2007-03-27 41 1 8 REPS 0 0 2007-03-27 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2.00 pm and read prayers. 1 Ministerial Arrangements 1 14:01:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that the Special Minister of State will be absent from question time today. He is in Sydney on official business. The Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions on his behalf. 1 14:01:00 Questions Without Notice 1 14:01:00 1 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister celebrates today the one-year anniversary of his government’s industrial relations laws, will the Prime Minister repeat his statement from yesterday that ‘working families in Australia have never been better off’? 1 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I stand by what I said yesterday and indeed the day before and the day before that. Let me remind the House, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition, as we mark the first anniversary of the introduction of Work Choices, that that historic economic reform has contributed to the strengthening of the Australian economy. The reason the government introduced Work Choices was to lay the foundation for a further period of economic growth and expansion. It is true that there are other voices and other views about Work Choices, but those are the voices and views essentially of the organised trade union movement of this country, which seeks not so much to advance the welfare of Australian workers but rather to reimpose union control over the industrial relations system of this country. This debate is not about the rights and interests of Australian workers, because those rights and interests have been promoted by Work Choices. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that a very successful Labour leader, Tony Blair, once said, ‘Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.’ Measured by that, fairness is at a 32-year high in Australia; so I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, as we mark one year after the introduction of Work Choices, that if you apply the test of fairness embraced by Tony Blair then you will acknowledge that this country is fairer and better as a result of the introduction of Work Choices. 1 1 14:03:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 Mrs GASH —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister update the House on progress in the United States military commission trial of David Hicks? 1 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. Members will be aware that earlier today the arraignment in the new military commission trial of David Hicks took place. As members will also be aware, David Hicks pleaded guilty to the overall charge of providing material support for terrorism. In particular, he pleaded guilty to specification 1 of the charge. The specification of the charge to which David Hicks has pleaded guilty as outlined in the charge sheet was: ... a person subject to trial by military commission as an alien unlawful enemy combatant, did, in or around Afghanistan, from in or about December 2000 through in or about December 2001, intentionally provide material support or resources to an international terrorist organization engaged in hostilities against the United States, namely al Qaeda, which the accused knew to be ... an organisation that engaged ... in terrorism ... That is the charge to which Mr Hicks specifically pleaded guilty. I am informed that he pleaded not guilty to the second specification of the charge. The government remains concerned at the length of time that has passed before reaching this point; however, the government does welcome the progress towards resolution of Hicks’s case. It has always been our view that Hicks should face justice, but we have been very concerned about the time that it has taken. I understand that the military commission judge has requested that the parties file an agreed stipulation of facts on 27 March, United States time. The full military commission will then consider the guilty plea, the stipulation of facts and a statement from David Hicks before determining a sentence. I note that, should the military commission impose a custodial sentence, Australia and the United States have an arrangement in place under which Mr Hicks can apply to serve the remainder of any sentence imposed in Australia, subject to the agreement of all parties. The timing and details therefore of any arrangements for Mr David Hicks’s return to Australia are not clear. Given that the military commission has yet to finalise proceedings, I do not propose to make any further comment. 2 2 14:07:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and relates to the government’s industrial relations policy. I refer the minister to this Treasury document I am holding, dated 27 October 2005, released under FOI, entitled The regulation of workplace relations: current, proposed......and for the future. Why did the government black out the section marked ‘unfinished business’ before releasing the document? Minister, what does this blacked out section say? 2 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 am prepared to have a bit of a punt. I bet the blacked out section says that Work Choices has been good for the economy. I am prepared to say that there are more jobs, higher wages and fewer industrial disputes. The Labor Party, on the first anniversary of Work Choices— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. The minister has the call. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —The Labor Party, on the first anniversary of Work Choices, is asking about a document from 2005, before the introduction of the laws. What does that say about the Labor Party? It says that it does not want to deal with the issues relating to workplace relations. Workplace relations, over the last 12 months, has been one of the foundations upon which has been built a stronger economy for today’s jobs and tomorrow’s jobs. In the last 12 months, 263,000 new jobs have been created in Australia—90 per cent of those jobs full-time. The unemployment rate is at 4.6 per cent. The Labor Party believed that the rate of full employment could have been around six per cent, seven per cent, eight per cent or maybe nine per cent. The unemployment rate today is 4.6 per cent. Isn’t that good for the workers? Isn’t that good for Australian families? Even better, strike action today is at its lowest level since records were first kept, in 1913, and that is good for the workers as well. 2 2 14:09:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister outline to the House how economic reform has strengthened the Australian economy? Is the Prime Minister aware of any proposals that would roll back this reform? What effect will this have on the prosperity of Australian workers? 3 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Bass for his question. It is an undeniable fact that the strength of the Australian economy in 2007 is a direct result of 20 years of economic reform—indeed, perhaps a generation of economic reform. The real essence of the debate about Work Choices that is going on in this chamber and around the nation is whether, for the first time, this nation is going to be so unwise as to reverse one of the great economic reforms of the last generation, which has given us the prosperity we now have. It would be unthinkable for anybody to propose to re-regulate the exchange rate, to reimpose foreign exchange controls and to go back to the old days of a regulated financial system. It would, I think, be unimaginable that we would seek to reimpose tariffs as a method of protecting Australian industry. It would be unimaginable that we would go back to the pre-1998 days in relation to the Australian waterfront, when the crane rates were 17 or 18 an hour. They are now 27 or 28. It would surely be unimaginable if we were to reverse the new taxation system to bring back the wholesale sales tax, to overturn the introduction of the GST or to turn our backs on all the hard-won reforms that existed there. It would be unimaginable that this country should go back into deficit, that we should accumulate $96 billion of government debt. It would surely be unimaginable—and even the Australian Labor Party has indicated that it would be unimaginable—that we should seek to renationalise former government owned enterprises such as Telstra, Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. Therefore, that recitation, that statement of the obvious, makes a very clear and compelling point: that what the Labor Party is proposing to do in relation to Work Choices is to reverse a generation of economic reform that has been contributed to by both sides of politics in Australia. Opposition members interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Yes, it has been contributed to by both sides of politics. There is, however, a caveat to be placed on that observation, and that is that the Liberal and National parties, when in opposition, supported those reforms of the former government that were beneficial to the Australian economy, whereas those reforms of this government which have been beneficial to the Australian economy—such as taxation reform, waterfront reform, getting the budget back into balance and paying off $96 billion of government debt—have all been trenchantly opposed by the opportunistic members of the Australian Labor Party who sit opposite. What Labor want to do is to turn back the clock. What Labor want to do is, for the first time in the modern era of economic management in this country, reverse a major economic reform. What they are proposing to do—driven by their real masters, the bosses of the ACTU—is akin to reregulating the financial system, ending the floating of the Australian dollar, dismantling taxation reform and going back to the bad old days of the waterfront. They are not only talking about rolling back Work Choices; they are also talking about rolling back the reforms that were introduced in 1996, because what we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a description of an industrial relations system which takes us back beyond the reforms of 1996. Why is this occurring? This is not occurring in the name of helping the working men and women of Australia; this is occurring in the name of reimposing union domination over the industrial relations system. As I look along the Labor Party frontbench—no disrespect to them as individuals—70 per cent of them are former trade union officials. They are going to be joined, of course, after the next election by an honour roll of the brothers and sisters. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hotham! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —You have Bill Shorten. You have Doug Cameron. You have Richard Marles. You have Mark Butler. And I reckon, after the equivocal things he has said in the past few days, you have Greg Combet. If I were the member for Charlton, I would be pretty concerned that Greg was after my seat. But this is not about the rights of workers; this is about the power of union bosses. That is what this is about. It has nothing to do with the rights of workers. If they had concern for the rights of workers— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hotham is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —they would not be adopting the policy they have. The last thing I want to say is this: I saw in a newspaper this morning from a very respected columnist a suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition was going to do a Blair at the ALP national conference. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that the defining moment in the march of Tony Blair to respectability as leader of the British Labour Party was when he told the Trade Union Congress in that country that, if he won office, he would retain the industrial relations reforms of the Thatcher government. 4 Distinguished Visitors 4 14:17:00 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 Poland led by the Speaker of the Senate of the Republic of Poland, Mr Bogdan Borusewicz. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 4 Questions Without Notice 4 4 14:17:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and relates to my last question but not his last answer. Doesn’t this Treasury document prove that the government has discussed industrial relations policy options post Work Choices, given that the document sets out unfinished business after the Work Choices bill was made public? Is the government covering this up because the government does not want the Australian people to know about its plans for more unfair industrial relations laws? 4 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 obviously have not seen that document. I am happy if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to give me a copy of it. It is a Treasury document. I am familiar with other documents relating to economic management, such as the OECD report that said that the prescriptive, job-destroying policies of the Labor Party, such as the reintroduction of the unfair dismissal laws, are bad for workers and that the people who are most disadvantaged by prescriptive labour laws are in fact women and young people, particularly those who have been out of the workforce for a long time. I am also familiar with the most recent testimony of the Governor of the Reserve Bank who said that it was a threat to heavily reregulate the labour market because it could put upward pressure on inflation and therefore upward pressure on interest rates. And I am very familiar with the economic data that indicates that everything we have done in industrial relations over the last few years is helping to deliver more jobs and better pay. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. Has the minister completed his answer? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Yes. 5 Distinguished Visitors 5 14:19:00 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 the Special Committee on Kashmir from the Parliament of Pakistan. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 5 Questions Without Notice 5 5 14:20:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of how the government’s workplace policies have helped drive growth in regional areas? How would a union-driven agenda affect jobs in regional Australia? 5 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Cowper for his question. The member for Cowper, since being elected to this place, has taken a great deal of interest in how to improve the circumstances of the unemployed in his electorate. The unemployment level in Cowper under Labor got up to 17.8 per cent. It was just outrageous in that part of the mid North Coast. But since then, under the policies of the coalition government, it has come down to 7.9 per cent. The member for Cowper is working very hard to get it even lower with creative ways to find people opportunities in the workplace. One of those—and it was very strongly supported by the member for Cowper—was our Work Choices policy, particularly getting rid of the unfair dismissal laws that Laurie Brereton introduced back in the nineties. If there is anything that has assisted the small businesses and the people that work in those small businesses in the seat of Cowper, it is getting rid of those unfair dismissal laws and the burden that they placed on small businesses in that electorate. The record shows that, since Work Choices was introduced, there are 263,000 new jobs in the economy, many of those in the small business sector. We now see unemployment at a 30-year low, and wages growth has reached a level of 19.8 per cent. Most importantly, we have witnessed the lowest levels of industrial disputes on record during the term of the coalition government. Our policies have certainly unshackled regional economies to do what they do best: generate economic growth and wealth in their areas and therefore generate employment opportunities for young people in regional Australia. It is critically important that we do not go backwards on this reform agenda, that we continue to go forwards. The Prime Minister mentioned a while ago the battle that we had to have, particularly with the union movement and the Labor Party, to reform the waterfront. They told us you could not achieve anything better than 16.9 crane lifts per hour. They said, ‘This is world’s best practice and we’re doing it in Australia.’ Since those reforms have been introduced, they are now doing 27 lifts an hour. It is the single most important reform and has made us much more competitive in the international marketplace as far as our exporters are concerned. When those reforms were introduced—and you can look around the ranks of the Labor Party on the other side of this place—we remember that the President of the ACTU who opposed those was the member for Throsby— JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —We opposed the dogs. SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —and she happily acknowledges that they opposed them every inch of the way. There was a battle but it was a battle that we believed we had to win to ensure the efficiency of Australia and the competitiveness of our export industries and to generate jobs for the future. We do not have to go too far back into history to find a bit more form sitting on the front benches of the Labor Party. Regional Australians, particularly the beef producers in regional Australia, all remember the Mudginberri dispute back in the 1980s. It cost the beef industry millions of dollars. Who was the head of the ACTU then? None other than the member for Hotham. We well remember that battle in the Mudginberri dispute. It gives you an indication of the roots of the policy of the Labor Party. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is no great mate of Bill Ludwig’s, but I am sure that the tentacles reach in there somewhere. There is one more example we need to give. When the member for Batman left the presidency of the ACTU in 1996 there were 928,000 days of work lost per annum in the Australian economy. That was the rate of industrial disputes in 1996. Today it is down to 132,000. When the member for Batman was last the President of the ACTU it was 928,000. With the advent of more representation coming into the Labor Party from the ACTU and the union movement, we know in which direction industrial relations policy is going to go. It is not going to go in the direction of assisting small businesses in the electorate of Cowper to put on more people and generate economic growth. If the voters in Australia want to support job creators, they need to support the coalition government. 6 Distinguished Visitors 6 14:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Rick Barker, New Zealand Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 6 Questions Without Notice 6 6 14:25:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 Mr BYRNE —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, didn’t the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Nick Minchin, say to the HR Nicholls Society, ‘We do need to seek a mandate from the Australian people at the next election for another wave of industrial relations reform’? Minister, didn’t the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Peter Hendy, say to the HR Nicholls Society that industrial relations reform still has a long way to go? Will the minister rule out further changes to the government’s extreme industrial relations changes if the government is re-elected? 6 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 —We have no plans for further change to the laws. Opposition members interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I am prepared to rule it out; that is right—absolutely. The reason is this: this is where the Labor Party— JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Throsby! The minister has the call. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —have got it so wrong. They predicted when these laws were started that there were going to be mass sackings, that children would not see their parents on Christmas Day and that parents would not be able to afford to buy their children shoes to go to school in. They predicted Armageddon, the end of the world, when these laws were to start a year ago. The reason it did not happen is that our laws were part of the evolution of the modern workplace. Our laws were about responding to the demands of the workers, who wanted flexibility in the workplace, who wanted to be able to engage in job sharing and shift sharing and who wanted to be able to work from home. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Holt has asked his question. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Holt is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Women wanted to be able to use the internet and the phone at home to undertake some part-time paid work and yet receive appropriate remuneration at the same time. The reason our laws did not bring about a workplace revolution was that they were simply responding to the modern workplace. At the next election it is the Labor Party promising a workplace revolution. They are the ones going to the electorate to say that they want to go back to the days when the union officials were beating down the doors of every workplace. Only this morning I went to a business in Queanbeyan where a worker, Greg, said explicitly that the fear of the workers is that the unions will come back into the workplace. He said that they were able to negotiate an agreement that was fair to all without the unions being directly involved. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —We are about the interests of the workers; the Labor Party is about the interests of the union bosses. 7 7 14:28:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 Mr BARRESI —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House when the next Intergenerational report will be released? Has the Treasurer seen comments regarding the importance of the independence of the Future Fund from political interference? 7 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. Under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act the government is required to produce an intergenerational report every five years to benchmark the intergenerational equity and the way in which our country is preparing for the great challenge of the ageing of the population. The first report was released in 2002 and the next one, the five-yearly update, will be released next week. We have made some progress since the first Intergenerational report was released, particularly in the area of retiring Labor debt and establishing the Future Fund to meet unfunded superannuation liabilities. The OECD, in its annual survey of Australia, lauded the establishment of the Future Fund, saying: The Australian government has established the “Future Fund” to build up assets to pay for future pension liabilities ... The Future Fund is explicitly quarantined from other possible medium-term objectives. This is laudable, especially in the light of cross-country evidence which shows that attempts to pre-fund public pension liabilities by accumulation in social security systems have, without a high degree of explicit separation, often been thwarted by increases in general government expenditure. So the OECD was saying that it is very important to quarantine the funding of future liabilities from other spending, because other spending can completely undermine the objective that you have in funding those pension liabilities. It is making the point that if you set up one of these funds, the moment you start raiding it for other expenditures is the moment you undermine the whole improvement that it is designed to have. I was very interested to see more support for the independence of the Future Fund in today’s Australian at page 23, in an article by Joseph Kerr under the headline ‘Tanner promises to run a tighter ship’. Mr Tanner made lots of promises in this article, but get a load of this one. This is what the Australian records this morning: The Future Fund needed to be more independent of government, as the governance arrangements currently allowed for too much government interference. So here is a party that has announced it is going to— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —They asked the question a week ago, he said. What, they asked the question before you decided on the raid? Was that the point? So, a week ago—he said they asked the question a week ago—the Future Fund had to be more independent, but that was a couple of days before he decided on a $2.7 billion raid. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Wrong again, Pete. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne has been warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Here is a political party that has decided for political reasons to raid the Future Fund for $2.7 billion whilst it is demanding that governments not be allowed to engage in political interference. Here is the safecracker demanding that banks up their security. He is out there raiding the Future Fund and demanding that it not be allowed to be raided by people like him. He was right a week ago—he was absolutely right a week ago—and he is wrong now. Let me make the point: the first burglary is the hard one. Once you have done it once, you can do it twice; you can do it three times; you can do it four times. The other thing that Mr Tanner promised in this article is that he is going to run a tighter ship than Peter Costello. The article says: Labor wants business to believe a Rudd government would run a tighter ship than Peter Costello— and the evidence for that is a $2.7 billion raid on the Future Fund. That is a much tighter ship! How about this for the tighter ship? The Gold Coast Weekend Bulletin records that Eddy Sarroff, a Gold Coast councillor, has been asked by opposition leader Kevin Rudd to be the Labor candidate in McPherson. Councillor Sarroff said he agreed to run on the Labor ticket only after Mr Rudd promised a $2 billion infrastructure upgrade for the Gold Coast. Two billion for one seat! They saw Eddy and they said to Eddy, ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?’ and Eddy said, ‘No thanks; I’ll be a double billionaire.’ We have Eddy Sarroff—$2 billion for the seat of the Gold Coast. We have Eric Ripper out there today. He says he has his own infrastructure promise from the Leader of the Opposition, for Western Australia. We have the $2.7 billion raid on the Future Fund. And all of this is designed to show that Labor can run a tighter ship than the coalition! If you would believe that, you would be like Eddy Sarroff. You would believe that there is $2 billion coming to buy his seat in the Gold Coast. The member for Lilley sat down. He was just about to intervene, no doubt. I figure that 150 seats at $2 billion a pop is $300 billion that the Leader of the Opposition is out for, which of course is more than all of the Commonwealth revenue collected in one year. Let me say that this Leader of the Opposition gets played as a patsy. Any time someone wants money, they are down asking for it. He cannot say no. He cannot stand up to a state premier. He cannot even stand up to Eddy Sarroff. 8 8 14:36:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen comments from the Australian’s national political editor, Paul Kelly, who has said that the government’s attacks on Labor’s broadband proposal are ‘nonsense’? Has he seen those of the Australian Financial Review journalist David Bassanese, who has said the proposal is ‘smart, pragmatic economic policy making’? Has he seen those of the Daily Telegraph, which has said in its editorial: It’s time the Government got with the program. The digital age has arrived and it’s impossible for governments to opt out. Treasurer, don’t these comments show that your attacks are overblown and just plain desperate? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before I call the Treasurer, I remind the member for Lilley that he should not use the word ‘you’ in his question. 9 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —Let me assure the member for Lilley of one thing: my attacks on his raids on the Future Fund are going to go on every single day until the next election. If the Labor Party were not worried about attacks on their policy to raid the Future Fund, they would not be demanding that they stop. I have never heard the Labor Party actually demand that we do something which they believed to be in their interest. The reason why the Labor Party are sensitive on this issue is: not only do they know it is wrong; they also know that if a private sector employer tried to raid the superannuation funds of their employees it would be illegal. The last time this was tried it was done by a bloke called Robert Maxwell, the newspaper owner, in the UK. Robert Maxwell had a great plan to raid— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Was he in the ALP? CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Was he in the ALP? Yes, I think he was in the ALP. The member for Grayndler asked me whether he was in the ALP. I think he was, from memory, but I will go back and have a look at that. I must thank the member for Grayndler. He always thinks up my best lines for me. It is quite possible that the whips sent this dorothy dixer around to the member for Lilley by mistake. The member for Lilley has been out there, day after day, demanding that the Future Fund be a locked box so that it cannot be raided. He is on the record, day after day, saying that. We have now got the member for Melbourne on the record, as late as today, saying that it has to be independent from political interference. His defence is that he gave that answer a week ago. If this opposition believed that this was such a great investment for the Future Fund, presumably they would believe that the guardians would see that for themselves. But no. They have stepped in themselves, they have done no financial due diligence, they have overridden the independence, they have raided the fund, they have said that this is not a loan, they have said that this can be done subsequently, and they have said that they reserve the right to do it over and over again. Let me make this point: in relation to the inner cities and the suburbs where broadband is commercial, we now have at least two consortiums—Telstra and the G9—that want to build it because they think they can make a profit out of it. Nearly 50 per cent of the population can access even higher speeds of 12 to 20 megabits per second from ADSL2. Where it is not commercial for a private sector operator to do it is out in rural and remote Australia. The government has anticipated that and has set aside a communications fund of $2 billion to look after rural and remote Australia. The Labor Party wants to use taxpayers’ funds in an area where the private sector can make a profit out of it and take away taxpayers’ funds from the area where the private sector cannot make a profit out of it—out in rural and regional Australia. This is why I say that you cannot trust the Labor Party with money. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Yes, you can. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Who said, ‘Yes, you can’? Murphy’s Law! Everything that can be said that’s silly will be silly at the most inopportune time. Yes, you can trust the Labor Party with money—Murphy’s Law. The telecommunications operators would have seen the Leader of the Opposition coming. They have said to him, in relation to proposals they already have on the books, ‘Raid the Future Fund and give us the money.’ Eddy saw him coming; Eric Ripper saw him coming. You cannot have somebody who is a patsy for state premiers and commercial interests running Australia’s economy. 10 10 14:41:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 Dr JENSEN —My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House how new trade practices regulations will help small business? Are there any risks for small business? 10 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question. Members of the House will know that recently the government passed the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006, commonly known as the Dawson bill, which delivered an easier notification system for collective bargaining for small business, increased powers for the ACCC to search premises and higher penalties for contraventions of the act. In relation to the collective bargaining regime, to be eligible the annual value of a transaction must not exceed $3 million. That is the general case. But, from today, I announce that small businesses in selected industries who have annual transactions greater than $3 million will still be able to take advantage of those collective bargaining provisions. In particular, in petrol retailing the transactional limit to take advantage of those collective bargaining provisions will be $15 million; in motor vehicle retailing it will be $20 million; in farm machinery it will be $10 million; and in primary production, generally speaking, it will be $5 million. That provides a very generous threshold in those particular industries to take advantage of the collective bargaining provisions, and it is a very direct benefit to small business. I want to thank and congratulate the Minister for Small Business and Tourism for the work that she did in getting this legislation through. The Labor Party opposed this legislation. We had to fight for it in the Senate. We have now enacted it; we have now brought in regulations which will allow better thresholds. This will be of benefit to small business, and I want to thank members of the House for their support for that legislation. 10 10 14:44:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I refer to the minister’s frequent assertions that workers—particularly women workers—are better off on Australian workplace agreements. I also refer to the fact that the Prime Minister said yesterday that nurses should be paid more. If the minister really believed that AWAs are so good, why wouldn’t the government be proud to tie future Commonwealth healthcare funding to the offering of AWAs? 10 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 —There is one way that the nurses could receive a pay rise tomorrow—that is, if the Leader of the Opposition picked up the phone to the premiers and asked his mates to give the nurses a pay rise. The nurses are employed by the state Labor governments in state hospitals. I make this observation. If the Labor Party really care about nurses, if the Labor Party really care about teachers—and they employ, through the state governments, those nurses and those teachers—I urge them to do the right thing and pay those hard workers more money. 11 11 14:45:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 Miss JACKIE KELLY —My question is also to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the benefits of our workplace relations reforms, both social and economic. Are there any threats to those reforms? 11 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 certainly can, and I thank the member— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —She’s annoying, isn’t she! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —It will be really embarrassing if you get this one wrong! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —She’s something else, isn’t she! I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. It was a good question I thought. I note that, since the introduction of Work Choices a year ago, the number of average hours Australians are working has come down by half an hour overall per week. I also recognise that wages have gone up by 1.5 per cent in real terms. I also note that 263,000 new jobs have been created. Nearly 90 per cent of those are full-time jobs and over 109,000 of those are for women, which is a great story. I also note that the level of industrial disputation is at its lowest point since records were first kept in 1913. One of the great stories about the introduction of the laws a year ago is that it has encouraged employers who previously employed people as casuals to bring them onto AWAs and to give them some permanency in their workplace. The reason why they have been able to do that is that the AWA is a flexible instrument. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —I note today the decision by the Leader of the Opposition to stage a bit of a stunt at the national conference. ‘Rudd set for brawl with Left’. This happens regularly, doesn’t it? Am I missing something? This happens regularly. It is like that great scene out of Casablanca, where Captain Renault said at the end, ‘Roll up the usual suspects.’ Well, at every national conference the leader of the Labor Party rolls up the left—rolls over the top of them at a pretend, staged event—and says, ‘We’re strong, and we’re going to stand up to the union bosses.’ How extraordinary it is that the Labor Party has always been opposed to casualisation of the workforce and, at a time when we are moving people from casual labour into permanent part-time or full-time work, the Labor Party wants to wind back to the casualisation of the workforce. The Financial Review said today: Given the concern expressed by the labour movement over the past two decades about “casualisation” of the workplace, you would think the unions and the Labor Party would be celebrating the record level of full-time jobs being created. Not a bit of it. Unions are running a desperate campaign of misinformation to shore up their power, and Labor is in lock-step, Absolutely. The Labor Party is about the union bosses—the union bosses outside and the union bosses within the parliament. Only today I heard the Prime Minister on Radio National. Who did the Labor Party put up to be the spokesman on industrial relations for the Labor Party? It was not the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Greg Combet was there to debate the Prime Minister on industrial relations. I then went onto Jon Faine’s program, in Melbourne. I was being interviewed and they said, ‘We have a spokesman for the other side.’ I asked: ‘Who’s that? Julia Gillard? Kevin Rudd?’ The answer was, ‘No, Greg Combet is the spokesman.’ So the Rudd-Gillard-Combet combo comes into play, which says that the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition do not control their own policy—Greg Combet does. That is why he wants to knock off the poor old member for Charlton. Stay here, don’t leave your seat! Greg Combet wants to knock off the member for Charlton. A union boss knocks off the poor old member for Corio. A union boss knocks off the poor old member for Maribyrnong. You have the union boss in Hotham, You have the union boss in Batman. Do not forget the union boss in Throsby; we cannot forget her! Dougie Cameron and all of them are coming in because they want to get rid of the monkeys. Just bring the organ grinder in. He is out there playing the tune on radio. He is debating us on industrial relations. Forget the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Just bring the organ grinder in. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before calling the deputy leader, I would remind the minister that he should refer to members by their title or their seat. 12 12 14:51:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—that big bear of a man, which is the Prime Minister’s preferred term for describing him. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader has been called. The deputy leader will be heard. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Minister, isn’t it a fact that leading labour market economist Mark Wooden, a conservative economist, said: ... there’s not a lot of evidence that individual contracts produce productivity. He continued: ... the biggest gains for productivity still revolve around a system which is collective based. Will the minister table the statistical evidence that proves the government’s assertion that the government’s industrial relations laws have increased productivity? Will he table that evidence? 12 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 Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the compliment. I would like to see more of you, too, Julia—I really would. I have not seen the comments from Mark Wooden. But I note that obviously one of the great success stories of the government is the massive infusion of long-term unemployed into the market. In particular, over the last few months we have seen a number of people who have remained out of the workforce coming into the workforce for the first time, sometimes after an absence of a decade or more. Those people are obviously low in skills. As they come in, they have low productivity. The more time that they spend in the workplace, the better their productivity will become. On 1 July this year, through our Welfare to Work initiatives, we are going to create a work obligation for 233,000 people who are currently on a single or partnered parent pension so that they come into the market for the first time. That is because Australia is short of labour and we need to increase the number of people working to address some of the demographic challenges that Australia is facing today and into the future. This is very important. In 2007, Australia needs people to work if they have the capacity to work. And it is not some ideological drive from the government; it is a fact from an economic perspective. In 2007, if you have the capacity to work, we need you to work. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. I did not ask the minister about the participation rate. His answer would have been appropriate to that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The minister is certainly answering the question. He is relevant to the subject. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —As the participation rate increases and as low-skilled people come into the workplace for the first time in many years, that is going to have a downward impact on productivity numbers. That is a fact. The second fact is that the drought has had an impact on productivity over the last 12 months. That is beyond doubt as well. When you make significant economic change, you do it as the foundation for future growth—future growth in jobs and wages—based on productivity improvements. This will bring better wages for workers, fairer jobs for workers and job security for workers as well. 13 13 14:55:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 Dr WASHER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on how Australia’s aid program is supporting basic human rights and the development needs of the citizens of Zimbabwe? 13 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, I thank the honourable member for Moore for his interest in the issue of Zimbabwe. I know he joins with me and the government generally in expressing our horror at what has been happening in Zimbabwe. I have used some statistics during the last week or so to do with Zimbabwe. Honourable members might also like to know that in southern Africa the average GDP growth is around 5½ per cent, which honourable members would agree is not too bad. But in Zimbabwe, GDP declined by 7.1 per cent. That puts Zimbabwe and the administration of President Mugabe into some perspective. In the year 2000, Zimbabwe was a net exporter of food. Today, 3.2 million Zimbabweans—and the population is about 10 million or 11 million—are fed by the World Food Program, by the United Nations and by the international community. Zimbabwe has the highest proportion of HIV-AIDS victims anywhere in the world without access to treatment. It also has the highest orphan population per capita in the world. Out of around 11 million people, there are 1.3 million orphans. Those sorts of statistics explain the full horror of Zimbabwe. We as a government feel very strongly about this. We feel that we have to do everything that we reasonably can to help the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. In the last year, we have increased our aid budget to Zimbabwe by 33 per cent. Obviously, we are focusing on ordinary people. We are not providing any assistance which the leadership of Zimbabwe could go anywhere near. We provided assistance through non-government organisations, through the World Food Program, through UNICEF and through the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. We have been helping with food, shelter, water and sanitation. We have also been helping in the area of HIV-AIDS. Just last week, I approved an $82,000 grant to a Zimbabwean non-government organisation to support their work in assisting victims of political violence. I will not name the organisation, because that will leave it vulnerable to Mugabe’s thugs. We are determined to help non-government organisations and civil society meet the challenge of the Mugabe government. We are moving to establish an Australian Fund for Zimbabwe in the next financial year. Under this Australian Fund for Zimbabwe, we will be supporting non-government organisations which protect ordinary Zimbabweans. We will be looking for ways of broadening our humanitarian assistance and we will provide fellowships for civil society organisations. No amount of thuggery or brutality by President Mugabe will cover up the truth of his failure and nor will it deter Australia from trying to help the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. We can proudly say that Australia helped to bring about reform in Zimbabwe and helped to bring democracy originally to Zimbabwe some years ago. All of us are profoundly disappointed at what President Mugabe has done with that democracy. Australia owes it to the ordinary people of Zimbabwe to do everything we can to help them see the restoration not only of their living standards and their livelihoods but also of their human rights. 14 14 14:59:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. When will the minister front the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and tell the truth under oath about whether or not he advised Tristar to break the law by sacking workers for the purpose of re-employing them on AWAs? SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member across the chamber has made an allegation of breaking the law. That is quite out of order. I ask you to rule that way. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I believe there was an imputation in the question. The member for Banks might choose to rephrase his question. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —When will the minister front the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and tell the truth under oath about whether or not he advised Tristar to sack workers for the purpose of re-employing them on AWAs? 14 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 —Mr Cheng Hong appeared before the inquiry that was set up by John Della Bosca into Tristar on a reference to the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. Mr Cheng Hong tabled what I understand to be some notes from another person—they might have been from him as well; it is very difficult to tell according to the transcript—of a conversation that he claimed to have had with me. I will make this point: I never asked Tristar to break the law. I would not ask them to break the law. I asked Tristar, the management of Tristar and Mr Cheng Hong, to pay the workers their full entitlements. I make no apology for that whatsoever. The workers who are left at Tristar have been treated terribly by the management of that company. The Labor Party voted against our attempts to protect the workers of Tristar. Shame on the Labor Party for that. They voted against it, and then they went down to Marrickville and claimed to the workers that they were the workers’ best friend. Yet in this place previously the Labor Party voted against the 12-month protection for the redundancy entitlements of the workers of Tristar. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not ask the question. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition got a backbencher to ask the question because she knows that they have been batting for the management of Tristar and they have been batting against the interests of the workers. Those workers, in the view of the government, have no work to do. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on thin ice. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —And, in the view of the government, which has commenced through the Office of Workplace Services legal action in the Federal Court— 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Ballarat is warned! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —We want to see the workers paid their full entitlements. We make no apology for going in to bat for the workers on this—no apology whatsoever. We stand by what we are doing. We are not going to be sidetracked by the allegations made by Mr Cheng Hong, on unfounded information, in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. To back up my side of the story I have six witnesses who are prepared to verify all that I have said. 15 15 15:03:00 Entsch, Warren, MP 7K6 Leichhardt LP 1 Mr ENTSCH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on how the government is helping to deliver better mental health services? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? What is the government’s response? 15 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Last year the Prime Minister announced a $1.9 billion mental health initiative, by far the biggest initiative ever announced in this area. He did so in part because of the convinced advocacy of the member for Leichhardt. I thank him and congratulate him for the work he did. Thanks to this initiative far more Australians are now getting the care that they need. I can inform the House that in the first four months of the operation of this initiative Medicare supported more than 130,000 mental health care plans prepared by GPs. Under Medicare, there were more than 40,000 consultations with clinical psychologists and more than 100,000 consultations with psychologists and other health professionals. I can also inform the House that there are now nearly 1,400 clinical psychologists and more than 7,000 psychologists who are registered to provide services under Medicare thanks to this mental health initiative. Yet again we have more services from the Howard government. Yet again we have more proof that the Howard government is the best friend that Medicare has ever had. I have been asked about alternative policies. Since 3 May last year the Australian Labor Party has officially been a policy free zone on health. There is a very good rule when you are talking about the Australian Labor Party: do not believe what they say, believe what they do. So I was researching this whole question of Labor policy on mental health. I discovered that, after the Leader of the Opposition had been the de facto Premier of Queensland for four years, Queensland had the worst mental health system of any state in the Commonwealth of Australia. The then Human Rights Commissioner said in 1993: There is no question that there are very serious problems in Queensland, including a pathetic lack of services for young people. That is the Human Rights Commissioner of the regime under the de facto Premier. The following year a research paper prepared for Schizophrenia Australia said: People who suffer mental illness in Queensland should move interstate because of the woeful health services ... It was possible to move interstate when the Leader of the Opposition was the de facto Premier of Queensland. It will not be possible to go overseas if he ever gets to be the Prime Minister of this country. If you could not trust the Leader of the Opposition to advise on good health services in Queensland, you can never trust him to run good services. I think there is a clear message here: don’t let Kevin Rudd wreck Medicare like he wrecked Queensland’s health services. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I would remind the minister that he should refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, don’t let Dr Death wreck Medicare like he did the health services in Queensland. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will withdraw that statement. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I am happy to withdraw if the Leader of the Opposition requests it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will withdraw without reservation. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I just make this point: he should not get other people to do his dirty work for him. In deference to you, Mr Speaker— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have to say that I could not hear a word that the minister said. I call the minister. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —In deference to you, I withdraw, Mr Speaker. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, previously, quite clearly, the Leader of the House defied your ruling in the most extraordinary way possible. I would ask that you enforce the standing orders by taking action against him. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I believe that the Leader of the House should use the words, ‘I withdraw without reservation.’ I call the Leader of the House to withdraw without reservation. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, of course I withdraw without reservation, as I always do, in deference to you. PE4 Beazley, Kim, MP Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was a repeat of the previous offence and it has to be dealt with. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I listened carefully. I believe that the minister did withdraw. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He still included the words, ‘in deference to you’. You require members on this side of the House to utter the simple words, ‘I withdraw,’ and you are quite right, I might say. That is what is required of the Leader of the House. He has not yet done it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the Chief Opposition Whip, those were the exact words that I heard the minister say. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I ask that you enforce standing order 91(e) and standing order 91(f). 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have ruled on this matter and I am not going to enter into any further debate on it. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —If it makes them happy, I withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the minister. 16 16 15:10:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 Mr KATTER —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware that the Senate, after forcing an apple and pear revisit and a scathing indictment of meat imports from Brazil, inquired into bananas and uncovered that, without explanation or justification, Biosecurity Australia’s IR panel had cut the acceptable risk probability level from the government designated 95 per cent to an IRP ‘self-discretionated’ 50 per cent? Is the minister further aware that the decision to allow pork imports from PMWS countries was held by Justice Wilcox to be ‘unreasonable … unsupported by any fact, scientific evidence or scientific expertise’ and that the full court further held that the ‘risk’ definition was an ‘imponderable standard’ so any decision ‘at all’ could be legally valid? Finally, in light of this and the current decision on bananas that millions of boxes will be imported but not a single microspore of any contagious disease— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will come to his question. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —This is my question, Mr Speaker—would the minister not agree that there is a need to now establish a new protection regime abolishing the current Biosecurity Australia and its processes, whose record proves their decisions ideological, their rules arbitrary and their incompetence legendary? 17 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGAURAN —No. 17 17 15:12:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 Mr BARTLETT — My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Is the minister aware of the release today of the 2005 national literacy and numeracy benchmarks? What do the results show? How is the government ensuring that there is adequate emphasis on these fundamental skills? 17 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the member for Macquarie for his question and note his deep interest in matters affecting schools in his electorate. The Howard government believes in greater choice, values and standards in our schools. In relation to standards, I think it is telling that the state governments released today the results of literacy and numeracy tests that were taken two years ago. The data that has come out in these results shows that far too many students are failing to meet the minimum acceptable standards in literacy and numeracy, and the trends are equally worrying—for example, the percentage of students in year 3 who are failing to meet minimum acceptable standards in mathematics was about six per cent. By year 7, the percentage of students who were failing to meet minimum standards in mathematics had increased to 18 per cent—in other words, the longer they were at school, the worse they were doing. This is a real concern. Back in 1998, the state and territory governments gave a commitment to the people of Australia that every child commencing school that year would reach minimum acceptable standards in reading, writing and mathematics within four years. The states and territories said that every child would reach those standards within four years. Clearly, that has not happened. The Australian government has committed almost $2 billion in additional funds to education authorities to help lift the standards in maths and reading and writing, particularly focusing on disadvantaged schools. Yet, it is evident from these results that students are not getting the full benefit of that investment of additional funding. So the Australian government has insisted that next year it will have the first national assessments in reading and writing and mathematics for years 3, 5, 7 and, for the first time, year 9. The government will ensure that the results of these tests are available in a timely fashion—not two years later—so that action can be taken and interventions can be put in place. It is also telling that, through these national tests, it will be the first time that we will be able to compare results school by school, state by state. If the Australian government had not intervened, if it had not made this a condition of funding for state governments, they would continue to ignore this very serious problem. The Howard government is committed to supporting parents in their wish for higher standards in literacy and numeracy and for greater choice, greater values and greater standards in our schools. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 17 Personal Explanations 17 15:16:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Yes, on a couple of occasions. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Firstly, today in question time, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations suggested that I, as the local member, and others on this side of the House had not been interested in Tristar. I asked questions on 10 August 2006 and again in November 2006. I gave speeches on 9 August 2006, on 17 August 2006— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, this is not a personal explanation. This is an argument. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler must show where he has been personally misrepresented. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I am. I and others on this side have taken up the issue of Tristar workers consistently—a fact the government ignored until Alan Jones took up the case in January this year. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member has shown where he has been misrepresented. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Secondly, last night in a speech in the chamber, the member for Tangney gave a speech in which he defended his proposed climate change solution of having an orbital shadecloth in the sky to protect— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will come to where he claims to have been misrepresented. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —He stated: 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 ... And that I had ‘a lack of critical or logical thinking’— Government members interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I am quoting him. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, this is an argument that is being developed by the member for Grayndler. He is not showing where he has been misrepresented and, plainly, he has no intention of doing so. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the member for Grayndler, he must show where he has been personally misrepresented. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, the member for Tangney said that I had ‘a lack of critical or logical thinking’ with regard to climate change, because I do not support a shadecloth in the sky— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat! 18 Questions to the Speaker 18 18 15:18:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr TANNER —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. During question time, you made a ruling requiring the manager of government business to use the correct term of address with respect to the Leader of the Opposition. He then came to the dispatch box and defied your ruling and used another term. You then asked him to withdraw that. He came to the dispatch box again and refused to withdraw. It was not until several points of order were made by members of the opposition that he ultimately withdrew. My question to you is: is there some kind of special leeway provided to the manager of government business in these matters with respect to the standing orders and, if so, does that special leeway also apply to the Manager of Opposition Business? 18 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne would be well aware that I took the appropriate action at the time. I do not intend to revisit the event now, and I think that matter is closed. 18 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:19:00 —Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency—Report for 2005-06—Correction. Medical Indemnity Act—Report by the Australian Government Actuary on the costs of the Australian Government’s run-off cover scheme for medical indemnity insurers for 2005-06. Sydney Airport Demand Management Act—Quarterly report on movement cap for Sydney airport for the period 1 October to 31 December 2006. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 19 Documents 19 15:20:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, it gives me great pleasure to table the report that I referred to in question time last Wednesday entitled Review of place allocation decision—2006 aged care approvals round—Queensland south coast region. The government is very happy to table the report for public consumption, for the opposition or anybody else because it has absolutely no reason to hide any of the facts from the House or from the public. Opposition members interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I am speaking on indulgence. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister does not have leave to do this. We were not informed that this would occur. This is a serious issue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat and I will rule. The minister is certainly in order in tabling a document. He does not need to seek leave to table a document, but he does need to seek leave to make a statement. Is the minister seeking leave to make a statement? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I do not wish to give a long speech. I thought the public and the opposition would be interested to know the salient findings of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister must seek leave to make a statement whether it is short or long. Is the minister seeking leave? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I seek leave to make a brief statement with respect to this report? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is leave granted? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —If he comes back in two hours, he can have it. Until then, no. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. 19 Matters of Public Importance 19 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Griffith proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to establish the foundation for the long term prosperity of Australian families. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 19 15:22:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr RUDD —There is more than a creeping arrogance about this government when it is led by a Prime Minister and defended by a Treasurer who say the sorts of things we have heard in this parliament in recent days. This is a Prime Minister who told us all yesterday—and it is important that the House pay attention to what the Prime Minister said yesterday—that ‘working families in Australia have never been better off’. According to the Prime Minister, working families under financial pressure have never been better off; working families now struggling with four consecutive interest rate rises have never been better off; working families coping with the four interest rises that the Prime Minister promised at the last election would never happen have never been better off; working families coping with record housing non-affordability, according to recent reports, have never been better off; working families struggling with rising rates of home repossession have never been better off; and working families struggling with skyrocketing child-care bills have never been better off. Well, I think that we on this side of the House have some news for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister starts telling the Australian people that they have never had it so good, you know one thing for certain: we have a Prime Minister who is arrogant and out of touch—arrogant and exceptionally out of touch. What we also know is that when a government is out of touch and is arrogant that is when we see governments going a bridge too far beyond what the Australian people can cope with. I refer, of course, to the industrial relations laws. What we have with this Prime Minister and this remarkable statement that working families in Australia have never been better off is a Prime Minister who, after 11 long years, is himself out of touch, a Prime Minister who, after 11 long years in office, is now showing signs of arrogance, and a Prime Minister who, after 11 long years, has definitely gone too far when it comes to these industrial relations laws. This Prime Minister has changed. The Prime Minister of old would never have made a slip and said something like that in the past. The Prime Minister of 10 years ago would never have said that. If you go to the Hansard of 27 May 1997—10 years ago—what will you find? You will find the Prime Minister in his political prime lecturing and hectoring the then Leader of the Opposition. What did the Prime Minister then say? He said: ... you will never get from this Prime Minister an arrogant dismissal on the basis of ‘You have never had it so good’ ... There we have the Prime Minister, 10 years ago, saying that he would never succumb to such hubris, that he would never succumb to such language—until yesterday when he said that Australian families had never been as well off. I have to say that it is reminiscent of the great criticism we had from their side of the House. It goes right back, I think, to the 1970s. Do you remember EG Whitlam saying to Australian farmers that they had never had it so good, and the Prime Minister saying in the mid-nineties that he would never, ever repeat a statement of such arrogance—that people had never had it so good? But, after 11 years in office, we have a Prime Minister so detached from the realities faced by working families across this country that he now says that they have never had it so good. He did this in response to a dorothy dixer. It was a premeditated response, not a response to some provocation from the opposition and not a response to some loose comment on the run. When the Prime Minister told Australian families that they have never been better off, it was in response to a dorothy dixer, a question from the government’s own ranks. When he said to working families right across the country that they have never had it so good, these statements were delivered by the hubris of having been in high office now for 11 years. I have to say that when you match that remark against the pressures that working families are now under and will prospectively face with these unfair and un-Australian workplace laws, these industrial relations laws, they are words that will indeed come back to haunt the Prime Minister between now and election day. One of the leading indicators that the government is experiencing a few political problems is when the lights burn late down at Crosby Textor. When the lights are burning late down at Crosby Textor, it is not just that they are increasing their carbon footprint; there are a few other things that are underway as well. It is a sure sign and symbol that life is not proceeding swimmingly in the government ranks, because the challenge being put to Crosby Textor of late has been along these lines: how do we convince the Australian people that these unfair and un-Australian workplace laws are in fact good for people? How do we convince Australian working families that black is white? How do we convince Australian working families that when they lose their penalty rates it is in fact good for them? How do we convince Australian working families that when they lose their overtime payments it is in fact good for them? How do we convince Australian families that when they lose their holiday leave loading that is in fact good for them? That is the challenge for the polling professionals—the Crosby Textor incorporated enterprise. We now know the outcome of that research project. It is the Prime Minister’s five-part cunning plan for dealing with these unfair industrial relations laws between now and the next election. Part 1 is this: pretend you are Winston Churchill and that you assert that your industrial relations laws are a fundamental national economic reform, even when you have zero evidence to substantiate it. Part 2 is this: pretend that employment growth is the direct product of these IR laws and pretend equally that the mining boom’s impact on economic and employment growth does not exist. Part 3 is this: pretend that the industrial relations laws have generated unprecedented wages growth and pretend that contrary ABS data does not exist. Then there is part 4: claim that the IR laws have heralded unprecedented industrial harmony and ignore the fact that there has been a steady reduction in working days lost since the introduction of enterprise bargaining back in the first part of the 1990s. Part 5 of the five-part cunning plan is this: if parts 1 through 4 fail, then simply return to old faithful: blame the unions, blame the states and blame your Aunt Nellie, particularly if your Aunt Nellie happens to be a paid-up unionist, because at the end of the day the unions become the scapegoat for everything which this government claims is going wrong with Australia’s national economy. That is the five-part script, and we are going to hear that script from now until polling day. What we know about it is that it is poll driven. It is driven by their market research company because they have concluded that these are the best political spin lines for them to convince Australian working families that black is white and white is black. There is a problem with the five-part logical presentation and that is that there is no logic to it. When we go to the essence of it, the whole proposition collapses. The first argument the Prime Minister puts is that this is an essential element of national economic reform. That is his proposition. He has repeated it day in and day out. If you listened to the Fran Kelly interview this morning on Radio National, it did not matter what question was asked, you simply got the five-part response. The question could be: has the sun come up today? The answer will be part 3 of the five-part response: blame the unions. It is simply preprogrammed, and we will hear it day in day out from Minister Hockey, who is here at the dispatch box, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They will simply repeat key lines and themes from Crosby Textor. On the first proposition, that this is essential for national economic reform, here are some basic questions: if it was such an essential element of national economic reform you would have thought this government would have taken it to the Australian people before the last election, but did they? It was not faintly in evidence in any proposition which the Liberal Party put to the Australian people prior to the last election. Why do we have this before us? Because they got lucky, got control of the Senate and said, ‘Bob’s your uncle’. They abused the whole doctrine of mandate. It was not any element of their pre-election program for national economic development. If it was an essential element of national economic reform, wouldn’t you have owned it with pride prior to the last election? But, no, it was hidden, because they knew that if they put it to the Australian people at that time, they would have been thumped on. The second is this: if it was a serious piece of national economic reform, why is it that the government did not go through the basic test of submitting it to the Treasury to be modelled in terms of what productivity yield would be given to the Australian economy as a consequence of implementing this set of industrial relations changes? If it is not just an exercise in ideology; if it is not just an exercise in union bashing; if it is not just an exercise in transferring wealth from those who are employees to those who are employers; if it was a serious exercise in productivity enhancing reform, why was it not submitted to the Treasury for basic modelling? We have never had an answer to that. The reason was that it was driven by ideology, and the data on productivity speak very clearly. Productivity growth between 1993 and 1998 was 3.2 per cent growth per annum. Then you get to the period 1998-99 to 2003-04—productivity growth starts to decline. One of the reasons why we see productivity growth coming off in that period is that this government went to sleep on the principal tasks of national economic reform during the first decade of its office. When you see the key reforms made by the Hawke and Keating government through the eighties and nineties, you realise this government effectively went to sleep, which is reflected in the fact that the productivity growth rate started to fall. Then you have data on productivity growth, which extends across Australian jurisdictions. Look at Western Australia: when individual contracts were promoted in the 1990s under the Liberal-National government of Western Australia, labour productivity growth fell to less than four per cent a year. When Geoff Gallop’s Labor government abolished these contracts, productivity growth shot up again to over six per cent per year. Look at the data for New Zealand: in 1991 New Zealand moved to individual contracts with the Employment Contracts Act. At the same time Australia moved to enterprise bargaining. While both nations had similar productivity growth before the early nineties, afterwards Australia’s productivity growth grew twice as fast. Australia’s embrace of collective enterprise bargaining from 1991 produced productivity growth of 29 per cent in the 1990s, while New Zealand’s embrace of a system based on individual contracts resulted in productivity growth of just 14 per cent in the same period. New Zealand professor of economics Paul Dalziel observed that the Employment Contracts Act: ... appears to have marked the end of a long period of strong comparability between New Zealand and Australian labour productivity growth, to New Zealand’s great disadvantage. In 2004 in New Zealand, a Treasury report said that individual contracts discouraged employers from innovation and investment to the detriment of the country in general and to wage-earners in particular. Professor Mark Wooden, well known as a longstanding conservative advocate of industrial relations deregulation, stated in September 2005: ... the biggest gains for productivity still revolve around a system which is collectively based ... The data is there. The whole proposition upon which this bogus argument is advanced is that it is essential to national economic reform to proceed with their Work Choices legislation simply falls over at every piece of evidence which exists. Again, it fails the basic test that when it comes to serious propositions of national economic reform, if you are serious about them, you would ask the Treasury for their advice. Then there is a second argument that somehow employment growth of the last 10 months has been the exclusive product of their industrial relations legislation. Pigs might fly! This is the greatest put on that we have had in any serious debate of employment data since employment data was created. We all know the enormous impact that the mining boom has had, in Western Australia and in Queensland in particular, and the flow-on effects of the mining booms in terms of employment generation. For government ministers to stand here at the dispatch box and seriously tell the Australian people and serious economic commentators that this is a product of their industrial relations legislation of the last 10 months frankly defies belief. Then we come to the next argument—that somehow these industrial relations laws have generated unprecedented wages growth. Go again to the ABS data: Australian women on AWAs who work full time earn on average $2.30 less per hour, or $87.40 less per week based on a standard 38-hour week, than those on collective agreements—that is a fact, Minister. Australian women on AWAs who work part time earn $3.70 less per hour, $85.10 less per week based on an average 23 hours per week, than those on collective agreements—that is a fact, Minister. And Australian women on AWAs who work as casuals earn $4.70 less per hour for every hour they work than those on collective agreements—another fact, Minister. All these facts add up to one proposition: the argument that the government advanced, that somehow unprecedented wages growth has been the product of these industrial relations initiatives on their part, simply falls foul of the most basic survey of the ABS data. The same goes for their proposition on a reduction of industrial disputation, a trend line which has been in evidence since we introduced enterprise bargaining in the first half of the nineties. These four arguments driven by Crosby Textor are simply this: politics, pure and simple, crafted for a clever politician to try and advance an argument that black is white and white is black. The Australian people, led by Pru Goward, know that industrial relations legislation advanced by this government is a dog. It smells like a dog. It barks like a dog. It is a dog, and the reason it is a dog is that it undermines wages and conditions for working families right across this nation. The Australian people know it, and that is why they will condemn it at the next election.(Time expired) 23 15:37:00 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 —I think that was a very insipid defence of a poor policy from the Labor leader. It comes as no surprise, really, that the Labor Party, on this the first anniversary of Work Choices, chose to ask a number of questions about what might happen in a year or two years time rather than focus on what has happened in the last 12 months. That would be because their hopes and expectations in relation to Work Choices have been dashed by the figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that clearly indicate that the number of jobs in Australia has continued to grow, that the wages of Australians have continued to grow and that industrial disputation is at its lowest level since 1913, the year before the First World War. VH4 McArthur, Stewart, MP Mr McArthur —Where is the leader going? The Leader of the Opposition should stay and hear the reply. Where is your leader? 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Corangamite is well out of his seat and he is well out of order. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —What the Labor Party do not understand—and it could have come about because the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labor Party have not been in parliament for very long; they are quite inexperienced—is that the way you get economic prosperity is by competing with the challenges both within our own country and outside it. Australia has faced many challenges over the last 100 years. At each moment, leaders have sought to use industrial relations to improve the productivity of the nation. Sometimes they have failed. I note that Ben Chifley tried to refer industrial relations power from the states to the Commonwealth in 1946 and failed. Sometimes they are successful. We were successful in using the referred power of the Corporations Law to create a single national system—in the face of opposition from the Labor Party, ironically. About 50 years after Chifley, we were able to introduce a single system that gave business and workers some certainty. We did it not because it was an easy decision or necessary popular; we did it because it was in the best interests of the nation. That is what good government is about. It is about making hard decisions that are in the best interests of the nation. The reforms that you make today deliver the benefits that are enjoyed by our children and will be enjoyed by children tomorrow. When we undertook the reform of the taxation system, the Labor Party opposed it. We undertook that reform not because it was easy; it was hard. We undertook it because it was in the best interests of Australia. And thank God we did. For example, how important was abolishing the wholesale sales tax on exports in the face of the ramifications of the Asian financial crisis, when seven out of our top 10 trading partners were in recession or depression? How important was that? How important was it for us to have industrial relations reform on the waterfront when our waterfront was completely dominated by union sectoral interest? JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George —Yes, with dogs and balaclavas. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —No wonder the former head of the ACTU is interjecting. She is one of the union bosses who have got rid of the monkey and come straight into parliament. It is no surprise that that reform of the waterfront, which was hard reform, which was a tough decision, has delivered an improvement on crane rates, going from 17 movements per hour to about 27 movements per hour. There has been a direct flowthrough in improved productivity. The Labor Party opposed that all the way. The Labor Party opposed our attempt to get the budget into surplus. They opposed it all the way. The Labor Party opposed us paying off $96 billion of government debt—$80 billion of which was accumulated by the Labor Party in the last decade of the Hawke-Keating government. They opposed us paying off their debt. They opposed us getting the budget into surplus. They opposed us on our first, second and third tranche of industrial relations reform. They opposed us on having independent monetary policy. The Labor Party have sought at every point to oppose us on the decisions that have helped to keep the economy strong, to keep people in jobs—to keep people in well-paid jobs that lead on to good careers. If we talk about the work-family balance, the starting point has to be having a job. All the regulation and industrial law in the world, under the Labor Party in the 1990s, could not stop one million Australians being unemployed. When Labor were in government they had all their restrictive laws. They could not stop one million Australians and one million families suffering the huge indignity of long-term unemployment at record levels. They claim to be a caring and compassionate party, but there is no compassion in leaving a million people on the scrap heap, in unemployment for a long period of time. There is no compassion in that. There is no compassion in having people, generation after generation, stuck on welfare. There is no compassion in that. If you want to rip the heart out of working families, you can do it by ensuring that they are stuck on welfare and can never get out of it, that they are stuck in unemployment and can never get out of it. That is what they did. They thought they were compassionate. They were not compassionate at all. Compassion is having a record number of people in jobs. Compassion is the people who are working today enjoying the highest real wages in Australian employment history. Compassion is more women than ever before having the opportunity to re-enter the workforce. Compassion is more people than ever who have been long-term unemployed going into real, full-time jobs. Compassion is undertaking the hard reforms that deliver real benefits. That is what we did a year ago. We introduced real reforms—difficult reforms—that have delivered real benefits for Australian families. I can think of no better way to help an Australian family that is ambitious for the destiny of their children than to give that family the opportunity to earn a household income and, importantly, to give them some choice and some ability to be the masters of their own destinies. One of the vehicles for doing that is the range of agreements that we introduced through Work Choices. You can have a union collective agreement, you can have a non-union collective agreement or you can have individual Australian workplace agreements. Those agreements offer a level of flexibility never seen before in the Australian workplace, because, as the OECD said, the more restrictive and prescriptive laws are in relation to industrial relations, the more they disadvantage those most disadvantaged, particularly women and young people. The reason why our laws did not bring about a revolution in the workplace, why there was no Armageddon, why there were no Bill Shorten predicted mass sackings, why children got to see their parents at Christmas and why they had shoes on their feet when they went to school in January and February is that our laws were responding to the changing workplace. When the Labor Party’s old restrictive workplace laws—the inflexible workplace that the Labor Party was the architect of and is still the defender of—were in place, they alienated women and young people and put them on the casual list. Business had no choice but to put them on as casuals because to put them on as full-time or part-time employees was such an enormous business risk, particularly for small business, that they could not bring them into the mainstream system. They had to leave them on the outside as casuals. It is the same with independent contractors. Why was there such growth in independent contractors? It was because the rigid mainstream system that the Labor Party defends and wants to reintroduce made it so difficult for those plumbers, sparkies and bricklayers that they had to become independent contractors to work the flexible hours that they wanted to work and to respond to the demands of their customers. Through our laws and the flexibility that we have created in the mainstream system, those people have come back in. Casual workers have written agreements for the first time; they have been employed for 13 years as casuals, but they have never had an agreement that they could walk down to the bank with and borrow money against. The pride in their voices when they say, ‘I can buy a home, or, as a woman, ‘I now have independence in the family unit,’ is exactly why I came into this place: to make a difference to people’s lives that helps them to deliver better outcomes for themselves and their families. We are not flinching in the face of the most awesome assembled force of union money, union bosses, state Labor governments and the opposition because what we have done is in the national interest. What we have done is in the interests of the people of Australia and in the interests of their children and grandchildren. We are responding to the challenges of a changing global marketplace. That changing global marketplace will deliver job opportunities for the generations of today and tomorrow that we could never have envisaged. In many cases, the jobs that exist today could not have been described or predicted 20 years ago, and we cannot possibly today think of all of the jobs that will exist in 20 years. That is because the world is changing. That change is either an opportunity or a threat. We have to seize it as an opportunity. We have to give hope to Australian workers of today and tomorrow that they can compete with the rest of the world. We have the emergence of China and India and the entry into the global marketplace of over two billion new workers and family, and we have a changing marketplace that is heavily influenced by the new dynamics of the internet and the digitisation of information. Whilst we have that dynamic change, we should seize the opportunity through a flexible system that responds to a changing marketplace and not see it as a threat. While the Labor Party wants to turn everyone into a victim or a potential victim, we say, ‘Provide the appropriate protections for individuals but please give them the opportunity to be the masters of their own destinies.’ That is what we believe in. We believe in giving people hope and aspiration, giving people choice and making sure that people have the opportunity to define their future and their jobs rather than be a victim or a potential victim where only the union bosses can come in to save them. How disappointing it was, on this, the first anniversary of Work Choices, to go on ABC Radio to debate Greg Combet. I wanted to debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister went on Radio National and ended up debating Greg Combet. He really wanted to debate Kevin Rudd on industrial relations. We are happy to do it; we are ready to do it. But what happens? Greg Combet pushes aside the leadership of the Labor Party, steps in and says, ‘I’m calling the shots.’ In the same way he is taking a knife to the member for Charlton and getting her out of the way, so too he is doing it to the leadership team of the Labor Party. If the leadership team of the Labor Party are not prepared to defend their own industrial relations policy, Greg Combet is prepared to do it. He is prepared to come in here and do it if he has to. We are about higher wages, about more jobs, about fewer strikes, and about hope and opportunity for younger Australians, older Australians and the next generation of Australians. The Labor Party is about the union bosses, about winning power and about ensuring that the union bosses have a place in Australia’s future at a cost to the Australian workers. 26 15:52:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 0 Ms GILLARD —I will tell you what the Howard government is about: it is about this nation’s past, not its future. We could not have seen that more clearly on display than we have seen it in that speech and the performance of the government over the last few days. Governments have a natural life cycle. At the start, when they are fresh, every day they get up and they ask themselves the question: ‘What else can we do for the Australian community today? What else can we do to improve the lives of Australians today?’ Then, at the end of their life cycle, they do not ask that question any more. Instead, they stand at dispatch boxes and they say, ‘This is what we’ve done for you.’ The minister just did it then and, even more spectacularly, the Prime Minister did it yesterday when he got up at the dispatch box and said, ‘Australian working families have never been better off.’ The Prime Minister was telling the Australian people, ‘This is what I’ve done for you.’ The one thing he would not do was walk to the dispatch box and tell the truth about his plans for the future. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lalor will withdraw that. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I withdraw that and replace it: the one thing he would not do was stand in front of the dispatch box and tell Australians what he intends for their future in industrial relations and beyond. That is partly because there are things he does not want to reveal and that is partly because there are whole areas where he does not know what he is going to do next. Increasingly, the Prime Minister looks like a politician forged in a different age fighting yesterday’s battles. There have been some times in the last few days when I have listened to him in here, on TV or on radio and he has reminded me of those old movies we used to watch on TV where 20 years after the end of World War II they would go to an island and find a Japanese soldier who had not been told that the war was over. The whole plot of the movie would be about ensuring that these people realised that the war was over. The Prime Minister is looking like that because he is fighting the industrial relations battles of yesterday. He is a man whose policies were forged on the anvil of the past not the future, and so he thinks he can create in contemporary Australian society a big union bogy and people will fall for it. That might have been the politics of the 1960s, it might have been the politics of the 1970s and it might even have bled into being the politics in part of the 1980s, but it is not the politics of contemporary Australia. The politics of contemporary Australia are that working people in this country get up every morning, go to work, work damn hard, come home tired and worry that they have not spent enough time with the kids. Then, despite all of that effort and all of that anxiety, at the end of the fortnight or the end of the month they look at the money coming into the household and the money going out of the household and think to themselves, ‘I’m just keeping my head above water. I’ve got to keep running quickly otherwise this tidal wave of financial insecurity will engulf me.’ That is the politics, that is the reality, of contemporary Australia, and nothing the Prime Minister says about the industrial relations debate deals with that. Instead, he wants to fight the politics of yesterday. He wants to fight the trade union movement of yesterday. Indeed, he wants to fight the Labor Party of yesterday. So he creates in this debate a whole series of straw people that have nothing to do with the real political contest. Of course fairness starts with the chance of getting a job—absolutely. There is dignity in work. Work is important. We have an obligation to extend work to everybody in this country who is capable of performing it. That is a fundamental Labor value. If he thinks that is in contest, he is wrong. We need a growing economy. We need high-productivity workplaces. We need flexibility in those workplaces. We need to get up every day and find a new and more efficient way of getting the job done. If he thinks that is in contest, he is wrong. That is absolutely right—we need a high-productivity, high-growth economy. What is in contest is whether you achieve that by tossing fairness out the back door or with a set of workplace laws that respect working people and their employers—that respect both sides of the equation. What the Prime Minister, his minister and every member of the Howard government have lost is a sense of what that fairness would mean. Instead, they hide. They do not want to know the truth; they do not want to deal with the truth. They are the only people in this country who do not think that the New South Wales election was fought, at least in part, on industrial relations. In fact, the members of their own political parties who fought that election think it was fought on industrial relations. Yet here they sit in their parliamentary ivory tower saying, ‘That’s an uncomfortable reality. I don’t want to know about that.’ Then the minister comes into the House. He is always full of bluster, but he is never full of facts. He does not want to confront the facts because if he did he would know that the government’s Work Choices legislation is hurting Australian working families and he cannot make that concession. Yesterday we saw this minister twist and turn on the question of whether or not he would provide further statistics on Australian workplace agreements. He ended up saying no, and after he said no he basically said, ‘I’m too dumb to think of a way of collecting them properly.’ Whether it is ‘no’ or whether he is too dumb to think of a way of collecting them properly does not much matter; the truth is the Howard government is going to keep these statistics covered up. Why is it going to keep them covered up? Because the tale they tell is one that is bad for Australian working families. We know that in the Office of the Employment Advocate every Australian workplace agreement has to be lodged. It is there, so it is capable of being pulled out and analysed. It is not that hard. You could probably get a group of high school kids in to do it. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations does not want to do that analysis because, the only time it was done, it showed that everybody lost at least one award protection. More than 60 per cent lost penalty rates. More than 50 per cent lost shift loadings. More than 40 per cent lost a public holiday benefit, and so it went on. The last thing the minister wants is an update on those statistics before the election. So we have a government that is not prepared to reveal the truth about what these laws are doing now. Interestingly, we have a government that did not reveal the truth of these laws before the last election. It is with a wry smile that I listen to the arguments of this government about how important its industrial relations changes have been for the economy. If they were that big a building block for the economy, why didn’t the government go out and argue that before the last election? Why didn’t it go out and say to Australians, ‘This is the thing that’s going to guarantee your future prosperity’? Why didn’t it argue the case? Because it knew that it could not win that argument. So the government covered it up before the last election, it is covering it up now, and it will cover up what it wants to do in the future. We have here today the first anniversary of Work Choices. I will make this prediction: there will never be a second anniversary of Work Choices, because there are only two possibilities after the next election. Either Labor are elected and these laws are swept away—and we bring a new balance in industrial relations in this country that meets the needs of working families and also meets the needs of this country for higher productivity, high-growth, high-flexibility workplaces—or we can see this country re-elect the Howard government. In that case we will not be talking about Work Choices, as bad as it is; we will be talking about Work Choices 2. We will be talking about the content that was in this document before they blanked it out, the unfinished business. We will be talking about that, put into law. We will be talking about what Nick Minchin says when he goes to the HR Nicholls Society, what the constituency of this government in advocacy groups—Peter Hendy and people like him—says when those people go to the HR Nicholls Society, when they reveal their true plans because they believe they are amongst friends. It will not be Work Choices; it will be Work Choices plus, and that is why we need to get rid of the Howard government. (Time expired) 29 16:02:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this afternoon in response to the matter of public importance that has been raised by the opposition. I just want to restate the matter of public importance put forward by the opposition. It says: The Government’s failure to establish the foundation for the long term prosperity of Australian families. We just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Her contribution was full of cliches, full of references to how the Labor Party have changed. If they have changed in this term of this government, why is it that they have opposed the reform of the tax system? Why is it that, at every point, they opposed the introduction of the GST, an essential reform that strengthened the economy, got taxes off businesses and, as a result of that, got taxes off our exports? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to portray herself and the Labor Party as a revolution, saying that there has been a major change and that this election is about a contest of ideas. We only have to look at their record—not only in government for 13 long, painful years for the Australian people and Australian families but in the 11 years since we have come to government—on what they have opposed. Every reform that this government has brought forward that will strengthen the economy and that is an essential element of laying down the foundations for a strong economy and support for families, the Labor Party have opposed. Let us just have a look at some of their record in government—and it is important. Unemployment peaked under a Labor government, a Labor government that was driven by the ideology of a union movement that was right behind them all the way, and that is exactly what we will see should they ever be elected to the treasury bench of this parliament. Under a Labor government, unemployment rose to 11 per cent. It was as bad as it had been since the Great Depression. I was in this place on the other side of the parliament, and I remember seeing, as I returned to my electorate and when visiting many parts of Australia, those long unemployment queues. There was nothing more depressing than to see people out of work, with desperation on their faces, with the soup kitchens and the Salvation Army and charitable organisations trying to help those families that had been destroyed. Their lives had been destroyed because of the Labor government’s inability to manage the economy. When we came to government, I will never forget it. During that election campaign in 1996, we wanted to find out from the Labor Party what the state of the budget was. The response at the time from the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, was that the budget was in surplus. We actually could not find out. The budget at that time was said to be in surplus. When we came to government, we found that it was not in surplus; it was in fact another $10 billion in deficit, which made it a $96 billion debt that we as a government had to address if we were to lay the foundations for a strong economy and opportunities for families to have security. That is why I reject the opposition’s matter of public importance today about ‘the government’s failure to establish the foundation for the long-term prosperity of Australian families’, because we have laid the foundations for the long-term prosperity of Australian families. That is exactly what we have done. There could be nothing more devastating for a family than for the breadwinner of the family to come home and say, ‘I’ve lost my job.’ When we were under a Labor administration in Canberra there were thousands upon thousands of households in which no-one had a job. Let us look at what this government has done. We have not only created the strong economy and the environment for real job opportunities in Australia; we have also laid the foundations for the economy to continue to grow. Today, families are enjoying the lowest interest rates on their mortgage payments. What did we see under a Labor government? The interest rates were at 17 per cent, and some businesses were paying up to 25 per cent. That is the sort of record that we see whenever the Labor Party get hold of a treasury bench—wherever it is around Australia. If they ever got hold of the treasury bench here in Canberra, we would see a return to the old Labor Party. Let us look at real wages growth since we came to government. Under our government, real wages growth is 17.9 per cent. What was it under the 13 years of Labor government? It was negative 1.7 per cent, and that was because of their industrial relations approaches. They did not have Work Choices, they had union agreements, so people could not negotiate. One person had to negotiate. That sort of mentality and attitude will continue to be part of the Labor Party’s approach to negotiation and to wages agreements while ever they have a connection to the unions of Australia. Much of Labor’s front bench have records of leading the unions not only in their own communities but at a national level. We know one thing for sure, and that is that the union leaders of Australia are desperate to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, and his deputy toe the line when it comes to the policies that they will take to the next federal election. Let us look at interest rates. What were the average interest rates under a Labor government? They were 12.75 per cent. I said earlier that they rose to a record of 17 per cent, but let us look at the average: 12.75 per cent. The average mortgage rate under a coalition government is 7.2 per cent. What has that meant for families—since that is the reference in the MPI that has been brought on by the opposition? It has meant, for families with an average mortgage of $225,000, that their repayments are down by some $459 per month. The coalition government have laid the foundations for prosperity not only for families but for all Australians, because of our good economic management and our commitment to making sure that we do what is right to establish a strong economy with real growth. We will ensure that the prosperity is shared by all Australians. The other interesting thing, as we go to the next election, is the alliance that the Labor Party has with the Greens. We know already that the opposition environment spokesman, the member for Kingsford Smith, is promoting—behind the scenes, like so many of these back room deals—that there will be no new coalmines established in Australia. What does that mean for those families in the seat of Flynn in central Queensland? They do not have job security under a Labor Party. Those coalminers and their families would be hit hard if there were ever a return of the Labor government here in Canberra. A Labor government would not allow the development of new mines. In fact, in central Queensland right now—much of it is in my electorate—there are eight new mines under development. Those mines are going to create jobs and wealth for Australia. Those mines are going to lay down the prosperity for the coalmining families. Under a Labor government that is all at risk, because Labor governments are the wreckers of the economy. 31 16:12:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I must say how surprised I am by the contribution of the member for Maranoa. He highlights how out of touch this government is, how much it lives in the past, how much it relies on spurious argument, and how much it relies on playing the person rather than addressing the very substantial policy issues that need to be addressed to secure the wellbeing of families and the wellbeing of Australia’s economy into the future. I found it amazing that it was left to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to argue in defence of the government’s Work Choices legislation. The Prime Minister left in a hurry. He did not want to put his case, even though yesterday he said in parliament, ‘Working families have never been better off.’ Really? Tell that to the families out there, across the length and breadth of Australia. Tell them that they have never been better off when every day they tell us, as their elected representatives, how they are under financial pressure because of the impact of rising petrol prices, rising health costs and rising childcare costs. If the government think that working families have never been better off, that shows how out of touch they are. The Prime Minister wants the Australian community to believe that our good economic fortune, as he puts it, is related to the introduction of Work Choices. You heard the Leader of the Opposition debunk that argument very substantially. He debunked the notion that Work Choices is linked to productivity improvements. Data shows that collective agreements lead to a much more harmonious and productive outcome than individual contracts. The Prime Minister fails to recognise that employment growth, which we all want—and we are happy that unemployment is falling—is the result of a huge resources boom and has nothing to do with the government’s regressive industrial relations agenda. The families I represent tell me that their level of prosperity and their living standards are very largely determined by decent and fair arrangements in the workplace. The minister said that the Labor Party should look at policies that are compassionate. I think compassion resides on this side of the chamber, not with the minister and the Howard government. If they were truly compassionate, they would have an industrial relations system that guarantees a decent living wage that keeps up with inflation. They would have a system that guarantees decent minimum standards so that people do not fall through the cracks. They would guarantee decent compensation for people who work unsociable hours and have to leave their families in order to supplement their incomes, either on the weekend or on overtime arrangements. The government would ensure that their industrial relations system has a proper work and family life balance. They would ensure that workers are protected against unfair and unjust dismissal. They would ensure that we have family-friendly provisions available to all people, and they would continue to insist that women achieve equal pay for work of equal value. That is the compassionate system that Labor has always stood for, and it is the system that is very much under attack by the Work Choices legislation. The brunt of that is being felt by families across Australia, and it is particularly being felt by people who are most vulnerable in the workplace—young people, women working on a casual or part-time basis and women in industries such as tourism and hospitality, where wage rates have been behind the average. People that needed protection do not have it anymore. They have no guarantee of compassion under this regime that the minister tells us is nirvana—that it will produce flexibility—but he never tells you about the negative impacts. We all know from talking to people that the loss of overtime, the loss of penalty rates and no protection against job insecurity or unfair dismissals are issues that are important to the families that we represent. (Time expired) 32 16:17:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —It gives me pleasure to address this MPI debate today, albeit for a very limited time. I will start my remarks in the same way that the Leader of the Opposition commenced his. In his 15 or 20 minutes, his entire argument pivoted on an issue of arrogance. I must say I found that very breathtaking from the man who was so arrogant in this place today he even went as far as claiming the next election victory. JH5 George, Jennie, MP Ms George interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Order! The member for Throsby and the member for Lalor were heard in silence! DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find it arrogant that the two people who were listened to in silence are not even prepared to listen to a counterargument. But we move on. The Prime Minister of Australia has much to be proud of. His government is responsible for economic reform and economic management that has strengthened Australia. 83R Edwards, Graham, MP Mr Edwards interjecting— DYH Ferguson, Michael, MP Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —We are being interjected on by people who continue to support Labor Party rhetoric. They choose to conveniently ignore the fact that this country was left on a terrible footing when the Howard government came to office in March 1996. They conveniently overlook the unemployment rate, which exceeded nine per cent with more than one million people unemployed. They talk about the good times coming to an end. They are very fortunate to be in opposition and in parliament at a time when Australia is doing very well. The economic reforms of the last 20 years, not just the last 11, have been necessary to bring Australia and its economy to the position it is in today. The Prime Minister made the point in question time that sensible economic reforms that were initiated by the Hawke and Keating governments were supported by the coalition. And so they should have been. The same cannot be said of today’s opposition, which at every opportunity has failed to jump the hurdle and support the economic reform that continues to place Australia in a competitive place in the world market. The Howard government has taken Australia’s standard of living for its people from 13th in the OECD to eighth position. The economic reforms of the last 11 years have been absolutely critical in getting the budget into shape and people into work. Policies have been implemented that take the pressure off people’s budgets—interest rates—and also give more money back to people in their pockets through tax reform. Workplace relations reform was necessary and it is an absolutely key issue. Labor will wind back the clock. The words ‘roll back’ were used today and, just like the GST, the false claims of the Labor Party will be shown for what they are. They have consistently lied and fear has been peddled in the community. I am pleased to report to the House that the community does not believe the Labor Party’s lies and false claims about Work Choices. Labor said there would be mass sackings but the opposite has occurred. In the order of 260,000 Australians have been able to find work, many of them for the first time. I am pleased to report that close to 90 per cent of those new jobs that were created are full-time jobs. This is giving families hope and an opportunity to plan for the future with confidence. In respect of the mistruths peddled by the Labor Party, and its claims today that the government is arrogant—which is the easiest claim for an opposition of whichever colour to make; it is cheap populism—unfortunately the facts are not on the Labor Party side. The Labor Party of late have been talking a lot about productivity. They say it in almost every breath now. We never heard it under the Beazley opposition but today, under the Rudd opposition, it is all about productivity. They can pronounce it but they do not understand it. (Time expired) 10000 Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. 33 Bills R2676 33 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 33 Committees 33 33 33 16:23:00 Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi) —Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees. Ms LEY (Farrer —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 16:23:00 —I move: That: Ms A. E. Burke be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that, in her place, Ms A. L. Ellis be appointed a member of the committee; and Ms Hall and Mr Wilkie be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. Question agreed to. 33 Bills R2642 33 Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Robb: That this bill be now read a second time. 33 16:24:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 0 Mr HAASE —I continue in support of the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, specifically on the subject of the first amendment to this bill—that is, the declaration to remove the special purpose visa. As I said last night, special purpose visas allow for specified persons or members of specified classes to be taken to hold a temporary visa. When there is a question about the visa holder’s suitability, the current legislation says that Department of Immigration and Citizenship officers can usually cease that person’s special purpose visa and commence processes to locate the person. Presently, however, if the person is located on the day that their special purpose visa is ceased, the officer cannot detain the person until midnight of that day. This has left DIAC officers with no choice other than to encourage the relevant crew person to go back to a vessel. This is undesirable from a border integrity viewpoint and hardly a logical system. Therefore, this amendment will provide that a declaration takes effect at a time specified in the declaration. The specified time will not be a time before the declaration is made. The legal effect will be that the special purpose visa will cease at the time specified in the declaration. If no time is specified, it will take effect at the end of the day on which it is signed. As I have previously stated, 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. How this is achieved—that is, the type of hearing and the response time—will of course depend on the circumstances of each case. With regard to the second amendment of this bill, relating to the introduction of an automated border processing system, I had begun to speak about SmartGate. The SmartGate system allows passengers to process themselves electronically. The detail contained within the chip—that is, the electronic chip embedded in the passport—will reveal all the information required for entry into Australia. SmartGate uses facial recognition biometric technology to perform a ‘face to passport’ check to verify a person’s identity. The number of international arrivals and departures at Australian international airports is forecast to increase by up to 23 per cent by 2009. Extensive trials of the SmartGate system have been carried out in Sydney and Melbourne airports. This proposed amendment will allow for SmartGate to be used for all Australian citizens and selected noncitizens with eligible e-passports. Eligible e-passports for Australian citizens contain an embedded microchip which stores a digitised photograph, name, gender, date of birth, nationality, passport number and the passport expiry date. Noncitizens must hold a passport which the minister or the secretary has determined as eligible. These eligible passports will contain embedded information stored on a microchip which will be accessed by the automated system. SmartGate will temporarily store this data while it is used to process the relevant passenger, and then destroy this information shortly thereafter. It should be noted that the system will not collect—that is, permanently store—any personal identifiers from these passports, so no-one need fear privacy violations. As well as verifying identity, SmartGate will also send the passport details of the person undergoing clearance to customs and immigration systems where the passport and visa details will be verified in the same way as they would be if the person were processed manually by a clearance officer. SmartGate will also collect certain information which is currently required to be provided to an officer during immigration clearance. This information relates to health and character checking, and is currently collected via the incoming passenger card. Everyone, including users of SmartGate, coming into Australia will still be required to complete incoming passenger cards. The amendments do not introduce any new processing requirements; they are designed to make the process more efficient whilst retaining the security of our borders. These changes simply enable eligible passport holders to choose to be processed in immigration clearance by an automated system instead of a clearance officer. If there is any indication that the person should not be cleared, or a special category visa not granted, SmartGate will refer the person to a clearance officer for manual processing. The process will not prevent officers from seeking further information from clients if required. This measure will also enable selected New Zealand citizens to be cleared via SmartGate and to have their special category visa granted automatically. We all know what it is like to stand at an airport and wait while individuals are processed manually by Customs officers who, in many destinations around the world, seem to have anything on their mind other than processing passengers in an efficient and timely manner. The whole process being introduced in Australia will make life easier for visa holders coming into this country. That is a process that I wholeheartedly applaud. In conclusion, let me say that there can be no true Australian nor true representative of the Australian people who can oppose doing all we can to keep this country safe. I commend the bill to the House. 35 16:30:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —Whilst I rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006, there are some anomalies with the direction of the interphase with border protection law and the operation of migration law that raise what I see to be a confusing development in terminology with migration law and the law generally. I draw to the attention of the House this evening the provisions relating to the amendments concerning what are called ‘special purpose visas’. Bills Digest No. 57 of 2005-06 on this bill cites the provisions of section 33 of the Migration Act dealing with special purpose visas. As members of the House are aware, section 33 provides that, by operation of law, certain persons are holders of temporary visas and are therefore eligible to validly travel to, enter and remain in Australia under certain conditions. Further, Migration Regulations 1994 prescribe, at regulation 2.40, those types of persons who are eligible to hold special purpose visas. The bill before us this afternoon seeks to amend subsection 33(5) of the act in dealing with visas that cease to have effect. The point I wish to make to the House today relates to the class of persons known as diplomats. As the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is aware, there is a discrete visa class specifically provided for in Migration Regulations 1994, known as the diplomatic (temporary) class TF visa. The only subclass of visa within this class prescribed in schedules 1 and 2 of the migration regulation is the 995 subclass visa. The 995 is granted to those defined in the Migration Regulations as ‘diplomatic or consular representatives’ or ‘international representatives’ so prescribed. These personnel are discrete persons who are members of foreign governments’ diplomatic corps who reside temporarily in Australia. It is a fundamental provision of a grant of the 995 visa at Migration Regulation 995.22.1 that: The Foreign Minister has recommended in writing to the Minister that the visa be granted to the applicant on the basis of the applicant being (a) a diplomatic or consular representative or (b) an international representative ... It is further prescribed at Migration Regulation 995.321, with respect to attached parties to a 995 visa primary applicant, that: The Foreign Minister has recommended in writing to the Minister (of Immigration and Citizenship) that the visa be granted to the applicant to accompany a person who seeks to satisfy the primary criteria. The reason for bringing the 995 visa into this debate today is to ask the simple question: is a diplomatic (temporary) subclass 995 visa holder the holder of a special purpose visa? The immediate answer would appear to be no, until we match the regulatory definition of special purpose visa against the criteria for a 995 visa. Let us say a child of a diplomat is also the holder of a 995 visa by virtue of their parent being the primary 995 visa holder. Migration Regulation 2.40 specifies that ‘guests of government’ are automatically special purpose visa holders. A plain reading would suggest that 995 visa holders are not special purpose visa holders. However, this conclusion is brought into confusion when one reads the Department of Immigration and Citizenship fact sheet titled ‘New Zealanders in Australia’. I quote from the fact sheet: Note: Children born to a New Zealand parent who was living in Australia temporarily as a diplomat or as the holder of a special purpose visa (i.e. certain diplomatic officials, aircrew or armed forces and their families) are not Australian citizens by birth. Fact sheet 17 expressly notes that there are certain diplomatic officials who are also holders of special purpose visas. The question is: do these diplomats on whom fact sheet 17 contemplates also hold a 995 visa? If so, are such diplomats subject to the provisions of this bill or not? It would appear that there are two types of diplomats contemplated within our migration law. There are those diplomats and consular staff that are 995 visa holders and there are ‘certain diplomats’ who are holders of special purpose visas by operation of law. If true, this situation is, in my view, highly unsatisfactory. I am not aware if the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has precise numbers of diplomats and consular staff from foreign sovereign states in Australia. What I can guesstimate is that there will be several thousands, if not tens of thousands, of diplomats and consular staff residing in Australia temporarily at any one time. Given that these people will be, by definition, of very high security sensitivity, it is therefore imperative, in my view, that we get our law right in this bill and the border protection purpose this bill seeks to preserve. Therefore, I call upon the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to seek clarification from his legal counsel on one question of high importance: is there, as fact sheet 17 suggests, a subset of diplomatic temporary visa holders who are also holders of special purpose visas? I do not expect the minister to give me an immediate answer in summing-up on this bill when we come to the conclusion of the debate shortly, but that is what I am asking to be clarified. When one reviews schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations, one notes that the 995 visa has no prescribed application form. This lends weight to the analogy of the prevailing special purpose visa, for which there is also no prescribed form or application process. This is so because, in the case of both 995 and special purpose visas, it is the circumstance which gives rise to the automatic grant of visa by operation of law. It is true that, whilst the 995 visa has no prescribed application form per se, the application must be in writing and have the approbation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Procedures Advice Manual, schedule 2, entitled ‘Applying for a diplomatic (class TF) 995 visa,’ states, ‘The Minister for Foreign Affairs must supply the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship a copy of the note verbale provided by the relevant foreign ministry or mission.’ In similar fashion, the Bills Digest notes that, in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the application process for the special purpose visa is such that the ‘visa is granted by the operation of law to noncitizens who either come within a prescribed class of persons or are a person or a class of persons declared by the minister to hold special purpose visas’. In the case of the 995 visa, we see that the grant is subject to the advice of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whilst in the case of the special purpose visa the grant is subject to operation of law by regulatory schedule of certain persons. So in addressing the desired border protection outcomes of this bill, that would appear to me to be consistent with the treatment of all diplomatic and consular staff, including their attached parties. Further, when we add all secondary applicants to the primary diplomatic and consular and international missions’ staff, the number of 995 and special purpose visa holders swells to an even larger number. For this reason, I urge the minister to consider tidying up what appears to me to be a number of messy loopholes in this legislation, specifically unifying the law under the existing regime, which appears to have three types of visa holders, namely, (1) those exclusive 995 visa holders; (2) those 995 visa holders who are also special purpose visa holders by the operation of law; and (3) those holding exclusive special purpose visas. 37 16:40:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased to make a contribution on the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 today. Australia has a very proud record of border integrity, particularly in the last 11 years. The border integrity measures taken in this country to ensure that we know who comes to and goes from Australia have been very significant in not only maintaining Australia’s integrity in migration and transparency but also in controlling many other undesirable elements, such as people with bad character, people involved in nefarious activities coming to Australia unheralded and people who would be a threat to our health et cetera. The primary aim of this bill is to amend the 1958 Migration Act in two ways. The first aim is to strengthen Australian border integrity. The bill will amend the Migration Act to allow a declaration ceasing a special purpose visa to take effect at a time specified in the declaration. Currently, such declarations can only take effect at midnight on the day on which they are signed. The second aim of this bill is to amend the Migration Act to enable the introduction of automated border processing for e-passport holding citizens and selected noncitizens arriving and departing Australia to be immigration cleared by having their identity and their visa or other Australian citizenship status verified by an automated computer system called SmartGate. I understand the SmartGate legislation will be coming to this House within the next few days. This will synchronise well with the bill that we have before us today, which I think is quite timely. This government, as I have said, has a strong record of border security. It is there to protect our borders. To ensure that, this government has funded major expansions in new technological areas used by Customs and the Australian Federal Police to increase border protection measures, to implement more efficient processing of passengers and to assist in the detection and prevention of terrorism and serious crime. It has also taken action to shield people in Australia from developing criminal trends, such as identity fraud and the manufacture of synthetic and illicit drugs and money laundering. It has also taken measures to develop one of the world’s toughest aviation security systems to protect Australians and overseas travellers. I will not go through and regurgitate the whole syntax of this bill, which many people who spoke before me have done in a most eloquent way. We all know what the purpose of this bill is. But I am going to use the opportunity as the last speaker on this bill to make a small comparison between Australia’s fine border integrity measures and, primarily, those of the United Kingdom, and you will see why Australia has a proud record. But before I move on, I wish to deal quickly with special purpose visas. We know that they can be granted by the minister, and that these special purpose visas are available for people coming to Australia on discretion where they are able to receive them and have them withdrawn. But the problem is, as I said in the introduction, the withdrawal does not take place until midnight. We want to ensure that there is flexibility in this arrangement so that, should somebody be deemed to be undesirable or have an issue where they should be removed before midnight—in other words, so they do not abscond and disappear into the ether of the Australian community—that order can be given well before that cut-off time of midnight. In terms of the SmartGate electronic passports, it is very interesting to note that Australia is at the leading edge of the technology in this world for these types of new passports. Yes, we know that current passports have an electronic chip in them which allows the storing of information such as photos, signatures, dates of birth—all the things that are on the inside of your passport—and documentation regarding your coming in and out of the country, where you have been, how long you have stayed et cetera. But SmartGate uses facial recognition biometric technology to perform a face-to-passport check to verify the person’s identity. The biometrics stored in the chip contained in passport will be matched with the image of the passport holder at the border. As well as verifying identity, SmartGate will also send the passport details of the person undergoing the clearance to Customs and the DIAC border systems, where the passport and visa details will be verified in much the same way as they would be verified if they were doing it in a face-to-face manner with someone from Customs. One thing I would like to say to the minister—I see the minister has come into the House; I have mentioned this to him—is that I find it absolutely supportable that we are taking this leading technology on, because of the ease and expediency of processing people, but not that we are still going to retain these silly passenger cards. We all know that anyone who has flown overseas and come home has to sit there on the plane in the middle of the night or after hours of no sleep and fill in this mundane information about where you have been, what your middle name is, the purpose of your business, how much cash you have on you and all this sort of garbage. There must be tonnes of cards stored in containers somewhere, from people who have come through Customs, and all these passenger entry cards—and passenger exit cards, by the way—have piled up. They tell me that they deal with this electronically. The information is put onto electronic storage and this then goes off into some database somewhere and is used sometime later. We are not a Third World country where we have to sit there and manually write in those little block boxes—hoping to hell you get all your letters in the amount of boxes provided—on the passenger card so that you can provide the information to the person at the gate in the wee hours of the morning. I think it is an absolute flaw to have this duplication. You are trying to fast track entry to and exit from this country by doing it in a technological manner but you are maintaining these ridiculous passenger entry and exit cards. As I have said to the minister previously, he might be one of the ministers who will cut through this unnecessary bureaucratic red-tape process that most people around the world abhor as they sit on the plane or try to get off the plane. And for goodness sake, what if you mess it up? You have to go right to the back of the queue and start again to fill it in. Or, if you are in those marvellously long queues at the airport and you suddenly realise that you have not filled in your card properly, you have to get right out of the queue. On the edge of the thing, there might be a spare card or there might be someone handing out one of these entry cards. You have to start again and hope to goodness that you do not mess up that one too, because you would have to go to the end of the queue again. It is just crazy. So, Minister, I would appreciate it if you could take that on board, because I am sure I am not on my own. That leads me to this fact. When you go through Heathrow airport you have to do all this sort of stuff. You are herded like sheep through all these tapes and corrals. We are herded here a bit, but it is even worse there. You would think that the British would have a far better system than we have, because they are supposed to be at the cutting edge of European technology, but they do not. When I had a study trip to Europe some years ago I was able to go to the various migration agencies. I went to London House and to the House of Commons and I spoke to people in migration because that is an interest of mine. I am the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and I am chair of the government members’ committee on migration. I learned that the British are in awe of our migration tracking system. In fact, they say to us, ‘We would love to have the ability that you have to track people who come in and out of your country because, quite frankly, we’ve really got no idea.’ That leads me to an article written some time ago by Ben Harvey in the West Australian under the heading ‘UK groans under its soft refugee system’. There is a fair bit about refugees in the article but there is also a fair bit about border integrity. The article alludes to the fact that Mr Blair was asked by the journalist, ‘How many illegal immigrants do you have in Britain today?’ He was asked 20 times, and 20 times he refused to answer how many illegal migrants he had in the country. The fact is that he knew what the answer was and that is why he did not answer it. There are something like 500,000 illegal people in Britain today. There are 500,000 there today because Britain does not know who has come, who has gone, and where people have gone after they arrive there. This allows drug barons into the place, who become very wealthy and end up in enclaves of no-go zones. Even the police are too scared to go into the no-go zones because people are running drugs and brothels in those no-go zones where people of no identity live. This article goes on to say: The system is blamed for a rise in infectious diseases, including HIV and TB, in English cities and has created a hated under-class which does not pay tax but bleeds the public health system of millions every year. Britain’s most senior police officer said the system let at 1east 100 al-Qaida terrorists disappear into British society. That is the negative effect of when you cannot track people at your borders when they are coming into your country. Britain is groaning under this system, as the headline says. When members of the British parliament were asked about the Australian system, one of the party members said: The Australians don’t do a great deal to impress me, but at least they know who in the hell is living in their country. Poll after poll in the UK now shows that 85 per cent of people do not believe the government has migration under control. The British MP went on to say: If you want to impose this chaos on your country— meaning Australia— then you are mad. The article in the West Australian goes on to say that, for example, 37 per cent of those on student visas in Britain from Ghana could not be traced, suggesting they did not leave the UK when their papers expired—because they do not know who they are. It said that one of the people that got to stay was an al-Qaeda terrorist named Kamel Bourgass, a failed asylum seeker who was getting $5 million in legal aid to appeal against his conviction for killing a policeman in 2003. The scale of illegal immigration into Britain is staggering. This compares with what is happening in Australia. We know who comes here; we know that the boats were coming here in the early 1990s—thousands of them at one stage. More recently we are very proud of the fact that we not only know who comes here but we detain them, which, as we know, was originally Labor Party policy. Gerry Hand first rolled it out, with the Port Hedland detention centre being one of the first detention centres. So it is obviously bipartisan policy that we do not allow people to wander around and be released into the community once they have been detected. When David Blunkett, the former British Home Secretary, called for an amnesty—they just could not find the people who had disappeared, who had arrived without passports; nobody knew who they were or where they went—something like 50,000 people showed themselves. That is the danger that you put your country into if you do not have decent border security. When a British Labour MP was told that some Australian politicians were lobbying to abandon this policy or to go soft on it, he said that the government should hold its nerve on this one: In a few years time we will have the courage to introduce a policy such as that. It is not particularly in keeping with our traditions at the moment, but only parties pushing the barrow are from the extreme right. But it will happen. The system as it stands is a joke and it is a joke that has been played out upon the British taxpayer. Whichever party has the guts to do something about this will win in a landslide. I raise the British example. I have also seen examples of this in Italy. The Italians have a very porous border. They do not detain people for more than a number of days. They encourage them to move on. They try to shove them up to Germany, because Germany has a pretty soft approach as well. That has been one of the reasons why the German economy has suffered some setback, because they do not control the people. We have seen it in the United States, when the wetbacks, as they are known, arrived from Mexico. Because they do not know who they are and they cannot become citizens, they do not pay tax. They use the government facilities and all the public amenities, but because they cannot be recognised as citizens they work but they do not pay tax. So that is a negative as well. This bill further reinforces the strength and integrity of the Australian migration system: we know who is coming and who is going and how long they are here. This bill is timely and necessary and I support it. 40 16:56:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —in reply—I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006. Australia has the most effective and comprehensive entry system in the world, basing its success on its multilayered nature. Advanced passenger processing, a universal visa system and verification at the border that noncitizens have valid visas are aspects of this multilayered approach. The measures contained in this bill seek to further strengthen this multilayered system and maintain Australia’s position at the forefront of border control technology and initiatives. The proposed amendments are designed to allow holders of an eligible e-passport to be immigration cleared by the automated border processing system, SmartGate. Eligible persons can choose whether to use SmartGate or to be processed by a clearance officer. SmartGate takes advantage of a new passport technology and facial recognition technology to improve the way in which passengers’ identities are verified. These new processes will help to combat identity fraud and act as a deterrent to the use of forged or stolen passports. Furthermore, automated clearance at the border will allow greater volumes of passengers to be processed and decreased passenger processing time while enhancing the integrity of border processing. The proposed amendments will also enable New Zealand citizens who hold an e-passport to be granted a special category visa using the automated system without the need for a clearance officer to be present. New Zealand citizens who do not hold an e-passport will continue to be processed and granted special category visas by a clearance officer. A number of false claims were made during the debate. Firstly, I would like to reassure members that SmartGate has been independently tested and has been proven to be successful in a border processing environment. Customs trialled the SmartGate system at Sydney and Melbourne international airports over a three-year period. During this trial all SmartGate transactions were monitored and the results were continuously analysed and used to improve the technology. Independent field evaluations conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation proved SmartGate to be highly accurate for identity verification purposes. A technical analysis report of SmartGate prepared by Dr James Wayman and Dr Tony Mansfield of the United Kingdom Biometrics Working Group concluded that SmartGate streamlined the customs and immigration process for users and maintained the integrity of the border. It is important to note that, whilst SmartGate has the capability to identify false and fraudulent documents, it is not a stand-alone system. SmartGate is part of a much larger border protection approach that enables the border agencies to protect the border while at the same time facilitating legitimate border crossings for the vast majority of travellers. SmartGate facilitates legitimate travel and complements several other mechanisms in place targeting illegitimate activity. The bill also proposes an amendment to special purpose visas. Special purpose visas are distinct from other visas as there is no visa application process and the visa is granted by operation of the law. They facilitate the lawful travel to and entry into Australia of certain groups of travellers such as crew members of non-military ships, airline crew, guests of government and, recently, athletes participating in the Commonwealth Games. Despite holders of special purpose visas coming from low-risk groups, there are occasions where it is appropriate to seize a person’s special purpose visa. Most commonly, this is in relation to foreign sea crew who may be considered at risk of deserting a vessel in Australia, or where there is a character or health concern. The minister can declare that a person’s special purpose visa has ceased or that a special purpose visa should not be granted to a person. Currently, the minister’s declaration has effect only at the end of the day on which the declaration is made. The proposed amendments will allow the minister to declare what time the declaration comes into effect and consequently enable the department to better manage the special purpose visa client base. The measures proposed in this bill are designed to further strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders whilst also improving the efficiency of the immigration processes and administration. Finally, I would like to reply to the comments made by the member for Canning, who was the previous speaker in this debate. The member for Canning commented on the need to fill in passenger cards, particularly when returning to Australia. The information contained on those passenger cards is important for a number of purposes. It is important particularly for New Zealand citizens. It is important in terms of the declaration which a person makes when filling in that card—for example, disclosing whether or not there has been previous criminal or illegal activity. It is also important for a much broader purpose than simply immigration, as the data is collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and is then used by various government agencies within Australia. These agencies use the data for planning their programs and even for the allocation of resources in some instances. It is important data that is collected, and we are grateful, if I may say so, to passengers coming into Australia for their forbearance in filling in the passenger cards. The passenger cards help us in Australia to carry out a range of other activities in a way which we might not be able to do if we did not have that data. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 42 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 42 17:03:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (12) as circulated together. Leave granted. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —I move: (1)    Schedule 2, item 9, page 5 (line 22), omit “the clearance authority”, substitute “a clearance authority”. (2)    Schedule 2, item 9, page 5 (lines 22 and 23), omit “(other than a personal identifier)”, substitute “(including the person’s signature, but not any other personal identifier)”. (3)    Schedule 2, item 9, page 6 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph 166(2)(b). (4)    Schedule 2, item 9, page 6 (lines 12 to 14), omit “information (other than a passenger card) or personal identifiers referred to in subsection (1) of this section”, substitute “information or personal identifiers referred to in subsection (1) of this section (other than a passenger card)”. (5)    Schedule 2, item 11, page 7 (line 28), omit “system”, substitute “an authorised system”. (6)    Schedule 2, item 11, page 7 (lines 28 and 29), omit “(other than a personal identifier)”, substitute “(including the person’s signature, but not any other personal identifier)”. (7)    Schedule 2, item 14, page 8 (lines 14 and 15), omit paragraph 170(2AA)(b). (8)    Schedule 2, item 14, page 8 (lines 20 and 21), omit “information (other than a passenger card) or personal identifiers referred to in subsection (1) or (2)”, substitute “information or personal identifiers referred to in subsection (1) or (2) (other than a passenger card)”. (9)    Schedule 2, item 21, page 10 (line 12), omit “(other than a personal identifier)”, substitute “(including the person’s signature, but not any other personal identifier)”. (10)  Schedule 2, item 24, page 10 (lines 30 and 31), omit paragraph 175(2AA)(b). (11)  Schedule 2, item 24, page 10 (line 35) to page 11 (line 2), omit “information (other than a passenger card) or personal identifiers referred to in subsection (1) or (2)”, substitute “information or personal identifiers referred to in subsection (1) or (2) (other than a passenger card)”. (12)  Schedule 3, item 2, page 14 (lines 15 and 16), omit paragraph 32(3)(b). It has been identified that certain amendments in the bill will have the unintended consequence of preventing the collection of passenger cards from persons arriving in and departing from Australia because they contain signatures. Signatures are defined to be a personal identifier for the purposes of the Migration Act. The Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006 provides that personal identifiers can only be provided in limited circumstances which do not cover the collection of passenger cards. Passenger card information is essential for the day-to-day business of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and other government agencies including the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The signature on the passenger card represents a declaration by the subject that the information that they have provided on the card is true, complete and correct. The government amendments I am moving today preserve and make clear the authority to collect passenger cards containing signatures. They also ensure that a person can provide information, such as a passenger card, to a clearance officer without this disqualifying the person from using an automated border processing system to satisfy other processing requirements. The bill currently provides that a person will only be eligible to use an automated system if the person chooses to use that system to satisfy all processing requirements. This would have the unintended consequence of making all people ineligible to use an automated system as it is intended that passenger cards will continue to be collected by clearance officers rather than automated systems such a SmartGate. The government amendments therefore make it clear that a person may present some of the evidence they are required to present to an authorised system and some to a clearance officer, rather than all information having to be provided to one or the other, as the bill currently requires. I commend the amendments to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. 43 Mr ANDREWS (Menzies —Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) 17:05:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 43 Bills R2684 43 Consideration resumed from 26 March. Senate’s requested amendments— (1)    Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (table item 1), omit “by the Council by legislative instrument”, substitute “in writing by the Council”. (2)    Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (table item 2), omit “by the Minister by legislative instrument”, substitute “in writing by the Minister”. (3)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 26), after item 18, insert: 18A  At the end of section 7 Add:          (4)    An instrument made under paragraph (a) of item 1 or 2 of the table in subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument. 44 17:07:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. There are three amendments to this bill that have been requested by the Senate. These three requested amendments remove the requirements for determinations of rates of risk equalisation levy to be set by legislative instruments and simply require the rates to be determined in writing by the minister or his delegate. This is because the disallowable rules made under section 318-30 will set out the method for calculating the levy. Setting the rate of levy thus is an administrative decision to give effect to an outcome worked out under the disallowable rules and should not be subject to disallowance. However, it is fair and reasonable to have the enabling framework included in the rules to ensure that it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The funds pay their levy into a risk equalisation pool which, under the community rating, then helps cushion insurers against the claims costs of high-risk members and high-cost claims. The government accepts these requests and commends the amendments to the House. 44 17:08:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —Labor is happy to support these amendments. As the minister has indicated, they are of a minor and technical nature but do improve the framework of the bill. Question agreed to. 44 Bills R2673 44 Consideration resumed from 26 March. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 23‑10, page 10 (line 26), omit “policy to which subsection (1) applied”, substitute “*complying health insurance policy”. (2)    Clause 23‑10, page 10 (line 28), omit “amount payable”, substitute “reduction”. (3)    Clause 26‑5, page 17 (line 6), omit “policy to which subsection (1) applied”, substitute “*complying health insurance policy”. (4)    Heading to clause 50‑5, page 31 (lines 18 to 20), omit the heading, substitute: 50‑5  Private Health Insurance Rules relevant to this Chapter (5)    Clause 50‑5, page 31 (line 23), after “Rules,”, insert “the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules,”. (6)    Clause 55‑5, page 32 (line 26), omit “paragraph 66‑10(2)(a)”, substitute “subsection 66‑10(2)”. (7)    Clause 63‑1, page 35 (line 5), before “A private”, insert “(1)”. (8)    Clause 63‑1, page 35 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:          (2)    However, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to *health insurance business of a kind that the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules specify is excluded from subsection (1). (9)    Clause 63‑5, page 35 (after line 16), after subclause (2), insert:       (2A)    A product subgroup, of a *product, is all the insurance policies in the product:               (a)    under which the addresses of the people insured, as known to the private health insurer, are located in the same *risk equalisation jurisdiction; and               (b)    under which the same kind of insured group (within the meaning of the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules) is insured.        (2B)    The Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules may specify insured groups for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b). An insured group may be specified by reference to any or all of the number of people in the group, the kind of people in the group, or any other matter. A group may consist of only one person. (10)  Clause 66‑5, page 37 (lines 27 to 29), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:               (a)    is the amount specified for the *product subgroup to which the policy belongs in the most recent approval under section 66‑10; or (11)  Clause 66‑5, page 38 (line 3), omit subparagraph (1)(c)(ii), substitute:                    (ii)    because of a discount or discounts allowed under subsection (2), if the total percentage discount (not counting discounts available for the reason in paragraph (3)(f)) does not exceed the percentage specified in the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules as the maximum percentage discount allowed; or (12)  Clause 66‑5, page 38 (lines 5 to 19), omit subclause (2), substitute:          (2)    A discount is allowed if:               (a)    it is for a reason in subsection (3); and               (b)    the discount is also available for that reason under every policy in the *product; and               (c)    if there are different percentage discounts available for that reason—the same percentage discount is available on the same basis under every policy in the product; and               (d)    any other conditions set out in the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules are met.          (3)    A discount may be for any of these reasons:               (a)    because premiums are paid at least 3 months in advance;               (b)    because premiums are paid by payroll deduction;               (c)    because premiums are paid by pre‑arranged automatic transfer from an account at a bank or other financial institution;               (d)    because the persons insured under the policy have agreed to communicate with the private health insurer, and make claims under the policy, by electronic means;               (e)    because a person insured under the policy is, under the *rules of the private health insurer, treated as belonging to a contribution group;                (f)    because the insurer is not required to pay a levy in relation to the policy under a law of a State or Territory;               (g)    for a reason set out in the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules. (13)  Clause 66‑10, page 38 (line 27) to page 39 (line 9), omit subclause (2), substitute:          (2)    The application may propose different changes for policies in the *product, but the proposed changed amount must be the same for each policy in the product that belongs to the same *product subgroup. (14)  Clause 66‑10, page 39 (lines 20 to 22), omit subclause (5). (15)  Clause 69‑1, page 41 (lines 4 to 10), omit subclause (1), substitute:          (1)    An insurance policy meets the coverage requirements in this Division if:               (a)    the only treatments the policy *covers are:                     (i)    specified treatments that are *hospital treatment; or                    (ii)    specified treatments that are hospital treatment and specified treatments that are *general treatment; or                   (iii)    specified treatments that are general treatment but none that are hospital‑substitute treatment; and               (b)    if the policy provides a benefit for anything else—the provision of the benefit is authorised by the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules. (16)  Clause 69‑1, page 41 (line 11), omit “subsection (1)”, substitute “paragraph (1)(a)”. (17)  Clause 69‑1, page 41 (line 14), omit “subsection (1)”, substitute “paragraph (1)(a)”. (18)  Page 41 (after line 27), at the end of Division 69, add: 69‑10  Meaning of hospital‑substitute treatment                   Hospital‑substitute treatment means *general treatment that:               (a)    substitutes for an episode of *hospital treatment; and               (b)    is any of, or any combination of, nursing, medical, surgical, podiatric surgical, diagnostic, therapeutic, prosthetic, pharmacological, pathology or other services or goods intended to manage a disease, injury or condition; and               (c)    is not specified in the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules as a treatment that is excluded from this definition. (19)  Clause 72‑1, page 43 (cell at table item 1, 3rd column), omit the cell, substitute: at least the amount set out, or worked out using the method set out, in the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules as the minimum benefit, or method for working out the minimum benefit, for that treatment. (20)  Clause 72‑1, page 44 (cell at table item 4, 3rd column), omit the cell, substitute:               (a)    at least the amount set out, or worked out using the method set out, in the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Rules as the minimum benefit, or method for working out the minimum benefit, for the prosthesis; and               (b)    if the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Rules set out an amount, or a method for working out an amount, as the maximum benefit, or method for working out the maximum benefit, for the prosthesis—no more than that amount or the amount worked out using that method. (21)  Clause 72‑1, page 44 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute: 5 any treatment for which the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules specify there must be a benefit. at least the amount set out, or worked out using the method set out, in the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules as the minimum benefit, or method for working out the minimum benefit, for that treatment. (22)  Clause 72‑1, page 44 (lines 1 and 2), omit “a policy holder with, or arranges for a policy holder”, substitute “an insured person with, or arranges for an insured person”. (23)  Clause 72‑15, page 46 (line 25), omit “14 days”, substitute “28 days”. (24)  Page 46 (after line 30), at the end of Division 72, add: 72‑20  Other matters                   The Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Rules may, in relation to application fees, initial listing fees or ongoing listing fees imposed under the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Act 2007, provide for, or for matters relating to, any or all of the following:               (a)    methods for payment;               (b)    extending the time for payment;               (c)    refunding or otherwise applying overpayments. (25)  Clause 75‑1, page 47 (lines 23 and 24), omit “a policy holder with, or arranges for a policy holder”, substitute “an insured person with, or arranges for an insured person”. (26)  Clause 78‑1, page 51 (lines 18 and 19), omit “a policy holder with, or arranges for a policy holder”, substitute “an insured person with, or arranges for an insured person”. (27)  Clause 84‑1, page 53 (line 14), after “treatment”, insert “or provides a benefit for anything else”. (28)  Clause 93‑1, page 58 (line 6), after “each”, insert “*product subgroup of each”. (29)  Clause 93‑1, page 58 (line 8), after “each”, insert “product subgroup of each”. (30)  Clause 93‑1, page 58 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:       (1A)    A single *standard information statement may be the standard information statement for more than one *product subgroup of a *complying health insurance product if the premiums payable under policies in the subgroups the statement covers are the same. (31)  Clause 93‑1, page 58 (line 10), after “for a”, insert “*product subgroup of a”. (32)  Clause 93‑1, page 58 (line 14), after “for a”, insert “*product subgroup of a”. (33)  Clause 93‑1, page 58 (line 18), after “for a”, insert “*product subgroup of a”. (34)  Clause 93‑5, page 58 (line 25), after “for a”, insert “*product subgroup of a”. (35)  Clause 93‑5, page 58 (line 26), after “the product”, insert “subgroup”. (36)  Clause 93‑10, page 59 (line 10), omit “product”, substitute “*product subgroup that is likely to apply to the person”. (37)  Clause 93‑10, page 59 (line 13), after “statement”, insert “for that subgroup”. (38)  Clause 93‑15, page 59 (line 19), omit “that the policy is in”, substitute “subgroup that the policy belongs to”. (39)  Clause 93‑20, page 60 (lines 4 and 5), omit “that the policy is in”, substitute “subgroup that the policy belongs to”. (40)  Clause 93‑20, page 60 (line 10), omit “statement”, substitute “statements”. (41)  Clause 93‑20, page 60 (line 16), after “statement”, insert “for the *product subgroup that the policy belongs to”. (42)  Clause 93‑20, page 60 (lines 23 to 30), omit subclause (4) (including the note), substitute:          (4)    If a private health insurer changes the *health benefits fund to which a *complying health insurance policy of the insurer is *referable, the insurer must ensure that:               (a)    before the change takes effect, an *adult insured under the policy is given a statement identifying the health benefits fund to which the policy will be referable as a result of the change; or               (b)    within 2 weeks after the change takes effect, an adult insured under the policy is given a statement identifying the health benefits fund to which the policy is referable as a result of the change. Note:   The health benefits fund to which a policy is referable may change in accordance with Division 146. (43)  Clause 96‑1, page 62 (line 11), omit “statement”, substitute “statements”. (44)  Clause 96‑1, page 62 (lines 12 and 13), omit “an *up to date copy of the statement”, substitute “*up to date copies of the statements”. (45)  Clause 96‑5, page 62 (lines 16 to 18), omit “a copy of the *standard information statement for a *complying health insurance product of the insurer is”, substitute “copies of the *standard information statements for a *complying health insurance product of the insurer are”. (46)  Clause 96‑10, page 62 (lines 26 and 27), omit “statement for a *complying health insurance product of the insurer is updated, a copy of the updated statement is”, substitute “statements for a *complying health insurance product of the insurer are updated, copies of the updated statements are”. (47)  Clause 99‑1, page 65 (after line 24), after subclause (2), insert:       (2A)    A private health insurer must not request a certificate except in the circumstances set out in subsection (2). (48)  Clause 121‑5, page 75 (line 16), omit “*policy holders of”, substitute “persons insured under *complying health insurance products that are *referable to”. (49)  Clause 121‑5, page 75 (after line 16), after paragraph (7)(e), insert:             (ea)    if the Minister is deciding whether to revoke such a declaration—any contravention of conditions to which the declaration is subject; and (50)  Page 75 (after line 21), after clause 121‑5, insert: 121‑7  Conditions on declarations of hospitals          (1)    A declaration under paragraph 121‑5(6)(a) that a facility is a hospital is subject to:               (a)    any conditions specified under subsection (2); and               (b)    any conditions that the Minister specifies under subsection (3) in relation to the facility. Note:   Decisions by the Minister to specify conditions in relation to particular facilities are reviewable under Part 6‑9.          (2)    The Private Health Insurance (Health Insurance Business) Rules may specify conditions to which declarations under paragraph 121‑5(6)(a) are subject. Any conditions so specified apply to all such declarations, whether or not the declarations were made before the conditions were so specified.          (3)    The Minister may specify:               (a)    in a declaration under paragraph 121‑5(6)(a) relating to a facility; or               (b)    in a written notice given to a facility for which such a declaration is already in force; conditions, or additional conditions, to which the declaration is subject.          (4)    A contravention of a condition to which a declaration under paragraph 121‑5(6)(a) is subject does not cause the declaration to cease to have effect. Note:   Contraventions are taken into consideration in deciding whether to revoke a declaration. (51)  Clause 126‑40, page 83 (line 30) to page 84 (line 7), omit subclause (2), substitute:          (2)    If:               (a)    because of subsection (1) or otherwise, a private health insurer is not *registered as a for profit insurer; and               (b)    the Council approves under section 126‑42 an application by the insurer for the insurer to convert to being registered as a for profit insurer; the insurer is taken, from the day specified in the Council’s approval, to be registered as a for profit insurer for the purposes of this Act. (52)  Page 84 (after line 34), after clause 126‑40, insert: 126‑42  Conversion to for profit status          (1)    A private health insurer may apply to the Council for approval to convert to being *registered as a for profit insurer.          (2)    The application:               (a)    must be in the *approved form; and               (b)    must include a conversion scheme that is:                     (i)    in the approved form; and                    (ii)    accompanied by such further information as is specified in the Private Health Insurance (Registration) Rules; and               (c)    must be given to the Council at least 90 days before the day specified in the application as the day on which the insurer proposes that it become *registered as a for profit insurer.          (3)    The Council must approve the application if the Council is satisfied, within 30 days after the application was made, that the conversion scheme would not in substance involve the demutualisation of the insurer.          (4)    If subsection (3) does not apply:               (a)    the Council must, at least 45 days before the day specified in the application, cause a notice of the application to be published in a national newspaper, or in a newspaper circulating in each jurisdiction where the insurer has its registered office or carries on business; and               (b)    the Council may, within 90 days after the application is made, give the insurer written notice requiring the insurer to give the Council such further information relating to the application as is specified in the notice.          (5)    If subsection (3) does not apply, the Council must approve the application if:               (a)    the insurer has complied with subsection (2) in relation to the application, and given to the Council such further information as the Council has required under paragraph (4)(b); and               (b)    the Council is satisfied that the conversion scheme would not result in a financial benefit to any person who is not a *policy holder of, or another person insured through, a *health benefits fund conducted by the insurer; and               (c)    the Council is satisfied that the conversion scheme would not result in financial benefits from the scheme being distributed inequitably between such policy holders and insured persons.          (6)    The Private Health Insurance (Registration) Rules may provide for criteria for deciding, for the purposes of subsection (3), whether a conversion scheme would not in substance involve the demutualisation of the insurer.          (7)    The Council must cause the insurer to be notified in writing of the Council’s decision on the application. Note:   Refusals of applications are reviewable under Part 6‑9. (53)  Clause 137‑1, page 90 (after line 21), after subclause (4), insert:       (4A)    The assets of a *health benefits fund:               (a)    include assets that, in accordance with a restructure or arrangement approved under Division 146, are to be assets of the fund; but               (b)    do not include assets that, in accordance with such a restructure or arrangement, are no longer to be assets of the fund. (54)  Clause 137‑10, page 92 (lines 7 to 9), omit subparagraph (2)(a)(i), substitute:                     (i)    meeting *policy liabilities and other liabilities, or expenses, incurred for the purposes of the business of the fund (including policy liabilities and other liabilities that are treated, in accordance with a restructure or arrangement approved under Division 146, as policy liabilities and other liabilities incurred for the purposes of the fund); or (55)  Clause 137‑10, page 92 (after line 12), at the end of paragraph (2)(a), add:                   (iv)    a purpose specified in the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Policy) Rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; or (56)  Clause 137‑10, page 92 (line 19), omit “other” (second occurring). (57)  Clause 140‑20, page 99 (line 16), omit “organisation”, substitute “insurer”. (58)  Clause 140‑20, page 99 (line 26), omit “issuing”, substitute “giving”. (59)  Clause 143‑20, page 104 (line 18), omit “organisation”, substitute “insurer”. (60)  Clause 143‑20, page 104 (line 30), omit “issuing”, substitute “giving”. (61)  Clause 146‑1, page 106 (lines 5 to 15), omit subclause (1), substitute:          (1)    A private health insurer may restructure its *health benefits funds so that insurance policies that are *referable to a health benefits fund (a transferring fund) of the insurer become referable to one or more other health benefits funds (receiving funds) of the insurer (whether existing or proposed) if:               (a)    the insurance policies concerned are all of the policies that, immediately before the restructure, were referable to the transferring fund and belonged to one or more *policy groups of that fund; and               (b)    the insurer applies to the Council, in the *approved form, for approval of the restructure; and               (c)    the Council approves the restructure in writing; and               (d)    the insurer complies with any requirements that the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Administration) Rules impose on the insurer in relation to the restructure. (62)  Clause 146‑1, page 106 (line 17), after “if”, insert “, and only if,”. (63)  Clause 146‑1, page 106 (lines 18 and 19), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute:               (a)    the *assets and liabilities that would be transferred to the receiving fund or funds represent a reasonable estimate of what would, immediately before the restructure, be the *net asset position of the transferring fund; and             (aa)    if there is more than one receiving fund—those assets and liabilities would be fairly distributed between the receiving funds; and (64)  Clause 146‑1, page 106 (after line 21), after subclause (2), insert:       (2A)    For the purposes of paragraph (2)(a), in working out the *net asset position of the transferring fund, disregard the net asset position of the fund to the extent that it relates to insurance policies that do not belong to a *policy group referred to in paragraph (1)(a). (65)  Clause 146‑1, page 106 (lines 25 and 26), omit “(a transferring fund)”. (66)  Clause 146‑1, page 106 (line 31), omit “(a receiving fund)”. (67)  Clause 146‑1, page 107 (after line 5), after paragraph (4)(a), insert:             (aa)    how to work out reasonable estimates of the kind referred to in paragraph (2)(a);             (ab)    criteria for deciding, for the purposes of paragraph (2)(aa), whether assets and liabilities would be fairly distributed; (68)  Clause 146‑1, page 107 (lines 12 and 13), omit subparagraph (4)(c)(ii), substitute:                    (ii)    *policy liabilities and other liabilities incurred for the purposes of a transferring fund becoming treated as policy liabilities and other liabilities incurred for the purposes of a receiving fund or funds; (69)  Clause 146‑5, page 108 (line 1) to page 109 (line 21), omit the clause, substitute: 146‑5  Merger and acquisition of health benefits funds          (1)    A private health insurer (the transferee insurer) may enter into an arrangement with one or more other private health insurers (transferor insurers) under which:               (a)    insurance policies that are *referable to a *health benefits fund or funds (transferring funds) of the transferor insurer or transferor insurers become referable to a health benefits fund or funds (receiving funds) of the transferee insurer; and               (b)    in relation to each of the transferring funds, the insurance policies concerned are:                     (i)    all of the insurance policies that are referable to the transferring fund; or                    (ii)    all of the insurance policies that are referable to the transferring fund and that belong to one or more *policy groups of the fund.          (2)    However, the arrangement must not take effect unless:               (a)    the insurers referred to in subsection (1) apply jointly to the Council, in the *approved form, for approval of the arrangement; and               (b)    the Council approves the arrangement in writing; and               (c)    the insurers comply with any requirements that the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Administration) Rules impose on the insurers in relation to the arrangement.          (3)    The Council must approve the arrangement if, and only if, it is satisfied that:               (a)    the *assets and liabilities that would be transferred, under the arrangement, to the receiving fund or funds represent a reasonable estimate of what would, immediately before the restructure, be:                     (i)    if there is only one transferring fund—the *net asset position of the fund; or                    (ii)    if there is more than one transferring fund—the sum of the net asset positions of each of the funds; and               (b)    if, under the arrangement, there would be more than one receiving fund—those assets and liabilities would be fairly distributed between the receiving funds; and               (c)    if subparagraph (1)(b)(i) applies to any transferring fund—the net asset position of the fund immediately after the arrangement takes effect will not be greater than zero; and               (d)    the arrangement will not result in any breach of the *solvency standard or the *capital adequacy standard if it takes effect. Note:   Refusals to approve transfers are reviewable under Part 6‑9.          (4)    For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a), in working out the *net asset position of a transferring fund to which subparagraph (1)(b)(ii) applies, disregard the net asset position of the fund to the extent that it relates to insurance policies that do not belong to a *policy group referred to in that subparagraph.          (5)    The Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Administration) Rules may provide for the following:               (a)    criteria for approving or refusing to approve applications under this section;               (b)    how to work out reasonable estimates of the kind referred to in paragraph (3)(a);               (c)    criteria for deciding, for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b), whether assets and liabilities would be fairly distributed;               (d)    requirements to notify interested persons of the outcomes of such applications;               (e)    matters connected with how arrangements take effect, including the following:                     (i)    insurance policies becoming *referable to a *health benefits fund or funds of the transferee insurer;                    (ii)    *policy liabilities and other liabilities incurred for the purposes of a health benefits fund or funds of a transferor insurer becoming treated as policy liabilities and other liabilities incurred for the purposes of a health benefits fund or funds of the transferee insurer;                   (iii)    *assets of a health benefits fund or funds of a transferor insurer becoming assets of a health benefits fund or funds of the transferee insurer;                   (iv)    the timing of arrangements;                (f)    requirements for private health insurers to give the Council information following arrangements taking effect.          (6)    The transferee insurer must, within 28 days after the arrangement takes effect, notify the Council of the arrangement. The notice must comply with any requirements specified in the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Administration) Rules.          (7)    For the purposes of this Act, an insurance policy that becomes *referable to a *health benefits fund of the transferee insurer as a result of the arrangement is treated, after the arrangement takes effect, as if it were an insurance policy issued by the transferee insurer. (70)  Page 109 (after line 21), at the end of Division 146, add: 146‑10  Consent of policy holders not required                   The consent of the *policy holders of a *health benefits fund is not required for any:               (a)    restructuring health benefits funds as provided for in section 146‑1; or               (b)    entering into arrangements of a kind referred to in section 146‑5, or implementing such arrangements; unless the constitution of the private health insurer conducting the fund provides otherwise. (71)  Page 109 (after line 21), at the end of Division 146, add: 146‑15  Other laws not overridden                   This Division does not affect the operation of any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory in relation to:               (a)    restructuring *health benefits funds as provided for in section 146‑1; or               (b)    entering into arrangements of a kind referred to in section 146‑5, or implementing such arrangements. (72)  Clause 149‑45, page 114 (line 26), omit “amount”, substitute “value”. (73)  Clause 149‑55, page 115 (lines 13 to 21), omit the clause, substitute: 149‑55  Report of terminating manager          (1)    The *terminating manager may, at any time, make a written report to the Council on the termination of the *health benefits funds of a private health insurer, and must make such a report as soon as practicable after the termination of the funds.          (2)    The report may include a recommendation that an application be made under section 149‑60 for the winding up of the insurer. (74)  Clause 149‑60, page 115 (lines 23 to 32), omit subclause (1), substitute:          (1)    If the *terminating manager’s report under section 149‑55 includes a recommendation that an application be made under this section for the winding up of a private health insurer, the Council, or the terminating manager, may apply to the Federal Court for an order that the insurer be wound up. (75)  Clause 149‑60, page 116 (after line 2), after subclause (2), insert:       (2A)    On an application under subsection (1), the Federal Court may make an order that the insurer be wound up if the Court is satisfied that it is in the financial interests of the *policy holders of the *health benefits funds conducted by the insurer that such an order be made. (76)  Clause 152-1, page 117 (line 3) to page 118 (line 5), omit the clause. (77)  Clause 152-20, page 119 (lines 21 to 24), omit the clause. (78)  Clause 163‑10, page 127 (line 23), omit “*policy holder of”, substitute “person insured under a *complying health insurance product that is *referable to”. (79)  Clause 169‑5, page 133 (line 19), omit “The report”, substitute “Any such accounts or statements”. (80)  Clause 169‑15, page 134 (line 24), omit “before”, substitute “not more than 28 days after”. (81)  Clause 172-5, page 136 (lines 7 to 12), omit the clause, substitute: 172-5  Agreements with medical practitioners Medical purchaser-provider agreements          (1)    If a private health insurer enters into an agreement with a *medical practitioner for the provision of treatment to persons insured by the insurer, the agreement must not limit the medical practitioner’s professional freedom, within the scope of accepted clinical practice, to identify and provide appropriate treatments. Practitioner agreements          (2)    If a hospital or day hospital facility enters into an agreement with a *medical practitioner, under which treatment is provided to persons insured by the insurer, the agreement must not limit the medical practitioner’s professional freedom, within the scope of accepted clinical practice, to identify and provide appropriate treatments. (82)  Clause 172‑5, page 136 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: Note:   Medical practitioners may, in dealings with private health insurers, be able to take advantage of the collective bargaining provisions of Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part VII of the Trade Practices Act 1974. (83)  Clause 172‑10, page 136 (line 15), omit “*policy holders of”, substitute “persons insured under *complying health insurance products that are *referable to”. (84)  Clause 200‑1, page 151 (line 10), omit “the insurer”, substitute “a private health insurer”. (85)  Clause 217‑10, page 172 (line 23), omit “the *policy holder”, substitute “a *policy holder”. (86)  Clause 217‑35, page 175 (line 14), omit “administrator”, substitute “*external manager”. (87)  Clause 217‑35, page 175 (line 16), omit “administrator”, substitute “external manager”. (88)  Page 181 (after line 25), at the end of Division 217, add: 217‑80  Application of provisions of Corporations Act Regulations etc. under the Corporations Act          (1)    A reference in an *application provision to an *applied Corporations Act provision includes (unless the contrary intention appears) a reference to any regulations or other instruments in force for the purposes of that provision, or any of those provisions, of the Corporations Act 2001. Note:   So, for example, a provision of this Act that applies a particular provision of the Corporations Act 2001 also applies any regulations that have effect for the purposes of that provision (unless a contrary intention appears).          (2)    An application provision is a provision of this Division that:               (a)    provides for the application of a provision, or a group of provisions (including a Chapter, Part, Division or Subdivision), of the Corporations Act 2001; or               (b)    refers to a provision, or group of provisions, of the Corporations Act 2001 as so applied.          (3)    An applied Corporations Act provision is a provision, or a provision in a group of provisions, of the Corporations Act 2001 that is applied as mentioned in paragraph (2)(a). Modifications under the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Enforcement) Rules          (4)    If an *application provision contains a power for the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Enforcement) Rules to modify an *applied Corporations Act provision:               (a)    the power extends to modifying any regulations or other instruments, in force for the purposes of that provision of the Corporations Act 2001, that are applied as a result of subsection (1); and               (b)    the modifications (whether of the applied Corporations Act provision or of regulations or instruments referred to in paragraph (a)) that may be made include omissions, additions and substitutions.          (5)    The fact that provision is made in this Act for a specific modification of one or more *applied Corporations Act provisions does not imply that further modifications of that provision, or any of those provisions, consistent with that specific modification, should not be made by the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Enforcement) Rules. Corporations Act definitions and interpretation principles          (6)    The definitions and interpretation principles that have effect in or under the Corporations Act 2001 have the same effect in relation to:               (a)    an *applied Corporations Act provision; or               (b)    a provision of regulations or another instrument that is applied as a result of subsection (1); as that provision applies for the purposes of a provision of this Division, unless a contrary intention appears in an *application provision or in a modification made by the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Enforcement) Rules. Things that may be done under regulations under the Corporations Act          (7)    If an *applied Corporations Act provision allows something to be done in or by regulations, then:               (a)    the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Enforcement) Rules may do that thing for the purposes of the applied Corporations Act provision; and               (b)    if they do, any regulations or instruments that are applied as a result of subsection (1) are ineffective, for the purposes of this Division, to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Private Health Insurance (Health Benefits Fund Enforcement) Rules that do that thing. (89)  Clause 250‑1, page 208 (line 15), after “subsection (1)”, insert “or (2)”. (90)  Clause 261‑5, page 218 (lines 11 and 12), omit “*External management and *terminating management of *health benefits funds”, substitute “The Private Health Insurance Administration Council”. (91)  Clause 290‑10, page 252 (line 22), after “fund”, insert “power”. (92)  Page 268 (after line 31), at the end of Division 307, add: 307‑30  Other matters                   The Private Health Insurance (Levy Administration) Rules may, in relation to *private health insurance levy or *late payment penalty, provide for, or for matters relating to, any or all of the following:               (a)    methods for payment;               (b)    extending the time for payment;               (c)    refunding or otherwise applying overpayments. (93)  Clause 328‑5, page 284 (after table item 4), insert: 4A To specify a condition, in relation to a particular facility, to which a declaration that a facility is a *hospital is subject paragraph 121‑7(1)(b) (94)  Clause 328‑5, page 284 (after table item 6), insert: 6A To refuse an application for approval for a private health insurer to convert to being *registered as a for profit insurer subsection 126‑42(5) (95)  Clause 333‑20, page 291 (line 8), before “The”, insert “(1)”. (96)  Clause 333‑20, page 291 (table item 3), omit “, section 188‑1 and definition of hospital‑substitute treatment in the Dictionary in Schedule 1”, substitute “and section 188‑1”. (97)  Clause 333‑20, page 291 (after table item 3), insert: 3A Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules Part 3‑3 (98)  Clause 333‑20, page 292 (after line 1), at the end of the clause, add:          (2)    If, under this Act, Private Health Insurance Rules made by the Minister may modify a provision of this Act or another Act (including by modifying the effect, or the requirements, of such a provision), the Rules may do so by adding, omitting or substituting provisions (including effects or requirements of provisions). (99)  Clause 333‑25, page 293 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add:          (3)    If, under this Act, Private Health Insurance Rules made by the Council may modify a provision of this Act or another Act (including by modifying the effect, or the requirements, of such a provision), the Rules may do so by adding, omitting or substituting provisions (including effects or requirements of provisions). (100)       Schedule 1, page 294 (after line 12), after the definition of applicable benefits arrangement, insert: application provision is defined in subsection 217‑80(2). (101)       Schedule 1, page 294 (after line 12), after the definition of applicable benefits arrangement, insert: applied Corporations Act provision is defined in subsection 217‑80(3). (102)       Schedule 1, page 294 (lines 17 and 18), omit “subsections 137‑1(3) and (4)”, substitute “subsections 137‑1(3) to (4A)”. (103)       Schedule 1, page 297 (lines 6 to 14), omit the definition of hospital‑substitute treatment, substitute: hospital‑substitute treatment is defined in section 69‑10. (104)       Schedule 1, page 298 (after line 17), after the definition of member, insert: net asset position, of a *health benefits fund, means the difference between:               (a)    the *assets of the fund; and               (b)    the *policy liabilities and other liabilities of the fund that the private health insurer conducting the fund has incurred for the purposes of the fund. (105)       Schedule 1, page 301 (line 22), after “treatment”, insert “or provides a benefit for anything else”. (106)       Schedule 1, page 301 (after line 24), after the definition of product, insert: product subgroup is defined in subsection 63‑5(2A). (107)       Schedule 1, page 302 (line 27), omit the definition of relevant amount. 56 17:09:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I foreshadow that the statement I make now will also relate to the order of the day to follow this one. These bills have been returned from the Senate with government amendments and an opposition amendment. Although numerous amendments are largely technical and a very good package of reform has been made even better by these amendments, they have taken into account the views of industry, health care consumers and providers. What is contained in this amended bill will work better than as first introduced. It will be more effective and, most importantly, will give health fund members the opportunity to have access to a range of new health insurance cover and an ability to choose it. These reforms are the biggest changes to private health cover not only since the introduction of Medicare but in generations. They bring private health cover into the 21st century, a time when going to hospital is far from the only way to deal with major medical and health problems. They promote more diversity in the private health insurance market, including new entrants to the industry. They encourage product and care innovation, and they encourage competition between insurers based on service quality as well as price. All in all, these reforms will help sustain the private health sector into the future, without which Medicare and public hospital systems would collapse under the strain of current and future demand. I commend the bill as amended to the House. On behalf of the government, I acknowledge the opposition’s general support of our vision as set out in this legislation. 56 17:10:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —I welcome the comments of the parliamentary secretary. Obviously Labor have been interested, through the Senate process and also in the House, to try to improve this package of bills, and we are pleased that the government has seen its way to coming on board and supporting Labor’s amendments, which were moved here and in the Senate to protect the clinical autonomy of doctors. We are, of course, disappointed that the government would not support our amendment which sought to retain the minimisation of private health insurance premiums as an objective of PHIAC, the industry regulator. But we are happy to support the large number of amendments that are in this package, as they relate to the governance and regulatory issues. They do not alter the content of the package and we understand, as the parliamentary secretary has noted, that further consultations with industry have improved this bill. We should note, however, that we are not exactly cynical but are frustrated sometimes that, when we have such a detailed package over which there is some significant consultation, we are still in this place moving in the order of hundreds of amendments rather than one or two over a particular policy issue or a particular oversight. It does make it a little more difficult for the parliament to do its job well, but we appreciate that a range of these issues were flushed out through the Senate process and welcome that the parliament has worked well in identifying those changes that were needed. Question agreed to. 57 Bills R2674 57 Consideration resumed from 26 March. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8), omit “and 2”, substitute “to 9E”. (2)    Clause 2, page 2 (table items 9, 10 and 11), omit the table items. (3)    Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: 13.  Schedule 3, items 17 and 18 1 July 2007. 1 July 2007 (4)    Clause 10, page 9 (line 5), after “If,”, insert “more than 15 days”. (5)    Clause 27, page 22 (after line 15), after the definition of old Ombudsman, insert: Ombudsman conversion time means 1 July 2007 or, if a later day is specified in Private Health Insurance (Transitional) Rules for the purposes of this definition, that later day. (6)    Page 22 (after line 20), after Subdivision A, insert: Subdivision AA—Conversion of Ombudsman from CAC to FMA body 27A  Conversion of Ombudsman from CAC to FMA body          (1)    Section 238‑1 and Division 253 of the new Act do not apply until the Ombudsman conversion time.          (2)    Despite item 53 of Schedule 1 to this Act, during the period starting at the commencement time and ending immediately before the Ombudsman conversion time:               (a)    the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman established by section 82ZR of the National Health Act 1953 is continued in existence; and               (b)    staff employed or made available under section 82ZUG of the National Health Act 1953 immediately before the commencement time continue to be employed or made available under that section on the same terms as had effect immediately before the commencement time; and               (c)    the following provisions of the National Health Act 1953 continue to apply in relation to that Ombudsman and those staff:                     (i)    section 82ZR;                    (ii)    section 82ZRAA;                   (iii)    section 82ZRA;                   (iv)    section 82ZRB;                    (v)    Division 5 of Part VIC;                   (vi)    section 82ZVD;                  (vii)    section 82ZVE (with the reference to section 135A being taken to be a reference to Division 323 of the new Act).          (3)    During the period starting at the commencement time and ending immediately before the Ombudsman conversion time:               (a)    a reference in the new Act to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman (other than a reference in a provision mentioned in subsection (1)) is taken to be a reference to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman established by section 82ZR of the National Health Act 1953; and               (b)    a reference in the new Act to an APS employee in, or a person holding or performing the duties of an office in, the Statutory Agency of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman is taken to be a reference to a member of the staff employed or made available under section 82ZUG of the National Health Act 1953 as continued in force by paragraph (2)(c). (7)    Clause 28, page 22 (line 24), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (8)    Clause 28, page 22 (line 25), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (9)    Clause 29, page 23 (line 3), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (10)  Clause 29, page 23 (line 4), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (11)  Clause 32, page 24 (line 14), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (12)  Clause 32, page 24 (line 15), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (13)  Clause 33, page 24 (line 19), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (14)  Clause 33, page 24 (line 23), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (15)  Clause 33, page 24 (line 24), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (16)  Clause 34, page 25 (line 8), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (17)  Clause 34, page 25 (line 10), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (18)  Clause 34, page 25 (line 15), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (19)  Clause 34, page 25 (line 25), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (20)  Clause 34, page 25 (line 28), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (21)  Clause 34, page 26 (line 21), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (22)  Clause 35, page 27 (line 4), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (23)  Clause 35, page 27 (lines 9 to 18), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute:          (2)    A thing done before the commencement time under a provision of Part VIC of the National Health Act 1953 has effect from the commencement time as if it had been done under the corresponding provision of the new Act:               (a)    during the period starting at the commencement time and ending immediately before the Ombudsman conversion time—by the old Ombudsman; and               (b)    at or after the Ombudsman conversion time—by the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. However, this is not taken to change the time at which the thing was actually done.          (3)    A complaint that the old Ombudsman had begun to handle before the commencement time may be handled:               (a)    during the period starting at the commencement time and ending immediately before the Ombudsman conversion time—by the old Ombudsman; and               (b)    at or after the Ombudsman conversion time—by the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman; under the new Act as if the complaint had been made under the new Act, even if the ground for making the complaint does not exist under the new Act. (24)  Clause 36, page 28 (line 12), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (25)  Clause 36, page 28 (line 15), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (26)  Clause 36, page 28 (line 18), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (27)  Clause 36, page 28 (lines 30 and 31), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (28)  Clause 36, page 29 (line 5), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (29)  Clause 36, page 29 (line 6), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (30)  Clause 37, page 29 (line 12), before “The person”, insert “(1)”. (31)  Clause 37, page 29 (line 14), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (32)  Clause 37, page 29 (line 18), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (33)  Clause 37, page 29 (line 20), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (34)  Clause 37, page 29 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:          (2)    If there is no person holding office as the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman under section 82ZR of the National Health Act 1953 immediately before the Ombudsman conversion time, then the person who is, immediately before that time, acting as the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman under section 82ZUA of the National Health Act 1953 is taken, from the Ombudsman conversion time, to have been appointed to act as the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman under section 253‑10 of the new Act:               (a)    during the vacancy or during the period or periods for which the person was appointed to act under the National Health Act 1953; and               (b)    on the same terms and conditions as applied to the person immediately before the Ombudsman conversion time. (35)  Clause 38, page 30 (line 14), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (36)  Clause 38, page 30 (line 17), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (37)  Clause 38, page 30 (line 21), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (38)  Clause 38, page 30 (line 24), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (39)  Clause 39, page 31 (line 4), omit “commencement time”, substitute “Ombudsman conversion time”. (40)  Clause 39, page 31 (lines 8 and 9), omit “may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly, for the purposes of the”, substitute “is appropriated out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of the performance of the functions of the”. (41)  Schedule 1, page 43 (after line 17), after item 52, insert: 52A  Section 7 Repeal the section. (42)  Schedule 2, page 46 (after line 9), before item 3, insert: 2A  Section 195‑1 (at the end of the definition of hospital treatment) Add “(as in force immediately before the commencement of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007)”. (43)  Schedule 2, item 4, page 47 (line 7), omit “2004”, substitute “2000”. (44)  Schedule 2, page 47 (after line 30), after item 8, insert: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 8A  Paragraphs 12BAA(7)(d) and (8)(b) Omit “subsection 67(4) of the National Health Act 1953”, substitute “Division 121 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007”. Corporations Act 2001 8B  Paragraph 765A(1)(c) Omit “subsection 67(4) of the National Health Act 1953”, substitute “Division 121 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007”. (45)  Schedule 2, item 75, page 58 (line 15), omit “2004”, substitute “2000”. (46)  Schedule 3, item 2, page 63 (lines 13 to 16), omit the item, substitute: 2  Subsection 159J(6) (paragraph (aac) of the definition of separate net income) Omit “Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998”, substitute “Division 26 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007”. (47)  Schedule 3, item 3, page 63 (lines 17 to 19), omit the item, substitute: 3  Subsection 170(10AA) (table item 25) Repeal the table item, substitute: 25 Subdivision 61‑G Private health insurance offset complementary to Part 2‑2 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 (48)  Schedule 3, page 64 (after line 25), before item 8, insert: 7A  Section 13‑1 (table item headed “private health insurance”) Omit “61‑H”, substitute “61‑G”. (49)  Schedule 3, item 8, page 64 (lines 26 to 28), omit the item, substitute: 8  Section 52‑125 Omit “Chapter 2 of the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998”, substitute “Division 26 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007”. (50)  Schedule 3, item 9, page 64 (lines 29 to 31), omit the item, substitute: 9  Subdivision 61‑H of Division 61 Repeal the Subdivision, substitute: Subdivision 61‑G—Private health insurance offset complementary to Part 2‑2 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 Guide to Subdivision 61‑G You can choose to claim a tax offset for a premium, or an amount in respect of a premium, paid under a private health insurance policy instead of having the premium reduced under Division 23 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 or receiving a payment under Division 26 of that Act. 61‑200  What this Subdivision is about Table of sections Operative provisions 61‑205        Entitlement to the private health insurance tax offset 61‑210        Amount of the private health insurance tax offset 61‑215        Tax offset after a person 65 years or over ceases to be covered by policy 61‑220        How to work out the incentive amount Operative provisions 61‑205  Entitlement to the private health insurance tax offset          (1)    If you are an individual (other than an individual in the capacity of an employer), you are entitled to a *tax offset for the 2007‑08 income year or a later income year if:               (a)    a premium, or an amount in respect of a premium, was paid by you, or by your employer as a *fringe benefit for you, under a complying private health insurance policy (within the meaning of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007), on or after 1 July 2007; and               (b)    the premium, or amount in respect of a premium, was paid during the income year; and               (c)    each person insured under the complying health insurance policy during the period covered by the premium or amount is, for the whole of the time that he or she is insured under the policy during that period, an eligible person within the meaning of section 3 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, or treated as such because of section 6, 6A or 7 of that Act.          (2)    You are also entitled to the *tax offset if:               (a)    you are a trustee who is liable to be assessed under section 98 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in respect of a share of the net income of a trust estate; and               (b)    the beneficiary who is presently entitled to the share of the income of the trust estate would be entitled to the tax offset because of subsection (1).          (3)    However, you are not entitled to the *tax offset in respect of the payment of any premium, or any amount in respect of a premium, if:               (a)    you have received an amount under Division 26 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 in relation to the payment; or               (b)    the premium, or the amount in respect of a premium, was less than it would otherwise have been because of the operation of Division 23 of that Act. Note:   In certain circumstances you can get a refund of the tax offset under Division 67. 61‑210  Amount of the private health insurance tax offset          (1)    The amount of the *tax offset for an income year is the sum of:               (a)    30% of the amount of the premium, or of the amount in respect of a premium, paid by you, or by your employer as a *fringe benefit for you, under the policy in respect of days in the income year on which no person covered by the policy was aged 65 years or over; and               (b)    35% of the amount of the premium, or of the amount in respect of a premium, paid by you, or by your employer as a fringe benefit for you, under the policy in respect of days in the income year on which:                     (i)    at least one person covered by the policy was aged 65 years or over; and                    (ii)    no person covered by the policy was aged 70 years or over; and               (c)    40% of the amount of the premium, or of the amount in respect of a premium, paid by you, or by your employer as a fringe benefit for you, under the policy in respect of days in the income year on which at least one person covered by the policy was aged 70 years or over.          (2)    However, if, before 1 January 1999, a person was registered, or eligible to be registered, under the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1997 in respect of the policy for the income year, the amount of the *tax offset for the income year is the greater of:               (a)    the amount worked out under subsection (1); and               (b)    the *incentive amount for the policy for the income year.          (3)    If, because of the operation of Division 23 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, an amount paid by you, or by your employer as a *fringe benefit for you, under a policy was less than the amount that would otherwise have been payable, the *tax offset in respect of the amount paid is reduced by the amount of the difference. 61‑215  Tax offset after a person 65 years or over ceases to be covered by policy          (1)    If:               (a)    at any time, the amount of a *tax offset in respect of premiums payable under an insurance policy (the original policy) was 35% or 40% of the premiums payable under the policy because a person aged 65 years or over (the entitling person) was insured under the original policy; and               (b)    at that time, another person (other than a dependent child) was insured under the original policy; and               (c)    the entitling person subsequently ceases to be insured under the policy; subsections 61‑210(1) and (2) apply in relation to a complying health insurance policy (whether or not the original policy) under which the other person is insured (other than for the purposes of working out the *incentive amount) as if:               (d)    the entitling person were also insured under that policy; and               (e)    the entitling person were the same age as the age at which he or she ceased to be insured under the original policy.          (2)    Subsection (1) ceases to apply if a person (other than a dependent child) who was not insured under the original policy at the time the entitling person ceased to be insured under it becomes insured under the complying health insurance policy.          (3)    Subsection (1) does not apply if its application would result in the amount of the *tax offset under subsection 61‑210(1) or (2) being less than it would otherwise have been.          (4)    Paragraph (1)(a) applies in relation to an amount of a *tax offset that is 35% or 40% of the premiums payable under an insurance policy whether the tax offset was available under this Subdivision or Subdivision 61‑H as in force before 1 July 2007.          (5)    In this section: complying health insurance policy has the same meaning as in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. dependent child:               (a)    has the meaning given in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007; and               (b)    in paragraph (1)(b), in relation to a time before 1 July 2007, includes a dependent child within the meaning of the Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998. 61‑220  How to work out the incentive amount (1)The incentive amount for a complying private health insurance policy (within the meaning of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007) for an income year is the amount worked out under this table: Incentive amount Item Number and kinds of people covered by the policy Policy covers * hospital treatment but not * general treatment Policy covers * general treatment but not * hospital treatment Policy covers * hospital treatment and * general treatment 1 3 or more people $350 $100 $450 2 One dependent child and one other person $350 $100 $450 3 2 people neither of whom is a dependent child $200 $50 $250 4 One person $100 $25 $125          (2)    If the amount of the premium, or the amount in respect of a premium, paid by you, or by your employer as a *fringe benefit for you, under the policy is for part only of the income year, the incentive amount is worked out using this formula: 9A  Application of item 9 The repeal of Subdivision 61‑H of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the substitution of Subdivision 61‑G by this Schedule apply in relation to the 2007‑2008 income year and later income years. 9B  Subsection 67‑25(2) Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute: Private health insurance          (2)    Private health insurance tax offsets under Subdivision 61‑G, except those arising under subsection 61‑205(2), are subject to the refundable tax offset rules. Note:   Subsection 61‑205(2) deals with tax offsets for trustees who are assessed and liable to pay tax under section 98 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. 9C  Subsection 995‑1(1) (definition of incentive amount) Omit “section 61‑345”, substitute “section 61‑220”. Private Health Insurance Act 2007 9D  Section 20‑1 (note) Omit “Subdivision 61‑H”, substitute “Subdivision 61‑G”. 9E  Subsection 26‑1(4) Omit “Subdivision 61‑H”, substitute “Subdivision 61‑G”. (51)  Schedule 3, page 66 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add: Taxation Administration Act 1953 17  Section 45‑340 of Schedule 1 (method statement, step 1, paragraph (a)) Omit “Subdivision 61‑H”, substitute “Subdivision 61‑G”. 18  Section 45‑375 of Schedule 1 (method statement, step 1, paragraph (a)) Omit “Subdivision 61‑H”, substitute “Subdivision 61‑G”. 63 17:13:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In doing so, I thank the member for Gellibrand for her earlier comments on a related bill. I do not propose to make any further comment on these amendments. My comments were covered in the previous order of the day. 63 17:13:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —In this instance, to emphasise the point I was making on the last group of amendments, I think we have 50-plus amendments here, which Labor are happy to support, although I do note our ongoing disappointment that the government chose not to accept our amendments in relation to the quality protections and the timing of when those standards and quality assurances were going to be in place. However, we are happy to support the amendments that have been moved in the other place. Question agreed to. 63 Bills R2706 63 Consideration resumed from 26 March. Senate’s amendment— (1)    Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 and 8), omit the clause, substitute: 2 Commencement          (1)    Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Provision(s) Commencement Date/Details 1.   Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2.   Schedule 1 1 May 2007. 1 May 2007 3.   Schedule 2 1 July 2007. 1 July 2007 Note:   This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.          (2)    Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act. 64 17:14:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The Aged Care Amendment (Security and Protection) Bill 2007 was introduced into the parliament on 8 February 2007 to increase protection for care recipients, including compulsory reporting of abuse, protections for those who report and improved arrangements for the investigation of complaints. The bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for inquiry, and it reported on 9 March 2007. Through the inquiry process, the aged care sector raised a concern about the limited time that aged care providers would have to ensure that they have the system and processes in place to meet the new regulations. Currently, subject to the passage of legislation, the arrangements are to take effect on 1 April 2007. Further, in recognition of the additional responsibilities the bill places on approved providers—especially in relation to communication with staff and instituting new systems—the committee also recommended that the commencement date, particularly in relation to the reporting provisions, be deferred for a period of at least one month. In response to aged care sector concerns and the subsequent recommendation of the Senate inquiry, the government moved an amendment to the bill to extend the implementation time frames. The government amendment was supported by the opposition and the Australian Democrats and was passed in the Senate on 22 March 2007. Under the amendment, the new complaints investigation arrangements, including the establishment of the new Aged Care Commissioner, will take effect from 1 May 2007. The compulsory reporting and whistleblower protection arrangements will commence from 1 July 2007. This extension to the time frames will allow the industry to implement appropriate procedures and communicate the new requirements to staff. Compulsory reporting raises complex and sensitive issues and it will be beneficial for providers to have more time to understand and implement required changes in this important area. This amendment will also allow additional time for further consultation with the aged care sector through the Minister for Ageing’s Aged Care Advisory Committee on the detail of the new arrangements, which will be set out in subordinate legislation. 64 17:17:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —This amendment moved by the government will change the commencement date of the Aged Care Amendment (Security and Protection) Bill 2007 from 1 April 2007 to 1 May 2007 for schedule 1, which is the schedule that contains arrangements relating to the investigation of complaints and the establishment of an Aged Care Commissioner. It will also change the commencement date to 1 July 2007 for schedule 2, which contains new requirements related to the compulsory reporting of reportable assaults and protections for those who make reports in accordance with the new compulsory reporting requirements. The Labor Party will support this amendment, because we believe in getting the legislation right. We raised in this House and also in the other place the ridiculous time frame that the former Minister for Ageing put on this bill. The amendment reflects the concerns that were raised during the Senate inquiry by provider and staff representatives, who noted that working out the principles containing all the operational detail and the new systems to be in place under the bill would require a much longer time frame than the one that the government proposed with the 1 April deadline. The reality is that, if the government had stuck by its 1 April implementation date, the investigation principles—the law on which the responsibilities of approved providers would have been based—would not have been in place at this time, and we would have been asking people to abide by rules that had not been seen. As I stated during my speech on the second reading of this bill, the former Minister for Ageing demonstrated a rather curious commitment to the time frames that were required in bringing about this legislation. Last July, the former minister announced that the government would introduce this legislation with a start date of 1 April 2007, yet there was no progress at all on the legislation until the bill suddenly appeared without notice as a government reference for a legislation inquiry at the Senate Selection of Bills Committee. It was referred by the Senate to the bills committee before it was even introduced or seen in this House, on the basis of a recommendation from the government. Not having even seen the legislation, Labor was expected to agree to refer the bill for inquiry and an extremely truncated reporting time frame. Having been referred to the committee, the bill was listed and debated in the House long before the Senate process had legitimately run its course. With these amendments, it now seems quite clear that this legislation has not just been rushed through but is still not ready. The Labor Party will support the government amendment for the delay of the compulsory reporting requirements until 1 July. We also support the extension of time for the establishment of the commissioner of complaints, although Labor believes that this could have been achieved within the initial time frame. We can only hope—and it is convenient that he is here in the House—that the new Minister for Ageing will demonstrate a more thorough understanding of the parliamentary processes and the need for proper preparation than his predecessor did in what is an extremely important area. I commend the amendment to the House. Question agreed to. 65 Ministerial Statements 65 65 17:15:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —You would remember that at the conclusion of question time I tabled the Review of place allocation decision—2006 aged care approvals round—Queensland south coast region. At that point in time, I was going to speak briefly to the report, but was very rudely not granted leave by the opposition. I was told that if I came back in two hours they would grant me leave. I have come back two hours later to speak to this report. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —Do not make a fool of yourself. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I am not making as big a fool of myself as you made supporting Kim Beazley’s leadership before he was finally rolled by Kevin Rudd. That was a particularly foolish act on your part, member for Perth. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the minister seeking leave to make a statement? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I sought leave at the end of question time, and he granted it to me. But I will seek it again if it makes it easier for the House. I seek leave to speak briefly to this report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is there any objection to leave being granted? 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —On the basis that this is a new minister, we are prepared to now grant him leave. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I am glad that the opposition is happy. With respect to the report that I tabled today, I wish to make a few comments. The first is that the report entirely exonerates the former Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. The second is that the government has absolutely nothing to hide in relation to this matter, so we have tabled the report for the elucidation of the House and the public. We will be happy to answer any questions that the opposition chooses to ask about it. We have absolutely no reason to hide any of the facts in relation to this matter. As I said last week in the House, the government has no reason to believe that anything untoward occurred with respect to the allocation of beds in the Queensland south coast region in the last ACAR round. No evidence has been adduced of any wrongdoing at any point by the former minister. I would like to quote the salient finding in the conclusion section on page 2 of the report: On the question of alleged influence by Senator Santoro, I have found no evidence of any attempt to exert influence either directly or indirectly over any officer of the department in any way materially connected with the relevant decision. I also note for the benefit of the House that they will find that annexure A of the report has not been tabled and is not to be publicly released. It is protected information under the act and is therefore not being released. I am happy to explain that to the shadow minister privately if she wishes to have such a discussion. The report has been tabled. I end the matter by saying that, as far as we are concerned, we can draw a line under this controversy and get on with governing for the good of older Australians and not reach back into the mud bucket like the Labor Party has on this matter over the last week. 66 17:23:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —by leave—It may be that the new Minister for Ageing does wish that this report will underwrite and rule a line under the controversy that has dogged this government for the last couple of weeks, but it is extraordinarily difficult to believe that this almost excuse of a review that the government has tabled today will draw a line under anything. In fact, I think this report does no credit to the new minister. It asks more questions than it answers. It makes it perfectly clear that there was no intention on the minister’s part to in any way actually conduct a thorough, detailed, independent review of his former minister’s activities. For example, there is going to be a separate review that deals with a whole range of probity issues. We do not know why the government has not rolled these two reviews together. We do not know whether there are any questions that came to the minister’s attention with respect to these allegations. We do not know why he has taken no external advice on this issue. On the questions that have been raised, which make it quite clear that former Minister Santoro and his staff met with affected people, we have no assurances of whether or not that is the sort of procedure that was available to all other people who were tendering for these same allocations. The report is absolutely full of all sorts of legal protections that the new minister might want to provide to us: ‘On the evidence available to me,’ ‘In the time available to me,’ ‘Without any expert advice’—there are a whole range of protections to give this minister wriggle room in the future if anything more comes out with these dealings that is untoward. Minister, if you expected this report to rule a line underneath the controversy that has dogged your government for the last few weeks, you will need to do a lot more than this. This report does not adequately answer any of the questions that have been raised. My Senate colleague Senator McLucas, who is the opposition spokesperson on ageing, has made it perfectly clear that this report has not answered a whole range of questions that have been raised about other applications that have been made. As she states, quite rightly, the review is predictably a whitewash. We have an investigation—the most interesting point that the minister does not address at all. The new Minister for Ageing, who is investigating his former colleague’s activities, who did not even interview his former colleague and did not interview Mr Egan jnr, the other person involved in these allegations and these claims, is prepared to come into the House, is prepared to hold a doorstop and say,  ‘This is the end of the matter for us. I am entirely confident that there has been no wrongdoing.’ He has not even interviewed the two main players in the whole scandal. That is not going to wash, Minister. You know that, while it might be a bit of a thankless task to get a new job like this when you first come into the ministry, doing this in a week and just saying that it is adequately going to rule a line underneath it all is just beyond belief. You are not going to be able to sell that to the public. You are certainly not going to be able to sell that to the Labor Party. There are many more questions that are going to be asked. In tabling this report you have probably caused yourself more grief than you have satisfied any questions. For example—and I have said this already—you do make sure that this report protects you in a number of ways. You are at pains to say, ‘On the evidence available to me’, but you are not very careful in asserting that all of the evidence has been presented to you. You have not spoken to the two key players. You have not answered the questions about why there were meetings with this particular person but not with others who might have been seeking the same allocation of places. We do not understand how it is that the conclusion is reached that there was no exertion of influence when the report itself actually talks about interactions between the staff and the person making an application, Mr Egan Jr, and the minister himself. We do not believe that this is going to be an adequate way of dealing with this issue, Minister. It is just a cover-up. Trying to do it so quickly with no evidence and without answering all these other questions that are available is just not good enough. Minister, when even in your own report you are prepared to say, ‘This is all I’ve been able to do based on the evidence I’ve got and without any external advice,’ it does not exactly fill us with confidence that this has been taken seriously. Why, Minister, didn’t you take the time to do this properly? Why didn’t you set up a proper, independent, rigorous process that was going to interview your former colleague, was going to make sure that someone at arm’s length from government was taking this seriously? That would have been a more credible process. Instead, we still have no answers. You can go and do a doorstop and say that this rules a line under it from the government’s perspective, but that is not going to rule a line under it from our perspective. It is not a credible and independent review. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —You did that before it started. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —As my colleague reminds me, you were confident before you even started that there was nothing untoward. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory or independent process to be moving in this House. You expect us to just take it and accept that that is actually the end of the matter. We will not leave it at that. We regard it as serious and we expect the government to be able to actually explain all of the questions that have been raised, not just flounce in here, forget to ask for leave— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Nothing is in the report—and you know, Minister, that that is just a ridiculous assertion. It is not all in the report. It does not even answer the questions that have been raised. So I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Gellibrand from moving the following motion: That this House rejects the inadequate and rushed report of the Minister for Ageing into the allocation of aged care beds in Queensland by the former Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, and calls for a proper independent inquiry which investigates the probity of the allocation of bed licences and receives appropriate external advice. That, Minister, is one way, if you want to, to rule a line under this: have a proper investigation and be prepared to put the former minister’s integrity properly under the spotlight—not have some sort of mates review that is going to cover up any allegations made. You cannot simply stand up in here, Minister, and suggest that that is going to be adequate. 68 17:30:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —I second the motion, and I do so because this is a hopelessly inadequate report. This is a whitewash from a minister who indicated before the inquiry was even conducted what he would find in it. Mr PYNE (Sturt —Minister for Ageing) 17:30:00 —I move that the question be put. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I think the motion is that the member be no longer heard. Mr PYNE (Sturt —Minister for Ageing) 17:30:00 —I move: The member be no longer heard. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I rise on a point of order. The minister asked that the motion be put. That is what he moved and it should be put that way. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no motion before the chair. The member was seconding that motion. An amendment would be appropriate at the end of that. The question is that the member be no longer heard. Question put. 17:36:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 80 Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 54 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is that the motion moved by the member of Gellibrand for the suspension of standing orders and sessional orders be agreed to. Mr PYNE (Sturt —Minister for Ageing) 17:42:00 —I move: That the question be now put. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The motion is that the question be now put. All of those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —The noes have it, just to show him up. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Division required. Ring the bells for one minute. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Deputy Speaker, for the benefit of the new minister, I understand that you were about to put the question, and you should be allowed to put the question without him interrupting you. It would save this division if he would be prepared to withdraw the motion that he just put. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Whilst there is no point of order, I understand the point that the member is making, but I will not be put in the position of making advisory rulings. Lock the doors! Question put. 17:44:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) 80 Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 54 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That the motion (Ms Roxon’s) be agreed to. 17:47:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins) Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. 71 Bills R2728 71 Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Ms Julie Bishop: That this bill be now read a second time. 71 17:51:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. Labor does not oppose this bill, and Labor will not seek to prevent its passage through the parliament. Labor, however, is very critical of aspects of it and questioning or sceptical about others. The bill before us this evening does a number of things. These include: revising the maximum funding amounts provided under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide funding to support the implantation of the government’s so-called research quality framework, or RQF; and amending the Higher Education Support Act to reflect changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. The national protocols regulate the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by higher education institutions. The protocols were first approved by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 2000, introducing a number of measures relating to the administration of the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, and arrangements for Commonwealth support of students; amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 to limit the time students can claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support; and making a number of minor amendments intended to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act. Most contentiously, the legislation amends the Higher Education Support Act to ensure universities can gain access to funding for the government’s so-called research quality framework, the RQF. Labor has previously expressed very grave reservations about the RQF. Let me detail some of those reservations, which have been placed on the record. In Labor’s higher education white paper published last year, at page 38 it says: The Government is considering a ‘research quality framework’ in an effort to obtain qualitative information about Australian university research and its ‘impact’. The Expert Advisory Group for the Government’s Research Quality Framework has used the British Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), an approach to research quality assessment about to be abandoned in the UK, as the basis for an Australian model. The current proposal for an Australian version of the RAE has itself been assessed as ‘fundamentally flawed, both in design and operation’. It is seen to suffer four major deficiencies: i. research output is not the direct object of quality assessment; ii. the assessment panels are too thin to do the job credibly; iii. the assessments lack output volume measures; iv. the approach to the assessment of ‘impact’ is too underdeveloped to be included. The lack of independent, external evaluation of the quality and impact of Australian research is problematic. Investment cannot be well directed when it is not well informed. The community cannot be confident that its investment is worthwhile without evidence that it is. My colleague the shadow minister for science, Senator Carr, on 7 February in an address said he had: ... concerns about the Howard government’s RQF that it wants to impose on universities. A major issue is the proposed ‘impact’ measure. This is untried internationally: there are no accepted international standards, no comparable international data; no internationally accepted, rigorous processes in place. In particular, while it might be argued that it is clear how ‘research impact’ might be measured in the Sciences, it’s far from clear that this can be done at all in the Humanities and the Arts. I want to see a system based on peer review, that is internationally credible. I will look at the British Research Assessment Exercise, the RAE, and the changes to be proposed by Gordon Brown. I will investigate ways in which we can adopt a quantitative set of research quality measures, based on verifiable indices. Another big concern is the cost and other resources that will need to be tied up in the assessment and reporting processes. As some have pointed out ... the process will be hugely resource-intensive, considering how much funding will be moved around and allocated by means of it. …            …            … Labor is reviewing the current RQF exercise. We want a research quality assurance system that is of international standing and that will be recognised around the world. We want it to be transparent, fair, equitable and efficient. On 16 February at the symposium on the research quality framework at the University of Western Australia, I said in a written statement: As you know, my predecessor, Ms Jenny Macklin, expressed grave reservations about the RQF. These reservations included that the RQF is flawed, that it will mean that university ratings will be based on where the academic is now working, not where they did groundbreaking research, and that it involved too much paperwork for too little return. As well, the Productivity Commission recently reported adversely on the proposed Framework. Very many of these concerns have been put to me by your colleagues in the Higher Education Sector. As well, at the Australian Technology Network conference last week, it was also put to me that the RQF would reduce the research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities. My colleague Senator Kim Carr, Shadow Minister for Science, recently said that he also had concerns about the RQF, including the proposed impact measure which is untried internationally and the cost and other resources involved in the assessment and reporting processes. As I publicly indicated at the ATN conference, Labor has the RQF under review. Labor supports high quality research in our universities. I regard that as essential. It is only through high quality research undertaken in our universities that we will make the advances we need to ensure the future of scientific discovery, critical thinking and learning. Any research framework must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review. It is only through a process of rigorous testing that we can be sure of genuine strength of research undertaken. Labor want a research quality assurance system that is of international standing. I expect that our review will enable Labor to make its decision about the RQF in the course of the first half of this year. Having expressed those concerns over the recent period and having had any number of conversations with those in the higher education sector, Labor has come to the conclusion that the RQF is fundamentally flawed. Our concluded view is that in government we will not proceed with the RQF. Labor believes that the RQF will be expensive to administer, that it sets the bar too low on quality measures, that it emphasises a poorly defined impact measure and that the adoption of the RQF will mean that university ratings would be based on where the academic is now working, not necessarily where the academic has done groundbreaking research. It is not just Labor that has expressed reservations about the RQF. The Productivity Commission, in its research project Public support for science and innovation, released just this morning, again reported adversely on the proposed framework, noting: The costs of implementing the Research Quality Framework may well exceed the benefits ... And: ... while the RQF may bring some benefits, the UK and NZ experiences suggest that these would have to be substantial to offset the significant administrative and compliance costs. As we know, the United Kingdom’s experience is that, at precisely that point when the Howard government seems so obsessive about introducing the research quality framework, it is moving away from the RAE on which the research quality framework is based. Concerns have been expressed by the higher education sector itself, particularly that the RQF would reduce the research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities and that the assessment of quality and impact is of itself problematic. In submissions to the Productivity Commission last year for the purposes of the Productivity Commission’s draft research report, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering expressed ‘doubts about the value of such an approach’. Deakin University has said that the RQF criteria of quality and impact are not the only criteria for assessing research and, in some cases, are not the most important. That university has also said that the RQF will focus on research excellence, which will not catch all the important research outcomes. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy has commented: ... the allocation of a single ranking based on aggregate scores for ‘Quality’ and ‘Impact’ ... is confusing, as these different measures protect interests which are of varying relative importance for different kinds of research. The Australian Academy of the Humanities has said of the RQF approach: ... very little macro and micro-economic benefit analysis has been performed of the contributions of the humanities and creative arts to national innovation. This is ... due to the difficulty of measuring the impact of humanities research in such terms. The Group of Eight universities stated in its follow-up submission to the Productivity Commission’s draft report: There is a prospect that an RQF could become a burden to researchers, be expensive to administer and deliver very little reward to support and stimulate the best quality research. The bill provides around $41 million for two programs to assist universities with the implementation of the research quality framework. While Labor believe that the research quality framework is fundamentally and fatally flawed, we support a policy of research quality assurance. Labor support high-quality research in our universities. As I have said before, I regard that as essential. It is only through high-quality research undertaken in our universities that we will make the advances we need to ensure the future of scientific discovery, critical thinking and learning. Any research framework must be robust and rigorous and must support an open and transparent process of peer review. It is only through a process of rigorous testing that we can be sure of the genuine strength of research undertaken. Labor want a research quality assurance system of international standing. We believe there is a much better way of achieving that than through the government’s RQF. Labor believe that a research quality assurance system should be rigorous, transparent, fair, equitable and efficient. It should be recognised and accepted internationally as world’s best practice and should distribute funds in a way that transparently reflects research quality and achievement in our universities. It should encourage universities to concentrate on their respective research strengths, reward genuinely high achievement and weight research costs accurately by field and discipline. Further, it should promote university autonomy in decision making on research funding and policy and recognise and reward groundbreaking, long-term fundamental research whose full impact may not be apparent within a limited or arbitrary time frame. It should also provide separate, objective measures that reflect research quality in each broad discipline area—the arts and humanities, the social sciences and science and technology. The government’s research quality framework does not do these things. To reflect all this, at the conclusion of my remarks I will formally move a second reading amendment in the following terms: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:  “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that while assessing the quality and effectiveness of university research is a necessary and desirable public policy objective; any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review; as proposed by the Government, the RQF is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term, basic research; the university sector has assessed that the RQF would reduce research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities; essential aspects and details of the scheme are yet to be worked out, so that implementation for 2008 is in serious doubt; the cost and other resources involved in the assessment and reporting processes mean that the Government’s proposed Research Quality Framework risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and the Research Quality Framework measures and processes as set out in the Bill should not be proceeded with, and should be replaced by a model that is fair, equitable, tailored to different disciplines and international best practice”. As I said at the outset, Labor will not oppose the bill or the appropriation of this money. Labor does not support the government’s RQF approach but does support efforts and measures to increase the overall level of research undertaken in our universities. Labor believes that the money appropriated by this bill can be more effectively used either for research or in the development or implementation of an alternative research quality assessment system. Labor is currently consulting with the higher education sector and developing a policy which will be published in due course as a formal election commitment. Those remarks cover that part of the bill which deals with the research quality framework. The bill also covers a number of other areas. One of the most significant is that it will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to reflect changes made to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. The national protocols regulate the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by higher education institutions. The protocols were first approved by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 2000 and were subsequently amended, by agreement, by all state and territory education ministers in July 2006. The protocols agreed in 2006 were: Protocol A Nationally agreed criteria and approval processes for all higher education institutions Protocol B Criteria and processes for the registration of non self-accrediting higher education institutions and the accreditation of their higher education course/s Protocol C Criteria and processes for awarding self-accrediting authority to higher education institutions other than universities Protocol D Criteria and processes for establishing Australian universities Protocol E Criteria and processes for overseas higher education institutions seeking to operate in Australia The national protocols are widely recognised as an important component in the quality assurance of higher education in this country. As the ministerial council website states, the protocols: … protect the standing of Australian higher education nationally and internationally by assuring students and the community that higher education institutions in Australia have met identified criteria and are subject to appropriate government regulation. The national protocols apply to: all higher education institutions operating in Australia all higher education institutions seeking to operate in Australia all higher education institutions purporting to operate in Australia the offshore activities of all Australian higher education institutions arrangements in which some aspects of a higher education institution’s operations are carried out by other entities, such as through partnerships with other institutions, providers or business entities, the formation of companies, sub-contracting of services, or franchising. Whenever students are enrolled in a higher education institution or awards are conferred in the name of a higher education institution, the higher education institution is responsible for oversight of the arrangement and for ensuring the arrangement complies with the National Protocols. Key changes to the national protocols agreed to in 2006 by state and territory ministers involve: the provision for a wider range of universities, including specialist institutions conducting teaching and research in one or two fields of study only and university colleges in the form of new universities undertaking teaching and research in a limited number of fields during an establishment phase; an identified process for institutions other than universities to become authorised to accredit their own courses—self-accrediting—where they demonstrate a strong track record in quality assurance and reaccreditation; and application of the protocols to both new and existing higher education institutions, with compliance to be assessed through the standard quality assurance processes. The amendments made by this bill seek to give effect to the revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. The Commonwealth, along with the states and territories, agreed to introduce and pass enabling legislation so that the national protocols take effect from the end of 2007. The intended effect of these revised protocols is threefold: to facilitate the establishment of centres of research and teaching excellence in the form of universities focused on narrow areas of expertise; to provide a clear mechanism for those institutions with strong track records in higher education delivery and quality assurance to become self-accrediting, and, under the stewardship of an established university, for provisional university colleges to develop into fully fledged institutions; and to extend their application to all new and existing higher education institutions. These protocols are, in and of themselves, sensible measures agreed to jointly by the various ministers. By allowing international higher education providers and specialised higher education providers to establish themselves as universities or university colleges, the changes can be expected to lead to further competition in the university sector. Further liberalisation and greater competition among higher education providers can deliver results in terms of the specialisation provided by the various institutions. Greater specialisation in the higher education sector can provide a means to better tailor educational needs to the community and provide greater flexibility to respond to the needs of a modern workforce into the future. But it must be done with care and caution. That means that any opening up to greater competition must be done with the appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure the protection and enhancement of academic standards. It cannot be allowed to lead to a diminution of academic standards or rigour in the approach taken by our higher education providers. This is particularly important in relation to our international reputation. Australia’s higher education exports are worth around $10 billion a year and rising. We have achieved this because we have built a good international reputation. We cannot have an accreditation regime that allows for the standards of our higher education providers to be eroded through a protocol regime that would or could lead to a free-for-all in the sector and a downward—not upward—movement of academic standards. The protocol changes that are the subject of this bill cannot lead to a situation that allows or tolerates a diminution of our good reputation internationally. And we cannot allow it to encourage or foster the sorts of situations we have seen in recent weeks with some education providers that actively rip students off by subjecting them to substandard teaching and poor facilities. A further reason for this concern relates to the fact that, although the protocols have been agreed to, the guidelines that underpin and give effect to these protocols have not yet been formally agreed to. That is not scheduled to occur at the earliest until the upcoming meeting of the ministerial council on 12 and 13 April. It is somewhat like putting the cart before the horse. It is one thing to agree on the broad direction and another altogether to agree on the detail of how to achieve it. That is why Labor believes it is important to refer this point to the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education for brief inquiry. The bill also seeks to do a number of other things. This includes: introducing a number of measures regarding the administration of the Higher Education Loan Program, the HELP scheme, and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students; amending the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 to limit the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support; revising the maximum funding amounts provided under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide funding to support the implementation of the research quality framework; and making a number of minor amendments intended to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act. The bill includes a number of measures regarding the administration of the Higher Education Loan Program and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. Firstly, the bill includes amendments to clarify the overseas study requirements in relation to eligibility for OS-HELP assistance. The effect of this is that Australian students already studying overseas can apply for OS-HELP assistance. OS-HELP is only available to those undergraduate students studying part of their course overseas. Secondly, the amendments in this bill clarify that nothing requires a higher education provider to advise students that they are Commonwealth supported at a particular campus of the provider. The effect of this is that higher education providers will be able to determine which campus will offer particular courses of study to Commonwealth supported students. In other words, the amendment allows higher education providers to specify that a student may be a Commonwealth supported student for units of study on the condition that the student undertakes those units at a particular campus of the provider. Thirdly, the amendments in this bill clarify the residency requirements in relation to Commonwealth support and HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP assistance for study undertaken overseas. The effect of this is that permanent residents and holders of certain visas, including those granted on humanitarian grounds, will not be entitled to Commonwealth support or to HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance if they are undertaking part or all of their higher education course overseas. In addition, in the minister’s second reading speech introducing this legislation she said: The bill requires that Commonwealth supported students must reside in Australia while undertaking their studies (although provision is made to ensure entitlement to Commonwealth support and assistance where a student is required to be overseas for part of their course of study). The notion that all Commonwealth supported students must reside in Australia while undertaking their studies has raised some concern amongst both the public and some higher education providers about the restrictions potentially being introduced by the government on the studies undertaken by students. The prima facie impact of this would be to exclude students studying overseas via distance education or on exchange from accessing HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP. My office has been assured by the minister’s office that this is not the intention, and I would ask that the minister confirm this in her reply in the debate. Fourthly, these amendments will allow providers to advise students that they will be Commonwealth supported for cross-institutional study where one or both of the higher education providers are not table A providers. This is a change from the previous requirement for Commonwealth supported students to only undertake study in Commonwealth supported places in a cross-institutional arrangement where both providers were table A providers. Before I conclude, I will touch on another demonstration that the government is rushing this legislation through. The government is moving amendments to its own legislation, and those amendments have been circulated. The amendments are in two areas. The first is to section 3-5(2), inserting a new information provision to refer to the range of different higher education entities and types of approval that they will receive under chapter 6 once the bill is enacted. The second amendment is at section 19-20, to correct the paragraph so that it refers to requirements imposed on higher education providers being done by ‘a government accreditation authority’ instead of ‘an authorised accreditation authority’. These amendments appear sensible enough, but I make this point: the fact that the government has to make them at all when it is the government’s own legislation indicates that they have rushed this legislation through the parliament. Rushing legislation through the parliament without due process and time for examination is always a concern. When it contains errors and oversights, it is doubly so. As I indicated at the outset, Labor does not oppose this legislation. But there are issues to which I have referred that in our view require further examination and some questions answered. That is why we propose to refer it to committee in the other place and we reserve our right to move or support amendments that may come out of such a limited Senate inquiry. I commend the bill to the House and I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that while assessing the quality and effectiveness of university research is a necessary and desirable public policy objective; any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review; as proposed by the Government, the RQF is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term, basic research; the university sector has assessed that the RQF would reduce research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities; essential aspects and details of the scheme are yet to be worked out, so that implementation for 2008 is in serious doubt; the cost and other resources involved in the assessment and reporting processes mean that the Government’s proposed Research Quality Framework risks preventing breakthrough research from occurring by being overly bureaucratic for too little year on year return; and the Research Quality Framework measures and processes as set out in the Bill should not be proceeded with, and should be replaced by a model that is fair, equitable, tailored to different disciplines and international best practice”. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the amendment seconded? HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —I second the amendment. 79 18:18:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I am very pleased to be able to rise in the House tonight to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, but in doing so I oppose the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Perth. I think most people around the chamber and indeed around the nation would accept that the Sunshine Coast region that I am privileged to represent in the Australian parliament has a wonderful tertiary institution that is providing an important service to one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia. In fact, it is tipped that the Sunshine Coast could well double its population over the next 15 years. Of course, that presents particular problems for the provision of infrastructure, including educational infrastructure. The University of the Sunshine Coast provides significant educational services in a number of faculties, from business through to arts and social sciences and to science, health and education. The inaugural Vice-Chancellor, Professor Paul Thomas, must be congratulated for his ongoing dedication and hard work in developing what is still a relatively new university. The university gained full university status following approaches by me and the honourable member for Fairfax, along with the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Thomas, to Dr David Kemp. At that stage it was intended that the University of the Sunshine Coast would serve an apprenticeship period of some 10 years as a university college of the Queensland University of Technology. While the Queensland University of Technology has my unabashed admiration as a quality institution, the University of the Sunshine Coast simply would not have been able to grow and develop if the minister for education at the time, Dr David Kemp, had not been prepared to overrule the recommendation from his public servants in the department of education that the university not be given independence. I am proud that through my representations and those of my colleague we were able to give this university appropriate status. Now the university has close to 5,000 enrolments. The Australian government has always been a very strong supporter of the University of the Sunshine Coast. Only last month the university was allocated $5 million out of a total of $58 million allocated nationally from the voluntary student unionism transition fund. These funds, you will be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, will support the construction of a multipurpose indoor stadium at the Sippy Downs campus under the first round of funding from the fund. Five million dollars out of $58 million is a pretty high proportion of a national allocation. I am proud that the University of the Sunshine Coast has been adjudged worthy of receiving such a high proportion of what the Australian government has allocated under the voluntary student unionism transition fund. I know the University of the Sunshine Coast very well; in fact I drive past it almost every day because it is only a kilometre down the road from where I live. But it would be useful for us to look at some of the other things the Australian government has done to benefit the University of the Sunshine Coast and of course, most importantly, the students and the families who choose to send their children to that important institution. In December 2005 the government allocated $2 million, for 2008, towards the completion of stage VI of the University of the Sunshine Coast science building. The funds were allocated through the higher education Capital Development Pool program. The science building will provide laboratories for teaching, sports science and biomedical, microbiology, environmental, geoinformatics and health sciences. Stage VI will also involve the completion of the general teaching buildings and is part of the master-planned development of the university. Last year the Australian government allocated 235 extra university places for 2007 valued at $2.3 million, increasing to 643 new places by 2010, altogether valued at $6.7 million. Importantly, these places are for the teaching and nursing courses as well as for the allied health areas of nutrition, dietetics and social work. For the University of the Sunshine Coast to grow it must have the courses available to meet the needs of the local community. I have to say that in the allocation of new places in Queensland the University of the Sunshine Coast has done extraordinarily well, and I am particularly pleased to have been able to have supported the university in this very successful outcome. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 provides for a number of amendments to several pieces of legislation that relate to tertiary education in Australia. They include changes to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 that will assist with the implementation of the research quality framework, a system designed to more easily and accurately assess the results and the public benefit of publicly funded research. The RQF will be a valuable tool in assisting future allocation of research resources and funding, which in turn will foster a better research environment in Australia. It is important that a nation such as Australia continues to build its position in the world with high-quality research that leads to innovation and invention and a greater ability to be internationally competitive. The Australian government has allocated $40.8 million over four years, beginning in July this year, to implement the RQF system. This will include, among other things, the establishment of a national digital storage system in our universities that will assist with the storage and dissemination of valuable research and related information. The bill also provides for the introduction of revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes that were approved last year by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. These protocols guide the recognition of newly established tertiary institutions, as well as the Australian based operations of overseas universities and the accreditation of higher education courses. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be interested to become aware that in the past these protocols applied only to newly established tertiary institutions, but a significant change provided for in this bill is that the protocols will apply also to existing institutions. The new protocols will further help to shore up the quality of our educational institutions. They will promote this by making possible the establishment of specialist universities that teach relatively few fields of study, which will encourage new types of institutions, and they will allow some universities that have a record for quality delivery of educational services to be self-accrediting. I think one of the problems we have had in Australia, particularly with the actions of the former Labor government through then Minister Dawkins, is that essentially any higher education organisation at the time was overnight proclaimed to be a university. These so-called Dawkins universities have been somewhat challenging as far as the university sector is concerned. Some of them have done very well; some have not done well. But I think it is important to recognise that every institution in the country ought not to necessarily offer every course. If we can have universities that specialise in certain areas then students will vote with their feet, and they will go to those universities which provide expertise in certain areas. I think that diversity does in fact help to work towards a very healthy system, which is to the overall long-term benefit of Australia. The bill also introduces a range of relatively minor amendments. Students will be given six weeks to correct their information as it relates to Commonwealth assistance programs. Minor amendments will clarify the intent of policy as it relates to the Higher Education Loan Program, as well as other Commonwealth supported student arrangements. The bill will give education providers the ability to determine the parameters by which some students will be eligible for Commonwealth assistance—for example, whether they will be required to attend a certain institution to be eligible for the support. Students must reside in Australia to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance, and students who are permanent residents who complete their course overseas will not be eligible for Commonwealth support. It is interesting that the opposition, while it is moving this amendment and playing politics in doing so, does not actually seek to deny passage of the bill through the House. Obviously, with an election just a number of months down the track, the opposition is trying to play politics with the education of students at Australia’s higher education institutions. I do not believe that this is a very appropriate way for the opposition to act. Having said that, the opposition is supporting the bill, because it must know that its pious second reading amendment has absolutely zero chance of passing this House. The bill currently before the chamber, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, provides some important changes that will assist in supporting and promoting a stronger higher education sector in Australia. Any bill that supports and promotes a stronger higher education sector in Australia is worthy of the backing of the Australian parliament because, let us face it, those people who are studying in our educational institutions—primary, secondary and tertiary—are Australia’s future. This bill will benefit those studying in tertiary institutions and will improve national outcomes in the Australian community for years to come. I am very pleased, therefore, to ask everyone to support the passage, as soon as possible, of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. 81 18:30:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —I am pleased to speak to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 and to support the very well thought out, measured, logical amendment moved by the opposition which highlights some of the concerns which the shadow minister expressed in his contribution. Later in my contribution I will comment on the more general observations made about the university sector by the member for Fisher. While I welcome the further investment in Australia’s higher education system that this bill will deliver, I do want to take this opportunity to raise a number of important concerns regarding some of the potential impacts of this bill. It is worth while reminding ourselves of the purpose of this bill. It seeks to provide funding to implement the government’s contentious research quality framework—RQF—which we believe is not well thought out and which we oppose. This will involve an appropriation of $40.8 million over a three-year period. The bill will also regulate the recognition of new universities and courses offered by higher education institutions and limit the time for students to claim entitlement to Commonwealth support. Labor have a number of concerns about this bill. The first of these relates to the research quality framework and its impact on Australian academics and on our higher education system. We believe that the research quality framework is flawed. It is overhauling the method by which public funds are allocated, with trials to take place at several universities. Under the framework, Australia will become the first country in the world to measure the impact of research rather than just its quality. A panel of academic experts and end users of the research will review the quality and the impact of the research, and funding will then be allocated on the strength of these assessments. It is worth noting that in Britain the government has decided to review a similar research assessment model in favour of a simpler, mainly metrics based system such as the one Australia currently has in place. The current system includes measures such as research income, research publications, research student loans and completions. The possible impact on researchers and academic positions is quite worrying. An article in the Australian Financial Review on 19 February this year, titled ‘Academics lose jobs as research becomes king’, analysed the research quality framework and said: Under the federal government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) scheme being introduced this year, academics regarded by their bosses as “less active in research” may be made redundant or forced to accept teaching-only positions. The National Tertiary Education Union warned that there is widespread anxiety on campus about the impact of the RQF and that stress levels among the academics were high and rising. I also note the research report of the Productivity Commission, which was referred to by the shadow minister, Public support for science and innovation, where the commission observed, ‘The costs of implementing the research quality framework may well exceed the benefits’ and, ‘While the RQF may bring some benefits, the UK and New Zealand experiences suggest that these would have to be substantial to offset the significant administrative and compliance costs.’ The research quality framework as proposed by the government is clearly not the best system. It has been tried, and it has not succeeded. To pursue this will in our view create undue stress and anxiety for academics. Labor support a policy of research quality assurance and high-quality research in our universities. I will refer again to some of the comments made by the shadow minister. He referred to some of the submissions to the Productivity Commission. One was from the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, which expressed doubts about the value of such an approach. Deakin University said that the RQF will focus on research excellence and will not catch all the important research outcomes. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy commented: ... the allocation of a single ranking based on aggregate scores for ‘Quality’ and ‘Impact’ ... is confusing— and: ... these different measures protect interests which are of varying relative importance for different kinds of research. The Australian Academy of the Humanities said of the RQF approach: ... very little macro and micro-economic benefit analysis has been performed of the contributions of the humanities and creative arts to national innovation. And: This is ... due to the difficulty of measuring the impact of humanities research in such terms. The Group of Eight universities said: There is a prospect that an RQF could become a burden to researchers, be expensive to administer and deliver very little reward to support and stimulate the best quality research. These contributions to the debate are damning in what the government is trying to achieve. We on this side of the chamber believe that a research quality assurance system should be rigorous, transparent, fair, equitable and efficient. It should be recognised and accepted internationally as world’s best practice. It should distribute funds in a way that transparently reflects research quality and achievements in our universities. It should encourage universities to concentrate on their respective research strengths. It should reward generally high achievement. It should weight research costs accurately by field and discipline. It should promote university autonomy in decision making on research funding and policy. It should recognise and reward groundbreaking long-term fundamental research, the full impact of which may not be apparent within a limited or arbitrary time frame, and it should provide separate objective measures that reflect research quality in each broad discipline area, such as the arts and humanities, the social sciences, sciences and technologies. Unfortunately, the government’s research quality framework does not do any of these things. Another concern I have with this piece of legislation arises from the proposed amendment to allow students to correct information six weeks from the census date to establish an entitlement to Commonwealth assistance. The Higher Education Amendment Act will then be amended to clarify that students can no longer establish an entitlement to assistance provided under the act. The bill seeks to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 to limit the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support. Students in Australia are already struggling, and they do not need further obstacles such as the amendments proposed in this bill. It is worth noting that in 2007 the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee’s survey into student finances, an independent study commissioned by the peak Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and conducted by the University of Melbourne’s Centre for the Study of Higher Education, found that financial pressure has increased since the previous survey six years ago. In response, as cited in an article in the Australian on Wednesday, 14 March titled ‘The AVCC moves on student poverty’, the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training claimed: Students should live more frugally ... income support was not intended to underwrite a lifestyle. Alan Robson, the chairman of the survey’s steering group and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, responded to the minister’s comment with concern. He said: ... she didn’t appear to be taking it really seriously. Robson continued: Full-time students are working nearly 15 hours a week, that is considerable work, and we are expecting students during semester probably to be spending 40 hours a week [on their studies]. How does that make for a good university experience? Students are suffering under the requirements to study full time, to attain good grades, to work and attempt to balance a social life, all at the same time as providing the money that is required by the government under HECS. In the same article, Macquarie University’s Vice-Chancellor, Steven Schwartz, said: Financial hardship is a way of life for many students ... The offhand comment by the minister should be seen for what it is: a very disparaging insult to the Australian student population and a disparaging insult to many Australian families who struggle to ensure that their children get access to a university education. They struggle because of the costs involved. Whilst they might be participants in a happy form of life in one sense, the hardships which they and their families endure to ensure they get a university education and make a contribution to the Australian community in the way we want them all to do should not be disparaged or insulted in the way the minister has done. The Vice-Chancellors Committee survey found that around 70 per cent of full-time undergraduates worked an average of 14.8 hours a week during the second semester of 2006. Forty-two per cent of part-time students worked at least 38 hours a week, which is equivalent to full-time employment. Up to 54 per cent of students surveyed found that work was having a detrimental effect on their studies. Between 2000 and 2006 the proportion of undergraduates taking out payable loans rose from 10.7 per cent to 24.4 per cent. Average private debt on graduation is $25,000. Indigenous students have bigger loans and work longer hours in order to finance their studies. In respect of Indigenous students, about whom I have a particular concern, the research commissioned by the AVCC’s committee on student finances states: A quarter of Indigenous students go without food and other necessities because they cannot afford them. What does the minister say about that? Do they choose this lifestyle because it is so terrific that they have to go without food as they are too poor? How much more frugally would they need to live? This is an observation made by a minister with no knowledge, who clearly has no heart and no understanding of the experiences of many Australian students at our tertiary institutions. Indigenous students were more likely to report that money was a worry—72.5 per cent compared with 52.5 per cent for the general university population. Indigenous students worked more hours and missed more classes than non-Indigenous students. Their expenses were higher. They were more likely to have used up savings to fund their education—52 per cent compared with 44 per cent of non-Indigenous students. More Indigenous students had taken out a loan than non-Indigenous students and the loans were bigger—$8,250 for Indigenous postgraduates compared with $6,250 for non-Indigenous postgraduates. Despite all of the obstacles, Indigenous students’ income support applications were rejected more often—13.8 per cent for undergraduates and 8.8 per cent for postgraduates—than those of non-Indigenous students, at 11.8 and 5.5 per cent. This report is an absolute condemnation of this government’s administration of higher education. The observations made by the minister are such a grave insult that they should be rejected out of hand by this parliament. The 2005 higher education report released by the Department of Education, Science and Training revealed that the debt burden for Australian students has tripled under the Howard government, from $4.5 billion in 1996-97 to nearly $13 billion in 2005-06. By 2008-09, this figure will have increased to $18.8 billion. The average outstanding debt is about $10,560, a seven per cent increase from the previous year. In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 September 2006 it was stated that average yearly fees are rising. Medicine is up from $17,658 in 1997 to $49,020 in 2006, law is up from $11,772 in 1997 to $32,680 and engineering is up from $11,772 to $27,917. This government has overseen this debacle. We know that the impact of the government’s policies on higher education have nowhere been felt greater than in the regional universities across this country. This is a matter which I have spoken on a number of times in this place. It is clear that the situation is getting worse. Charles Darwin University has suffered massively at the hands of the Howard government. According to 2005 statistics, CDU caters to a total of 17,665 students. That is a little less than 10 per cent of the total population of the Northern Territory. Of this number, 5,380 people are engaged in higher education and 12,285 are in VET programs. The CDU has a very difficult task, because it seeks to deliver higher education services to a relatively small and dispersed population. The demographics of the Northern Territory are far removed from the national average and obviously very different from those which prevail in the major metropolitan areas. The Territory has a large population base in and around Darwin of 100,000-plus people and a smaller population base at the centre of Australia in Alice Springs of close to 30,000. The remainder of the population lives in widely dispersed communities, from small to large, including towns like Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy, as well as smaller places such as Wadeye, Maningrida, Galiwinku, Groote Eylandt, and even smaller places such as Papunya, Kintore and Yuendumu—very small communities indeed. This university requires resourcing to be able to carry out its work in the Northern Territory. It is worth noting—and I have used these figures before in this place—that, since 1996, the Howard government has removed $6 million a year, or around $40 million to date, in recurrent funding from Charles Darwin University alone. We know that with the abolition of compulsory student unionism students are facing a less vibrant life on campus. Under VSU, universities are expected to lose about $160 million annually. The wealthy Group of Eight universities can tolerate this far better. They are largely protected from the legislation through special funding set aside by each institution. This is not the case at smaller institutions such as Charles Darwin University, where students tend to rely more on in-house services and have faced the most savage cutbacks. Let us not beat about the bush: CDU has been hit hardest by these changes. This much is acknowledged in a national report card put out by the National Union of Students in November of last year. This report card sets out how universities have handled the fallout from the legislation. Students are warned in the union document that they ‘should be very wary about attending’ universities including Charles Darwin, Griffith and James Cook, ‘as they are unlikely to receive the same level of quality service provision and effective support as at other universities’. According to Rose Jackson, the 2006 president of the National Union of Students, Charles Darwin University has been the worst affected by VSU, with the campus student union left with little support or staff. She said: It means if you’re a student at Charles Darwin University who wants to appeal a grade, you have nowhere to go but the administration itself, you literally have nowhere to go. They didn’t even produce a student diary this year because they didn’t have the money. That is another condemnation of this government’s approach. I say to the minister who made those insulting remarks about the Australian student body that she should rethink her attitude and do something a lot better to improve the outcomes in tertiary education in this country. 85 18:50:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, it is a pleasure to see you in charge of this chamber this evening. I thank you on behalf of the member for Lingiari for your profound generosity, because his contribution strayed as far and as wide from the subject matter before the House as I guess was humanly possible. I also want to congratulate the Minister for Defence for not taking offence at the member for Lingiari’s comments, because the Minister for Defence’s previous portfolio role created enormous stewardship. It seemed to be the member for Lingiari’s ambition to try and bait him. I say to you, Dr Nelson: tolerance is a great attribute that you have—through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I am going to try and stick to the subject matter at hand, and that is the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. I want to deal in particular with the research quality framework. I will make a number of comments, though, in quiet reflection on what the member for Lingiari said—without, I hope, incurring the wrath of you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am a past student of Griffith University. I am in fact the first member of this House to have come from Griffith University. I guess I am also the first student of Runcorn primary school and MacGregor State High School to have entered this place, to the best of my knowledge. Griffith University, in my electorate, is working very hard at gathering a lot of research dollars off their own bat, not simply waiting for the dollars that might come through the government system, which is underpinned by the matters before us tonight, but also by gaining private research dollars to sponsor a number of very good things that it is doing in pharmaceutical research and the creation of new possibilities. That is the sort of thing that we have always expected from Griffith, which as a university is not even 35 years old. I was there on opening day. I remember shaking the hand of then Prime Minister Whitlam. I was a young teenager but I went along and met him on open day. So I was the first ever student from Griffith University to stand in this place, but there have been others since. In fact, it is interesting because with the member for Bonner and Senator Mason being former students of Griffith University, and Senator Trood being a former professor at Griffith University, that makes it a complete set on this side of the chamber—from what is supposedly a very left wing campus. It has a very aggressive student union operating there, albeit not as well supported by the average student. The other point I want to make on this is that, in the pursuit of research grants, Griffith have had to think outside the square. They have expanded their campus operations through Logan and to the Gold Coast. And they have done so quite deliberately, because they want to sponsor new ideas and the creation of new possibilities for Australia. I studied there part time. I suppose, in order to meet the member for Lingiari’s commentary head on, this whole question of students affording their time of study can be too overplayed. It is really important to note that there are many people just like me who have studied part time. I started there 20 years ago. I was in the workforce for 10 years before I started my bachelor of commerce degree. I am simply putting this on the record because I found the struggle of balancing full-time work and the obligations I had to the ABC and Channel 7—which is where I was working when I started my studies, being a media reporter with those stations—as well as the obligations to work at my university progress something that I gladly took on. I think there are a lot more students with a lot more ambition than perhaps those opposite realise. There is not this great cohort of people attending university today who have a victim mentality that suddenly the cost of study is out of their reach. We have record numbers of people attending university today. Remember, as the Minister for Defence used to say when he was the minister for education: why is it that, if only 10 per cent of Australians get a university degree, the other 90 per cent has to subsidise their existence? Can’t we challenge that 10 per cent to actually make a contribution? I think I was one of the first people to ever pay the HECS requirements, which were of course introduced by the Labor Party. I simply make the point that I do not want to hear any more concepts of victimhood from those opposite. Equally, we have more people studying from overseas in our fine universities, participating in the research and adding to the sum of knowledge that Australia is generating for the use of the world. We have 136,500 undergraduates from overseas studying in Australia today. There are another 90,000 who are studying as postgraduates. Based on 2005 figures we have almost 900,000 people studying in universities today. So there is no doubt in my mind about the viability of the university sector to create an environment of learning and an environment of strong research. This bill tonight is adding further to the funding of the research quality framework, providing almost $41 million in current year prices over four years to help fund universities and other higher education providers to assist with the implementation of the research quality frameworks from July this year to December 2010. It gives certainty to this sector so that they can make the plans that they need to make, not to simply generate good research but to ensure the whole operation of their universities—it is absolutely vital. So in that regard, on the commentary about overseas students: full-fee paying students are very much at the heart of the way in which the university sector operates. It cannot be seen purely in isolation of research alone. It cannot be seen purely in isolation of those students who may be afforded a government no-interest loan through higher education subsidies. The demand of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme to make a contribution to the overall costs of higher education is quite reasonable. It cannot be seen as just that alone. It is all part of the overall mix of the economy that a university is—this multi billion dollar enterprise that we see right around the country today. I note that it is quite timely that the Group of Eight is chaired by my former tutor Professor Glyn Davis AC, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —A very good man, too! CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —I hear the member for Rankin saying he is a very good man. He is actually anticipating my next comment. Glyn Davis was my tutor. When he was appointed to the vice-chancellorship of Griffith University, I think Wayne Goss and I were two of the three people who moved a vote of confidence in Glyn Davis. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —One out of two’s okay! CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Rankin says, ‘Some of them are okay.’ Let me tell you, through you Madam Deputy Speaker, that Professor Davis privately probably concedes that I was one that got away from him. He is a good supporter of the other side of the House. I think his efforts in the Goss administration were at the behest of the current Leader of the Opposition, actually. Professor Davis was brought in to give the advice on how to destroy the public service in Queensland sufficiently to turn it away from being an independent public service into a Labor Party public service. I must say that it was a masterstroke of the Leader of the Opposition to bring Professor Davis in, because he managed to do that. But Professor Glyn Davis, almost right on cue—as much as I respect my former teacher—put out a press release today that stated: The Productivity Commission’s final report on the value of Australia’s public investment in science and innovation— this is the research quality framework he is talking about— ... provides much food for thought ... …            …            … The Commission has found that Australia’s significant annual investment in its science and innovation systems results in widespread economic, social and environmental benefits—with the benefits likely to exceed the costs. …            …            … The Commission remains committed to the overall finding that the current level of public funding for Australia’s science and innovation systems is about right. As I say, right on cue, Professor Davis says: The Go8— and this is a bit like Mao Zedong in a lot of ways— looks forward to hearing the Government and Opposition’s responses to it, ... I am sure this is what the member for Rankin will be contributing in the debate tonight—asking for more money without actually offering some sense of trust or indeed some sense of challenge to individual institutions to do a bit more of what Griffith itself has done; that is, to go and generate some more money based on its merits from the private sector. This bill tonight obviously will support activities and systems required for participating institutions to engage effectively and efficiently with the research quality framework. It will help with the establishment of digital storage systems which become repositories for institutions throughout Australia through the Australian Scheme for Higher Education Repositories program. There is another acronym here, a five letter one this time—it is ASHER. That will allow the various types of research outputs to in fact be stored in an accessible digital store. There will be some $25 million in current year prices for that. Assistance will also be offered, some $16 million in current year prices, for new administrative and reporting systems and other compliance costs through an implementation assistance program. So the government again is backing institutes and providing some of the additional grease for their various wheels—some of the wherewithal that they need. The Productivity Commission, of course, has said that the funding is right. The reason it would say that is very plain; that is, if you fund it without challenging the receivers of that funding to also play a role in being innovative and looking for ways to gather support from other quarters then they will simply become quite fat and lazy and will fail to be as innovative as they should be. One of the key reasons is that the entire education system in Australia is essentially funded on a mistaken premise of supply rather than demand. We have this circumstance where we should never question the institutes of learning—where the institutes of learning should be the ones that control the way the business community engages with them. In my book the partnership between enough of these institutes and the business community is not sufficiently strong—because they are not responding to the demands of the real world; they are simply supplying what it is they believe the world actually needs. This kind of institutional arrogance, I hope, will not be further furnished. Indeed, if a Labor government were elected later in the year, I think it would be. We would see a return to huge levels of taxpayer dollars going to fund friends in academia—to go and fund student union activities to go and then get a return, if you like, for the Labor Party on that kind of misuse of taxpayer funds during the political processes that might actually take place. If you like, the beaker of left-wing politics being the university sector would have to be resourced with larger sums of money if a Labor government were elected. We on this side actually trust people with ambition to succeed, to grow and to learn things. We trust that these people will bring an energy to the task and that they will create the demand that should drive the response from the education sector. So I welcome the Productivity Commission’s observation in their final report on the value of public investment in science and technology, which was commented on today by the Group of Eight universities, that the balance is about right. I think in a lot of ways that completely defeats what the member for Lingiari was saying. I will speak now about a number of the other matters contained within the bill’s measures. There are revised national protocols for higher education approval processes. They were agreed to by all states and territories at the MCEETYA meeting, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, in July 2006. All ministers, state and territory as well as federal, after extensive consultations with the higher education sector, agreed that the revised national protocols would take place from 31 December 2007 and that legislative changes in all jurisdictions would be needed to bring that into effect. That is what we are doing here tonight. Stakeholders had the opportunity to comment on the new national protocols at two separate national workshops, face-to-face consultations and during two written submission processes. You could not get a more open approach to legislative reform than this particular approach that has been taken by Minister Bishop. There are also technical amendments to clarify the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, and Commonwealth supported student arrangements. We simply want to see, through these technical amendments, some clarification of the existing arrangements. The member for Lingiari was, somehow or other, saying that there was going to be a new group of victims created because students were being put under pressure that if they change their arrangements then they must tell people within six weeks. I do not understand what the member was in fact on about. What we are seeking is to clarify the overseas study requirements in relation to eligibility for the OS-HELP assistance. We want to make sure that this is in fact reflecting the original policy thrust and intent. We want to clarify the requirements for eligibility for Commonwealth supported places, particularly in relation to providers’ ability to actually offer a student a Commonwealth supported place—and of course that it is restricted to a particular campus of a provider. We do have universities in this country based in one part of Australia opening up shopfronts in other parts of Australia and saying, ‘Study in Sydney through Central Queensland University,’ for instance. I am not picking on CQU, but I suppose in one sense I have used them to highlight the point. The University of Canberra has a Brisbane campus and so forth. There is nothing wrong with it, providing that students understand that they are not exactly a part of a major campus when they study at any of these locations. When you drive down some of the main streets of Sydney, you can see the shopfronts of some of the great universities and some of the smaller universities. Nevertheless, they are shopfronts; indeed, you can see them all around Australia. If the Commonwealth is going to support any of those places, we want to make sure that we clarify their requirements. We also want to clarify the residency requirements in relation to Commonwealth support for study undertaken offshore. At the end of it, tightening up matters such as the census date by limiting the time after the census date that a student can correct information is a reasonable and responsible measure that is within the government’s control to deal with. We are also allowing for any provider with a Commonwealth supported place to offer a place to a student who is undertaking study across various institutions. This particular legislation is changing the circumstance where only providers known as ‘table A providers’ can offer cross-institutional students a Commonwealth supported place while they are undertaking units of study with another table A provider that counts towards their course. There is a deal of flexibility and clarity being brought into this. Whilst it seems like a simple thing, a minor technical amendment, to deal with, what was known as the Victorian University of Technology—which was trading very strongly in providing support across a wide range of subjects, both academic and practical—will now be known as Victoria University. On every front, this legislation is timely, worth while, sensible and well thought out. Minister Bishop is doing a very good job in following on the tradition of good jobs done by ministers in this government when it comes to higher education. In determining our approach to public policy on universities, we are not blinded by the demands of student unions, who represent an ever-receding group of people and we are not blinded by the left-wing activists who are demanding that everybody must pay a student fee or they cannot study. What we are determined about is backing with resources those who want to back themselves. We are also about giving strong advocacy to those who choose not to go to university. The 70 per cent of kids who left school at the end of last year and who will not start a university course are given an enhanced status under this government, because only 30 per cent of kids leaving school in any given year actually start a university course and only about 30 per cent of them complete it. If you listen to those opposite, the sky is going to fall in, the world is going to come to an end, unless you give the universities and, in particular, the student unions everything they want. This legislation is sensible; it is balanced. The Productivity Commission backs it. I commend it to the House. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—In calling the member for Rankin, I would point out that I have permitted a wide-ranging debate, but I would ask that remarks reference the bill at hand. 90 19:10:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will certainly do that intermittently. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 contains a number of amendments. The one to which I wish to direct my remarks is the amendment to the Higher Education Support Act to reflect changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. In my view, that is a very important set of changes. The national protocols regulate the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by providers of higher education. Under this legislation, key changes in the national protocols will include provision for a wider range of universities, including specialist institutions conducting teaching and research in one or two fields of study only and university colleges in the form of new universities undertaking teaching and research in a limited number of fields during an establishment phase. The key changes also include an identified process for institutions other than universities to become authorised to accredit their own courses—that is, self-accrediting—where they demonstrate a strong track record in quality assurance and reaccreditation. As a parliamentarian I do not feel that I am in a position to evaluate and speak with great authority on some of these changes, particularly those in relation to self-accreditation, but I do accept that they constitute a move in the right direction. I support the principles that guide these changes in the national protocols because it has long been my belief that we would benefit from greater flexibility in our higher education institutions in this country. On a number of occasions, I have argued that the approach of the present coalition government has been highly prescriptive. Indeed, borrowing a phrase from Professor Max Gordon, I have suggested that it more resembles Moscow on the Molonglo—a command and control system which you would not believe that a coalition government would want to implement. But when you look at the number of regulations that have been imposed on our public universities over the last 11 years, you see that it is a very large number. This has greatly retarded the flexibility of our universities to adapt to changing circumstances. The Minister For Defence is at the table. He is a former education minister and, while I respect his intellect, I think he implemented too many productivity stifling regulations in the name of ideology—for example, the requirement for universities to offer Australian workplace agreements in order to get extra funding. There is also the minister’s long-running campaign to enforce or implement voluntary student unionism. This, it seemed to me, was more a case of revenge of the nerds, as the minister and his companions on the front bench had been involved in student politics in years gone by and they wanted to get those student unionists back. Ultimately, they did to some extent, but it is hard to put good student unionists down and they will bounce back, no doubt. I saw that very much as a diversion. In economic terms, we speak of the concept of opportunity costs, and I think that that period was a lost era for us. While the minister and his cabinet colleagues were obsessed with voluntary student unionism, other reforms to the higher education system that were crying out for implementation never did get implemented. I worry whether that reflects an attitude of the coalition government and, in order to justify that remark, I draw the attention of members of this House to statements that the Prime Minister has made in relation to higher education in this country. It seems that, from those statements, the Prime Minister sees the challenge for our education system to be mainly one of skills development in the traditional trades. Why do I assert that? The answer is, in part, provided by a statement the Prime Minister made on the Sunday program on 6 March 2005. It is quite a lengthy statement, but I think members of parliament and those who are listening would be interested in it. He said: Quite a lot of the problem is that it’s a deep-seated cultural problem. We went through a generation in this country where parents discouraged their children from going into trades, and they said to them, “the only way you will get ahead in life is to stay at school until year 12, go to university.” Year 12 retention rates became the goal, high year 12 retention rates became the goal. Instead of us as a nation recognising there are some people who shouldn’t go to university, and what they should do is at year 10, decide they are going to become a tradesman. …            …            … Everybody doesn’t have to go to university, and a lot of people will be a lot better off if they don’t go to university and they recognise that at age 15 or 16, and go down the technical stream. Here is the Prime Minister questioning not only the value of a university education but also the very appropriateness of having the goal of as many young Australians as possible completing high school. I am perplexed about that, because the Prime Minister has basically levelled a criticism at the Labor Party—that the Labor Party in government were too obsessed with higher education and that we should have concentrated much more on the trades. Yet just a couple of weeks ago here in this chamber, on 26 February, the Minister for Workforce Participation, in response to some comments I had made, said: That is why your focus on and obsession with training we think is not in the best interests of all Australians. So the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that Labor is not interested in training and is obsessed with university education, and the Minister for Workforce Participation has said that Labor is obsessed with training. They are going to have to get their act together in deciding what the critique of Labor in government and Labor in opposition truly is. We are either overly obsessed with university education or we are overly obsessed with training, but we cannot be overly obsessed with both. I ask this question: if the Prime Minister truly believes that we should not have placed so much attention on lifting the high school completion rates, why is it that so many studies confirm that people with a university education, on average, earn at least 20 per cent more than those with a proper trade qualification, who in turn earn up to 20 per cent more than those who finish high school and do not go on to tertiary education, who in turn earn around 20 per cent more than those who leave school at year 10? Obviously there is a strong argument for young people to go into the trades or to go into higher education, and it therefore makes sense that young people complete either year 12 or its equivalent in a trade, which is the argument I have been making for a long time. Last year the OECD released its annual report, called Education at a glance, and it had a special section dealing with this very issue. It concluded that now, in the modern world, completing high school is the minimum qualification for young people to successfully enter the labour market and to enjoy good prospects of ongoing employment. I say that the Prime Minister is wrong in his criticism of Labor, about our preoccupation with getting the high school completion rates up. We were very successful in doing that in 1982; the year 12 retention rate was 36 per cent. By 1995 it was more than 72 per cent. So, in round figures, there was an increase from about one in three young people finishing high school to more than two in three young people finishing high school during the period of the previous Labor government. I accept that, once it is up to around 75 per cent, it is not easy to get it a lot higher a lot more quickly, but the problem is not that the high school completion rates are failing to rise at their previous rate but that they are actually falling. The government says that this is all because of the mining boom. Whatever the reason, when the mining boom finishes, if we do not have young people with year 12 qualifications or its equivalent then those young people will be consigned to long periods of low-paid and intermittent employment, and we should not leave our young people in that position. If the Prime Minister was right in that we should not be concentrating on young people finishing year 12, why is it that Australian studies have estimated that a one-year increase in average levels of schooling would not only eventually lift gross domestic product by eight per cent, which is a large number, but also permanently boost economic growth by about half a per cent per annum? That is well and truly worth having. Why has the fact that Australia did achieve these big increases in high school completion rates been shown to have lifted Australian productivity growth? That is the big debate of the early period of the 21st century—a debate about which political party is going to be successful in lifting productivity growth. In the 21st century, education is the dominant source of productivity growth—not only completing year 12 but, increasingly, completing a university education. This bill is important because it sets out a research quality framework, about which we have some concerns, but also offers some progress towards the very flexibility that I have been advocating for some time. On our side of the chamber we make no apologies for the high value that we place on a university education. The Treasurer indicated today in the parliament that the second intergenerational report, an update of the original 2002 Intergenerational report, will be released by him at the National Press Club on 2 April. That is good because the first Intergenerational report, going through the numbers, reveals that the combination of the ageing population and the government’s assumption that productivity growth will slip back from 2005 onwards to its mediocre long-term average of 1.75 per cent is going to produce for this country from the end of this decade the slowest rate of growth in income per person since the decade of the Great Depression. That should be very worrying. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, you follow the hearings of the Reserve Bank; the Reserve Bank has indicated that we will have to get used to economic growth figures with a two or a three in front of them unless we can lift productivity growth. How do we lift productivity growth from that long-term mediocre average of 1.75 per cent? Through education; through the education revolution that the Labor leader and the shadow minister for education unveiled earlier this year and delivered further instalments on subsequently. It is crucial that we do not run up the white flag and accept productivity growth of 1.75 per cent, because that will consign future generations to a much slower rate of growth in prosperity unless there are resources to assist young people in getting a decent opportunity in life by helping fund their education. What is significant about 1.75 per cent? It is the long-term average and it must be contrasted with the 2.6 per cent average productivity growth during the 1990s built on the reform program and very substantially on the lift in those year 12 completion rates to which I referred earlier. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson interjecting— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —The minister asked if it was 2.05 per cent. That figure is reflected in the Intergenerational report, but, if you have a look at the latest productivity growth figures, the series that is now available, it is 2.6 per cent per annum—that is, labour productivity growth over the period. So there is a big comedown from 2.6 per cent to 1.75 per cent. The problem is it is falling further; it is at about one per cent per annum. So Work Choices has not produced the sort of productivity growth that the government predicted it would. Why is higher education, university education, so important? It is worth reading two books by Richard Florida; the first is The Rise of the Creative Class and the second is The Flight of the Creative Class. Richard Florida estimates that the creative class around the world consists of about 150 million people in areas such as science and engineering, and in professions such as artists, musicians, architects, managers and professionals—these are overwhelmingly university educated people. It is his contention—and I find it very persuasive—that it will be the ability to generate, attract and retain the creative people which will determine the prosperity and tolerance of different parts of world, not necessarily of countries but of regions or parts of countries. Those areas or parts of countries that are able to attract and retain such creative people will be affluent and tolerant; those that are unsuccessful will fall behind. I think that is a very sensible set of observations and predictions about the future. In terms of Australia’s capacity and performance in nurturing creative people and retaining creative people in this country, there are some very chilling statistics. The OECD, in the report Education at a glance, reveals that since 1995 Australian government investment in tertiary education has gone backwards in real terms by seven per cent, whereas for the rest of the OECD it has gone forward by 48 per cent. I note in parliament that the present education minister complained about the OECD statistics. I do not think you can have it both ways: we have the Treasurer, the education minister and the Prime Minister coming into parliament citing the OECD all the time, but when the OECD develops a set of statistics that the minister does not like she complains about it. This government has greatly underinvested in higher education. One of the problems is the increases in HECS that have been implemented by this government. There was a first-round increase in HECS in 1997 and a very substantial increase in HECS of 25 per cent authorised from the beginning of 2005. Many universities immediately increased their HECS fees in 2005; others hoped that they would not have to do it, but all universities, I am advised, have now increased their HECS fees by the full 25 per cent. In the education revolution, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for education have already foreshadowed areas where we believe that some HECS relief will be required. One of the effects of HECS has been that there has been virtually no growth since the change of government back in 1996 in the number of commencing undergraduate Australian students. When the minister talks about undergraduate students she brings foreign full fee paying students into the calculation. But when it comes to Australian HECS subsidised students there has been virtually no growth. The problem that that results in is that we are not doing well in generating the sort of creative talent that we need. The minister says, ‘Because it’s a HECS system, the HECS fee increases will not have deterred anyone.’ That is not true. That is like saying, ‘If I double, treble or quadruple HECS, as many young people will still go to university.’ That is not the case. The minister has boasted that she has just about squashed out all of the unmet demand. It is like the price of bananas: you put up the price of bananas by enough and you will squash out the unmet demand. But the objective is to get young people through a university education in this country. This government is failing to do it. At least today, in that part of the bill, there are some positive indications. I think the principles of greater flexibility for our public universities are very encouraging and ought to be at least properly debated in the Senate. (Time expired) 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Before I call the member for Bass, I indicate that I have allowed a wide-ranging debate. 95 19:31:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I rise tonight to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. While the member for Rankin is still in the chamber I ought to point out to him that I listened carefully to his contribution. I feel for the member for Rankin. I sense in him a highly intellectual gentleman and a well-read fellow unfortunately trapped and unexploited in the Labor Party. I inform the member for Rankin, notwithstanding my high regard for him, that there are in fact 61,000 more Commonwealth funded—or, in the member’s words, Commonwealth subsidised—undergraduate places in Australia this year than in 1995. That is a 17 per cent increase. In contrast to the statement that there has been no growth, I want to point that out. In addition to that, the University of Tasmania prides itself on being one of those universities in Australia that has not taken up the opportunity to increase the HECS payments it requires from students. This bill is designed to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide funding to support the implementation of the research quality framework. Some features of this bill include giving effect to a revised set of National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. The revised protocols will allow, for the first time, new types of institutions to operate here in Australia. The revised protocols will provide pathways for more institutions to become self-accrediting where they have a strong track record in higher education delivery and quality assurance—a rider which I think reassures all of us in this place. A significant change in the arrangements is the extension of the protocols to apply to all new and existing higher education institutions. In other, separate measures, the bill allows for the first-time cross-institutional arrangements also to be extended to Commonwealth supported students at non table A higher education providers. Previously, Commonwealth supported students were only able to undertake study in Commonwealth supported places in a cross-institutional arrangement between table A providers. I welcome those changes, as the increasing flexibility being brought into the Commonwealth legislation will reap dividends at the local level and will give students more opportunities to learn and to take hold of their future and their potential. The amendment in this bill will provide greater flexibility not only for students but also for providers and will extend the range of study options available to Commonwealth supported students. The bill also sets a six-week time limit for the provision of corrected information by a student that affects their eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. It ensures also that higher education providers may determine the campuses at which units of study will be offered to Commonwealth supported students. The bill will allow providers to stipulate that a student may be Commonwealth supported for the units of study only if the student undertakes those units at a particular campus of the provider. The last thing I want to say about the revised national protocols is that they will encourage new types of institutions to operate in Australia. This is an important deviation from the existing arrangements, where it is required that teaching and research be provided in at least three fields of study. The new protocols, in line with the agreed commitment to increase flexibility, will allow new types of institutions to operate, including those concentrating on teaching and research in perhaps only one or two broad fields of study. These national protocols for higher education approval were agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in July last year. So I suppose that, to a large degree, the arrangements which I have already canvassed basically have the endorsement of the House and both sides of the chamber. It seems, though, that that is where the agreement concludes. This brings me to the research quality framework, which I see as a very important aspect of policy in this area and an important initiative of the government which is clearly needed in the research and higher education sector. The aim of the research quality framework, or RQF, is to develop the basis for an improved assessment of the quality and impact of publicly funded research and an effective process to achieve this. The RQF was announced by the Prime Minister in May 2004 as part of the Backing Australia’s Ability package. Since that time, two expert advisory groups—the Expert Advisory Group and the Development Advisory Group—have considered the RQF and have provided advice to the minister. That advice has been considered by the government, leading to the announcement late last year that the government would in fact proceed to implement an RQF. The framework is imperative and has three roles. The first is to: be transparent to government and taxpayers— who are investing in research— so that they are better informed about the results of the public investment in research … I do not think any of us ought to be satisfied with the notion of taxpayer funding—and we are talking about significant sums of taxpayers’ funds—going to research which is, in some cases, a bottomless pit or a black hole. There ought to be transparency and accountability. The second role of the framework is to: ensure that all publicly funded research agencies and research providers are encouraged to focus on the quality and relevance of their research … This reflects a concern in the community that, at times, both in the higher education sector and in industry, research is not relevant to the wider community and does not demonstrate any real point. The research quality framework will overcome those concerns. The third role is to: avoid a high cost of implementation and imposing a high administration burden on research providers. I would have thought that the benefits of the RQF were fairly obvious, but apparently they are not. It is very concerning to me that even tonight the Labor Party remain opposed to it—or at least I think they are. In talking it down and in showing some ambivalence on the issue, they have provided no suggestion of what better model ought to be supported. They provide no alternative policy, and the much talked about education revolution document—which in itself is an insubstantial document and contains motherhood statements—offers no opinion on it. I heard the member for Perth say earlier tonight that he hopes the Labor Party will be in a position to announce their position in the first half of this year, yet we continue to debate this bill tonight. Trials of the RQF will continue this year and implementation will occur next year. There will be no funding implications before 2009. Of further concern to me are comments by Senator Kim Carr, who said that, in his view, the Labor Party would abolish the research quality framework despite the considerable funds that are being appropriated through this bill to support its implementation. He has not made it clear what he would replace it with after it was abolished. I put those statements on the record. I think it is very disappointing on the part of the opposition, having had nearly three years to consider its position on the research quality framework. To people who are outside the sector, I appreciate that it might seem a difficult area to understand, but this is very important for Australia’s future because research is important for Australia’s future. I am disappointed because I do not believe that Labor has a position on this issue. It simply wants to allow the government to take all the hard decisions, to do the difficult work, to make the difficult policy decisions and to once again instigate reforms which are necessary for the Australian economy. The Labor Party will come lagging behind after all of the hard work has been done. Perhaps if, in the coming few months, the government’s initiative is widely accepted by the higher education fraternity, Labor will come rushing in before the election to say that it supports this. Just before commencing my contribution, I read the member for Perth’s amendment. I must say that I find it extremely wimpish and, disappointingly, insubstantial. The Productivity Commission’s report Public support for science and innovation was released today. It highlights some interesting points. At over 800 pages, it will take some time for all concerned to digest. It does highlight that there are widespread and important economic, social and environmental benefits which are generated by Australia’s $6 billion of public funding support for science and innovation in this country. It also points out—and this is an important point coming from the Productivity Commission—that the benefits of public spending are likely to exceed the costs. It states in its report that it is very difficult to quantify and very difficult to find a model where the inputs and outputs can be measured with any great certainty, but that, on balance, it is fairly clear that the benefits of this $6 billion of annual public spending by the Howard government are worth while. These are investments that we need to make. They are important for securing our future and important for securing our economy. The Productivity Commission makes the point, though, that major improvements are needed in some key institutional and program areas. This brings me back once more to the research quality framework. The whole point of this initiative, backed by something like $80 million of investment from the government to support its implementation, is to boost the quality and the impact of research. It stands to support university and higher education providers as research organisations; it stands to support industry itself, which can then turn those new ideas into commercial returns; and it stands to benefit the community generally. Of course, the bounds of that are as limitless as the bounds of research itself. Since its introduction in 1986, the UK version of the RQF, the Research Assessment Exercise, has seen good improvements in research quality. This has been widely acknowledged. Between 1994 and 2002, the proportion of UK entries in the top one per cent of the world’s most cited research papers increased from around eight per cent to around 14 per cent. This was a very significant change and reform which resulted in definable benefits in the research community in Britain. The prestige of its research has clearly been acknowledged, and the relevance to its community, and indeed to the world research community, has been recognised. Clearly it has been a worth while exercise. It is time for Australia to do the same, and we ought to do it better. As I said, the Australian government is providing $87 million for our exercise, the RQF, including $41 million which is directly available to universities to assist them with implementation in this transition period. The Productivity Commission also notes: The benefits from the 2008 RQF round could be improved if its funding scales provide more significant penalties for the poorest research performers than apparently currently envisaged. In the long run, a transition to less costly approaches, such as those that target poor performing areas, should be considered. While I do not presume to be able to critique that statement, I think it ought to form an important part of the government’s consideration of that report and the government’s response. I would invite the minister to closely look at that suggestion from the Productivity Commission. In discussions with the minister to that end, I was very pleased to hear from her that there will be a close and ongoing consultation with the higher education sector and universities and that the government will take the findings of the commission’s report into account in this process. In the moments still allowed to me I wish to put some statements on the record with regard to my local higher education providers, two of the institutions that we as Tasmanians can be very proud of because they lead the nation. They are very good at what they do and they deserve some attention. The city of Launceston in my electorate of Bass is the proud home of the Australian Maritime College. It has distinguished standing not only throughout Australia but indeed throughout the world. The campus in Launceston offers programs in engineering, maritime operations, maritime logistics and maritime management. The Beauty Point campus offers courses in fisheries, marine resource management and small vessel operations. It is a stunning organisation. It has gone through in its few years, relatively speaking, immense change. In 2007 we have seen 434 Commonwealth funded places. The federal government is also supporting the AMC in other ways. In 2006 the college was awarded $108,000 for a workplace productivity project for the Beauty Point campus. It is also receiving $3.5 million each year in national institute funding under the federal government’s Backing Australia’s Future reforms. It also has a great track record in excellence. Eighteen months ago I was very pleased to announce on behalf of the Australian government that the college would receive $1.1 million from the Australian government’s new initiative—I am not sure if it was supported by Labor—the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund, in recognition of its achievements in undergraduate teaching and learning. That was met with some chagrin from some of its competitors. It was one of only 14 tertiary education providers around Australia to be recognised in this way. I think this is something that the AMC Council and staff, and indeed students, can be very proud of and that they should be congratulated on. After all, the fund is purely merit based and it rewards teaching excellence. In 2005 came speculation and later confirmation of an affiliation, or what some people have called a merger, between the AMC and the University of Tasmania. I have been concerned throughout the years that the AMC ought to in any future affiliation retain its unique qualities and certainly some strong aspects of its identity as well. It has an excellent brand across the maritime industry all around the world. At that time I communicated that to the then minister, Minister Nelson. I have seen since then a strong willingness from the AMC and the University of Tasmania to proceed on a basis that gets the best from both institutions. They give strengths to each other. I thank the vice-chancellor of the university as well as the AMC president for their commitment that the integration, which is subject to Australian government approval, will strengthen the overall provision of maritime education and training in Tasmania. Finally, I would like to make a comment about the University of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania has an excellent staff and an excellent leadership team, headed by Vice-Chancellor Daryl Le Grew. He is one of the most proactive people in the higher education sector that I have ever met. Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, I am sure you would agree he is a visionary person and he has been able to take the university from strength to strength. He has overseen in partnership with the Australian government the boosting of Commonwealth supported full-time students. The number has come up to nearly 10,000. The University of Tasmania is the university from which I graduated, so I take a good deal of pride in it. It is looking very good for the future, having recently received more than $2 million from the government’s Learning and Teaching Performance Fund, which demonstrates to one and all that, like the AMC, it has an excellent track record in teaching and learning and in preparing its graduates for the world of work. In closing, I support this bill. I do not support Labor’s amendments because they add nothing to the substance of this issue and they do nothing to advance higher education in this country. I support the bill and commend it to the House. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Might I simply mention, the member having directed some remarks at the Deputy Speaker, that I endorse his remarks in relation to the University of Tasmania and the vice-chancellor. 99 19:51:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I rise this evening to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. As pointed out by the member for Perth, we on this side of the House do not oppose this bill; however, we do have some serious concerns about certain aspects of it. I am forced to say that I do not believe that the honourable member for Bass, who has just spoken, has actually read the Smith amendment, because there is no way that you could call it wimpy or without direction. The bill as presented to the House will, firstly, clarify requirements of the Higher Education Loan Program and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. It will also amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, or HESA, to implement the revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. As well, it will amend the HESA, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 to limit the time for students to claim entitlement to Commonwealth support. It will also amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide funding to implement the government’s flawed research quality framework, the RQF, and it will make a range of minor technical amendments to the Higher Education Support Act. Although, as we have said, we on this side of the House will not seek to prevent its passage through this place, I am particularly concerned with the government’s implementation of the research quality framework, the RQF, which I will discuss in more detail in a moment. Access to further education is definitely the path to prosperity—prosperity not just for our nation but also for our future generations. Each and every person in this country can benefit from lifelong learning, and access to higher education is an integral part of that. Unlike those opposite, we do not believe that our international competitiveness relies on a wages race to the bottom so that we can compete with low-wage economies in the developing world. We strongly believe that our economic future lies in us as a nation being smarter, not cheaper, than our competitors. That is a fundamental difference between those on this side of the House and the members on the other side. We will be making that clear distinction very clear to voters as we head towards the next election. The Leader of the Opposition has already commenced that process with his announcements on education policy and the need for an education revolution, and I am really excited about seeing that develop further this year. Access to higher education and the ability of our universities to conduct high-quality research are essential to the economic future of our nation. I am of the view that during the last 11 years this government has made it harder and more expensive for Australians, particularly our young people, to get the higher education that many seek. This government has gone backwards on higher education and will be taking the country backwards with it if it is allowed to continue. Over the 10 or 11 years of the Howard government they have reduced their investment in higher education by seven per cent while other developed countries have increased their investment in higher education by up to 48 per cent. Every other government in the developed world can see the value in investing in education. The government has increased the cost of going to university to the point where it is now in some cases a major disincentive to young people considering their career options. We have seen the cost of a degree increase by up to $30,000. Students are now paying $30,000 for a science degree when we cannot get enough scientists and science teachers, and they are paying $40,000 for a law degree. As a consequence of these increased costs, students around Australia owed nearly $13 billion in HECS in 2005-06. I want to say quite clearly that that $13 billion has accumulated over a number of years, but it is not being helped by these rising costs in more recent years. Students completing their degrees are starting their working lives with very high levels of debt. As has been discussed many times in the community, in the media and here, the crisis in housing affordability means that young people facing HECS debts that are far too high are starting their careers financially stressed. The track record of this government on higher education is shameful, as it is on research and innovation. Let me return to the research quality framework, the RQF, outlined in this bill. It is another example, I believe, of the government getting it basically wrong. We have serious concerns about the proposed RQF—in fact, we believe that it is fundamentally flawed. I note the concerns of the Group of Eight, which includes the Australian National University, here in Canberra, which provides tertiary education to many people from my electorate and is a world-renowned university. Professor Glyn Davis, Chair of the Group of Eight, has expressed concern about the RQF and the time frame for its implementation. In November last year, Professor Davis said: ... it is very important that any new research assessment model is robust and tested to ensure it is accurate and cost-effective before implementation. It will be difficult to achieve this in the proposed 2008 implementation time-frame. And Professor Davis and the Group of Eight are not alone. The government’s own Productivity Commission has also expressed serious concern. The commission’s report Public support for science and innovation, released today, also outlines its concern that the costs of the RQF ‘may well’ exceed the benefits. In a media release, the commission says: The Commission favours a scheme that is more strongly weighted against the poorest research performers than currently envisaged. ... the Commission suggests the use of a lower cost, risk-minimisation approach that only applies to poor performing areas in universities. In fact, I believe the government’s pursuit of the flawed RQF shows just how behind the times they are. They are not a government for the future. They modelled the RQF on the British Research Assessment Exercise, an approach that I believe is about to be abandoned in the UK. The irony of all of this is that in formulating its research quality framework this government should have done more research and research of a better quality. Whilst we will not be opposing the appropriation of the $40.8 million to implement the RQF, we believe that the RQF should be taken back to the drawing board. Labor do support measures to increase the standard of research conducted in our universities, but we and many in the university sector believe there could have been a better way. Of course, the approach to the RQF by those opposite is typical of their bungling of science and research as a whole over the last decade. According to the Productivity Commission, funding for the CSIRO—our peak national research body—has been cut by 13 per cent over the past decade. How can we build a smarter, more prosperous future whilst we are reducing government expenditure on science and research? My colleague the member for Perth has moved an amendment to the provisions in the bill relating to the RQF, and I fully support this common-sense amendment. I want to refer again to some rather light comments made by the previous government speaker, the member for Bass, when he called the amendment ‘wimpish’. I do not know how it could be wimpish when it says: … any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review; There is nothing wimpish about that—or when it says: … essential aspects and details of the scheme are yet to be worked out, so that implementation for 2008 is in serious doubt; Really, you have to assess things a little better, rather than calling this amendment ‘wimpish’. This bill also covers a number of other, less controversial matters. One of these is the changes to the national protocols for higher education approval processes which regulate the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by providers of higher education. All Australian governments have agreed to amend their legislation so that the national protocols take effect from the end of this year. Major changes in the protocols include: provision for a wider range of universities, including specialist institutions conducting research in one or two fields of study only, and university colleges in the form of new universities undertaking teaching and research in a limited number of fields during an establishment phase; an identified process for institutions other than universities to become authorised to self-accredit where they have a good track record; and application of the protocols to all higher education facilities, to be assessed through the standard quality assurance processes. I understand that while the protocols have been agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Eduction, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, the guidelines that underpin them have not. I fail to see why we in this place are being asked to vote on this bill without the full picture being agreed upon. It is my understanding that the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has raised similar concerns. Once again, we see that the government is rushing through this legislation. This is proved by the fact that the government is moving amendments to its own legislation. These changes have the potential to open up our university sector to greater competition and specialisation, but we must proceed with caution. Higher education is a major export dollar earner for Australia. I understand that it now earns approximately $10 billion for this nation annually. Our education exports are built around the excellent international reputation of our higher education system, and we in this place must be very, very careful that we do not diminish that reputation in any way by changing these protocols. Over the last few years, there have been allegations of ‘fees for degrees’ at some higher education institutions—that is, full-fee paying students being given a free ride to keep the cash coming in—and allegations of full-fee paying students being failed so that they must complete a subject again and pay more. We must ensure that we make it as difficult as possible for unscrupulous operators to operate in our higher education sector. We do not want them and they have the potential to cost this country and the higher education sector very dearly. Other provisions in the bill relate to the residency requirements for Commonwealth supported students and student access to OS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs. My understanding is that these are fairly straightforward amendments and they will allow students who are required to travel overseas for their studies to continue to receive government assistance. In concluding, I represent an electorate that is serviced by two excellent higher education facilities, the University of Canberra and the Australian National University—although I have to say that we have four tertiary institutions. I must make sure that I mention that. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the public record my ongoing support for the great work, in both research and in teaching, that is undertaken by the staff at the universities in the ACT, particularly the two I mentioned. They are also major contributors to the economy here in the ACT and provide educational services for students from regional areas surrounding the territory, although their contributions cannot be measured only in an economic sense. The tertiary institutions in this town provide services of great interest and benefit to the local community—reaching out beyond their student base and into the community as a whole. They bring a vibrancy to our community not just economically or intellectually but also socially. They also provide many people from around Australia—and from other parts of the world—with their first introduction to Canberra. I know that there are many people in the parliament who have studied in Canberra in the past. I am often surprised when yet another colleague from somewhere in this place comes up to me and says, ‘I actually did my first degree at the ANU,’ or, ‘I did my tertiary studies in Canberra.’ I am always proud to hear those comments. I commend all the staff at these institutions for the outstanding contributions they have made over the years, and I look forward to the continuation of those contributions. I very strongly endorse the advice of our shadow minister in relation to this bill and in particular the amendment moved by him. It would be a great day if the government would not only be interested in their own amendments but also seriously look at the words in the amendment moved by our shadow minister. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—I thank the honourable member for Canberra and note that she has an abundance of excellent tertiary institutions in her electorate. 102 20:06:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 0 Mr WAKELIN —The government amendment to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 was introduced into the House of Representatives less than a month ago, so it is well on its way to becoming part of the legislative framework. This bill builds on the government’s $8.2 billion investment in higher education this year, which is a 26 per cent real increase on 1995. Australia compares well internationally in education. Around 31 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 64 have a tertiary qualification, compared with the OECD country mean of 25 per cent. Thirty-five per cent of Australia’s 19-year-olds are engaged in tertiary education, which is seven per cent higher than the OECD average. Therefore, to suggest that the Australian government’s investment in tertiary education declined between 1995 and 2003 is simply wrong. In her second reading speech the minister said: That is only taking half the picture—and leaving out much of our training expenditure and taxpayer subsidies to higher education students. Including such public subsidies, Commonwealth funding for postschool education has increased by 35 per cent in real terms since 1995-96. It should be quite clear that the Australian government’s strong commitment to higher education is very obvious. This bill builds on that $8.2 billion investment. There has been some discussion this evening about the research quality framework, the RQF, and whether the UK is abandoning this process. It is my advice that that is not the case. After more than 20 years of successful operation, the United Kingdom has undertaken significant consultation, and there will be a full peer review process of the research metric. The UK is just simplifying its own processes. I thought it worth while defining the repository because, I must admit, I am on new ground. Apparently a repository is an electronic location where data is stored and maintained. So far so good. A repository is a place where multiple databases or files are located, for distribution over a wider network. Institutions will store their research outputs in a repository with DEST, which will provide an interface for assessors to access the evidence, portfolios and other necessary information from the universities’ repositories. Research output stored in repositories will range from traditional journal articles to non-traditional research items, including multimedia items and architectural designs. I welcome that investment. I hear the concerns from the other side, but we should never lose sight of the fact that if all of the research that is now available were implemented—if people actually knew about it and were able to access it in a more usable form—the whole system would be significantly enhanced. This is a $40 million investment over four years, and I certainly welcome that initiative. The bill will also give effect to a national protocol for higher education approval processes. If you think this legislation has not gone through a reasonably protracted process, the national protocols were first agreed to in 2000 by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, and they regulate the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by higher education institutions. In July 2006, ministers approved a set of revised national protocols, to take effect from 31 December 2007, which will require legislative changes in all jurisdictions. In separate measures, the bill allows for the first time cross-institutional arrangements to be extended to Commonwealth supported students at non-table A higher education providers. Previously, Commonwealth supported students were only able to undertake study in Commonwealth supported places in a cross-institutional arrangement between tables A providers. I welcome this greater flexibility. There are a number of other measures. The six-week time limit for the provision of corrected information by a student was touched on earlier. The bill also clarifies the overseas studies requirement in respect of eligibility for OS-HELP assistance by enabling a student to apply for OS-HELP assistance if they are already overseas. It is a practical suggestion. The bill requires a Commonwealth supported student to reside in Australia while undertaking their studies, although provision is made to ensure entitlement to Commonwealth support and assistance where a student is required to be overseas for part of their course of study. In addition to these measures, the bill contains some minor technical amendments which will improve the overall operation of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. One such measure is to ensure that the suspension of approval as a higher education provider under the act will be a legislative instrument and therefore made publicly available on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. In concluding my contribution on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill this evening, we can be well assured that our higher education sector is in excellent shape. There will always be need for reform, and change is constant, but the constant debate I hear in this place that this government has cut resources to this sector and in some ways has devalued this sector through that mechanism is absolutely nonsense. I am pleased to support the bill tonight. 104 20:15:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. Any debate about education policy is important, so it is good to be able to participate in this debate tonight. As Labor identified earlier in the year in our call for an education revolution in Australia, education is the key to future prosperity. We are currently in danger of falling behind our competitors in the rest of the world without a significant investment in all levels of our education system—in early childhood education, primary and secondary schooling, vocational education, universities and research. Sadly, this bill does not signal a move by the government towards these national imperatives. However, Labor will not oppose the bill, despite some reservations, as outlined in the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. This bill does a number of things. It revises the maximum funding amounts provided under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide funding to support the implementation of the research quality framework. The Higher Education Support Act will be amended to reflect the changes to the national protocols for higher education approval processes. The bill introduces a number of measures relating to the administration of the higher education loan program and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. In addition, there are a number of other minor amendments to improve the operation of the Higher Education Support Act. I will turn first to the changes that this bill makes to the national protocols. The existing national protocols for higher education approval processes were first approved by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 2000. Those protocols regulate recognition of new universities, the operation of foreign universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by higher education institutions. The protocols agreed by the two levels of government are an important safeguard of quality in the higher education sector within Australia. These protocols were reviewed in July 2006 and amended by agreement. The five protocols which were agreed upon in 2006 are: Protocol A Nationally agreed criteria and approval processes for all higher education institutions Protocol B Criteria and processes for the registration of non self-accrediting higher education institutions and the accreditation of their higher education course/s Protocol C Criteria and processes for awarding self-accrediting authority to higher education institutions other than universities Protocol D Criteria and processes for establishing Australian universities Protocol E Criteria and processes for overseas higher education institutions seeking to operate in Australia The new protocols contain some significant changes to the current arrangements. For example, there is provision for a wider range of universities, including specialist institutions conducting teaching and research in one or two fields of study only. And institutions other than universities will be able to seek authority to accredit their own courses where they demonstrate a strong track record in quality assurance. While the new protocols retain the understanding of universities as research based institutions, there is scope in the changes to allow for greater liberalisation of the sector by facilitating the establishment of specialist universities and university colleges. This liberalisation and increased competition within the sector can bring benefits but it absolutely has to be supported by the protocols’ other function, which is to set high standards for higher education providers and protect Australia’s reputation as a provider of high-quality education. We need to be able to give that guarantee to our own students, and it is also vital that Australia maintains its standards and reputation for quality education in the global marketplace for international students. This market is essential to public institutions which have been starved of Commonwealth funding over the last decade. The funding shortfall per student has recently been valued by the University of Melbourne’s vice-chancellor, Glyn Davis, as approximately $1,200 per student. Thus, the income from the $10 billion international student market is essential to the ability of higher education institutions to continue to provide world-class courses for all their students, both domestic and international. These new protocols have been scheduled to take effect from 31 December 2007, following the agreement of the Commonwealth and state governments to legislate to that effect. Accordingly, Labor supports the implementation of these five protocols. However, the guidelines underpinning the protocols have yet to be formally discussed and, in fact, are due for discussion at the April meeting of MCEETYA. It is concerning to see the Howard government attempting to set the guidelines through this legislation without waiting for the consensus of MCEETYA. This demonstrates yet again the arrogance of this government, as they have decided to act unilaterally on the details of how to achieve this policy without the planned MCEETYA consultation in spite of the fact that its implementation is reliant on the cooperation of every state government in the country. The strength of these protocols has been their development and acceptance by all governments and it is a shame to see the Howard government treating that process of consultation through MCEETYA in such an offhand way. There is similar evidence that this legislation has been rushed and poorly thought through when it comes to the parts relating to the research quality framework. This bill revises the maximum funding amounts allowable under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 in order to provide revenue for the establishment of the Howard government’s research quality framework—the RQF—starting in 2007. Specifically, the bill provides $40.8 million for two programs to assist universities and other higher education institutions with the implementation of the RQF. Given the concerns raised by the education sector it is important to evaluate the framework when debating the appropriation of its funding. The RQF for publicly funded research will measure the quality and, as the government tells us, the impact of research. The results of that exercise will provide the basis for distributing research funding to universities. The recommended RQF model requires 13 panels of 12 reviewers each to assess research quality and impact scores on the basis of the evidence submitted. Each of the panels must comprise of a minimum of three international assessors and three end users. End users must come from industry, business, the public sector or community organisations and must be persons who can legitimately verify claims of impact. The first step of this complex process is that institutions nominate eligible research groups and researchers for inclusion. The research groups need to provide evidence portfolios in order to be assessed by the panels. These include four best research outputs per researcher, a full list of research outputs and statements of impact that can be verified by qualified end users of the research. The evaluation of the panels is then reported to the minister on the basis of research groups, not individual researchers, for the allocation of funding. However, logistical concerns have been raised with regard to the operation of this system. According to data compiled by Deakin University, there are over 36,000 full-time academic staff in the university sector, of whom 44 per cent hold teaching and research or research only appointments. It is likely that about 12,000 of these are RQF eligible—that is, they each produce at least four research outputs in five years. It stands to reason, therefore, that each of these staff will submit four research outputs in an RQF assessment, resulting in 48,000 items requiring assessment. If there are 13 assessment panels with 12 members each, and each item is seen by two panel members, a panel member will have to assess over 600 items. The load on a panel member is thus the equivalent of examining each of eight to 10 higher doctorate theses twice, once for quality and once for impact. This is a big ask. For an expert in a field to examine one such thesis against well-known criteria in no more than a week would be unusually fast. Thus, it is possible that the assessors will have limited time to make detailed assessments and may end up judging research on easily identifiable aspects such as peer citation papers and the ‘impact factor’ of the journal in which they were published, rather than actually reading the work and forming a judgement. Therefore, it is likely that the RQF assessment process will see judgements based on a much smaller set of criteria than is intended or desirable. It is also possible that the focus on research outcomes measured in terms of impact and quality may discourage innovative new projects aimed at achieving new knowledge. Instead, researchers and funding providers will prefer more conservative, outcome-assured proposals. It is interesting to note that Britain’s Research Assessment Exercise is very similar to the proposed RQF and is currently under review due to the complexity of that system. This is a sobering evaluation of the likely success of the government’s RQF model. Other criticisms of the proposed RQF have focused on the rushed nature of the implementation process, which has occurred prior to the adequate testing and finetuning of the assessment methodology. As stated by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Glyn Davis: ... with the proposed implementation timed for 2008, it will not be simple to guarantee that any new research assessment model is robust and tested in order to ensure its accuracy and cost-effectiveness. This sentiment was echoed in the Productivity Commission’s review of the public support for science and innovation. The report recommended that the RQF’s implementation be placed on hold until there was substantial testing of the coalition’s preferred model. Others have questioned the need for change and whether the RQF will deliver on its claims. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee noted that there is no significant evidence of poor quality research under the present funding system and any changes need to carefully consider the incentive structure. But, of course, as we have seen many times before, under this government recommendations of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee have frequently been ignored in other policy areas—and, in this case, it seems the Productivity Commission’s warnings have also been disregarded. The National Tertiary Education Union has voiced its concern over the potential for universities to manoeuvre in attempts to maximise their institutional funding outcomes from the new system. There are legitimate fears that the RQF model could encourage poaching of researchers from one university to another without any net benefits to Australian research overall. In fact, poaching of researchers is one of the reasons that the British are abandoning their research framework, which the government has relied on to argue the case for its RQF. The University of Adelaide’s submission in response to the 2005 issues paper summarises the concerns of many when it points out: In order for the RQF to be worthwhile, it needs to ‘add value’ or significantly improve on the present metric based processes for allocating research block grants—particularly if the intention is to allocate all, or part, of the research block grant funding on the basis of RQF outcomes. As part of this process, it will be important to be clear what ‘research’ is taken to mean in this context, ie what is the scope of the RQF and what activity is, or is not, to be included for review and funding as ‘research’ activity. The RQF should seek to better inform Commonwealth Government decisions on the overall level and strategic allocation of research, research training and research infrastructure funding. In particular, the RQF must enable the institutions and the Commonwealth Government to benchmark Australian research against the very best in the world. It will be important to develop a funding model that will both maintain the diversity of the sector to meet a wide range of competing needs and reward research excellence that meets, or exceeds, agreed national and international benchmarks. It is not clear how these important objectives are to be achieved, or how closely the RQF might be linked to national strategic research needs (eg national research priorities, national research infrastructure framework). Further, where the criteria of quality and impact have clearly been met, it is not clear how the critical underlying issue of the full funding of research is to be addressed. If this latter issue is not addressed, it is difficult to understand how the long-term objective of the RQF to enhance the quality of the national research effort relative to our international peers can be achieved. Those questions remain unanswered. The key recommendation from many sources, which has been repeatedly ignored by the minister, is that the RQF’s implementation be delayed until such time as there has been sufficient testing and analysis of the impact of the new requirements. In fact, the minister’s own department reinforced that view in Senate estimates just a few weeks ago. I note a report in the Australian on 21 February 2007 on those Senate estimates proceedings. That report said: In Senate Estimates last week DEST officers revealed there was still much preparation to be completed and a lot of decisions to be made before it began. DEST’s Evan Arthur said the Government had not made a decision about the specifics of how the RQF will affect the funding of universities. …            …            … Dr Arthur said broad criteria had been developed to apply to rankings of quality and impact. Dr Arthur went on to say: However, there is a lot of detailed work to be done to make those appropriate for the various discipline clusters that the panel will address. I move on now to another issue—that is, the issue of adequate funding for the desired research quality outcomes. That issue is not provided for in this legislation and continued funding shortfalls can only be expected to damage the ability of Australian higher education institutes to reach the forefront of international research. This has been pointed out to the minister by no less an authority than Australia’s Chief Scientist. Jim Peacock, who chaired the minister’s advisory working party, the development advisory group, warned the minister in his report that overall research funding needed to be increased. Specifically, Dr Peacock said: The Advisory Group strongly recommends that ... the overall block grant envelope should be increased ... This would be an effective mechanism to encourage research of high quality and relevance ... Dr Peacock goes on to say that if funding is to award impact as well as quality then more is needed. These are important questions for the minister and important issues for the government to satisfy both the Labor Party and the research sector about as it proceeds with this legislation and with the RQF. The Labor Party shares the view that it is important to maintain the highest research quality, and as such supports a quality assurance scheme. However, I have doubts about the approach taken by the government to achieve this end and, indeed, whether or not this complex system will actually make a significant improvement to the quality of Australian research. Labor have signalled our plans to scrap the RQF if we win government and direct the $87 million earmarked for RQF implementation to create a new quality assurance system for universities that will encourage universities to concentrate on their research strengths. Our system will be rigorous, transparent, fair and efficient—something the government cannot guarantee for the RQF. In the meantime, the Labor Party will not oppose the passage of this bill. It is, however, unfortunate that the Howard government continues to push through flawed legislation in an area of policy that is so vital to the future of Australia. Every time new and onerous administrative requirements are placed on the higher education sector, resources are diverted from the important role of universities in promoting research, development and teaching. The Howard government’s continued approach of underfunding while simultaneously overmanaging our university and research sectors is unsustainable and ultimately damaging for our nation’s future prospects. 108 20:32:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I rise in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. This bill deals with a variety of the technical aspects of university operations, such as recognition of new universities and accreditation for their courses, as well as making changes to arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. While this legislation is largely technical in nature, it provides an opportunity to consider some trends in higher education in Australia at the moment. One very successful element of our higher education strategies has been the encouragement and incentives we have offered to overseas students to come and study in Australia at our tertiary institutions. That has been a great success story and is now providing the Australian economy with an extra $10 billion a year. There are now 240,000 international students studying at Australian tertiary institutions. This is an increase of 350 per cent since 1996, when there were less than 55,000 international students studying here. In a general sense, the university sector is in a strong financial position. Annual revenue in 2005 was $13.9 billion, up $6 billion since 1996, and the sector’s operating surplus in the same year was $838 million. Total net assets of the university sector sit at $25.7 billion and cash and investments at $7 billion. It goes without saying that Australian universities are running financially sound operations. It is worth mentioning that this strong position the universities find themselves in has been hard fought for, and has come about with no assistance from state governments. When you take into account the amount of payroll tax the states take from universities around the country each year, you realise that they actually take $148 million more from the universities than they provide in funding. This is indicative of the state governments’ very regressive attitude towards the taxation burden they place on organisations. Despite now receiving more funding than ever under the GST arrangements, they have allowed indirect state taxes to remain. These state taxes are of course acting as a disincentive for businesses to grow and a disincentive for organisations like universities to grow. But they are still growing. The number of university students in Australia has passed one million, a more than 50 per cent increase from 1996, when we were elected to government. There are 180,000 more undergraduate students than 11 years ago and the number of postgraduate students has doubled to 265,000. Commonwealth funding for research and development funding to Australian universities increased by 66 per cent in real terms from 1995 to 2005. The higher education sector in Australia is progressing well despite the extra burden placed upon it by state governments around the country. The government strongly advocates encouraging the business community to invest in the higher education sector, and this bill will assist in this goal. The implementation of the research quality framework, RQF, is one aspect of this bill that will give the business community great confidence. There have been two advisory groups that have recommended the implementation of the RQF to better measure research and development outcomes at Australian universities. The late Sir Gareth Roberts chaired the first group and Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, chaired the second. Both groups supported the RQF and saw a clear need for a way to measure the value of research and development in a more complex fashion than simply counting the number of publications produced. The current system is, after all, a remarkably simplistic one. The status of a university is entirely determined by the number of their publications. How can the research contribution of a university be measured by the number of publications it has produced without considering the quality of these publications or even the usefulness of the research itself? We know how many papers are being published but we do not know if they are any good. That is why the research quality framework is needed and that is why it is strongly supported by the sector, the experts and the business community. It will help the government and the business community fund better quality research not just a higher volume of research. The research quality framework will affect only $600 million worth of research block grants out of the $8.2 billion that the government gives annually to the university sector. So only a moderate amount of the funding will come under these new arrangements, which will be implemented next year. That the Australian Labor Party still has no clue as to its position on the research quality framework should be of little surprise to any of us in this place. Labor’s industry and science spokesman, Senator Carr, said that he would abolish the RQF, but what will Labor replace it with? The member for Perth said in an interview with Campus Magazine only last month that he was ‘struggling with the detail’ of the RQF and that ‘Labor has yet to decide whether or not to endorse the RQF’ and ‘more importantly, if I was going to stand up and say, “We are going to knock it over the first question would be what are you going to put in its place and I don’t have that answer yet either”.’ There are a lot of questions there and not a lot of answers. It is the usual story from the Labor Party. They are completely unable to embrace reform that is in the best interest of the sector. They are deeply afraid of change and, while they oppose change, they propose no viable alternative policies of their own to deal with the very clear need that exists to measure, in a qualitative fashion, the contribution of research and development in Australian universities. This is the usual, tired approach of the Labor Party. They are more than happy to knock our policies but it is very rare that they put forward any alternative views or propose any constructive policies themselves. The government has decided to make the much-needed changes in this area. It will spend $87.3 million on implementing the research quality framework. Of that amount, $41 million will go directly to the universities to meet the costs associated with their compliance. The remaining $46 million has been used to meet costs associated with the very thorough consultative process the government put in train several years ago. The end result of this legislation being passed is that Australia’s higher education sector will produce research of measurable value which will have commercial application and higher community impact. That is what is of most value to the Australian people and that is what is in the national interest. Significantly, as well, that is what the business community wants so that it can have greater confidence in where it invests in the higher education sector. Another area I would like to touch on briefly is the work of the CSIRO and other scientific research bodies in Australia, particularly the tertiary sector. A recent Productivity Commission report reflected very negatively on the public support made available to this area. The government has consistently provided strong support for science and innovation in Australia. It is now spending a record $6 billion annually on research and development, which is a generous amount to provide to the sector. In fact, the Productivity Commission outlined the significant economic, social and environmental benefits that are flowing from this investment in the sector. The commission, of course, outlined areas of concern. It is particularly worried about the number of available researchers and professionals in the science and engineering fields. Shortages in this area are a testament to the strength of the economy, so the government should not be faulted in that regard. However, we have been aggressively promoting the study of mathematics and science in schools through our Australian School Innovation in Science, Technology and Mathematics Program, which is worth $34 million. A further $5 million is being provided to the Australian Academy of Science to boost science teaching in primary schools around the country to improve learning outcomes in this area. This program is already being rolled out in many schools across the country. When the economy is in such good shape and when unemployment is at a 32-year low, we are faced with unique problems. There is full employment in Australia and so many industries find themselves short of workers. We are aware of this problem and are actively addressing it with a variety of initiatives. Can I say, though, that I would much rather have a shortage of scientists as a result of the economy being strong and there being so many new jobs created in the field than to have one million Australians out of work and on the breadline, as occurred under the previous government. That is an easy choice. The fact that we are facing shortages in some areas is a testament to the government’s economic performance over the past 11 years. We acknowledge, however, that it is an issue that places constraints on the economic performance of some sectors, and we are genuinely addressing the issue. For example, under the Skills for the Future Program, we are investing an additional $56 million from 2008 to fund an extra 500 Commonwealth supported engineering places at university. This is on top of the 510 new engineering places which were announced by the minister last year and which began this year. The CSIRO is an organisation that is, in my view, unfairly maligned. Despite alarmist commentary that suggests the organisation is bereft of job satisfaction, the staff turnover rate has actually declined by four per cent in the past 10 years. So to say that the CSIRO is in some way an employer of last resort for graduates or that its workforce is unhappy is clearly mischievous. We have increased funding over the past 11 years by 11 per cent in real terms, and the upcoming financial year will be the CSIRO’s largest budget in history. We have just committed to baseline funding of $2.5 billion over four years to secure the CSIRO’s leadership of scientific research in Australia. The Productivity Commission endorsed our continuing support of the organisation, and we will continue to consider it as a major priority. I wholeheartedly support the aim of this legislation. The research quality framework is a necessary and positive step for the sector to operate under a more measurable system for research and development. This will be to the sector’s benefit and it will encourage private investment in their research. The area of science and innovation will continue to grow significantly with strong Commonwealth support and a range of measures to provide extra training to ease skills shortages. I commend the bill to the House. 111 20:43:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 is designed to deal with the implementation of the government’s rather contentious research quality framework for universities, to regulate the recognition of universities and courses offered by higher education institutions and to change the eligibility requirements for higher education loan programs. Whilst I am not opposed to the bill, I have very serious concerns about it. I feel very comfortable in supporting the amendment moved by the shadow minister as it highlights those areas of concern that I and fellow members on this side of the House have with this legislation. The shadow minister makes the point very clearly in his amendment that any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House have come to expect legislation that does not achieve those points. Robust and rigorous this legislation is not. The day I come into this House and speak on a piece of legislation that the Howard government introduces that is actually transparent, I will be very surprised, as will other members on this side of the House. Transparency and accountability are two things that the arrogant Howard government seeks to avoid at all times. The shadow minister also deals with the RQF and how it is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term basic research as proposed by the government. We on this side of the House once again support RQF, but we feel that the way the government has formulated this is not the way to go and it will not achieve what we would like to see. We would like to see an RQF that will actually encourage research and ensure that the quality of the research that is undertaken is up to standard. The government’s record in education is appalling. Australia’s investment in education has decreased by 70 per cent under the Howard government, whilst at the same time investments by other OECD countries have increased by 40 per cent—that is, Australia down 70 per cent; other OECD countries up 40 per cent. These figures are from the OECD publication, Education at a glance. We in this House know the importance of education. We know the importance of higher education, and we all recognise that Australia’s future lies in having an educated and a highly skilled workforce. Australia’s future lies in leading the way in research; it lies in the fact that we must have quality research. This legislation really lets us down in that area and will do nothing whatsoever to improve the situation. I feel that we have to look very carefully at any legislation that is put before the parliament by this government. Unfortunately, today is the first anniversary of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation, and I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the Howard government has tied funding for universities to the fact that their staff must sign AWAs. It is a government of zealots and ideologists, and it is the Australian people who suffer. Now I will concentrate a little more on the legislation I am debating tonight. In relation to the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the bill increases the overall appropriation by $40.8 million, which we on this side will not be opposing but which we feel could be better dealt with. There should be a better research quality framework. The bill does a number of things, which include: revising the maximum funding amounts provided under the act I have just mentioned to provide funding to support the implementation of the research quality framework; amending the HESA to reflect the changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes; and regulating the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by higher education institutions. The protocols were first approved by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 2000. The bill introduces a number of measures relating to the administration of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. The legislation also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003, HESA, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, HEFA, and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003, TCA, to limit the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support. It also makes a number of minor amendments. The government, as always, is seeking to rush this legislation through this parliament. The reason it is rushing this legislation through the parliament is to ensure that RQF funding commences during 2007. On many occasions we have seen that the government sits on its hands and does nothing and then at the last minute it has to force legislation through this parliament. The bill provides around $41 million for two programs to assist universities and other higher education providers with the implementation of the research quality framework. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you would be aware that we on this side of the House find that the government’s research quality framework approach is quite contentious and not one that we are at all comfortable with, but we do support the concept of research quality assurance. I think there is nothing more important than ensuring that research is undertaken in Australia. Ensuring that our universities are adequately funded to undertake research, with the ability for students to follow their speciality and research in their areas of interest, is extremely important for our nation, because it will set Australia up for the future. Unfortunately, the Howard government has let us down a little in that area. It is also very important, along with this research, that we know that the quality of the research is of the highest standard. Therefore, we support the concept of research quality assurance but not in the way the government has set it out here in its rather hastily thrown together and contentious RQF approach. The Labor Party has quite a different approach and believes in a much more transparent and accountable approach, as opposed to the approach put forward by the government. In addition to research quality assurance, the higher education legislation amendment gives effect to the revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Process, which was agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in July 2006. However, concern has been expressed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee that this should not be done until the guidelines that govern the protocols have been agreed to. It has been anticipated that there will be a meeting in April 2007, and those guidelines will be drawn up. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if the government were to wait until those guidelines had been developed before pushing this legislation through the parliament? But, no: in typical Howard government style, it is pushing it through. In relation to the issue of Commonwealth assistance for FEE-HELP and OS-HELP, which is a loan scheme to assist undergraduate students to undertake some of their course of study overseas, some concern has been raised by the Group of Eight universities in particular about the requirement that Commonwealth supported students must reside in Australia while undertaking their studies. This would exclude students from studying overseas via distance education or on an exchange from accessing FEE-HELP. I do not believe that is very satisfactory. By allowing international higher education providers and specialised higher education providers to establish themselves as universities or colleges, these changes may lead to further liberalisation of the university sector. Reflecting on that, that liberalisation could have the opposite effect: instead of ensuring a standard of research and of universities at a level we would like, it could lead to a diminution of the quality of standards. I do not oppose this legislation, I think it will pass through the parliament, but I am much more comfortable with the amendment being moved by the shadow minister which gets to the crux of matter. It looks at the research quality framework and puts it in the right context. It looks at the fact that the university sector has assessed that an RQF would reduce research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities in its current form—activities that are beneficial to Australia as a whole. Essential aspects and details of the scheme are included in this amendment. The shadow minister highlights this but the government is yet to work it out, so the implementation of this legislation by 2008 is in doubt. I would argue very strongly that the government will not be able to deliver on it. Many members on the other side of this House probably share my concerns. As the shadow minister highlighted, the costs and other resources involved in the assessment and reporting process mean that the government’s proposed RQF risks preventing breakthrough research. The final point the shadow minister made was that the RQF and measures process set out in the bill should not be proceeded with; it should be replaced by a model that is fairer and more equitable. In other words, this legislation is flawed and there are many problems with it. Therefore I encourage the House to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister as opposed to the legislation that is before the House tonight. 114 20:58:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —I will make a few brief comments. It is disappointing to come into this House and find the speaker listed to precede me repeating the factual inaccuracies that we hear from the other side so often. We heard the member for Shortland saying that this government has cut education spending. Quite the reverse: we have increased spending from 5.5 per cent of GDP to 5.8 per cent of GDP, an increased proportion of a rapidly increasing GDP. We have massively increased spending on education: in the tertiary education sector by 26 per cent in real terms; in higher education by seven per cent in real terms; and in school education by 160 per cent. Debate interrupted. 114 Miscellaneous Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) 21:00:00 —by leave—I move: That unless otherwise ordered, for the Main Committee meeting tomorrow Members’ 3 minute statements shall continue for a period of 90 minutes, irrespective of suspensions for divisions in the House. Question agreed to. 114 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.00 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 114 114 21:00:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Today is the first anniversary of Work Choices. This legislation was conceived in secret, forged from the Prime Minister’s own ideology and designed to abolish long-held rights of employees in this country. These harsh industrial laws have fundamentally shifted the power in the workplace to the employer. It is industrial law that removes employees’ protections against unscrupulous employers and law that removes fairness for hardworking Australians. Why is it that I say that the law was conceived in secret? In September 2004, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister introduced the coalition’s industrial relations policies. At no point on that occasion did the Prime Minister mention Work Choices. In fact, most if not all of the pernicious provisions in Work Choices were not mentioned by the Prime Minister. We know why the Prime Minister failed to mention those provisions. It was because he knew the public would not accept them. After the election, after the government was found to have the majority in both chambers, the government chose to radically alter its election commitments and introduce Work Choices, which weakened the industrial umpire; provided for the automatic removal of penalty rates, overtime rates and shift loading; and saw the end of career paths for most workers. Indeed, it went on to allow for the removal altogether of the no disadvantage test and it removed unfair dismissal laws for more than four million workers in this country. None of these things were mentioned by the Prime Minister in the election campaign in 2004. The Prime Minister wonders why 60 per cent of people now think he is arrogant. He should consider his behaviour in the way he decided not to mention any of the provisions of Work Choices before the election and then chose in this parliament to impose those provisions on the people of Australia after the election. He said one thing before the election; he did another thing afterwards. Let us look, then, at the only figures the government has allowed us to consider: 100 per cent of all AWAs have removed at least one award provision; 63 per cent have removed penalty rates; 52 per cent have removed shift loading; and 46 per cent have removed public holiday payments. For the last two days the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations have inexplicably refused to release any further information on AWAs. The Office of the Employment Advocate, which provided the figures initially, is no longer allowed to provide the public with information on AWAs. Why has the data dried up? Why is it that the information is no longer forthcoming from this government? Why does the government deny the release of data that could substantiate its assertion that AWAs and Work Choices are good for workers? The answer must be that the government knows otherwise. The government always believed that AWAs would drive down the conditions of employment and would drive down wages. Indeed, they are the only results that we have had since the introduction of Work Choices. That is why the data has dried up. That is why the government now refuses to reveal any further statistics on this particular area of public policy. Why would a government remove the no disadvantage test from the statute books if the new law was not designed to disadvantage? Why would a government fail to protect long-held entitlements if the intention was not to get rid of them? We have already seen the government use Commonwealth funds to force universities to push AWAs. We know that through the introduction of the higher education workplace relations requirements they are forcing universities to impose AWAs. If they choose not to, they will lose Commonwealth funding. Let there be no mistake: any employees employed by bodies dependent upon Commonwealth funding are also at risk. That includes teachers, nurses and childcare workers. The Prime Minister may have pledged yesterday that he will not force nurses into accepting AWAs, but he never mentioned Work Choices before the election, so why should we believe him now when he says that nurses will not be forced into accepting AWAs? If AWAs are so good for employees, why would nurses not want to pick them up? Why would nurses not want to go onto AWAs if AWAs were such a good instrument for employment conditions in this country? We know why: Work Choices is a failure and the government refuses to accept that. (Time expired) 116 116 21:05:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 0 Mr HENRY —Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to recognise in the gallery tonight Mr Russ Chaney and Mr Alan Inlow, from the United States, and Michael Kefford, from Victoria, who have supported me in the World’s Greatest Shave. Sadly, Leukaemia is the No. 1 childhood cancer. Twenty years ago, children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia had a 30 per cent chance of survival. Now 80 per cent of children are likely to survive, thanks to the Leukaemia Foundation and their commitment to the cause. However, in spite of their terrific effort, the incidence of lymphoma has doubled in the past 20 years for no known reason. As many will know, the Leukaemia Foundation’s World’s Greatest Shave was held just over a week ago. The World’s Greatest Shave is an initiative of the Leukaemia Foundation and is now one of the nation’s largest fundraising events, involving well over 100,000 Australians shaving or colouring their hair. As you can see, I participated in that. Participants ask friends, family or colleagues to take part or to sponsor them, which is how I came to be part of this very worthwhile national event. This year the Leukaemia Foundation contacted the Scout Association to see if it would take part in the event. Mr Jim Anderson, the District Commissioner for Kalamunda, who has over 40 years involvement with the Western Australian branch of the Scout Association, took up the challenge and ensured that scout groups in his area did as well. Jim visited my office in Forrestfield to see if I would be happy to attend the 1st Forrestfield Scout Group’s fundraising day in support of the World’s Greatest Shave at the Forrestfield Marketplace and Forum in my electorate of Hasluck. Alison Lockwood is the group leader of the 1st Forrestfield Scout Group. She has three daughters who have all previously taken part in the World’s Greatest Shave and she provided fantastic support for the day. Jim decided to take the very big step of having his head shaved for charity—a brave move, as Jim has a full head of thick hair. His wife, Anne, had never seen him bald, so there was a risk involved. It was a risk that he was willing to take to ensure that he was doing something to highlight the need for the community to support and assist the Leukaemia Foundation with much needed funds. Fourteen Western Australians are diagnosed with a form of leukaemia every week. In Western Australia, the Leukaemia Foundation started back in 1993 with a group of volunteers. Today it has a staff of 13 and many volunteers. The services they provide include information and resources, education and support programs, transportation to and from treatment, home away from home accommodation in Perth close to major metropolitan hospitals, and practical assistance and emotional support. Volunteers assist with many aspects of the foundation, including administration tasks in support of the World’s Greatest Shave, cleaning of the accommodation and providing patient transfer. The patient transfer service is invaluable to people undergoing treatment as they cannot jump on a bus or use public transport due to the high risk of infection. A large proportion of patients come from regional areas, and once they are diagnosed there is very little time to make arrangements for the rest of the family. It is usually straight on a plane to Perth for treatment, with the family car being left to assist the remaining family members. During 2005-06, the Leukaemia Foundation provided 1,400 trips, used $8,000 in fuel and clocked up over 50,000 kilometres. This task has been made a lot easier this year through a valuable corporate partnership with the Bridgestone franchises in WA and their kind donation of two fully serviced Commodores. The foundation is currently on the lookout for another corporate sponsor who would be interested in sponsoring an education and support program such as Living with Grief. Living with Grief is a six-week program to assist those who have recently suffered bereavement. There is support for the patient in treatment; however, there is a great need for support for families who have been recently bereaved. All of these services are provided free of charge by the foundation. The Leukaemia Foundation is the only national not-for-profit organisation dedicated to the care and cure of patients and families living with leukaemias, lymphomas, myeloma and related blood disorders. Thank you to all those who took part in the World’s Greatest Shave either through sponsoring or by having your head shaved. 117 117 21:10:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 0 Ms OWENS —Today is the first birthday of Work Choices. Since I have been in this parliament I have seen this government celebrate what it thinks are its victories. I have seen the backslapping and the wine drinking in the corridors, and I thought we would probably see that today. I am a wee bit surprised to find that there is no cake, no candle, no big expensive fundraising dinner and no real acknowledgement by the government of the first anniversary of Work Choices, an act which this government claims is the centrepiece of its economic reforms after a decade in government. There is no celebration at all. In fact, if it had not been raised by the opposition today, this momentous day—the first anniversary of the centrepiece of its economic reform agenda—would have gone by largely unremarked upon by a government that claims to believe that Work Choices is the backbone of Australia’s prosperity. If you believe the government today, Work Choices has been responsible for every new job in the last 12 months and even responsible for every job in the last 15 years before it existed. What an extraordinary piece of legislation the government believes it is! Yet there was no party today: no cake, no candle and no big dinner. Why, given the government’s unswerving faith in these laws, are we not seeing a celebration? The answer is simple: it is all empty spin. There is no unswerving faith in Work Choices. You can tell that by the body language and the silence of the government benches at this moment. There is no unswerving faith. The members opposite know that very well because, just like members on this side, they hear it every day when people come into their offices and tell them of the damage this legislation is doing to their families. At least after the initial introduction of Work Choices the government had the courage of its convictions and directed the Office of the Employment Advocate to collect data on the impact of the introduction of AWAs. That was until the first figures came out, and they were pretty damning. Suddenly, they directed the office not to collect data. Suddenly there were no more figures. Why, when the Prime Minister believes, as he stated so clearly today, that workers have never had it so good as under Work Choices, would he stop the collection of data? Why wouldn’t he want to prove with data that this legislation is so good? It is simple: the Prime Minister and the government know that it is not true. They know that they would not survive the truth. They know that these unfair workplace laws are hurting workers and their families. They know the same way that all of us on this side know: people come to our offices every day and tell us. If the members opposite were honest, they would admit that people come to their offices every day and tell them that. The government know about the damage these unfair laws have inflicted and they do not care. They do not care about the damage. They only care about making sure that there is not any blowback for them. They do not want to become their own collateral damage, and they are prepared to leave the workers of Australia worse off and without security, whatever it takes to protect their own jobs. We hear the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Prime Minister rave on and on at question time about how they care about jobs. We know very well that they care about their own. But they will leave these unfair laws and the damage in place, and they will tough it out to keep their own jobs safe. What we get from the government is endless political spin about Work Choices. Let us look not at what they say but at what they know. We know they know this because the figures are out there from the Office of the Employment Advocate and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We hear a lot from the minister about how women are better off under AWAs. But, to compare, women on AWAs working full time earn an average of $2.30 less per hour, or $87.40 less per week, than women on collective agreements. It is worse for part timers, and for casuals it is worse again. Women on AWAs who work as casuals earn $4.70 less per hour for every hour they work than those on collective agreements. This is fact, not spin. Looking more generally at AWAs, 100 per cent of them cut at least one so-called protected award condition. The government have cut far too deep with this unfair Work Choices legislation. They have gone a long way too far. They can deny it and they can ignore it, but the constituents out there will not. (Time expired) 118 118 21:15:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Australian electorate this evening, on this anniversary of Work Choices, the way that the unions in Australia scalp Australian workers. I want to demonstrate how these workers are scalped by the unions that purport to represent them. In my hands I have a letter from the Australian Workers Union to a constituent of mine in my electorate which is basically a letter of demand for money. I will outline this as I go. This letter is from Tim Daly, the branch secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Workers Union. I will not go through the whole letter because it will take up the time, but it is basically saying: ‘Shock, horror’—as they have said before—‘the sky’s going to fall in, your jobs are gone and your family’s ruined. Anything that happens from now on can be blamed on Work Choices and industrial relations reform, and if you don’t do something about it all your jobs are gone.’ It says: As part of the campaign aimed at sending a message to the federal government, the Western Australian branch of the AWU is throwing its support behind the Labor candidate in an effort to win the seat of Canning at the upcoming federal election, and I am writing to you to do the same. We will only keep what we are fighting for if we fight for it. This candidate is a staunch supporter of the workers and the union movement and deserves your support. And it asks for financial support. It is obvious that the Australian Labor Party are trying to inject into this House another union hack. We know that coming our way are more union hacks. The poor old member from Maribyrnong is being replaced by a union hack, which is actually part of this letter. We know that poor old George Campbell, the champion of the Left, was rolled by Dougie Cameron of the Left because he was not radical enough. Less than 20 per cent of the workforce in Australia now belong to a union, yet something like 78 per cent of Labor representatives in both houses are union operatives. So it is just not representative. Further, it says here in a brochure—I will not mention his name: ... your candidate for Canning. John Howard is responsible for the most unfair and draconian industrial relations laws this country has ever seen. So it is the same old mantra. The laws will impact on you, your children, your family, for years to come. Et cetera. The AWU West Australian branch is targeting the federal seat of Canning with an AWU member as its candidate, and we need your help to defeat the Howard government. Bill Shorten says: To dismiss the Howard government we need to win the seat of Canning. Your financial support for this candidate for Canning campaign is vital. Here is the rub: To win we are seeking your $5 per week or $10 per fortnight from each member via electronic banking system. For more information, talk to your convenor or organiser. The account details are: Halls Head Community Bank, Bendigo Bank, BSB: 633000, ACC: 129088654 ... And the signatories are the union organisers. This is more of a scalping of the Australian workers. The Prime Minister has said that this country and the workers of this country have never seen the conditions so good, and that is true. On commercial television tonight the commentator said, ‘In the last two years, workers of this country have had a 13 per cent increase in real take-home wages.’ This is an independent commentator saying there has been a 13 per cent increase in the last two years. What happened in the 13 years of a Labor government? They bragged about driving wages down and over 13 years there was an increase in wages of something like just over two per cent. So who is the real friend of the worker? The real friend of the worker in this House is the coalition government. We are giving more workers jobs and we are giving more workers money in their pockets. The best thing you can do for a worker in this country is to give them a job. I suspect that the union organisers that are writing this letter do not contribute one cent to this fighting fund, just as they do not go out on strike when their poor old workers go out on strike. They are using the workers, and I want to tell the people in the Australian Workers Union around Pinjarra and Alcoa: ‘You are being used by your union as a slush fund to try and run a political campaign. You should know that you are being stripped of funds.’ I heard today that they are even being hit for $1,500 as a one-off payment for this fighting fund. It is a disgrace and I will rail against it. (Time expired) 119 119 21:20:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —The anniversary of the passage of the Work Choices legislation is anything but a cause for celebration for working Australians. The plight of Mr Leigh Scott, a labourer and an occupational health and safety representative working on an extension to Caulfield Grammar School in my electorate, is a case in point. He was sacked for no reason by the builder, ADCO Constructions. His sacking demonstrates why this anniversary commemorates something that, instead of giving, takes workers’ rights and conditions away. Why would, as the member for Gorton pointed out, this government remove the no disadvantage test if it had no advantage for the employers in these kinds of situations? Let me dispel the spurious claim made by the previous speaker, the member for Canning, that these workplace laws are about building prosperity and promoting flexibility and choice for both workers and their employers. I do find it a little immodest of people in the government to claim that all the economic prosperity in Australia has nothing to do with the people who actually earn the money and produce the goods, especially with the mineral boom in Western Australia. It has nothing to do with the mining boom and nothing to do with huge demand from China; it is all due to the geniuses over there on the government benches and their workplace legislation! It is absolute nonsense. During Mr Scott’s tenure as the occupational health and safety representative, there had been no industrial disputes on his site. There had been no accidents. He was punctual. He took no sick leave and always undertook overtime when he was asked. The extension of Caulfield Grammar School is due to be completed in October or November this year, and it was several weeks ahead of schedule. Overseeing his workplace, consisting of 20 labourers, in an efficient and safe manner, Mr Scott was sacked without recourse under the Work Choices legislation and replaced by his foreman’s 19-year-old son. He was told that he was being sacked owing to a lack of work, despite the fact that the extension to the school is not being scheduled for completion for another six months. Mr Scott is 45 years old, with five children ranging from 12 to 25 years old. Four of his children still live at home. Their mother, Kerry, died of cancer less than three years ago. In addition to his responsibilities—and don’t smirk over there; this is a very serious situation for this poor fellow—he is the sole carer. One of his daughters, aged 15, has been diagnosed with juvenile arthritis and has had to learn to give herself injections to combat it. With all these responsibilities and with an exemplary work record, Mr Scott, a qualified occupational health and safety rep, was unceremoniously replaced as a labourer and as a safety rep without recourse, without the ability to appeal under the Work Choices legislation. Work choices? In Mr Scott’s case, what a joke! In today’s Herald Sun, in an article entitled ‘When unfair means nothing’, Mr Scott stated: I want my job back so I can care for my family. Under the government’s extreme industrial relations agenda, with the Work Choices legislation the jewel in the Liberals’ inequitable crown, firms with fewer than 100 employees are shielded from unfair dismissal claims, however frivolous or utterly unfair the reasons for workers’ sackings may be. Where is the fairness, flexibility, and productivity gain that those opposite rhetorically boast that Work Choices has led to in real-life situations like that of Mr Scott? Having been ahead of schedule and without any industrial disputes, the workers at that place now find themselves without an occupational health and safety representative. Instead of Mr Scott, they have a 19-year-old unqualified boy. How this cosy arrangement contributes to safety or efficiency is anybody’s guess. Leigh Scott, as a sole carer and breadwinner, contributes to the growing number of Australians under Work Choices who are cruelly given no choice whatsoever. Australian workers increasingly miss out on time with their families. They represent the second-highest number globally, after Japan, in terms of the percentage working about 50 hours a week. Sixty-three per cent of parents work more than 45 hours a week. More than two million Australian workers also work on Sundays—time they would otherwise get to spend with their families, time which most of them are not able to replace. Under the Liberals’ extreme industrial relations agenda, the ‘choice’, as they term it, is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea—between not spending time with their families and not being able to support them financially. This is a Dickensian dichotomy, which has a qualified and efficient Australian worker—in this case ensuring workplace safety and productivity—now left without a livelihood for no good reason and with no work choices. This is an ‘anything goes’ mentality that is symbolised by this Work Choices legislation. On the other hand, those on this side are firmly opposed to workers being sacked for no reason and are committed to ensuring that families like that of Leigh Scott will not be abandoned. As everyone in this House knows, when Labor are elected at the next election we will repeal this kind of legislation for the Leigh Scotts of this world. 121 121 21:25:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 0 Mr BAKER —I wish to discuss some wonderful, great things that are happening in the manufacturing industry in Tasmania, just to repudiate some of the nonsense that we have heard from the other side of the House this evening. In my home state of Tasmania, manufacturing is and always has been of critical importance. Manufacturing is Tasmania’s largest industry, responsible for approximately 14 per cent of the state’s production. The food and beverage manufacturing sector—of which 65 per cent is in Braddon, in Tasmania’s north-west—is the state’s major manufacturing employer, employing some 22 per cent of employees. This sector is closely followed by wood and paper production manufacturing, metals products manufacturing and machinery and equipment manufacturing. The list goes on and on. Yes, I have left the other side to hear the good news about what is reality out there in the marketplace. Across the state, the manufacturing sector employs over 24,500 people. Total manufacturing turnover is around $5.5 billion, contributing almost $2.5 billion to the gross state product, for which the electorate of Braddon accounts for some 49 per cent of contributions. My own electorate of Braddon is home to a substantial number of businesses in over 40 distinct sectors, ranging from the production of agricultural goods to the production of innovative high-tech engineering products, an economic environment that only this side of the House is capable of developing. In Braddon, some 15 per cent of the adult workforce are employed in some form of manufacturing. Unlike the picture painted by the opposition, it was most pleasing to read recently that Australia’s exports have nudged the all-time record, rising in January to the second-highest figure ever of just over $18.12 billion. It was also particularly pleasing that the largest rise was in the exports of manufactured items, which were up by six per cent to almost $3.8 billion. Tasmanian manufacturers are recognised globally as innovative and productive in the export sector, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the electorate of Braddon. Our manufacturing segment provides strengths and opportunities in the region, with a considerable competitive advantage and a strong investment position. Investment in our region has increased correspondingly. Combining local industry knowledge and innovative thinking with the intellectual capital of our regional educational institutions, which include the campuses of the University of Tasmania, the Australian Technical College, Northern Tasmania and the local technical and further education college, is another example of the way local manufacturing companies are maintaining their competitive edge. I have recently spoken in this House about Aus-Tech Composites, a north-west Tasmanian company that has demonstrated excellence in innovation through its work in the wind energy sector and is now extending into caravan construction. Another local company whose success I would like to draw attention to is Doric Engineering. Doric Engineering of Devonport is a Tasmanian engineering company which has been demonstrating innovation and excellence in its field of speciality for over 40 years. It recently began production of 2,000 purpose-built shipping containers for a major transcontinental minerals project. In discussing excellence in innovation, it would be difficult for anyone not to have noticed the success of Delta Hydraulics. Delta Hydraulics is a supplier to the highly specialised defence industry and has been involved with the hydraulic components for inboard hydraulic systems on the Collins class submarine, as used by the Royal Australian Navy. Mader International, located at Penguin, is another great success story, with increased domestic and international demand for its products, including ambulances and other specialised vehicles such as counterterrorism vehicles, which will be sold in Australia and overseas. Also, I would like to make mention of Caterpillar Elphinstone, which is located in Braddon and is currently in the top two in the world for underground mining equipment. The business has a current turnover of over $145 million. The sustained and positive growth of the national economy which has resulted from the strong economic policies of the Howard government over the past 11 years has been the foundation of growth in my electorate. The Howard government has also supported growth in the region through funding the establishment of the Australian technical college and has provided continuing support for the Bass Strait Freight Equalisation Scheme. I am immensely proud that the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship is alive and strong in Braddon, in Tasmania’s north-west, and this has all culminated in an investment strategy that has been developed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. 122 21:30:00 House adjourned at 9.30 pm 122 Notices The following notices were given: WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane to present a bill for an act to amend the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984, and for related purposes. (Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2007) 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to statutory agencies in the field of science research, and for related purposes. (Governance Review Implementation (Science Research Agencies) Bill 2007) 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull to present a bill for an act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and for related purposes. (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007) 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to veterans’ entitlements and military rehabilitation and compensation, and for other purposes. (Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007) 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to broadcasting, and for other purposes. (Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2007) XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran to move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 29, private Members’ business, being called on immediately. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo to move: That the House: acknowledges that 2007 has been chosen by the Australian Government as the Year of the Surf Lifesaver to mark the 100th anniversary of Surf Life Saving in Australia; notes the fundamental role surf lifesavers play in keeping Australia’s beaches safe and the 500,000 lives that have been saved on Australian beaches by our surf lifesavers over the past 100 years; commends the volunteering efforts of surf lifesavers who dedicate their time to help others and save lives; pays tribute to the surf lifesaving movement, which is the largest volunteer organisation of its kind in the country, consisting of 113,000 members, including 34,000 who actively patrol Australia’s beaches; and acknowledges the integral role of the Australian Government within Surf Life Saving Australia to provide a safe beach and aquatic environment. 124 Questions in Writing 124 124 3648 124 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 15 June 2006: What bilateral agreements are in place between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments concerning Australian Antarctic Division and/or Bureau of Meteorology activities on Macquarie Island. What discussions or exchanges took place between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian Governments prior to the decision to cease Australian Antarctic Division operations on Macquarie Island. What Australian Government presence will remain on Macquarie Island after the departure of the Australian Antarctic Division. 124 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: There are no formal bilateral agreements in place. and (3) There has not been a decision that the Australian Government Antarctic Division cease operations at Macquarie Island. 124 124 4358 124 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 14 September 2006: How many freedom of information applications have the Minister’s Department and Agencies received in each financial year since 1 July 2000. In respect of the applications identified in Part (1), how many resulted in documents being released (a) in full, (b) in part and (c) not at all. Has the Minister’s Department issued any conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996; if so, what are those details. In respect of each of the conclusive certificates identified in Part (3), will the Minister provide (a) the sections of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to which the certificate relates and (b) the details of any appeal against the certificate lodged with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including the outcome of the appeal. 124 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: This information is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act. Information about the outcome of FOI applications finalised each financial year by each department and agency is publicly available in annual reports made under the FOI Act. The Department has issued no conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996. The Department has issued no conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996. 124 124 4441 124 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of fuel for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Minister’s department and agencies. 125 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following expenditure on fuel costs is provided by calendar year as the information is not available in financial years as requested. LeasePlan’s reporting configurations require the data to be presented in calendar years. Please see attached Fleet Monitoring Body Advice Issue 2006/18. Department/ Agency DITR National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority Tourism Australia Geoscience Australia IP Australia Calendar Year  Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount 2000 Not Available $0 $0 Not Available Not Available 2001  $167,658.84 $0 $0 $52,282.24 $13,111.56 2002  $201,486.30 $0 $0 $55,819.53 $14,044.90 2003  $186,864.46 $0 $0 $54,489.88 $14,435.61 2004  $189,651.58 $0 $0 $45,223.03 $13,416.76 2005  $233,799.93 $0 $0 $47,497.75 $16,900.10 2006  $250,290.68 $0 $0 $44,156.39 $15,724.11 125 125 4631 125 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Is the Minister’s department, or any portfolio agency, in the process of having office accommodation constructed at a new location; if so (a) what is the total construction cost and (b) when will construction be completed. 125 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 Department does not have any office buildings being constructed at a new location. Office accommodation fitout is under construction at Parramatta, NSW, at an estimated cost of $5.5 million, GST exclusive, to be completed in May 2007. 125 125 4790 125 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 Ms King asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 16 October 2006: In respect of the federal electorate of Ballarat, does the Minister’s department, or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio, administer any Commonwealth-funded programs under which community organisations, schools, businesses or individuals can apply for funding; if so what are the details of those programs. In respect of each Commonwealth-funded program identified in Part (1), how many (a) community organisations, (b) schools, (c) businesses or (d) individuals received funding in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2003, (iv) 2004, (v) 2005 and (vi) 2006. In respect of each Commonwealth-funded program identified in Part (1), (a) what is the name and address of the funding recipient and (b) what sum was allocated in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2003, (iv) 2004, (v) 2005 and (vi) 2006. 125 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: Yes. The Minister’s portfolio administers Commonwealth-funded programmes under which community organisations, schools, businesses or individuals can apply for funding. These programmes are not electorate specific. The information about the programmes administered by the department and their aims and objectives is contained in Portfolio Budget Statements and other publicly available documents. Following is the detail of funds provided to the federal electorate of Ballarat: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 (a) Community Organisations Nil Nil 1 Nil 1 2 (b) Schools Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil (c) Businesses Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil (d) Individuals Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil   Following are the names and addresses of the funding recipients and amount allocated to each recipient in the years 2001-2006: 1. Living in Harmony Programme, Ballarat Regional Multicultural Council, 504 Mair Street Ballarat VIC 3350, $50,000 in 2003. 2. Community Settlement Services Scheme, Ballarat Regional and Multicultural Council, 504 Mair Street Ballarat VIC 3350, $40,076 in 2005. 3. Settlement Grants Programme, Ballarat Regional and Multicultural Council, 504 Mair Street Ballarat VIC 3350, $42,000 in 2006. 4. Living In Harmony Programme, State Emergency Services – Ballarat Unit, Cillies Street Ballarat VIC 3350, $8000 in 2006. 126 126 4852 126 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 1 November 2006: What is the dollar amount represented by the column labelled “HELP” (Higher Education Loans Program) in Chart 3: Contributions to net worth over the forward estimates, Statement 7, Budget Strategy and Outlook 2006-07 (Budget Paper No. 1). In the Budget Strategy and Outlook 2006-07 (Budget Paper No. 1), which asset line in Table B2, Statement 2 includes HELP’s contribution to Government net worth. What is the estimated value of the HELP’s contribution to Government net worth for each financial year 2005‑06 to 2009‑10. 126 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The amount is around $5.6 billion (see Chart 3 of Statement 7 – Budget Paper No. 1, Budget Strategy and Outlook 2006‑07). HELP’s contribution to net worth is included in the line “Advances paid”, under “Financial assets”. Refer to the Department of Education, Science and Training’s 2005‑06 Annual Report for information on the value of the HELP asset for 2005‑06. 126 126 5009 126 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 7 December 2006: What is the cost of (a) purchasing and (b) licensing desktop Microsoft and Microsoft- tied products for the Commonwealth Government. 127 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian Government departments and agencies have been operating in a devolved procurement environment since the introduction of the Financial Management and Accountability Act1997 (FMA Act). Therefore there is no central point where information relating to the purchasing and licensing of vendor products across government is captured and aggregated. The complexity and diversity of licensing arrangements across government with a range of Microsoft product suppliers would make an accurate analysis of cost information a complex, costly and time-consuming task. 127 127 5029 127 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For 2006, what was the estimated cost to the Minister’s department and agencies of the Graduate Program, including (a) recruitment, (b) program, (c) travel, (d) external training and (e) internal administrative costs. At 6 December 2006, what was the retention rate for the department’s 2005 Graduate Program intake. In 2006, how many Departmental Liaison Officers did the Minister’s department and agencies provide to the officers of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. 127 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: For 2006, the estimated cost of the FaCSIA Graduate Program was $2,951,724. Of the 2005 Graduate intake, 68.4 per cent are still employed within FaCSIA and a further 21 per cent transferred to other APS agencies. A list of Departmental Liaison Officers is routinely provided by the department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Senate Estimates Hearings. 127 127 5120 127 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For each financial year from 1 July 2004, how many instances of trespass have been recorded by the Minister’s department, and for each instance of trespass, (a) what type of trespass occurred, (b) what action was taken against the offender and (c) what action was taken to prevent a future occurrence. 127 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: FY 2004/2005         1 instance was recorded. Break and Enter. Reported to Police, investigation was unable to determine the identity of the offender. Additional lighting installed and security on doors upgraded. FY 2005/2006         2 instances were recorded. Instance 1 Break and Enter. Reported to Police; offender caught following Police investigation and appeared before the Court. Internal and external door security upgraded. Instance 2 Damage and theft from basement bicycle cage. Reported to Police, investigation was unable to determine the identity of the offender. Bicycle cage upgraded. FY 2006/2007         Nil instances recorded to date. 128 128 5126 128 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For each financial year from 1 July 2004, how many instances of trespass have been recorded by the Minister’s department, and for each instance of trespass, (a) what type of trespass occurred, (b) what action was taken against the offender and (c) what action was taken to prevent a future occurrence. 128 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: 2004/05:  nil 2005/06:  nil 2006/07:  nil to date. 128 128 5132 128 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what was the total cost to the Minister’s department of departmental property reported missing. For the financial year 2005-06, what items of property were reported missing and what was the cost of each. 128 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The total cost of departmental property reported missing in 2004-05 was estimated at $2,450. The total cost of items reported missing in 2005-06 was estimated at $1,699. Items of property reported missing in 2005-06 with associated costs were as follows: Two mobile phones with an assigned value of $200 each; Two Blackberry mobile phones with an assigned value of $200 each; One Olympus digital voice recorder valued at $699; and One printer with an assigned value of $200. 128 128 5166 128 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on fuel. How many cars does the department currently own or lease and how many of those cars run on LPG. Does the department plan to purchase any cars that run on LPG or to convert cars running on petrol to LPG. 129 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars by the Department per calendar year since 2004 is as follows: 2004 $232,284.26 2005 $252,012.47 2006 $245,261.02 The Department currently leases 137 vehicles and none of these vehicles run on LPG. At this stage, the Department has no plans to purchase any cars that run on LPG or to convert cars running on petrol to LPG. 129 129 5190 129 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 7 December 2006: Is the Minister’s department considering the use of auto-population computer technology that would enable the exchange of personal details and particulars of individuals between departments; if so, (a) with which departments and (b) what personal details are proposed to be shared. 129 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. 129 129 5200 129 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 6 December 2006: Is the Minister’s department considering the use of auto-population computer technology that would enable the exchange of personal details and particulars of individuals between departments; if so, (a) with which departments and (b) what personal details are proposed to be shared. 129 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources is pursuing the use of auto-population computer technology through the use of Adobe Smart Forms. These forms are automatically populated with business details streamlining the process of completing application and other forms thereby reducing respondent burden. The information is exchanged between business and the Department. The Department is not considering the use of this technology to share personal details with other government agencies. 129 129 5304 129 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 6 February 2007: In respect of non-ongoing criminal investigations, how many people charged with an offence related to terrorism were previously convicted of a serious non-terrorism related offence. 129 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: Notwithstanding whether a matter is non-ongoing, the AFP is not in a position to disclose criminal history information in these circumstances. 130 130 5305 130 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 6 February 2007: In respect of his response to question No. 4808, can he confirm that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) does not hold information on the length of residence in Australia of overseas-born citizens who have been charged with a terrorism-related offence; if so, why does the AFP not hold a record of when such citizens arrived in Australia; if not, why was that information not supplied in his response. 130 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The AFP does not maintain records of such information as it is not part of the AFP’s functions to do so. 130 130 5308 130 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 6 February 2007: Has the Sydney Airport Corporation made application to construct a shopping centre in the vicinity of Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport; if so (a) what is the location of the proposed construction site and (b) what has been the response to the proposal by local government organisations in the vicinity. Has public input been sought in respect of the proposal; if so what has been the response. Has his department made any preliminary assessments as to the merits, or otherwise, of the proposal; if so, what were the results. 130 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) applied for approval of a draft major development plan (MDP) to construct an Aviation and Retail Business Park in the South South-east Precinct of Sydney Airport, south-west of the intersection of General Holmes Drive and Foreshore Road; and The response of the local government organisations in the vicinity raised a number of issues in relation to the draft MDP proposal, notably the safety of the public,the potential impact the development could have on local ground traffic, and claimed inconsistency with local and State planning policies. Public input on the proposal was sought by SACL as a requirement under the Airports Act 1996 (the Act). SACL received 34 responses through this process. My Department made preliminary assessments of the draft MDP according to the Act. Taking the advice of my Department into account, I refused to approve the MDP on 11 February 2007. 130 130 5314 130 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 6 February 2007: Further to his response to question No. 2984 (Hansard, 28 March 2006, page 171): In respect of the domestic sugar levy of three cents per kilogram, (a) what sum was collected (i) each month and (ii) in total since its commencement, (b) what was the world sugar price when the levy was imposed and (c) what was the world sugar price when the levy was abolished; What sum was spent to encourage unprofitable Australian sugar farmers to leave the industry; How many farmers have left the industry; and Did the sugar industry restructure payments exclude cane farmers and harvesters who had received exit assistance from re-entering the industry. 131 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: Please see attached table Levy revenue totalling $82.261 million has been collected as at 31 January 2007 7.69 US cents per pound at 2 January 2003 12.37 US cents per pound at 30 November 2006 The levy has been used to help fund the various elements of the 2002 and 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Programmes. $56.672 million has been spent (as at 31 January 2007) on the re-establishment grant element of the 2002 and 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Programmes. The levy has also been used to help fund other elements of these programmes that in total has cost approximately $311.172 million (as at 31 January 2007). 587 growers and 24 harvesters (as at 9 February 2007) have accessed exit assistance under the re-establishment grant component of the 2002 and 2004 Sugar Industry Reform Programmes. There is no data available on sugar farmers who may have left the industry without exit assistance 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 provide an undertaking not to re-enter the sugar industry for a period of at least five years. Sugar Levy monthly collections Month 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 July 304,674.44 0.00 2,197,261.83 3,362,814.24 August 644,779.44 2,000,561.61 960,488.76 2,212,136.49 September 639,711.01 543,235.26 4,221,065.88 1,296,662.61 October 873,497.41 1,189,130.81 733,184.55 3,339,927.18 November 681,991.54 2,281,000.43 3,151,912.95 2,311,168.33 December 1,051,785.52 3,328,633.75 2,182,479.26 2,785,654.70 January 947,148.13 426,944.99 3,721,218.15 2,285,664.19 February 1,017,266.31 1,699,817.30 1,435,401.05 March 1,409,167.70 1,896,894.27 1,972,506.40 April 214,947.77 1,308,777.70 4,407,126.01 349,525.69 May 932,977.40 1,078,631.57 4,494,205.78 4,941,571.56 June 1,235,829.53 4,034,920.24 -913,381.35 1,070,973.03 TOTAL 2,383,754.70 13,992,350.48 21,354,168.86 26,937,589.11 17,594,027.74 GRAND TOTAL $82,261,890.89 131 131 5320 131 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 6 February 2007: What is the procedure for notifying Members about the allocation of aged care places in each Member’s electorate; in particular, what was the procedure for notifying Members of the number of new aged care places allocated in the 2007 Aged Care Approvals Round. Following the announcement of aged care places on 19 December 2006, (a) which Members were notified, (b) when were they notified and (c) did any Members receive prior notification; if so, (i) which Members and (ii) why. 132 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The Minister for Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (2). That information was provided by the Minister for Ageing to the Senate Community Affairs Committee, at the Additional Budget Estimates hearing on 13 February 2007 (Hansard page CA33). 132 132 5328 132 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms George asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 6 February 2007: How many persons, in total, and by gender, undertook undergraduate university study in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 in the postcode area (i) 2502, (ii) 2505, (iii) 2506, (iv) 2526, (v) 2527, (vi) 2528, (vii) 2529 and (ix) 2530. How many of the students (a) in total and (b) in each of the postcode areas identified in Part (1) were enrolled at the University of Wollongong. What proportion of undergraduate enrolments at the University of Wollongong was represented by the students identified in Part (2). In (a) 2005 and (b) 2006, how many students from the postcode areas identified in Part (1) were enrolled in courses in (i) Band 1, (ii) Band 2 or (iii) Band 3. In (a) 2005 and (b) 2006, how many Commonwealth HECS supported undergraduate places were available in (i) nursing, (ii) teaching and (iii) engineering at the University of Wollongong. In (a) 2005 and (b) 2006, how many applications for admission to courses in (i) nursing, (ii) teaching and (iii) engineering at the University of Wollongong were unsuccessful. In (a) 2005 and (b) 2006, what percentage of students at the University of Wollongong came from a low socio-economic status (SES) background. 132 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: See table below. Higher Education Statistics: Number of undergraduate students in selected postcodes, 2005 Postcode Males Females Persons 2502 59 100 159 2505 23 27 50 2506 46 45 91 2526 220 246 466 2527 129 191 320 2528 140 179 319 2529 138 191 329 2530 207 287 494   Data for full year 2006 is not available. See table below. Higher Education Statistics: Number of undergraduate students attending University of Wollongong by selected postcodes, 2005 Postcode Males Females Persons 2502 50 81 131 2505 17 20 37 2506 35 39 74 2526 170 191 361 2527 91 140 231 2528 96 128 224 2529 97 138 235 2530 152 213 365 Total undergraduate students 7,052 7,094 14,146   (b) Not applicable. Students with a postcode of home location of 2502, 2505, 2506, 2526, 2527, 2528, 2529 or 2530 comprised 11.7 per cent of the 14,146 undergraduate students attending University of Wollongong in 2005. Bands are used to classify units of study within courses not courses as a whole. Students cannot be uniquely allocated to Bands because they could be undertaking units of study in more than one Band within their course. No data can therefore be provided in response to this question. In 2005 there were 413 Commonwealth-supported nursing students at the University of Wollongong. In 2005 there were 1089 Commonwealth-supported teaching students at the University of Wollongong. In 2005 there were 970 Commonwealth-supported engineering students at the University of Wollongong. DEST does not collect or hold this information. DEST estimates low SES background students as those whose postcode of permanent home location is a postcode identified in the 2001 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) as including the most disadvantaged 25 per cent of the population aged 15-64. In 2005, it was estimated that 16.0 per cent of domestic students at Wollongong were from a low-SES postcode. 133 133 5339 133 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 6 February 2007: Further to his reply to question No 4083 that “substantial work is being undertaken to promote healthy eating” to indigenous communities, can he advise: (a) what is the nature of this work; (b) what are the full details of the specific programs undertaken to promote healthy eating; (c) when did these programs commence and will they continue indefinitely; (d) what is the yearly budget allocated to these specific programs; and (e) if not, why not. 3304 No. 146—6 February 2007 Will the programs identified in Part (1) redress the situation in the Anangu Pitjanjatjara Yakunytjatjara Lands, where: (a) chicken and chips cost $3 a serve, but broccoli is $3 for a single floret, apples and oranges cost as much as $2 each and fruit and vegetables are priced by the piece; and (b) poor quality mince is $18 a kilo and stewing steak is around $25 a kilo; if so, will he explain how; if not, what can the Government do to ensure that, taking into account the current prices under the Mai Wiru Policy, indigenous communities in remote areas of Australia will have affordable access to the healthy foods that are being promoted to them. 134 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: The nature of the work that the Australian Government is undertaking to promote healthy eating to Indigenous communities including in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands, involves as key components addressing the issues of affordability of and access to, healthy foods and community nutrition education. Details of various programs including funding and timeframes are as follows: The Mai Wiru Regional Stores Project which is funded through the Department of Health and Ageing’s Regional Health Services Program. The Mai Wiru (Healthy Food) project aims to develop community stores on the APY Lands that are community owned and that provide access to good quality healthy food for communities. The implementation stage is funded by the Department of Health and Ageing until March 2008. The Australian Government has committed $1,569,590 between 2000 and 2008 to support the Mai Wiru Regional Stores Policy. The Child Nutrition Program is funded by the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs as part of the Australian Government’s Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. Funding of $1.5 million over 4 years to 30 June 2008 has been provided to the Ngaanyatjarra Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Women’s Council Aboriginal Corporation to provide improved child nutrition to Indigenous communities in remote areas of South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This program provides individual case management and support for families where children are identified as at risk, particularly through failure to grow; and nutrition and early childhood education work. The Outback Stores project is funded by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and managed by Indigenous Business Australia. As part of the 2006-07 Commonwealth Budget, Indigenous Business Australia (under the DEWR portfolio) announced an initiative called Outback Stores. This initiative provides $48 million (including $40 million in capital) over 4 years from 1 July 2006. As well as improving the viability and efficiency of remote community stores and increasing employment, the initiative will support stores to provide a better range of goods and services, including healthy foods, at affordable prices. The Remote Indigenous Stores and Takeaway project (RIST), a State/Commonwealth initiative over 3 years from 1 July 2006. This project, Healthy Business, Healthy Food, Healthy Community, is a key component of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nutrition Strategy and Action Plan 2000-2010. It is jointly funded by Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Northern Territory, Western Australia and the Australian Government. The Australian Government has contributed $150,000 to this initiative. These programs operate to address the issues of improved nutrition through affordable and accessible healthy food for Indigenous communities, including in the APY Lands. The programs focus on nutrition education, healthy food provision and preparation. This involves as a key strategy, working through community stores that provide essential services and deliver health and social benefits through adoption of healthy food practices and improvement in the affordability and availability of nutritious foods in remote Indigenous communities. In addition to these initiatives, Indigenous health services take an active role in promoting healthy eating to improve overall health, and prevent and manage chronic disease. 135 135 5356 135 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 7 February 2007: Has his department made any decision in respect of the position of non-Muslim religious minorities in Iraq; in particular whether members of Iraqi non-Muslim religious minorities who are facing persecution should be permitted to enter Australia on a temporary or permanent basis. 135 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: Consistent with Australia’s global, non-discriminatory Humanitarian Programme, all applications for a humanitarian visa, including those from non-Muslim religious minorities in Iraq, are considered on a case by case basis. Iraqis have featured prominently in the Humanitarian Programme, ranking second overall since 2001, with more than 10 000 Iraqis having arrived in Australia on humanitarian visas since 2001. Applications from Iraqi non-Muslim religious minorities are among those accepted for resettlement in Australia. 135 135 5357 135 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 February 2007: Has his attention been drawn to a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) dated October 2005 and titled Background Information on the Situation of Non-Muslim Religious Minorities in Iraq. Is he aware of any other research that has been undertaken by the UNHCR in respect of the position of non-Muslim religious minorities in Iraq; if so, what is the Government’s response to that research. Is he aware of any steps that are being taken to protect non-Muslim religious minorities in Iraq and/or to assure the safe passage out of Iraq of members of such minorities who may wish to leave as a result of persecution. 135 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Please refer to my response to Question on Notice No. 3482. Yes. The Government is aware of further UNHCR research and continues to monitor the situation of minority groups in Iraq. The Government makes representations on these matters as appropriate. Yes. The Iraqi Government, United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) and international agencies are working to protect internally displaced persons, including non‑Muslim religious minorities, in Iraq. UNHCR reports including the Global Appeal 2007, the Global Report 2005, the Return Advisory, dated December 2006 and the Country of Origin Information: Iraq report of October 2005 provide details of these steps. 135 135 5358 135 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 Mr Katter asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 7 February 2007: Can he advise the sum of financial assistance provided to Bundaberg Sugar following, and as a result of, Cyclone Larry. Can he further advise the sum that has been provided to Bundaberg Sugar through (a) the Regional Advisory Groups and (b) the Sugar Industry Reform Package Scheme. Is he aware of any other funding that has been made available to Bundaberg Sugar; if so, what are the details. 136 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: No funding has been provided by my portfolio to Bundaberg Sugar as a result of Cyclone Larry. and (b) Grants of $11.966 million have been made available to Bundaberg Sugar through the Regional and Community Projects component of the Sugar Industry Reform Programme 2004. Payments totalling $8.048 million under the Sustainability Grant component of the Sugar Industry Reform Programme 2004 have been provided to Bundaberg Sugar. No. 136 136 5380 136 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms George asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 8 February 2007: In respect of the federal electorate of Throsby, will the Minister provide details of the programmes administered by his department and relevant agencies under which community organisations, businesses or individuals can apply for funding. In respect of each Commonwealth-funded programme identified in Part (1), (a) what sum was allocated, in total, to eligible participants in the electorate of Throsby in: (i) 2005 (ii) 2006 and (b) what is the name and address of each of the funding recipients and (c) what sum was allocated to each of them in: (i) 2005 and (ii) 2006. 136 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 following are the programmes under which community not-for-profit organisations can apply for funding from this department: Settlement Grants Programme Living in Harmony Funded Community Projects National Action Plan The Department of Immigration and Citizenship does not store funding information based on electorate. (2)   (a) The sum allocated in total to eligible participants in the Wollongong area is set out in the table below.   (c) The names and addresses of each of the funding recipients and the sum allocated to each of them is set out in the table below. Financial year Type of Funding Organisation Address Funding Amount 2004-05 Settlement Grants Programme Italian Social Welfare Organisation 21 Stewart Street Wollongong $12 882 Settlement Grants Programme Illawarra Multicultural Services Inc 27 Atchison Street Wollongong $475 289 2005-06 Settlement Grants Programme Illawarra Multicultural Services Inc 27 Atchison Street Wollongong $502 302 Living in Harmony Funded Community Projects Port Kembla Community Project Inc Cnr Wentworth and Church Sts, Port Kembla $30 000 2006-07 Settlement Grants Programme Illawarra Multicultural Services Inc 27 Atchison Street Wollongong $484 364 137 137 5392 137 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 Mr Brendan O’Connor asked the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, in writing, on 12 February 2007: In respect of enrolment for the Sunshine Australian Technical College (ATC): (a) what is the target figure; (b) how was the target figure derived; and (c) how many students have enrolled, or are projected to enrol, at the Sunshine ATC for the calendar year (i) 2007, (ii) 2008 and (iii) 2009. In respect of teaching staff at the Sunshine ATC, (a) how many teachers have been employed, (b) are current staffing arrangements sufficient to meet demand; and (c) how many of the teachers are employed on Australian Workplace Agreements. What is the estimated running cost of the Sunshine ATC for the calendar year (a) 2007, (b) 2008 and (c) 2009. What new facilities have been, or are planned to be, constructed at the Sunshine ATC site and what is the actual, or projected, cost of these facilities. What qualifications will students receive upon graduating from the Sunshine ATC. 137 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Minister for Vocational and Further Education 1 Mr Robb —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The target figure for student enrolments at the Australian Technical College – Sunshine for 2009 is 300 students. The figure was determined through the enrolment projections submitted by the college as part of the funding agreement negotiations. Actual enrolment numbers for 2007 will be released after the census on 31 March 2007. (i) The projected enrolment number for 2007 is 50 students; (ii) 2008: 200 students; and (iii) 2009: 300 students. As at 27 February 2007, the Australian Technical College – Sunshine has employed an Executive Manager, one assistant Executive Manager, three classroom teachers and three field officers. The staffing requirements for Australian Technical College – Sunshine were identified by the College in their Business Plan. Under the terms of the funding agreement with the State of Victoria, all staff employed by the Australian Technical College – Sunshine are to be offered an Australian Workplace Agreement in accordance with the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The running costs for the Australian Technical College – Sunshine are negotiated annually. The maximum operational funding for the College over the period 2006 to 2009 as detailed in the funding agreement is $4,560,000. A new facility is planned adjacent to the existing facilities at the Sunshine North campus of Sunshine College. Funding for these facilities is yet to be negotiated. The capital funding for the College detailed in the funding agreement is $9,113,287. On graduation from the College, students will have achieved their Victorian Certificate of Education or the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning; have commenced their apprenticeship; and have completed part of an accredited trade qualification at the Australian Qualifications Framework Certificate lll level. 138 138 5395 138 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 12 February 2007: Which international treaties has Australia signed and not ratified. In respect of the treaties identified in Part (1), when was each signed and what is the reason for non-ratification. 138 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The attached treaty analysis prepared by my department indicates that as at 8 March 2007 there are fifty three treaties that Australia has signed which have not entered into force for Australia. The analysis indicates the year and title of each of the thirty seven bilateral treaties in this category signed by Australia. It also indicates the year and title of the sixteen multilateral treaties Australia has signed but which have not so far entered into force. In respect of the treaties identified in Part (1), information on the particular reason in each case for the treaty not entering into force is either unavailable or, if it exists, the time and staff resources required to collect it cannot be justified as it would require unreasonable diversion of resources, in large part because responsibility for bringing the treaties into force lies with departments other than DFAT, including AGD (for extradition and mutual assistance in legal matters treaties), Treasury (for taxation agreements), DOTARS (for air services and IMO agreements) and FACSIA (for social security agreements). In respect of treaties identified in Part (1) for which DFAT has policy carriage – the large majority of which have only been signed within the last two years - the primary reasons for their non-entry as yet into force includes: that implementation of Australia’s domestic treaty processes and the passage of legislation to implement the treaty is incomplete or delayed; that Australia or the other party to the treaty has withdrawn, denounced, terminated or cancelled the treaty; that the other party to the treaty has not completed its domestic processes for bringing the treaty into force; that there has been further evolution in Australian policy since its signature of the treaty; or, in the case of a multilateral treaty, because the treaty is not in force generally and therefore not in force for Australia.   Attachment TREATY ANALYSIS BILATERAL TREATIES (37) 1988 Treaty on Extradition with the Oriental Republic of Uruguay 1992 Agreement with the Argentine Republic relating to Air Services 1997 Agreement with the Republic of Indonesia concerning Cooperation in Nuclear Science and Technology Treaty with the Republic of Indonesia establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries 1998 Agreement with Pakistan relating to Air Services and Exchange of Notes 2000 Treaty on Extradition with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 2002 Agreement with the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for the Promotion and Protection of Investments 2003 Agreement with the Kingdom of Tonga relating to Air Services Agreement with New Zealand for the Establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products 2004 Agreement with the Republic of Korea on Cooperation in the Fields of Energy and Mineral Resources 2005 Agreement with the Government of the Republic of Turkey on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments Agreement with the Republic of Indonesia for Cooperation in Scientific Research and Technological Developments Agreement with the Government of Bermuda on the Exchange of Information with Respect to Taxes Agreement with the Kingdom of Norway on Social Security Agreement with the United Mexican States on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Protocol amending the Agreement with New Zealand for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to taxes on Income 2006 Framework Agreement with the Republic of Turkey on Cooperation in Military Fields Agreement with the Republic of Indonesia on the Framework for Security Cooperation Agreement with the Kingdom of Belgium on Health Care Insurance Agreement with New Zealand in relation to Mutual Recognition of Securities Offerings Agreement on Social Security with the Republic of Korea Agreement with Finland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation with the Republic of South Africa Agreement with the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning Transfer of Sentenced Persons Agreement with the French Republic regarding Defence Cooperation and Status of Forces Agreement with India relating to Air Services Agreement with the People’s Republic of China for Cooperation in the Peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy Agreement with the Swiss Confederation on Social Security Convention with the Kingdom of Norway for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion Convention with the French Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and Protocol Treaty with the Kingdom of Thailand on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2007 Agreement with French Republic on Cooperative Enforcement of Fisheries Law in Maritime Areas Adjacent to the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Heard Island and the McDonald Islands Agreement with Antigua and Barbuda on the Exchange of Information with Respect to Taxes Agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany on Social Security to Govern Persons Temporarily Employed in the Territory of the Other State (“Supplementary Agreement”), Concluding Protocol and Implementation Arrangement Agreement on Operational and Strategic Cooperation with the European Police Office Agreement with Japan on Social Security Agreement with the Government of the Kingdom of Netherlands in respect of the Netherlands Antilles for the Exchange of Information with Respect to Taxes MULTILATERAL TREATIES (16) 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2001 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 2005 Agreement establishing the Pacific Islands Forum International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III) Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms located on the Continental Shelf, 1988 Protocol of 2005 to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 2006 Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement Amendments, adopted at Antalya, Turkey on 24 November 2006, to the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 2007 World Wine Trade Group Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling 141 141 5409 141 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 13 February 2007: How many people are employed at Sydney airport by (a) the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport Authority and (b) each of the airline operators. What is the estimated total weekly payroll value of the Airport Authority and each of the respective airline operators. 141 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: and (2) There is no Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport Authority. The operator of Sydney Airport is the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL). The Department of Transport and Regional Services does not hold information on the employee numbers and weekly payroll of SACL and the airline operators. Some information is available on the Sydney Airport website http://www.sydneyairport.com.au. 141 141 5412 141 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 13 February 2007: Is the Government aware of the many abductions of Japanese citizens by North Korea nearly three decades ago; if so, has the Government taken any action to force North Korea to address this problem; if not, why not. Is the Government aware that the abductees referred to in Part (1) are at the mercy of North Korea and are forced to cooperate with that government’s authorities while they are denied the means to inform their families that they are alive; if so, has any action been taken to put pressure on the North Korean Government to address this matter; if not, why not. Is the Government aware of the case of 13-year-old Megumi Yokota, who was abducted 29 years ago and remains alive now at the age of 42; if so, has the Government made efforts to raise objections regarding such human rights violations by North Korea; if not, why not. Is the Government aware that the purpose of the abductions was to make abductees teach the Japanese language and customs to North Koreans. Can the Government confirm with the Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that abductions continue to occur, with at least 17 abductions recorded since 2002, despite North Korean claims that there have been no further abductions; if so, has the Government taken any initiative to raise the issue with the North Korean Government; if not, why not. Is the Government aware that North Korean claims that there are no surviving abductees were discredited by North Korea’s inability to produce supporting evidence, and that DNA testing showed the alleged remains of the deceased abductees to be those of other individuals; if so, has the Government confronted the North Korean Government about this issue; if not, why not. Is the Government aware that (a) North Korea has also abducted citizens from Lebanon, South Korea, Thailand, Romania, France, China, Italy, Singapore, Jordan, Malaysia and the Netherlands; (b) that the issue is of increasing concern to the international community; and (c) that the United Nations passed resolutions on the matter in 2005 and 2006, without any result; if so, does the Government intend to wait until an Australian is abducted before taking action on this matter. Does the Government support the United States’ position that the abductions carried out by the North Korean regime constitute a grave violation of human rights; if so, will it make this view known to the North Korean authorities. 142 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Australia has regularly raised this issue with the North Korean government, including as part of representations on human rights issues. I (Mr Downer) made direct representations on the issue to the North Korean government during my visits to North Korea in 2000 and 2004, and emphasised Australia’s continued support for Japan to receive a full and proper accounting of its citizens taken against their will to North Korea most recently in a media release on 14 February 2007. Refer also to (7) (c) below. Yes. see (1) (b) above and (7) (c) below. Yes, although some facts of her case – including whether she remains alive – are still disputed. see (1) (b) above and (7) (c) below. Yes. The Government is not aware of any specific information that would support or deny claims that North Korea has been involved in 17 abductions since 2002. see (1) (b) above and (7) (c) below. Yes. see (1) (b) above. The Government is aware of allegations that North Korea has abducted citizens from various countries. Yes. The Government is aware of United Nations resolutions on the human rights situation in North Korea. In 2003, Australia co-sponsored a resolution carried by the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on the human rights situation in the DPRK. Australia reaffirmed this resolution in April 2004, April 2005 and November 2005. Australia co-sponsored a similar resolution carried at the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in November 2006. The passing of such resolutions maintains pressure on North Korea to address the international community’s concerns on its human rights record. Yes. see (1) (b) above and (7) (c) above. 143 143 5413 143 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 13 February 2007: Can he guarantee that food produce imported from overseas for the Australian consumer market has been subject to health and safety standards commensurate with those used to ensure the quality of Australian food produce, and the maintenance of Australian health standards. 143 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australia’s trade in food and agricultural products is underpinned by a rigorous food safety and quarantine regime based on scientific food standards designed to protect Australian consumers. All imported food is subject to the same food safety requirements as locally produced food. The main mechanism for managing imported food standards is the Imported Food Program (IFP), which is run jointly by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. FSANZ is responsible for developing food standards for inclusion in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code). AQIS is responsible for the inspection, testing and approval of all imported foods to determine compliance with the Code. The Hon Peter McGauran MP, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has portfolio responsibility for some of the operational aspects of the Code through AQIS. The Hon Christopher Pyne MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Ageing has portfolio responsibility for FSANZ matters. 143 143 5420 143 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 February 2007: Can he say whether Iraq’s Deputy Health Minister, Mr Hakim Zamili, has been detained by American and Iraqi forces in Baghdad; if so, under what circumstances and for what reason was Mr Zamili detained. Is Mr Zamili a member of a political group that is loyal to the Iraqi cleric Moqtada al Sadr. Have any charges been laid against Mr Zamili subsequent to his detention; if so, what are the charges. Are any other Iraqi Government Ministers and/or officials under investigation for reasons similar to those for which Mr Zamili was detained. 143 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (4) I understand that Mr Hakim Zamili has been detained. This is a matter for the relevant Iraqi authorities. He is affiliated with the Parliamentary coalition of predominantly Shia parties, the United Iraqi Alliance. 143 143 5432 143 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 February 2007: Is the Government aware that North Korea’s nuclear activities have strained the half-century-long alliance between the United States (US) and South Korea; if so, has the Government discussed this with the US; if not, why not. Has the Government discussed with the US why the sunshine policy driven by the former South Korean President and perpetuated by the current South Korean Government did not end; if not, why not. Has the Government discussed with the US whether the sunshine policy has given the North Korean regime time and resources to develop nuclear weapons; if not, why not. Has the Government (a) urged South Korea to re-examine its policies in respect of North Korea, (b) asked North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, (c) discussed taking part in the enforcement of international sanctions against North Korea led by the United Nations and the US or (d) discussed with the US the strategic value of South Korea in balancing power in the region; if not, why not. Has the Government consulted with the US and other countries on ceasing all forms of cooperation with North Korea in order to prevent export revenue from being used by North Korea to develop nuclear weapons; if not, why not. Has the Government consulted with the US on deferring the transfer of wartime military operational control to the South Korea until such times as that nation reinforces its security alliance with the US. Has the Government consulted with the US on urging South Korea to streamline its alliance with the US to reflect the priorities given to the current strategic goals of terrorism prevention and regional stability. Is the Government aware that labour arrangements reportedly exist between North Korea and entities in Russia, the Czech Republic, Mongolia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Angola; if so, has the Government discussed this issue with the US; if not, why not. Is the Government aware that North Korean workers are treated like prisoners and are provided with inadequate food and shelter, and this amounts to violation of human rights; if so, has it discussed the matter with the US. 144 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea, apart from noting that the United States-Republic of Korea alliance has guaranteed the security of the Korean Peninsula and North East Asia more broadly for over fifty years. Recent summit meetings between the two countries have stressed the continuing importance both nations place on the relationship. The Government has a regular dialogue with the United States and Republic of Korea on military and security matters affecting the Korean Peninsula. No. Matters concerning South Korean policy are more appropriately pursued with the Government of South Korea. No. see (2) (b) above. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. The strategic value of South Korea to the region is well understood by the Australian Government and is not an issue which needs to be discussed with the United States. Yes. No. No. The Government is aware of media reporting that North Koreans are employed in a number of countries. No. Any concerns the Government holds on this issue would be more appropriately pursued with the Government of North Korea. The Government is aware that the North Korean economy is in very poor shape and that North Korea suffers from well-documented food, medicine and infrastructure shortages. No. 145 145 5446 145 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 15 February 2007: What is the total expenditure to date by the Attorney-General’s Department on continuity of government arrangements. 145 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Total expenditure by the Attorney-General’s Department on continuity of government arrangements to 15 February 2007 is $1.021m. 145 145 5447 145 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 February 2007: What countries have been visited and international conferences attended by Australia’s successive Ambassadors for Counter Terrorism. 145 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There have been three successive Ambassadors for Counter-Terrorism since the position was created, Mr Nick Warner (March- July 2003), Mr Les Luck (August 2003- July 2006) and the current Ambassador, Mr Mike Smith (commenced July 2006). While Ambassador between March and July 2003, Mr Warner visited Malaysia, Brunei, France, Indonesia and the Philippines. International conferences attended by Mr Warner included: an ASEAN Regional Forum conference in Malaysia; an ASEAN Regional Forum conference in Darwin; a counter-terrorism conference in France; and an international conference organised by the Australian Federal Police in Queensland. While Ambassador between August 2003 and July 2006, Mr Luck visited Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, France, New Zealand, China, United Kingdom, Jordan, Israel, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Bangladesh, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, United States, Germany, Switzerland, India and Turkey. International conferences attended by Mr Luck included: a G8 Counter-Terrorism Action Group meeting in France (2003); a Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific meeting in Indonesia (2003); a Regional Ministerial Meeting on Counter-Terrorism in Indonesia (2004); a National Counter-Terrorism Committee Meeting in New Zealand (2004); a Pacific Roundtable Conference in Wellington (2004); a seminar in London (2004); an EU meeting in Brussels (2004); a G8 Counter-Terrorism Action Group meeting in London (2005); an international counter-terrorism conference in Saudi Arabia (2005); an ASEAN-Australia Transnational Crime Meeting in Cambodia (2005); an EU meeting in Brussels (2005); and a conference at the Clingendael Institute in the Netherlands (2006). Since July 2006 Ambassador Smith has visited Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Bangladesh, India, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Philippines, Morocco, France, Pakistan, Egypt, United Kingdom, United States, Turkey and Belgium. International conferences attended by Ambassador Smith have included: an Institute for Counter-Terrorism Conference in Israel (2006); a Ditchley Foundation Conference in the United Kingdom (2006); a meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism in Morocco (2006); and a meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism in Turkey (2007). 146 146 5465 146 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 26 February 2007: For each of the past five financial years, how many aviation movements have occurred at Bankstown Airport. 146 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: Airservices Australia data shows that the aircraft movements at Bankstown Airport have been: 2005-06: 203,322 2004-05: 239,410 2003-04: 227,796 2002-03: 337,314 2001-02: 339,010 Statistics for aviation movements are publicly available on the Airservices Australia website: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/ 146 146 5479 146 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr Tanner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 26 February 2007: In respect of (a) the $500 million loans component of the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development and (b) the $200 million Basic Education Program, how many loans have been made and what was the value of each. In respect of the $500 million grants component of the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development, what is the 2006-2007 Budget expenditure and what are the uncommitted forward estimates for each financial year to 2009-2010. In respect of the $100 million grants component of the Basic Education Program, what is the 2006-2007 Budget expenditure and what are the uncommitted forward estimates for each financial year to 2009-2010. In respect of the funding components identified in Part (2) and Part (3), what are the projected uncommitted funding profiles beyond the forward estimates. 146 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: One loan, valued at up to $200 million, has been made for the Basic Education Program. A second loan, valued at up to $300 million, is being negotiated for the Eastern Indonesia National Road Improvement Program. Both are funded from the $500 million loans component of the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development (AIPRD). Planned expenditure from the $500 million grants component of AIPRD in 2006-2007 is $124 million. All AIPRD grant funds have been committed to high priority reconstruction and development projects through to 2009-2010. In respect of the $100 million grant component of the Basic Education Program (BEP), estimated expenditure for 2006-2007 is $20.2 million. All BEP grant funds through to 2009-2010 have been committed. Exact expenditure for each of these years will be subject to agreement with the Indonesian Government on annual work programs. There are no current estimates for any AIPRD grant expenditure, including the grants component of the BEP, beyond 2009-2010.