensure that the shipment of Canadian GM canola imported by Cargill was properly segregated from any GM-free Australian canola to prevent contamination of local produce; if not, why not. 182 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: Any price premium for GM free canola is best identified through a comparison of import prices received for Australian (GM free) canola and Canadian (GM) canola in a key importing country such as Japan. Analysis by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics employing this approach suggests that there has been no consistent premium paid for Australian canola above Canadian canola once transport charges have been taken into consideration.                 The comparison of domestic prices in Australia and Canada cannot be relied on as an indicator of price premiums for GM free canola because of a range of other factors influencing the domestic price. These include the availability of domestic oilseeds relative to demand, which in turn is influenced by seasonal conditions. ABARE analysis of price premiums for non‑GM canola does not support the contention that the introduction of GM canola will reduce the profitability of Australia’s growers. ABARE has concluded that it does not appear that there is a price premium in domestic and world markets for certified non‑GM canola that is sufficient to offset the additional costs of segregation. I am aware that Monsanto has conducted trials of its Roundup Ready® GM canola and Bayer CropScience has conducted trials of its Invigor® GM canola in Australia. I understand that the results of these trials indicate that yield and oil content results of the GM varieties exceed non‑GM varieties, especially the TT canola. Enquiries on the details of these trials should be addressed to the companies concerned. Shareholding by companies vary from time to time. Enquiries on GrainCorp’s shareholdings should be addressed to this publicly listed company. I am aware that Nufarm Ltd issued a Press Release on 6 September 2006 announcing that it had acquired a licence to develop and commercialise Roundup Ready® canola in Australia. The Gene Technology Regulator approved, in 2003, the commercial release of several GM canola events although these are not currently being grown commercially in Australia. Testing methodology and segregation are matters for industry (including GrainCorp Ltd where its operations require) to determine. National labelling laws ensure consumers can make informed choices about their consumption of food ingredients, including GM ingredients. All Australian jurisdictions agreed that existing law was capable of dealing with the contractual arrangements of growing crops, including GM crops. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with funds from the National Biotechnology Strategy has commissioned studies to inform the debate on the use of biotechnology in Australian agriculture. One of these reports addresses liability issues - A farmer’s choice? Legal liability of farmers growing crops written by the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture. This and other reports commissioned by DAFF are available on the DAFF agricultural biotechnology website www.daff.gov.au/agbiotech The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), which is not within my portfolio, was responsible for the GM issues associated with the Cargill consignment. I understand the import licence issued under the Gene Technology Act 2000 for this shipment specified that it be processed so that the seed is no longer viable. 182 182 4970 182 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2006: What are the annual rental costs to Defence, where applicable, for each building at Australian Defence College (ADC) Weston Creek. What were the original building costs, with current price indexing, for each building at ADC Weston Creek. 183 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Defence College (ADC) Weston Creek was leased under a sale and lease back arrangement of the whole site. The annual rental is not based on a rental per building, but a rental for the whole property. The current annual rent is $2.435 million (excluding GST). In 1993-94, training and office accommodation was completed at ADC for an out-turned cost of $6 million. In 2000-01, Defence managed the contracts for refurbishment and construction of major works at ADC for an outturn cost of $26.3 million (GST exclusive). Current price indexing has been derived using the implicit price-deflator for gross non-farm product, such that in January 2007, $6 million is indexed to $8.2 million, and $26.3 million is indexed to $33.4 million. 183 183 4971 183 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 December 2006: Can he confirm that Australian Defence Force personnel will not receive basic instruction on the preservation of the scene of a ‘notifiable incident’, as defined by the current Defence Instruction (General), until December 2008; if so, what is the reason for this delay. 183 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. Since August 2006, all Australian Defence Force (ADF) members deploying overseas on operations have received training on incident scene initial action and preservation. This training focuses on what actions any ADF member can take at an incident scene, where the operational circumstances allow, that will secure the scene and preserve any potential evidence at the scene, prior to the arrival of police or inquiry personnel. As a result of the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry into the death of Private Jacob Kovco, the Chief of the Defence Force has directed the Service Chiefs to examine the introduction of similar training at their individual Service induction and/or initial employment courses. The Services are to complete Training Needs Analysis on this requirement by the end of June 2007 and revised training packages are to be implemented at the appropriate training establishments no later than February 2008.