2007-05-21 41 1 9 REPS 0 0 2007-05-21 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 Miscellaneous 1 12:30:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I refer to my letter to you of 14 May, your correspondence back to me of 18 May and your advice that, on 11 May, you had written to the Chair of the Procedure Committee concerning possible changes to the standing orders and House of Representatives Practice in relation to unruly behaviour during the Leader of the Opposition’s budget speech in reply. I also refer to page 521 of Practice, which states: The naming of a Member usually occurs immediately an offence has been committed but this is not always possible. For example, Members have been named at the next sitting as a result of incidents that occurred at the adjournment of the previous sitting of the House. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, as to whether it would be appropriate to pursue this issue now or after question time. 1 12:31:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I think matters like this would be better raised at the end of question time. I will accommodate him at that time. 1 Delegation Reports 1 1 12:32:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —Mr Speaker, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom and Poland from 25 June to 8 July 2006. It is difficult, in five minutes, to convey the entirety of a visit to the UK, Scotland and Poland, other than to say that it was an enjoyable experience giving all of us who were part of the delegation an insight into how politics is practised in other countries, how our own country is viewed, how it performs against international benchmarks and how it is perceived and hopefully respected in the international community. The UK and Scottish section of the visit was arranged by the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose professionalism and organisational abilities are par excellence. I thank Paul Jackson and Helen Haywood for their extraordinary facilitation and hospitality. Unlike previous visits I have had to the UK, on this occasion we were able to drill down into areas of expertise that are highly relevant to Australia—for example, an understanding of the framework of the BBC, both in TV and radio structures, as well as UK energy policy and EU security. The delegation also received briefings on law enforcement and the modernisation of the House of Commons. It was interesting to understand the difference in the dynamics of our Senate and the reformed House of Lords. One of the most pleasing aspects of this reform was the adoption of a model not unlike ours for the UK’s main committee organisation. It plans to utilise the historic Westminster Hall and use a more open debate procedure where the person speaking is invited at times to yield to the opposition. This also leads to greater, more interesting and more open debate. Although we do this sparingly in our own second chamber, there is some merit in expanding the practice. One of the briefings which appealed to me was that on direct learning. This is a system developed by the University for Industry and supported by the UK government to deliver high-quality learning to post-16-year-olds. It is aimed at those with limited skills and qualifications who are unlikely to participate in traditional forms of learning. It is aimed at enhancing their skills for employability, which flows on to the workforce and, through that workforce, the productivity of the nation. It delivers educational, trade and commercial courses innovatively through technology, notably the internet. There are 2,000 online learning centres in the UK, including in Wales and Northern Ireland. Since it was launched in 2000, 1.3 million people have been enrolled in the system and it has trained around 200,000 people in small business. It offers 550 courses, including management, IT, languages, skills for lifestyle and a number of trade and quasi-trade subjects, such as driving forklifts. They may sound very simple things but, to people who do not have the opportunity to gain these skills, they become very important. It is something we could look at in this country. Our visit to Poland was an eye-opener. There we saw the effects of the Second World War in visits to the Warsaw Uprising Museum and Auschwitz. Every Australian who goes to Europe should visit Auschwitz. It is an insight into man’s inhumanity to man. It is something we should etch in our psyches. It was also pleasing to look at the economy of Poland, its trade with Australia and its modernisation. Although we criticise it in Australia, Poland will be adopting the Australian health system. This visit led to our becoming aware that Australia is respected and that there are many opportunities for trade and social contact between our country and Poland. 2 12:37:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise to speak about the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom and Poland, from 25 June to 8 July 2006. The delegation was led by Senator Ian Macdonald and the other delegation members were Jackie Kelly, Robert McClelland, Paul Neville, Barry Wakelin, Jonathan Curtis from the secretariat, and me. May I begin by thanking the United Kingdom, Scottish and Polish parliamentarians and ambassadors for sharing their insights on a range of issues with us and for the tremendous assistance they gave us during visits to the United Kingdom, including Scotland, and Poland. In almost 12 years this is the first parliamentary delegation that I have participated in and it was certainly an eye-opening and engaging experience. It was made all the richer by the parliamentarians and ambassadorial staff with whom the parliamentary delegation met. I would also like to thank the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of the United Kingdom and Scotland, the Australian embassy in Poland and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for doing an outstanding job of coordinating the parliamentary delegation. The parliamentarians whom we met in England, Scotland and Poland readily shared their insights into bilateral and key domestic issues and the machinations of their parliamentary systems. The parliamentary delegation visited areas of economic, cultural and international significance and met with government and business leaders concerning EU developments, security, terrorism and energy challenges. Of particular interest to me, as I was then shadow minister for resources, energy, forestry and tourism, were discussions regarding the United Kingdom’s energy challenges. The Minister of State for Energy, Mr Malcolm Wicks, and senior departmental representatives gave a presentation on a major review of energy policy, which was released several weeks after the delegation’s departure. The review considered climate change issues, energy supply and infrastructure challenges and security issues confronting the United Kingdom. The delegation recognised the leadership that the Prime Minister Tony Blair has taken in this area and was interested to learn of the United Kingdom’s ongoing dependence on nuclear energy for part of their energy supply—because of their energy requirements—as an ongoing viable energy source and the maintenance of its current infrastructure. It was also an interesting experience to view the Westminster system at work and to listen to the United Kingdom parliamentarians’ insights into the system’s machinations. It was interesting to recognise the differences in key features between the Australian and United Kingdom systems and consider how greatly our system has evolved. A highlight of the parliamentary delegation’s visit to England and Scotland was attending question time. On both occasions the delegation met with the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, and other representatives from the respective lower houses. It was of interest to see how the UK parliament has adopted the Australian committee model to progress policy issues and especially to see their main committee—the Westminster House—in operation. This was a development from Australia that the United Kingdom adopted. Obviously, as I am of Scottish descent, it was great to see the operation of the Scottish parliament and to be given a greater understanding of the devolution of the Scottish parliament and the parliamentarians’ responsibilities. They spoke with great pride of their new Scottish parliament. The Scottish and United Kingdom governments, from what I could see at the time, enjoyed a good working relationship and work together productively to make progress on difficult bilateral issues. Two members of the Scottish parliament, Mr Kim Mather and Mr Bill Aitken, met with the delegation and spoke candidly of Scotland’s economic and social development. One of the highlights of the delegation was the visit to Poland and being able to learn firsthand of its evolving democratic system. It was inspiring to visit a country that is emerging in the EU with a strengthening economy, that has a rich national history and whose people have characteristically expressed sheer determination. Whilst in Poland we had the opportunity to visit historically significant places: namely, the Auschwitz and Birkenau concentration camps. It was deeply saddening to see firsthand these places of great human suffering. As did the member for Hinkler, I urge all Australians going to Poland to take the opportunity not only to visit Auschwitz and Birkenau but also to visit Warsaw, which was all but devastated during the Second World War. The Polish parliament requested that we convey to the Australian Council of Trade Unions its admiration for the ACTU’s support for Solidarity and its development and achievements under the leadership of Lech Walesa, in the struggle after the end of the Cold War. It was a privilege to be part of this delegation. It was a great opportunity to strengthen our bilateral ties, and it certainly gave me a greater insight into the operation of the committees and delegations overseas and their importance for us in gaining a better understanding of significant international and domestic policy issues. 3 Committees 3 3 3 12:43:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2006 (First report), together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. MP6 Baird, Bruce, MP Mr BAIRD —Strong global commodity prices continue to fuel Australia’s sustained period of economic growth. In these expansionary conditions, the role of the RBA is crucial in ensuring that inflation is controlled and monetary policy facilitates the stability of the Australian currency and the maintenance of full employment. It is widely recognised that Australia is experiencing capacity constraints—shortages of capital and labour—as a result of its strong and extended period of economic growth. The unemployment rate remains very low by historical standards, and the effects of this are further heightened by record high labour participation rates. Job vacancies continue to increase, and strong demand for labour is confirmed by a range of business surveys and liaison reports. A high level of business investment, however, is expected to bring about expansions in capacity, particularly in the resources sector. Favourable conditions in global commodities markets have created an expansionary environment in Western Australia. However, Mr Stevens highlighted the spread of these effects throughout the country. Resources have been shifting to areas where they are most needed, and employment growth is strong in all states. In mid-2006, the economy experienced a mild pick-up in inflation as a result of solid economic growth and the associated capacity constraints. The RBA Governor reported that he was ‘considerably more comfortable’ with inflation expectations now than in August or November 2006, although the inflation challenge is far from over and vigilance will be required over the short to medium term. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Mr Glenn Stevens on his first appearance as the new Governor of the RBA and I look forward to meeting with him and other RBA representatives at the next public hearing on 17 August 2007 at the Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre, Broadbeach. Mr Speaker, I commend the report to the House. 4 12:45:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I also rise to speak on the Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2006. This was the first hearing between the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and Governor Glenn Stevens since his appointment last year. Governor Stevens was both frank and open. He shared his thinking and concerns in his strongly stated determination to advance the prosperity and welfare of the Australian people, control inflation and maintain stability of the Australian currency. The governor also directly stated that the maintenance of full employment was a goal of monetary policy. He was frank about his willingness to pursue the independence of the Reserve Bank, stating that election year political sensitivities were not determinants of monetary policy. In response to a question on raising interest rates in an election year, he stated: I do not think any central bank could accept the notion that somehow a rate change is off limits for one year out of three. That would be crazy. So the answer to the question is: if in August it needs to be done it will be done. Current scenarios suggest that the governor may not face that particular dilemma, but we welcome his commitment to always put monetary policy and the needs of the Australian economy and people before political considerations. A major feature of the committee discussions with the Reserve Bank reinforced the concern with the potential impact of capacity constraints on inflation. As his predecessor Governor Macfarlane had done before him, Governor Stevens once more drew attention to the constraints in both capital and labour. Indeed, 16 years of continuous growth built on the reforms of previous Labor governments and the Asian industrial revolution have brought about high labour participation rates and low unemployment. But there still exist major challenges in skill and labour shortages and in fixing the infrastructure problems that constrain our ability to fully respond to demand and opportunities, particularly in the resource sector. The governor noted, however, that business investment was trying to keep up with the demand. That is so, particularly in the Port of Newcastle, where we have seen $17 million worth of expansions completed, another $78 million expansion by Port Waratah Coal Services approved, and $922 million approved for a new coal-loading terminal. But of course it takes a long time to realise exports. Infrastructure does require a major review and commitment from federal government, and that has been lacking. Neglect has a very human response. In the Hunter, 500 mining job losses in the last month arose from the scaling back of production to match capacity while demand keeps escalating. High commodity prices from the resource sector mean strong terms of trade and an improving balance of payments. But in terms of inflation the governor was very explicit in explaining the underlying inflation and the measurements that suggested that inflation was, at this stage, where the governor would like it to be—‘neutral’. Three interest rate rises last year took the cash rate to 6.25 per cent, and that certainly saw a human response, evident through an increase in housing repossessions. Home seizures and sales resulting from loan defaults have jumped more than 25 per cent in the past year, according to the debt collection agency Prushka. Writs of possession data from the Supreme Court in Sydney show the highest numbers of repossessions are from Western Sydney and south-west Sydney, not from Mosman or Vaucluse. So, as the governor said, interest rates are more likely to increase this year than decrease. But given the disparity in the impacts of any changes in cash rates we would hope that can be averted. The Reserve Bank did not see household debt as a major problem, because of asset value increases. But I have to say I am with Saul Eslake on that one. There exists in this country significant disparity when it comes to the distribution of debt, wealth and asset increases. Certainly some Australians have been missing out. Another item raised was the productivity dilemma reflected in the employment and unemployment figures and the workplace participation rates. Figures do seem to suggest that there is a need for some statistical overhaul, and I know the ABS and the RBA have been working on that. Private equity was also raised. It was interesting that in our Perth hearing we were in an Alan Bond developed resort. I think many of us remember debt funding and the economic destruction that some of that caused. Unlike his predecessor Macfarlane, Governor Stevens did not see private or debt equity scenarios as a problem. According to recent Reserve Bank figures on banking fees growth, household fee income rose 10 per cent last year while business fee returns remain steady. Pleasingly, merchant service fees have fallen, reflecting increased competition—a shared quest of the committee and the Reserve Bank of Australia. So, although the Reserve Bank claims that fee increases are in line with increased banking volumes and product choice, I think the Australian people would like to see more competition when it comes to bank service fees. I endorse the committee’s report and wish to thank the secretariat, the committee and the Reserve Bank. (Time expired) 5 Bills R2762 5 Bill presented by Mr Katter. 5 12:51:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —Before the last federal election, the then Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, promised that the government would within 100 days introduce a mandatory code of conduct to regulate the sale of fruit and vegetables throughout Australia. He specified: ‘The code will include the large supermarket chains.’ We appreciated very much this remark, and in fact I went on record as praising the then Deputy Prime Minister. This was a very specific commitment. It bound his party. If they secured the balance of power, they were obliged to implement this promise or be seen to all the world to be liars, and liars on a grand scale, since this market is almost as big as the coal industry to the Australian economy. After 700 days, a code was introduced, but it specifically excluded the large retail chains. The whole code is about the large retail chains. It is an absolute farce to bring in a code of conduct that does not include the sale to the large retail chains. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my friend the member for Kennedy but I do not think it is appropriate for him to refer to members of the government as liars. I ask him to withdraw that statement and not repeat it. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon —He never did. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have been listening and I believe the member for Kennedy is in order. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —After 700 days a code was introduced that specifically excluded the large retail chains. The major element requested that every sale have a bill of sale. That is surely not an unreasonable requirement, Mr Speaker. But that a sales docket should be produced to cover a sale, where it is a sale to a food retailer, is specifically excluded by the government’s code. Why would you specifically exclude a sales docket? The promise was given to people in the electorate of Kennedy—and let me name them: Joe Moro, Scott Dixon and John Gambino at Mareeba; Noel Hall and Colin Pace at Rollingstone; and Tableland Fruit and Vegetable Growers, and Rural Action and their secretary, Bernie O’Shea. Similar undertakings were given to grower representatives from the New South Wales Farmers Association horticultural committee, in the electorate of the member for Calare. We thank the member for Calare for jointly presenting this bill in the House today. He has my gratitude and the gratitude of my growers for his support on this issue. Along the Murray and in the Riverina the announcement was also received with very great gratitude to the government for making this promise. If you make a promise and give a commitment and then flagrantly break that promise, you put in the consciousness of people hatred and mistrust which will last for the rest of the time that they vote. That is what has happened here: dreadful damage has been done to the credibility of the government. The reason for the necessity of a mandatory code of conduct is the phenomenon called the ‘harvest fall’. That means that when harvesting begins, of mangoes, for example, as more and more farmers start to harvest—they do not all come on stream at the same time—the price starts to fall as the huge volume of product comes onto the market. What happens then is that many of the stores of the large retail chains will return product. They buy it one week at $20 a carton. The price slides the next week to $10 a carton and they suddenly decide that the product has blemishes upon it so they return it to the grower. They no longer have to pay $20 a box; they now have to pay only $10 a box. Their superiors at Woolworths or Coles, or whatever the retail chain is, say that these store managers are very good little boys and promote them, but they get promoted over the dead bodies of the farmers. Unfortunately, and sadly, that can be literally true. These days in Victoria, along the Murray, every four days a farmer commits suicide. So, to help overcome this, we simply ask for a sales docket. (Time expired). Bill read a first time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 7 Private Members' Business 7 7 12:56:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —I move: That the House: notes that: strong and sustained export growth is essential for long‑term economic prosperity and for providing more rewarding, well‑paid jobs; despite the resources boom, Australia has been seriously and consistently underperforming in relation to its export sector; Australia’s average annual export growth rate over the past ten years is half that recorded under Labor; Australia has now experienced 60 consecutive monthly trade deficits—the longest period of trade deficit on record; the Government has failed to double the number of exporters by 2006, as it said it would; and at the same time, the Government has halved the level of financial assistance to Australian exporters; and calls on the Government to urgently adopt a comprehensive trade strategy to address the underperformance of Australia’s exports. Despite the resources boom and significant demand from China, Australia’s export performance under this government has been appalling. This motion highlights the government’s failure on trade, and my colleagues the members for Holt and Bendigo will be pointing to what this means at the local level. The reality is that exports have been underperforming because the government has not put in place the right policies to maintain our competitiveness or our productivity, and it is not just Labor that says this. In the Financial Review today an article by Adrian Rollins states: A Committee for Economic Development of Australia report to be released today has found that export volume growth has virtually stalled, expanding by just 2.1 per cent a year between 2001 and 2006 ... The article goes on to say that this is in contrast to growth ‘by an annual average of 7.3 per cent in the 1980s and 1990s’. Despite the resources boom and international demand, export growth in the past 10 years under the government’s watch has been only four per cent per annum. When Labor was in office it was eight per cent. Exports are a crucial part of the economy; they should make a positive contribution to the nation’s GDP. They did so in just about every year in which Labor was in office. In contrast, in just about every year this government has been in office exports have made a negative contribution, and the budget papers forecast that this year will see a further deterioration. The government has also failed to meet the promise it made in 2001 to double the number of exporters, from 28,000, by 2006. The number of exporters is just 42,000 today, only halfway to that target. In all, this appalling trade performance has translated to 60 consecutive months of trade deficit. No government in the history of this nation has presided over such an appalling and consistently bad trade performance. Each trade deficit adds to our current account deficit, which in turn adds to our foreign debt. We remember John Howard’s debt truck, when he was seeking to become the Prime Minister of this country. He said he would reduce foreign debt. But foreign debt now amounts to half a trillion dollars. Of course, higher debt places upward pressure on interest rates, and that is why Australia has the second highest interest rates in the OECD. On the international competitiveness front, the International World Competitiveness Yearbook for 2007 shows that Australia’s ranking has fallen from sixth to 12th place. Frankly, other countries are passing us by. It is interesting to look at how Labor was able to achieve stronger export growth when it was in office. It did it because it had a multifaceted approach to policy in this area. We had an integrated trade and industry policy; we put multilateral trade agreements—not bilaterals—at the forefront of our negotiations; we invested in skills, infrastructure and an industrial relations framework that linked wages growth to productivity and supported our trade export sector; and we adequately funded trade assistance. What we have instead is a government intent on getting political trophies through its free trade agreements, with the United States in particular. The three free trade agreements that this government has signed have seen the trade position deteriorate in every one of those countries. On the export assistance front, where Labor introduced the Export Market Development Grants Scheme and the International Trade and Enhancement Scheme, which saw a multiple effect—12 to 1 and 18 to 1 respectively from those investments—this government has not only abolished the ITES but also halved the total expenditure on trade assistance. Little wonder that we are seeing a halving of the rate in growth in exports. The services sector is another classic example where the government has failed to direct its energies. We need to return to the sorts of integrated policies that saw this country able to have exports contribute positively to GDP. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 8 13:02:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I would like to strongly contest the arguments put in this place today by the member for Hotham in relation to Australia’s trade figures. This is merely an attempt by the Australian Labor Party to find anything negative in Australia’s current economic data. It is a credit to this government that that has been such a difficult task. After all, Australia is in its 16th consecutive year of uninterrupted economic growth. That is the longest period of growth since Federation. This growth has been underpinned by the economic reforms of the past 10 to 15 years and trade liberalisation over the past two decades. So the Australian economy is in a remarkably strong position and the Labor Party, to the government’s credit, struggles to find fault with its performance and management. Our trade figures are hardly all doom and gloom. Australia achieved its highest ever export revenue of $210 billion in 2006. That is up 16 per cent in one year and more than double the level in 1996, when we came to office. This strong export performance has been driving job creation, boosting incomes in our local communities and increasing the standard of living right across the country. Our exports are sitting at approximately 20 per cent of GDP and one in five Australian jobs is now export related. Of course, this is even higher in regional parts of the country, where 25 per cent of jobs rely on exports. So the government is well aware of the importance of export growth to our continued economic prosperity. Our export volumes grew three per cent in 2006, with growth across all major sectors. Of course there is room to improve our export volumes, and there are various measures that the government has implemented to work towards those ends. We have made commitments in the areas of infrastructure, expanding our skills base and pursuing trade reform. However, addressing export volumes requires significant investment in infrastructure by the states. Today’s edition of the Sydney Morning Herald contains a report showing that inadequate transport infrastructure is losing us export revenue. It states: On the nation’s ports, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars in export revenue are being lost as inadequate rail and port systems clog up with cargo. It is ironic to hear the member for Hotham complaining about falling export volumes while, coast to coast, Labor state governments are failing to provide adequate investment in our ports. If 71 coal ships are waiting at anchor outside Newcastle, as this story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald maintains, then it is the fault of the New South Wales Labor government. Port management systems are a state government responsibility. I am especially aware of the situation in New South Wales, where the state government has chronically neglected transport infrastructure for years. In doing so, it has badly damaged the state economy and hampered the state’s ability to attract business investment. So perhaps the member for Hotham ought to be speaking to his colleagues in state Labor governments around the country and asking them to take more seriously their responsibilities to Australia’s economic capacity. It is fairly simple logic that if there is not enough port capacity for ships to pick up their cargo in a timely fashion then export volumes will be affected. Through its industry statement this government is providing $1.4 billion over 10 years— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —How much? MP6 Baird, Bruce, MP Mr BAIRD —$1.4 billion. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The minister is warned. MP6 Baird, Bruce, MP Mr BAIRD —to improve the international competitiveness of Australian businesses. We are pursuing opportunities to negotiate better conditions for Australian exporters through APEC bilaterally and by other means. We are investing $14 billion in Australia’s rail network through Auslink. We are also experiencing the worst drought on record, and this is naturally affecting rural exports. Despite this, rural exports rose by six per cent to $26 billion in 2006. It is also interesting to note that education services exports—that is, our intake of international students—rose by 12 per cent in 2006 to be worth $10.7 billion to the Australian economy. It is Australia’s fourth largest export, and one that Labor has been quite happy to criticise. The member for Hotham seems to have a manic focus on volume numbers. Volume numbers really have very little significance here. The value of our exports is what matters. Volume numbers do not measure the value of exports to the Australian economy. Our exports, in dollar terms, have doubled since 1996. This is despite the 1997 Asian financial crisis. (Time expired) 9 13:07:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —I rise with pleasure to speak in this debate on the motion moved by the member for Hotham. It is interesting that the previous speaker, the member for Cook, spoke about some data from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Interestingly, in DFAT’s ‘Plain facts about Australia’s trade’, it says: Trade gives Australians more consumer choice and spending power. If Australia hadn’t started opening its markets to trade in the late 1980s, we would now pay over 30 per cent more for a new car and some 18 per cent more for clothes and shoes. That is a very good acknowledgement of the Labor Party policy in deregulating the markets in the 1990s—a policy which we are never given credit for in this place, but the government is obviously happy to take the benefits of it. It is interesting to look at further DFAT information regarding the export market share in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005. For example, if we look at resources as an export market share in 2003, we see that it comprised 26 per cent and that manufactures comprised 25 per cent. In 2004, resources as an export market share comprised 26 per cent compared to 22 per cent for manufactures. If we look at Australian exports in 2005, the resources boom meant that the figure for resources was 33 per cent, while manufactures comprised 21 per cent. So in the space of two, three or four years, the manufacturing share has fallen by something like four per cent. What is happening to manufacturing in this country? We are not the only ones talking about the state of manufacturing in this country. Let us look at the City of Greater Dandenong and some of the great enterprises that are based around it. The City of Greater Dandenong encompasses an area of about 130 square kilometres and it is home to more than 8,000 companies, producing a total output worth in excess of $9 billion. The local manufacturing region provides employment for 70,000 people of 140 different nationalities. This region produces 40 per cent of the total Victorian output of manufactured goods and is renowned as a centre for innovative manufacturing, with many companies possessing world-leading technology within their specialist fields. The region has more than 300 exporters, and hosts four of the top 10 Victorian exporters, all of whom are SMEs who predominantly export their total production into international markets. So we have companies of excellence in that region. Even with the river of prosperity that appears to be running through Dandenong, these people have grave concerns about the federal government and its export policy—or its lack of export policy. Let us look at the organisation that helps to coordinate those particular export bodies. It is called the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance, a City of Greater Dandenong alliance. Having talked to the chief executive officer about this alliance—an alliance that coordinates and deals with these companies and helps with access to overseas markets—you would think that he would give a glowing endorsement to the federal government. Tragically, that is not the case. In fact, let me tell the House what he thinks about the federal government. He says: Like local industry, SEMMA membership, currently at 130 companies, continues to grow. Whilst we recognise ongoing challenges for local manufacturers we are optimistic that the sector will continue to prosper. SEMMA strongly believes that at the centre of manufacturing sustainability is the need for manufacturers to work together and with government to strategically plan their future direction. As a consequence our organisation has been heavily involved in a wide range of initiatives addressing this issue. However SEMMA is disappointed with the Federal Government’s lack of a national strategy for manufacturing, their non participation at key organised industry forums and their perceived indifference towards SME manufacturers in Melbourne’s south-east. What a glowing reference! He continues: I believe that Australia has the worst export performance of any OECD country with only 4% of Australian companies exporting compared to the next lowest country of Canada at 13%. The issue of Australia’s poor manufacturing export performance centres around one issue being:- “Australia’s continued inability to formalise a long term national export strategy that incorporates a model that can engage SME’s”. In regards to SME’s Melbourne’s south east has in excess of 90% of companies in this category—many have innovative products—most do not export. Why is this so? They say it is because of a lack of knowledge, that SMEs believe export is only for larger companies, because of a lack of real, practical support by the government, and the belief among SMEs that exporting is all too hard. SEMMA continues: The current export infrastructure, namely Austrade, has been developed as a Government cost centre, focusing on overall— (Time expired) 11 13:12:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 0 Mr LAMING —Mr Deputy Speaker, they can talk about the economy as much as they wish; we will be quite prepared to respond to every question, and in great detail. The member for Hotham gave a detailed tirade on the performance of Labor in the 1990s, and I appreciate that that was a time of boom and bust and that it was not always a time when governments acquitted themselves well. At that time, it is true that there was productivity growth, but it was a very different period then. I do not recall a drought, as there is today, back in the 1990s. I do not recall a SARS crisis. I do not recall an Asian meltdown. I do not recall a tech bubble or anything like that. What I do recall is an economy that, since 1996, has performed extraordinarily well through some of the greatest external shocks that the world has seen, and in that time Australia has acquitted itself well. There is no greater evidence of that than when we compare OECD economic performance and productivity against the benchmark, which at the moment is the United States. Comparisons through the OECD can be very harsh, and the opposition knows that well. Often, very tiny differences in economic performance can make it look like you are a long way down the list, and Australia sits proudly with wonderful economies like Japan, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and the UK—almost inseparable in our percentage gap of GDP below that of the United States. In front of us are only Denmark, Austria, Iceland, Switzerland, Ireland and Norway. These northern European economies are obviously very different from Australia. They are small, homogeneous and have a completely different economic provision base. In fact, most of them have very different welfare economies as well. So that handful of economies are the only ones that show a significantly greater productivity output per worker. Of course, labour productivity is measured by subtracting the growth in your employment from the growth in your output. I think the mistake that is so frequently made by those on the other side of politics is to say that it is all about what the government does; it is all about how much the government is putting in. Obviously, the member for Hotham makes a compelling case for correlation—that at the time when productivity was growing very well, Labor just happened to be in power. But I have yet to be convinced that some of their policies actually had very much to do with it. I will agree that they made some important legislative decisions, but I also remind them that we supported the great majority of them. That stands in stark contrast to what has happened in the last 10 years, where these smaller and smaller reforms that have built upon a base have not been supported by the other side. It has been a battle to get through the tiniest reforms, let alone the major ones, like workplace reform and the ports. These have been huge struggles. Support on bilateral agreements on trade has not been forthcoming, and that stands in great contrast to what happened when support was required from this side of the House while we were in opposition. That is frequently forgotten, given that it was 10 or 11 years ago, but an important point to make nonetheless. I would like to reiterate the words of the previous speaker from this side, who pointed out just how strong our export performance is. Tempting as it is to simply subtract away imports and say there is a massive problem, I do not see a problem with small trade deficits, and many do not. Many do not see a problem with them if they are adequately serviced and it is not the government that goes into debt to fund them. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Hotham is on very thin ice. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr LAMING —There have been plenty of times in history when we have had a series of trade deficits— IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr Snowdon —It’s not that cold! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not need any stupid comments from the member for Lingiari. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr LAMING —but the essence is that our export sector is performing well. I know that manufacturing was pointed out as an example, but today manufacturing is actually as profitable as it has ever been. There may well be frictional moves with the workforce moving from one sector to another, and manufacturing by number of people employed may have fallen, but the productivity and the performance of that sector have not. The other claim from the other side is that mining and the terms of trade are the only reasons that we are still afloat. You cannot put all of this down to mining. There simply are not enough people employed in mining; mining is not a large enough portion of our economy to claim that everything rests on it. That has been echoed by a number of speakers. Our rural performance is exceptional, given the drought conditions. Our exports of medications, of service goods and of education, which is now our fourth largest export, are unquestionably impressive. Of course, demand for capital and demand for consumer goods will always be strong while our economy runs well. That is one of the main reasons why our imports are also high. But I will tell you one thing: there is enormous confidence in the Australian government at the moment internationally. You only need to pick up an OECD report to see that. I tell you what: every time an OECD report examines the Australian economy and our performance, it speaks of Australia in glowing terms. That can never be forgotten. It is not forgotten by the ordinary family, who see it every day in rising wages and opportunities for their children, and it is seen right here in parliament in this debate. (Time expired) 12 13:17:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 0 Mr GIBBONS —I am pleased to support and participate in this private member’s motion moved by the member for Hotham. The blow-out in the trade deficit to $1.6 billion in March represented our 60th consecutive monthly trade deficit and was a sad reflection on the performance of this government and its ministers. Australia has been importing more than it has exported for five years, despite the biggest resources boom in 50 years. The statistics speak for themselves: a record annual trade deficit in 2004 of $24 billion, a record annual current account deficit of $54 billion in 2006 and a record foreign debt of $520 billion. Each trade deficit adds to our current account deficit, which in turn adds to our foreign debt, which has grown from $193 billion to $520 billion over the past 11 years. Australia’s higher debt places upward pressure on interest rates as the perceived risk of lending to Australia increases. Australia has the second highest interest rates in the OECD. Manufactured exports have recorded growth of 0.4 per cent a year compared to 16 per cent a year under the previous Labor governments; services exports have grown by five per cent a year, compared to an average growth of 14 per cent a year under the previous Labor administrations; and the volume of resource exports has averaged growth of just 1.5 per cent a year over the past five years. If Australia had maintained the rate of export growth recorded under Labor, we would have had a trade surplus of $23 billion in 2006 rather than the deficit of $12 billion actually recorded. The resources boom is an opportunity squandered for Australia because of this government’s policy failure. Labor had consistently stronger export growth because we were prepared to invest in the drivers of economic growth—infrastructure, skills and innovation—and because we developed integrated trade and industry policies. Labor was also prepared to drive harder for new markets to be opened up through multilateral free trade rather than the mess of failed bilateral agreements pursued by this government. ABS data released recently also showed that Australia’s services deficit with each of our FTA partners has deteriorated. The free trade agreement with the US is so far less than successful. I understand there is to be a review later this year. The Howard government is always reluctant to push hard with our friends across the Pacific, especially in the area of defence manufacturing. Australia punches far above its weight in the specialised area of niche defence manufacturing. An outstanding example of our capability in this area is the Bushmaster armoured personnel carrier, designed and built by the former Australian Defence Industries—now Thales—in Bendigo, my electorate. Earlier this month one of these vehicles came under attack from a roadside explosive device, or IED, in the southern provinces of Iraq. The vehicle was damaged and later recovered, but most importantly the two ADF occupants were not injured because of the superb design and construction of the vehicle. Bushmaster offers a far superior level of protection than any other vehicle of its type throughout world, including the American designed and built Humvee armoured personnel carrier. I understand the American Marine Corps is very interested in Bushmaster but is restricted by the protectionist nature of the American defence manufacturing industry, which uses various instruments to block any chance of success in the US market by non-US-manufactured defence products. I know our officials from DFAT and Austrade do a great job in lobbying hard for our defence manufactures in the United States but are constantly being stymied by the US defence manufacturing sector. Australia currently has commitments for over $23 billion in US manufactured defence equipment, including $500 million for Abrams battle tanks, $6.6 billion for the Super Hornet interim fighter and a massive $16 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter project. Yet there is little chance of any reasonably sized volumes of Australian manufactured defence equipment like the Bushmaster gaining access to the US defence market. So much for so-called free and fair trade! Our American friends and allies are more than happy to have Australia and our flag along on their various foreign policy adventures and more than happy to have us as partners in the coalition of the willing, but they are totally unwilling to allow our Australian built, vastly superior and life-saving defence manufacturing products like Bushmaster access to the US market. It is time the Prime Minister and the trade minister intervened and demanded that our US allies, in the spirit of the so-called free trade agreement, used any forthcoming review to insist on access to the US market for some of our superior defence products, like the Bushmaster. 14 13:22:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 1 0 Mr FORREST —I am reminded of the Victorian members of the Australian cricket team. The member for Hotham comes in here as Shane Warne—the master of spin—and with a myopia about volume and not value, and the member for Holt follows through with a Glenn McGrath style of spin ball. The member for Bendigo focused on his electorate, and I suppose he should speak proudly of those manufacturing activities down there in Bendigo. But all the speakers have failed to address the fact that there has been an incredible, massive increase in GDP since those terrible years prior to 1996. From November 1996 GDP has increased by a massive 44.5 per cent. That means that the economy has grown so much that, in the nature of conducting business, our imports have also increased. It is worth while speaking in GDP terms, and I will read into the record the value basis of our export activity. In 1996 the percentage share of GDP was 19 per cent. Other speakers have acknowledged that. In 1997 it was 20.2 per cent, in 1998 it was 19.6 per cent and in 1999 it was 18.7 per cent. It is worth observing several things that have been happening with these movements. One is the value of the dollar—and the consistency with some of the massive crises that the member for Bowman has mentioned—and there have also been sales crises with the collapse in the Asian economy. Latterly, particularly over the last five years, we have had the worst drought on record. I will continue. The share grew then in 2000 to 21.6 per cent of GDP. In 2002 it was 20.4 per cent; in 2003 it was 19.9 per cent of GDP; in 2004, 18.1 per cent; in 2005, 19.5 per cent; and in 2006, last year, 20.9 per cent of GDP. So our export activity is not as grim a picture as the members of the opposition have painted it. The member for Holt complained that the Australian Labor Party have not had any credit for the activity they engaged in, in the early nineties, with respect to economic reform. He failed to tell the Australian people that those measures were supported by the coalition parties, who then, unlike the opposition of today, recognised good policy and supported it in this chamber. That needs to be stated to the Australian people when the Australian Labor Party claim credit for their so-called activity. I think our performance is a great credit to the current Australian government. We have a strong economy. Yes, there has been huge activity in the resources sector, but it should never be overlooked that we have endured crisis after crisis. This not an excuse; it is just accepting what is practical reality. There was the Asian financial crisis in 1997, not long after we came into government, and a downturn in the whole world economy in 2001, which was impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11. That affected global travel, and travel is a very important, sizeable sector in the Australian export economy. We had the outbreak of the SARS epidemic in 2002-03, and from 2003 onwards we have had the drought. People older than me say that it is the worst they can remember. I think the Australian people are wise to the spin being delivered to us here this morning by the Victorian members of the Australian Labor Party. They are switched on out there. They know they are benefiting from the economy—even those constituents in my own electorate of Mallee, on whom we rely so heavily because they are such great exporters. Despite what they have been contending with—drought and water shortages for irrigators—the Mallee economies continue to grow, following the same sort of activity that I have talked about here. They are not going to be conned by the presentation that has been made to us here this morning. They are grateful for a strong government that has given them a good economy. The government is trying to take the lead and show the rest of the economy that we are the only nation in the world that is in savings. We are saving now and putting away for the future. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 15 15 13:27:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I move: That the House: acknowledges that for the first time, Green Roofs for Healthy Australian Cities has been discussed at a conference held in Brisbane; notes that there are 15 green roof infrastructure associations representing urban planners, educators, horticulturalists, engineers and architects, which have now formed the World Green Roof Infrastructure Network; notes that green roofs provide a range of benefits to help counter climate change through thermal insulation, storm-water management that causes lower run-off at peak times, reduction of ambient temperatures in cities, air and water cleaning effects, direct energy savings for government, visual beauty, habitat creation, long roof life and noise insulation; notes that green roof spaces allow food to be grown through hydroponic, aquaculture, aquaponics, vermiculture and insect culture, providing additional revenues for building owners and tenants; and encourages businesses and local authorities to seek the triple bottom line from environmental practices, as exemplified by the Ford Rouge Center in Dearborn, Michigan, USA. In moving this motion I acknowledge the support and advocacy of Geoff Wilson, who, with his wife Mary and a very small band of supporters it seems, has been pioneering the discussion in this country about what green roofs are about. It seems to have come a long way from when we got a small grant from the Australian government to trial, in a feasibility study with the Southside Chamber of Commerce, back in 1999, a proposal at Mount Gravatt to look at recycling of food waste from restaurants via worm farming, using the worm liquor for rooftop hydroponics and selling the green-roof produce back to the same restaurants and so forth, to see whether that could work as a business. That was where we got to a few years ago. Where are we now? What are green roofs? Well, ironically, we are under the biggest green roof in Australia. This parliament—this building—is covered by grass. It is covered so that the people of Australia can walk upon us and make out that they are very much on top of each and every one of us in our deliberations. It is making use of the roof space of this building in a positive way. Green roofs exist in other places around the world. The Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam makes good use of green roofs. With a 12-centimetre-deep green roof pad, it has reduced noise by some 40 decibels. There it has been used as noise insulation. In transport areas, train terminals in parts of America have green roofs above them, turning old industrial spaces into green spaces. The biggest green roof in the world is the Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan. It is a very famous plant next to the Rouge River in Michigan. It is simply the biggest green roof in the world, some 454,000 square feet or 10.4 acres. I apologise to the metric purists but, Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I understand that that is a very large space. Ford have covered the industrial plant where mainly trucks—but also other vehicles—are made. They have turned around what was, 50 years ago, one of the greatest environmental disasters in the world. The Rouge River was so heavily polluted next to the Ford plant that it actually caught on fire. It was so filled with a toxic mix of chemicals that it caught on fire! The Ford company have embraced the concept of green roofs. Apart from the noise installation that is used at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, there is thermal insulation which reduces fossil fuel energy in the heating and cooling of buildings. By using a green layer of grass or trees above the roof you are actually using nature’s own insulation—the insulation that God designed for the world. There is also stormwater management, the lower run-off of rainfall at peak times. At the Michigan plant, excess rainwater travels through a series of swales and wetland ponds where it undergoes natural treatment before it returns to the Rouge River. Green roof technology is replanting the large roof spaces in our urban environments with productive trees and plants. As I mentioned, at Mount Gravatt years ago we trialled the idea of turning the roof spaces into food productive areas. This is done in many parts of Asia where the net landmass of  spare space in cities like Singapore is very small; so you see restaurants outside on the roofs of large hotels making use of that roof space. My ambition in sponsoring this debate today is to get the discussion going. There at 18 countries around the world which are involved in an international network dealing with this green roof technology—countries as diverse as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Canada, the US, Mexico, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and, indeed, Australia. Only a couple of months ago a national green roof conference took place in Brisbane. Brisbane has a real chance of becoming the green roof centre of Australia. With green roofs there are air-cleaning and water effects, visual beauty and habitat can be created and savings for government can be delivered. In the city of Toronto, eight per cent of roofs are green roofs and this has made direct savings of some $Can12 million a year in buildings due to reduced demands for heating and cooling. Let us get the debate on green roofs going. Let us look at that as a positive and practical way to improve the environment, particularly in our urban spaces. I commend this motion to the House. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded? E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16 13:32:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I congratulate the member for Moreton, the previous speaker, in his initiative in raising this matter of green roofs. The website www.greenroofs.com explains that green roofs are vegetated roof covers with growing media and plants taking the place of bare membrane, gravel ballast, shingles or tiles. The number of players and the layer placement vary from system to system and green roof type. However, all green roofs include a single to multi-ply waterproofing layer, drainage, growing media et cetera. According to a 2004 report by Canadian landscape architect Goya Nagan, green roofs have been constructed for thousands of years, the most famous early example being the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. They have also been used in traditional buildings such as the sod roofs of rural Scandinavia. Experimentation in the early part of the 20th century found that green roofs required special waterproofing, since roots were found to grow in what were typically tar roofs. Over the past 35 years, research and experimentation has taken place primarily in Germany, where sophisticated membranes have been perfected, construction standards have been developed and the environmental, economic and social benefits continue to be studied. As in so many things, Germany, Austria and middle Europe has led the way in these matters since the 1960s. When the first generation of waterproof membranes showed signs of damage in the 1970s, techniques were documented and materials were developed to respond to building design issues. It is estimated today that 12 per cent of all German flat roofs are green, and the German green roof industry is growing at 10 to 15 per cent per year. The best known example of this technology is the Ford motor vehicle plant in Rouge, Michigan. It includes the world’s largest ecologically inspired living roof—about 500,000 square feet—which dramatically affects the Rouge area watershed by holding several inches of rainfall. It also involves swales, shallow green ditches seeded with indigenous plants to improve the stormwater management, porous paving filters to water through retention beds with two to three feet of compacted stones helping to manage stormwater run-off, trellises for flowering vines, renewable energy sources such as solar fuel cells and the planting of more than 1,500 trees and thousands of other plantings to attract songbirds and create habitats. I support the motion as I believe that green roofs make a lot of sense. Indeed, I believe that working on green roof projects can make a positive impact against greenhouse emissions. According to the Australian Greenhouse Office: Commercial and industrial buildings consume very large quantities of energy and resources as their operators attempt to provide comfortable and productive environments for human activity ... Greenhouse gas emissions from commercial buildings are projected to increase from 32 million tonnes of CO2 per annum in 1990, to 63 million tonnes in 2010 under the business-as-usual scenario ... Buildings are important in greenhouse terms for a number of reasons: emissions associated with their construction, operation, maintenance and demolition are large; decisions made at the time of siting, design, construction and refurbishment have long-lasting consequences; opportunities to capture renewable energy are often linked to the design and operation of buildings. energy are often linked to the design and operation of buildings All of these are relevant facets of the increased interest in green roofs. As I said earlier, European initiatives led the way, but these days in Canada and the United States in general there has been a burgeoning of interest and activity on these fronts. Darebin City Council in Melbourne has also exercised environmental leadership in the design, construction and operations of the Reservoir Civic Centre. HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr Jenkins —It is pronounced ‘Reservoir’. 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —The project is based on principles of triple bottom line—that is, building social capital, environmental sustainability and financial responsibility. I gather that the member for Scullin knows a little bit about it. The building also seeks to reduce energy consumption by 60 per cent, reduce water consumption by half, use low-toxic, recyclable or renewable materials and reduce waste to landfill by 60 per cent. In conclusion, there is increased interest in this matter. The previous speaker professed to hope that Brisbane could become a national centre for this, and we are quite well aware of the conference held earlier this year. Obviously, this is another front where, if Australia is not active, innovative or inventive, the technologies will disappear overseas, as we have found on so many fronts over the last decade in the abuse of energy and living conditions. 18 13:36:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 0 Mr LAMING —Often in this place, the rarefied atmosphere of parliamentary debate, many good ideas are canvassed only to meet their demise in the far more toxic substrate of state government regulation. Never was that more true than in the building regulations which are effectively formulated by each state and territory. The great tragedy of course is that, while those regulations are changing all the time, many great ideas and higher outcomes are sacrificed because local councils are unable to bring forward such great ideas as green roofs. In Queensland, the state building regulations mandate minimum standards. If all you are ever doing is mandating the minima, so often those minima become the maximum that we see. This is the great challenge, as we consider changes to building codes. I for one would like to see higher outcomes in this area. I know that my council, Redland Shire Council, would also look to that. But that can only be achieved by encouragement from a distance through performance based codes. It is highly likely that we will continue to reflect on great ideas like green roofs by looking at what Europe may well be doing or what might be happening in the US and in Canada. The truth is that green roofs have many direct benefits for application right here in Australia. I, as self-styled member for Moreton Bay, will speak on behalf of Brisbane, together with the member for Moreton. We both have an outer metropolitan interest in the fast-growing population that has an enormous urban sprawl. I am sure everybody would agree that, as you fly over Brisbane, there is an enormous amount of roof space per capita. Not only is this a challenge but also it is an opportunity. If the roof space is amended effectively we can look to not only reduced cooling bills in summer—and air conditioning is by far the most expensive form of power in Queensland homes—but also an amenity for the many people who work in medium- and high-rise buildings. We can reduce stormwater run-off, not so much in the city but in country areas, which is often responsible for washing away very fertile soil. By capturing a lot of that rainwater and picking up the heavy metals and the pollutants, green roofs can actually hold that water and have it returned in the form of condensation and evaporation. There are challenges with green roofs. Of course they will be heavy. You cannot simply place one on an existing roof. The weight will often mean that a significant superstructure will be required in the roof. But for a cost of $50 to $100 per square metre what can be created is not so much vegetation but an entire ecology on these roofs, improving amenity for those who live there, evaporative cooling and a reduction in the urban heat island effect that is well described. We know that an innovation such as green roofs would reduce not only the amount of energy required to cool that building and keep the temperature stable, up to seven degrees Celsius movement due to poorly insulated roofs, but also the heat around the buildings themselves. Green roofs are just part of a great package that I think householders should be encouraged to adopt. It includes an AAA rated shower rose that reduces water use from 25 litres per minute to single-figure litres per minute. It also includes the use of dual-flush toilets—an Australian invention—again reducing water use, by 60 per cent; greenhouse energy efficient hot water systems, by putting in modern hot water systems, reducing the high water pressure that can lead to water loss with the simple use of a water-saving disc; and energy efficient lighting. We in Australia are moving very fast towards using efficient fluorescent lighting. Green roofs come as part of a package. But, as I said in my introductory statement, it will not happen as long as our building codes, particularly in Queensland, simply dictate minima. There will be very little incentive for innovative and forward-looking councils, such as Redland Shire Council for one, to encourage these roofs, other than through basic performance based codes. We need an even greater adoption of fantastic ideas like green roofs, which have already captured the imagination of both Europe and North America. 19 13:41:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —I support this quirky motion moved by the member for Moreton. As we attack many of the environmental problems that confront our nation, especially our metropolitan areas, we should look at ideas like this. It is appropriate, as the member for Moreton indicated, that we should be debating this matter, where we see an exemplar of a green roof covering this building, even though it used to be thought of as an architectural artifice. One thing we need to consider is the potential to look at spaces that make up the roofs of our cities. We need to look at the examples we see in cities such as Toronto and those mentioned in the motion to see what can be achieved. We also need to give due credence to what Australia can do. For instance, I think it is important that we look at Australian native plants and the various Australian xerophytes that could be used, because they are not as dependent upon water as other species. We could then use our great mechanical and engineering knowledge to overcome some of the problems that have already been outlined in the debate about weight upon roofs and things such as that. The development of appropriate membranes and appropriate filtration systems is well within the capacity of Australian thinkers. Another concern has been raised in this debate. I go back to my experience during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage inquiry into sustainable cities. One thing we need to do is sit down with the states and territories to achieve a set of building codes that take into account the potential that arises for these types of environmental aspects. The codes are completely silent on that. That should not be used as part of a blame game in pointing our fingers at the states and territories. It needs to be seen as an add-on. Once you do that as an add-on, we then have to sit down with the building industry and think of innovative ways in which we can decrease the cost to people. That will be used as an argument for these not to be built into codes. The Australian government and the parliament can play a role by having a debate such as this to encourage people to look at these ideas. The Australian community foods alliance appeared before the sustainable cities inquiry. They were looking at encouraging the use of green roofs in Australian cities for food production. You have this complete development—the add-ons—and also the psyche, the fact that gardens have been replaced by buildings which, in turn, can be replaced by the use of building spaces. We see a lot of innovative developers throughout our major cities that indeed see the positive aspect of this and can use it as a marketing tool. We see such developments as the Mirvac development in Melbourne, the Four Tower Yarra Edge development, where a green roofscape has been created using a combination of native grasses, crushed recycled glass and decorative pebbles and things like that. They create an atmosphere in which people can relate to the environment that they are living in and that adds to the sustainability. Mention is made of triple bottom line reporting not only for businesses but with respect to the way our cities work. One of the great things that we should be talking about in any idea like this is the social consequences. We can talk about the environmental consequences, and I think people can understand that: if you make green spaces using the roof. We can look at the economic benefits because that, in turn, reduces the cost of insulation and the like. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 20 Statements by Members 20 20 13:45:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise this afternoon to congratulate Northern Brass on its recent win of the intermediate section of the 2007 National Band Championships. This pre-eminent achievement adds to Northern Brass’s growing list of awards, proving it to be full of more than just hot air. Northern Brass has practised for fewer than two years and has competed three times, winning an award each time. Northern Brass is one of three bands that form Darebin City Brass, which is generously supported by the Darebin City Council. Since 1934, generations of Batman locals have played in the community bands. The current president, Peter Caldwell, is the longest serving member—41 years—and the Junior Band conductor, Jack Kelly, was appropriately awarded 2007 Darebin City Citizen of the Year. Together they have maintained the bands’ historically strong community involvement. Since the early days of the band, it has been a blast of fresh air and has attracted national attention. In 1953, it was one of the first Australian bands recorded on a long-play record. In 1986, Darebin City Brass was farewelled by the then member for Wills, Prime Minister Bob Hawke, to compete in the New Zealand Band Championships, where it placed fourth. I wish Darebin City Brass the greatest of successes for the future and in its next major event, which is to perform at the very same New Zealand Band Championships. It is doing a wonderful job, especially for our local people. (Time expired) 20 20 13:46:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —Last week was Public Education Week—a week of opportunity for the community to celebrate the work of students, teachers and parents in our public schools. I was privileged to join in some of the local celebrations. I had the honour of attending a leaders breakfast at Berkeley Vale Public School as well as the Tuggerah Lakes Learning Community Values Forum. This forum is funded under an Australian government program and involves 10 schools: Tuggerah Lakes secondary colleges in Berkeley Vale, Tumbi Umbi and The Entrance; and The Entrance, Bateau Bay, Brooke Avenue, Killarney Vale, Berkeley Vale, Chittaway Bay and Wamberal public schools. Each school invited 30 people to the event and gave a presentation on how their school promotes values and ethics. It was great to see firsthand the values that these school communities aspire to, and I congratulate the teachers on a job well done. I also recently attended the opening of new facilities at MacKillop Catholic College, along with Bishop David Walker. I congratulate the school on their efforts in establishing the best possible facilities for their students. The Australian government provided funding of $6.6 million, through the capital development program, towards new classrooms and facilities. I believe that this project demonstrates the commitment of the Australian government to providing every student with the best possible learning environment through the funding of these new facilities. We have, all up, 52 schools in Dobell. The Australian government is committed to ensuring that every student receives a quality school education. This is being done by improving choice in education— (Time expired) 21 21 13:48:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —Volunteers play a very important role in our community by making sure that events run smoothly and that individuals and groups are supported and protected from harm. In recognition of the hard work that volunteers put in each week, without fuss and, for many, without recognition, I take this opportunity to refer to the certificates of appreciation that I presented last week to various groups in my community. It was an important opportunity to recognise the efforts of individuals who give of themselves so freely to make sure that sporting and community events are supported and run smoothly and that people receive assistance when they need it. Volunteers so often do things that many of us would simply take for granted. The volunteers whom I had the opportunity to recognise included people from the Minto Heights Bush Fire Brigade, Myrtle Cottage, South West Community Transport, United Kempo, Argyle Community Housing, Ingleburn Country Women’s Association, the Ingleburn Alive Festival Committee, the Macquarie Fields Local Area Command, the Good News Community Group, Blue Hills Retirement Village, St John Ambulance, Liverpool SES, the Multiple Births Association, the Vietnam Veterans Association and the Campbelltown and Airds Historical Society. Without the efforts that these people put in— (Time expired) 21 21 13:50:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 0 Mr HAASE —I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the plight of children from the bush in attending tertiary institutions. Mr Speaker, as you would know, people in pastoral areas—certainly those in my electorate—are doing it tough. An amount of $6,396 is being provided by this very generous government to assist primary and secondary school students from the bush to attend metropolitan teaching institutions. However, when those students obtain the marks necessary to attend tertiary institutions in the city, they are not provided with any assistance to live away from home. City students, by comparison, have the opportunity to live with their parents at home. They have their board and lodgings provided for. They can use public transport. When a kid from the bush tries to get tertiary qualifications from institutions in the city—and hopefully go back to regional Australia and provide some sort of service there—they often cannot do it because they lack the financial resources. The result is that these students, who have battled to make a start in a city based institution, often drop out. And the overall result is a dumbing-down in the bush, which is very unfortunate. We have this situation—a continual loop—whereby fewer and fewer qualified tertiary students are from regional Australia. It is a major problem that the ICPA has been confronting— (Time expired) 21 21 13:51:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —The period 28 April to 13 May marked Fair Trade Fortnight, which was organised largely by two associations who have been at the forefront of fair trade awareness in our region: the Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand and Oxfam Australia. The fair trade movement is based on one simple objective: to ensure a fair deal for farmers, families and communities globally. More than five million farmers, workers and families across 58 developing countries are benefiting from the fair trade system today. This movement is gaining momentum in Australia as Australian consumers embrace the ethical choices that have been presented to them. The number of Australian companies licensed to use the Fair Trade label on fair trade certified products has grown from 26 companies in 2004 to 80 earlier this year. A number of cafes in my electorate use Fair Trade coffee, tea and chocolate. These include Hudsons Coffee, the Botanic Gardens Kiosk, Cafe Paradiso, the Kitchenhand, A Taste of Jamaica and Azadi Cafe. I commend them all for doing so. Many supermarkets also stock Fair Trade products. I urge all members of this parliament to support the movement towards Fair Trade products in their own electorates and to continue to work for a fair go for the world’s producers. 22 22 13:53:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 0 Mr BAKER —I rise to acknowledge the Australian government’s support to Australian industry. Australian industry received budgetary and taxation assistance totalling some $4.6 billion, of which $1.8 billion was for the manufacturing sector. In 2007, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry released The future of Australia’s manufacturing sector: a blueprint for success. This report called for assistance in the areas of taxation, industrial relations, skills, investment in infrastructure, productivity, research and development and the regulatory environment. In May 2007, the Australian government did just that with its $1.4 billion industry statement. It delivered additional assistance in the key areas of research and development, productivity, skills development, the linking of business to global markets and continuing investment in business support. The changes to red-tape procedures and business taxation reform will further assist our manufacturing sector. As the local member for the electorate of Braddon, which is often described as the engine room for Tasmania’s manufacturing, I am supportive of these issues for both my local region and Australia as a whole. I urge all members to take advantage of this great initiative. 22 22 13:54:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —As I have done previously, I rise today to speak about human rights in Vietnam, a matter I know is also particularly important to the honourable member for Oxley and the honourable member for Fowler. Since February, there has been a crackdown on human rights in Vietnam, which has made a bad situation even worse. This picture of Father Nguyen Van Ly being gagged in a court in Vietnam is nothing short of a disgrace. It is an example of democracy being undermined in a country very close to Australia. I would also like to pay particular reference today to the plight of the Khmer people in Vietnam. The Khmer people suffered in Cambodia, and the Australian government played a significant role in bringing democracy to Cambodia. But the Khmer people continue to suffer in Vietnam. There are eight million Khmers in Kampuchea-Krom who are suffering under human rights oppression in that southern region of Vietnam. Everybody in Vietnam suffers from human rights abuse, but the Khmer people suffer particular abuse. An officer of the United States Embassy to Bangkok, John Crowley, who also served in Australia, wrote that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam seeks to destroy Khmer culture in Vietnam through subtle means such as forbidding the construction of new temples and the repair of old temples and banning the ordination of priests under the age of 55. All people, not just the Khmer people, in Vietnam deserve to have democracy. All people in Vietnam deserve the basic rights that we in Australia expect. (Time expired) 23 23 13:55:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 0 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —I stand to speak about an inspiring group that is working to save a palliative care hospice in Launceston. Friends of Philip Oakden House is receiving the community support that it deserves. Just yesterday I was fortunate enough to attend a memorial church service to honour that wonderful service that Philip Oakden House staff and volunteers have provided since 1993. I joined with hundreds of people to remember those who have died with dignity and love amidst some very difficult circumstances. The hospice is at risk of being closed as the operator, OneCare, wishes to withdraw. The hospice will close next month unless another operator is found. The Tasmanian government is to be thanked for recently doubling the funding available to the hospice. However, I would now urge it to be flexible and to actively assist a new operator to come on board. Like the 6,000 people who signed a petition to support Philip Oakden House, I am personally very disappointed at OneCare’s decision to discontinue the service despite what appears to have been an adequate funding offer. There is a prevailing determination in the community to keep Philip Oakden House operating. Today I again call on all parties to do the right thing to continue the service. I wish to pay tribute to Barb Baker and Kim Pridham and their dedicated group in the Friends of Philip Oakden House for the magnificent way that they are handling this very difficult issue. 23 23 13:57:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —The Lao community in Sydney is a relatively small but tight-knit group, many of whom arrived in Australia as refugees 30 years ago. For the past 25 years the community has had access to a Sydney based Lao language radio program. From the start, the Sydney program was produced by Ouphet Souvannavong, who served until retirement last December. Although replacements were trained, SBS Radio has axed the Sydney based program, leaving only a Melbourne based service. Without a regular Lao language newspaper, the Lao community in Sydney now has no means of public access to news and events. This is tragic for this small community. It is a service we take for granted but a lost link for the Lao community of Sydney. On another note, I would also like to add my congratulations to Mr Hans Blix, former Chairman of the UN Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, on his being awarded the Sydney Peace Price. Hans Blix was chosen for his principled and courageous opposition to proponents of the Iraq war, for lifelong advocacy of humanitarian law and nonviolence and for leadership of disarmament programs to rid the world of weapons of terror. Congratulations, Hans. 23 23 13:58:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 1 0 Mr LAMING —I rise to speak on the Beattie government’s decision to examine the amalgamation of councils in south-east Queensland. The process closes on 1 August with no provision—I repeat: no provision—for public comment. What is the rush? My second question is this: why has the Brisbane local government area been left out? Finally, why is water being removed from the analysis when, after all, it is a vital part of council sustainability? I said in my maiden speech that the Redland character is very much one that is unique and unrushed. There is a stunning bay ecology and tourism gems, connected by strong community spirit, and appalling state roads. The Redlands area has a very strong interest in the sustainability and the preservation of its own council. No, Mr Premier, this is not just an issue for councillors; it is an issue for the entire population. I predict that the Premier of Queensland will be opposed by individuals at every level who have a deep and abiding passion for the Redland area and an attachment to our own community. 24 24 13:59:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —Mr Speaker, I appreciate the few seconds I have to say a couple of words. Can I say thank you very much and congratulate Viet Tan for coming to parliament today and speaking to both sides, to the Liberal and Labor parties, about some of their activities in Australia and their support for human rights in Vietnam. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 24 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 24 14:00:00 24 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s comments this morning when asked about the amount of money being spent on his taxpayer funded industrial relations PR campaign. He said: ... while the details of that campaign are being fully settled, it’s not possible to put a precise figure on it. Is the Prime Minister confirming that his government has authorised a blank cheque for this taxpayer funded PR campaign? Prime Minister, what is the upper funding limit of this PR campaign? 24 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —It is not a PR campaign. It is designed to provide necessary information to the Australian public. No objective observer examining the campaign would see it as other than providing genuine information. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has, I understand, this morning provided some indicative figure about the costs to date. Beyond the campaign, which will be running, I think, for the rest of this week to provide people with more information, there is nothing planned beyond this week but, if there is, the public will be informed. 24 24 14:02:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House how working mothers benefit from the tax cuts contained in the budget? 24 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. It is the case that the tax cuts announced by the Treasurer in the budget are particularly valuable in relative and absolute terms for working mothers in Australia. It is the case, according to the most recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that some 62 per cent of all working mothers in Australia earn below $35,000 a year. The reason for that is not that they are poorly paid. The reason is that the great bulk of them work part time. As the House will know, the most typical family formation working-wise at the present time is a full-time male breadwinner with his wife and mother of their children working part time. So a 1½- or a 1¼-income household is the most typical. It is certainly not universal but, according to the latest analysis, that is the most typical household formation so far as working parents are concerned. What the impact of the tax changes indicates is that, in relative terms, the greatest benefit goes to people earning between $30,000 and $40,000 a year. The budget delivers a tax cut of $21 a week to wage and salary earners on incomes between $30,000 and $40,000 per annum. In 2004-05, 60 per cent of female taxpayers had a taxable income of $35,000 or less. What this indicates is that the Treasurer’s tax cuts have been deliberately designed to provide the maximum benefit to those that need assistance the most. Not only are the tax cuts of benefit to that section of the Australian population but also changes to child-care assistance in the budget will benefit working mothers. Child-care benefit will increase by 10 per cent, on top of annual indexation, which will reduce out-of-pocket child-care costs as a share of disposable income for all families. The payment of the child-care tax rebate, which further reduces out-of-pocket child-care costs, will be brought forward, providing more timely help with child-care costs to all working parents. I might also observe that since 2004-05, compared with the financial year to start on 1 July 2007, a taxpayer earning $35,000 or less will have enjoyed a tax cut of almost one-half compared with the total tax that that person paid only three years ago. That particular comparison is a measure of the way in which these tax cuts have been designed to assist low- and middle-income earners. They have delivered and they are of particular benefit to the working mothers of Australia. 25 25 14:05:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP 0 Mr GRIFFIN —My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the minister inform the House of the date when the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, which he chairs, met to approve the current industrial relations advertising campaign? What was the budget of the approved campaign? 25 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr NAIRN —The Ministerial Committee on Government Communications finalised the approval of the current information campaign last Thursday—whatever date that was. Budgets of the information campaigns are for the relevant departments to finalise. 25 25 14:07:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 Mr TICEHURST —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House how changes to Australia’s tax system in this year’s budget are likely to affect workforce participation? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 25 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Dobell. I remind the House that this year’s budget cut taxes for all income tax payers by lifting the threshold for the 15c rate and by increasing the low-income tax offset. As the Prime Minister has just said, this has been particularly good for working mothers, who tend to work part time and who have had increased incentive to come back and join the workforce or to take extra time away or to improve their skills. The government is also amending the tax thresholds on 1 July next year so that you will not go onto the higher rate of 40 per cent until you have income over $80,000 and on the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent until you have income over $180,000. Are there any alternative tax policies? Apparently not. The member for Lilley went to the National Press Club to reply to the budget and apparently could not find any fault with the budget. More importantly, he said: I am not anticipating taking forward any significant change to the personal income tax system at this stage. He went on to say, in relation to tax: I can’t raise any expectation we could move in that area in terms of the election platform. It was reported—quite rightly—by the press on the basis of that statement that the Labor Party apparently intends to have no tax policy at the next election. Labor is going to go to the next election without a policy on the most significant area of economic management—tax. When he was asked about this on the weekend, the shadow Treasurer said this: If Peter Costello wants to know what Labor’s tax policy will be, he can start with our announcement to support every dollar of the tax cuts announced in this year’s budget. So if we want to find out what the Labor policy is, we have to look at the coalition policy to work it out, which is why I say to the people of Australia: go to the originators and not the imitators. It was not the Labor Party that thought up moving those thresholds and increasing the LITO and producing tax cuts for working mothers. It was not the Labor Party that thought up increasing the threshold for the top tax rate to $180,000. It was not the Labor Party that thought up cutting the top marginal tax rates. Now we find out that if we want to know what Labor thinks, we have to read coalition policy. We have to write our policy and their policy now! Come round and we will write you a few more, if that is what you really want. Nobody in their right mind would believe that the Labor Party want to get elected so they can be a Liberal government. The true explanation is that Labor do have tax plans, but they do not want to tell you about them before the election. They would like to spring them on taxpayers after the election. If they were good plans— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has the call. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Mr Speaker, I am interrupted. I ask you to call for the videotape and do an investigation, as the Labor Party is demanding over the budget reply. If it were a good tax plan, presumably you would hear about it before the election, but if it is no tax plan, you are only going to find out about it after the election. That entitles us to see what the Labor Party has on the record when it comes to tax. One of the people who is on the record more than most is the would-be finance minister in a Labor government, somebody who proudly proclaimed in his maiden speech that he is a socialist. In a speech on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill, in this House in 1994—get a load of this— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —1994? CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —In 1994, when he was a member of this House, after having been elected, as he claimed, with a mandate to reinvigorate socialism. That is what he said in his maiden speech. I wonder if the member for Melbourne remembers saying this in the House: There should be a return to a tax rate of 60c in the dollar for people earning over $75,000. That is what he said—a 60c-in-the-dollar tax rate for people earning over $75,000. He might be reading News Weekly over there. It won’t cleanse your soul of socialism, Lindsay, we know. The Leader of the Opposition believes there should be a red thread running through all government policies. Let me make this point: under this government’s tax reforms you won’t be paying, on $75,000, 60c in the dollar; you will be paying 30c in the dollar. We do not think people on $75,000 ought to be persecuted by some kind of socialist shibboleth. If thinking like that is what you are getting from the person who would be the minister for finance in a Labor government, no wonder Labor will not be telling you about its tax plans before the election. You can’t trust Labor on tax. It never had the wit to reform the taxation system. It does not support our changes and it ought to come clean with the Australian people. 26 26 14:14:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Special Minister of State. Will the minister confirm the taxpayer funded industrial relations ads now on television were written and produced and the advertising space booked before his Ministerial Committee on Government Communications approved the campaign last Thursday? 27 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr NAIRN —I will not confirm that, because that is not what occurred. The Ministerial Committee on Government Communications met a number of times to look at various aspects of the information campaign and finalised those matters on Thursday last week. 27 27 14:15:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 Mr HAASE —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government’s strong economic management is allowing investment in Australia’s local transport infrastructure, particularly in my electorate of Kalgoorlie? Are there any threats to this strong economic management? 27 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for his question. The member for Kalgoorlie would be well aware that, through a whole series of decisions that our government have taken over the last 10 years, we have positioned the Australian economy to be one of the most prosperous in the developed world. We have achieved record low levels of unemployment. We are witnessing record low levels of industrial disputation. We are running budget surpluses. We have become net savers, not net borrowers, thus keeping downward pressure on interest rates. But the member for Kalgoorlie would recognise that one of the most important reforms that we have undertaken is paying off Labor’s $96 billion debt. That took a lot of hard work and a lot of determined decision making by the government over the last 10 years. That has been achieved. But what has that delivered to the broader economy in Australia and to those massive tracts of Western Australia that the member for Kalgoorlie represents? The first thing it has done, by paying off $96 billion of debt, is relieve the Commonwealth budget of having to pay $8½ billion a year in interest payments. That is $22 million a day we were paying in interest. So that is $8½ billion a year we can invest in other much needed investments in the Australian economy for the future. In this year’s budget we announced that we were going to invest a further $22.3 billion in the AusLink 2 land transport program. That takes the overall investment in AusLink 1 and AusLink 2 to $38 billion since we have been in office. That is only half of the savings of the interest we would have paid on Labor’s debt, had we not paid it off. Had we not retired that debt, we would have paid $85 billion in interest payments over 10 years. We have now reallocated $38 billion of that onto land transport across Australia. That is what you can do if you are prepared to run good fiscal policy with the Australian economy. And there is no question that the benefits are beginning to be seen right across the nation. As part of the announcements on budget night, we announced that we are going to spend $250 million on local and state government road projects across the nation. There was one critical one in the member for Kalgoorlie’s electorate in the shire of Derby-West Kimberley—something you would expect the local authority should have been doing with assistance from the state government, but that is not the case. Because of the decisions that are being taken by state Labor governments across Australia, many of these pieces of road infrastructure are going wanting. So we have stepped in and, as part of our overall strategy in investing in land transport, we are investing in a lot of the local road infrastructure. As a result of the government paying off Labor’s debt and saving $22 million a day on interest, we can now afford—without borrowing—to invest in this much needed road infrastructure across Australia. It gives better roads at a local level for farmers to ship their produce out along; it gives better roads to the road transport industry, which can become more efficient; in the member for Kalgoorlie’s electorate, it gives better roads for the mining industry—they are earning the export wealth for Australia; and it gives safer roads for mums and dads in urban areas. In announcing extra money to those local and arterial road projects, that $250 million equals only 11 days of the interest payments the Labor Party were paying on the debt they had clocked up when they were in office. Only 11 days: $250 million of projects, 89 projects across Australia. If there is a threat to this, it is the track record of mismanagement by the Labor Party in government. It is a track record they would move back to. I will finish on a comment by the Labor spokesman on transport after the budget. He said in his press release: Auslink II must build on the investment of Auslink I in Australia’s strategic economic transport infrastructure. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —In answer to the member for Batman: we will, as the government. It is good to see him endorsing government policy. And the only reason we can do it is that we are saving $22 million a day in interest payments which the Labor Party were paying to bankers overseas. 28 28 14:21:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is again to the Special Minister of State. Did the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications approve the current industrial relations PR campaign last Thursday or before last Thursday? If it was approved before last Thursday, on what date was it approved? Minister, what was the budget proposed by the relevant departments for the industrial relations PR campaign approved by your committee? 28 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr NAIRN —I have already answered the question but I will say it again. The member for Lalor might approve industrial relations policies before the union movement writes them but— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —How much? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader and member for Jagajaga! OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN ——The information campaign was finally approved on Thursday, 17 May. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin —How much? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga is warned! OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —The process undertaken was exactly the same as the process for any government information campaign. It was the same as the campaign on cervical cancer and the same as the campaign on defence recruitment, on which you have asked no question whatsoever. The process was the exactly the same. Opposition members—How much? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —The budget for campaigns is a matter for the departments. The MCGC approves the way in which the campaign is run with respect to TV, radio and print. 28 28 14:23:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 Mrs GASH —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House how economically conservative policies have impacted on the Australian economy? Have there been any notable opponents to these policies? 29 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her question. One of the hallmarks of this government has been to so manage the Australian economy as to keep it growing with low inflation and to give young people the opportunity of a job. Two million Australians who were not in work before this government was elected now have work. That has involved balancing the budget, repaying debt, reforming the waterfront, encouraging people to move off welfare and into work, tax reform, privatisation, tax cuts and industrial relations reform. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Those policies are now delivering results: more jobs, increased wealth in our community, balanced budgets, better investment in health and aged care and better investment in education. Most people would say that those economically conservative policies have served Australia well through the challenges of the Asian financial crisis, SARS, September 11, war and terrorism and the one-in-100-year drought. You do not become an economic conservative just by retaining an advertising agency to say that you have become an economic conservative. The opposition are very interested in TV advertising and no doubt they would have seen the oh-so-serious Leader of the Opposition on television recently, declaring himself to be an economic conservative. With his oh-so-serious face, sitting in front of a high-rise tower, he was telling people how economically conservative he actually is. But it is not a question of an advertising agent declaring you to be an economic conservative. In this business, the way you prove you are an economic conservative is with deeds not words. Every time the crunch has come in this House, the Leader of the Opposition has gone missing on reforms. Would an economic conservative have opposed those measures that balance the budget? Would an economic conservative have opposed paying off government debt? Government members—No. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Would an economic conservative have voted against the biggest tax reform in Australian history? Government members—No. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Would an economic conservative want union control of the waterfront? Government members—No! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Would an economic conservative oppose industrial relations reform? Government members—No! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Would an economic conservative want nationalisation of telecommunications? Government members—No! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Would an economic conservative have opposed tariff reform? Government members—No! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —Mr Speaker, I would ask a question directly of you and raise a point of order. Is it the case that the Treasurer’s actions in screaming at us when he actually— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The member for Gorton would be well aware that, if he wishes to ask a question of the Speaker, he should do so after question time. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Mr Speaker, let me ask this question: would an economic conservative want to raid the Future Fund to steal from future generations of Australians? Government members—No! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Would an economic conservative want to do that? No, of course an economic conservative would not want to do that. Would an economic conservative, if he really supported all of the hard economic work that has got us to where we are now, describe it as a ‘brutopia’? I see that the member for Lilley is now describing himself as ‘Scrooge McDuck’. I told you they got their inspiration from Donald Duck cartoons, did I not? ‘Brutopia’ is a description that the Leader of the Opposition found in a Donald Duck comic and ever since then he has tried to portray that it came from Michael Oakeshott and he just cannot find the reference. Let me tell you: economic conservatives do hard work. Economic conservatives are prepared to make the tough decisions. Economic conservatives are those people who are there in the hard times, setting the economy up for the future. You do not retain an advertising agency, go and have a look at a focus group and say you are entitled to all of the outcomes of all of the hard work and all of the effort. The people of Australia know that economic management comes from hard work and hard effort. It is hard work and hard effort that this Leader of the Opposition has not done, and he does not deserve to call himself an economic conservative. 30 30 14:28:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the minister’s previous answer to the question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, when he was asked about the budget for the government’s industrial relations PR campaign, that the budget was a matter for departments. I refer to the government’s own website which refers to the guidelines governing the operation of the Ministerial Committee for Government Communications, which is the committee that the minister chairs, where it states that the committee must adhere to the guidelines and that those guidelines include ‘calculations based on value for money’. How can the minister stand at the dispatch box and tell us he has no responsibility for considering budgets for such a campaign when plainly his guidelines require him to do so? Minister, will you stand at the dispatch box and simply tell the parliament how much the budget is for this campaign? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members opposite are repeating the same question over and again. It has been fully and very capably answered by the Special Minister of State. If they want additional information, they should direct their questions to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have listened carefully to the question. I believe that the question raised new points. Therefore, I call the Special Minister of State. 30 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr NAIRN —With respect, I have answered this question before, but I am happy to answer it over and again. The MCGC does act in accordance with the guidelines, which in fact were brought down by the previous Labor government. We take our responsibilities very seriously and ensure that it is good value for money. That is why— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —the committee determines the balance between television, print, radio— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Holt. The member for Lilley. OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —in accordance with the overall budget— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned. OK6 Nairn, Gary, MP Mr NAIRN —provided by the relevant department. 31 Distinguished Visitors 31 14:32:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq, His Excellency Mr Hoshyar Zebari. On behalf of the House I extend him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 31 14:31:00 Questions Without Notice 31 14:31:00 31 Jull, David, MP MH4 Fadden LP 1 Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I would like the foreign minister to brief the House on his discussions today with the visiting foreign minister of Iraq. What reaction has the minister received regarding today’s talks? 31 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, can I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his interest and say how delighted I am to have my friend Foreign Minister Zebari in Australia today. I think it is his first visit as a foreign minister, but of course we have known each other for quite some years. The foreign minister is a representative of a democratic government. Iraq is one of the bastions of democracy in the world and we are delighted to have that country as a member of the family of democracies in spite of the difficulties that it is enduring. The minister made it very clear that he strongly values the support of Australia for Iraq and Australia’s support is deeply appreciated by the vast majority of the Iraqi people. We obviously agreed that the stakes in Iraq are high—high for the Iraqi people first and foremost, for their freedom and for the integrity of the country. The stakes are very high for the stability of the Middle East. Iraq’s disintegration would cause a catastrophe. We agreed that Iraq’s survival and stability is important to global security. Iraq must not become a safe haven for terrorism or be a place from which terrorists can export death. The foreign minister and I agreed that Iraq is undoubtedly facing a difficult situation that requires resolve and effort. This is not a time to give up. That is the view of the Australian government, that is the view of the Iraqi government and it is the view of many people. The Baghdad Security Plan, as it is sometimes called, or the surge, was discussed and the minister made it clear that although it is not at this stage complete there is a clear-eyed road map for success and there are some positive signs—for example, a drop in sectarian violence. But that is not to underestimate of course the continuation of the violence that is taking place in Iraq. I highlight in particular the endeavours since the implementation of the Baghdad Security Plan by al-Qaeda to create as much chaos and havoc as it possibly can by murdering people, and in large numbers. These are early days for the Baghdad Security Plan; it is still very difficult. But there is a determination on the part of some of us to ensure that those people do not win. I again underline the view expressed by me to the foreign minister—and I know that the Prime Minister and other ministers who have and will meet with him will reiterate these words—using the words of Tony Blair, ‘We should not walk away or give in; we should stand by the people of Iraq.’ We are prepared to do that. I explained to the minister that this is a controversial issue in Australia, as it is—it is not unusual—in many countries. But, in the end, when people think about this issue and put aside their personal, partisan positions, they need to think about where they ultimately want to see Iraq. What do people believe is going to be a good outcome for Iraq and for the people of Iraq and the Middle East? To put it the other way around, those people who think we should just give up—and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition is one of them—need to ask themselves whether they honestly think it would be preferable for sectarian conflict and al-Qaeda in Iraq to succeed. Do they really think that would be good for the Iraqi people? Do they think it would be good for the Middle East for Iraq to disintegrate into total violence and chaos and to become a base for al-Qaeda? Do they think that would be good? Do they think it would be good for global security if Iraq became a base for al-Qaeda operations around the world? Our answer to those questions is no. We think what would be good for Iraq would be greater stability—and greater stability built on the pillars of democracy. We wish the minister well during his visit and we have been delighted to host that visit. 32 32 14:37:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to this sign which is displayed in government call centres, directing staff not to use the term ‘Work Choices’. Given that the government spent $55 million on advertising Work Choices— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader has made her point. She will put that down. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —why did the government suddenly decide on a name change? Prime Minister, how much did the government spend on the polling that drove this change of name? 32 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Can I say in reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we did not spend $55 million on advertising a name. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Yes, you did. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The deputy leader will put that down. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —We spent $55 million on explaining the implications of the most significant change to Australia’s workplace relations system since World War II. I take the opportunity to remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the framework, and indeed the overwhelming substance, of the legislation passed into law in 2005 remains completely unchanged. With respect to what is new, I do thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is fascinated by brand names— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader has asked her question. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —but is rather insensitive to the substance of policy. She invites me to talk about focus groups. I invite her to get a few focus groups to try and explain the meaning of her policy, to try and explain that her policy— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —What was it called—the legislation? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —has undergone changes on a daily basis. I will spend a moment on the Labor Party’s policy, but before I do so, for the benefit of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who I know has an interest in these matters, let me assure her that the great substance, the framework, of the legislation that was advertised about 15 months ago has remained completely unchanged. What we have done is to propose—and the minister will introduce legislation next Monday—the introduction of a fairness test. This fairness test will guarantee that any worker who trades away penalty rates or overtime loadings must receive fair compensation in return. I think that is a very good reform. E09 Owens, Julie, MP Ms Owens interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Parramatta is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —It is a reform that people have urged on us. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fowler is warned, too. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I don’t mind acknowledging that there was concern in the community that it might become the norm that those entitlements were traded away without proper compensation. I think, when you make a change like that, you have an obligation to tell the public that you are making the change. I can’t understand why the opposition is getting worked up about some ads that simply state a few facts. These ads tell the Australian public that there are rules and obligations on employers under the workplace relations law. That is what they do. They tell you where you can ring. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is the law the Prime Minister is referring to Work Choices? Is that what he means? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The deputy leader will resume her seat. That is not a point of order. The deputy leader has already been warned. She would want to think carefully about her behaviour. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —We are very happy to take questions on the change that we propose to the workplace relations legislation. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for asking me that question. Let me simply say that the policy which represents a threat to the Australian economy is not the policy which has seen the creation of 270,000 more jobs over the last 12 months, which has seen a continued rise in real wages and which has helped to drive Australia’s strike rate to a level lower than it has been since 1913. 33 33 14:42:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the government’s response to the ANCD report on illicit drug use? How is the government helping families affected by illicit drugs? 33 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Cowper for his question. Many members will be aware of a report released today by the Australian National Council on Drugs, an advisory body chaired by a former minister in our government and a former ambassador to Ireland, Dr John Herron. This body is the peak advisory body to me and to the government on the scourge of drug abuse in the Australian community. Sadly, this report has found that 13 per cent of Australia’s children live in a household where there is substance abuse. That includes 230,000 with a binge drinking problem, 40,000 with cannabis abuse and 14,000 with methamphetamine abuse. It has also found that families with parental substance abuse have many other complex problems, including mental illness and a history of abuse and poverty. Although the findings of this report make distressing reading, we should be grateful to the council for having carried out the analysis and made it public. It reminds us that, although a lot of progress has been made—over the last 10 years the government has invested more than $1.4 billion in the Tough on Drugs strategy, which aims to target law enforcement, education and rehabilitation—there is still a great deal more to be done. On 22 April, the government announced a further $150 million over four years to strengthen its fight against illicit drugs and tackle amphetamine type stimulants, including what is colloquially known as ‘ice’. This includes more than $100 million for new drug treatment services, with an emphasis on family support, and additional resources to tackle these stimulants; $9.2 million to strengthen drug prevention; and $37.9 million to increase Australia’s law enforcement efforts. I think what Dr Herron’s report has done is to bring to the attention of the community, and particularly Australian parents, the impact on families and those otherwise closely associated with people who have a severe drug addiction. Many people would have heard the interview with the young mother on Radio National this morning—and perhaps it was on other radio stations, but I heard it on Radio National—in which she described the terrible experience of suffering a seizure, as a result of drug abuse, in her car with her three young children. She was also made deeply conscious of just what a threat her drug abuse represented to the children that she was charged with caring for. That particular personal testimony certainly had an impact on me; I think it would have an impact on many other people throughout Australia, particularly Australian parents. We have come a long way—we have fewer deaths from heroin overdoses and we now have a more intelligent attitude to marijuana abuse. We no longer, as some Australians did only a few years ago, romance in this stupid idea that you can take marijuana, you can use cannabis, without it having any harmful effects. We now realise the enormous contribution that marijuana abuse has made to the level of mental illness in this country and the number of suicides it has been responsible for. I think our campaign has been very, very successful, but this report is a grim reminder that there is a great deal more work to be done, and this government remains totally committed to the task. 34 34 14:46:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it that according to the budget papers the government could find only $53 million to spend on the national water plan in the coming financial year but could find $55 million in the past to advertise Work Choices—the law that dare not speak its name—before abandoning that campaign? 34 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The total expenditure under the national water plan is $10 billion. The expenditure in relation to that advertising campaign was $55 million. I do not quite know what the member is getting at. 34 34 14:47:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 Mr RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on how the government’s commitment to improving Medicare is delivering more bulk-billing services to those who need them? How is this helping people in my electorate of Kingston? 34 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I can certainly understand the member for Kingston’s enthusiasm for this question because I can inform him and the House that the GP bulk-billing rates in his electorate have gone up by more than 10 percentage points since the government’s ‘Strengthening Medicare’ program began. Bulk-billing is not the be-all and end-all of Medicare but it is important and it should be widely available, particularly to families and pensioners, and that is precisely what has happened thanks to the policies of the Howard government. We have had the latest statistics on bulk-billing released since the parliament was last sitting. I am sure members opposite in particular will be delighted to know that the bulk-billing rate for children under 16 is 84.9 per cent, an all-time high; the bulk-billing rate for people over 65 is 87.3 per cent, an all-time high; the bulk-billing rate in country areas is 72.6 per cent, also an all-time high; and the overall bulk-billing rate for GPs and specialists, at 73.2 per cent, is at an all-time high, significantly higher than the bulk-billing rate we inherited in March of 1996. Members opposite, including the sound effects man over there, hate hearing this because what these bulk-billing rates prove is that the Howard government is undeniably and indisputably—and I know they do not like hearing it but let’s hear it again—the best friend that Medicare has ever had. What these figures also demonstrate is that the Australian Labor Party now has no distinctive health policy of its own, except, if the Leader of the Opposition is to be believed, actually cutting Medicare spending. In a rather rambling interview on the Jon Faine program last month, the Leader of the Opposition said: Well when you look at the amount of money which is wasted in duplication overlap in the health and hospital system ... I believe there is great scope to extract significant savings. When I heard him say, ‘I believe there is great scope to extract significant savings’ on health, I wondered whether that was him being an economic conservative or whether he was back in his previous guise as an old-fashioned Christian socialist. Either way, the Australian people deserve to know exactly what he meant. If there are significant savings to be made, how much and where exactly are they going to come from? Let me make this point: the Howard government can only afford to increase spending on Medicare because we have a strong economy. If the economy is ever taken for granted, Medicare funding will be put seriously at risk too. 35 35 14:51:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the government is refusing access under freedom of information to the same one-page costings table from the Department of Finance and Administration that was attached to the Prime Minister’s national water plan speech on 25 January? Prime Minister, isn’t it arrogant in the extreme to hide basic documents on the national water plan from the Australian public? 35 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I have an answer and an observation. The answer is that I will check with the relevant minister and the department as to what is being refused, and the observation is that, as late as the Leader of the Opposition’s budget reply, I thought he supported the national water plan. Why are they constantly asking questions trying to undermine it? 35 35 14:52:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House how a modern and flexible workplace relations system is contributing to a stronger economy? Are there any threats to this contribution? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! When the minister has the call he will be heard. 35 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr HOCKEY —I thank the member for Boothby for the question. I know what really matters to the people of Boothby. The unemployment rate in 1996 was 7.3 per cent in Boothby; today it is 3.7 per cent. That is what matters to the people in Boothby. The flexible workplace relations system that the government has introduced in two tranches—1996 and then 2006—represents an opportunity to help to build a stronger economy. We are just starting to see the dividends of the significant Work Choices reforms we announced and delivered last year into the parliament. The ABS—Australian Bureau of Statistics—data that came out last week showed that real wages growth continues at a reasonable and sustainable pace. Of course, since the coalition has been in government, real wages—that is, after inflation—have increased by 23.4 per cent. After 13 years of Labor, real wages went backwards 1.8 per cent. The ABS data last week indicated that women in the workforce, in the last 12 months, have had a real increase in their wages of 3.5 per cent, and for men it has been two per cent. So the wages gap between men and women narrowed over the last 12 months after the introduction of Work Choices. The Melbourne Institute, also last week, released its wages report. You will not hear the opposition talking about this. The Melbourne Institute report said that employees on individual contracts had the largest annual increases in wages in the last 12 months—6.8 per cent, which is double the wage increases of people on collective agreements, at 3.4 per cent. I was asked about threats. There is no greater threat to the economic prosperity of the nation than the election of a Rudd Labor government. You just need to look at the only economic policy they have released, their industrial relations policy, to gain a better understanding of the risk to the economy. The Labor Party want to reintroduce compulsory union bargaining fees, allow inflationary pattern bargaining, abolish Australian workplace agreements and, most significantly, abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which has helped to deliver the lowest level of strikes in the construction industry since records were first kept in 1913. On the weekend we heard from a number of concerned interests about the fact that the Labor Party want to re-regulate shipping—to take back the industrial relations regime to 13 years ago. They are going to try and regulate every external ship coming into Australian ports. I noticed a report in the Australian only a few weeks ago that said that there were 153 idle ships offshore, cluttering the ports in New South Wales and Queensland. Can you imagine what it would mean for those ports and, most significantly, what it would mean for Australian farmers, miners and exporters, if the Labor Party were able to apply their old-time industrial relations system to external crews that are carrying Australian goods and services? That is taking it back; that is bad for the economy. We know it will happen because Greg Combet said that once upon a time the unions ran the economy in Australia and it would not be a bad thing if they did it again. That would be bad for the Australian economy and very bad for Australian workers. 36 36 14:58:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. How much taxpayers’ money will the government spend on its education advertising campaign between now and the election? 36 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 Australian Education Union has embarked on one of the most dishonest campaigns that we have seen. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. The member for Lingiari is warned! 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —This is a blatant ongoing campaign designed to mislead the Australian public about the true state of education funding in this country. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I rise on a point of order: standing order 104. This is about taxpayers’ money. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister has only just begun to answer her question. She is in order. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Australian Education Union has embarked on a blatantly dishonest campaign designed to mislead the Australian public about the true state of funding for state government schools across this country. This campaign is a not-so-subtle attack on Catholic and independent schools, and the Labor Party have got the Education Union to do their dirty work. This is an attack on Catholic and independent schools and— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I rise on a point of order. XH4 McGauran, Peter, MP Mr McGauran —You don’t like the answer! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —We want an answer to how much taxpayers’ money is being spent on education advertising. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. The minister was asked a question about education; the minister is in order. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —For example, this advertising campaign by the Australian Education Union leaves out entirely the fact that funding for state government schools is primarily the responsibility of state governments. It falsely claims that the Australian government has decreased funding for state government schools, when in fact the Australian government has increased funding for state government schools in real terms by over 70 per cent since 1996. The AEU’s advertising campaign also suggests that there is a bias in favour of Catholic and independent schools when in fact that is not the case. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. I have been listening carefully. The minister was asked a question on education and advertising. I have already ruled on that, and the minister is in order. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —The fact is that there is a bias in favour of state government schools in terms of public funding. Sixty-seven per cent of Australian students attend a state government school, and those schools receive 75 per cent of total public funding. This is a fact, yet the Australian Education Union is out there misleading the Australian public, putting out false information to Australian parents and attacking Catholic and independent schools. The Australian government is obliged to set the record straight and it is considering its options. 37 37 15:01:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Will the minister update the House on recent capital investments the government has made in Australia’s universities? 37 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 Blair for his question. I know that he, along with other members of the coalition, support the announcement by the Australian government that we will invest $5 billion into an endowment fund for Australia’s universities. This announcement has received widespread support—virtual acclamation—from all vice-chancellors across the country. We have also committed to ensure that this fund grows over time. We will invest more of the budget surpluses over time in this fund so that we have a perpetual growth fund for our universities and so that they can receive potentially billions of dollars for capital works and research infrastructure into the future. In the face of this universal support for the Higher Education Endowment Fund, what do you think Labor’s response was? Labor was typically churlish. The spokesman on education was out there saying, ‘We could have done that.’ Wrong. Memo to Labor: Labor operates budget deficits. You cannot create an endowment fund out of a budget deficit. Then the member for Perth was out there saying— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Swan is warned. The member for Melbourne is warned, too. The minister has the call and the minister will be heard. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —As I was saying, Mr Speaker, Labor ought to wake up to the fact that you cannot create a $5 billion endowment fund out of a budget deficit. Then the member for Perth was out there saying, ‘The federal government has just discovered that universities need capital—they have never invested in universities before.’ Wrong. The member for Perth needs to do his homework. Since 1996 this government has invested almost a billion dollars in capital works alone for our universities. In fact, last week I announced a further $62 million for capital for our universities. This is on top of the $32 million for capital I announced in January, this is on top of the $1.7 billion that the Treasurer announced in the higher education package on budget night; this is on top of the $5 billion endowment fund. The member for Blair will be interested to know that Queensland universities benefited from the $62 million announcement. In particular, we are assisting the University of Southern Queensland to build an education building at the Springfield campus, a health building at the University of the Sunshine Coast and a science building at Griffith University. In New South Wales we are supporting Charles Sturt University with a clinical science teaching facility and the University of Western Sydney with a nursing hub; in Western Australia, a science and engineering building for Murdoch University; in South Australia, at the University of Adelaide, a new building for engineering, computing and mathematical sciences; and, in the Northern Territory, allied health infrastructure for Charles Darwin University. Thirty-four capital works projects have been supported by the Australian government this year alone. I tender the list of those 34 projects that are receiving funding. This is what a decade of strong economic management can deliver: it can deliver a billion dollars to universities for capital infrastructure alone and it can deliver a $5 billion endowment fund. Once you have paid off Labor’s $96 billion debt and once you operate in budget surpluses, you can provide for the future and invest in our universities. 38 38 15:05:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr GEORGANAS —My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. How much taxpayers’ money will the government spend on a climate change and water advertising campaign between now and the next federal election? 38 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr TURNBULL —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I do not believe there is any secret about that. I believe there is a $52 million information campaign to promote awareness of energy efficiency. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Grayndler is warned! 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —The honourable member would be aware that the government is committed to early action on climate change, and the two most promising avenues for early action are energy efficiency and forestry. We are leading the world in both areas with the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, and, as the incoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom observed, Australia is leading the world in energy efficiency. We are the first country to phase in a ban on inefficient lighting. Energy efficiency, however, is a complicated business. There is no one silver technological bullet: the most important thing is to raise awareness. We have a range of programs through the Greenhouse Office—through Greenhouse Friendly, Greenhouse Challenge and so forth. Enormous savings can be achieved at the household level. A key to that is promoting greater awareness of energy efficiency opportunities, and the government is committed to that. If the opposition wants to dissociate itself from energy efficiency, it is free to do so, and it will just underline how out of touch and in the past its climate change policy is. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 39 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 39 39 15:07:00 Mr HOWARD,MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —In an answer to a question from, I think, the member for La Trobe at the beginning of question time I said that there had been a significant reduction in tax for people earning less than $35,000 a year. In fact, the scale of the change for people on low incomes is greater than I said in the answer. In fact, the relevant figure is, for anybody earning less than $30,000 a year—and let me remind the House again that the point is that, indeed, more than 60 per cent of working mothers work part time; this is particularly applicable to them—in 2004-05 that person would have paid $5,172 in tax. By contrast, from 1 July this year that tax burden will be cut to $2,850. That is a measure of the way in which tax cuts in the last budget have been slanted towards people on low and middle incomes. 39 Questions to the Speaker 39 39 15:08:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 1 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, in the light of the opposition’s concerns about what they claim was misbehaviour during the budget address-in-reply, could you please investigate the level of noise that consistently interrupted ministers during question time today and report back on measures taken to reduce it. 39 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the House, and I would make the point that during question time—I have just added it up—I warned nine people about their behaviour. 39 39 15:09:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP 1 Mr COSTELLO —Mr Speaker, could I ask you to perhaps view the videotape to see whether or not there was organised disruption coming from the member for Grayndler, in particular, leading by example, and ask you to apply the same level of scrutiny as the member for Grayndler asked you to apply earlier on today. 39 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the Treasurer. I will certainly view the DVD of question time. 39 39 15:09:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, perhaps you can also ascertain from that tape whether indeed ministers encourage the regular chants from the Leader of the House about Medicare and from the Treasurer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Grayndler will not debate questions. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I was asking a question of you. 39 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will be well aware that I have already answered that question. 39 39 15:10:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I refer to your statement in the parliament on 8 May, which indicated the special circumstances arising from the budget speech and the budget reply. I refer also to your decision on the night of the budget reply to not take disciplinary action against members of the government who were clearly unruly. Further, I refer you to my letter to you of 14 May and your reply of 18 May, which indicated that you had written to the Procedure Committee, asking it to investigate what possible changes to practice could be made which would ‘give the Speaker additional options on such occasions’. I wonder whether you could report to the House on that. 40 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Grayndler. I make the observation on his first, I think, close to a reflection on the chair. I think he would be well aware that, on the night of the response of the Leader of the Opposition to the budget speech, I was rather concerned about some of the behaviour in the House. However, it was at the request of the opposition that I did not take action at that time. However, as he would be well aware, during televised presentations, such as the Treasurer’s budget address or an address to the nation by the Prime Minister or in fact the response to the budget by the Leader of the Opposition, the national broadcast does place the chair in a difficult position. Accordingly, what the chair can do in that situation is somewhat different because, as you would be well aware, I am reluctant to intervene during a national televised broadcast. I would, however, say that I have given some consideration and, as the member for Grayndler rightly alludes to, I have decided to write to the Chair of the Procedure Committee asking that the Procedure Committee look at the whole issue of what the chair could do where there is a televised national address. I do not intend to debate what the Procedure Committee may or may not do, but I would make the point to all members that they are of course free to approach the Procedure Committee if they wish to make their own submissions. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, to make it clear, when I wrote to you on 14 May, as indicated to you immediately after the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, I agreed with your decision not to disrupt the speech in order to take action. We think that you behaved impeccably. We have no question whatsoever with your ruling on that evening. I do draw your attention, though, to page 521 of the House of Representatives Practice, which states: The naming of a Member usually occurs immediately an offence has been committed but this is not always possible. For example, Members have been named at the next sitting as a result of incidents that occurred at the adjournment of the previous sitting of the House. Mr Speaker, I ask whether you have considered or will consider taking such action against people, such as the member for Robertson, who were clearly out of control for the entire half an hour of that speech and whether the House of Representatives Practice leaves it available to you— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Grayndler is making an absolutely scurrilous aspersion on another member of the House, and that should not be done other than by substantive motion. He should withdraw that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I believe that the Leader of the House raises a point that the Manager of Opposition Business is reflecting on a member under the guise of a question, and it would assist if he withdrew that. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I have no intention of withdrawing that, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler has been requested to withdraw it. The member for Grayndler will withdraw. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, nothing I said was anything other than mild. I did not reflect on the member, except to say that the member for Robertson—and he was not alone—interjected for half an hour. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will withdraw the accusation of scurrilous behaviour. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —But he did interject for half an hour! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will withdraw the accusation. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —His behaviour was scurrilous. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler will withdraw his accusation or I will take action. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on this matter. It is perfectly in order— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fraser will resume his seat. The member from Grayndler will withdraw the accusation or I will take action. He will withdraw the accusation against the member for Robertson. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, which accusation? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member knows exactly what I am talking about. Either he withdraws or I will take action. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I will withdraw what I said and say that the member for Robertson interjected consistently for half an hour of the speech. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will accept that. 41 41 15:16:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Mr Speaker, a question to you: when you are considering the behaviour on the night of the address-in-reply to the budget by the Leader of the Opposition, would you also consider what action you can take with regard to the stacking of the public galleries— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my left! 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Ballarat will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Ballarat then left the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar is asking a question and the member will be heard. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —with people who were there for the sole intent and purpose of acting in a disorderly fashion after the delivery of the speech and who erupted into loud noise with both clapping and voices. You were in the chair— 41 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The member will resume her seat. In response to the member for Mackellar— ET4 Bevis, Arch, MP Mr Bevis interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Brisbane is warned! I say to the member for Mackellar: firstly, it is not the role of the chair to vet who attends in the galleries; and, secondly, the behaviour of the galleries during both the budget speech and the response were orderly. I refer the member for Mackellar to the statement I made on the day of the budget. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —The behaviour that I was concerned about was not during the speech; it was whilst you were still in the chair at the end of the speech. The behaviour was totally disorderly and unchecked. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, what the chair is able to do about maintaining order at the conclusion of the speech. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I make the point to the honourable member for Mackellar that, at the end of the address by the Leader of the Opposition, the House was immediately adjourned. I would again refer her to the point that I raised on the day of the budget. She will note, if she looks at that, that there was some understanding of what might happen after both the budget and the response. I again say that the House was adjourned immediately after the Leader of the Opposition made his address. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —My question was that, because of the action that the opposition are taking with regard to requiring your involvement in making a decision about alleged behaviour on this side of the chamber, it would be eminently reasonable for you to look at that in the light of the stacking of the public gallery and the behaviour immediately at the end— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar has made her point. She will resume her seat. As I said before, if the member for Mackellar wishes to make a submission to the Procedure Committee, she is of course welcome to do so. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, it is understandable that you might not have recognised that you have not answered my question yet, which went to page 321 of Practice, and whether you had considered taking action on the basis of that provision under standing order 94. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I think he was actually referring to page 521. He referred to the question of naming. It is a practice that has not been used for a considerable period of time, and it is a practice that has been superseded by the introduction of standing order 94(a). I would not have thought there was a reason to name anyone from the behaviour I saw on the last sitting Thursday. On the question of looking back to a previous session on that basis, I make the point that, under standing order 94(a), it was originally intended as a measure to maintain order. It would be neither appropriate nor warranted to attempt to apply it retrospectively. 42 42 15:21:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 Ms HALL —Mr Speaker, my question is to you. Are members of this House covered by occupational health and safety legislation? Does the volume of the microphones in the House conform to this legislation? Does the noise level contravene the standards set out in the occupational health and safety legislation when the Treasurer screams at the dispatch box? 42 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I say to the member for Shortland that I will look into the serious parts of that question and report back. 42 42 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr MURPHY —Mr Speaker, I seek a modicum of assistance from you in relation to question No. 5545, question No. 5576 and question No. 5577, all addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, which have been on the Notice Paper—in particular the first question—for more than 60 days. 42 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for Lowe, and I will follow up his request. 42 Petitions 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers: KL6 LL6 MT4 4K6 83O WN6 00ANF SU5 Mr Andren Mr Baldwin Mr Broadbent Mr Causley Mrs Hull Mr Ian Macfarlane Mr Ticehurst Mr Vaile 454 42 The humble Petition of the Citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we re affirm our support for the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia which states “Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth                “ (Constitution Act 9th July 1900) and the affirmation of 69% of our Australian population that they are Christians, and the statement of one of our founders that “this Commonwealth of Australia from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth” (Sir John Downer 1898), and the Opening Prayer of the Parliaments “Almighty God we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory” and recognises the importance of these beliefs in ensuring the ongoing stability and unity of our Christian nation. Your petitioners therefore pray the Parliament of Australia will: Review our Commonwealth Immigration Policy to ensure the priority for Christians from all races and colours, especially from persecuted nations, as both immigrants and refugees. Adopt a ten year moratorium on Muslim immigration, so an assessment can be made on the social and political disharmony currently occurring in the Netherlands, France and the UK, so as to ensure We avoid making the same mistakes; and allow a decade for the Muslim leadership and community in Australia to reassess their situation so as to reject any attempt to establish an Islamic nation within our Australian nation. 14 KL6 Mr Andren Mr Andren (from 14 citizens) 73 LL6 Mr Baldwin Mr Baldwin (from 73 citizens) 15 MT4 Mr Broadbent Mr Broadbent (from 15 citizens) 35 4K6 Mr Causley Mr Causley (from 35 citizens) 54 83O Mrs Hull Mrs Hull (from 54 citizens) 12 WN6 Mr Ian Macfarlane Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 12 citizens) 34 00ANF Mr Ticehurst Mr Ticehurst (from 34 citizens) 217 SU5 Mr Vaile Mr Vaile (from 217 citizens) DZY 83K Mr Georganas Ms Roxon 2261 43 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the long dental waiting lists and under funding of our public dental system. Your Petitioners therefore ask the House to: Re-introduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme and restore funding to public dental health, Reduce waiting times for public dental health services, and Train more public dentists. 1940 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 1,940 citizens) 321 83K Ms Roxon Ms Roxon (from 321 citizens) DZY 83K Mr Georganas Ms Roxon 3022 43 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the crisis in medical workforce due to the neglect of the Howard Government. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to: Increase the number of undergraduate university places for medical students, Increase the number of medical training places, and Ensure Australia trains enough Australian doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to maintain the quality care provided by our hospitals and other health services in the future. 258 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 258 citizens) 2764 83K Ms Roxon Ms Roxon (from 2,764 citizens) XS4 5V5 Dr Lawrence Mr Stephen Smith 559 43 To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament of Australia assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, are totally-opposed to any Australian involvement in the development, testing or operation of the United States’ Ballistic Missile Defence system. This includes use of facilities in Australian territory for any of these purposes. We request that the Australian government disengages from planned involvement in this system and ensures that the Pine Gap joint communications facility will not be used in the Ballistic Missile Defence System. If this means closing this base, so be it. And your petitioners will in duty bound will ever pray. 300 XS4 Dr Lawrence Dr Lawrence (from 300 citizens) 259 5V5 Mr Stephen Smith Mr Stephen Smith (from 259 citizens) R36 Mr Albanese 124 44 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain electors of the division Grandler points out to the house that David Hicks has been imprisoned in a foreign land for five years. Your petitioners ask ths House to BRING DAVID HICKS HOME. 124 R36 Mr Albanese Mr Albanese (from 124 citizens) WF6 Mr Danby 1029 44 To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House recent statements made by the President of Iran, Mr Moahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he: calls for the destruction of the State of Israel; warns that any Muslims who support the State of Israel will burn in the Umma of Islam; and denies the Nazi genocide against the jews of Europe and demonise Jews. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: condemn the statements made by the Iranian President; call on the Australian Government to: refer the incitements to, genocide by President Ahamdinejad and other Iranian leaders to the appropriate agencies of the United Nations for account; initiate in the International Court of Justice an inter-state complaint against Iran, for its crimal violation of the Convention on the prevention and Punishment of the Crime of genocide; and urge the United Nationas to act against Iran’s threats towards the State of Israel; and affirm the principle that no country should be allowed to call for the elimination of another. 1029 WF6 Mr Danby Mr Danby (from 1,029 citizens) DZW Mrs Elliot 194 44 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House its objection to send water from the Northern Rivers of the State of New South Wales to Queensland. The petitioners therefore request the House to reject any plans to send water from the Northern Rivers of the State of New South Wales to Queensland. 194 DZW Mrs Elliot Mrs Elliot (from 194 citizens) 5K6 Ms Annette Ellis 10 44 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory and surrounding areas of the State of New South Wales. Draws to the attention of the House widespread opposition in the Canberra community to the NCA’s proposed Amendment 53 in relation to proposed development of the Albert Hall precinct due to: The failure of the NCA to properly consult with residents, local and national cultural groups, over fundamental changes to the Albert Hall Precinct (Amendment 53) in central Canberra The failure of the NCA to guarantee existing access by community and cultural groups from the ACT and surrounding areas to the Albert Hall which is Canberra’s “Town hall” The NCA proposal to surround the heritage-listed Albert Hall with inappropriate intensive commercial development The NCA proposal to encourage an eight-storey development in the precinct, on the lakeshore of “Lake Burley Griffin” The NCA’s failure to incorporate the results of a major traffic study into its considerations of the area. Your petitioners therefore request the House to Require the NCA to withdraw Amendment 53 Require the NCA to work with the ACT government to guarantee existing access for community and cultural groups to the Albert Hall Require the NCA to protect and maintain the heritage value of Albert Hall and its precinct and conduct a heritage study of the area. Require the NCA to consult directly with residents local and national cultural groups about options for any future development of the Albert Hall Precinct Require the NCA to wait for the traffic study before making changes to Flynn Drive and Commonwealth Avenue. 10 5K6 Ms Annette Ellis Ms Annette Ellis (from 10 citizens) LS4 Mr Martin Ferguson 1165 45 To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees will be worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s proposed changes to the industrial relations system. The petitioners call upon the Howard Government to adopt a plan to produce a fair industrial relations system based on fairness and the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain. The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Howard Government: Guarantees that no individual Australian employee will be worse off under proposed changes to the industrial relation system. Allows the National Minimum Wage to continue to be set annually by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Guarantees that unfair dismissal law changes will not enable employers to unfairly sack employees. Ensures that workers have the right to reject individual contracts and bargain for decent wages and conditions collectively. Keeps in place safety nets for minimum wages and conditions. Adopt Federal Labor’s principles to produce a fair system based on the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain. 1165 LS4 Mr Martin Ferguson Mr Martin Ferguson (from 1,165 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 2008 45 This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the current review, required under the Australian-United States Free Trade Agreement, of the offshore processing of blood plasma products from blood donated by Australians. There are wide spread concerns about the impact on volunteer donors if Australian blood is processed overseas. Australians who donate their blood have the right to ask if competition for the sake of the Australia/US FTA is more important to the Howard Government than the guarantee of one of the safest blood supply systems in the world. Your petitioners ask the House to ensure that: Australian plasma is not shipped offshore for processing; Blood products will not become unaffordable or unavailable to those people in Australia with rare blood disorders; Australia maintains self sufficiency in blood and blood products; and Australia’s voluntary blood donation system is not undermined. 2008 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 2,008 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 53 46 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia undersigned draws to the attention of the House: The accountability of Centrelink. The need for Centrelink to be accountable for its actions to individuals and families. The need for the Federal Government to implement new procedures within Centrelink to provide for this outcome. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: Ensure that Centrelink is accountable for its actions in relation to assisting rather than hindering clients and their families who are seeking to establish their own small business while still on Commonwealth benefits. 53 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 53 citizens) DZY Mr Georganas 1021 46 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the problem attracting and retaining staff in public health services and aged care facilities and restriction of workforce mobility within the industry. Your petitioners therefore ask the house to: Amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 so that: local governments operating aged care facilities are able to qualify for fringe benefits tax exemptions granted to public benevolent institutions for employees involved in the aged care facility; and fringe benefits exemptions applying to public employers delivering health services in hospital-based settings also apply to public employers providing health services in other settings. 1021 DZY Mr Georganas Mr Georganas (from 1,021 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 100 46 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We, citizens of the Shortland Electorate, call on the Federal Government: To put an end to the purchase and use of all uranium-containing weapons To allow scientists to freely investigate the human and environmental costs of the use of such weapons Immediately commence an independent study of all civilians in conflict zones and Australian combatants, to investigate the nature and extent of radiation and heavy metal sickness Grant immediate compensation for all combatants affected by radiation and heavy metal Commence an immediate clean up at the US, UK, and Australian Governments expense, of all areas contaminated with DU residue Provide information for the public on the sites where DU was used in Australia prior to 1990, and evidence of subsequent clean up efforts (if any) Immediately end negotiations over the use of Australian land for weapons testing: Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the issue of Depleted Uranium is addressed as a matter of urgency 100 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 100 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 35 46 To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: We the undersigned petitioners request the Federal Government exclude Lake Macquarie and the Hunter Region as potential nuclear power station sites as these would be high risk generators with disastrous consequences should an accident occur. We therefore pray that the house opposes the proposal to build 25 nuclear power plants in Australia. 35 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 35 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 19 47 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra. Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits. We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth’s shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians. 19 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 19 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 15 47 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that free mammograms are not accessible by breast cancer survivors despite the increased risk of breast cancer. Access to free mammograms is also being denied to women over 70 years of age in some parts of Australia. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that mammograms are free to all women in Australia regardless of age or medical history. 15 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 15 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 16 47 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That increases to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in the 2002 budget will hit those that can least afford it, families and pensioners. That this Government should remember the commitments made before the 2001 election in regard to the cost of prescription drugs. We therefore pray that the House oppose the Howard-Costello plan to increase the cost of prescription drugs for Australians. 16 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 16 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 48 47 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. Request that the House take immediate action to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest effort is made, as soon as possible, to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas. 48 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 48 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 52 47 To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of concerned residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to the issue of environmental damage resulting from the production of Greenhouse Gasses. Continued deterioration of the environment will be destructive to weather patterns and lead to catastrophic economic and social damage around the world. Your petitioners therefore request the House to immediately ratify the Kyoto Protocol and help preserve the environment for present and future generations of Australians. 52 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 52 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 4 47 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned request that the Government reopen Belmont Medicare Office as there is no Medicare Office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of General Practitioners bulkbilling. The closure of Belmont Medicare Office by the Howard Government has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency. 4 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 4 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 414 48 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned request that John Simpson Kirkpatrick, of Simpson and donkey fame be awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. Under the Imperial Award system, the Victoria Cross was denied to Simpson as a result of some confusion in the original application. In 1915 John Monash (later General) recommended Simpson for the VC. In 1967 Lieutenant Casey who also witnessed Simpson’s work (later Governor General, Lord Casey) together with Prime Minister Holt and the Chief of the General Staff, Major General Brand (also a witness) recommended him for the VC. This was also denied. The British government claimed that a dangerous precedent would be set. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to honour integrity and wishes of these fine Australians and overturn the original decision not to award the VC to Simpson. Simpson is a symbol of the self-sacrifice, mateship and all those values that Anzacs now stand for and Australians treasure. By honouring him, we honour them all. 414 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 414 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 24 48 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned call on the Federal Government to preserve the basic rights of Australian workers, including a preservation of a basic minimum wage and award conditions and the retention of the Industrial Relations Commission. Australian workers should be protected against unfair dismissal and also have the right to reject AWA individual contracts and negotiate collectively with their employer. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House encourage employers to provide fair working conditions for their employees. 24 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 24 citizens) 83D Mr Murphy 14 48 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that — Australia is the only developed country, apart from the USA, refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol; The Kyoto Protocol is a significant step in avoiding dangerous climate change and we must act now to ensure the health of our planet for future generations; and; It is not too late for our nation to be part of the solution to global warming. We therefore request that the House legislate to commit Australia to the international effort to cut greenhouse gases by immediately ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. 14 83D Mr Murphy Mr Murphy (from 14 citizens) 83D Mr Murphy 68 48 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament. This Petition of certain Citizens of Australia listed below, draws the attention of the House to the decision of the Chief of the Airforce to disband the Richmond based Air Command Band by January 2008. Your Petitioners therefore request that the House persuade the Minister for Defence to have this decision reversed and the said Band retained. 68 83D Mr Murphy Mr Murphy (from 68 citizens) WU5 Mr Gavan O’Connor 12 49 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in this assembled Parliament. We, the undersigned citizens of  Australia do petition Parliament, urging immediate steps be taken to introduce Solar Power Australia wide. We, the Petitioners concur and support the statement made in Tony Jones’ ABC “Lateline” on Wednesday 25th October 2006 that Solar Power can service all of Australia’s home and industrial requirements for approximately the $13 billion quoted. We urgently petition the Parliament to put in place the necessary legislation and funding to commence the Research and Development of Solar Power immediately. Funding can be drawn from the $15 billion budget surplus advertised by the government for this 2005/2006 financial year. We, the Petitioners, wish to bring to the attention of Parliament that: With Global warming the matter needs to be treated as a high priority. Global warming can expect to cause flooding and inundation of the coastal low-lying areas of our capital and coastal cities, leading to potential loss of life and high costs and losses to the economy of Australia. What thought has gone in to the enormous amounts of water needed for cooling the used uranium and tailings from the mining which will be polluting the atmosphere around all the uranium mines as they are. Currently we have three uranium mines working full bore without the 10 leases that are waiting to start, each of these mines are leaving millions of tonnes of waste material—much of it radioactive—piled 30 metres high in open air tailings dumps covering hundreds of hectares of land. Estimation at Olympic Dam is it generates 1 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year. There is ample evidence from experience that nuclear generation is not the answer as they create more dangerous problems with leakages into the ground soils, polluting our precious aquifers and artesian and sub-artesian water supplies. All manmade mechanical constructions are subject to breakdowns, leakages from pipelines, rogue emissions from pipe glands, etc. Human error will also be a factor in the assessment of danger. There are already enough nuclear plants to provide examples of the danger.—Chernobyl and Three Mile Island We ask Parliament where does it propose to store our nuclear waste as it is likely to contaminate our grounds water supplies as explained in paragraph 2. Therefore, we, the Petitioners respectfully ask Parliament seriously consider our Petition. 12 WU5 Mr Gavan O’Connor Mr Gavan O’Connor (from 12 citizens) 9V5 Mr Pyne 161 49 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament The petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that multiple sclerosis affects more than 16,000 Australians. The disease has a huge impact on the lives of its sufferers, their carers, families and the wider community. Three quarters of newly diagnosed multiple sclerosis sufferers are women, most of whom are of working age or with young children. The financial burden for the treatment of multiple sclerosis on governments and the community approaches $2 billion each year. Your petitioners therefore request the House to support affordable access to new treatments for multiple sclerosis by the inclusion of Tysabri in the PBS as a matter of urgency. New breakthrough drugs for the treatment of multiple sclerosis will keep people living with MS at work and out of hospitals, nursing homes and wheelchairs. 161 9V5 Mr Pyne Mr Pyne (from 161 citizens) 83K Ms Roxon 2886 50 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The Petition of citizens of Brand draws the attention of the House to the important role that community pharmacies play in the health care system. The petitioners call upon the House to ensure the Howard Government opposes the extension of pharmacies to major retail supermarkets. The petitioners also ask the House to note that a failure to do so would: Lead to the closure of many community pharmacies, the majority of whom are hard working small businesses; The loss of jobs among the 30,000 assistants currently employed in community pharmacies; Put at risk the 80 million free services provided by community pharmacies to the Australian community, many of who cannot afford the cost of going to the doctor due to the decline in bulk billing; and The reduction in training and career opportunities for people who have chosen pharmacy as their career. 2886 83K Ms Roxon Ms Roxon (from 2,886 citizens) 83K Ms Roxon 103 50 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament to oppose the sale of Medibank Private: This petition of certain citizens of Australia registers its protest to the sale of Medibank Private and calls on the House to oppose the sale of Medibank Private. 103 83K Ms Roxon Ms Roxon (from 103 citizens) E0F Mr Wood 26 50 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following motion: ‘That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life; and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’ We, therefore, the individual, undersigned attendees at St Thomas Anglican Church, Upper Ferntree Gully 3156, petition the House of Representatives in support of the above mentioned Motion. AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray. 26 E0F Mr Wood Mr Wood (from 26 citizens) Petitions received. 50 Private Members' Business 50 50 15:27:00 Quick, Harry, MP AV5 Franklin ALP 0 0 Mr QUICK —I move: That the House: notes that: microcredit is a proven means of eradicating poverty and that research by the World Bank in 1998 found that 40 per cent of loan borrowers had moved out of poverty after four years; at the Microcredit Summit in Halifax, Canada in 2006, Australia endorsed the goal of having 175 million families receiving microcredit by 2015; if the Microcredit Summit goal was achieved, then about half the first goal of the Millennium Development Goals, which is to halve the number of people who live on less than a dollar a day, would be met; Australia spent $14.5 million on microcredit in its overseas aid program in the 2005‑2006 financial year, which was less than one per cent of the overseas aid budget; and the USA, which has funded microcredit longer than most countries, has established a current benchmark level of 1.25 per cent of the aid budget for microcredit spending; and urges the Australian Government to follow through with its endorsement of the 2006 Microcredit Summit Goal with an increase in funding of microcredit to $40 million per year, or a level of 1.25 per cent of the aid budget, starting with the forthcoming Budget. The World Bank noted at the end of 2006 that microfinance had come of age. Two events during that year highlighted the recognition of the value of microfinance in assisting the poorer people to move out of poverty: firstly, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Muhammud Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh; and, secondly, the global microcredit summit held in Canada in November 2006, which celebrated 10 years of remarkable growth in the number of very poor people now with access to credit and other financial services. This summit also set new goals to ensure that many more people can escape poverty through access to credit on reasonable terms. The goal of this motion is to seek to match this increased recognition with action, through the Australian aid program, to support the further growth of microcredit. The Microcredit Summit Campaign sought to have microcredit achieve its potential to dramatically reduce poverty by setting an ambitious goal of reaching 100 million of the world’s poorest families with credit by 2005. When I attended the microcredit summit in Washington in 1997, approximately eight million very poor borrowers had access to credit. By the end of 2005, this number had increased more than tenfold to 82 million. It is likely that the number of very poor borrowers reached 100 million by the end of 2006. Therefore, the Microcredit Summit Campaign has achieved its original goal closer to the target date than any internationally agreed campaign to reduce poverty. Several studies have illustrated the impact on poverty of well-targeted microcredit. A World Bank study in Bangladesh found that the rate of poverty among members of three of the largest microfinance organisations fell by 20 per cent between 1992 and 1999 and that at least half of the reduction in poverty was due to microfinance. To build on the success of the Microcredit Summit Campaign so far, supporters of the campaign have agreed on two new goals: firstly, to ensure that 175 million of the world’s poorest families, especially the women of those families, are receiving credit for self-employment and other financial and business services by the end of 2015; and, secondly, to ensure that 100 million of the world’s poorest families move from below $US1 a day to above $US1 a day by the end of 2015. Having 100 million families move above the absolute poverty line will benefit about 500 million people, going a long way towards achieving the millennium development goal of reducing by half the proportion of people living in absolute poverty. However, aid to microcredit still has a role in assisting newer microfinance organisations to build up their borrower numbers and systems to serve and monitor the progress of borrowers. The World Bank estimates that total assistance for microfinance is between $1 billion and $1.25 billion per year. This level of support will need to increase to ensure that the new goals for the Microcredit Summit Campaign can be achieved. Australia’s aid for microcredit in the last few years has been just over one per cent of this global total, while Australia contributes about two per cent of all international development assistance. This implies that Australia gives a lower priority to microcredit than do other donors. For every dollar the current government allocates in overseas aid, only half of one cent is currently going to microcredit programs. As the government has indicated it will increase total aid to $4.3 billion by 2010-11, doubling the allocation for microcredit from 0.5 per cent to one per cent would take aid for microcredit to about $40 million per year, compared with $11 million to $12 million per year in the last two years. Doubling the share of Australia’s aid devoted to microcredit would demonstrate that this government recognises the importance of microcredit in reducing poverty. World Bank research in 2004 clearly demonstrated that reaching down with financial services to people at the bottom levels of society is a powerful driver of poverty reduction as well as economic growth. Expanding microcredit funding within our aid program is critical. Enabling existing mainstream financial institutions to reach poorer clients will help. More importantly, donor partnerships with small microcredit institutions dedicated to reaching very poor clients can help them build sufficient scale to cover costs so as to continue without the need for ongoing grant funding. Given that the majority of the world’s poorest people live in the Asia-Pacific region, and that many of these people lack access to credit and other financial services, it is essential that the government negotiates with developing countries to make access to these services a higher priority within the programs for each country. (Time expired) 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded? 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms Vamvakinou —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 52 15:33:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am very pleased to speak on this important motion on microcredit moved by the member for Franklin and I want to acknowledge in the House that he is one member of parliament who has enormous respect and regard across the chamber. He is certainly a man of great heart and compassion, and this House will be the poorer on his departure from the parliament when the election is upon us. The motion is really about eradicating global poverty. The world has some six billion people in it today, and over half that number, some three billion people, still live in abject, desperate poverty on less than $US1 per day. It is incumbent upon all of us in countries as privileged as Australia to do all we can to tackle the scourge of global poverty. That means trying to get clean drinking water to people who do not have it and trying to put food in the bowls of those people living in remote corners of the globe who do not have access to a good meal each day. The Howard government is very much a supporter of tools to tackle global poverty such as microcredit. We do it in a number of ways. Our aid budget is one very significant way in which the Australian government tackles issues of global poverty, in particular poverty in our region. Australia will provide some $3.2 billion in official development assistance in the 2007-08 year, an increase over last year’s budget, which was $3 billion. You can always say that more can be done and you can always ask for more money and better ways of doing things, but this country—and certainly this government—is doing all it can to tackle the big issues that face us as a country and as a people. The government, as I said, does support microfinance as an effective tool for reducing poverty and has invested an average of $10 million a year over the last eight years in direct support to microfinance. The Australian government’s white paper on overseas aid programs is very much focused on accelerating economic growth and supporting local communities to connect with private sector led rural and business development, which microfinance is very much a part of. We should continue to invest in a microfinance approach, which is specific to the people and customers it aims to help and to the unique market environment, particularly here in the Pacific. It provides support where the establishment of local financial services is most likely to deliver long-term results and meaningful outcomes, as opposed to the short-term results that aid programs usually provide. We have to try and focus on long-term solutions and on connecting people to a more sustainable recovery model. That is one of the great assets of microcredit as a tool. Australia was, of course, represented at the Global Microcredit Summit in Canada in November 2006. This was a very important event and confirmed that some 100 million poor people are borrowers. We want to try to increase that number. The summit launched a new target of 175 million people in developing countries by 2015. Australian aid will continue to be part of the reach of microfinance, and I strongly support that. Expenditure on microfinance is expected to be some $10 million for the 2007-08 year. As I said, we can always do more. I understand this figure is not set in stone; we can increase that in conjunction with further discussions with the governments of the countries that we are trying to reach out to. (Time expired) 53 15:38:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —Labor believes Australia should be a leader on development issues. Australia’s development assistance has lost its focus on poverty reduction, as an independent OECD report has confirmed. We believe Australia’s development assistance should have one clear purpose: to work in partnership with developing countries to substantially reduce poverty. Global poverty is a leading source of international insecurity, with high levels of poverty linked to political and economic instability, human rights abuse, unrest and war, uncontrolled migration and population growth, and environmental degradation. Labor believes that helping to reduce extreme poverty is not only the right thing to do; it is in Australia’s national interest. Australians will benefit from a more secure world, which will only be achieved when fewer people face desperate circumstances and appalling living conditions every day. Microcredit is a critical tool in the fight against poverty. It is not a ‘silver bullet’ solution to end all poverty, but it is one tool that can be used in the fight against poverty. It works especially well in rural communities and especially for women. The provision of microcredit—very small business loans to help start or expand small businesses—has proven to be particularly effective in enabling very poor people, estimated at around 1.2 billion worldwide, to lift themselves out of poverty. Microcredit is one of the most powerful tools to address global poverty, building self-esteem and self-sufficiency in the institutions providing the financial services. It works in synergy with other development interventions, including those that promote health, nutrition, democracy and education, and offers a hand-up, not a handout. The scaling up of microfinance is essential to reaching the Millennium Development Goals. If microcredit facilities were available to 175 million poor people, the world could be halfway to halving world poverty under the Millennium Development Goals. But the Australian government committed only 0.6 per cent of its total aid budget to microcredit schemes in its 2005-06 aid budget. The United States has recognised the value of funding microcredit schemes by setting a benchmark of 1.25 per cent of its aid budget. Australia should at the very least match this figure. Such a modest increase would greatly improve the chances of reaching the target set by the Millennium Development Goals to halve the number of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015. The Howard government needs to lift its game by increasing its commitment to microcredit schemes. By improving financial access for the very poor of the world, we are giving not a handout but a hand-up. Since its inception 30 years ago the microcredit industry has taken off and is capturing the attention of the mainstream banking industry. However, despite increasing interest from the private sector, it still needs the active support of government. While government-to-government assistance is and will continue to be important for building capacity in developing countries, development assistance given directly to individuals, families and microenterprises at the grassroots level—for instance, through microcredit schemes—has been found to be one of the most effective mechanisms for reducing poverty. Kofi Annan has said that microfinance helps alleviate poverty by generating income, creating jobs, allowing children to go to school, enabling families to obtain health care and empowering people to make choices that best serve their needs. Comprehensive impact studies have demonstrated that: microfinance helps very poor households meet basic needs and protect against risks; the use of financial services by low-income households is associated with improvements in household economic welfare and enterprise stability or growth; by supporting women’s economic participation, microfinance helps to empower women, thus promoting gender equity and improving household wellbeing; for almost all significant impacts, the magnitude of impact is positively related to the length of time that clients have been in the program. We can obviously see the benefits of microcredit. However, the demand for microfinance services is largely unmet. Estimates of the global demand range from 400 million to 500 million households, of which only around 30 million were reported to have access to sustainable microfinance services in 2002. Although many poor and low-income people do not yet have access to financial services, the number of customers that use microfinance has grown between 25 and 30 per cent annually over the past five years. Microfinance programs have generally targeted poor women. By providing access to financial services only through women—making women responsible for loans, ensuring repayment through women, maintaining savings accounts for women and providing insurance coverage through women—microfinance programs send a strong message to households as well as to communities. In South Africa, studies showed that over a two-year period levels of intimate-partner violence were reduced by 55 per cent in a group of women who received microcredit. Microfinance, which includes the provision of all financial services, needs to be increased to poor communities as well. In Bangladesh, microcredit provided through AusAID has helped almost 26,000 women from the impoverished north-west region to help themselves and their families by providing access to credit and savings services. Under this program, poor women become small-scale entrepreneurs, investing in businesses such as poultry and livestock rearing, rice processing, fish farming and transport services. I call on the Howard government to act now and increase Australia’s funding of microcredit programs to at least 1.25 per cent of our foreign aid budget. Anything less is just an abrogation of our responsibilities in the region. 55 15:43:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I thank the member for Franklin for moving this motion. He and I were here the day that the current Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, came to this place 10 or more years ago. None of the other members contributing to today’s debate have been in this place so long as to be able to make that claim. Muhammad Yunus, the Grameen Bank and the work of microcredit have been very familiar to the member for Franklin and me. Apart from my five-and-a-bit-year sojourn in the ministry, I have been very passionate about advocating for this. I know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, listened very closely to a number of us in the mid to late nineties when we went to see him about microcredit and said, ‘You’ve got to look at this way of making relatively small lumps of money available to those who are responsible and capable of doing something with it.’ That is what microcredit schemes have been about. The member for Chisholm outlined some examples of the way in which women, in particular, have been targeted in very poor countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam and various parts of Africa—the list is very impressive. The government’s commitment to microcredit, whilst seemingly a small amount of money, has to be seen in the overall context of a decade of involvement in microcredit schemes. We have to look at the other things which should underpin the capacity to get a result out of microcredit and we have to make sure we have the building blocks that are needed to make it fully effective: macroeconomic stability; appropriate financial and legal systems; key infrastructure, such as roads and electricity; and health services. I am greatly in debt to a bloke called Mark Rice, who has the job of research and advocacy coordinator for RESULTS Australia. He is a constituent of mine. I listen to my constituents and he put me onto this on virtually day one after I was elected in 1996. Mark’s claims are fair and reasonable. His challenge to the government is not just about doubling the amount of microcredit money that is available but also about looking at the growing burden of HIV-AIDS, TB and malaria in the South Pacific. Forty per cent of all new HIV infections by 2010 will be in that region, with an emerging epidemic in PNG. Indonesia now has half a million new TB cases and 100,000 deaths annually. I see that my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is talking about a total ban on people with TB. He is talking about not bringing them into this country because of the Auditor-General’s report into some of the processes of the immigration department. We need to be very careful about those so-called total bans because, whilst we want our migrants to meet the health criteria, we also need to note that there are those who are going to come to this country and be able to be very productive despite exposure to those things. 1.9 million people are infected with malaria in Indonesia. These sorts of building blocks are very important components in making sure that microcredit works well. I support the call from RESULTS Australia for a global fund to help fight AIDS, TB and malaria. They have already spent an enormous amount of money—not so much through RESULTS, but through a number of agencies. Some $8.8 billion in public and private moneys have been disbursed and monitored since 2002. But there needs to be a significant Asia-Pacific focus in these things. That way our microcredit contribution can find people with the health and also the focus to participate in these sorts of society-growing programs. If your main concern is the health of your kids and whether you are going to see the week out, microcredit is not for you, so it is absolutely important that we have those building blocks in place. We also need to note that the results of the efforts in regard to this disease control has seen half a million people on antiretroviral treatments, TB treatments for 1.4 million people and bed nets delivered to more than 11.3 million people to prevent malaria. This sort of work in concert with the targeted work of microcredit schemes is going to make a difference and liberate our region. I believe very strongly that Australia has a long-term role to play in growing the educative and work readiness capacity of so many nations in our region. These are words I uttered when I was the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education; I am not going to walk away from them now. We have to make certain that people have the capacity to have that economic role in the region. Education, training, health and microcredit are all part of the way in which you build a strong and secure local region that Australia is a part of. Australia should not shut its doors and turn its way inwards; it should be part of that region in every possible way. (Time expired) 56 15:48:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 0 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I would like to start by congratulating the member for Franklin on moving this motion. It is a very important motion that we are debating here today. It is a motion which calls on the Australian government to act on the goals it endorsed at the 2006 Global Microcredit Summit by doubling the proportion of aid Australia currently allocates to microcredit programs from 0.6 per cent to 1.25 per cent of Australia’s overseas aid budget. Over the last 30 years, and certainly over the last decade, microcredit—or, more broadly, microfinance—has proven increasingly successful in helping some of the world’s poorest people lift themselves out of extreme poverty. Based on the idea that credit can be utilised as a powerful developmental tool, microfinance works by extending low interest repayment loans to people living in poverty. These loans can then provide them with the capital they need to start up or grow a small business. Microfinance provides some of the world’s poorest people with the means to become self-employed and economically self-sufficient. By extending credit and other financial services to those living in poverty, microfinance is a way of both transferring valuable resources to the people who need them the most and injecting new investment and new life into those areas of the economy that are usually starved of capital and left to stagnate. Much of the success that microfinance has met with stems from the fact that both in philosophy and in practice it is built on the premise that the most successful development programs are those that empower the very people they seek to help. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, aid programs were often guilty of disenfranchising the communities they were supposed to be helping and of creating a climate of aid dependency. Aid programs tended to be imposed from above, rather than developed in consultation with local communities on the ground. Corruption was endemic and few programs were sustainable in the long term. Microcredit is different in that its focus is on giving people a real, practical opportunity to help themselves. It is a model based on building direct relationships with the people it seeks to help. It funds programs that are more likely to be sustainable over the long term as small businesses begin to generate their own income. And by making self-employment possible, it helps build the foundations on which individuals can regain a sense of control over their future. As one constituent who wrote to me recently put it: ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.’ Of course that very much applies to women because they have been the greatest beneficiaries of microfinance. Today it is widely recognised that the most successful development strategies are those that focus on the participation of women precisely because the benefits that come with aid are much more likely to flow on to the rest of the family and to the local community. Women and children make up the vast bulk of the world’s poorest people. At the same time, women continue to face a number of specific obstacles that make it far harder for them to break the cycle of poverty. Some of those are traditional sociocultural constraints that limit their participation in the economy as well as their access to land, capital and resources. Microcredit programs are one way of helping to break this deadlock by providing women with the support they need to become economically independent. Labor believes that Australia has a much more important role to play in the areas of international development and aid, especially among our regional neighbours in Asia and the Pacific. This motion is a small but important component of Labor’s overall aid and development framework. At present, Australia’s aid contribution lags far behind our comparative wealth. We are not doing enough, and we are not doing enough in the right areas. Microfinance alone will not eradicate world poverty, nor does it always lead to successful outcomes. But it does have an important role to play in helping us achieve the Millennium Development Goals, including halving extreme poverty by 2015. For this reason I am pleased to support this motion and to once again thank the member for Franklin for giving us the opportunity to raise this issue in the House today. 57 15:52:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome the opportunity to address the House on the subject of microcredit, as I believe that this system of small loans, in one form or another, has great potential to alleviate poverty. Let me say at the outset that I concur with the good intentions of this motion from the member for Franklin. If microcredit is such a force for good then it would seem to follow automatically that the more money we devote to it, the better. Indeed, if one looks at the record of that pioneer of microcredit, the Grameen Bank, and its founder, Professor Muhammad Yunus, in Bangladesh, it would seem hard to argue the contrary. With more than seven million borrowers, more than 2,300 branches covering more than 91 per cent of Bangladeshi villages, and the recent award of a Nobel Prize, it would indeed seem to give force to the argument that more is better. However, Professor Yunus himself cautions that microcredit has become a ‘buzzword’ and ‘has been imputed to mean everything to everybody’. Clarity on exactly what we mean by microcredit is essential, he says, to formulating the right polices and designing appropriate institutions and methodologies. In other words, one size does not fit all—what works in Bangladesh might not work in sub-Saharan Africa or in East Timor. The reason that Professor Yunus’s system of small, no-collateral loans worked in Bangladesh, apart from the fact that it was simple and brilliant, was that it was tailored to specific needs and the specific social structure. The principle that in order to get a loan the borrower had to join a group of borrowers worked in the context of Bangladeshi culture. Defaulting on a repayment impacted not only on a remote institution but on one’s peers in the village. Control and funds remained with the target clients—in this case, women. In a more male orientated society, this model may not work. Indeed, in any society, one can find institutions where control lies with those with high social standing but possibly without the skills or the good intentions to run an institution as intended. One has to consider the type of society one is dealing with. If we take the Grameen model as an ideal, with its underpinning of cooperative action and peer pressure, then should we try to impose that in countries or regions with small populations, sparsely populated regions or regions where travel between small centres of population is difficult? Australia’s area of special interest is of course the Pacific region. Some form of microcredit may well bring benefits but, given the nature of the region, it is not likely to be in the form that works well in Bangladesh. Indeed, other forms of aid might be more effective. Also, it depends what you want to achieve with your aid money. If your aim is to alleviate personal poverty, and if you can find the right form of microcredit for the existing social set-up, then the initial Grameen model may well be appropriate. But look at its guiding principles. There are 16 decisions which borrowers are required to take. They relate, among other things, to maintaining houses, sending children to school, relinquishing dowries and keeping children and the local environment clean—all laudable aims, but they will not get hospitals built, nurses and doctors trained, roads constructed to get to the hospitals and so on. Setting targets for a particular kind of aid, as the member for Franklin’s motion suggests, assumes that one can always find sufficient projects with the right recipients in the right conditions with the right social structures to make a success of that form of aid. With the best will, that might not be the case. It also restricts the flexibility of the aid budget overall. I understand from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that neither Australia nor any other nation gave formal endorsement of the goal of the Global Microcredit Summit. That being the case, I believe that the government should continue to seek opportunities to finance appropriate microcredit projects as part of its aid program without being tied into the straitjacket that a particular target would represent. But, having said that, I must concur with the view that has been expressed by other speakers that the ability of microcredit to maximise individuals’ efforts and to empower them to succeed to lift themselves and their families out of poverty is a noble one—one that we should support. I welcome this motion being brought before the House. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned and will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 58 58 15:57:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I 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. No examination of Aussie culture would be complete without rolling waves, white sand, surfers and our bronzed Aussie guardians of the surf. Images of the beach and those who protect lives on it reflect Australian popular culture—it is the ‘Australian way of life’. As such, it is an honour to move in the Australian parliament today this motion honouring our surf-lifesavers and acknowledging that 2007 has been chosen by the Australian government as the Year of the Surf Lifesaver, celebrating the 100th anniversary of surf-lifesaving in Australia. Since 1907 Australian surf-lifesavers have saved more than 520,000 lives. Just the opportunity to save one life is remarkable, but to save hundreds of thousands from drowning and other life-threatening events on our beaches is truly outstanding. This motion celebrates 100 years of heroes—surf-lifesavers giving their own time to patrol our beaches, sometimes risking their lives to save others. Surf Life Saving Australia is one of the largest volunteer organisations in the world. It consists of around 113,000 members in 304 clubs right across the country, including 34,000 who actively patrol Australia’s beaches. I am fortunate to live in a beachside electorate which takes in Australia’s tourism mecca of Surfers Paradise. It is the beachside capital where families relax and tourists come to holiday. Surf-lifesaving in Queensland began on Coolangatta Beach on 21 February 1909—now home to Australia’s premier iron man endurance event, the Coolangatta Gold—and, over the years, numbers have continued growing. There are now 59 surf-lifesaving clubs in operation in Queensland, with a membership in excess of 23,000 people. Being the patron of Surf Life Saving Queensland’s South Coast branch and vice patron of Surf Life Saving Queensland, I understand and appreciate the dedication of the Australian surf-lifesaving movement, which has achieved worldwide recognition for the outstanding courage and service of its members. These members are our true heroes, dedicating hundreds of hours of their own time to patrol over 300 beaches along with some 20,000 kilometres of coastline. Just weeks ago, I was able to congratulate volunteer surf-lifesaver Mark Fife from Broadbeach Surf Life Saving Club after he was named the Volunteer of the Year by Surf Life Saving Australia. For 32 years Mark has remained one of the most dedicated surf-lifesavers in Australia, winning the Surf Lifesaver of the Year award in 1996-97. A decade later his passion remains stronger than ever. Mark follows in the footsteps of other great examples of the best that our community has to offer, and he sets an example for others to follow. Last Saturday night I had the opportunity of celebrating the efforts of several hundred surf-lifesavers at Australia’s national championship club—Northcliffe. I am a proud member of all surf clubs in my electorate—Southport, Surfers Paradise, Northcliffe, Broadbeach, Kurrawa, Mermaid Beach and Nobby’s Beach. Each of these clubs is a club of excellence with a dedicated crew of supporters and local heroes. They are all heroes like Mark, dedicating their own time to patrolling our beaches, raising money and training. Each year trained surf-lifesavers volunteer more than 1.4 million hours to keeping our beaches safe. Additionally, more hours are spent behind the scenes in the development and training of the next generation of nippers who will follow in their footsteps. A survey has shown that at least 485 people would drown on our beaches each year and 313 would be permanently incapacitated as a result of accidents in the surf if not for the efforts of those bronzed Aussie heroes. The same study also found the economic and social value of surf-lifesaving services is worth more than $1.4 billion and provides many unquantifiable benefits, including increased tourism. To recognise the role of surf-lifesavers in protecting Australians over the past 100 years, the Howard government is providing $1.5 million to Surf Life Saving Australia over the next four years to enable Australians to celebrate the centenary of surf-lifesaving in Australia through a variety of events and activities. It is important we commemorate our local surf-lifesaving clubs—for me it is the Gold Coast—for their commitment and dedication of the volunteers who get up early to patrol our beaches so we can all enjoy a safe beach environment. We are home to some of the world’s cleanest and safest beaches, and it is our true heroes in the red-and-yellow uniforms that truly deserve credit. Our 113,000 surf-lifesavers demonstrate the character and skill that epitomises the best of the Australian culture. They give their time as volunteers in the service of their community, and I am pleased 2007, the Year of the Surf Lifesaver, officially recognises their commitment to saving lives. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded? E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 60 16:02:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise today to speak on the motion that acknowledges 2007 as the Year of the Surf Lifesaver as well as the celebration of the 100th anniversary of surf-lifesaving in Australia. I also acknowledge the tremendous role that surf-lifesaving clubs play in saving Australian lives and the huge sacrifice that surf-lifesaving volunteers give to the Australian community—especially in my electorate, which has the coast of the Gulf of St Vincent as its western boundary. I have attended numerous functions and awards nights at surf-lifesaving clubs throughout the electorate of Hindmarsh and, as a result, have had the honour of meeting some of Australia’s most dedicated surf-lifesavers. The surf-lifesaving clubs of Glenelg, Grange, Henley, Semaphore and West Beach, which are all within the electorate of Hindmarsh, have for generations protected thousands of Australians along the shores of South Australia. They all work together as part of South Australia’s surf-lifesaving clubs network. These clubs contribute immensely to the South Australian community by addressing issues such as safety, physical activity, youth development, training and education. I saw firsthand youth development when my own children were nippers at the West Beach Surf Life Saving Club many years ago. These clubs provide a centre that enables all members of the community to engage with each other in a healthy environment that focuses on the importance of family. All clubs involved in the South Australian surf-lifesaving clubs incorporate programs such as peer support groups and family orientation groups which encourage family involvement and support for members within the clubs and, at the same time, patrol the beaches to keep them safer for the people who use them. I have always been involved with community groups and sporting clubs, and the sense of community and the sense of belonging that is created through these surf-lifesaving clubs is incredibly important to our society. Community organisations such as the surf-lifesaving clubs of South Australia get people out of their homes and into the community. It gives us the opportunity to connect with one another and to care about each other and discover that we all have more similarities than differences and, at the same time, do good work by saving lives and patrolling the beaches. I would like to pay a special tribute to all the volunteers who make up the surf-lifesaving clubs in my electorate of Hindmarsh—that is, the Glenelg Surf Lifesaving Club, Grange, Henley Beach, Semaphore and West Beach. These clubs rely on their volunteers to ensure that they remain active and functioning on a daily basis. Without those volunteers, these clubs would not exist. The mission of the South Australian surf-lifesaving clubs is to save lives on the beaches through their patrolling of the beaches as well as other means such as education, prevention and rescue services. All of this frames the actions of those clubs in my electorate and clubs all around Australia, of course. There are over 5,500 members aged seven years and over in South Australia alone in surf-lifesaving clubs. Every one of those 5,500 members contributes to the safety of our beaches in South Australia. For example, the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club has over 400 members and plays a significant role in Adelaide’s beach side suburbs. Glenelg is one of South Australia’s busiest beaches, attracting beach goers from all over South Australia, Australia and overseas. Other beaches such as Grange, Henley Beach, Semaphore and West Beach also attract thousands of beach lovers, and the clubs have protected these beaches for decades. It is a pleasure to support surf-lifesavers and their ongoing work of saving lives, their training in water skills and resuscitation and their commitment to instilling in people an appreciation for preventing and neutralising potentially dangerous situations. Prevention is always the preferred means of problem solving or remedial action, and there is no better way of reducing unnecessary deaths by drowning than through the development of the very skills that will ordinarily enable a person to take care of themselves in and around water. I am sure the effort that has gone into water-skilling through all surf-lifesaving clubs over time is a leading contributing factor in the gradual reduction in drowning deaths—both numerically and as a proportion of the population. So I would like to thank the surf-lifesaving clubs of Australia and especially the clubs within my electorate—Glenelg, Grange, Henley, Semaphore and West Beach. They are a respected, diligent success and I encourage all Australians to praise their commitment to sustaining and saving lives around the nation, throughout South Australia and in my home town of Adelaide. 61 16:07:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —It is a pleasure to second this motion moved by the member for Moncrieff. The Year of the Surf Lifesaver pays tribute to the tens of thousands of Australians who contribute to their community as surf-lifesavers. Surf-lifesavers have a wonderful record of having kept Australians safe for the last 100 years at our beaches nationwide. I am acutely aware of the good work done in my own electorate by surf-lifesaving. I have two excellent clubs at Scarborough and at Trigg Island and I am privileged to be vice-patron and patron of these clubs respectively. Both clubs are an important part of the fabric of the Stirling community, patrolling and protecting people on one of Perth’s most iconic stretches of coastline. The Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club, together with the Trigg Island Surf Life Saving Club, keep Australia’s best beaches safe for the thousands of people who take advantage of all they have to offer. I was recently very privileged to have the Prime Minister visit Scarboro surf club to show the government’s support at the highest level for the work that this club, and their many sister clubs around Australia, do for the community. I know the visit was very well received by members of the West Australian surf-lifesaving community. It has been an exciting year for the organisation in WA as they began their three-year hosting of the National Surf Lifesaving Championships in March of this year. Some 8,000 competitors and officials were joined by up to 40,000 spectators coming down to Scarborough on any given day to watch the events. I was fortunate to have had an opportunity to attend on both the Saturday and the Sunday of the championships. On the Sunday morning His Excellency the Governor-General presided over a service of thanksgiving for those surf-lifesavers who have lost their lives in the course of their duty. This was a reminder of the dangers that surf-lifesavers are prepared to accept on behalf of their fellow Australians. Thousands of beach goers are rescued around Australia each year, not to mention the enormous number of preventative actions that are taken on a daily basis to make sure that beaches like Scarborough and Trigg are safe for swimmers, surfers and families. When you look at it like that, the importance of the Surf Life Saving Association to the entire Australian community becomes clear. It provides world-leading best practice lifesaving services through its strong commitment to juniors and through its adoption of uniform standards and systems. It also exports its expertise. At the surf-lifesaving championships in Scarborough, I met representatives from surf-lifesaving organisations from around the region and around the globe, and they look to Australia for best practice and leadership for surf-lifesaving internationally. Surf-lifesaving provides our Australian young people with the chance to not only participate in fun and healthy activities but also learn vital survival skills—as well as how to save the lives of others. Because of Australian surf-lifesavers and the wonderful commitment that all of its volunteers make, Australian beach goers are undoubtedly the best protected in the world—a testament to the skill, expertise and professionalism that is espoused not only by the organisation as a whole but also by the individual members who give up their time to serve the community. This selfless volunteering of time and commitment showcase the best in the Australian character. Australians as a community are always prepared to give something back to help their fellow Australians, and surf-lifesaving is one of the best examples of this. This motion is a timely reminder of the good work done nationwide by Australian surf-lifesavers for the past 100 years. It is a tremendous opportunity for this parliament as a whole to acknowledge the efforts of lifesavers—people such Mark Irwin, who is the President of the Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club, and David Mottram, who is the President of the Trigg Island Surf Life Saving Club; people who have spent years giving back to their individual communities to protect Australian beach goers. I heartily commend Surf Life Saving Australian for their community service and congratulate them on their continuing service to the Australian community and thank the member for Moncrieff for bringing this important motion before the House. 62 16:12:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —It is a great privilege and pleasure to speak to this motion, signifying and recognising the fine contribution of surf-lifesaving in Australia in this 100th year of its operation. Surf-lifesaving epitomises the Australian way of life and our Australian culture. It is volunteers working together for the community and relying on each other—mates helping mates and mates working for their community. That is what the surf-lifesaving movement is about. Throughout the world Australian lifesavers are renowned for their skill, expertise and knowledge. The lifesavers in the Shortland electorate have made an enormous contribution to our community. I think I am probably one of the most fortunate members of this House because I have six surf-lifesaving clubs within the Shortland electorate and each and every one of them is home to a magnificent beach. We have fantastic surf and fantastic lifesavers—men and women who put their lives on the line to save others, men and women who work together for our community. One of the surf-lifesaving clubs within Shortland electorate is Redhead, which was the fifth club to be formed in the Newcastle surf-lifesaving branch. It was formed in 1908. We have the Swansea Belmont Surf Life Saving Club, which—and I have news for the member for Stirling—will be host to the next Australian titles. It is an absolutely fantastic club. It has had lots of experience in the past hosting the New South Wales titles on a number of occasions. The dedicated surf-lifesavers at that club will do a fine job, just as the surf-lifesavers in his electorate and in the member for Moncrieff’s electorate did a fine job in the past. As well as that we have the Catherine Hill Bay club, which is a smaller club but a real family club, as is the Caves Beach club. I find that each of the surf clubs within the Shortland electorate is unique. There are also two surf clubs in the Central Coast part of my electorate, the Lakes and Soldiers Beach clubs. Soldiers Beach had their presentation night last Saturday night. It recognised the contribution of the surf-lifesavers in that club. I have to put on the record in the House that Soldiers Beach has fantastic surf. If anyone is in that area, they should visit Soldiers Beach and see how the dedicated work of those surf-lifesavers has ensured the safety of the swimmers there. The Central Coast branch of Surf Life Saving Australia is now in its 66th year of operation. Its boundaries were initially set from Catherine Hill Bay in the north to the Hawkesbury River in the south. These boundaries have prevailed today. It has now grown from five surf-lifesaving clubs to 15. The two most northerly ones are in the Shortland electorate. The Newcastle branch of Surf Life Saving Australia has a longer history. Its first surf club came into existence in 1908. As I mentioned earlier, the Redhead surf club in Shortland electorate was the fifth. The Catherine Hill Bay club was formed in 1920. When the Caves Beach club was formed there was quite a bit of angst within the community because it broke away from the Swansea-Belmont club and there was concern that there would be two weak clubs. Rather than that, we have two strong clubs serving the community and working together to see that the people in our area are safe. I have to acknowledge the work and support of the Lake Macquarie City Council and the Wyong Shire Council. They both support the surf-lifesaving clubs in the area. Many clubs in the electorate have a 100 per cent record of patrols, and the training and the level of competency of all the surf-lifesavers within the electorate of Shortland and throughout Australia are astonishing. I have great pleasure in supporting this motion. (Time expired) 63 16:17:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 0 Mr RICHARDSON —I rise today in support of the motion moved by the member for Moncrieff. I would like to commend the member on bringing this very worthy motion before the House. I was very proud when the Australian government chose 2007 as the Year of the Surf Lifesaver. Being the 100th anniversary of this exceptionally important organisation makes it a fitting time to celebrate the role it plays in making our beaches safe and, most importantly, in saving lives. The second part of this motion notes not only the role of surf-lifesavers in making our beaches safer but also the 500,000 lives which have been saved on Australian beaches. There are 500,000 people who, but for the hard work of these dedicated volunteers, would have had their lives cut tragically short and 500,000 families who would have been grieving a needless loss. The people who make surf-lifesaving tick are volunteers. It is the largest volunteer organisation of its kind, and thousands of Australians give their time, and often risk their own lives and personal safety, in the pursuit of safer beaches and quite simply to save lives. These volunteers and Surf Life Saving Australia deserve to be commended for that commitment. Of the 18 surf-lifesaving clubs in South Australia, five are in my electorate of Kingston, and I have seen firsthand the hard work they do. In addition to the surf-lifesaving focus they have, these clubs also play an important role in the lives of the young people, the young nippers, the club members, who participate in the organisation with such passion. So often we come across teenagers with a lack of purpose who fall victim to antisocial behaviour and negative influences. Surf-lifesaving clubs throughout the country provide an alternative for these young people. For a century now, they have provided these young people with social and teamwork skills, leadership skills, and a safe and healthy environment for them to form bonds and friendships which last a lifetime. I would like to take this opportunity to particularly commend the hard work I have seen at the surf-lifesaving clubs in my electorate of Kingston, including the Aldinga Bay, Christies Beach, Moana, Port Noarlunga and Southport surf-lifesaving clubs. I noticed, when I received my autumn edition of Surf Life Saving Australia’s BeachSafe newsletter, an article about Australia’s newest Muslim surf-lifesavers, who are now patrolling the beaches at Cronulla. The article went on to discuss the introduction of the new burqini, which is enabling Muslim women to participate as well. It makes you proud to read about this positive step, and it reiterates the important social role of Surf Life Saving Australia, who are providing real solutions to social problems other organisations are unable or unwilling to tackle. The Australian government supports surf-lifesaving, and not just through rhetoric. This government provides millions of dollars to the program because it understands the important role they play and because they are invaluable on our beaches. Many international tourists, many of whom cannot swim, flock to Australia because of the promotion of our beaches. We have a responsibility to those tourists as well as to our own citizens to ensure our beaches are safe. Surf Life Saving Australia provide that assurance by conducting their patrols on over 300 beaches and along some 20,000 kilometres of lovely coastline. Each summer, surf-lifesavers are involved in around 10,000 rescues and 25,000 first aid treatments as well as giving safety advice to more than 150,000 other beach users. The federal government are very happy and very proud to support this effort because we understand the very important role surf-lifesavers play. We are very proud that as a government we have managed the economy in such a way that we are able to provide funding like this to such an important organisation. We will continue to work hard to ensure we are able to continue to support important services like this in the future. I commend this very important organisation on its hard work and I commend this motion on its recognition of Surf Life Saving Australia’s very valued work. 65 16:22:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I also wish to support the member for Moncrieff’s motion on surf-lifesavers. I am delighted to have this opportunity to record my appreciation and admiration for the contribution that the surf-lifesaving movement has made to our Australian way of life. This year marks the centenary of surf-lifesaving in Australia—and what a proud history it is. One hundred years of volunteers patrolling our beaches, educating us about how to enjoy the water safely and putting their own lives at risk to perform rescues. It is a fitting tribute to the thousands of volunteer lifesavers, who have kept our beaches safe in that time, as well as the current members, that the 100-year milestone has been marked by the declaration of 2007 as the Year of the Surf Lifesaver. There is no doubt that the Australian surf-lifesaver is a true national icon. As a nation we love the beach, and the image of the bronzed Aussie lifesaver in his or her red-and-yellow cap brings together two of our most celebrated national characteristics—our love of sport and the spirit of volunteering: getting in and helping others. The story of the beginnings of surf-lifesaving lives up to that image. In the early years of last century the ban on swimming in daylight hours was lifted, and going to the beach became a very popular pastime. With so many poor swimmers getting into trouble in the water there was a need for stronger swimmers to be ready to rescue them. Groups started to form to carry out that service on beaches around Sydney. The Surf Bathing Association of New South Wales formed in 1907 with a grand total of nine clubs. There are now over 300 surf-lifesaving clubs with 113,000 members. In that time 500,000 lives have been saved on Australian beaches. That is an incredible achievement and something we should never take for granted. I am proud to say that surf-lifesaving is in my blood and was a big part of my early life. My father is a life member of the Mackay Surf Club and some of my earliest memories are of following him around on the beach and trying to run up sand dunes when he was training his surfboat crew. As soon as surf-lifesaving was opened up for female members in 1980 my sister and I were signed up to be nippers, and I continued as an active member of the Mackay club and then the Yeppoon club until a couple of years ago. I am not sure whether the Yeppoon club accept this as an excuse, but I am afraid that the demands of this job and a growing family finally got too much and something had to give. Sadly, at the moment, it is my weekend patrols, but I hope to be back on the beach one day. When most Australians think of surf-lifesaving they immediately think of the lifesaver on patrol, and that is undoubtedly the public face of the lifesaving movement and part of its enduring strength and appeal. But we should never forget the other volunteers who do so much to keep clubs going—the administrators, trainers and fundraisers. I know from my experience at the Yeppoon club that those tasks are never-ending and absolutely essential if clubs are to continue operating so that each weekend our beaches can be patrolled by members with up-to-date qualifications and with access to reliable rescue equipment. As we have heard from the other participants in this debate today, every club has those people—the stalwarts who sell raffle tickets, organise cent sales, do the bookwork and staff the canteen every weekend. There are also the trainers and examiners, who make sure that every lifesaver on patrol can carry out the demands of rescue and resuscitation if they are required to do so. When I think about the level of commitment that is required, and the level of commitment that is embodied in the surf-lifesaving movement, I can think of no greater example than a gentleman who is very well known to me and to those throughout Central Queensland—and that is Ron Harding. He is a fantastic example of the finest traditions of surf-lifesaving. Ron Harding is known to everyone in lifesaving as ‘Speed’. Speed has been a member of the Yeppoon Surf Club for over 50 years and his dedication to surf-lifesaving is legendary. Now in his seventies, Speed is at the pool in Rockhampton before five o’clock every morning ready to train any lifesaver brave enough to try one of his sessions. He spends his weekends at the club training members in rescue and resuscitation and is always encouraging them to upgrade their skills. It is a labour of love for Speed, but it still amounts to a huge sacrifice of his personal time to further the cause of surf-lifesaving in Central Queensland. To Speed and the countless other dedicated volunteers like him who have built this unique Australian organisation over the past 100 years, we say thank you. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 66 Grievance Debate Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 66 66 16:27:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —I rise in this grievance debate on a matter of great concern and importance to the future governance of the Geelong region, and also its economic future. In February 2007 the Victorian Ombudsman delivered an important report initiated by an own-motion investigation into the policies and procedures of the planning department of the City of Greater Geelong. This investigation became necessary because of serious complaints by businessmen and prominent members of the Geelong community about irregularities in the operation of councillor hearing panels when considering some large-scale developments before council, the actions of some council officers and massive inconsistencies in the application of council planning procedures. As I reported to my constituents in my March 2007 newsletter to the Corio electorate, the report has exposed what the Municipal Association of Victoria regards as illegal conduct in the operation of councillor hearing panels, warns of significant potential for councillor conflict of interest over certain development proposals, and documents a litany of procedural and administrative deficiencies, abuse and councillor interference in planning matters within the council. The Ombudsman delivered a sobering and important warning to the Geelong community in this report about procedural fairness and the rights of citizens to be heard in council processes. It is important for the Geelong community to appreciate that there are elected council representatives and paid council officers who take their responsibilities seriously and have conducted their time in council, or serving it, with integrity and distinction. However, there are others who have not. Their actions have betrayed the trust the community has placed in them when it elected them to the City of Greater Geelong. The Ombudsman’s report is the third report—following the Whelan report and the VCAT report—on Frank Costa’s Hometown Geelong development that has raised serious questions about the conduct of some councillors, council candidates, planning staff, businessmen, developers and local Geelong politicians in Geelong council elections. In 2004, the very conservative Geelong Business News reported in several articles an unholy alliance between prominent Geelong identity Mr Frank Costa and other Geelong businessmen, and between Liberals, property developers and the Marles right of the Labor Party in Geelong to influence outcomes in the 2004 municipal election for the City of Greater Geelong. According to the Whelan report commissioned by the Bracks government into the matter, some $50,000 was raised by Mr Costa in cash and cash cheques from local Lara property developer Lino Bisinella, businessman Robert Riordan, car dealer Sean Blood, former nightclub owner Stewart Harrison and local fruit and vegetable merchant Glynn Harvey. The money was delivered to Councillor David Saunderson, who at the time was employed as an electorate officer to Mr John Eren MLC—now MLA—and distributed to councillors and unnamed candidates in the 2004 council election. An additional $21,000 was delivered to Councillor Saunderson by property developer Lascorp to assist candidates in the 2004 municipal election. The Whelan report omitted to name unsuccessful councillors and candidates who received assistance from the secret slush fund, and to this day the Geelong community is none the wiser about who they are. However, details of the deal are still dribbling out some years later. A recent Geelong Advertiser article on 12 May 2007 entitled ‘Backroom rumblings: Bisinella was part of push to oust Ansett’ details allegations by Windermere ward councillor Tony Ansett that he was deliberately targeted in the 2004 elections through the funding of $21,697 from the Costa fund to a candidate identified in the Whelan report as candidate B, who opposed Councillor Ansett in the Windermere ward at that election. Candidate B has subsequently been identified by the Geelong Advertiser as Cameron Granger, a prominent member of the Labor right faction in Geelong and Marles’s confidant, factional operative, campaign manager to the former Corangamite Labor candidate Councillor Peter McMullin, former electorate officer to Lisa Neville MP and current electorate officer to John Eren MLA. As a result of the Whelan report, Councillor Saunderson has been charged and found guilty of breaching disclosure provisions of the Local Government Act. It is also a matter of public record that Mr Costa has an application for a multimillion dollar Hometown retail development currently before council which requires a substantial rezoning to retail of industrial land required for the future development of the port of Geelong, to accommodate a current scaled down Hometown retail development. The Hometown proposal, according to recent Geelong Advertiser reports, has also been the subject of various representations to the Bracks government. The Hometown application is important because any proposed rezoning of land will impact heavily on the availability of land for the future development of the port of Geelong, which in turn has implications for future freight movements through the port of Melbourne and, in the long run, the economic development of the Geelong region, the state of Victoria and, indeed, the nation. The rezoning is opposed by Toll Holdings, who own the port of Geelong, as well as the Geelong Chamber of Commerce and the Geelong Manufacturing Council. There are very important considerations at stake in the council and the state government’s decisions on the Hometown proposal. It is not just a matter of the economic viability of the port of Geelong and the long-term economic future of the Geelong region and the state of the Victoria. What is at stake is the future of democratic practice and good governance at the local government level in the Geelong region and at the state level in Victoria. There are several important things that must now occur if this festering cash-for-councillors cancer is to be cut out once and for all so the Geelong community can move on. Firstly, Councillor Saunderson and Mr Costa must provide full disclosure of the Liberal Party members and Labor Party members and other candidates who received campaign finance from the Costa fund in 2004. In addition, Councillor Saunderson must properly account for the $5,000 returned to the fund by Councillor McMullin and the other unidentified expenditures by Councillor Saunderson detailed in the Whelan report. Only when this disclosure is made will the Geelong community know who the candidates were and have their confidence in future local government election procedures in the City of Greater Geelong restored. Secondly, Mr Costa should take the Hometown proposal off the table for council consideration in the interests of the Geelong community. Many councillors have been hopelessly compromised by the cash-for-councillors ‘Costagate’ affair, and Geelong’s business and wider community—as well as some of the donors—are still shaking their heads in disbelief that Frank has allowed his private business interests to override the wider community interest on this occasion. Thirdly, Premier Bracks must establish an independent inquiry with judicial powers into the cash-for-councillors affair and an independent corruption commission in Victoria to ensure the integrity of governance processes at all levels in this state. The Premier needs to only look at what has happened with the Brian Burke saga and the Busselton Council in WA and what has happened in the Gold Coast Council in Queensland—both being the subject of corruption hearings by the respective anticorruption bodies in those states. Let me conclude by stating that the silence of some senior political figures in both the Liberal and Labor parties in Geelong on this matter has been deafening. We are yet to hear of any condemnation of the cash-for-councillors affairs from state Labor members Neville, Eren and Crutchfield or from senior right factional operative Marles. On the Liberal side, the limp-wristed response to the saga from senior Liberals is a continuing source of embarrassment to its members—and I note the presence in the chamber of the member for Corangamite. The Geelong community expects its political leaders of all political persuasions to defend the integrity of governance in the region. It also demands that of key business leaders, such as Mr Costa, Mr Bisinella and others. It is time they all stepped up to the plate on this one. 68 68 16:37:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 0 Mr SECKER —I rise today to speak on this grievance debate about a subject that is dear to my heart and dear to my constituents—that is, water, particularly the Murray River and the lower lakes in South Australia. There is no doubt in my mind that state governments all around Australia have mismanaged water resources, especially the Murray-Darling Basin. Interestingly, before our Constitution was adopted in 1901, our South Australian forefathers, including the grandfather of our present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, argued for water resources to be managed by the Australian government rather than by state governments. How different things might have been if we had won that argument. But we now have a plan, and the Howard government are proposing that the whole Murray-Darling Basin be managed by the Australian government rather than by the present four state governments and the ACT. The government are proposing to spend $10 billion to fix up the Murray-Darling Basin and the problems of poor infrastructure and the overallocations by state governments. An amount of $6 billion is to go to improving infrastructure—for example, by using pipes instead of open channels that seep and evaporate. I was flabbergasted when the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, claimed that South Australia does not have any open channels, which not only shows his ignorance of our own water infrastructure but is not helpful to our future needs. South Australia may have better infrastructure, thanks to federally funded upgrades, such as the rehabilitation of the Loxton Irrigation Scheme, but I can assure this House and the Premier that more work needs to be done. We still have plenty of overhead sprinklers and open channels that need to be replaced by more efficient irrigation practices. The Premier needs to understand that his so-called $20 million plan to build a weir at Wellington is both sheer madness and a poor use of taxpayers’ money. Even he now knows it is more likely to cost $150 million, not $20 million, which is a stupendous amount of taxpayers’ money for something temporary. I well remember—and I am sure you also do, Mr Deputy Speaker—when the Prime Minister called the state premiers to Canberra on Melbourne Cup day last year because the government could see that there were serious problems with water allocation in Australia, particularly the Murray-Darling Basin. Premier Mike Rann’s answer was, ‘We’ll build a weir,’ without thinking about the consequences. A far simpler way to increase the ability to pump water into Adelaide’s reservoirs is to lower the three pumps below lock 1 at Blanchetown. Another thing that Premier Rann needs to understand is that the people in rural areas that rely on Murray River water want a fair deal. All irrigators in the Riverland received only 60 per cent of their normal water allocation and fear that they will have zero allocation come July. The 60 per cent allocation would be fine if the plan were shared equally between industry in Adelaide and industry in the Riverland, but it is not. Adelaide has only a Clayton’s reduction in water allocations, with no reduction demanded for industry and virtually none for households. There is no reduction for city people to have a shower, nor is there a reduction for industry where they work. Rural people in the Riverland rightly feel miffed that the water allocations are not fair. This unfairness is supported by the member for Chaffey, a Riverland seat in South Australia, who is dancing to the tune of a city-centric state Labor government. The Howard government has a different approach with its $10 billion plan. As I previously stated, $6 billion is allocated to infrastructure. Assuming that it will cost about $2,000 for every megalitre saved, and that half of that will go to farmers and half to government allocations, this will deliver 1,500 gigalitres in savings and an extra 1,500 gigalitres for irrigation, which will cover the 1,500 gigalitres lost when we buy back 1,500 gigalitres from overallocations. In total, it will mean no loss in wealth-producing irrigation but an extra 3,000 gigalitres in the river. To put that in perspective, that amount is equivalent to what South Australia uses for all irrigation and households over four years. Unfortunately, Victoria is holding up the nation for what seem to be its own selfish reasons, which is a perfect example of the need for a national control rather than present reasons of self-interest. Three years ago, we all heard the mantra from Labor: we all had to put 1,500 gigalitres back into the Murray-Darling for the environment, without telling us how we were going to do that. This sounds like Labor’s plan to reduce CO emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, when we will probably all be dead, or near enough to it not to remember the plan itself. Labor have not told us how they will reduce CO emissions and who will be hurt or who will lose their job. To the contrary, the government’s plan for our water resources returns 3,000 gigalitres, but it does not hurt our wealth producers. Interestingly, if we had returned 3,000 gigalitres last year, without this spending and without ensuring our farmers were not hurt, the river would now be dry and there would be many bankrupt farmers. That was Labor’s plan. The government’s plan will deliver the 3,000 gigalitres, without hurting the farmers and our industries. I have not heard Labor, or the Greens, who promised 3,000 gigalitres, congratulating the Howard government on its plan. Funny about that! When was the last time a state government built a reservoir for city water supplies? In South Australia in the sixties, the Playford and Hall Liberal governments bought land at Blewett Springs and Yundi for future reservoirs. What has happened to this land? It certainly has not been developed. For 40 years, Labor state governments have either sold it off or failed to develop it. The South Australian Labor government seems to be more interested in building trams in Adelaide. A good catchcry would be ‘less trams, more dams, Mr Rann’. The Labor state government has reaped $1 billion in the last five years from SA Water. This company has the duty of supplying water to households in metropolitan Adelaide and in many of our rural towns. The government has spent that billion dollars without preparing for our future water needs. In fact, almost a daily occurrence in Adelaide is burst mains pipes for water supply because the state government has not spent the necessary money on their maintenance, and it is causing real problems. The only answer from the government has been to take water out of the Murray River. That is very easy for the government to do. The reservoirs that supply Adelaide’s water needs are running dry, so the government simply pumps from the Murray River. This cannot go on any longer. We need to prepare for our future water needs. Let me conclude by saying that Labor does not prepare for the future, and it never has. 70 70 16:46:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —I rise this evening to grieve about the citizenship test that this government is about to introduce into this country. According to a press interview by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, he would like this test to start operation in September this year. On 1 November, I spoke about this issue in the parliament, but I think I need to speak on it again. The information on citizenship that comes to hand is as follows: Will everyone have to sit a test? Most will; however, there are some people who are not required to have a knowledge of the English language and of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship, and they will not be required to sit a test. This includes people under the age of 18 years or aged 60 years and over as well as those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity that means they are not capable of understanding the nature of their application. How will the test work? The test would be in English, be computer based, take up to 45 minutes to complete, consist of around 20 to 30 multiple choice questions drawn randomly from up to 200 questions. Further down it states: What about people who do not have the literacy skills to take the test? Special arrangements would be made for people who would have difficulty taking a test because of their low levels of literacy. They would be required to take the test in an alternate format. A citizenship test does not determine whether you would make a good citizen or whether you should be granted citizenship of a particular country. It has nothing to do with literacy levels. It has nothing to do with whether you can answer 20 questions taken randomly from some 200 questions. At the moment, we have an Australian Citizenship Pledge, which is as follows: From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, Whose democratic beliefs I share, Whose rights and liberties I respect, And whose laws I will uphold and obey. The citizenship test discriminates against large sections of our community. Indeed, if this citizenship test had been in place from the last century, many of us would not be here today because our forebears would not have had the literacy skills to pass the test. What history shows is that those migrants who wanted to come to this country have made an enormous contribution to it, and so have their heirs and successors. Why the need for this test? The test is based on an ignorant view of the world that basically sees people of a different colour, a different race and with a different language as just that: different, when they are not different. We are all equal. We had a White Australia policy in this country and, thankfully, over time it was wiped out. At the time of the White Australia policy, there were restrictions that included a dictation test. It was used to exclude certain applicants by requiring them to pass a written test in a language, which was nominated by an immigration officer, with which they were not necessarily familiar. In relation to people seeking visas into this country in the thirties, there is the celebrated case of Egon Kisch. Mr Kisch, under the immigration act at that time, was subjected to a dictation test in any European language. This was used as a means of determining whether he was acceptable for a visa. That case went backwards and forwards to the High Court. Mr Kisch was multilingual. Because the government of the day had fears about his background, it produced a Gaelic dictation test. There would have been only one in about 600 people in Scotland who could have passed that test in Gaelic. Our current test is not as restrictive as that one, but the principles are the same. How do you judge someone’s eligibility for citizenship on the basis of whether they rote learn 200 questions and then successfully answer 20 of them? It is absurd, it is obscene and it is offensive—and we hold ourselves up as intelligent human beings! This test has nothing to do with producing better quality citizens. It is about restricting the intake of citizenship from particular countries and about excluding it from others. People with low literacy levels or who are not literate at all cannot comply. There are many instances of migrants who have come to this country with no English skills—indeed, who were not literate in the language of their own country because of the lack of opportunities in that country. The 2007-08 budget provides funding in the order of $123.6 million over five years to deliver the Australian government’s new citizenship test—that is, $107.4 million over five years for the citizenship test; $6.2 million over five years for the Australian way of life booklet; and $10 million over five years for Australian values statements. What an absolute waste of money. Indigenous Australians in this country, who have been so shabbily treated over the years by governments of all political persuasions—federal and state—could do with that money when it comes to their health. If you go to the website of the Fred Hollows Foundation, you will find that 24 per cent of Aboriginal men and 35 per cent of Aboriginal women in this country live to the age of 65. And what have we got? A government that is wasting $123.6 million on a citizenship test. What about the disparity between those who happen to be born here and those who want to migrate here? I just talked to a class of students, 90 kids, from my old alma mater—St Luke’s, at Revesby. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, I bet you—and I know the Deputy Speaker is not allowed to engage in betting, so I am using it in a metaphorical way—that, if we gave those kids a test of 20 randomly selected questions, a lot of them would struggle to pass the citizenship test. That is where there is a disparity between those who were born here and those who aspire to be Australian. That is why I read out the pledge. It is about aspirations and commitment to those aspirations—to those views that we as a parliament have determined you need to become an Australian citizen. It is not about passing some dodgy test. The Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph produced a list of questions that might be used in a citizenship test. I think that showed it all; it showed the ridiculousness of the tests. When the minister is questioned about this, he does not give forth any specific views on the tests other than that people should understand the system of government in Australia just as much as they should understand the broad values which we share as Australians. But what are the broad values? The values that I share are not necessarily shared by some of my colleagues in the Labor Party or those on the other side. From my experience, because we have been so negligent in teaching civics in our schools, there are not many of our pupils in our schools, all the way up to year 12, that understand the system of government. This test that is being introduced by this government is a disgrace. Shame on the Prime Minister and shame on the government for saying, ‘You need to pass this test before you can become an Australian citizen.’ The test is the first thing that should be repealed when there is a change of government; it should not decide who becomes an Australian citizen. 72 72 16:56:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this afternoon in the grievance debate to echo the cry of most of the people in my electorate—that there be no forced amalgamations of local government areas in Queensland. The Labor Premier in Queensland, Mr Beattie, has decided to force the amalgamation of local government authorities without giving the people in the community their democratic right to have a say about their future. However, what Premier Beattie has failed to recognise is that this divisive policy will simply destroy country towns. It is my opinion—and I can assure members in the House that this opinion is held by tens of thousands of people living in rural Queensland—that these now thriving communities will become nothing more than ghost towns should they be forced to amalgamate under Beattie’s arrogant and deceitful policy. The reality is that local councils in rural Queensland are the lifeblood and the voice of people in those country towns and in the surrounding areas that they provide employment opportunities to. Local councils promote business and tourism opportunities and contribute to the economic wellbeing of the local community. Under the Queensland Labor government’s plan to amalgamate, small businesses will struggle to survive. There will be a reduction in jobs, as we witnessed with other states that forced local government amalgamations. There will be a loss of tourism opportunities, and regional and rural development will cease. These forced amalgamations by the Queensland state Labor government will happen without the people having their say unless we are successful in the protests that are being conducted across many areas of Queensland. The amalgamations are undemocratic and disgraceful. It would appear that the Beattie Labor government is now drunk on power. Clearly its Blueprint for the Bush is nothing more than a patronising document that has no value, and it has been totally discredited—it is about the centralisation of rural communities, not decentralisation. It is not about their future, and it is not about development. Not only has this Labor government failed to plan for the state’s future in relation to water, health and road and rail infrastructure; it now plans to attack local governments that have never failed to provide for their communities. They are not broke; they are doing a wonderful job. This appalling and shameful move has the potential to ruin the growth and development of many areas and many country towns in Queensland’s heartland. It is also being done against the backdrop of the worst drought in 100 years. It is a callous act by a heartless Labor government. I have joined the people of western Queensland in rallies, demonstrations and public meetings. I thank our minister for local government, Jim Lloyd; Senator Boswell; Rugby League legend Shane Webcke; Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Queensland parliament, Fiona Simpson; Shane Knuth, the member for Charters Towers; and our candidate in the seat of Flynn, Glenn Churchill, who all attended a rally in Barcaldine on 8 May. There were well over 1,000 people at the rally, including council workers and their families, shearers, stockmen, station owners and the like. Many travelled more than 1,000 kilometres each way in support of the rally’s cause. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I can assure Premier Beattie, more accurately—that the bush will not give up without a fight. Several speakers spoke about the spirit of the rural people living in country Queensland, but none summed up the sentiment of this spirit better than Kelsey Neilsen, a councillor from Boulia Shire, some 700 kilometres away from Barcaldine. In her speech to the rally she said: I have in my hand some Boulia bulldust. This soil has held the ancient footprints of our indigenous people, it has been wet with the blood sweat and tears of the pioneers. The sweat of hard courageous men who dared to venture further out, the tears of their women, the blood of their children who died because they were too far from help. This soil was once tramped by the sleepless pacing of a broken hearted widow, the widow of a brave young soldier who laid down his life in a horrible war so that we could live free in a democracy. This soil has been paid for with incredible sacrifice and this is our soil, soil from where we live, outback Queensland. Outback Queenslanders are people of the earth, stocking the rich open plains with cattle and sheep. We are road builders, building big roads in the outback working in the dirt and gravel on thousands of kilometres of roads networking the west, our state and the nation. In a year when tourism has seen a slight decline state wide, outback tourism has risen 13%. The beef cattle industry in the western shires creates massive wealth for the state and the nation, hundreds of millions of dollars annually not to mention the flow on effect to support industries across the State. The Outback as it is today has been fought for, worked for and hard won. We cannot allow, must not allow the Beattie Government to slash it to pieces with the stroke of an ill informed, unjust and undemocratic pen. The proposed local government reforms WILL KILL OUTBACK TOWNS. Who cares? We care, we care a lot, our towns are filled with our heritage and Australia’s culture, the land of waltzing matilda, the land of the min min light, the home of the tree of knowledge— for those on the other side of the House. She continued: We love the outback and we will fight for it. Our numbers may be small but our commitment cannot be challenged. …            …            … We are worthy custodians of the west and we have proved it over more than a century as its keepers. We choose to live here, we love our towns and the State needs us to live here. We look after the outback. These proposed forced amalgamations are coming from a deceitful state Labor government that is just not listening to the people of western Queensland, but I hope the appointed commissioners will listen to the very real concerns of people throughout the bush. I now hear that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith—an opportunist—has spoken to Premier Beattie about the plans, and I have never seen such a concocted and contrived media spin in all my life. All it showed was a complete lack of concern for the people of the inland and their democratic rights. I know that back in 1994, when the Leader of the Opposition was Director-General of the Cabinet Office in the Labor government at the time, led by Premier Wayne Goss, he would have had direct involvement in the forced merger of the local government authorities of Glengallan, Rosenthal, Allora and Warwick City in my electorate. These four councils were merged into one authority to become the Warwick Shire Council. I notice in the latest list released by the Labor government that after 12 years this council is ranked as ‘weak’ in terms of financial strength. One of the arguments being put forward by the Labor Premier in Queensland is that if you amalgamate shires you create a strong council. Warwick Shire Council is a good example. They have done a magnificent job. I would like to see, given the list that has been put out, where the basis of that argument comes from. I would like to see the report of the Auditor-General in relation to those figures, because they have done a magnificent job against the odds. Another point to bring into question is the Labor Party and its mates in the unions. There are 45,000 jobs in local government in Queensland. We have had experience in other states. In Victoria, for instance, 11,000 jobs were lost from local councils with the merging of councils in that state. But where have the unions been in standing up for the rights of union workers? They take their fees, they give them the ticket but they will not stand up for the council workers in western Queensland when they know that these forced amalgamations will create a loss of jobs and a destructions of country towns. (Time expired) 74 74 17:06:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 0 Mr BEVIS —On a number of occasions I have risen in this parliament to talk about the plight of the many thousands of sufferers of diabetes in this country, particularly type 1 diabetes, otherwise known as juvenile diabetes. Over the years in which I have made speeches about that I think far too little has been done by all of us in this place. I think the government, the parliament and all of us have failed thousands upon thousands of Australians who, as sufferers or those who live with sufferers, await some genuine action on the part of this government and this parliament to inject some serious commitment and funding into the research needed to help alleviate the pain and suffering that goes hand in glove with diabetes. It was in that context that I was heartened by press coverage this weekend in the Brisbane Courier-Mail referring to new advances that provide some hope in that respect. One of those articles, headlined ‘Diabetes breakthrough’, reported that Queensland scientists are developing a drug that could prevent people from becoming diabetics. Professor Ian Frazer, surely one of the great Australians we are privileged to have as an Australian citizen, said that initial tests had been carried out and researchers were planning overseas clinical trials of the drug. If successful, it could be used to treat patients at risk of developing type 1 diabetes. It quoted him as the former Australian of the Year. In a separate article—it was not clear whether it was referring to the same drug—the media also reported advances associated with a number of drugs with which Ian Frazer has been involved. We are all familiar with his groundbreaking research in providing a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. One of those articles went on to say in effect that Professor Frazer says that the drugs could change the body’s immune response, preventing it from attacking cells which produce insulin in the case of diabetes or destroying the joints of arthritis patients. This is indeed good news, to know that our researchers are undertaking world-class groundbreaking research in a very important field that goes to the quality of life of so many Australians. Unfortunately they are doing it on the smell of an oily rag. It was only three years ago, prior to the last election, that both parties committed to fund the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation to the tune of about $25 million over about a four-year period, and that funding has commenced. But I have to say that it is an appallingly small amount of funding. We are talking here about five or six million dollars a year. The Howard government are about to spend $2 million a week to tell people that they should not talk about Work Choices anymore and that they should brand it as something different. The government can find $2 million a week on average between now and the election day to fight a political campaign on industrial relations, on their Work Choices legislation, but they cannot find half that or a quarter of that to fund medical research. Many members of parliament on both sides have honestly and sincerely participated in the Kids in the House program that the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation conducts and it is a tremendous lobbying exercise. I say to the children who have come to me that it is the most powerful lobbying exercise I have ever had to confront as a member of parliament in 17 years. I have certainly found it to be the most moving. It has been a great privilege for me to work with some of the families and to meet with some of the children affected over the number of years that they have been involved. One in particular who has been kind enough to keep me informed is Gareth Eldershaw. Gareth wrote to me last year just before they had the kids in parliament activity. Amongst other things in his letter he said this: I need a cure for Type 1 diabetes, all the kids in Australia who have Type 1 want a cure and so do their parents and families and friends ... Do you know there are still so many people who don’t know the difference between Type 1 and Type 2? Even with all the advertising about Type 2 diabetes lately, people still say dumb things like—“Do some exercise”, “Shouldn’t have eaten so much sugar”, “It’s OK. You’ll grow out of it.” Or worse still—“I hope I don’t catch it from you.” I will digress from his letter. He has told me of the reaction sometimes in the playground from other students who think that this is a contagious disease that will strike them down and the social difficulties that imposes on top of the physical difficulties that diabetes imposes. His letter went on and said: My first 10 years of having diabetes has passed and all I do is hope for a normal life like my friends—SOON. It’s a drag doing all the test and injections—they still HURT. So far I’ve put up with over 22,000 blood tests and 12,000 injections. It’s a pretty horrible total number of jabs. I’m old enough to really understand and fear complications that might come later. What’s worst is my life now. I had a bad hypo a while back and my brother thought I was dead and now my parents are even more protective. He says in brackets, ‘not cool’. My only glimmer of hope is a cure. I was honoured to meet and speak with Prof. Ian Frazer (Australian of the Year) at the Queensland Parliament’s ‘Kids In The House’ recently. He truthfully didn’t promise a cure anytime soon but he feels confident it will come. There are lots of scientists just like him furiously working for a cure, but their research needs so much money. It’s nearly 2 years since the Government and the Opposition all promised funding for a research centre. Still I wait. Two years is a long time in a kid’s life—2 more years of needles and pain. For me it’s like the disease will never go away ... Please keep helping. Please keep remembering me. Please promise. From your friend, Gareth Eldershaw. Now, I suspect other members of parliament have had similar letters from the Kids in the House program from their constituents that they have met. You cannot help but be moved by the genuine honesty and decency of these kids, the plight they confront, the difficulties their parents confront and the way they stoically and with a smile deal with all of those issues. Most of us have our hands full just being parents with children who do not have health problems. When you have children with severe health problems as well—and diabetes can certainly be one, although it need not be—it must also pose real stresses and strains on the family. Gareth is lucky he has a loving family that are very supportive. Those people have come here to this parliament on a few occasions now and many members of parliament have met with them. We all say the right things when we are with them: it is about time we started doing the right things after they walked out the door. It is about time we actually started to invest in the research that is bearing fruit. We are fortunate in this country to have world-class scientific research capability. We are fortunate in this country to have people like Professor Ian Frazer. It is about time we started to reward them seriously. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way the government allocates its funding when it could find $55 million a couple of years ago to promote its Work Choices legislation. It is now going to spend millions of dollars over the next few months telling people about a different version of its Work Choices. In fact, I am sorry: the $50 million, the $2 million a week I referred to before, was not for Work Choices; it was actually for the government’s water plan. The government is going to spend $2 million of taxpayers’ money a week to promote aspects of its water plan. It is about time it put the same money into medical research. I do not care what side of politics people are on: we have all met with those kids and we have all given them undertakings. Three years ago, just before the election, we were all moved to give a commitment about providing some funding. We did—both sides of politics—and that is a good thing. But let us put this into perspective, let us get serious about it, let us improve the quality of life and let us make the breakthrough. Let us not make kids like Gareth have to wait another two or three years for the next election before there is another serious commitment from both sides of politics to do something significant and meaningful to assist the research community in Australia to find that breakthrough for type 1 diabetes. 76 76 17:16:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —Before the honourable member for Brisbane politicised this debate, I have to say I had a lot of sympathy with the need to do more research into type 1 diabetes. I do support the principle that we as a country should be doing a lot more than we currently are in relation to this particular area. I do not, however, want to talk about diabetes in the debate today. I want to talk about what I think is a most retrograde and regressive policy announced by the Australian Labor Party: to abolish full fee paying places for Australian students at Australian universities. I think this is a particularly elitist policy, and it will discriminate against Australian students when overseas students will still be able to access these full fee paying places. I could understand such a policy if the full fee paying places were detracting from the number of funded places at Australian universities, but one ought to appreciate—and the Australian Labor Party ought to appreciate—that what we are really talking about here are extra places. If it is desirable, as I believe it is, that students come from overseas to study at our institutions and they pay full fees, and if an Australian student has not obtained the marks at secondary school or the entrance requirements to get a funded place, then surely it is not inequitable to give that student a second chance and to give that student the opportunity of studying at his or her own cost at a university. I would be the last person to suggest that standards should be lowered. Of course, universities through their examination processes and their assessment processes have the capacity to make sure that all emerging students graduating with degrees attain the appropriate level or standard. I am the parent of two children, and for a long time I have believed that the tertiary entrance levels—whether you call them OP levels or TER levels, and I know different states have different means of designating them—are not really an accurate way of determining either whether a student will pass through the university and graduate successfully or, for that matter, whether the student has the ability to do the course. They are probably necessary but arbitrary mechanisms to determine who gets funded university places and who does not get admitted to the university on the basis of a funded place. But, having said that, why should we throw on the scrapheap students who maybe had too good a time at school? Maybe they played too much rugby; maybe they did not focus on their academic studies as much as they should have and therefore did not obtain the results in their final examinations or in their assessment procedures at the end of secondary school to enable them to obtain a funded place. Why should we, as the ALP seems to want to do, throw these students on the scrapheap? Often you find that people, once they become a little more mature, are prepared to knuckle down and focus on the future and realise that you only succeed when you work. These students, once they know what they are doing, are often very good students. Once they have sorted themselves out and they know the direction they would like their life to follow, these students are very good students. One of my staff members has authorised me to mention in this speech that when he was at school he did not study. He got a mark but not a good enough mark, and after he became a little more mature he decided that he wanted a future. He realised that if he was going to get ahead he would have to knuckle down and work hard—head down and tail up—and consequently managed to get into university and pass. He has been extraordinarily successful. I think the idea of saying that because you are an Australian and because you did not get the appropriate marks at the end of your secondary schooling you are not able to go to university, even if you are prepared to scrimp and save or work at weekends to help put yourself through, is a most unfortunate regression in our national education policy. By comparison, the government through our policies and through the recent budget have highlighted that we see tertiary education as being very important. Obviously, when we have people who are graduating who have a real capacity to make an enduring contribution to our nation’s economic health, this is an important step forward. I see the idea of bringing in overseas students as a good idea. I have no problems with that at all, and I have no problems at all with those overseas students paying full fees. But I just do not think that in 2007 it is in any way, shape or form appropriate that a major political party in opposition and seeking to attain the Treasury benches at the next election should say that we as a nation are going to discriminate against Australian students; that it is all right for students from Singapore and elsewhere in Asia and from Europe, America or anywhere else to come here and take a full fee paying place but it is wrong somehow for an Australian student to take one of those extra, additional places that will give them the opportunity of completing a tertiary education. I think that what the ALP are suggesting is bizarre. I cannot possibly believe that the Leader of the Opposition could have supported such a policy. It might well have been one of those trade-offs that is necessary for the leader to do in order to keep the support of the various factions in the Labor Party. It is a most regressive policy which has been suggested by the Labor Party and I would hope that, were they to be elected to office—and I certainly hope that they are not—that policy would be reviewed. I am particularly proud of the coalition’s Higher Education Endowment Fund, announced in the budget earlier this month. It is a revolutionary initiative which will produce a self-generating income stream that will fund the infrastructure required to assist our tertiary institutions in delivering the facilities needed, such as lecture theatres, halls and research facilities, in order to deliver leading, world-class education services. Since the budget I have had the opportunity of talking to a university vice-chancellor who was quite fulsome in his praise of this initiative and of our policies in the area of this higher education fund. The education fund will enable our universities to climb up the ladder of international recognition of tertiary institutions for some time. Our institutions have not been given the recognition that institutions have been overseas, and we do not find very many of our universities in the top 100. But, hopefully, over time this endowment fund will enable our universities to become more world class and to deliver more graduates, which of course will benefit our nation’s economy in future years. The delivery of undergraduate degrees at Australian universities was given greater freedom with the announcement in the budget of the relaxing of the cap on full fee paying places across all streams of study. This means that a university will be able to increase and decrease student numbers for its various courses so as to best balance its student numbers with the various demands of Australian society and industry. Initiatives in the budget will also help to meet this need by allowing a university to have full funding for student enrolment levels at a five per cent overallocation without penalty—and you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, that prior to the budget full Commonwealth support was available for student enrolments up to one per cent over allocation. I return to the principal theme of this speech. That is to say how appalled I am that the Australian Labor Party is somehow publicly trying to mount a justification for discrimination against Australian students. I have yet to hear a remotely credible argument from any member of the Australian Labor Party to adequately justify a situation in which students from overseas are treated preferentially. They are allowed to come here and buy an extra place at an Australian university, and of course this provides very good income for the universities. But somehow Australian students who do not quite get the marks they would have liked at the end of their secondary schooling will not be allowed to similarly buy a full fee paying place at an Australian university. This is, I believe, one of the policies that would help bring the Australian Labor Party undone at the election later this year, because it is a policy that is simply indefensible. It is a bizarre policy. It is a regressive and retrograde policy. It is inequitable and discriminatory. In fact, it is a policy that has absolutely nothing at all going for it in any way, shape or form. It is not too late for the rational people opposite to make sure this policy is overturned—and I can see the honourable Chief Opposition Whip, who is a rational person. Sadly, of course, after the election, regardless of the result, the opposition will be less rational than it is now because the member opposite is departing. It is just ridiculous and beyond the pale that in 2007 the ALP are saying that Australian students should be discriminated against. They will allow full fee paying overseas students to come in. There is no problem with that; it is great. But they will not allow Australians similar opportunities. (Time expired) 79 79 17:26:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —I am happy to put the honourable member for Fisher’s mind at rest. It is true that I have often read of my own political funeral; however, I will be continuing on as the endorsed Labor candidate and hope that the good electors of Chifley will again support and encourage me in the way they have in the past. I say to the departing member just one word: merit. The Australian Labor Party have a philosophy that Australians who go to university ought to be able to get there on the basis of merit, not necessarily on the basis of how much they or their parents earn, and that we have a responsibility to ensure that that happens. If the honourable member finds difficulty with that—and I can understand why he, being a coalition member, would find that offensive and difficult to comprehend—so be it, but that is the policy we have and that is the policy that I think will attract a great deal of support at the next federal election. Next Saturday will be the 10th annual Reconciliation Walk and Gathering in my electorate, and I would particularly like to pay tribute to two people who are no longer as directly involved as they once were but who played a significant role in the walk and gathering, and that is Father Paul Hanna, former parish priest of the Holy Family Church at Emerton, and Coral McLean, who was the Director of Education at Holy Family. The Holy Family Parish provided a home for those who were involved in the planning and putting together of the walk and gathering. It is a great day. I must confess that it took me a while not to apply my own values and judgements to it—that is, whilst we attract about 300 or 400 people, I could never understand why we did not attract more. But I have come to understand that the importance of the walk and gathering for reconciliation at Mount Druitt is the mere fact that we hold it and that we stop the traffic for half an hour as we walk around the central business district of Mount Druitt. I commend all those who in the past 10 years have been associated with the walk and gathering for reconciliation. I invite those who perhaps have never walked to come and join us and join in the walk, the fun of the day and, in particular, all the entertainment that is part and parcel of it. A couple of my constituents—by email and one directly—have said to me: ‘What are you going to do about Fincorp? Are you going to speak up about Fincorp?’ We all know that Westpoint, another property investment company, collapsed in 2006 leaving millions of dollars owed to 4,000 investors who had put on average $90,000 in each of the businesses, investments often financed by mortgages on their home. Fincorp is just another example of the same thing. This time there are approximately 8,000 investors, two-thirds of whom are in New South Wales. Initial figures show that 7,000 secured note holders are owed about $178 million and about 1,000 unsecured note holders are owed $23 million. Twenty-one companies in the Fincorp Group under administration have an estimated deficiency of at least $100 million. This is likely to rise and could be as high as $150 million and, indeed, some commentators have suggested $300 million. What is the Howard government doing about it? We do have an Australian Securities and Investments Commission charged with overseeing these companies. They are charged with ensuring that any breaches of corporate law are brought before the courts. But the Auditor-General in releasing a report in January this year revealed that the Howard government has allowed more than 99 per cent of complaints to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, by external administrators to be ignored. I repeat: for every 100 complaints the organisation receive, under the Howard government 99 of them are ignored. They do not do anything. They do not investigate. They do not prosecute. We have had a tragedy in Westpoint. We have had a tragedy in Fincorp. Are there more on the way? Mr Deputy Speaker, please do not take my word for it. Very late one evening here in Canberra I was listening to Lateline Business, and I congratulate that program. Lateline Business is not a favourite of the coalition. One program broadcast on 26 March 2007 revealed that not only have we had Westpoint with its profound losses hurting battlers, and Fincorp hurting something like double the number of battlers, but there are a further 10 companies expected to go belly up. I will repeat that. This is not me scaremongering. This is not me picking up some turgid bit of gossip. This was on Lateline Business where it said that a further 10 property investment companies are expected to go belly up. Some members of the House may say that we cannot do much about it; it is poor management et cetera. Why then won’t the government direct the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to deal with the complaints they have? Who in government knows what the Australian Securities and Investments Commission are doing about these further 10 collapses that have been predicted? Is there any way we may be able to prevent them? Should we just sit on our hands and do nothing? This organisation comes under the Treasury portfolio, and for every 100 complaints received by or referred to the commission—not by my estimate or by the Parliamentary Library but by the Auditor-General—99 are ignored. We are not talking about millionaires playing the stock market, suffering a bit of setback and being able to recoup through their other investments. On average these investors are 60 years and older. They are investing their life savings. They are investing their superannuation into these companies. What is the government doing? This is a litmus test. Do you care about people who have invested this money? LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —You don’t care about your microphone! QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —It is about the only thing you do care about, unfortunately. Please do something about the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. I was surprised when I was approached about it on the streets of my electorate. I can say to the honourable parliamentary secretary and member for Paterson that I am sure he has got some people in his electorate that have been burned by investing in Fincorp. We have a responsibility to say to the Treasurer: what are you doing about it? How are you directing this government commission with responsibility for investigating these matters, for ensuring corporate probity and ensuring that these companies are run properly? It should not be just a lottery where a chief executive can pay himself millions of dollars and give himself a low-interest or no interest loan and squander investors’ money or invest in unsecured notes and debentures. This is a scandal. Nothing has been done about Fincorp and we can be assured that there will be no prosecutions laid for those people who have lost their money in Fincorp. And nothing is being done to prevent those further 10 companies, as is speculated by Lateline Business and expert financial commentators, from going belly up. (Time expired) 81 81 17:36:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —The grievance I bring to this chamber today on behalf of my constituents is the matter of road funding or indeed the lack of interest by the New South Wales government in providing ample road funds. I remind this House of an accident that occurred on 5 March 2004. That was an accident on the Pacific Highway where Greg and Cath Campbell lost their two little children, Jessica and Rebecca, and Greg’s mother, Barbara, in a horrific smash at Keels Road, near Bulahdelah. All that Mrs Campbell asked was that the road be upgraded as quickly as possible to save any further carnage on the road. Three years on and the roadworks are underway. The upgrading of the section between Tea Gardens and Bulahdelah is underway. This roadwork is long overdue, yet there is one part of this roadwork that is missing; there is one part of the road which has the potential to lead to a fatality. Of course, I raise the Tea Gardens intersection flyover. I have said in this House many times and I will repeat it today: it is good enough that Karuah has two flyovers—one to the north and one to the south—in the interests of safety. There are 789 people over the age of 18—in other words, of driving age and over—in Karuah. Bulahdelah, when the bypass is completed there, will get a flyover to the north and flyover to the south, and it has 998 people over the age of 18. But Tea Gardens, which seems to be forgotten by the state Labor government in their planning, has 2,380 people over the age of 18, and when you add in North Arm Cove another 327. I can remember meeting and talking to the community—Patricia Michelle, Lenny Roberts and others—after they had been down to speak to Michael Costa, who was the then roads minister. He said, ‘If only the federal government would kick in extra money.’ In that budget year we upped the funding for the Pacific Highway by an additional $160 million, and to their credit they matched that, but there was no prioritisation of the work. When we pushed it further, the cost blew out from $5 million to some $15 million. Enough was enough! I approached the Prime Minister and the roads minister and lobbied hard and when the Prime Minister came to my electorate in April he announced $10 million towards the flyover for Tea Gardens. Of course, the work still needs to be prioritised by the state government and contribution funding applied. What did we hear from the new New South Wales Minister for Roads, Mr Eric Roozendaal? He said: This issue has been raised by the Prime Minister—a measly $10 million, which he knows will not pay for it—because he is under pressure to save— my seat. Well, there is no pressure to save my seat; we will win my seat because we prioritise local issues that matter to local people. What he had the gall to say was: I believe that other more important parts of the Pacific Highway need upgrading ... His candidate in the state election and now the candidate against me in the federal election happens to live at Tea Gardens and has no interest in this intersection. He believes the way to fix it up is to improve the mobile phone service in the area. What that has got to do with it I do not know. It would probably get more people talking on their phones as they are driving through the intersection and that will lead to an increase in accidents. I am glad that the Howard government are committed to road funding. I have done a little bit of research. One of the programs that we instituted as a government when we came in in 1996 was black spot road funding, a program that was abolished by the previous Labor government. Since 1996 I have been able to achieve over $11.860 million in black spot road funding to the electorate of Paterson. On top of that, we have built another exceptional program where we rely on councils to determine the priorities of the work. Of course, that was Roads to Recovery. That was not a one-off program; in fact, it has been extended and in my electorate we have been able to achieve over $20 million in Roads to Recovery programs. This is on top of $36 million provided to the local governments as their road allocation grants as part of the $266 million provided under the federal allocation grants. In other words, this government is serious about putting money at the sharp end—to the councils for the work that can be done in their electorates to ease the road burden. Two of the main roads that require money in my electorate of course are Bucketts Way and Lakes Way. The Prime Minister in 2001 committed $20 million to Bucketts Way. That $20 million has now been expended and the work is complete. The improvements in this road have been absolutely outstanding. To show the council’s support they have actually spent money out of their Roads to Recovery package on supporting that roadwork. We have also picked up some $2 million of black spot funding for Bucketts Way. In the recent budget there was an announcement of some additional money. We were able to secure off Jim Lloyd an additional $2 million for Bucketts Way which will bring the spend to over $24 million on Bucketts Way. This is a strategically important road that goes from the Pacific Highway down near the Medowie turnoff up through towns like Stroud and all the way through to Gloucester. It comes back around towards Taree. But it is also a main avenue when it connects up with the roads through to Tamworth. The other road that is critically important in my electorate is Lakes Way, which is a road that needs some funding. I advise the House that we have invested nearly $4 million in black spot funding just on Lakes Way. The Great Lakes Council, which has received some $5.5 million in Roads to Recovery funding, has been spending the majority of that on upgrading Lakes Way. Why do they need to spend the money in this way? It is because the New South Wales government refuses to provide funding for roads in my electorate. There are some four state electorates within my electorate but they seem to always bypass the option of providing real funding. In fact, the last time there was any real funding on Bucketts Way was when $6 million was provided by Carl Scully back in 2000. There has been nothing since—no responsibility. Yet I remind the House of that horrific accident, one of many that have occurred on the Pacific Highway, where the young Campbell children were lost. The money that we are providing is being well spent by these councils, to the extent that at the last election we committed $6 billion to Dungog Council, and that is being spent—the tenders are just about finalised now—on the roads between Dungog and Seaham. To match that, Port Stephens Council got $2 million for roads between Seaham and Raymond Terrace. Those roadworks have commenced today and I congratulate the councils on their fine efforts. One of the other pieces of roadwork that is critical in our area is Weakleys Drive. That has been a long, drawn-out saga of nearly a decade. The price has gone from some $12 million or $13 million to $25 million, to $35 million, to $42 million and now to $52 million, of which the federal government is funding 100 per cent. So when I went to the sod turning earlier this year, saw the works commenced and spoke to the contractor, FRH, I was rather surprised to find that the actual contract for the works was $30 million. We see the state Labor government in New South Wales trousering some $22 million for planning work and contingency sums. The work has been going on that long in the planning process that you would assume there would be no need for contingency sums. They have been over every stone and piece of gravel in that area to understand the geography completely. We do need to improve the safety of our roads. The roadworks that are underway, in particular on the Pacific Highway, are outstanding. The quality is high. But part of the problem is that we increase the speed at which people travel through those areas. That two-hour slot from Sydney, where the fatigue factor hits, seems to move further and further up the highway. That fatigue factor seems to be right at the intersection of the Tea Gardens flyover. The Howard government has put its money where its mouth is and is prepared to invest in safer roads and motorists’ safety. The state government is more inclined to spend its money in Sydney giving $25 million to contractors to hold up the opening of a tunnel for a couple of days to suit an election period. That $25 million on their contribution would have built nearly three flyovers at Tea Gardens. On behalf of my community, I will not let this issue go away. They are aggrieved by the actions of the New South Wales state Labor government in refusing to prioritise these roadworks and provide safety and support by having this road built to save lives. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question agreed to. 84 Bills R2776 84 Bills R2775 84 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 84 Bills R2770 Cognate bills: 84 Bills R2778 84 Bills R2777 84 Bills R2772 84 Bills R2773 84 Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Mr Costello: That this bill be now read a second time. 84 17:47:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 Mr TANNER —The Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills are the routine bills that put in place the government’s spending requirements arising from the 2007 budget, and I have pleasure in providing a response from the opposition with respect to the detailed arrangements for budget spending that are set out in the bills. It is always wise in considering the budget papers every year to head to Budget Paper No. 1, and particularly to table 2 in Budget Paper No. 1, because that provides you with an assessment of how things have changed over the past six months, both with respect to revenue and with respect to expenditure. In particular, it incorporates the expenditure impact of new commitments that were announced in the budget relative to the overall spending proposals that were in place roughly six months earlier, as documented in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook papers. This year, that table demonstrates that the government is drowning in money. Because of the minerals boom and the fact that it has created a knock-on effect which is rippling through most of the Australian economy and showing up in a variety of tax receipts, and also because for the first time in 30 years the wider global economy is growing in tandem—all of the major economies of the world are growing, some of them quite strongly—these benign economic circumstances are drowning the Howard government in money. You can see this most starkly in the estimate of revenue for the next three financial years, which is contained in Budget Paper No. 1, table 2, compared with the estimates for the same period as recently as December last year. The difference between the two aggregated is about $47.7 billion—$47.7 billion more that the government had at its disposal for the forthcoming three years than it estimated only six months ago. Equally, it is an interesting exercise to examine the new spending proposals and their impact on overall spending—and, indeed, tax initiatives as well—to see what the government is doing with this largesse. Surprise, surprise! They are basically blowing the lot. The new spending and tax initiatives in the budget effectively use $47.1 billion of the additional $47.7 billion that the mining boom and benign global circumstances have rained on the government. We in the opposition support many of the initiatives that are in the budget. We believe that, for once, the tax cuts are reasonably well structured. It is amazing what an election can do. It is extraordinary what the pressure of facing the Australian people at the polls can do to a government that has consistently in previous budgets, particularly in the last two, handed out very generous tax cuts biased very heavily towards higher income earners. This time, the structure of the tax cuts is more balanced and, in Labor’s view, a reasonable approach to dealing with the circumstances on tax that face the government. Similarly, with respect to spending initiatives you would have to say that with the amount of money the government has had at its disposal it would be difficult for it to get everything wrong. Inevitably, there are spending propositions in the budget that we support. Some of them bear a very remarkable resemblance to things that Labor has advocated in recent years. In areas like education—which the government has touted as the big, dominant theme, the major message of the budget—a number of initiatives are remarkably similar to proposals Labor has advocated in recent times. However, they are only snapshots; they are not the whole picture—the whole education revolution that Australia requires. If ever you want a statistic that demonstrates what is still wrong with the Howard government—why it is not fair dinkum about having a genuine education revolution—that statistic is that spending on education as a proportion of total government spending is anticipated to fall over the next four years. So, notwithstanding the increase that has occurred, it is relatively modest in the overall scheme of things. It is helpful. It is good that there is a belated recognition of the importance of education, but, relative to the wider budget, the proportion of government resources dedicated to education over the next four years is actually going to fall slightly. It is also very important to look at the wider picture on the budget to get some idea of what is occurring at the macro level. This tells an interesting story, both on the tax side and on the spending side. On the tax side, in the financial year that is about to end it is estimated that taxation as a proportion of GDP is at 22.8 per cent—22.8 per cent of the Australian economy is taken up in federal taxation. It is important to note that that excludes the GST, which is an artificial exclusion that we do not accept, and neither do the ABS nor the Auditor-General. But that is the government’s own estimate of tax as a proportion of GDP. That is estimated to go down to 22.5 per cent over the next financial year. Government revenue will drop from 22.8 per cent to 22.5 per cent. Then, the following year, it will be back up at 22.8 per cent and then, the year after that, it will be 23.1 per cent. So, in other words, notwithstanding the tax cuts, government revenue as a proportion of GDP—in effect, the tax take—will only drop slightly for one year. Why? Because in effect what the government is doing, as Peter Hendy from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry correctly identified, is predominantly handing back bracket creep—the impact of inflation on people gradually being pushed more and more into the higher tax brackets. You can see a similar record with respect to spending. In 2005-06, government spending as a proportion of our total economy was 21.3 per cent. The government’s own projections show that in the five years concluding 2010-11 it will hit 21.8 per cent. In highly positive economic circumstances, with growth over that period being relatively robust, globally economic growth being very strong and huge government revenues, spending as a proportion of the total economy is continuing to increase—this from a supposedly economically conservative government. If you want a point of comparison, it is instructive to look at the 1989-90 budget under Bob Hawke—the last Labor budget in similar economic circumstances. Inevitably the recession from 1990, 1991 and 1992 blows out spending as a proportion of GDP just by the natural order of things, because GDP is shrinking and there are automatic factors that cause that. So the best available comparison is the late eighties, when there were similar economic circumstances. What we see when comparing spending as a proportion of GDP in the late eighties to now is that it was almost two per cent lower as a proportion of the total economy in 1989-90 than it will be in a couple of years if the Howard government is re-elected and its spending projections come into being. What that means in today’s money is about $20 billion. In other words, if John Howard were spending at the same rate Bob Hawke was at the end of the eighties, government spending would be $20 billion lower than it currently is. That is a big difference. What we can also see is the ever-growing reliance on company tax as a source of revenue because of the impact of the mining boom, record levels of profitability in corporate Australia and a record profit share of the total economy. Company tax in the early eighties made up about nine per cent of government revenue. As late as 1998-99 it made up about 14 per cent. It is due to hit 27 per cent, and, even when you adjust for the impact of the GST deal, which probably brings the equivalent figure to compare pre-2000 with down to about 24 per cent, that is still a very substantial proportion of the total government revenue that is dependent upon a tax that historically is more likely to be volatile and will be particularly volatile in a recession and also, of course, is subject to strong international competition because of falling company tax rates in other jurisdictions. On the spending front, once again we have no sign of a razor gang. An additional $60 million has been handed out to a variety of government departments, including the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Human Services, with virtually no explanation as to what it is for—not even an excuse as to why additional resources are required for these various departments simply to do their job. It is notable that, after the initial cuts in the federal Public Service in 1996-97, we have seen a steady increase in the Public Service to a point where the total numbers for the federal Public Service are almost the same as they were when John Howard first became Prime Minister. But the proportion of people at the upper executive level has almost doubled to about 25 per cent compared with the early nineties. And, of course, the expenditure on consultants—people doing de facto public sector work where it has been outsourced—has soared to a point where in nominal terms it is now 2½ times the highest level that it hit in any one year under Labor and, in real terms, probably around double. In this budget we have also seen the further advance of a novel approach to budgeting, which, no doubt, creative accountants out in the private sector will be watching with some interest. It is what I call ‘retro-budgeting’, where, rather than focusing on expenditure commitments for the forthcoming budget period, what you do is focus on expenditure at the end of the existing budget period—in other words, shovel the money out at the last moment just before the financial year is due to close, in the same kind of way that public servants in the bad old days used to try and spend all of the unallocated money in their budgets by 30 June to ensure that they would not lose in the budget allocations for the forthcoming year. To illustrate this point, new spending initiatives announced in this year’s budget for the 2006-07 financial year, which is about to end, totalled almost $4 billion. By way of comparison, the new spending initiatives for that financial year that were announced in last year’s budget, the budget when you would expect new spending initiatives for that financial year to be announced, were only a little over—you guessed it!—$4 billion. This year the expenditure commitments for the forthcoming financial year announced in the budget were about $6 billion for the one financial year. In other words, increasingly we are moving to a new pattern of retro-budgeting, where the announcements about spending initiatives made by the government in the budget process relate in fact to the last financial year, not to the forthcoming financial year. It was also extraordinary to see that there was another $5 billion allocated to the establishment of the new Higher Education Endowment Fund. I have not even mentioned that in the context of retro-budgeting, but that was another example of it. That money had previously been promised to the Future Fund. So the same people—the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the finance minister—who went absolutely apoplectic about Labor’s broadband proposal, which involved drawing down a maximum of $2.7 billion worth of Telstra shares held in the Future Fund in order to finance the building of a high-speed national broadband network, have nicked $5 billion that was on its way out the Treasury door and about to hit the Future Fund. They of course claim that, because it had not quite got to the Future Fund, it is totally different. That is an absolutely specious playing with words which any reasonable observer is simply going to laugh at. Within weeks of criticising Labor for seeking to invest a small proportion of the Future Fund’s Telstra shares in a new telecommunications investment to benefit the nation, the government have effectively taken double the amount that Labor was proposing for another kind of investment and are still continuing with their rhetoric about alleged raids on the Future Fund. Interestingly enough, after having promised that this year’s surplus would go to the Future Fund and reneging on that promise by creating the Higher Education Endowment Fund, the Treasurer is now refusing to commit to putting the balance of the surplus in the forthcoming year into the Future Fund. It is worth noting on spending that, yet again, the government is up to its arms in massive wasteful spending on government advertising that is designed to further the political interests of the Howard government and not the long-term economic interests of the nation. The highest spend on total advertising in one year under Labor was $84 million. Last year, the Howard government hit $208 million—almost 2½ times the highest on record under Labor. Even if you take inflation into account, that is still roughly double in real terms the highest amount in a year under Labor. The way things are going with their Work Choices campaign, the education propaganda campaign, climate change advertising and all of these political messages designed to persuade people to vote the Howard government back in, they are going to break their own record in the forthcoming year. It is worth noting that, yet again, there is no reform of the presentation of budget information. There is still a dearth of serious information about programs and about where money is going. You still cannot find out, for example, how much the quarantine service spends. You still cannot find out detailed projections of the cost of tax concessions, which run into the multiple billions. It is still very difficult to connect the portfolio budget statements with the budget papers so that you can track where the money is going, and there are still meaningless outcomes in many areas that are supposedly measures of what the government is doing but in practice mean very little. Labor is committed to massive reform in this area and to introducing genuine transparency to ensure that we as a nation—the media, the people and the parliament—can understand what our money is being dedicated to, where it is going and what uses it is being put to. I was delighted to have been able to announce a couple of weeks ago that Senator Andrew Murray of the Democrats has agreed to conduct a review of all of these issues for an incoming Labor government, should we be elected, in order to give us an independent, objective parliamentarian’s view about where the problems are and what needs to be done to fix them. We will be doing that in a genuine attempt to ensure that we have full transparency and full reporting of financial transactions to the parliament so that all Australians can see where their money is going. Finally, I want to make reference to Labor’s commitments to extracting expenditure savings. A few months ago I announced a package of $3 billion worth of savings initiatives which were a variety of initiatives designed to ensure that Labor can fund its promises. That is only a first instalment. Inevitably we are going to announce more savings because the Howard government has been spending so much money on so many low-priority and wasteful things that the opportunity is there for an incoming government to get really serious about wasteful expenditure and to do something to redirect those moneys into more serious commitments. We have announced that we will drastically slash things like government advertising, expenditure on consultants, opinion polling and focus groups. We will cut back the printing allowance for members of parliament that the government has massively increased. We will get rid of tax deductibility for political donations, reform the Public Service air travel arrangements, which the Auditor-General recommended to provide savings for the government, but very little has been done about it, and also cut back on programs that we feel are simply wasteful and not a high enough priority—for example, the Community Business Partnership and Invest Australia. There are a number of initiatives of that kind. We will ensure that Public Service departments are not simply being given money every time they turn up with a new proposition or something new that they want to do. It is significant that the former head of the budget division of the Department of Finance and Administration, Professor Stephen Bartos, stated to a Senate inquiry recently that departments have effectively been able to get away with double dipping. They are getting funded specifically for new activities like putting in new IT systems but, at the same time, they get depreciation funding as a matter of routine which should be covering those kinds of things. He cited the new and notorious IT system in Customs as an illustration of this point. We will also be saving a very substantial amount of money by not proceeding with the government’s Work Choices spending. It is an extraordinary thing. Whether or not you support Work Choices, any taxpayer who is listening should be horrified at the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that have been pumped into promoting Work Choices. When Peter Reith introduced his legislation in 1996, which Labor fought tooth and nail against, to his credit the total hit on the budget at that time for legislation that was as sweeping in its impact as Work Choices was only about $11 million or $12 million. Similarly, when Labor did sweeping reforms of industrial relations legislation in 1993, the cost to the budget was only about $11 million. Yet, under John Howard, the Work Choices cost is about $600 million, the bulk of which is still available to be saved. So the budget is a classic budget of a government in cruise control. It is not investing in the future. It is not there for the long term. It is simply spending our money with its eye on political survival, on getting John Howard across the line one more time. He does not have a long term but Australia does. We should be investing as a nation for that long term. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the view that: despite record high commodity prices from surging demand from India and China and rising levels of taxation, the Government has failed to secure Australia’s long term economic fundamentals and should be condemned for its failure to: address Australia’s flagging productivity growth; stem the widening current account deficit and trade deficits; attend to the long term relative decline in education and training investment undercutting workplace productivity; provide national leadership on infrastructure including a high speed national broadband network for the whole country; expand and encourage research and development to move Australian industry and exports up the value-chain; and reform our health system to equip it for a future focused on prevention, early intervention and an ageing population; the Government’s failure to address the damaging consequences of climate change is endangering Australia’s future economic prosperity; the Government’s extreme industrial relations laws will lower wages and conditions for many workers and do nothing to enhance productivity, participation or economic growth; and the Government’s Budget documents fail the test of transparency and accountability”. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the amendment seconded? LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 89 18:08:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 0 Mr McARTHUR —I am delighted to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and the related budget bills. The 2007-08 budget is a good budget and has been well received by the community. It is a budget that builds on the Howard government’s reforms of the past to prepare for the future. It is economically responsible. It puts downward pressure on interest rates and delivers assistance for families through cuts in the tax burden and assistance for child care. This budget delivers a surplus of $10.6 billion in 2007-08 with further surpluses projected for future years, providing a downward pressure on inflation and increasing national savings. This is a responsible result, the 10th budget surplus in 12 budgets, and puts Australia in a strong position for further sustained economic growth. By way of international comparison, the budget papers demonstrate that the average collective fiscal position amongst OECD nations has been 11 deficits in 12 years, with OECD nations expected on average to remain in deficit by almost two per cent of GDP in 2007-08. Australia is a stand-out example of good economic management. Surpluses do not just happen, no matter what the opposition would have you believe. It takes hard work and discipline to deliver budget surpluses, and the Howard government has a proven record in this regard. There is an interesting graph in the budget papers, comparing general government sector net debt levels in selected nations over the 10 years from 1998 to 2008. OECD nations, the United Kingdom and the United States are maintaining net debt positions around 40 per cent of their GDP. Japan’s debt position is approaching 100 per cent of GDP. Australia stands out in stark contrast with these nations because we have eliminated government debt and are recording credit results. I seek leave to incorporate the graph in my speech. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Is leave granted? LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —I grant leave but indicate that the Speaker has previously indicated that, with respect to documents currently available to the House and tabled here, we should not give leave. But, because he is such a good fellow, I will give him leave! Leave granted. The graph read as follows—     VH4 McArthur, Stewart, MP Mr McARTHUR —Thank you. It does clearly demonstrate the point I am making in the speech, which members of the public will be able to identify more clearly. I thank those opposite. In addition to the maintenance of surplus budgets, the Treasurer should be commended for his policy to provide for the future superannuation liabilities of public servants and Defence Force personnel by investing in the Future Fund. The government has resisted the temptation to spend the surplus and instead we have invested the surplus to pay off the liabilities incurred today that will fall due in the future. Australia’s unfunded superannuation liability is expected to grow to around $148 billion by 2020 and over $200 billion by 2046-47. Through the Future Fund we are ensuring that we are not imposing a higher tax burden on future generations to pay for our largesse. It is important to win the Future Fund public debate and stop the opposition from spending the retirement savings of government and defence employees. Our responsible policies are paying dividends in keeping inflation low despite a growth economy. Inflation is forecast to be 2½ per cent in 2007-08, down slightly from 2¾ per cent this year and well within the Reserve Bank’s target band. The national economy is forecast to grow more strongly at 3¾ per cent in 2007-08, up from 2½ per cent this year, and GDP growth is projected to remain at three per cent for the forward estimates. Australia’s long-term prosperity is highly dependent upon its growth prospects. No economy is able to expand without fundamental growth and productivity improvements. At 3¾ per cent GDP growth, the Australian economy is projected to grow more strongly over the next year than the OECD nations, at 2¾ per cent, and than other key trading partners the United States and Japan, which have projected growth of three per cent and two per cent, respectively. China and India are expected to drive further strong growth in the world economy over the next year. The global economy is anticipated to continue sustained growth at the level of five per cent GDP growth in the 2008 year. China is set to continue with growth in excess of 10 per cent. The budget papers show China achieved 10.7 per cent growth in 2006 and is forecast to report GDP growth of 10½ per cent and 10¼ per cent in the 2007 and 2008 years, respectively. India is of growing importance to Australia as a trading partner and global economic power. The budget papers report that over the past five years India has been our fastest growing export market with our exports to India worth $7.4 billion in 2005-06. The budget papers report the Indian economy has enjoyed strong annual growth of six per cent on average over the past 25 years. Over this time India has grown from being the world’s ninth-largest economy in 1980 to being the fourth-largest economy currently. In 2006 the Indian economy grew by 9.1 per cent and strong growth is forecast to continue, albeit moderating slightly, at 8¼ per cent in 2007 and 7¾ per cent in 2008 due to tightened monetary conditions. There is a good basis of shared history that can bring India and Australia closer together. Indians speak English and have a democratic system of government. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Prime Minister of India, Dr Singh, who, by way of background, is a market economist. He had an interesting conversation with a delegation to India that I was participating in. I was delighted to hear his assessment of the Indian economy at that time, and his points of view on the way in which India would develop to be a good economy if it adopted a more market orientated approach. Despite the positive impacts of world economic growth and the resources boom on the Australian economy, we stand in good stead to maintain a sustainable growth rate. The budget papers project the wage-price index to grow at 4¼ per cent in 2007-08. The more flexible industrial relations system has ensured that wage pressures in some sectors, such as the resources and construction sectors, have not flowed over to create unsustainable pressures in other industries. I emphasise that point. On previous occasions—that is, in 1981 under Prime Minister Fraser—we had a wages breakout of massive proportions. More than 326,000 new jobs have been created since the introduction of the government’s workplace relations reforms in March 2006 and the majority of these new jobs—more than 275,000—have been full time. Again I emphasise that feature. Over the life of this government more than two million jobs have been created. This means more Australian families are earning higher incomes and are in a more secure financial position. The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.4 per cent, the lowest since 1974, and employment growth is estimated at 2½ per cent for 2006-07. Employment growth is anticipated to moderate in 2007-08. It is particularly interesting to note that Treasury expects the national participation rate to rise to 65 per cent, which is partly explained as a result of the government’s Welfare to Work policies, which encourage people who are on disability support pensions and parenting payments who have the capacity to work to do so. There has been much public debate about the shortage of skilled workers to meet the demands of industry in the current growth environment. It is important that we as a nation encourage more people who have the capacity to work to do so, and this is the intention of our welfare reforms. This budget, through providing increased incentives by cutting personal tax rates and increasing the rates of child care by 10 per cent, is making a further investment for the future in this regard. I now turn to tax reform. The government has recognised the pressures on Australian families to juggle household costs and raise a family and has been able to deliver further reductions in income tax in this budget. Some people might suggest that when you have a strong economy and increased tax income the government should do more—spend more money. This is the way old-fashioned socialists think—as the member for Batman, who is at the table, would understand—and even old-fashioned Christian socialists think like that. But the Liberal Party and the Howard government believe that when you have met your financial obligations the surplus funds should be returned to taxpayers to do with as they choose in the form of tax cuts and higher take-home pay. Even the member for Batman would agree to higher take-home pay. He is smiling at the table; I am sure he would like more take-home pay for his former union members. The budget provides $31.5 billion worth of personal income tax cuts over four years, building on previous reductions in tax. The threshold for the 30 per cent tax rate will rise from $25,000 to $30,000 income from 1 July 2007 and the low-income tax offset will also increase on this date. These reforms will particularly help low-income earners. I noticed the member for Melbourne commended that particular initiative; I am sure the member for Batman would be happy with it also. From 1 July 2008 the 30 per cent tax rate will apply for incomes up to $80,000 and the highest marginal tax rate will not cut in until incomes reach $180,001. As a result, only two per cent of taxpayers will pay the top rate, where incomes are 3½ times average weekly earnings. Again, this is a commendable initiative. Over the years I have been arguing the case that the cut-in factor of average weekly earnings was a very big difficulty for higher income earners. This particular change in the thresholds is a step in the right direction. Media reports of the budget spoke about the new initiatives, while the government’s past achievements were overlooked. I therefore put on the record the massive change in personal income tax rates under the Howard government. The tax-free threshold has been increased to $6,000, and the low-income tax rate has been cut from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent. When we were elected, a 34 per cent rate applied to incomes above $20,700. From 1 July 2008 the 30 per cent rate cuts in at $30,001 income. From 1 July 2008 Australians will pay no more than 30c tax in the dollar for incomes up to $80,000. We inherited from Labor a top marginal rate of 47 per cent, which applied to incomes at $50,001. There has been a remarkable change in relativities. Our budget reforms will mean that, from next year, the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent will apply only to incomes over $180,001. It has only been through disciplined economic management and surplus budgets that the government has been able to achieve this outstanding reform of the personal income tax system. These reforms are removing barriers to workers receiving due rewards for their efforts by increasing the share of take-home pay and improving the incentive for people to be more productive and to move from welfare into paid employment. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard the comparison between the rates as they were on 1 July 1996 and the new rates. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Mr Deputy Speaker, given that it was the Labor government that reduced the top marginal tax rate of former Treasurer John Howard from 60c to 49c— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —in the dollar, and that the tax tables reflect the Labor Party’s proposal— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is leave granted? LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —on tax cuts, the opposition accepts the tabling. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave granted. The document read as follows—   VH4 McArthur, Stewart, MP Mr McARTHUR —I would now like to move to the impact of the drought in Corangamite and in Australia. One of the remarkable things about Australia’s current strong economic condition is that it has occurred at the time of one of the most severe droughts on record. In south-west Victoria the drought is the worst in living memory for most farmers; in my own judgement, it is worse than the 1967 drought. Fodder is in very short supply or non-existent. Farm water is scarce; at some of the farms I have visited, it is non-existent. In past years, severe drought would have precipitated a significant economic slowdown, but the more flexible and diverse domestic economy established over the past 20 years, together with the disciplined economic policy of the current government, has enabled the nation to continue to grow and generate new jobs and wealth. The budget papers show that farm GDP is projected to fall by 20 per cent in the current year. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I would have thought it might be even more than that in your state of Tasmania and on the eastern seaboard, where the drought has been quite serious. A partial recovery from the drought on the back of more average seasonal conditions and rainfall is expected to add half a per cent to national GDP growth over the next year. The breaking of the drought would make a huge difference and be yet another factor contributing to a better economy. Whilst the economy remains in good shape, our farmers have experienced the full impact of the drought. South-west Victoria has qualified for exceptional circumstances and eligible local farmers are able to apply for EC assistance to provide a helping hand to manage through and recover from the drought. The Howard government provided a combined total of $1.2 billion in EC drought assistance last year and this year; the budget provides for assistance of $688 million in 2007-08. Rural Finance Victoria hosted an event for farmers at Colac last week. I learnt that 127 farmers across south-west Victoria had successfully applied for EC interest rate assistance valued at $3.4 million. There is an 81 per cent approval rate of farmers’ applications for EC interest rate subsidies in Victoria, with an average grant of $25,000 per farm. This assistance is making the difference for farmers who are receiving it, and in some cases they are on the breadline. An additional allocation of $205 million over four years has been provided in the budget to provide professional advice to drought affected farmers. I commend both of these initiatives strongly, and I have been pleased that the government has responded to the drought stricken farmers in my electorate of Corangamite. It is important to recognise the important contribution our farmers make to managing Australia’s environment. The budget extends the Natural Heritage Trust until 2013, providing $2 billion to improve water quality and combat land degradation. An additional $112 million has been allocated to landcare in the budget. I commend that initiative, because the Howard government initiated the Natural Heritage Trust. It has been very effective in Corangamite and, in my judgement, the allocation of money has been very well utilised by the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and also by farmers. The government has strong credentials on practical environmental protection, as demonstrated by our ongoing commitment to the Natural Heritage Trust and landcare. These programs are providing for an army of people on the ground who are working to fix the environment, but often these initiatives are ignored by commentators and those who are alarmist about environmental matters. Last week I joined the board of the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority to inspect some of the works to which the Commonwealth has made a contribution in relation to the environment, water catchment and the removal of willows from the streamside in the depths of the Otways. These programs, which I saw firsthand, are helping the future of water catchments and the future quality of the water. The removal of 72 kilometres of willows along those catchment creeks was a very practical and sensible measure funded by both the state and the Commonwealth. Fifty million dollars has been provided for a new long-term environmental stewardship program whereby farmers will be paid to help preserve and restore sensitive environmental assets. This is an innovative future-looking policy that has been welcomed by National Farmers Federation President David Crombie, who on 8 May said that it is: … an historic partnership that acknowledges farmers’ important—and growing—contribution to the environmental, economic and social lifeblood of the nation. I also add my support for this initiative whereby farmers and landholders are very much part of this program to encourage the stewardship of those natural assets. In the long run, it will be the encouragement of those landholders and stakeholders that will make these environmental policies work. In closing, I would like to look at the Labor alternative. I listened very closely to the budget response by the Leader of the Opposition, and it was remarkable that Labor had no alternative budget to put forward. They accepted the Howard government’s budget—as indeed they should, because it is a very good document in the nation’s interest. Since that time, we have learnt that Labor has no income tax policy, as demonstrated in the parliament this afternoon, because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have the tax balance right. The Leader of the Opposition received sympathetic and uncritical reporting of his budget response—in particular, his extraordinary claim that he would not outspend the government’s budget. This far-fetched claim was repeated again in today’s media. The cold hard truth is that, by accepting the budget and promising additional expenditure—as the Leader of the Opposition did in his budget response—Labor are in fact proposing to spend more and run down the surplus. Labor cannot hide behind the dubious savings concocted by the member for Melbourne, who made a contribution to the parliament a few moments ago. As a member of the former government, the member for Melbourne would know that savings are very difficult to achieve. His suggestion to the parliament that he could get $3 billion worth of savings is completely without foundation. (Time expired) 95 18:29:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 0 Mr SWAN —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and related appropriation bills for the 2007-08 budget. Twenty-five years ago the Australian people began what I think is now widely recognised as among the most far-reaching revolutions of our time. They set out on a long and difficult struggle to transform this country. They set out to rebuild the Australian economy as one which could compete with the best in the world. They set out to rebuild the Australian economy as one in which their children would find good, well-paying jobs; in which employers and employees would no longer be at each other’s throats; in which strikes would be uncommon; in which markets instead of governments could set prices; and in which business could compete rather than collude. They set out to rebuild the Australian economy as one of the best in the world. It was a profoundly important moment in recent history and a supremely ambitious one. After all, a quarter of a century ago Australia was at the bottom of the deepest recession we had experienced since the Great Depression. Under the guidance of the then Treasurer, now Prime Minister, the honourable member for Bennelong, interest rates had hit the highest level they have ever reached before or since. Unemployment was headed to over 10 per cent of the workforce, even though inflation was over 12 per cent. Production was contracting and living standards were falling. But Australians remembered that this had once been a prosperous country, proudly a full-employment economy with one of the highest living standards in the world. They turned to the task of recovering what we had lost. So we floated the dollar, deregulated banking and finance and cut tariffs. We introduced the accord to rebalance wage and profit shares in the economy and to rein in inflation. Then we transitioned from nearly a century of centralised wage arbitration to a wholly new system of enterprise bargaining. We implemented national competition policy to enhance the competitiveness of Australian businesses and government enterprises. Australia joined the worldwide recession in the early nineties. Though less severe than the last in terms of output, it was nonetheless deeply damaging. But we emerged after nearly a decade of difficulty, with an economy in which inflation was low, in which productivity growth was accelerating, in which businesses competed on a level field and in which jobs growth was persistent. Fifteen and a half years ago we followed that difficult period of reform by beginning what would prove to be the longest upswing in our history. We then began the long and steady progress towards full employment, towards a well-paid and well-trained workforce and towards an increasing diversity of opportunity for young Australians, which had all along been the aim, the intention, the whole point of our decade-long transformation. But now, after a 15½-year journey towards full employment, a journey preceded by a decade of the most difficult, contentious and painstaking preparations, we arrive near our goal of full employment only to find that this government has not done nearly enough to prepare us for that arrival. I accuse this government of the most unconscionable want of thought about the inevitable consequences of our long success, of a want of urgency and a clarity of purpose which has quite unnecessarily put at risk and tarnished the quality of everything we have worked for in the last 25 years. This of course is the legacy of the current Prime Minister and the current Treasurer. I see this failure to face up to the future economic challenges as a sad betrayal of Australian workers, businesses and policymakers who have worked hard over the last two decades to build our prosperity. For at least a decade we knew that, if growth continued as it had been, we would eventually encounter skills shortages and capacity constraints accompanied by the risk of high inflation and higher interest rates. Yet, rather than take the steps necessary to address these constraints, this government sat back and applauded itself with smug declarations as unemployment continued to fall—basking in the sun of the mining boom rather than doing the heavy exercise required to secure our future prosperity. This government applauded itself as productivity growth began to decline, from an average of 3.2 per cent in the mid-nineties to 2.2 per cent at the turn of the decade—and it is expected to reach 1.5 per cent this decade. This government applauded itself as the growth in the volumes of our exports, impeded by this government’s lack of foresight, continued to fall, from an average growth rate of eight per cent a year over the nineties to less than 2½ per cent a year since the turn of the decade. This has occurred in the middle of a mining boom—a shameful record. This government applauded itself as output growth began to slow, as employers reported critical skills shortages, as the queues of coal ships lengthened outside Dalrymple Bay and Port Waratah and as we began rationing railway rolling stock. This government applauded itself as month by month Australia raked up a record run of trade deficits, despite the most favourable global economic conditions in 30 years and the highest terms of trade in more than 50 years. This government applauded itself as our net foreign debt mounted so that it is now over half a trillion dollars. This government applauded itself as year by year the Reserve Bank of Australia increased interest rates. There have been eight successive interest rate increases from the Reserve Bank of Australia in the last five years—half of these coming since the last election, an election fought by this government on a pledge to keep interest rates at record lows. The Reserve Bank could see where we were heading, even if this government refused to look. The Secretary to the Department of the Treasury repeatedly warned this government what 15 years of expansion would mean. Two successive heads of the Reserve Bank of Australia warned this government what a prolonged economic expansion would mean. They warned that, unless we addressed the skills shortages, the lack of capacity and the infrastructure constraints, it would mean slower output growth and the risk of higher inflation. The secretary to the Treasury warned that it might mean that manufacturing in other sectors of our economy must contract to make way for the expansion of mining. And still the government did nothing, lying back while the alarm bells went off. And, yes, its advisors are still warning. The Reserve Bank told this government last month that inflation would inevitably accelerate in 2008. The certain consequences will be still higher interest rates if this government is re-elected. It warned that our skill crisis had worsened and was further constraining output. The secretary to the Treasury told his officials two months ago that Australia was at a point where there was a serious risk to inflation from policy interventions by this government unless it turned its focus to lifting our nation’s productivity capacity. But the warnings were unheeded by this government and this Treasurer. The preparations were not made. The opportunities were lost and squandered. This government applauded itself as, year by year, it became more and more evident that climate change was not only having a discernible effect on the planet but having a particularly difficult effect on Australia—on our farmers, our rural towns, our water supplies and our ability to sustain agriculture. For this government, climate change was not an issue for the Australian government; it was only an issue for foreign governments. For this government, skills training was something that the states alone should worry about. And, of course, for this government, education was something that the states alone should worry about. Infrastructure, we were told, was fine—and, where it was not fine, it was something for the states alone to worry about. Riding high on 15 years of economic expansion and on the strongest world economic environment in three decades, this government was content to collect the money coming in and to hand it out in a cynical pattern of electoral manipulation. It refused to look ahead. It refused to lead. It refused to ensure that when we did arrive at near full employment we would have the policies in place to ease our capacity constraints, to sustain the growth and skills of our workforce and to permit this long and hard-won expansion to continue for decades to come. Instead, it was prepared to bask in the prosperity which resulted from earlier policy struggles, earlier hard reforms and, more recently, the mining boom. It was prepared to encourage employers to drive down wages and conditions as if the final goal and end point of all our work over the decades had been the destruction of Australian living standards, not their improvement. But it did not have the foresight, or it was not willing, to take the steps necessary to prepare us for the inevitable consequences of this long-term expansion. That is exactly where we are today. We knew where we were heading, and as shadow Treasurer I have been warning of this for the last 2½ years. Now I am told by the government that we are remiss in our duty in not objecting to parts of this budget—in not opposing the income tax cuts, in not opposing using what might otherwise have gone into the Future Fund as a new fund for higher education, in not opposing some more spending on child care, and in not opposing some new spending on road and rail infrastructure. I want to make it perfectly clear today that I do not oppose those measures. I support them; I welcome them. They are not enough; they are very late. It was five minutes to midnight before this government woke, but, after all, it is a start on exactly what Labor has been demanding for at least the last three years. So we are not going to complain about the government’s quasi conversion to our agenda. But I do say this: after a decade of neglect, when it comes to the productive drivers of our economy, these measures are not nearly enough. If we are to secure future prosperity we must direct our efforts to expanding the productive capacities of the nation. This means lifting productivity so that our economy can grow faster for longer without fuelling inflation and higher interest rates. It means taking the handbrake off our economy by tackling the infrastructure bottlenecks which are frustrating supply, and it means investing in the skills and training of our people. It means tax reform. I am delighted that the government have adopted Labor’s policy set out two budgets ago. They condemned us at the time we put the policy forward. They have adopted it in this budget, and they still condemn us for supporting initiatives we put forward two budgets ago. What a tangled mess they weave when they practise to deceive! The same can be said, in some ways, for education. Labor believes that Australia must aspire to become the most highly educated and skilled nation on earth. Getting there will take foresight that last week’s budget simply did not contain. The budget was an eleventh-hour bid by the Howard government to reclaim lost ground and to steal some of Labor’s clothes. No-one was fooled. For Labor education is something that we believe in. It has been a core value for over 100 years. We believe it is an end in itself and we see it as a great generator of opportunities for individuals, but we also recognise its importance to boosting national productivity. I was astounded to hear the Prime Minister dismissing this idea as a ‘soulless and narrow form of national economic service’. It is a measure of how out of touch he is about the demands of a modern economy and the aspirations of Australians, who believe in educating themselves and their children to get ahead. Labor also welcomes new assistance for apprentices in this budget, but the government’s commitment to three more Australian technical colleges will not address our skills crisis. By the government’s own admission, Australia will face a shortage of 240,000 skilled workers by 2016. And the Howard government’s response to this crisis, its Australian technical colleges, will still only produce their first qualified tradesperson in another three years and will have fewer than 10,000 students by 2010. So it is clear that the Howard government does not have a plan to deliver the skilled workers it needs right now, let alone the skilled workforce it needs for the future. In contrast, Labor’s plan is for the next decade and beyond, not just the next six months. It is led by our most recent policy to invest $2.5 billion in our schools to help build or upgrade trade facilities, to lift school retention rates and to help provide real career paths to trades and apprenticeships. And that brings me to the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Additional funding for higher education in the budget is also welcome, but it comes after a decade of neglect which has seen government funding to universities fall from 0.9 per cent of GDP in 1996 to just 0.6 per cent today. The government’s Higher Education Endowment Fund has merit, but let us put it into perspective. With its initial funding it will provide $300 million per year to upgrade university facilities, spread across each of our 38 universities. Mr Howard’s claims that this is the education revolution we have been calling for are simply not matched by the amount of money that will be delivered. The government’s endowment fund has also destroyed any claims that Labor’s actions have undermined the Future Fund’s ability to meet its target of funding public sector superannuation liabilities. For months the government has been railing against our plans to re-invest in our national communications infrastructure the $2.7 billion of Telstra sale proceeds that had been notionally allocated to the Future Fund. The Treasurer claimed that our investment for the future was ‘stealing from the future’. That is the kind of rhetoric you would expect to hear from a government that is short on vision and ambition when it comes to our country’s future. But the Treasurer’s credibility has been categorically undermined by the government’s own financing mechanism for its Higher Education Endowment Fund. By taking $5 billion from the surplus that had otherwise been committed to the Future Fund the government has reduced the funds available to meet future public sector superannuation liabilities. That brings me to infrastructure. Not only does the budget fail to invest the bounty of recent times in building our skills capacity but also it fails to address capacity constraints in our infrastructure, which is frustrating supply. As I travel around Australia, businesses and people constantly tell me how unhappy they are with the state of our roads, our ports, transport, our water supplies and our broadband speeds. This government has ignored persistent calls from businesses and industry groups for infrastructure planning and development to be nationally coordinated. The government still does not have a national infrastructure coordination body, which Australia needs to better plan our infrastructure needs and to help overcome the current infrastructure shortfall—a shortfall estimated to be in the order of $90 billion according to the Business Council of Australia. After the budget, the Business council stated: ... the key issue still appears to be the lack of long-term integrated planning to drive investment to address ongoing bottlenecks. Labor is absolutely committed to providing national political leadership on infrastructure. Both Labor and many in the business community also share a clear and common objective of pursuing reforms that will take the handbrake off our economy and allow Australian businesses to compete in an increasingly competitive global economy, and we need all Australians—those in the boardroom and in the lounge room—playing their part if we are to have further economic reform. Ensuring that working families do not bear a disproportionate burden from these economic reforms is part and parcel of this process. Equally, Labor recognises that businesses need flexibility when it comes to managing their employees. Labor will not be going back to centralised wage fixing. After all, it was Labor which moved away from nearly a century of centralised, arbitrated wage fixation in this country. Labor’s industrial relations system is about balancing the flexibility needed by business with security needed by employees and their families. It will be underpinned by workplace level collective enterprise bargaining where employees and employers can directly bargain over employment conditions and productivity improvements. We believe this is a critical way to drive productivity at the enterprise level. Alternatively, individual employers and employees may agree on common-law individual contracts that will continue to provide upward flexibility from modernised awards. There is a strong debate over the future of industrial relations in this country, but Labor is determined to work through the detail of the transitional arrangements to ensure we get the balance right for business, working families and the nation. Securing Australia’s long-term prosperity also requires decisive action on climate change—something that was missing from the budget. The budget had a thin green veneer, but it failed to map out a comprehensive plan to substantially reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions and protect our economy. Instead of decisive action, all we had from Peter Costello and John Howard were predictable attempts to divide the Australian people by pitching the economy against the environment. Of course, the economic reality of the 21st century—which they simply fail to grasp—is that a strong economy is predicated on a healthy and sustainable environment. This government’s inaction on climate change is endangering our future prosperity. There were some welcome initiatives in this budget, and Labor is happy to endorse them. But, if we are to turn the prosperity we now enjoy into long-term economic security for the nation, we need more than short-term politics. It is time that we recognise and address the underlying weaknesses of our economy, stemming from this government’s failure to address capacity constraints in our economy and to invest in the drivers of productivity. It is time we recognise the threat that climate change poses for our economy and take the steps necessary to protect our environment and secure future prosperity. It is time for a Labor vision. (Time expired) 99 18:49:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —Following the member for Lilley is always a treat. ‘Slogan Central’ is where he gets his inspiration from, and we certainly had a happy little trip through all parts of government activity—but no tax policy. To paraphrase the great Sir James Killen, my predecessor in the seat of Moreton, the Australian Labor Party would like to propose a tax on brains because, after all, they know they will all be entitled to a refund every year. That was something Killen said in this place once, and it is very apt after listening to the member for Lilley. Listening to him lamenting 15 years of solid economic growth made me wonder if there was a recession he wants us to have somewhere in his kitbag. Woe betide if this man should ever be the Treasurer of Australia. He talked about the accord—the accord of a quarter of a century ago when the Hawke and Keating governments got together with the ACTU. Maybe the member for Batman was at that meeting. They worked out how to freeze wages—actually, they worked out how to suppress wages growth in this country because it would be good for the economy if the average worker copped it in the neck and in the hip pocket!—whilst this government has presided over a growth in the economy that has delivered dividends on a weekly basis into the pay packets of workers. One of the true things about the government’s Work Choices legislation is that we want good, productive workers to trade their skills and experience and earn more money. The Labor Party is frightened that there will be a liberation in the workplace where Australian workers with ability, experience and credentials will be able to earn more money—and they are doing it now in an economy with some 20 per cent growth in wages underpinned by improvements in productivity. There is a lot of money circulating in the economy. Real estate agents in my electorate are reporting record quarter takes in turnover and sales of real estate in the southern suburbs of Brisbane. I have no doubt that people expect the sort of direction and underpinning that this government has provided in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 we are debating tonight. While the Labor Party cannot announce a tax policy and look at the idea of lowering wages through an accord type mechanism—longing for the idea of a recession they might want to have—this government has cut tax for the fifth consecutive year. In this budget, Australian families will benefit from $31.5 billion in tax cuts and the 30 per cent tax threshold will increase from $25,001 to $30,001. In other words, it is not until you earn $30,001 that you pay tax of 30c in the dollar. For those eligible for the senior Australian tax offset, this government has made sure that there is no tax on incomes up to $25,867 for single persons or $43,360 for couples. For seniors, we have also made a one-off $500 bonus for concession card holders and those receiving the utilities allowance. Both eligible members of a couple will receive this bonus. There is a one-off $1,000 bonus for those receiving carers payment and a one-off $600 for those receiving the carers allowance, to recognise their dedication in helping those who suffer from a disability. I make those points because, whilst the economy is motoring along and whilst workers with skills and ability are receiving the reward in their pay packets, it is important that we look at those with fixed incomes and look at ways to assist them—for example, the additional money, through the Medicare rebate, for those who need access to dental services. The state government in Queensland runs a dental scheme. If you went to the QEII Hospital hoping to get your dentures fixed, you would be waiting for five, six, seven or eight years. It is a parlous set of circumstances. Nevertheless, there are those who are suffering health problems as a complication of dental related problems. The government wants to increase their access to dental services and will assist them with Medicare rebates, provided that the doctor signs off that they need access to that. For the 350,000 hearing-impaired Australians, there is an additional $70.7 million investment in hearing services. This government is also increasing payments by $50 a fortnight to veterans with a disability who are on the special rate pension and to those on the intermediate rate pension by $25 a fortnight from July, just a couple of months away. I would like to see another increase, particularly for those veterans with a disability. The government have made this additional step possible because our strong economic management has delivered a dividend that we want to share right across our economy and our society. We are doubling the funeral benefit paid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act from $1,000 to $2,000 and providing an extra three months in which war widows and war widowers can claim a war widow’s or war widower’s pension. We know that this in itself says to those who have served our country: ‘When our democracy is put under test, we value all that you have done—the nation building, the nation defending.’ Managing Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy is not something you can do because you used to be an academic at the Queensland University of Technology, as the member for Lilley was. I remember interviewing him 20-odd years ago when I was a journalist at Channel 7. There was not a lot of insight, but there was always a lot of Labor Party rhetoric. It actually requires experience and discipline—and, from our point of view, we on this side of the chamber are very determined that the continuation of the strong economic management that we have brought and the discipline and the experience that we have gained are assets that we can bring to the table as we manage the way forward for Australia. The way in which the government has cut taxes for small business and further reduced compliance costs from 1 July—businesses with a turnover of less than $75,000 will not need to register for GST—is proof of the way in which it wants to retreat from the way it impacts upon the engine room of our economy and to provide the necessary room for those businesses to manoeuvre. We also want to make certain that people who want to educate themselves can take advantage of the further opportunities to gain additional skills, so they can trade their skills and experience for higher wages that are possible under the Work Choices legislation. We are providing eligible apprentices with a $500 voucher for course fees and a $1,000 tax exempt payment to help with living costs. The $800 Tools for Your Trade grant—which never existed and was never imagined by those opposite, who pretend to represent the workers of Australia—continues to be paid to tens of thousands of people who are starting an apprenticeship. I have talked to small businesses in my electorate—electricians, plumbers, carpenters and builders have been renovating my house, so I have spoken to quite a few of them—and a number of them have told me about the difference it has made to young blokes as they start their trade to know that the government’s contribution—the taxpayers’ contribution—is there. Many of those businesses have continued to do what good tradespersons in the past have done for them and have actually added to that $800. Many award conditions often reflect the need to also make a contribution, but businesses always go a step further. Quite frankly, in the current climate, if an employer does not want to take further steps to reward good workers then they do not deserve to keep those workers. They will walk down the road and get a job somewhere else. We are seeing that in the economy today. For many businesses these measures, such as the $800 tool kit, the cutting of taxes and providing eligible apprentices with these vouchers to study and train, are the difference on the margins when it comes to deciding whether to invest in somebody new. The member for Lilley, and indeed the opposition leader, lamented the fact that the government has continued its rollout of Australian technical colleges. I know the member for Deakin knows a little bit about Australian technical colleges, and so do I. There are now 20 of them. There will be 21, with the one on the Pilbara coast operating very soon, and the additional three that have been announced. They are all centres of excellence. While the Australian Labor Party promise to fund skills centres in every school—and teachers all around my electorate are just bending over with laughter at this proposal—they are promising a system of mediocrity, of one size fits all, giving everybody work experience. They are admirable aims on paper, but the detail of the proposal needs a lot of examination. The Australian government, with its Australian technical college program, is extending centres of excellence, providing opportunities for local businesses to take up the challenge to provide the leadership that we expect of them, to ensure that the education and training fits into the work requirements of these young people involved. Many people in this place do not represent electorates which are used to school based apprenticeships—a concept, again, which never existed until this government came to office. It was a proposal by the former member for Goldstein, Dr David Kemp, the former Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It was a proposition that was taken up by the Queensland coalition government in 1997. In fact, at that time, former Senator Santoro was the Queensland Minister for Training and Industrial Relations, and former Liberal Party leader Bob Quinn was the Minister for Education in Queensland. They wholly adopted the Australian government program for school based apprenticeships. The reason I tell this story is that, in Queensland, we are more experienced with school based apprenticeships—that is, year 11 and year 12 students contesting their workplace responsibilities, contesting their requirements to train at certificate III-and-above levels when it comes to training and still contesting their higher education certificate. I know that I am incurring your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi, and no doubt that of the member for Hotham, because, as two Victorians, you are both very proud of the way that the Victorian system operates. Victoria is now coming second to Queensland in providing school based apprenticeships. Victoria has also realised that there is a very real need to give kids the opportunity to study a trade while they are still at school. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —I will acknowledge the interruption from the member for Hotham and also say that school based apprenticeships never existed until this government came to office. We have the Leader of the Opposition trying to pretend to get in on a bit of the action 10 years down the track. Every schoolteacher in my electorate who has spoken to me about this issue has said: ‘I’ve got a question: how are you going to find 2½ thousand extra plumbing teachers? How are you going to find 2½ thousand extra carpentry teachers? How are you going to find 2½ thousand extra electrical teachers and mechanical teachers? We all know from the way that the economy is motoring along—particularly in a state like Queensland with the mining industry and its support services that are generating a lot of activity and, of course, with the building industry as people leave states like Victoria and flood the north of the Tweed—that there we have a genuine shortage of people with trade skills. These people are not going to be available for the classrooms. They are going to be available at the work sites, being productive tax-paying members of our economy.’ The Leader of the Opposition is off on a veneer-thick tangent here, with no detail to back his rhetoric. It is doomed to failure. That is a great pity because the enormous vote of money that he is putting forward for this has merit. The reality is that it is actually what the Australian Education Union want, and that is for the teachers union to be in complete control of the destiny of the young people in this country. The Australian technical college program is all about liberating them. On top of that, the Australian government, through Minister Bishop, is now providing an opportunity for teachers to expand their own personal kinds of excellence. One of the problems we have with teaching in Australia is that the very best teachers are paid at the same rate as the very worst teachers. A teacher has to leave the classroom to get better pay. The way the system operates in this country is enormously unfair to a teacher who works hard at their job, who prepares for their lessons, who arrives at school, say, an hour before class starts and who puts in a lot of effort so that at a minute past nine the kids are motoring along on their studies. But working in the classroom next to them is somebody who arrives at school at a minute to nine and who has their breakfast during the first half-hour of a class. You cannot say this does not happen; it does happen. Plenty of teachers have talked to me about it; they know it happens. The budget contains a measure that says to teachers: ‘If you want to improve your skills, we’ll pay you a bonus’—a performance bonus proposal which is being rejected by one state government after another, I must say. However, the Queensland government has announced—no doubt using Commonwealth funds in a perverted way—another raft of buying out the worst teachers. The plan from the Queensland Minister for Education, Training and the Arts, Mr Welford, is that the poorest performing teachers in Queensland will have another opportunity to get a $50,000 bonus to leave teaching while the top performers will get absolutely nothing to stay. As a government, we are determined to pay performance bonus payments to teachers who want to put in the effort to improve their skills. We want to see the best teachers getting the opportunity to earn a better wage. This is not about time served; this is about competence and ability. We want the best teachers to stay in the classroom. We want the best teachers to offer their insight and experience in a positive and constructive way and to be paid good money for it. If you listen to the state Labor governments or the federal Labor opposition, you will hear them mouthing the same rhetoric from the Australian education unions, which is that all teachers must be paid the same—good and bad teachers must all get paid the same. That is no way to run a school system. Is it any wonder that so many teachers are leaving the classroom? Is it any wonder that so many teachers are moving on to other positions? Yet you do not hear a peep from those opposite about a better pay rise for good teachers; it is simply a one-size-fits-all approach. Even tonight we heard the member for Lilley lamenting the need to maybe crash the economy and slow it down. ‘Slow down these 15 years of growth’ is what he said tonight. He laments the idea that maybe we need to slow things down. I want to talk for a moment or two about a couple of specific items in the electorate of Moreton that have been well served by the government’s strong economic management. One of the big issues has been the heavy interstate vehicles—B-double trucks in the main—that travel through my electorate as a rat-run short cut between the Ipswich Motorway and the Gateway Motorway. These trucks use the Kessels Road continuum. It has been called the Griffith arterial corridor and the Brisbane urban corridor, but the locals know it as Granard Road, Riawena Road, Kessels Road and Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. The state government has recently banned trucks above 4½ tonnes from travelling on that route, unless they are local trucks. This is a campaign success for me. It has taken 10 years for the state government to finally yield to community pressure and to the pressure that I have been applying. I am pleased about that. But what is of critical concern to me is that, while the government has announced in recent months the $2.3 billion Goodna bypass—which will hook trucks on the Warrego and Cunningham highways straight onto the Logan Motorway, thereby avoiding the electorate of Moreton—the federal Labor Party still has on its books a policy to widen the existing Ipswich Road corridor, starting at Granard Road, Rocklea, and heading west. Labor’s plan is very simple. It will continue to cement into place forever the Kessels Road corridor as the route for big trucks. The federal government has spent $1.7 million on a night-time truck trial. It has taken the toll off the southern Brisbane bypass—the Logan and Gateway motorways—at night. For just $1.7 million over the last two years, there have been 221,000 fewer trucks on local roads between 10 at night and five in the morning. This government has also spent $14.3 million to upgrade the intersection at Granard Road and the Ipswich Motorway. It has constructed a new overpass and also fixed up the lane alignment. It has done all of this work; yet, if there is a change of government, the federal Labor Party will turn all of that around on its ear: they will waste all of that money completely and widen the Ipswich Motorway, starting at Rocklea and heading west. I would be delighted to say, ‘Well done,’ if they were to have any sense and cancel this policy, but they will not. They will listen to the member for Oxley and a few other misguided members on the other side. I call on the Australian Labor Party to cancel that policy. If they do not, people in my electorate will be consigned to heavy trucks being back on the roads, after campaigning for 10 years to get rid of this problem. I also know that people in my local area are suffering from a failure to properly invest in water infrastructure. There is no point in banging on too long about the fact that decisions that should have been taken six years ago were not taken. I am pleased the state government is now putting in water pipelines that are going to link various dams and water storage facilities around south-east Queensland so we can try and even out the flow. I am concerned, though, that the Wolffdene dam was never built back in the late eighties or early nineties. The member for Griffith was in the cabinet office when he told Wayne Goss, ‘Don’t build the dam,’ and he will have to carry responsibility for that decision. Equally, I am concerned that someone in authority like Kerry Rea, the Brisbane city councillor for Holland Park ward, who pretends that she wants to be a member in this place, told the council chamber some six years ago that even if it did not rain for five or six years we would still have plenty of water. She was wrong, and she is no doubt as misguided still today. The point I make is that this government has put a national water policy in place, $10 billion for the national plan for water security, and yet locally it can also do things such as put in $49,000 so that Griffith University can use a recirculating water system to cool lasers and other scientific equipment in science labs. We are working with local communities to make a difference while looking at the national picture. Strong economic management has delivered on this. The dividends are being spread far and wide, and I congratulate the Treasurer on his ability, his prowess and his vision for the future. 105 19:09:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —I rise to support the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008. This is a budget for the short-term survival of a desperate government. It is not a budget for the long-term future of the nation. The generosity contained in this budget is built on the proceeds of the resources boom and in particular China’s demand for those resources. It is also built on underspends and recycled broken promises by the government. The childcare rebate is a classic example. This is not a new initiative; it simply makes good a promise given before the last election but broken immediately after they were elected. There are some good aspects in the budget, but it is a budget that continues to squander the resources boom and the opportunities that that presents for this nation. I welcome the Future Fund. I noticed the other day that the Treasurer said Labor and its leader did not have the wit to think of it. I remind the House that I in fact proposed such a fund after the 2004 budget. At the time that idea was ridiculed by both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. So we welcome the government’s adoption of Labor policy, but we suggested back in 2004—and we continue to believe this—that the earnings of the fund should be used to pay for things other than the unfunded superannuation liabilities of Commonwealth public servants. Why should everyone’s surplus—that is, the nation’s savings—just go to save the superannuation liabilities of Commonwealth public servants? Why not also invest the earnings in the drivers of the economy: in innovation, in infrastructure and in skills development? These are things that can return to the nation better than simply holding it in the bank. We were told by both the Treasurer and the person in charge of this fund, Mr David Murray, that such a policy would be irresponsible—that this would be raiding the Future Fund. But now, in this budget, we have a future fund for education, not just for Commonwealth public servants’ superannuation liabilities. And it is supposed to be a brilliant new idea by the Treasurer. Or was it the Minister for Education, Science and Training? Or was it David Murray himself? They all seem to want to claim credit for this fund, but they are claiming credit for what they previously argued was irresponsible. As to the impact of this fund, I just point out that this comes after 11 years of the government disinvesting in the nation’s education and training. Despite the fund, funding in education as a proportion of GDP is expected to decline to 1.6 per cent next year from two per cent back in 1995-96, when Labor left office. So this fund is not even enough to make up the difference, and Australia’s overall investment in education, 5.8 per cent of GDP, is well behind 17 other OECD countries. On the question of productivity—because much has been claimed by the government through its Work Choices proposals: that these will lift productivity—the reality is that the government has overseen a dramatic fall in labour productivity in this nation. In fact the budget reveals that, for total factor productivity, productivity growth will decline to zero by the end of the next financial year. How can we talk about sustaining prosperity when we are projecting zero productivity growth? And yet the government goes on—rabbits on—about how Work Choices is going to lift productivity in the nation. The budget papers put the lie to that. The government claims that Work Choices will increase productivity, yet there is no evidence to back it up. Now, according to the government, the policy—the government dare not speak its name—will lift the government’s poor productivity performance. Instead of spending to get the policy right, it is spending on an advertising campaign to pretend that what it has created does not exist. We know that Work Choices is an unfair system. It was designed to reweight the balance in favour of employers, not employees. It in fact offers no choice if the employer refuses to bargain in good faith. The government recently acknowledged the unfairness of the system by introducing a no disadvantage test, something they had previously promised but, when they won control of the Senate, abandoned. So why should they be believed now? Why, when they make this promise, should they be believed when they campaigned on the basis of it, had the opportunity to implement it, then ditched it? The reality is that the so-called new no disadvantage test does not apply to existing AWAs, and the government still have not developed what this new fairness test is supposed to involve. In addition to its failing the fairness test, there is no economic case for the government’s Work Choices legislation. The government has no data, no figures and no backup to its claim that the legislation is good for the economy. As the Canberra Times, in its editorial of 3 May, said: … claims that AWAs will help boost productivity cannot be tested because the Government has not undertaken any economic analysis to back such assertions. The reality is that to manage the economy well the government of the day must be able to manage wages policy. It must manage it for fairness, for interest rate pressure and for inflationary pressure. It also must manage it to drive productivity. Such management was the experience and legacy of Labor’s period in office. The 1983 to 1986 period, which included numerous accords, laid the basis for initially lowering and then locking in low inflation in this country. That period also saw centralised wage fixing replaced by enterprise based collective bargaining which was linked to productivity improvement. That system in turn saw the biggest step up in productivity this nation has ever experienced. It was developed in cooperation with the trade union movement and the business community, and that cooperation produced big dividends for the economy through greater productivity. Between 1991 and 1996, annual growth in labour productivity jumped from 1.9 per cent to 2.5 per cent. That big upward trend continued for four years with the change of government. Why? Because the government inherited our system and could not change it. They tried to change it. You might remember the attempts at the new waves of industrial relations by Peter Reith. Eventually they did change it, in two waves of Peter Reith’s reforms. And the result? Between 2000 and 2005, annual growth in labour productivity plummeted from 3.1 per cent to 1.7 per cent. It almost halved. When Labor left office our multifactor productivity was growing at an average annual rate of 2.9 per cent. Compare that to the zero that these budget papers forecast. What are the implications of this? The Productivity Commission has estimated that if productivity growth could have been maintained at the levels that we created in the 1990s the decline due to the ageing of the population could largely be contained. So Labor had the intergenerational solution; this government simply blew it. On the question of how good AWAs are compared to collective agreements, compare the New Zealand result with ours. They went down the route of individual contracts and AWAs and got a far lesser result in productivity through the nineties than we did with collective agreements. It is not just a case of comparing countries. Have a look at some of the sectors of the economy that are involved. I recently visited the Bowen Basin in Queensland where coal production is booming. Yes, there are difficulties with capacity constraints and the exports of that coal, but productivity growth has been almost three per cent higher in the Queensland coal industry under collective agreements than in the AWA iron ore industry in WA and the gold-mining industry. For iron ore, there has been productivity of 0.3 per cent and for the gold industry it is actually negative. That is the comparison. Collective agreements properly developed can actually produce better productivity for the economy. Labor will not be going back to the centralised wage-fixing system. After all, we broke it. We were the ones who collapsed it and said that you had to go with the enterprise focus—but, significantly, enterprise focus linked to productivity. Nothing the government has done in workplace relations can match it. Yes, there has to be flexibility within the system, but there also has to be fairness. Yes, we can accommodate individual flexibility so long as it does not erode people’s working standards—flexibility upwards, not downwards. Labor’s approach to workplace relations will restore genuine choice underpinned by fairness and flexibility to achieve better productivity for the nation. On the skills question, I welcome the commitment that was made by the Leader of the Opposition in his response last Thursday week. In relation to training in schools—and I am sorry that the member for Moreton has gone out of this place because, quite frankly, there is something in his contribution that needs to be corrected for the record—our commitment is to embrace that training occurs in all 2,650 high schools, not just in 28 of them. That is the government’s approach. We have a commitment to targeting nearly a million students, not just 8,500 of them. The member for Moreton says there are no details of the program that we have announced. He should go back and look at the fact that we commenced this program back in 1994. It was done under Working Nation and I was the minister at the time. We established the Australian Student Traineeship Foundation, an initiative that was built on a proposal that came from the Dusseldorp Skills Forum, built on their very successful track model—a model that had a 90 per cent success rate in the placement of students in schools, whether they went on into further education or into jobs. We also developed Netforce. As with the ASTF, it was set up to ensure relevant training programs were developed in close cooperation with industry, matching their demand needs with the realism of the supply. After just one year the number of young people looking for work fell by 14 per cent. We brought the long-term unemployment figure for 20- to 24-year-olds down by 30 per cent. In the 12 months to January 1996—just before we lost office—we saw the biggest fall in unemployment for 15- to 19-year-olds on record. Then the government came to office. The member for Moreton mentioned the then member for Goldstein, who took over from me as employment minister. He kept the program. In 1997 this program had 38,000 students. In 2000 it had 60,000 students and almost 80,000 in 2002. It peaked in 2005 with 110,000 students. But in 2001 the government fiddled with the program. It abolished the foundation and, as a result, structured work placements fell to 65,000 in 2006. It almost halved. Nothing happened for three years after it abolished this program. Then we saw declining numbers. The government panicked just before the last election and announced a you-beaut solution: the 25 technical colleges. And the fact is only five of them have been completed. And now, as announced in the budget, it is going to construct another three. I say to the House: look at the track record; look at what was proven; look at what worked; look at what had bipartisan support for a period of time. But then the government went down the route of simply looking for cost savings. You lost sight of where the successful programs were. You ditched what was a successful program. Labor is going to build on it because it is the right thing to do for the kids of this nation. It is the right thing to do for the productive capacity of the nation. Skills shortages have a crippling impact on our regions. That is why, again under the Working Nation program, we established area consultative committees to allow skills audits in the regions, so that we could understand at the local level what the real demands were. These have been stripped out. The government have not utilised the area consultative committees in the way we did. In fact, they do not believe in empowering local communities; they simply believe in the pork-barrel approach. We know that there have been significant underspends in the regional programs—underspends that the budget says will be carried on to this year. Watch this space. This will simply be an addition to the war-chest mentality that the government are developing to fund their attempt at re-election this year. This program has gone through the scrutiny of the parliament. It has recommended new initiatives to require greater accountability and transparency. The government has ignored all of that. The government has ignored initiatives that really empower local communities. Labor would break down the budget by regions. The member for McMillan is in the House. McMillan would be able to identify how much money was being spent in its region on health, training and schools so that it could compare itself with other regions. It is that spatial comparison that regions have to be able to get better information on. That is what the budget should be opened up to do. Then we should be looking at innovative programs within the mainstream portfolios, whereby realistic, creative proposals for better service delivery can be developed by those regional bodies. That is what Labor will do. That is what this budget has failed to do. The other thing that it has failed to do is to connect the nation. It is pretty interesting. All of the evidence shows that the regions that have access to fast-speed broadband are the ones that go ahead. Those that do not have access get left behind. This budget leaves them behind. Through our fibre-to-the-node proposal, Labor will ensure no region misses out on the vital network. That is creative use of the budget, but this government ignores it. It ignores it at its peril, but, unfortunately, it is the regions that will suffer. Earlier I spoke about our appalling trade performance, and I will not go over those figures. Suffice to say that, despite one of the largest resource booms in history, this government has recorded the longest string of trade deficits in our history—five years of them. Labor achieved strong and sustained export growth because we invested in infrastructure, skills, innovation and productivity. We succeeded in trade negotiations by focusing on the multilateral level, not on this bilateral fetish. We focused on service exports. Not only did we double the overall rate of export growth that this government has achieved; in the case of services we got annual growth of 9.3 per cent in services. That has been slowed under this government to 2.4 per cent. The government has also cut the Export Market Development Grants Scheme programs, which were trade assistance mechanisms to help us grow our exporters—the numbers of them and the ways in which they could get into markets. Why would you scrap a proposal that was a very successful multiplier effect, with multiples of between 12 and 18 times? This government has scrapped the program. They are examples of where this government has squandered this nation’s opportunities—where it has let the nation down. Budgets are about choices, and this budget offered plenty of choices because of the prosperity that, in part, Labor laid the basis for and this government has continued to oversee. But the reality is that those opportunities have been squandered. (Time expired) 109 19:29:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 0 Mr BROADBENT —Whilst I cannot and do not agree with the content of the member for Hotham’s address to the House in this budget response, I do recognise the sincerity of his views and the experience he brings to the table—and his passion for apprenticeships is undeniable. In this budget reply speech I am brought back to the last week of my life and the passing of Mrs Joyce Marshall. She was the wife of Len ‘Gunner’ Marshall. She was called ‘Aunty Joyce’ around our community. Her son Greg Marshall and his wife, Sarah, Kate and James from the UK, her sister Brenda and Brenda’s husband, Graham O’Brien, and Heath and Reagan were all at her funeral. There was a poignant moment when Greg Marshall looked at his mum’s casket and said, ‘Mum, you’re out of your misery.’ This woman suffered from dementia. A very important part of the experience of the budget is how it interacts with local communities. This particular woman, Aunty Joyce, was part of the Bush Church Aid Society, taking the gospel right across the country. She had a 45-year badge with the fire brigade auxiliary, was a member for life of the Pakenham football and netball clubs and of the St James Anglican Church. On the day she died she had not resigned from any affiliate organisation. One not without the other, Aunty Joyce Marshall was one of the golden threads, one of the unsung heroes that binds community, family, township and district. As they sang the 23rd Psalm, I could not help but look around the room and see her sisters-in-law, Alma, Norma and Aunty Thel, and her brother, Stan, who had just given a rather remarkable talk about this much loved woman. They sang the last verse with the line, ‘Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,’ and they did with Aunty Joyce Marshall. People have suffered with dementia as Aunty Joyce did all the way to the federal parliament. Dementia is an issue that affects practically every family you can touch from Tasmania to the Northern Territory and from Brisbane to Perth. I am reminded of my father, who, in his latter years, also suffered from dementia. The issue that the federal government has to address, as I said, is its interaction with the community. While in the church, I looked around and saw how that community had come together to celebrate the life of an individual. We know that across the nation tonight people are dealing with someone with dementia in their household or they may be dealing with the need for a dementia unit in their community. They may even be dealing with loved ones much younger than they ever thought could be affected. I stood in my own community and remembered Aunty Joyce. I know that the member for Rankin has Aunty Joyces in his electorate, the member for McEwen has Aunty Joyces in her electorate and—being the age we are—we grew up with these people who are, as I said, not the heroes who are talked about every day. They perhaps do not get the Queen’s honours, but they get great community honours and they are greatly loved by their communities and their families. Every one of us knows one of those people in our generation who were so much a part of small communities, who supported their husbands in everything that they did, who supported their kids when they went to the footy and who were there for the tragedies of floods and fires. Whilst I am responding to the budget of the nation, I recognise that the money that the federal government spends in every electorate right across the nation on the issue of dementia is important because it is important to families who have to face an ageing population. In my electorate, as I will come to later on, it is a little larger an issue than in most rural electorates across Australia, even though I extend from out of Melbourne. Dementia is a growing health and social issue. That is why, as local members, we try to be the bridge that goes from the electorate to the executive, where we pass on the experiences we have of the needs in our electorates and respond to our communities, because we are out there and we are faced with these situations every day. We see how the families struggle with this debilitating disease and we wonder how, into the future, we as a nation can address ourselves to these issues in a changing world that is, for someone with dementia, locked away in time. They are locked in a place they cannot escape from. As Greg Marshall said, only in death was his mother released. Although only about one per cent of people aged 65 show symptoms of dementia, this increases to around 25 per cent in people aged over 85. This government currently invests more than $2.6 billion per year in dementia care, research and support. In recognition of its significance, dementia has been made an Australian government national health priority. This includes a total of $225 million to provide 2,000 Extended Aged Care at Home—EACH—dementia packages over four years. There are now a number of strands for looking after people with dementia with not only residential care, ageing in place care and the care that communities can give in the early stages but also direct in-home care to help families care for an individual in their home for as long as possible. All of us are supporters of investment in aged care. There is not a member of the House of Representatives who does not have this firmly on their plate as they move around their electorate. I am pleased, through the representations that I have talked about, to be that bridge from the electorate to the executive—to be that bridge from the state to the parliament. Rose Lodge in Wonthaggi was a successful recipient in the 2006 aged-care funding round of a further 20 beds to help meet its increase in demand for dementia-specific areas. It will use that bed allocation for a specific dementia wing. As I mentioned, the other option for patients suffering dementia in McMillan—but this accords with the nation—is through organisations like Baptcare, who provide support to older Australians though in-home care programs. Baptcare, with whom I had a meeting recently, recognise the dementia demand and have applied in the 2007 aged-care funding round for an increase in their dementia community package programs in the Gippsland region. The facts about the ageing of the Australian community are this: by 2051 Australia’s population is expected to reach 28 million, an increase of 37 per cent from today. Over the same time the number of people over 55 is expected to increase by 113 per cent from five million to around 10.7 million. The change will be even more marked among people aged 85 and over. At present this group represent about 1.4 per cent of the population. By 2051 they will account for between six per cent and nine per cent of the population. My electorate is a snapshot of the ageing population figure—15.4 per cent of the population is in the 65 years and over bracket. That is higher than the average for Victorian rural electorates. Within the electorate of McMillan itself the figure varies widely, with the highest proportion of the 65-plus age group being in the South Gippsland region, in the south of my electorate, where the proportion is over 16 per cent. This is where the Rose Lodge beds went. McMillan has 24 aged-care services. Today that is 1,227 beds. In 1996, when the Howard government came to office, there were only 776 beds. The investment in aged care by the Howard government has been phenomenal. I do not like to use that word, but it has been. In expanding the outlays that we have, the millions of dollars poured into aged care, this government has made better the lives of families, of those caring for aged persons in their homes, of those caring for dementia patients in their homes and of those caring for them in fixed residential units. This year’s budget, after all the outlays, continues the strong commitment to supporting older Australians. It contains more than $1.7 billion in new funding for further improvements to our aged-care system. I know we can always do more. If anything comes out of this address, I know this: we will always be looking for avenues where the federal government can do more to assist families, do more to assist people who need ageing support. Securing the future of aged care for Australians, this package will support the financial investment needed by the aged-care industry so that it can continue to grow and meet the demands of Australia’s ageing population. It is incumbent upon me to consider how aged care particularly affects local communities—small communities like Toora and Foster. The nursing home in Toora is an older facility that needs support. One of the things that I will be drawing to my government’s attention is the fact that we need to put more money into those smaller communities, because they are the backbone and the lifeblood—they are some of the greatest carers in the world of older people. I have seen it firsthand. You have to be somebody pretty special, you know, to care for those people who have reached a great age. And their great sin is that they are old. They are not sick; they are old. Yet I see communities responding—in Foster, in Toora, in Pakenham, in Warragul, in Moe, in Trafalgar and in Wonthaggi. I watch every one of them and I see the care, the concern, the love and the sincerity that they are pouring into the care of those older people. And they know that there is somebody there caring for them, who will be there when they put their hands up. Even at the 100th birthday that I attended to read out the notices the other day here was this 100-year-old woman, bright as a button, cracking jokes in front of 300 of her family and friends who were all gathered. These are community events that we can only dream about here, but in which we can have some influence with the moneys that we provide. All is not well in the whole of McMillan. There are places where we can do more and where we need to do more. If there is one thing we have in common across all our rural electorates—from Tasmania to Darwin, from the Northern Territory to Queensland and across to the west—it is a doctor shortage. I am no different from anybody else in my seat of McMillan. Even in areas where there is not a shortage as perceived by government bodies, there is, because we have an ageing population in our doctors as well. Many of them are due for retirement, particularly rural doctors, who have particular skills that affect local areas. Though the budget includes new funding of $274 million to improve health services and equipment available to meet the healthcare needs of people living in rural and remote areas, the budget recognises that rural and remote areas continue to experience a shortage of GPs due to difficulties not only in recruiting them but also in retaining them. I said this shortage is not foreign to my electorate of McMillan. The Corner Inlet community, which includes the towns of Foster, Toora, Tarwin Lower, Fish Creek and Buffalo, has been experiencing a doctor shortage for over 12 months. Even though this community is not a declared area of workforce shortage, it has obtained a preliminary assessment of district workforce shortage. It is now seeking to extend that, and I have to talk to the minister about that. The Foster and Toora Medical Centre wrote to me recently and said: I am writing to seek your support to help resolve our current crisis in medical workforce. …            …            … We urgently need to not only to continue our current classification as a District of Workforce Shortage but will also request that this classification is extended from one to two positions at our medical centre. A recent … (Rural Workforce Agency of Victoria) forum has shown that 34.4% of the rural GP workforce are IMGs (International Medical Graduates) with 60% of new entrants since 2003 also being IMGs. After some two years of active recruitment activities with no return, we see the only option in replacing our GP workforce— in South Gippsland— is to seek urgent access to IMGs to resolve our current crises. Thus it is essential that we retain our District of Workforce classification and in recognition of our worsening workforce situation the number of allocated places needs to be expanded to at least two positions. Other startling statistics show that 41% of Victorian GP’s are aged 50 and over (75% of our principal doctors are over the age of 44 for our clinic) and in the near future, we are expected to take a much larger role in undergraduate training with the local new Monash University Gippsland Medical Campus— which we have been heavily involved in. They went on to say: Furthermore, only 23% of the Victorian GP workforce are procedural GPs, the very skills that are required for our clinic’s type of diverse service. It is not news to any of you that we have a doctor shortage. I know that in Tasmania people are working hard to get doctors to go to Tassie, and people in central New South Wales are working hard to retain their doctors. But there has to be some flexibility from government in provider numbers for GPs who go into country areas to provide a service—especially in areas where they have influxes of tourists in the summertime, which really adds enormous pressure. Some of the activities of those tourists put a bit more pressure on, too; some of the habits are fairly difficult to handle by local GPs, but they do it well. If we are going to be able to provide the services to them and help recognise that, we have got to send a message that there is not a country-city divide. There are people who live in electorates far greater in size than the electorate of McMillan, and there is an expectation that they will have the services that people have in a suburb of Melbourne—let us say Heathmont—and that they are going to have those exact same services anywhere in Tasmania, remote New South Wales, remote Western Australia, remote Northern Territory or remote Queensland. While governments strive to provide those services, we have to come up with new and innovative ways. Yes, I do want new education facilities for doctors at the Leongatha hospital, and I will work towards that. Yes, we do want new educational facilities coming out of Monash University. I finish by saying this: for all members of parliament in this place there is always more to do, and it is up to us to progress that. 113 19:49:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —This budget contains more elements of practical reform than most of the previous 11 Costello budgets. Ordinarily that sort of statement would get an opposition frontbencher in trouble, but it is not really a very big statement because previous Costello budgets have contained precious little reform, and the truth is that something is better than nothing. But under the Howard government, the reform stakes have failed to graduate beyond a class 1 midweek handicap. And if you think that a class 1 is high, it is in fact the lowest of the classes. There is also a class 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and then the horses graduate, if they are good enough, to a listed race or to a group 3 after that, then a group 2 or a group 1 race. Certainly this Treasurer is not competing in a group 1 race; he is back in the midweeks in the class 1 handicap. However, this budget does contain some worthwhile reforms. For example, it has increased childcare benefit, which is a good measure both on social justice grounds and in order to lift workforce participation. All of the international and national research shows that if you increase childcare benefits to lower income earners—and that is to whom the childcare benefit is directed—then you will get a greater response in workforce participation by mothers returning to work or increasing their hours than you will if you target those benefits at higher income earners. So let us give credit where credit is due. It is a good measure. It is small, but it is welcome. There is extra funding for remedial literacy and numeracy programs, and that is also good social policy and good economic policy. But I would add that the best way of delivering literacy and numeracy programs is through our schools rather than through the system that is proposed in this budget. Nevertheless, any benefit that goes to the disadvantaged young people in our community is certainly welcome. In the area of the taxation, increasing the low-income tax offset from $600 to $750 per annum has the effect of increasing the tax-free threshold for low-income earners from $10,000 to $11,000 and I acknowledge that in the previous budget the low-income tax offset was increased from $235 to $600. The effect of all that is that it improves the incentives for people on low incomes to move from welfare to work by providing a substantially increased tax-free threshold for those earners and therefore stripping away 15 percentage points from effective marginal tax rates. They get to keep 15c more of every extra dollar earned. That is a good thing. We acknowledge that. There is another very good reason for acknowledging it and that is that it has been Labor Party policy for some considerable time. But if the government wants to pick up our good policies and take them as its own, that is the democracy in which we live and we will give credit where credit is due. Also, increasing the income threshold at which the 30c rate cuts in from $25,000 to $30,000 is another area in which work incentives are improved because that cuts, again, 15c from the effective marginal tax rate over that income range, leaving people who are moving from a low-income job perhaps into overtime or extra hours another 15c in the dollar better off. So that is a good thing. The government has increased the threshold for the 40c rate but that has more to do with politics than it does with anything else. The reason I say that is that Access Economics produces a budget monitor just before the annual budget each year and it showed a huge spike in taxpayers earning incomes just beneath that threshold for the 40c rate. The government did not want those people swamping across the 40c rate in an election year so it increased the threshold. It was politically motivated, but I am sure it is very welcome as far as those taxpayers are concerned. Beyond those few measures, it is difficult to think of a large number of other reforms contained in this budget. Labor does welcome the $5 billion that has been set aside for a Higher Education Endowment Fund. That will generate incomes of several hundreds of millions of dollars which will be used, we expect, to improve the quality of higher education in this country—something that Labor has been calling for for 11 years. I record here again my annoyance and frustration at government frontbenchers claiming time and time again that Labor frontbenchers and backbenchers are snobs for suggesting that we should invest more in higher education. It is a strange thing, an election year—the conversion on the road to Damascus has been quite spectacular. Suddenly, after 11 years, the government has found university education, and we may not hear any more about Labor’s alleged snobbery in arguing for increases in funding for higher education, an area of our society and economy that has been badly neglected. But again, we give credit where credit is due and we welcome that initiative. That brings me to some of the initiatives that are within my portfolio of small business, and I am glad to see the Minister for Small Business and Tourism here tonight on chamber duty. The government has made a number of changes in relation to small business, and Labor will be supporting each and every one of those. An area where the government has time and time again ridiculed Labor policy is in the area of simplifying the business activity statement bookkeeping requirements. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —It is your unfair dismissals; that is the thing. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —Treasurer Costello has done that for five years and when Labor leader Kevin Rudd in his National Press Club speech unveiled BAS Easy, which is a variation of an earlier ratio method that I developed, the Treasurer condemned that too. In an article in the Australian Financial Review titled ‘Costello sour on BAS sweetener’ it was reported that the Treasurer thought this was not worthy of support. Yet in the budget he has pretended to extend the simplified accounting method to a range of businesses and has actually said that any business that has a mixture of GST and non-GST sales and/or GST and non-GST purchases can now go to the tax office and ask the tax office to issue it a ratio. That sounds like the ratio method to me; that sounds like BAS Easy to me. But the Treasurer, just two weeks before the budget, had been reported in the newspaper as being sour on a BAS sweetener. So it does raise this question: is this just another example of political expediency? If this government were to be re-elected—and heaven forbid that—will the Treasurer instruct the tax office to issue a completely unfavourable ratio to any such business that applies, therefore relegating it back to the position of having to do all of the BAS bookkeeping? Surveys conducted by MYOB identify the bookkeeping requirements of the BAS, the business activity statement, as the No. 1 bugbear of small business. The minister for small business interjected earlier saying, ‘The big issue is unfair dismissals.’ It is strange that small business report consistently that its No. 1 bugbear is the bookkeeping requirements of doing the BAS. Let us humanise this. This is often work that is done by the spouse of a tradesman—a woman who has parenting obligations as well. She is home on weekends doing hour after hour of BAS bookkeeping. And what does this government do? It completely dismisses— JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —Give an example! 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —Ah! Okay. That is very good. The minister has just asked me to give an example. I give an example from Glen Mobbs of Tully Motel, who has written to the minister. He concludes by saying: ‘Fran, frankly and honestly the government driven paperwork and attendant regulations and laws are out of control and growing. Somebody please help.’ JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —That is only one! 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —She said, ‘Give me an example,’ and I have given her an example. Now she says that is only one. There is plenty of time, Minister, to give plenty more. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey interjecting— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —You certainly did lead with your chin on that one. I will go further, because the Tully Motel proprietor, in desperation, wrote to the tax office in these terms: Dear Sirs We recently received a notice of change to our PAYG withholding cycle, copy enclosed. I should like to take this opportunity to appeal against this change for the following and very simple reason. I conduct all of the administrative activities for our small business. That is a very typical situation. He went on to state: There is no-one else available. Why? Because it is a small business. He went on: At the same time I also engage in maintenance on the property, re-furbishing and repainting etc and also spend considerable time in the “front office” welcoming guests to our motel and, in general, seeking to do what small business people constantly strive to achieve, i.e. improving our offer. We also employ around 10 people in the business. Since we bought the business I have noticed that, rather than reducing the time that state and federal government demand of me, the time commitment is increasing. For example, where we used to, not very long ago, subscribe to one super fund I now have to administer contributions to five. In the budget reply, Labor leader Kevin Rudd laid out our plan that small businesses will only have to pay the superannuation guarantee one time into one place and that we will ensure that under super choice the money will then flow to the appropriate superannuation fund, elected by the employee. That was opposed by the Minister for Small Business and Tourism and opposed by the Treasurer, and the small business minister says, ‘Give me an example of anyone who’s upset.’ This is the small business minister who in this parliament said small business unanimously supports the Work Choices legislation. She has talked to 1.9 million small businesses around Australia and they are unanimously supporting Work Choices! Another MYOB survey indicated that 44 per cent of small businesses are dissatisfied with the performance of the minister and dissatisfied with the performance of the government—and the minister claims in the parliament that every one of the 1.9 million small businesses unanimously supports Work Choices. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to interrupt the opposition spokesperson on small business. 10000 Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Your point of order? JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —My point of order is one of relevance. He really does have to come back to the point. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat. The debate on this appropriation bill is wide ranging. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —It certainly does sound like the minister has a glass jaw! Mr Glen Mobbs of Tully Motel went on to say: In short, since we bought this business the time that we spend actually working on the business has diminished in favour of increased time spent on government required activities that don’t generate wealth or wages. This is in addition to statutory requirements to collect various taxes for yourselves. That brings me to the next point: only the Treasurer could have designed a GST that has to raise $185 billion—that is nearly 20 per cent of GDP, by the way—in order to collect $37 billion. There is a huge difference between $185 billion and $37 billion, and that gulf is represented by the GST compliance burden on small business, about which this government is virtually indifferent. The government says in the budget that it is going to make some changes. It said that it was really its idea in the first place. But it was not; it picked up the ideas in the ratio method, which the Treasurer had been ridiculing for five years and as recently as two weeks before the budget. I will finish Mr Glen Mobbs’s letter. He says: ... with each step taken forward from increased administrative efficiency we seem to take two back from increased demands from various levels of government for information. It is becoming an increasingly heavy burden for one part-time administrator to bear. Hear, hear, Mr Mobbs. Labor will introduce a clearing house so that small business does not have to grapple with the compliance burdens of superannuation choice. Why won’t the government support that? Because it is indifferent to the plight of small business. This government believes that the small business community is its own and that by running around saying, ‘Labor’s reintroduced unfair dismissal laws,’ all small business people will flock to this government. But they are smarter than that, because they know the biggest issues are the compliance nightmare, the huge burden that this government is imposing. That burden shows up right across the economy. That is why Labor has said that we must lift productivity growth in this country by investing in education, including higher education; by investing in a national high-speed broadband network that is especially valuable for small businesses in regional areas; and by genuinely, truly cutting red tape for small business. Again, Labor leader Kevin Rudd, in his National Press Club speech, announced a series of measures where we will work with the states to reduce the small business compliance burden—as Charlie Bell called on this government to do 10 years ago. When responding to the Banks report last year this same government repeated the commitments that it had made 10 years beforehand—a commitment to cut red tape by 50 per cent in its first term, which it never intended to keep. It then introduced this GST that collects $185 billion in order to collect $37 billion. So much for cutting red tape for small business! It has absolutely inundated small business with red tape. No wonder our productivity growth has slumped—and it truly has slumped. There was an article late last week in the Australian Financial Review by Mr Michael Knox. He suggested that maybe there is no productivity slump at all, because if we in fact deflated GDP not by the GDP deflator—which you would think you would—but by the CPI then there would be no productivity slump at all. This is the sort of argument or excuse that this government tries to get away with itself. The Treasurer said recently, on 1 November last year, that productivity growth is ahead of the previous productivity cycle so there is no problem. This fellow, Mr Knox, says there is no problem. I had a look at the consequence of deflating the numbers by the CPI rather than by the GDP deflator. This man has managed to wipe away the entire productivity miracle of the 1990s. Instead of productivity growth being well above two per cent during the 1990s, if you use Mr Knox’s preferred measure then it is only 1½ per cent. That is not particularly good at all. If you do a little bit of mathematical manipulation you get the result that the government wants—there is no productivity problem. If the government does not recognise that there is a problem with productivity growth, you can hardly expect it to do anything about it. And it does not—the government does not believe that there is any problem with productivity growth. Then the Treasurer said, in response to Labor—to the shadow Treasurer and the opposition leader saying that the budget forecasts for this current year showed that productivity growth is zero this year and 1¾ per cent in the out years, after next year—‘You will not find anything in the budget papers revealing that.’ But at page 1-5, table 2, if you take, from growth in real GDP, growth in employment, you get, in the current year 2006-07, zero. Then you get a bounce-back of 2¼ per cent next year—that is understandable; if you are on the floor it is not hard to get off the floor—and then 1¾ per cent thereafter. The Treasurer did not even know that these figures were in his own document. How on earth can you expect a government to do anything about productivity growth—tomorrow’s prosperity—if it does not even know what the figures are in its own budget and if it does not even agree there is a productivity problem in this country? There is, and it is only through the election of a Rudd Labor government that this country can expect any improvement in productivity growth or any improvement in prosperity beyond the mining boom, because this government’s best days are well and truly behind it. This government has sold out on small business and sold out on Australia’s future. (Time expired) 10000 Quick, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Before I call the honourable member, I remind the minister at the table, the member for McEwen, of the obligation for members to be heard in silence. 117 20:09:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 0 Mr SECKER —I doubt very much that the minister would be interrupting me in the same manner. The debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and its associated bills is a free-ranging debate. We all have our opinions, and this debate is about how we, as a government, spend our money. The 2007-08 budget provides great support for Australia. I do not think there is any doubt about that. The fact is that people in Australia, by and large, have felt this is a very good budget. In fact, for the 10th time it is in surplus—10 years in a row! That is something that Labor could dream of but could never deliver. We have grown since March 1996, when we were first elected, averaging 3.5 per cent each year. The unemployment rate has reached a 33-year low, inflation remains low and stable, we are debt free in net terms, and our net interest payments are, of course, zero. The government is saving taxpayers $8.5 billion a year, which works out at something like $23½ million every day—or, to put that into perspective, $1 million every hour. So since I arrived here at eight o’clock this morning—it is now just after eight o’clock at night—we have saved $12 million in interest rate payments that were previously paid by the Labor government. That is a pretty big saving. And the great thing about that saving is that it is for ever and ever, unless the Labor Party gets back into government and gets us back into debt by running deficit budgets. It is very interesting to look at the history of Australia. For the first 90 years of our Federation, from 1901 to 1991, as a nation we accumulated some $16 billion of debt. We had to deal with a couple of world wars and a few other wars—such as in Korea and Vietnam—we had to build a new capital, which does not come cheap in anyone’s terms, and we went through a depression, yet, over those first 90 years of our Federation we accumulated $16 billion worth of debt. For the next five years, Labor took that debt which we had taken 90 years to accumulate and repeated it every year for the next five years. So we went from $16 billion to $96 billion net debt in five years. We have now got rid of that debt, and I think that was one of the greatest achievements of this government. Because we are no longer paying interest into banks—in many cases overseas banks—we can now afford to do the things that this country wants us to do. Australians, including many in my electorate, are concerned with agriculture. I have a very large agriculture base in my seat. The seat of Barker has often been termed the most agricultural seat in Australia. We produce nearly half of Australia’s wine, and that is a great part of the electorate, but we also have heavy agricultural industry in the traditional areas of beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep, horticulture and forestry, which also takes up a very large part of my electorate—it covers a very large growing area. We certainly are very much the food bowl of South Australia, if not Australia. So what we have achieved for agriculture in this budget is very important to the constituents in my seat of Barker. We have provided more than $2.4 billion in new funding for agriculture. To put that in another perspective, that is about 30 per cent of the total savings, which we could not have used under Labor’s $96 billion debt. Of that $2.4 billion of new funding for agriculture, there is $205.4 million over the next four years to continue the government’s Agriculture Advancing Australia policy package, $75.7 million over four years to build on the successes of the National Food Industry Strategy, $112.1 million over three years for landcare activities and $50 million for the new Environmental Stewardship Program and $1.975 billion over five years for natural resource management—both jointly delivered with the Department of the Environment and Water Resources—and $10.3 million to eradicate the Red Imported Fire Ant, which is probably not front-page news but for many of our industries is very important. There is another $12.7 million to strengthen Australia’s quarantine risk assessment. An additional $205 million over four years will fund professional advice for farmers in severe difficulty and will subsidise management training and education to provide re-establishment grants to assist those who wish to exit the industry. That is important when you consider that 90 per cent of my electorate is declared EC drought for the first time ever. Very few in my electorate have ever had to rely on the full exceptional circumstance strategy, but 90 per cent of them are doing that now. I am pleased to report that we have had some very good rains starting on 26 April this year. Over the last 3½ weeks we have had an exceptionally promising start to the season, so there is a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel for the farmers in my electorate. Funding will assist in improving the successful FarmBis program, which provides education and training to farmers. The Farm Help program will also receive additional assistance over the next four years with previous Farm Help recipients having a second chance to obtain professional advice and training to access a re-establishment grant. There will be $11 million over three years to improve services for Australians affected by drought. Funding will be provided for additional mobile Centrelink services, which will improve existing services by responding to the increased demand in drought affected areas. One of the great things we have brought in is the drought bus, which has been going around my electorate over the last couple of weeks, meeting with farmers and helping them to get through their problems. There will be $30 million spent to provide drought related counselling support to irrigators and farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin and $75.7 million over four years will be spent to make Australia’s food industry more globally competitive. The program contains four key elements: the Food Innovation Grants Program worth $54.2 million, the Technical Market Access Program worth $15 million, the International Food Standards Initiative worth $2½ million and the Australian Food and Grocery Council worth $4 million. We also have a comprehensive water plan which will secure and manage one of Australia’s most precious resources. I spoke in the chamber a couple of hours ago about what we are doing in the Murray-Darling Basin. There will be $10 billion over 10 years provided for the National Plan for Water Security. The Murray-Darling Basin region will benefit from more integrated and efficient management functions, including nearly $6 billion to modernise both on-farm and off-farm irrigation infrastructure to increase the efficiency of water use. On present understandings, that will save us about 3,000 gigalitres of water. Interestingly enough, that is about four times what industry, irrigators and households in all the cities supplied from the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia use. It is four years worth of savings. Half of that will go back to the farmers on the basis that we are spending another $3 million to compensate them for buying back overallocated water resources, especially in the eastern states. Again, we are delivering 3,000 gigalitres—that is, 3,000 billion litres—back to the Murray-Darling over 10 years. It is going to be a big call, it is going to be a big program and it is going to take a while—but we have the plan. What is great about it is that it is not hurting our wealth-producing farmers but will return that water to the Murray-Darling system. $417 million will be spent to improve the quality of forecasting and obtaining water data to better inform future decisions regarding land and water use. The allocation of $585 million to reform the government’s arrangements for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission will ensure the responsible management of water into the future. There has never been a program like this in Australia’s history. There will also be funding of $201 million over six years to support the installation of water tanks and other water-saving devices by schools and community organisations. A further $200.7 million will extend the Community Water Grants program until 2012-13. Since 1996, the government has invested $2 billion to develop practical responses to counter and reduce climate change. If you were to believe the Labor opposition, we have not done anything. The facts are in the budgets. Over the past few years we have invested $2 billion. For example, the government’s $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund is already driving the development of vital solar and clean coal technologies. $150 million will be provided to encourage homeowners to install solar panels across Australia. The current rebates will be doubled so that households will receive up to $8,000 for installing an average system which costs around $14,000—a rebate of over 50 per cent. Grants of up to $12,000 will be available for solar panels in schools and community buildings. Forests play a key role in reducing greenhouse gases. I know that because the forest industry in my electorate alone provides almost $2 billion worth of income and wealth production. Of course, that is also spread across many other electorates around Australia. The costs of establishing qualifying carbon sink forests will be tax deductable, with immediate deductability for five years, commencing 1 July 2007, and with concessional depreciation arrangements after that. The budget also provides $197 million over five years for the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. Land transport and infrastructure will be made stronger and better by the government boosting its investment in road and rail infrastructure, with the second AusLink plan and total funding of $22.3 billion over five years from 2009-10. AusLink 2 will help reduce accidents on Australian roads. The black spot program will increase to $60 million per annum over five years from 2009-10. This is a program that Labor got rid of when they were in government. The Roads to Recovery program constructs and maintains local roads and will be funded with $1.8 billion. I know all the councils in my electorate are very happy about this. AusLink’s Strategic Regional Program supports the growth of regional industry and will be allocated $300 million. In order to bring forward construction of some of these strategic regional roads, the government will give an additional $250 million of supplementary funding to local councils, to be paid before 30 June. By way of example, we have been allocated $3.1 million for the Millicent heavy transport bypass. The people of Millicent are extraordinarily happy about getting that money. Tax cuts will offer Australians some relief, with the low-income tax offset rising from $600 to $750. It will then begin to phase out from $30,000. This means that low-income earners who are eligible for the offset will not pay tax until their annual income exceeds $11,000. These income tax changes will ensure that more than 80 per cent of taxpayers face a top marginal tax rate of 30 per cent or less across the forward estimates period. There is also comfort for senior Australians who are eligible for the senior tax offset. They will now pay no tax on their annual income, up to $25,867 for single persons and up to $43,360 for couples. Realising Our Potential is an investment in the future of universities, in vocational education and training and in the school sector. It delivers an unprecedented investment in the university sector, with a $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which is funded from the 2006-07 surplus. You cannot fund that from a deficit. This initial investment will earn income which can then be distributed on an annual basis to individual universities for capital works and research facilities. An amount of $222 million over four years will be provided for increased income support and for an extra 3,500 Commonwealth learning scholarships to assist students from low-income backgrounds and rural areas to attend universities. Schools will also be ahead under the Realising Our Potential package, with $457.4 million being spent over four years to provide direct assistance to thousands of school students through national numeracy and literacy vouchers. This initiative will provide a $700 tutorial voucher per child to parents whose children do not achieve current numeracy and literacy benchmarks in years 3, 5 and 7. This will be extended to eligible year 9 students in 2009. In 2008 there will be a bonus of up to $50,000 available to schools which make significant improvements in their literacy and numeracy standards. Importantly, Australia’s vocational education and training system will receive funding that builds on the $837 million investment in Skills for the Future. First- and second-year apprentices under age 30 will receive a tax-free $1,000 wage top-up. All apprentices will receive up to $500 each year, without any age restriction, towards TAFE and other training fees. This is about looking towards the future. Part of helping families to balance work and parenthood is to assist with child care. Government assistance for child care in 2007-08 will be $3 billion, almost three times the level in 1996-97, when Labor were last in government. From 1 July 2007, the rates of childcare benefit will increase by 10 per cent, on top of indexation. This will increase the maximum rate of childcare benefit from $2.96 to $3.37 per hour. That means that a family on maximum rate assistance, with one child in long day care for 40 hours per week, will be eligible to receive $134.80 per week. This change will provide $728 million in extra assistance to more than 70,000 families Australia wide, including 5,000 families in the Barker electorate. Families who incur out-of-pocket childcare costs in both 2005-06 and 2006-07 will receive two rebates in 2007-08, one through the tax system under existing arrangements and the other as a direct payment. The maximum payment will be $4,096 per child for 2005-06 and $4,211 per child for 2006-07. The government are doing many things in this budget. We are boosting superannuation savings by paying a one-off additional co-contribution. We are also looking after older Australians, and we will spend  $51.8 billion on health and aged care. We are injecting $1.4 billion through the global integration program to assist Australian industry to build stronger links. This is a brilliant budget. (Time expired) 121 20:30:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 0 Mr McMULLAN —The debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 and cognate bills gives me an opportunity tonight to speak on three matters of my shadow portfolio: firstly, my constituents in the ACT; secondly, federal-state relations; and, thirdly, international development assistance. The particular matter I want to refer to with regard to the Australian Capital Territory is the indication in the budget papers of a very substantial increase in Public Service numbers—more than 5,000 is forecast—during the forthcoming financial year. Given the structure and composition of those changes, it is likely that a high percentage of those people will be employed in the Canberra region. From a broad economic and development point of view of this area, I welcome that. It used to be the case that people in Canberra thought that, if they voted Labor, they would get a much faster rate of increase in the Public Service. Some people liked that; some did not. However, it was the significant motivation. It cannot be the case in this election. It would be physically impossible to grow the Public Service any faster than it is at the moment. We cannot get the staff to fill the vacancies that are being advertised now. My concern is that the situation in Canberra will grow into a town-planning and social development free-for-all. This is exacerbating the car-parking crisis in Civic in particular, which is the matter I want to refer to. I call on the Howard government—but, if it is defeated at the next election, I commit myself to work on this in the event of a Rudd government—to return to an intelligent public sector employment location strategy in Canberra. Too high a proportion of our public servants are moving into high-cost areas such as Civic and Barton, but it is Civic that I am particularly concerned about. It would be cheaper and more efficient for the Commonwealth if there were better planning and coordination. It would also be better for the city if there were balanced development—and I particularly want to emphasise the importance of this in relation to the crisis of car parking in Civic. Many people are concerned about it, and properly so. It is a very difficult issue for the local ACT government to manage. In the main, it is their responsibility, and I leave it to them. But it is not appropriate for the Commonwealth government to exacerbate the problem, at some significant expense to Commonwealth taxpayers, with an inefficient and ineffective distribution of public sector employment. In terms of my own constituency, I look forward to decisions that will lead to the relocation of public servants in the Belconnen and Gungahlin town centres. I now turn my attention to federal-state relations. While this is an issue that I have been dealing with extensively as a shadow minister, it came back to me in a very interesting way recently. Last week, I held one of my regular community meetings with constituents. I invite people to come in and see me at different times and places around the suburbs of my electorate. I always learn something at these meetings. There is always a constituent who raises a new issue or a different aspect to an issue. What was raised at last week’s meeting was significant in terms of the issue that I want to talk about tonight. There was concern about the cynical way in which the government tries to use people’s fears to strengthen its electoral position. My constituents were looking for an offer of hope that things might get better rather than this exploitation of fear whereby things might get worse. They are looking to me as their local representative and more broadly to the alternative government—the Labor opposition—to give them that hope. At the meeting there was also significant cynicism about the political process. People were concerned about the manner in which fear has been exploited over the last decade or so. Another legacy from years of the clever and cunning Howard government is that Australians will take a long time to forget this, and it will take our political processes some time to recover from it as well. In particular, I refer to the impact of the cynical manipulation of the so-called blame game. Instead of solving problems, the enthusiasm of the government lies in blaming someone else. The Howard government blames the states, and often anybody else. The recent budget speech by the Treasurer and the budget reply by the Leader of the Opposition provide a vivid illustration of the sorts of concerns that were being raised at the meeting. The Treasurer only made references to the states and territories in his budget speech when he was blaming them for the inadequacy of the current dental services—notwithstanding the fact that his own government has cut $100 million from these state run programs. By contrast, the two principal initiatives in the budget reply by the Leader of the Opposition were predicated on a cooperative federal-state approach. The announcement of new trades training centres and the national water security plan for towns and cities are both based on the emerging 21st century concept of cooperative federalism rather than the old-fashioned blame game of the past. In the words of my constituents: they were based on hope of doing things better rather than on fear and blame. It is this fear versus hope which highlights the fact that, at the 2007 election, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the way in which the federation works and to put an end to the negativity of the blame game. There are a number of reasons for that, and I do not have time to go through all of them this evening, but I want to highlight why I think there is a window of opportunity to reform the way our federation works and why it is important that we seize it. Opportunities like this do not come by very often. One of the reasons is the background, experience and enthusiasm of the Leader of the Opposition for the task. We have not had that for a very long time. Also, we have eight state and territory governments—and I am not talking about their political persuasions; I will refer to that in time—that have displayed in their work through COAG and through their initiative, the Council for the Australian Federation, a willingness to respond to reasonable proposals and to develop and advance the national reform agenda. Parallel to that we have a very rare thing in Australia, where we have so many elections—far too many elections staggered throughout the electoral cycle. We have a very rare window of opportunity where there is no state election due for 18 months. That does not happen often in Australia, and it means that outside the context of somebody being under immediate electoral pressure we can perhaps get some substantive and continuing reforms. On this question of reforming the federation, we have very powerful advocacy from the leaders of the business community, from academics and from independent commentators, who all say it is time to change federal-state relations. We have a growing body of domestic and international academic and bureaucratic reports on the strengths of federalism and the way it can work better. And finally we have enhanced recognition among Australians, reflected in my constituents at my most recent meeting with them, that the quality of the services they receive from government is affected by the blame game. Given all these factors, it is hard to imagine a party running for election to govern Australia in 2007 that does not see the need for enhanced efficiency in the structure and operation of our federation. It is possible to see this challenge as a threat or an opportunity, and it seems to me that the Prime Minister sees this problem as a threat and the Leader of the Opposition sees it as an opportunity. It is an opportunity we need to seize. Many people have cited the Business Council of Australia-Access Economics analysis, but there are plenty of others, including from many other business groups—AiG and the Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry are similarly arguing for reform in this area. The Access Economics report commissioned by the Business Council illustrates the $9 billion of economic cost from the inefficiencies of our current federal-state relations. That is not all direct cost to the budget, but an analysis of that document shows that even a modest improvement in the operation of our federal-state relations will release significant public sector resources for higher priority use. So there is a way forward, but only one of the alternative governments going to this election is even looking at this issue. Last week the Leader of the Opposition and I announced the formation of a high-level advisory group on federal-state relations to advise the Labor Party on policy in this area before the next election. I have been really pleased by the number of groups who have responded already, indicating their desire to participate in and contribute to that process. They reflect the general view in Australia that I see, that Australians do not want to see the federal structure damaged; they want to see it continue, but they want it to work better. One of the first issues the advisory group will examine is that of specific purpose payments. There are more than 90 specific purpose payments to the states and territories and they each have cumbersome and time-consuming reporting requirements, in some cases costing more than the proposed payment. Some specific purpose payments require a level of detail that has no conceivable national policy use, which inhibits the capacity of the states to innovate in the delivery of their services. So we are looking to reform the way the federation works. We are looking to get an initial report from this advisory group about specific purpose payments by next month, and a more comprehensive review of the architecture of our federation more substantially by September. What I am hoping for out of that, and what I expect from that high-level group—which contains very experienced federal and state officials and academics—are reforms which will deliver us a federation in which the Commonwealth takes the lead on broad national policy directions and provides the funding, and the states and territories coordinate the delivery of services and provide policy and delivery innovation at a local level. If we can achieve that, we can leave the blame game behind and give Australians back the hope in the future that they are looking for. The other thing I want to refer to in my remarks about the budget relates to my other area of responsibility, international development assistance. I have to say at the outset that I welcome the modest improvement to Australia’s aid program announced in the 2007 budget. It is easy to say the improvements are not as significant as the government is trying to paint them, but even a slight improvement to our pathetically inadequate aid program is welcome. However, I want to comment today on some key areas that have been missed and some wrong priorities that are reflected in the way the money is being spent. In September 2000 the Howard government signed up to the Millennium Development Goals. These are a very important vision and framework designed to halve extreme poverty by 2015 and end it by 2025. Competent economists are saying we can mobilise the resources to do that if we have the will to do it, but there has been no focus in Australia’s aid program on the key tasks of implementing the Millennium Development Goals and there still is not. It has taken the Howard government 11 years to arrive back at the point where it is starting to improve Australia’s overseas aid performance. Even now the aid program lags behind the international donor community and behind the level as a percentage of gross national income that it was when the Howard government came to office. The government claims to have increased aid expenditure, but in fact there has been no change in the ratio of aid as a percentage of gross national income. It is still stagnant at an embarrassingly low 0.3 per cent, way behind the international pack and still below the Labor government’s contribution to aid of 0.32 per cent in 1996 or the average OECD country effort of 0.46 per cent. So in this welcome increase—I do not want to be churlish; I am glad to see it happening—the Howard government is filling in a hole it dug itself. It reduced this area of spending year after year until it started slowly to turn it round, and after 11 years we still have not got back to where we started. One of the problems we have, even with this modest improvement, is that there is an expansion of what activities are considered by the government as aid. It is really stretching the guidelines, for example, to include the detention centres in Nauru, which of course are not designed in the slightest for economic and social development in Nauru. They are designed to achieve domestic political purposes here in Australia. I emphasise that I welcome the increase and I welcome the fact that the forward estimates suggest the increase is going to continue, but with the scaling up of the aid program I am concerned to ensure that these funds are spent effectively. It is difficult to determine how effective the aid program is or is likely to be, particularly because the much-vaunted first Annual Review of Development Effectiveness, which the Minister for Foreign Affairs with great enthusiasm stated would be produced last year, has still not been published and will not be published before the election. AusAID has made it clear that we will not get the first report during this parliamentary term. So the Prime Minister’s commitment to increasing the aid budget was conditional on the quality and effectiveness of aid and Minister Downer announced performance incentives based on appropriate reporting and assessment but without the annual review, which we will not get for this entire parliamentary term, how will this performance be assessed? In the time available the other thing I will turn to is the question of priorities. When you are increasing spending you get the chance to make choices. These are choices that affect the lives and opportunities of the poorest people in our region. I think that in particular the government has its priorities seriously wrong in education. The focus in education should be on primary education. All the social evidence and economic analysis suggests that it is primary education that has the biggest effect. In some ways you could say it is preschool education, but at the very least, broadly defined, it is primary education. In fact, the proportion spent on basic education has fallen. UNICEF says: A quality basic education will better equip girls and boys with knowledge and skills needed to adopt healthy lifestyles, to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS … to take an active role in social, economic and political decision-making as they transition to adolescence and adulthood. It is a serious mistake for the long-term interests of Australia to be skewing our aid budget from primary education. Similarly with infrastructure. It is not always fashionable for the aid budget to be invested in infrastructure, and I support the fact that the government has made this one of its priorities, but I am concerned that it is not addressing what I think is the priority infrastructure issue. The crisis is in the lack of access to clean water, the biggest cause of child death in the world. It is not that we are doing nothing, but the focus is moving away from that to other areas of infrastructure. Not everybody in the aid community says that infrastructure should be a priority. My view is that it should be, but water and sanitation are essential to poverty reduction, human health and economic growth. In our neighbouring region, a child dies every seven minutes from lack of access to clean water; 80,000 children under five years of age are dying from diarrhoea and 88 per cent of diarrhoeal disease is attributed to unsafe water supply and inadequate sanitation and hygiene. Our priority in infrastructure should be there. As I said, when you increase spending—which I welcome—you have the chance to make choices. I think one area in which the choices do not reflect well on the government’s priorities is climate change. It is one of the greatest issues impacting our neighbouring region and it barely gets a mention. There is a lot to say here, but let me say for the moment that assisting our neighbours to adapt to the effects of climate change should be a major focus of Australia’s aid program. Climate change threatens to undermine Australia’s aid program and hard-won development gains. The Howard government’s token response of a one-off payment this year to financial institutions such as the World Bank is better than nothing, but it underestimates totally the response needed and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is involved. In conclusion, this is a very disappointing budget. It is hard to understand how you can spend so much and achieve so little. China is driving a mining boom that is delivering the greatest revenue boost in Australia’s history, yet we are finding in federal-state relations, in international development assistance and generally that we cannot fund our priorities. If we cannot fund our priorities at the height of the boom, when will we be able to do so? It seems to me that this is a government that has lost its discipline, its focus and its sense of rising to the challenges of the 21st century. This budget shows that Australia needs a new government capable of fresh thinking and of responding to the 21st century challenges in international development assistance, federal-state relations and generally. 126 20:50:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I will commence my contribution to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2007-2008 where the previous speaker, the member for Fraser, left off and deal with Commonwealth-state relations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will remember the premiers conferences at which there was a pre-discussion statement by all premiers blaming the Commonwealth for disastrous management and claiming what their share of the pie should be. Every Premiers Conference during the time of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, even though many of the states were Labor, was heralded by pre-Premiers Conference claims and counteraccusations. After the conference there were the traditional ‘we was robbed’ press statements from premiers. That has not happened for a long time in Australia. The concept of the Australian Labor Party that the blame game is active and alive in the Commonwealth government could not be further from the truth. I will always remember the decision that we took, following an election, to establish a consumer tax, the way in which the premiers signed up to that process and the huge cooperation there was in the tax-sharing arrangements. That was a landmark and historic example of cooperation and working together. There was no blame game there. It was a historic process of cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth. The recent $10 billion water initiative has seen the states and the Commonwealth come together for the first time to solve the Murray-Darling problems. Never before have the states and the Commonwealth been able to agree on the Murray-Darling difficulties in the way they have recently. I know Premier Bracks still has some reservations, but it is wonderful to see that the Commonwealth and the states—even though the states are all Labor and we have a coalition federal government—have come together and, through the $10 billion water initiative, established for the first time a cooperative and workable arrangement for the management of our great water systems. I would also like to point out to the House the way in which the states and the Commonwealth have cooperated in our management of the threat of terrorism. Our national police and security agencies have worked with state police to establish a system with the cooperative exchange of ideas and support. The Olympic Games is another example. There is example after example. This blame game nonsense that is being carried out by the Labor Party is a fabrication. There is nothing in it. When a state government like that of New South Wales is failing and is seen by everybody to be failing in the way it manages its affairs, it is fair enough to say so and to point out its shortcomings. The state governments do not hesitate to do that with all brands of Commonwealth government. They tend to say, ‘Give us the money and we’ll solve the problems.’ It is not a uniform process. I have mentioned terrorism and the Olympic Games. What about the Tough on Drugs program? From the school and health systems, right through to the interception programs of Customs, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Defence, everything has worked on a cooperative basis because Australians realise that we need to be tough on drugs if we are going to deal with the drugs problem. In general, there has been absolute cooperation between governments, even to the extent of personal income tax sharing to local governments and the roads programs. For the first time we have had a cooperative arrangement between the states and the Commonwealth and the funding of local government. There are not the rows there have been in the past. Peace and quiet reigns as people work together for the betterment of Australia with common goals and common objectives. It has never been like that. In my experience of this parliament there has never been better cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states, despite the political differences. Of course there will be point-scoring from time to time, but not with the viciousness and nastiness that there has been in the past. I would like to break the budget down into the various community groups that are most affected by it. Such a massive budget is only realisable because of good management and the capacity to put down the foundations that allow Australians to succeed and our economy to build. If anything, the trouble with the budget is that it is so large and so diverse in its assistance, support and intelligent application to the needs of Australia that it is hard to get one’s head around every aspect of it. One approach I have tried—and I think it works for me and for my community—is to examine the budget on the basis of the groups of people that are affected by it. For the electorate of Mitchell nothing is more significant than Australian families, and support for families is probably one of the most notable features of the budget. It has been a notable feature of all Howard government budgets. One needs to focus on the various needs of families as they go through the stages of home acquisition, the arrival of children—who then become teenagers—and moving on to becoming older Australians in retirement. I should begin by talking about the tax cuts and the way in which they affect families. For 2007-08, taxpayers with an income of $30,000 will receive a tax cut of $21.15 per week. It will stay at that level in 2008-09. The income range that I think is most affected by the budget and which relates to most families is $30,000 to $80,000 per year. For those on $80,000 a year, in 2007-08 there will be a tax cut of $14.42 per week, but in 2008-09 there will be a tax cut of $24 per week. That is assisting families with money in the pocket to be able to use as they choose. This government has consistently passed back taxation where it does not need the funds. I think that is a laudable objective for governments. It is not something that has been general practice by the Commonwealth; the Commonwealth has tended to stick with every dollar it has collected, but that has not been the case for a long time under this current government. The low-income tax offset will allow $750 per year to return to families with incomes of under $30,000. That is a way of offsetting the incapacity to further lower taxation in that group, so there is almost a negative taxation process of giving funds to support those on lower incomes. There is a $2.1 billion childcare investment, but what does it mean to families? Families eligible for the childcare tax rebate will receive two tax rebates this year, with one being brought forward. I think this is a very sensible approach, because I thought the 22-month delay before these rebates were paid was detrimental to the program. I have sought for some time for that to be rectified, and I am pleased that it has been in this budget. The childcare rebate has been brought forward, with a reimbursement of up to $4,200 per child per year. The rebates for last year and for the current year are being paid together so that there will be two payments in the one year. For families with two children under the age of five, it would be possible to be reimbursed over $16,000 for childcare costs. The childcare benefit will increase by 10 per cent, which will take it to $20.50 per week for low-income families with one child. Debate interrupted. 128 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 128 128 21:00:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise to speak today on one of the many challenges facing hundreds of disabled Australians. Australians with severe and profound disabilities are being forced by this government to apply and reapply for financial support, despite having no prospects of their condition changing and being unable to fill in or sign documents. Families that are struggling to cope with profoundly disabled children are often left without the resources and support they need to be able to provide the 24-hour care that some children need. Many individuals with severe disabilities need financial support in conjunction with support from their immediate community. We should believe in a society where having a disability does not ostracise you from the community but rather compels people to accept and accommodate your needs. Being disabled should be viewed as a unique characteristic of an individual rather than an impediment to their character. Individuals with a disability need to engage with the community and feel that they are supported by the Australian community as a whole. Currently, support in different government departments for those with disabilities is dwindling. This government is forcing Australians with disabilities, including paraplegia, brain damage and severe and profound disabilities, to apply and reapply for support again and again, making it impossible for some people to submit their forms for income support benefits as they grow older, when it is painfully obvious that these disabilities will never diminish or go away. This process lacks common sense and costs disabled people and their families both time and money. This money could be better spent on providing the services that disabled Australians need to ensure that they have the best quality of life possible. There seems to be no long-term solution available for Australia’s disabled. There has been a significant rise in the cost of living, and I am often approached by disability advocacy groups, such as Dignity for Disabled, and disabled individuals within the electorate of Hindmarsh who are struggling to meet their own daily needs. One case brought to my attention in my electorate was of the Violi family. They have a 16-year-old daughter on a disability support pension who has profound intellectual and physical disabilities. She is being required to attend a number of interviews with Centrelink. She has been required to attend both alone and with her parents. It is quite obvious that she cannot leave the house without the assistance of her parents and she is constantly being told to apply and reapply for the DSP as she gets older and closer to the age of 18. This is despite the young woman being unable to conduct a conversation, having a syndrome that gets worse, not better, having already been assessed as profoundly disabled with a severe intellectual disability and having already been assessed as eligible for the disability support pension. This has not stopped Centrelink from constantly asking her to go for interviews. Labor objects to the fact that medical certificates prepared by doctors verifying a patient’s ongoing incapacity to sign or fill in forms appear to be routinely ignored by Centrelink because of government policy. Clients with conditions such as quadriplegia or a severe intellectual disability should not be asked to sign documentation and to appear constantly as they are obviously eligible for income support and unable to fill in forms. Under the Howard government, Centrelink’s workload has massively increased. This had led to the sorry situation where not enough staff are trained to help clients with profound disabilities, and misinformation is given time and again. I am calling on the Howard government to reassess the process within Centrelink and put in place a system that better looks after our profoundly disabled citizens. Families within my electorate who have a disabled child, such as the Violis, frequently contact me because Centrelink has given them wrong information, hounded them for medical certificates and refused to accept reports written by qualified medical professionals. Australian families caring for profoundly disabled children are forced to deal with a lot of red tape for no reason and there should be better accommodation for those with disabilities within the Australian community. The Howard government is not helping disabled Australians; it continues to be inactive in the disability sector and, as such, has left vital groups such as the National Disability Advocacy Program without the resources they require to help thousands of Australians in need. 129 129 21:04:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 0 Mr WAKELIN —Recently many in the media have been concerned yet again about the parliament, freedom of speech and the right to know. Tonight I would like to put on the record another aspect from a parliamentary representative’s perspective. A couple of months ago the Adelaide Advertiser wrote a piece about MPs, including me, who were leaving the parliament at the end of their term and their participation in overseas delegations—the old perennial. I dared to offer an alternative view in the form of a letter to the editor of the Advertiser. The Advertiser declined to print that letter and I subsequently purchased advertising space on page 5 of the Advertiser to have my alternative view published. I was sold the space and I paid up front. Subsequently, on viewing my point of view, the Advertiser refused to publish it, even after accepting payment for the space, whilst at the same time offering to print my letter to the editor as a letter to the editor. So it seems that monopoly practices and freedom of speech are very much in the eye and mind of the beholder. In conclusion, the power of the press is very much on display in this case with my right of reply, and the monopoly power of the Adelaide Advertiser is a simple fact. So the question remains: what is the reasonable balance and how can people’s representatives fight for that reasonable balance? I simply conclude by saying: it seems to me that there is a responsibility upon all parties, including those with monopoly power, to offer a fair go to maintain our standards in this country. 130 130 21:06:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —The budget announced by the Treasurer included some financial relief for carers, but again we have seen the government turning a deaf ear to the most important need for carers—that is, greater access to respite care for the aged and disabled living in the community. In the area of aged care, while the Treasurer would have us think that he understands the effects of an ageing population on the economy, what he seems incapable of understanding is the effect of an ageing population on those taking on the responsibility of caring for aged relatives. And it should not go without notice that many of those carers are themselves ageing. For many, caring for a spouse in later life is a far harder job than anything they undertook in the paid workforce. Caring for a loved one can involve every waking hour and many in between. As a consequence, the carer’s own health often fails and that leaves both the carer and the infirm in need of full-time support. Just having the time to visit a doctor or a hairdresser can be a luxury for many carers, and even thinking about a holiday can only be a dream. Caring for an aged relative from a non-English-speaking background can add to the time and dedication required of a carer. Limited radio, television and other media in foreign languages can require added input from the carer. There is a growing need not only for respite care but for forms of day care which cater to the special needs of people whose English language skills have faded and who have reverted to their native language. One program to meet these dual needs is planned by the Cardinal Stepinac Village in the Fowler electorate. Cardinal Stepinac Village provides accommodation and aged care for people of non-English-speaking backgrounds. While its residents are largely of Croatian background, the village provides services for a range of cultures and languages. The village presently provides an unfunded service providing casual day care when carers have urgent needs to attend to. This extends to the village’s ‘Be our guest’ program, which provides weekly short-term visits by the elderly, again without government assistance. The Cardinal Stepinac Village was approved in the 2006 funding round for an additional 15 residential care places, but it is also seeking to expand day care to cater for day visits to the centre by aged persons in the region. The village proposes to build a day care area at a cost of $800,000 and a community interaction hall at a cost of $1.7 million. These facilities would not only provide the much needed respite for carers but would also provide care which would improve the quality of life of the aged clients. On a number of occasions I have had the pleasure of visiting Cardinal Stepinac Village at Christmas and other festive times. It is a joy to see the village residents as they take part in games and festivities that remind them of their childhood in a far away country. Having an understanding of the culture can make all the difference between a soulless and sterile environment and one which can provide an atmosphere where joy and love of life can prevail, even for the frail aged. I mentioned the cost of the planned projects. I have to add that, even with the great generosity of the local Croatian community, these facilities will require funding assistance from the state and federal governments if they are to be built. I have on previous occasions related to the House the selfless generosity of the residents and families of Cardinal Stepinac Village. The village raised $25,000 for the victims of the Canberra bushfires. They raised over $80,000 for the victims of the Asian tsunami. All they ask now is the help of governments to extend their care to an even larger group in the community, in the special way that only they can. 131 131 21:11:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I want to talk about things in Castle Hill in the centre of my electorate. The traffic problems in Castle Hill have been notorious for many years, and there have been many attempts to solve these problems—some say they go back to 1974, which I doubt because at that stage the CBD of Castle Hill was only just beginning to develop. There is a traditional Friday and Saturday gridlock in and around the central area of Castle Hill. The two roads through the area that are most affected are Old Northern Road and Terminus Street. Much discussion has taken place about possible bypasses and a ring-road. There have been many ideas developed over the years—some from the public and some from Baulkham Hills council. In 2000 there were discussions with local businesses in the main area considered for a bypass road, which is Terminus Street, to change the traffic movements by opening up what is currently a laneway to traffic to allow better access. In 2002 the council entered into discussions with property owners and businesses to allow the strata plan for the properties in strata plan 37657 and other properties further up Terminus Street to allow a purchase of land and to allow parking. At that stage it was registered in the strata plans that there would be kerbside parking. Imagine the surprise when in 2006 there is a sudden decision that there will be no kerbside parking in Terminus Street and nobody is informed. Suddenly, this year, work has commenced, trees have been chopped down and the residents are suddenly aware that things are happening in Terminus Street. This has been a matter of huge local controversy. There are approximately 130 businesses in Terminus Street. There are many hundreds of people employed. Suddenly, those business are facing possible closure as work is going to commence in June and follow through for 18 months or more. The work that is going to be done will be disruptive to those businesses, with no plans for alternative arrangements in sight. There has been a complete lack of transparency by Baulkham Hills council. They have kept things quiet and consultation has been by press statement or notices in the newspapers. I believe the plans went on display for the first time on Australia Day this year, when the first plans were shown to the public of what was really intended. Property owners and businesses were shocked when they saw what was going to happen. There has been no consultation at any level. The plans for parking in the area are inadequate at any time, and the council is going to remove approximately 110 parking places with no plans at this point for their replacement. There has been a history of continual change, with businesses uninformed and nothing to provide for the clients or customers of businesses or restaurants and nothing for the aged or the infirm. There is only one way in which this matter can be resolved, and that is for a delay to be applied until somebody with a competent outlook can act as a mediator between the council and businesses and property owners in the area. They need to establish a certain plan so that people have confidence in the resolution of matters affecting the development and construction of the council car park, the arrangements for street parking and access to businesses and making deliveries, and the clients of those businesses, including those who are aged or infirm. The central question is: why is Baulkham Hills Shire Council in such a rush to continue with this eastern ring-road project in circumstances where there has been no pressure from the major developer in the area, QIC, or from the Roads and Traffic Authority? One can only suspect that there are business interests behind the council’s rush. I know that one councillor may have interests, and there are other businesses which are said to be pushing council to make this decision. I appeal to Baulkham Hills council and the citizens to delay these disastrous decisions, which will destroy investment, jobs and the opportunity to retain a unique environment. The precinct is one that is valuable to the district. (Time expired) 132 132 21:16:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —This evening I wish to raise a matter that should be of grave concern to any government that purports to have a genuine interest in education and wants to do something about Australia’s growing skills shortages. The government would have us believe that its most recent budget will result in an education revolution. It has tried to make us believe that its new-found enthusiasm for education is not something it has cooked up overnight in a cynical vote-grabbing exercise in an election year. No amount of disingenuous sugar coating in this year’s budget will make up for the decade of disinterest and neglect shown towards our education providers by this government. Nowhere is this more apparent that in our TAFE colleges. My attention has recently been drawn to the circumstances of the Open Training and Education Network—OTEN—located in my electorate of Lowe, which enrols more than 37,000 distance students in over 250 TAFE NSW courses. OTEN has successfully home-delivered education to thousands of older students, those engaged in full-time employment as well as full-time parents or carers. It has also provided unique educational opportunities for Indigenous people, people with disabilities, young people in juvenile justice centres and those in remote rural communities. These are all groups who, despite their willingness to learn, re-skill or rehabilitate, often slip through the gaps of education. We should all be proud of OTEN’s achievements. The corollary of this is that we should all condemn anything that will threaten the work of OTEN or TAFE generally. Many TAFE teachers have explained how a decade of the Howard government’s indifference, sometimes outright hostility, to TAFE has impacted on my local TAFE college OTEN. They have told me of: (1) constant rounds of funding cuts by the Howard government, years of job freezes, voluntary redundancies and forced job losses in student and admin support; (2) recurring organisational restructuring to off-set reduced funding and restructurings which, I am told, are for the worse—indeed, following a restructure in 2003, OTEN lost its learning materials production unit; (3) a shift from enrolment based funding to completion based funding, which disproportionately disadvantages distance students and threatens the viability of distance education providers; (4) the devastating impact of the federal government and industry driven national competency based curriculum—the costs of producing distance based learning materials for every subject have skyrocketed as a result, without a proportionate increasing in funding; and (5) the unsustainable workloads imposed upon OTEN teachers and increased casualisation of the workforce. TAFE students, for whom we should be doing much more, are getting much less from the Howard government. The changes I have just mentioned have resulted in the slashing of essential face-to-face practical sessions and supervised exams. Being starved of funds has resulted in student services being slashed. What a disgrace that 3,700 OTEN students who require disability support are only being cared for by one full-time and four part-time consultants. The Howard government’s ambivalence to TAFE has resulted in federally funded tutorial support schemes for Aboriginal students being withdrawn and handed to private providers. This, too, is a disgrace. How will private providers support publicly enrolled Aboriginal students? It makes a mockery of the Howard government’s attempts to engage in ‘practical reconciliation’, which now amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric. Last, but certainly no means least, the funding crisis has led to the imposition of student handling charges, and in many cases very substantial fee increases. Fees are a major deterrent for students accessing TAFE courses. It is a disgrace for the government to starve TAFE colleges of funding, with the hope that students will make up the funding shortfall. The public is entitled to know how this will stop the most vulnerable members of society from slipping through the gaps. How will it offer people a chance for social and economic participation, when that opportunity would otherwise not exist? In speaking on this matter tonight, I have not intended to merely strike at the heart of securing more funding for OTEN; I have sought to bring to the attention of those here in the House tonight the need to do more to support educational providers whose work is undoubtedly valued, but sometimes forgotten or taken for granted. The centenary of public distance education in Australia is fast approaching, and it has been a decade since OTEN moved into its purpose-built facility. We should all hope that this will be the year where a decade of the Howard government’s neglect of TAFE, and OTEN, comes to an end. This issue is too important to ignore, and I will be placing further questions to the minister on the Notice Paper on the Howard government’s disgraceful failure to support TAFE, and OTEN in particular. These institutions, and their students, deserve better than the treatment they have received to date from the Howard government. 133 133 21:21:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise tonight to draw the attention of the House to some of the positive things that are happening in our community. We are often regaled in the media by stories about communities that are falling apart and people who spend too much time on the computer, on the internet or watching DVDs as opposed to engaging in community activities. Sometimes to actually understand what communities can do we need to leave the present and go back to the past. Over this last weekend I had the opportunity to go back to the past for a retelling of the Cinderella story, which was first told by the Greek historian Strabo and dates back to the first century BC. There have been many retellings since then. I am referring in particular to the Two Wells Melodrama Group. This group has put on 24 productions over the years, normally one a year. The beauty of this group is that it is completely community based, they are all amateurs and even the scripts of their presentations are written by the members of the cast. It is a real celebration of the community and to a large extent it is also a real investment in the community. When you go along and see one of the town doctors helping out as a waiter or some of the town dignitaries serving, working in the kitchen or on the stage you get a sense that people are really coming together. I could list all the people but I will get into trouble because I am sure I will miss some. But there are a few names that I wish to mention in particular. There is the Arbon family—Anne, Hayden and Eleisha—who all played a large part in this performance and performances prior. It demonstrates a very positive aspect of families across generations who can work together on something very constructive. Bill Fielke and Mark Boon actually wrote the script and have done so for many of the productions. There are people like Kay Melton, who was not only responsible for programs, posters and biographies but also for photography and publicity as well as acting in one of the key roles in the show. You get a sense of the amount of commitment that these people put in when you realise that on the morning of the opening night performance Mark and Kay were out helping to run a riding for disabled event in a neighbouring town. They left the event and came back to help set up the hall, star in the show, help run the performance and help pack up. Then, the next day, they were back out with another riding for disabled event. It just tells of the level of commitment that many people in our community have that so often goes unrecognised. I would also like to mention Brian Wilson, the musical director. In the days when people so often rely on recorded music, he has taken the time and effort to draw together a growing group of musicians to provide the music for the melodramas. I would also like to recognise Maria Pellizzari, who looks after the catering, and Joe Daniele, who looks after the bar. Collectively, through the takings on the door, the three-course meal they provide, the bar and the entertainment, they have raised thousands of dollars over the years for the community. So it is not just the benefit of bringing people together in a celebration of the community or the enjoyment that people get out of it; it is significant to list some of the community organisations that this melodrama group has supported. There is the Gawler River Country Fire Service, the Two Wells RSL, the Two Rivers Basketball Association, the Two Wells Anglican Church, the bowling club, the callisthenics club, the Catholic Church, the Two Wells CFS, the Two Wells Community Centre, the family history group, the golf club, the hockey club, the Lewiston and District Land Care Group, the Lutheran Church, the netball club, the public library, the Red Cross and the Uniting Church. There is a list of groups and there are more on the list that have benefited from the funds raised by this group. I think it is appropriate that the House notes that there are still many positive aspects in our communities. We need to celebrate the commitment, the ‘have a go’ attitude of these people and the generosity of them giving up their time and making that effort. Yes, they enjoy it and they have a lot of fun but the whole community benefits in many tangible ways. 134 134 21:26:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Tonight I would like to take the opportunity to mark the contribution of, and pay tribute to, the Maylands Railways RSL Sub-branch in my electorate. For as long as I have been the federal member for Perth, the Maylands Railways RSL Sub-branch has met at the Peninsula Community Centre in Maylands and has commemorated both Anzac Day and Remembrance Day at the Maylands Memorial, well known to Maylands residents, on the corner of Eighth Avenue and Peninsula Road. Over the years, of course, the ranks of the Maylands Railways RSL has thinned and recently the sub-branch determined that it could best make a continuing contribution to the welfare and lives of veterans by formally disbanding and merging with the Bedford-Morley RSL. I think that is an appropriate decision for the Maylands Railways RSL Sub-branch to make, but it does give an opportunity to mark the contribution that that sub-branch has made over a substantial period of time to the lives and welfare of veterans who live in the Maylands area. The Bedford-Morley RSL of course makes its own outstanding contribution to the life and welfare of veterans. The Bedford-Morley RSL meets at the RSL Hall in Grand Promenade and commemorates Anzac Day and Remembrance Day at the Salisbury Street Memorial in Inglewood. I am very proud that a couple of years ago the Bedford-Morley RSL Sub-branch asked me to become its first associate member, a new membership category which was opened up to RSL sub-branches in Western Australia, and I proudly wear that badge and associate membership. I mark the contribution that the Maylands Railways RSL Sub-branch has made in a very memorable way to the lives and welfare of RSL veterans in that area and wish those remaining members of the sub-branch all the best for their ongoing activities with the Bedford-Morley RSL. Question agreed to. 135 21:29:00 House adjourned at 9.29 pm 135 Notices The following notices were given: HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett to present a bill for an act to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the United nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2007). DZY Georganas, Steve, MP Mr Georganas to move: That the House: recognises that the Federal Government needs to invest in education and improving the skills of Australians to ensure that all students have the opportunity to complete Year 12 at high school and ensure that they have appropriate entry‑level training for their chosen trade or vocation; and condemns the failure of the Government to invest in education and skills for Australia’s future, particularly when the commodity boom moderates. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin to move: That the House: notes that: 26 May marks the tenth anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report, which documented the systematic removal of up to 100,000 indigenous children from their families between 1910 and the 1970s, and its serous, and ongoing impact; the Howard Government’s decision to not apologise for this systematic removal has compounded the distress of survivors and held us all back from achieving genuine reconciliation; research subsequent to the report has shown that indigenous children who were removed: were more likely to have been victims of family violence (38 per cent compared to the figure of 23 per cent for the broader indigenous population); were 2.3 times more likely to experience clinical depression and behavioural difficulties; had double the rate of both alcohol and other drug use than other indigenous children; and were more likely to end up in jail; and a recent Urbis Keys Young report commissioned by the Government described the Government’s response to date as “poorly coordinated and insufficiently targeted” and also revealed that some Bringing Them Home and Link-Up counsellors are struggling to cope with up to more than 80 clients each, compared with the average caseload of 25 for a mental health worker in mainstream services; and calls on the Government to: apologise for past policies and practices that resulted in the systematic and forced removal of indigenous children from their families; and immediately implement measures to address the continuing adverse social, physical and mental health outcomes impacting on the Stolen Generation and subsequent generations. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke to move: That the House: urges the Government to provide funding for: national epidemiological studies of all eating disorders to determine: (i) their prevalence, incidence and correlates, thereby enabling public health officials and professionals’ organisations to coordinate the provision of strategies for prevention, treatment, training and research; and (ii) their natural history, morbidity and mortality; a national economic analysis of all eating disorders to determine the overall economic cost to Australian society, including lost and reduced productivity, missed working days, treatment, medication, hospitalisation and lives lost, in order to provide the cost/ benefits of prevention programs, early detection and robust treatment; research into current treatment, to ensure the utilisation of best-practice and for the dissemination of research outcomes among medical practitioners; increased services for the treatment of eating disorders, including the creation of specific eating disorder centres outside hospital settings for both in‑patients and day patients, to provide specialist medical support, counselling and mental health services based on evaluated best‑practice; the inclusion of the study of eating disorders in university medical courses, to ensure that all medical professionals receive comprehensive training in identification and treatment; the development of evidence‑based prevention programs in school, community and home settings to reduce the risk factors associated with eating disorders and to promote healthy body image and positive self-esteem; and calls on the Government, together with State Governments: to convene a national forum on body image, which draws together the media, fashion and advertising industries, medical professionals and school and community groups and acts to develop strategies for addressing the body image crisis; and to develop a media code of conduct on body image in consultation with the media, that will, among other things, require the classification of ‘pro-ana’ websites so that they can be banned or filtered out. 137 Questions in Writing 137 137 2999 137 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 7 February 2006: What is the Government doing in relation to the failure of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to properly monitor Westpoint Mezzanine Companies. What assistance will he give to those self-funded retirees who invested in good faith and have lost their retirement savings in Westpoint Mezzanine Companies. 137 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) does not accept the assertion that it has failed to properly monitor the Westpoint Mezzanine Companies. ASIC began monitoring Westpoint’s fundraising activities in 2002, and commenced regulatory action in 2003. ASIC then instigated formal court proceedings in early 2004 regarding its fundraising activities. In connection with this court case ASIC also wrote to each investor in the two fundraising schemes providing the subject matter of the case informing them of ASIC’s court action and outlining the nature of its concerns about the Westpoint mezzanine financings. ASIC also at various times placed warnings on its website alerting investors to the risks of putting money into high-yield debt instruments, with the first such release occurring in May 2003. In 2005 ASIC made applications for the winding up of certain Westpoint entities to the courts after receiving evidence that they were insolvent. The courts agreed to these applications, which has resulted in the end of all fundraising activities by the group. ASIC subsequently commenced investigations into the conduct of a number of parties involved in operating and promoting the Westpoint mezzanine finance schemes. Action has been started against a number of the main Westpoint directors, including group founder Mr Norman Carey. ASIC has obtained a court order freezing the personal assets of these individuals and barring them from leaving the country while its investigations continue. Those orders have since been extended. ASIC has also announced that it is investigating the conduct of financial advisers involved in promoting the Westpoint schemes and that appropriate action will be taken if breaches of the law are found to have occurred. ASIC acted to prevent one of the main promoters of the Westpoint schemes, Mr Neil Burnard, from leaving the country. Mr Burnard’s assets have been frozen pending further investigations by ASIC. ASIC continues to investigate all aspects of the collapse of the Westpoint group of companies. Heavy penalties, both civil and criminal, apply to persons who may be in breach of their obligations under the Corporations Act 2001. Anyone found to be in breach of the law will be referred by ASIC to the Director of Public Prosecutions for prosecution. The Australian Government made appropriate provisions in its 2006 Budget to ensure that ASIC has the necessary funding to pursue cases such as Westpoint. In particular, ASIC has received additional funding of $30 million per annum for the investigation and litigation of exceptional matters of significant public interest. Total additional funding of $234.6 million over the next four years has been made available to ASIC through the Budget. ASIC’s actions since its insolvency applications to the courts have been principally intended to ensure that all assets and funds that are rightfully owned by Westpoint creditors are preserved for distribution to them. This is the reason for ASIC’s applications to appoint liquidators to some of the mezzanine finance companies and also to the Westpoint parent company, all of which were agreed to by the courts. ASIC is now as a matter of urgency also considering the position of Westpoint directors, company officers, advisers and auditors to determine what further action could be taken. In April 2006 ASIC obtained court orders freezing the assets of the main Westpoint directors, including group founder Norman Carey, and banning them from leaving the country. Those orders remain in force. These orders were made based on evidence submitted by ASIC indicating fraudulent attempts to move company assets beyond the reach of creditors. ASIC’s actions may have the potential to lead to the further recovery of funds for distribution to creditors. It is, however, too early at this stage to speculate on possible outcomes due to the ongoing nature of ASIC’s investigations. ASIC is helping investors in claiming compensation from financial advisers who gave them defective advice. ASIC has put together detailed advice for Westpoint investors on how to claim compensation from such advisers. This advice is available through ASIC’s website or upon telephone request. ASIC has announced that it will closely monitor the response of these advisers to ensure that client complaints and claims for compensation are dealt with quickly and fairly. 138 138 3570 138 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 24 May 2006: Will he confirm that he has received my letter dated 28 April 2006 on behalf of my constituents, Mr and Mrs David Johnston of Strathfield, concerning the collapse of Westpoint Constructions Pty Ltd. Why has he not answered the questions posed by Mr and Mrs Johnston. When can my constituents expect to receive an answer on these serious matters. 138 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I can confirm that the letter was received. and (3) An answer was provided by the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer on 26 July 2006. 138 138 3589 138 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 30 May 2006: Is he aware that investors are being directed to invest money into high-risk investments such as Westpoint by financial advisers who are in receipt of sales commissions as large as 10 percent. Has he read the editorial titled ‘ASIC: more required’ from the Australian Financial Review of 21 April 2006 which stated, inter alia, that the relationship between fund managers and investment retailers is so structurally intimate that disclosure alone is not enough. Will the Government regulate a cap on financial planners’ sales commissions, and require all commissions received by any party in a transaction to be disclosed to investors; if not, why not. 138 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is giving particular attention to the conduct of financial advisers who promoted the Westpoint investments to retail clients. The conduct of these persons is strictly regulated under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act). ASIC will take appropriate action against any advisers found guilty of breaching their obligations under the Act. The Government strongly encourages the provision of quality financial advice to consumers and has a strong record of backing this up with effective regulation. The key consideration is that there should be a correlation between the value of the advice given and the amount paid to the adviser, regardless of whether the payment occurs upfront or later through commission structures. Simplistic measures such as prohibiting commissions could lead to entire groups of consumers losing access to financial advice. In order to ensure that all Australian consumers have access to financial advice the best approach is therefore to encourage financial advisers to avoid conflicts of interest but, where unavoidable, to manage and disclose them to consumers. ASIC is working with industry to develop best practice guidance to advisers in this regard. There are indications that industry is moving away from pure sales commissions towards a model based on payment for performance of specified services. The existing law already requires the disclosure of all commission payments in a transaction. This requirement was introduced by the Government as part of the Financial Services Reform legislation passed in 2001. As stated above, the Government does not believe that introducing a cap on commissions or prohibiting them altogether is an appropriate measure for the reasons noted in the answer to question (2). 139 139 3590 139 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 30 May 2006: Is he aware of reports that Denise Brailey, president of the Real Estate Consumer Association Inc, raised concerns with ASIC about Westpoint’s use of promissory notes as early as 2001. Did ASIC receive complaints in August and December 2003 about Westpoint’s investment seminar activities; if so, what are the details of the complaints. Were any other complaints lodged with ASIC or the ACCC prior to June 2004 regarding Westpoint’s activities, the conduct of Westpoint directors, or the conduct of financial planners in receipt of commissions from the Westpoint group; if so, what are the details of the complaints. Was action taken by ASIC or the ACCC on each of the occasions prior to June 2004 on which concerns were raised about the activities and conduct of the Westpoint group, or those affiliated with the Westpoint group; if so, what action was taken; if not, why not. Will the Government fund a legal class action to help investors recover losses from Westpoint, Westpoint group directors, financial planners in receipt of Westpoint commissions or their insurance companies; if not, why not. 139 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ASIC has advised that prior to its May 2004 media release announcing action on mezzanine finance, 12 reports were received from the public concerning various entities in the Westpoint group, including a telephone call from Ms Brailey. However ASIC has no record of receiving a formal written complaint or other evidence from Ms Brailey to support her verbal complaint. No. ASIC has advised it received 7 complaints between August and December 2003 raising various concerns about mezzanine financing as a ‘type’ of fundraising and the issue of whether it is (or should be) a regulated product subject to Corporations Act licensing and disclosure requirements. None of the complaints during that period raised concerns about investment redemption, solvency or seminar activity. and (4) The ACCC has advised that, prior to June 2004, it received 19 consumer complaints and inquiries regarding Westpoint’s activities. As the complaints and inquiries were not within ACCC’s jurisdiction, the parties were advised to direct their correspondence or inquiries to ASIC. ASIC has advised that, prior to June 2004, it received: one complaint in 1999 and one in 2000 raising concerns on whether the particular promissory note involved was a regulated product requiring formal disclosure under the Corporations Law; two complaints in 2002 regarding the same issue, and whether the Westpoint product required an ASIC license for its promotion and sale; and seven complaints in 2003 (as noted in Q2 above) and one in early 2004 raising the following issues: whether the promissory note is a regulated product; the problem of non-completion of fit-out for Westpoint project apartments and movement of monies between property developments in order to complete projects; the failed sale of a Westpoint apartment by a complainant; whether a license was required to promote or sell the Westpoint product; failure of one Westpoint entity to hold an AGM and lodge a financial report; and concerns in relation to the offer of refinance by a Westpoint entity. These complaints culminated in the Westpoint mezzanine finance action announced by ASIC in May 2004. In late 2003 and early 2004, ASIC entered into talks with Westpoint aimed at bringing the group’s fundraising within the protections of the Corporations Act. ASIC was not aware of the apparently large scale involvement of licensed financial planners advising on Westpoint products. Following the failure of these talks, ASIC started legal proceedings in May 2004 to argue that the funds should have been raised in accordance with the Corporations Act disclosure regime. In mid-2004, ASIC required many of the companies involved in the Westpoint Group to file independently audited financial statements. These statements reported that the companies were solvent and were signed off by the independent auditors as true and correct, without qualification. In 2004 and early 2005, some investors raised concerns about delayed redemption of investments and income distributions. However, in the course of ASIC making enquiries into these complaints, these investors were paid by the relevant Westpoint entity. Subsequent to the publicity surrounding ASIC’s actions in late 2005, ASIC began to receive large numbers of complaints which suggested that advisers may have been providing investors with inappropriate or inadequate advice about Westpoint. ASIC is currently investigating the activities of these advisers, including how Westpoint was included on their approved product lists, and what commissions they earned. (5)   Under section 50 of the ASIC Act, ASIC can cause civil proceedings to be commenced and carried on in the name of persons in certain circumstances. In order to exercise this power, ASIC must have already undertaken an investigation or examination (under the ASIC Act) of the breaches. In that regard, ASIC’s Westpoint related investigations have not yet been finalised. ASIC is also alert to other ways in which assistance may be provided to investors, including by pursuing regulatory proceedings that may result in a court making findings of fact that may assist any subsequent private actions (such as through section 12GG of the ASIC Act). 140 140 3783 140 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 22 June 2006: Will he provide the directions made to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to Section 95G of the Trade Practices Act 1974 since 2003. 140 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There have been no directions made to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to Section 95G of the Trade Practices Act 1974 since 2003. 141 141 3926 141 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 14 August 2006: What sum of the $20 million allocated to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to implement and administer the Dawson trade practices amendments has been spent to date. What sum of the unexpended portion of the $20 million referred to in part (1) relates to the implementation of schedule 1 measures in Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2005. 141 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The amount expended by the ACCC to implement and administer the amendments in the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No 1) 2005 (TPLA Bill (No 1) 2005) in 2005‑06 was $1.1m. Of the unexpended amount of the $20 million referred to in question (1), $2.2m relates to the implementation of schedule 1 measures in the TPLA Bill (No 1) 2005. 141 141 4121 141 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 7 September 2006: What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office in 2005-06? What was the name and postal address of each media monitoring company engaged by the Minister’s office? 141 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: In 2005-06 the total sum of media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office was $16,606. Media Monitors Australia Pty Ltd 131 Canberra Avenue Griffith ACT 2611 Rehame Australia Monitoring Services Pty Ltd 33 Flinders Way Manuka ACT 2603 141 141 4133 141 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 7 September 2006: What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office in 2005-06. What was the name and postal address of each media monitoring company engaged by the Minister’s office. 142 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 sum spent by the Minister for Education, Science and Training’s office on media monitoring and clipping services was $8,497 (GST exclusive). This amount includes the cost of transcription services. The name and postal address of each media monitoring company, including transcription services, engaged by the office of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, was as follows: Company name Postal address Media Monitors Australia Pty Ltd PO Box 2110 Strawberry Hills NSW 2012 Bytext PO Box 3115 Manuka ACT 2603 142 142 4143 142 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister for Workforce Participation, in writing, on 7 September 2006: What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office in 2005-06. What was the name and postal address of each media monitoring company engaged by the Minister’s office. 142 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 Dr Stone —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Media monitoring and clipping services are engaged by the Department for use by the Minister and the Department. The sum of $11 883.90 was spent on media monitoring and clipping services for the office of the Minister for Workforce Participation in 2005-06. The name and postal address of the media monitoring company engaged was Media Monitors, PO Box 2110, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2012. 142 142 4145 142 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 7 September 2006: What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office in 2005-06. What was the name and postal address of each media monitoring company engaged by the Minister’s office. 142 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: In 2005-06 the total sum of media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the Minister’s office was $43,733. Media Monitors Australia Pty Ltd 131 Canberra Avenue Griffith ACT 2611 Rehame Australia Monitoring Services Pty Ltd 33 Flinders Way Manuka ACT 2603 143 143 4151 143 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 7 September 2006: What sum was spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio in 2005-06. Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio order newspaper clippings, television appearance transcripts or videos, radio transcripts or tapes on behalf of the Minister’s office in 2005-06; if so, what sum was spent by the department or agency on providing this service. 143 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: In 2005-06 the total sum spent on media monitoring and clipping services engaged by the department and agencies in the Minister’s portfolio was $387,288. This amount includes $71,265 spent by the Australian Electoral Commission and $43,230 spent by the Australian Reward Investment Alliance, and covers both electronic media monitoring and a hard copy clipping service provided by media companies. The department occasionally orders transcripts on behalf of the Minister’s office, but the individual costs of these are not separately identified in departmental systems. No items were ordered by portfolio agencies in 2005-06. 143 143 4282 143 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 12 September 2006: Does his department plan to move from its current premises. From 9 May to 12 September 2006, (a) what relocation costs have been incurred by his department and (b) how many work hours have been lost due to relocation. 143 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 Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Human Services does not plan to move from its current premises. Over the period 9 May to 12 September 2006, the Department incurred relocation costs of $62,000 for removalist and project management costs. A total of 300 hours were lost due to the relocation. These costs relate to the move from the Burns Centre to Computer Associates House and 65 Canberra Avenue in July 2006. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 2 hours at an estimated cost of $140. 143 143 4338 143 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 Mr Garrett asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 13 September 2007: Since January 2003, how many Telstra payphones have been (a) removed from, (b) relocated in, and (c) installed in the postcode area (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2031, (v) 2032, (vi) 2033, (vii) 2034, (viii) 2035 and (ix) 2036. What criteria does Telstra use to determine the (a) siting, (b) relocation, and (c) removal of payphones. What plans does Telstra have to (a) install, (b) relocate, and (c) remove payphones in the postcode area (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2031, (v) 2032, (vi) 2033, (vii) 2034, (viii) 2035 and (ix) 2036. How many Telstra payphones are there in the federal electorate of Kingsford Smith. What is the greatest distance between payphones in the electoral division of Kingsford Smith. 144 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: On 8 June 2006, the Minister publicly announced a number of initiatives to provide customers with a better understanding of their rights in relation to payphone services, improve Telstra’s processes, and improve consumer access to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in its compliance role. These initiatives have resulted in Telstra providing information about a consumer’s right to have reasonable access to a payphone and enhancing its payphone removal consultation processes. Telstra has also consulted with low income groups regarding proposed payphone removals, and ACMA has improved its existing processes to provide a clear complaints process in relation to Telstra’s adherence to its payphone commitments. Telstra has advised that it will provide a response to this question directly to the Member for Kingsford Smith. Telstra must consider the criteria specified in its Standard Marketing Plan (SMP), which is approved by ACMA, in making payphone installation, relocation and removal decisions. Section 3.8 of the SMP specifies the criteria for the provision of Telstra payphones, with clauses 3.8.2 and 3.8.3 specifically dealing with removals and relocations respectively. Telstra’s SMP is available publicly at www.telstra.com.au/universalservice/docs/uso_smp.pdf. Telstra has advised that it will provide a response to this question directly to the Member for Kingsford Smith. Telstra has advised that it will provide a response to this question directly to the Member for Kingsford Smith. Telstra has advised that it will provide a response to this question directly to the Member for Kingsford Smith. 144 144 4360 144 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 14 September 2006: How many freedom of information applications has 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. 145 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: and (2): Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources and Geoscience Australia Financial Year Requests Received Released in full Released in Part Released Not at all 2000-01 35 13 14 0 2001-02 16 2 4 0 2002-03 21 2 11 0 2003-04 33 5 14 3 2004-05 28 7 14 2 2005-06 25 6 9 3 Tourism Australia Financial Year Requests Received Released in full Released in Part Released Not at all 2000-01 2 0 0 2 2001-02 0 N/A N/A N/A 2002-03 0 N/A N/A N/A 2003-04 0 N/A N/A N/A 2004-05 0 N/A N/A N/A 2005-06 3 0 2 1 IP Australia Financial Year Requests Received Released in full Released in Part Released Not at all 2000-01 831 648 170 1 2001-02 856 630 212 0 2002-03 797 559 245 0 2003-04 603 303 109 4 2004-05 785 575 134 1 2005-06 694 595 122 0 National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority Financial Year Requests Received Released in full Released in Part Released Not at all 2000-01 0 N/A N/A N/A 2001-02 0 N/A N/A N/A 2002-03 0 N/A N/A N/A 2003-04 0 N/A N/A N/A 2004-05 0 N/A N/A N/A 2005-06 0 N/A N/A N/A   No, the Minister’s Department has not issued any conclusive certificates since 1 July 1996. N/A. 146 146 4367 146 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, 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. 146 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number of freedom of information applications received in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and related agencies 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. No. Not applicable 146 146 4397 146 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: How many credit cards have been issued to employees of the Minister’s department and agencies in each financial year since 1 July 2000. Of the credit cards identified in Part (1): (a) how many have been reported lost; (b) how many have been reported stolen; (c) have any been subject to fraud; if so, what was the total cost of each fraud incident; (d) what is the average credit limit for each financial year; (e) what was the total amount of interest accrued; and (f) have any employees been subjected to criminal proceedings as a result of credit card fraud. 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: Department of Transport and Regional Services: The Department no longer has records of the numbers of cards issued to employees for all financial years. The average numbers of cards on issue in 2004-05 was 950, and in 2005-06 was 1100. As at 31 January 2007, of the 1,116 cards on issue, 734 are for travel expenses only, and 382 are used for purchasing as well as travel expenses. and  (b) The number of credit cards reported lost or stolen: 2000-01, Not available 2001-02, Not available 2002-03, 8 2003-04, 15 2004-05, 53 2005-06, 27 2006-07, 14 The number of credit cards subject to fraud: 2000-01, Nil 2001-02, Nil 2002-03, Nil 2003-04, 1 2004-05, 23 2005-06, 5 2006-07, 2 There was no financial loss for any of these transactions as they were externally generated and the card provider credited the fraudulent transactions. The standard credit card limit is currently $15,000. The balances held against credit cards are cleared at the end of each month and therefore do not incur any interest charges. No. Australian Maritime Safety Authority: 170 credit cards currently are issued to AMSA staff and similar numbers were issued in the preceding financial years. and (b) Nil cards reported lost or stolen. One. No financial loss as the card provider covered the cost of the fraudulent transaction. Credit limits are: Senior Executives, $10,000 Other staff, $5,000 Nil. No. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Information on credit cards issued for prior years are not kept. Numbers of Credit Cards on issue as at 9 November 2006: Travel Card, 479 Purchasing Card, 57 Contract Managers Card, 23 Petty Cash Card, 24 Total, 583 and (b) Lost Stolen 2000-01 0 2 2001-02 6 1 2002-03 9 2 2003-04 14 10 2004-05 11 4 2005-06 13 1 2006-07 3 0 The amounts of each fraud incident are set out below: 2000-01, Nil 2001-02, Nil 2002-03, $18,494.74 (amount refunded by card provider) 2002-03, $440.00 2002-03, $5,230.74 2004-05, Nil 2005-06, $6,000.00 (amount refunded by card provider) 2005-06, $9,500.00 (amount refunded by card provider) 2005-06, $1,100.00 (amount refunded by card provider) 2005-06, $600.00 (amount refunded by card provider) 2005-06, $1,371.00 (amount refunded by card provider) 2006-07, $348.98 (amount refunded by card provider) Average limits per card: Travel Card, $7,685.80 Purchasing Card, $11,368.42 Contract Managers Card, $11,304.35 Petty Cash Card, $1,166.67 This information not kept for prior years. CASA does not pay any interest on outstanding credit card balances as the balance is cleared each month when it is due. No. Airservices Australia: The total numbers of cards on issue are: 2001-02, 903 2002-03, 947 2003-04, 984 2004-05, 1407 2005-06, 864 and (b) 68 cards lost, 23 cards reported stolen. During 1999 to 2001, one card was subject to fraud up to $43,000. Business Purchasing 2001-02 $14,189 $26,465 2002-03 $28,378 $62,021 2003-04 $31,923 $47,200 2004-05 $17,483 $49,945 2005-06 $18,837 0 (No Purchasing cards) Total interest accrued is $12,678.84. Yes. National Capital Authority: The number of credit cards held by employees as at 30 June each year: 2000-01, 1 2001-02, 1 2002-03, 7 2003-04, 9 2004-05, 8 2005-06, 12 and (b) Nil cards reported lost or stolen. No incidents of fraud. Upper limit of all credit cards as at 30 June in each year: 2000-01, $10,000 2001-02, $10,000 2002-03, $21,000 2003-04, $32,000 2004-05, $33,000 2005-06, $70,000 Nil interest accrued. No. 149 149 4448 149 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of fuel purchases for all Commonwealth cars operated by the Minister’s department and agencies. 150 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:     Year Dept of Veterans Affairs Australian War Memorial 2000-01 $221,890.16 $34,976.67 2001-02 $225,600.28 $62,191.90 2002-03 $223,697.42 $42,835.97 2003-04 $219,429.23 $31,241.98 2004-05* $237,675.92 $30,856.76 2005-06 $242,211.18 $24,175.62 *Note: That salary packages for cars in the Australian War Memorial since 2004-05 have fuel costs included as part of monthly lease costs and so the cost of fuel is no longer reported separately. 150 150 4508 and 4510 150 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 14 September 2006: In respect of the secondment to the Minister’s office of a Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) , what is the (a) average, (b) shortest and (c) longest period of secondment and (d) what is the total number of DLOs that have been employed in the Minister’s office since 1 July 2000. 150 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: DFAT and AusAID second DLOs to my office and DFAT and Austrade second DLOs to Mr Truss’s office. DFAT 1 year and 99 days 42 days 3 years and 117 days 12 AusAID 1 year and 208 days 1 year 2 years 4 Austrade 2 years 1 year and 336 days 2 years and 62 days 4 151 151 4619 151 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, on how many occasions have departmental employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation. In each instance identified in Part (1), (a) what action was action taken against the employee and (b) if the unauthorised access involved customer records, in how many instances was the customer notified. Are employees able to access personal or customer files without (a) being detected, or (b) leaving a record of their access. What auditing procedures exist to monitor employee access to files and records. 151 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: A review of DEST’s systems has found no evidence of departmental employees accessing customer files or records without proper authorisation. Not Applicable and (4) DEST databases do not typically contain sensitive customer information. DEST systems are subject to multi layered safeguards to protect the systems and data from inappropriate access encompassing policy, procedural, system, and privacy and probity training measures. Where appropriate, audit logs monitor changes that may be made to information and these logs are monitored by program managers. In addition, DEST has a program of compliance analysis projects and IT audits which, inter alia, examine issues of appropriate privacy, access, change control and monitoring of DEST databases and systems. 151 151 4621 151 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, on how many occasions have departmental employees accessed files or records without proper authorisation. In each instance identified in Part(1), (a) what action was taken against the employee and (b) if the unauthorised access involved customer records, in how many instances was the customer notified. Are employees able to access personal or customer files without (a) being detected, or (b) leaving a record of their access. What auditing procedures exist to monitor employee access to files and records. 151 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) My Department advises that for the financial years since Jul 2000 there have been no recorded instances of departmental employees accessing files or records without proper authorisation. The Department has a number of policies and procedures in place to safeguard veterans’ personal information and mitigate against the risk of unauthorised use. These policies and procedures formally advise staff that they must not access records out of personal interest or curiosity nor allow unauthorised persons to access the files as this may constitute a breach of the Privacy Act or the Crimes Act 1914. Departmental staff are advised that they must only access records which have privacy or security classifications if they have the authority to view them, and, where applicable, an appropriate level of security clearance. Access to the Department’s client hard copy records is controlled through the its Records Management Systems with movements of records between staff members recorded. Each staff member is responsible for the secure storage of client records in their custody and for ensuring access by other departmental staff is supervised and appropriate. All transfers of the records are required to be recorded through the Records Mangement System. My Department also has several major computer systems which contain client and private information. The Department controls access to information by controlling access to each system and through IT Security Plans for each system. System access must be authorised by relevant business managers. The Australian War Memorial holds electronic and hard copy personal files relating to Memorial employees. Access to both electronic and hard copy files is restricted to members of the People Management Section. Employees are able to access their own information upon request. The Memorial does not hold customer files but does retain customer records including name, address, purchases and payment details both electronically and in hard copy. Access to this information is restricted and audited annually by the ANAO. System access by staff is monitored through activity logs which can detect events such as unauthorised login attempts, excessive login attempts, firewall activity and mainframe computer access. This analysis can also monitor user access to selected sensitive IT systems and files. Logging facilities associated with specific systems are able to provide visibility on what information is accessed. My Department is currently reviewing its information security arrangements to ensure that policy and procedures are understood and that facilities for monitoring for inappropriate access are adequate and are being used effectively. Within the Australian War Memorial the human resource and financial management system (SAP) has a detailed audit trail which keeps records of access to personal information and customer records. Access to the electronic records is audited fortnightly by the Memorial and annually by the ANAO. 152 152 4685 152 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Why has the review into the operation of the Tourist Refund Scheme, which was supposed to report at the beginning of this year, not been made available and when will it be made available. What refunds were made under the Tourist Refund Scheme over the past five years, in total dollars, to how many departing passengers, at each of Australia’s international air and sea ports. What staffing provision has been made for the administration of the Tourist Refund Scheme and refund of GST payments over the past five years at each of Australia’s international air and sea ports. Has a count, or estimate, been made of the number of departing passengers unable to receive a refund because of lack of time before their plane or ship has to depart, over the past five years at each of Australia’s international air and sea ports; if so, what was the outcome of that count or estimate. What is the Government’s best estimate of the GST dollar amount not returned to tourists as a result of their failure to claim their refund under the Tourist Refund Scheme. What is the Minister’s response to the perception that Australian Customs is deliberately understaffing this function to avoid having to refund GST payments to departing passengers. 153 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Government will make an announcement on the Review of the Administrative Arrangements for Tourist Shopping at an appropriate time. The TRS refund ($) amount and number of claims at each Australian air and sea port are at Attachment 1.         TRS refund figures may vary slightly from published figures, due to TRS systems changes during the period requested, including a transition from manual to electronic processing in 2003 and post entry amendments to claims. Staffing figures for the administration of the TRS at each air and sea port are not available as the individual officers who spend time on this activity also carry out a range of other Customs activities. (For the period 2001-2006 staffing numbers range from 86 – 110). Figures on tourists who fail to participate in the scheme are not available. An estimate is not able to be made as figures on tourists who fail to participate in the scheme are not available. I am not aware of the perception that Australian Customs is deliberately understaffing the TRS function.         ATTACHMENT 1   2001/2006 FY 2001/2006 FY TOTAL NO. CLAIMS TOTAL REFUND ACT CANBERRA AIRPORT 78 8,742   FAIRBAIRN RAAF BASE 6 1,586   MAIL BACK SERVICE PROVIDER 6,350 1,002,615   TOURIST REFUND OFFICE 2,190 1,134,280   Total 8,624 2,147,223 NSW COFFS HARBOUR AIRPORT 1 105   COFFS HARBOUR SEAPORT 26 8,174   EDEN SEAPORT 1 40   LORD HOWE ISLAND SEAPORT 1 200   NEWCASTLE SEAPORT 36 8,885   NOWRA AIRPORT 1 46   RICHMOND RAAF BASE 20 1,303   SYDNEY AIRPORT 907,673 115,929,482   SYDNEY SEAPORT 9,131 1,059,434   Total 916,890 117,007,669 NT ALICE SPRINGS AIRPORT 19 952   AYRES ROCK AIRPORT 3 204   DARWIN AIRPORT 11,785 1,280,379   DARWIN HARBOUR 1,555 273,663   GOVE SEAPORT 2 429   TINDAL RAAF BASE 10 822   Total 13,374 1,556,449 QLD AMBERLEY RAAF BASE 68 7,385   BRISBANE AIRPORT 296,135 33,544,304   BRISBANE SEAPORT 1,905 205,038   BUNDABERG SEAPORT 21 3,705   CAIRNS AIRPORT 145,172 13,865,675   CAIRNS HARBOUR 1,069 133,642   COOLANGATTA AIRPORT 18,347 2,057,800   GLADSTONE AIRPORT 4 365   GLADSTONE SEAPORT 16 1,663   HORN ISLAND AIRPORT 13 1,942   MACKAY AIRPORT 2 171   MACKAY SEAPORT 23 3,471   ROCKHAMPTON AIRPORT 163 13,545   THURSDAY ISLAND AIRPORT 2 541   THURSDAY ISLAND SEAPORT 14 1,995   TOWNSVILLE AIRPORT 260 29,901   TOWNSVILLE SEAPORT 75 13,410   Total 463,289 49,884,553 SA ADELAIDE AIRPORT 25,380 2,501,954   EDINBURGH RAAF BASE 17 1,354   Total 25,397 2,503,308 TAS BURNIE SEAPORT 54 7,935   HOBART AIRPORT 8 523   HOBART SEAPORT 1,581 217,564   LAUNCESTON AIRPORT 3 2,075   LAUNCESTON SEAPORT 14 1,629   Total 1,660 229,726 VIC ESSENDON AIRPORT 345 45,186   MELBOURNE AIRPORT 362,738 44,198,508   MELBOURNE SEAPORT 1,568 174,391   Total 364,651 44,418,085 WA BROOME AIRPORT 11 1,006   BROOME SEAPORT 193 62,094   CARNARVON SEAPORT 3 509   FREMANTLE 490 71,664   GERALDTON SEAPORT 2 60   KARRATHA AIRPORT 3 235   PEARCE RAAF BASE 2 108   PERTH AIRPORT 162,453 18,785,347   PORT HEDLAND AIRPORT 36 5,452   PORT HEDLAND SEAPORT 3 133   Total 163,196 18,926,608 Total No Claims   1,957,081   Total Refunds     236,673,621 NB: 1. This data may be subject to change 2. Figures are indicative due to the transfer of manual processing to electronic processing and post entry activity 155 155 4934 155 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 29 November 2006: Can he advise how many Commonwealth-funded, community-based transitional care services, which assist veterans transferring into aged care, exist in the federal electorate of Lowe; if so, what are their full details; if not, why not. Is he aware that the Beyond Home transitional care project in Sydney’s inner-west will be forced to abandon its services due to a lack of recurrent funding from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs; if not, why not. Will the Government amend the Veteran and Community Grant guidelines to allow for the provision of recurrent funding for projects that have demonstrably benefited veterans and the broader community in practical ways; if not, why not. What other ways may projects such as Beyond Homes apply for and receive recurrent financial support for services that have been successful at assisting veterans who are transferring into aged care. 155 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am unable to advise of the number of community-based transitional care services operating in the federal electorate of Lowe as the Transitional Care Program (TCP) is administered by the Department of Health and Ageing. The TCP, which is jointly funded by States and Territories and the Australian Government, assists people, including veterans, to improve their independence after a hospital stay, and to return home rather than enter residential aged care. The Beyond Home transitional care project is not a TCP service as it provides advice to elderly people on how to assess and access effective (residential) aged care services. The Inner West Neighbour Aid Inc was provided with seeding funding for two years through my Department’s Veteran and Community Grants. The organisation’s application for funding included a strategy to ensure the ongoing viability of the program, including seeking recurrent funding from other agencies. No. The Veteran and Community Grants is a small discretionary grants program and with only $2.9 million available in the 2006-07 financial year, it does not have the capacity to provide ongoing funding for projects. The purpose of these grants is to provide seeding funds for the development of projects that will become sustainable and financially viable. My Department’s Veterans and Community Grants program does not provide recurrent funding. It encourages self sustaining projects and advises on alternative sources of funding. My Department has advised that it has worked with Inner West Neighbour Aid Inc in an attempt to identify alternate sources of funding for this project. 156 156 5017 and 5019 156 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, 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 the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. 156 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: DFAT $358,866.00 $ 9,554.84 $161,263.51 $232,227.15 and excluding salaries there were no internal administrative costs additional to those incurred for delivery of the program (refer (b)). 100 per cent. A list of Departmental Liaison Officers is routinely provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Senate Estimates Hearings. AusAID $ 69,675.00 $ 27,825.00 $ 18,052.00 $ 32,098.00 and unable to provide internal administrative costs. 86 per cent. A list of Departmental Liaison Officers is routinely provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Senate Estimates Hearings. Austrade Nil - at present there is no Graduate Program in place at Austrade. Nil - at present there is no Graduate Program in place at Austrade. A list of Departmental Liaison Officers is routinely provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Senate Estimates Hearings. ACIAR Nil – there was no Graduate Program in place at ACIAR in 2006 or before that time. A small program was introduced in 2007. Not applicable. A list of Departmental Liaison Officers is routinely provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Senate Estimates Hearings. EFIC Nil - at present there is no Graduate Program in place at Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC). Nil - at present there is no Graduate Program in place at Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC). A list of Departmental Liaison Officers is routinely provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Senate Estimates Hearings. 157 157 5021 157 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Attorney-General, 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. 157 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Attorney-General’s Department The estimated cost was $2,308,088 which includes: $215,300¹ $1,879,429² $37,692 $161,531 $14,136. 69%. The Prime Minister will respond to this part of the question. Australian Customs Service The estimated cost was $1,003,176 which includes: $185,435¹ $501,588 $152,475² $103,678 $60,000³. ¹ Also includes marketing and advertising costs associated with the program ² Includes costs associated with recruitment centres and regional placements for graduates during their three month placements which also combine the cost of accommodation ³ Also includes the salary of the Graduate Co-ordinator 75%. The Prime Minister will respond to this part of the question. All figures are GST inclusive. No other agency within the portfolio conducted a Graduate Program in 2006. 158 158 5039 and 5041 158 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For the remainder of the 2006-07 financial year, how many additional staff does the Minister’s department and agencies expect to employ. For the 2006-07 financial year to date, what efficiency gains have been made by the Minister’s department and agencies. 158 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: DFAT Eighty-seven employees are expected to commence at DFAT between 23 March and the end of the 2006-07 financial year. The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. AusAID AusAID expects to employ 31 new staff before the end of the 2006-07 financial year. The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. Austrade Austrade expects to fill vacancies that arise between now and the end of the current financial year but has no plans to employ additional staff. The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. ACIAR One – a finance trainee at 10 hours per week. This will be for the duration of a study year only. The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Four The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. 158 158 5045 158 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For the remainder of the 2006-07 financial year, how many additional staff does the Minister’s department and agencies expect to employ. For the 2006-07 financial year to date, what efficiency gains have been made by the Minister’s department and agencies. 159 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: The department does not expect any net increase in staff for the remainder of the 2006-07 financial year. The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. 159 159 5047 159 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 6 December 2006: For the remainder of the 2006‑07 financial year, how many additional staff does the Minister’s department and agencies expect to employ. For the 2006‑07 financial year to date, what efficiency gains have been made by the Minister’s department and agencies. 159 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: Department or Agency Additional Staff The Department of Industry, Tourism & Resources 18 Geoscience Australia 22 IP Australia 5 National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority 4 Tourism Australia 8 The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to this part of the question. 159 159 5051 159 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 the remainder of the 2006-07 financial year, how many additional staff does the Minister’s department and agencies expect to employ. For the 2006-07 financial year to date, what efficiency gains have been made by the Minister’s department and agencies. 159 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: My department is not expecting any material change in staffing levels over the remainder of the 2006-07 financial year. The Minister for Finance and Administration will respond to the second part of the question. 159 159 5077 and 5079 159 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, 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 all (a) landline and (b) mobile telephone calls. 160 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Following are the total costs for Canberra based landline and mobile services (rental and call costs). To identify call costs alone would require a significant diversion of resources. To provide the detailed information sought from each post and state and territory office would entail a significant diversion of resources and, in these circumstances, I do not consider the additional work can be justified. Landline telephone calls Landline call charges generated through the R G Casey PABX in Canberra, excluding any reimbursement for personal calls and services managed on behalf of Other Government Organisations were: 2004-05 - $3.896 m 2005-06 - $3.394 m During this period, the roll-out of the Voicenet system, which allows DFAT to make calls to posts overseas using our internal communications network, together with the major clean up of redundant lines and introduction of dedicated voice links between agencies, significantly reduced domestic and international telephone call costs. Mobile telephone calls Canberra based mobile phones, excluding any reimbursement for personal use were: 2004-05 - $1.572 m 2005-06 – $1.801 m Trials during 2005-06 of Smart Phone and Blackberry technologies, to support mobile officers, contributed to the increase in 2005-06 mobile costs. 160 160 5081 160 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Attorney-General, 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 all (a) landline and (b) mobile telephone calls. 160 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department is unable to provide separate information for landline and mobile telephone calls as all telephone and communication expenses are charged to a single general ledger account. Charges made to this account also include blackberry handset costs and hire, mobile phone car kits and installation costs, broadband access for work from home employees, video conference fees, switchboard and voice outgoing services. The total cost to the Attorney-General’s Department for all telephone calls and communication charges including GST for 2004-05 was $1,550,265.72, 2005-06 was $1,588,231.34, and 2006-07 is $1,190,293.33 as at 11 April 2007. 160 160 5084 160 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Defence, 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 all (a) landline and (b) mobile telephone calls. 161 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:   Financial Year Landline Call Costs Mobile Calls 2004/2005 $35,538,242 $8,447,685 2005/2006 $28,533,282 $7,977,435 2006/ March 2007 $21,020,353 $5,712,214 161 161 5133 161 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 7 December 2006: For each financial year from 1 July 2004, what was the total cost 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? 161 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Treasury has no recorded instances of missing departmental property for each financial year from 1 July 2004 to present. 161 161 5157 161 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Attorney-General, 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. 161 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The data is available for calendar years: 2004 - $112,713.10 2005 - $144,147.59 2006 - $165,492.52. 16 cars are owned and 58 are leased. None run on LPG. No. 161 161 5183 161 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, what was the total cost of paper purchased by the Minister’s department. Does the department have policies relating to duplex printing; if so, what are those details. 162 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 2004-05: $294,257; and 2005-06: $307,773 No. 162 162 5196 162 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Attorney-General, 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. 162 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My Department is not considering the use of auto-population technology to enable the exchange of personal details and particulars between departments. 162 162 5222 162 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 since 1 July 2004, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on (a) electricity and (b) water. Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the department instigated to reduce electricity and water usage. 162 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 2004/2005 FY $1,008,250.30 2005/2006 FY $940,577.05 2004/2005 FY – Disaggregated data is not available in electronic format for the 2004/2005 Financial Year. 2005/2006 FY $57,359.43 The Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry (DAFF) is currently in the process of developing an Environmental Management Program and it is anticipated that a key element of this will be the monitoring of water consumption and the implementation of water saving initiatives. DAFF also intends investigating opportunities for metering of water that it directly consumes although this is expected to be a long term initiative given that in many instances it will not be possible to separately meter DAFF consumption due to piping configurations and/or space limitations. DAFF central office is moving to new premises in October 2007. Electricity and water saving initiatives in the new buildings include: T5 lighting that switches off after hours and in specific areas when not in use; Automated blinds to control heat gain and reduce air-conditioning costs; External gardens that will reduce air-conditioning costs; Rainwater collection for reuse (an expected 30% saving in water consumption); Stormwater retention and reuse for irrigation, wash down and cooling towers; No flush/waterless urinals and toilets flushed with rainwater; Infrared sensors for hand taps (operates only when hands are under spout); and 4A rated toilets (4.5L/3L full/half flush). 163 163 5285 163 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 7 December 2006: How many ministerial and departmental media releases were drafted by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. Approximately how many hours did it take departmental staff to draft all media releases in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. What was the estimated cost to the department of drafting all media releases in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. Have any media releases drafted by departmental staff at the DVA been critical of ALP policy, statements or members. 163 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 2005 – 123,  2006 – 125. The length of time to draft a media release is determined by the complexity of the issue at hand and various other factors. It varies from 10 minutes to over an hour, depending on the issue. It is not possible to determine the approximate time spent on this specific task, as public affairs staff also perform a variety of other tasks. The staff that carry out drafting of media releases also draft many other forms of public affairs material and therefore it is not possible to determine the cost of drafting media releases as a separate cost. No. The Department ensures that the public is issued with accurate information and this may include refuting statements that contain incorrect information. 163 163 5286 163 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 7 December 2006: How many ministerial speeches were drafted by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. Approximately how many approximate hours did it take departmental staff to draft all ministerial speeches in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. What was the estimated cost to the department of drafting all ministerial speeches in (a) 2005 and (b) 2006. Have any ministerial speeches drafted by departmental staff at the DVA been critical of ALP policy, statements or members. 163 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence 1 Mr Billson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 2005 – 79,  2006 – 56. The length of time to draft a speech is determined by the type of event the Minister is attending. It varies from 20 minutes to several hours. It is not possible to determine the total approximate time spent on this task, as public affairs staff also perform a variety of other tasks. The staff that carry out drafting of speeches also draft many other forms of public affairs material and therefore it is not possible to determine the cost of drafting speeches as a separate cost. No. The Department’s aim in drafting speeches is to ensure that information conveyed is accurate and up-to-date. 164 164 5298 164 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 Ms Livermore asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 6 February 2007: In respect of the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) Annual Report 2005-06, Appendix 4, contract No. 76569 titled “Tuition Assurance Scheme (TAS) Review 2006”, can she advise (a) when the review will be completed and (b) whether the findings will be made public. Does the TAS review include recommendations to reduce the number of Ministerial Exemptions from TAS membership that are granted. 164 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 purpose of the Tuition Assurance Scheme (TAS) Review contract (number 76569) was to obtain relevant stakeholder views in relation to recommendations relating to the operations of TASs flowing from the independent evaluation of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000. The terms of the consultancy contract were fulfilled by 30 June 2006. The purpose of the TAS Review was to inform the Department’s policy development in relation to the recommendations from the ESOS evaluation and was not intended for publication. Reducing the number of Ministerial exemptions was not in the scope of the contract. 164 164 5335 164 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr Tanner asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 6 February 2007: What was the Budget appropriation for Australian Education International (AEI) for the financial year 2006-2007, and what are the projected estimates for each financial year from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. What are the fee-for-service estimates for AEI for each financial year from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010. For what activities does AEI charge a fee-for-service and who are its main clients. 164 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 Budget appropriations administered through Australian Education International (AEI) for the financial year 2006-2007 are identified in the Portfolio Budget Statements, 2006-07, Education, Science and Training Portfolio. The information for Administered Programmes is at page 117, Appendix 3: Administered Items (Detail) – Outcome 3, Output 3.3. The information for Higher Education Contributions to Australian Education International is at page 116, Appendix 2: Administered Items (Detail) – Outcome 2, Output 2.4. The fee-for-service estimates for AEI for each financial year from 2006-2007 to 2009-2010 are as follows:                  Total 2006-2007 $2.174m 2007-2008 $2.240m 2008-2009 $2.240m 2009-2010 $2.240m AEI charges a fee-for-service for the following services and clients: Consultancy services offered by the Department’s international network and tailored to the needs of individual clients within the Australian international education and training industry. A Market Information Package (MIP) provided through a secure website to institutions registered under the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) and to other stakeholders in the Australian international education and training industry. Selected publications including market research reports. Onshore and offshore events which support the needs of individual stakeholders in the Australian international education and training industry. Study-in-Australia promotional material for use by Australian institutions in the international promotion of those institutions. Country Educational Profiles (CEPs) Online, for Australian educational institutions, and the global education industry more broadly, to assist in their assessment of overseas educational qualifications. The AEI-NOOSR assessment of overseas educational qualifications of Australian residents. 165 165 5355 165 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 February 2007: On what date was Mr David Hicks arrested by US officials. On what date was Mr Hicks imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. On what date did the Australian Government first express its concern to the US Government that no charges had been laid against Mr Hicks and on what subsequent dates did the Australian Government reiterate this concern. 165 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Mr Hicks was transferred to US custody on or about 9 December 2001. Mr Hicks was transferred to Guantanamo Bay on 11 January 2002. Mr Hicks was listed by the US administration as eligible for military commission trial in July 2003. Since that time, the Government has consistently called on the US administration to expedite its handling of Mr Hicks’ case, including on the following occasions: January 2004 – the Attorney-General emphasised to the Pentagon the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; February 2004 - the Australian Embassy emphasised to the Pentagon the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; April 2004 - the Australian Embassy emphasised to the Pentagon the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; June 2004 – The Prime Minister raised with President Bush the Australian Government’s desire to ensure that the cases of Australians being held at Guantanamo were brought to finality. July 2004 – I raised with US Secretary of State Powell the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; August 2004 - the Australian Embassy emphasised to the Pentagon and the White House the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; March 2005 - the Australian Embassy emphasised to the US Administration the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; May 2005 – I raised with members of the US Administration the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; June 2005 - the Australian Embassy emphasised to the Pentagon, Department of Justice and the National Security Council the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; July 2005 – the Attorney-General raised with the US Attorney-General the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; May 2006 – The Prime Minister raised the delay in bringing Mr Hicks to trial before a military commission with senior figures in the US Administration, including with President Bush. September 2006 – the Attorney-General raised with the US Attorney-General the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; November 2006 - At an APEC leaders’ meeting in Hanoi, the Prime Minister expressed his concern to President Bush about the time taken to bring Mr Hicks to trial. November 2006 - the Australian Embassy emphasised to the Department of State and the Department of Justice the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; December 2006 – I raised with the US Secretary of State and Deputy Secretary of Defense the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; January 2007 – the Prime Minister raised in a telephone call with US President Bush the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case; February 2007 – I raised with the US Secretary of Defense the need to expedite Mr Hicks’ case. February 2007 – The Prime Minister reiterated in a telephone call to President Bush government concerns about the time taken to bring Mr Hicks to trial. February 2007 – The Prime Minister, in discussions with US Vice President Cheney, expressed the government’s dissatisfaction with the time taken to bring Mr Hicks to trial. 166 166 5361 166 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, in writing, on 7 February 2007: For each year from 2001 to 2006, and for each State and Territory, how many students (a) commenced and (b) completed the Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services. What is the average time taken to complete the Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services. 166 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: Data on Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services commencements is provided in the following table. 2005 data are the most current available.                 Student course commencements for the Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services, 2001-2005 by state 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NSW Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 0 Victoria Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 130 85 130 75 60 Queensland Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 60 35 170 125 130 South Australia Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services ‘C’ 15 5 5 ‘C’ Western Australia Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 0 Tasmania Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 ‘C’ 60 10 ‘C’ Northern Territory Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 0 Australian Capital Territory Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 ‘C’ 0 Source: Notes: NCVER Course Datacubes 2001-2005, unpublished data Due to confidentiality reasons ‘C’ represents figures 1-4 inclusive, due to rounding some figures may not sum. Note: The scope of the data is limited to training delivery by TAFE institutes and any publicly funded courses with community and private sector Registered Training Organisations. Zero commencements may indicate that the courses are not publicly funded in those states and territories. Data on Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services completions is provided in the following table. 2004 data is the most current available.                 Number of qualifications completed each year for the Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services, 2001-2004 by state 2001 2002 2003 2004 NSW Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 Victoria Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 40 25 20 35 Queensland Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services ‘C’ 45 40 30 South Australia Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 ‘C’ ‘C’ 5 Western Australia Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 Tasmania Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 5 ‘C’ 5 Northern Territory Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 Australian Capital Territory Total – Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services 0 0 0 0 Source: Notes: NCVER Course Datacubes., 2001-2005, unpublished data Due to confidentiality reasons ‘C’ represents figures 1-4 inclusive. Note: The scope of the data is limited to training delivery by TAFE institutes and any publicly funded courses with community and private sector Registered Training Organisations. Zero commencements may indicate that the courses are not publicly funded in those states and territories. No data is available for the average time to complete the Advanced Diploma of Children’s Services. 168 168 5400 168 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 12 February 2007: How many new jobs have been ‘created’ since the introduction of WorkChoices and of these (a) how many are categorized as (i) full-time, (ii) part-time or (iii) casual and what is the definition of each category; (b) how many are not categorised as full-time, part-time or casual and how are those positions categorised and defined; and (c) how many were filled by a person who (i) entered into a subsequently registered Australia Workplace Agreement, (ii) was employed in a position covered by a registered enterprise agreement or (iii) was employed under award conditions. 168 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ monthly Labour Force publication indicates that employment increased by 276 600 (or 2.7 per cent) between March 2006 (when WorkChoices commenced) and March 2007 (latest available data). The increase in employment over this period comprised 265 400 full-time jobs and 11 200 part-time positions.         Data is not available on the number of casual jobs created since the introduction of WorkChoices.         The Australia Bureau of Statistics defines full-time workers as persons who usually work         35 hours or more per week (in all jobs) or those who, despite usually working less than 35 hours a week, actually worked 35 hours or more during the survey reference week.         Part-time workers are defined as persons who usually work less than 35 hours per week (in all jobs) and either did so during the survey reference week, or were not at work in the reference week.         The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines a casual employee as one who does not receive paid leave entitlements. It has more recently included in the definition those who are in receipt of one form of paid leave entitlements but are self‑identifying as casuals. 1 This does not include owner managers of incorporated businesses (who are classified separately) or those who have no leave entitlements but are self-identifying as not being casually employed. All of the 276 600 jobs created since March 2006 have either been full-time or part-time jobs. As indicated in (a) above, data is not available on the number of casual jobs created since the introduction of WorkChoices. These data are not available. ———————— 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics Cat. No. 6102.0.55.001; Labour Statistics: Concepts, Sources and Methods (2006) 169 169 5401 169 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 12 February 2007: In respect of Australia’s existing international air services agreements: (a) what capacity is available to each international airline to travel to and from Australia; (b) is any capacity currently underutilised; and (c) did any of the carriers reduce their capacity to fly to and from Australia in the financial year (i) 2003-2004, (ii) 2004-2005, (iii) 2005-2006 and (iv) 2006-2007. 169 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: A list of capacity negotiated, utilised and currently unutilised under Australia’s bilateral air services agreements is at Attachment A. Yes. Yes. The capacity that airlines operate fluctuates seasonally and from year to year, depending on market conditions. The table at Attachment B compares seat capacity operated by each international airline from the years ended June 2003 to June 2006. Annual statistics are not yet available for the 2006-07 year. ATTACHMENT A Capacity negotiated and utilised under Australia’s Air Services Agreements and Arrangements   29 October 2006 – 24 March 2007 COUNTRY Australian capacity entitlement (per week) Capacity utilised by Australian carriers (per week) Unutilised capacity for Australian carriers (per week) Foreign capacity entitlement (per week) Capacity utilised by foreign carriers (per week) Unutilised capacity for foreign carriers (per week) ARGENTINA Passenger 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats 2800 seats 988 seats 1812 seats Freight 7 services Nil 7 services 7 services Nil 7 services AUSTRIA Passenger Unlimited Nil Unlimited 5200 seats 2781 seats 2419 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited BAHRAIN Passenger 12 services to and from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth (SMBP) 1 Unlimited to and from all other than points in Australia (Regional Package) 2 Nil Nil 12 Services Unlimited 7 services to and from SMBP Regional Package 7 services Nil Nil Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited BRAZIL Passenger 7 services Nil 7 services 7 services Nil 7 services Freight 3 services Nil 3 services 3 services Nil 3 services BRUNEI Passenger 4400 seats   SMBP Regional Package Nil Nil 4400 seats (a) 840 seats to/from Sydney and/or Melbourne; (b) 1050 seats to/from Brisbane; (c) 840 seats to/from Perth Regional Package (a) 615 seats (b) 659 seats (c) 840 seats 266 seats (a) 225 seats   (b) 391 seats c) Nil Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited BURMA Passenger 2 x B747 Nil 2 x B747 2 x B707/DC8 Nil 2 x B707/DC8 CANADA Passenger 3000 seats 1029 seats (code share) 1971 seats 3000 seats 1477 seats 1523 seats CHILE Passenger 2000 seats Nil 2000 seats 2000 seats 1578 seats 422 seats CHINA Passenger 8500 seats SMBP Regional Package 2079 seats Nil 6421 seats Unlimited 8500 Regional Package 6093 seats Nil 2407 seats Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited COOK ISLANDS Passenger 500 seats 360 seats 140 seats 500 seats Nil 500 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited CROATIA Passenger 7 services Nil 7 services 7 services Nil 7 services Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited CZECH REPUBLIC Passenger 7 services SMBP Regional Package Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited 7 services Regional Package Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited DENMARK Passenger 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited EGYPT Passenger 3 x B747 Nil 3 x B747 3 x A340 (No more than 2 services to Sydney) Nil 3 x A 340 FIJI Passenger 5000 seats SMBP Regional Package 1800 seats Nil 3200 seats Unlimited 6000 seats Regional Package 5925 seats Nil 75 seats Unlimited Freight 70 tonnes Nil 70 tonnes 70 tonnes Nil 70 tonnes FINLAND Passenger 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited FRANCE Passenger   (1 unit = 400 seats) Route 1: 3 units+2800 code share seats Route 2: 4.5 units Route 3: 2.5 units+2800 code share seats 1750 code share seats Nil max 1.90 units + 355 code share seats 3 units+1050 code share seats 4.5 units 0.60 units 2445 code share seats 3 units +2800 code share seats 2.5 units 2 units+2800 code share seats 0.55 units+2800 code share seats 2.1 units 2 units+355 code share seats 2.45 units 0.4 units 2445 code share seats Freight Route 3: 1 x B737 freighter Nil Route 3:1 x B737 Route 3: 1 x B737 freighter Nil Route 3: 1 x B737 GERMANY Passenger 25 services 7 services 18 services 25 services Nil 25 services Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited GREECE Passengers 2100 seats Nil 2100 seats 2100 seats Nil 2100 seats Freight 250 tonnes Nil 250 tonnes 250 tonnes Nil 250 tonnes HONG KONG Passenger Freight 70 services SMBP Regional Package 2 services SMBP Regional Package 28 services. Nil 1 service Nil 42 services Unlimited 1 service, plus passenger capacity convertible to freight on a 1:1 basis Unlimited 70 services   SMBP Regional Package 2 services SMBP Regional package 47 services. Nil 2 services Nil 23 services Unlimited Nil, but passenger capacity convertible to freight on a 1:1 basis Unlimited HUNGARY Passenger 7 services SMBP Regional package Ni Nil 7 services SMBP Regional package 7 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 7 services to/from S,M,B & P Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited INDIA Passenger 6500 seats 594 seats 5906 seats 6500 seats Nil 6500 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited INDONESIA Passenger 10 800 seats SMBP Regional package 4571 seats 360 seats 6229seats Unlimited 10 800 seats   SMBP Regional package 3759 seats 668 seats 7041 seats Unlimited Freight 3 services Nil 3 services 3 services Nil 3 services IRELAND Passenger 7 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited 7 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited to/from other points Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited ITALY Passenger 7   services Nil 7   services 7   services Nil services JAPAN Passenger 79 B 767 units (of which: 25 units may only be operated for services other than to/from Tokyo) 60.6 B 767 units 18.4 B 767 units 79 B 767 units 42 B 767 units 37 B 767 units JORDAN Passenger 3 services Nil 3 services 2 services Nil 2 services KOREA Passenger Freight 7500 seats SMBP Regional package Unlimited 420 seats ± Nil Nil 7080 seats Unlimited Unlimited 7500 seats   SMBP Regional package Unlimited 6291 seats Nil 2 services 1209 seats Unlimited Unlimited KUWAIT Passenger 2 services Nil 2 services 2 services Nil 2 services Freight 1 service Nil 1 service 1 service Nil 1 service LEBANON Passenger 2 x B767 if terminate 3 x B767 if transit Nil 2 x B767 2 X B767 Nil 2x B767 LUXEMBOURG Passenger Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited 2 x B747 Unlimited MACAU Passenger 3 services Nil 3 services 3 services Nil 3 services MALAYSIA Passenger 20600 seats SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 20060 seats Unlimited 15000 seats SMBP Regional package 13270 seats 1128 seats 1730 seats Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited. 5x B74F Unlimited MALTA Passenger 3 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 3 services Unlimited 2 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 2 services Unlimited MAURITIUS Passenger 3 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 3 services Unlimited 3 services SMBP Regional package 3 services Nil Nil Unlimited MEXICO Passenger 4 services To/nd from Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey and Cancun Unlimited to/from all points other points in Mexico Nil Nil 4 services Unlimited 4 services   SMBP Unlimited to/from other points Nil Nil 4 services Unlimited NAURU Passenger 3 services Nil 3 services 3 services 2 x B737 1 service NETHERLANDS Passenger 2,800 seats and 1000 third country airline code share seats 400 third country airline code share seats 2,800 seats and 600 third country airline code share seats 2,400 seats and 1000 third country airline code share seats Nil seats, 1000 third country airline code share seats 2,400 seats and nil third country airline code share seats Freight 3 services and 200 tonnes third country airline code share Nil 3 services and 200 tonnes third country airline code share 2 services with and 200 tonnes third country airline code share 2x B747 Nil services and 200 tonnes third country airline code share NEW ZEALAND Passenger Unlimited 123 services Unlimited Unlimited 194 services Unlimited Freight Unlimited 9 services Unlimited Unlimited 2 services Unlimited NIUE Passenger 500 seats Nil 500 seats 500 seats Nil 500 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited NORWAY Passenger 2800 seats Nil* 2800 seats 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited PAKISTAN Passenger 3 services Nil 3 services 2 services Nil 2 services Freight 1 service Nil 1 service 1 service Nil 1 service PALAU Passenger 900 seats Nil 900 seats 900 seats Nil 900 seats Freight 150 tonnes Nil 150 tonnes PAPUA NEW GUINEA Passenger, Freight 3200 seats 100 tonnes 915 seats inbound/836 seats outbound 74 tonnes 2285/2364 seats 26 tonnes 3200 seats 100 tonnes 2786 seats Nil 414 seats 100 tonnes PHILIPPINES Passengers Routes 1& 2: 2500 seats Regional development route 400 seats 916 seats Nil 1584 400 seats 2500 seats 400 seats 906 Nil 1594 seats 400 seats Freight 300 tonnes (routes not yet agreed) Nil Nil (until routes agreed) 300 tonnes (routes not yet agreed) Nil Nil (until routes agreed) POLAND Passengers 2800 seats SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 2800 seats Unlimited 2800 seats SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 2800 seats Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited QATAR Passenger 3 services Nil 3 services 3 services Nil 3 services RUSSIAN FEDERATION Passenger 3 services Nil 3 services 2 services Nil 2 services SAMOA Passenger 1000 seats Nil 1000 seats 1000 seats 540 460 Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited SINGAPORE Passengers Unlimited 20303 seats Unlimited Unlimited 31695 seats Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited 3 x B74Y Unlimited SOLOMON ISLANDS Passenger 850 seats. Nil 850 seats 850 seats 418 seats 432 seats Freight 100 tonnes 100 tonnes Nil 100 tonnes 36 tonnes 64 tonnes SOUTH AFRICA Passenger 5 services 5x B747 Nil. 5 services 5 xA340 Nil Freight 1 service Nil 1 service 1 service Nil 1 service SPAIN Passenger 7 services to Madrid and Barcelona Unlimited services to other points (in Spain) Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited 7 services SMBP Unlimited services to other points (in Australia) Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited SRI LANKA Passenger 3500 seats SMBP Nil 3500 seats Either 3000 seats SMBP, provided no more than 1600 seats are operated to any one of these points; or if more than one point in Australia is served in any single round trip, no more than 7 services provided that Sydney is not served more than once on any round trip Nil Either 3000 seats SMBP, provided no more than 1600 seats are operated to any one of these points; or if more than one point in Australia is served in any single round trip, no more   than 7 services provided that Sydney is not served more than once on any round trip. Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited SWEDEN Passenger 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats 2800 seats Nil 2800 seats Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited SWITZERLAND Passenger 2800 seats SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 28000 seats Unlimited 2800 seats   SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 2800 seats Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited TAIWAN Passenger 5000 seats SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 5000 seats Unlimited 5000 seats SMBP Regional package 2688 seats Unlimited 2312 seats Nil Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited THAILAND Passenger 35 x B747 Third country airline code share: 28 services 11.2 x B747 14 services 23.8 x B747 14 services 35 x B747 Third country airline code share: 28 services 29.4 x B747 Nil 5.6 x B747 28 services Freight 7 services Nil 7 services 7 services Nil 7 services TONGA Passenger 600 seats SMBP Regional package 360 seats Nil 240 seats Unlimited 600 seats   SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 600 seats Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Passenger 56 services SMBP Regional package Nil Nil 56 services SMBP Unlimited Dubai route: Sydney 14 services; Melbourne 14; Brisbane and Perth 7 to each, an additional 7 to any combination of Brisbane and Perth UAE other than Dubai route: 7 services Regional package 14 Sydney 14 Melbourne 7 Brisbane 14 Perth Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 7 services Unlimited Freight Unlimited Nil Unlimited Unlimited Nil Unlimited UNITED KINGDOM Passenger Freight Unlimited Unrestricted 28 x B747 Nil Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited 21 x B747 Nil Unlimited Unlimited USA Passenger South Pacific Route: market driven mechanism 53 services. A minimum of 4 services for any Australian airline South Pacific Route: Market driven mechanism 17 x B747 A minimum of 4 services for any US airline North Pacific route: market driven mechanism Nil A minimum of 3 services for any Australian airline North Pacific: Market driven mechanism Nil A minimum of 3 services for any US airline Guam: 4 x DC 10 Nil 4 x DC10 Guam: 4 x DC10 2 x B738 2 x DC10 Freight Unlimited 11 services Unlimited Unlimited 8 services Unlimited VANUATU Passenger 1400 seats 616 seats 784 seats 1400 seats 768 seats 632 seats Freight 100 tonnes Nil 100 tones 100 tonnes Nil 100 tonnes VIETNAM Passenger Freight 7 services    SMBP Regional package 3 services 3 services Nil Nil 4 services Unlimited 3 services 7 services SMBP Regional package 3 services 7 services Nil Nil Nil Unlimited 3 services ZIMBABWE Passenger 1600 seats Nil 1600 seats 1600 seats Nil 1600 seats Freight 100 tonnes Nil 100 tonnes 100 tonnes Nil 100 tonnes Footnotes [1]   SMBP  -  Seats or services per week to/from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth 2   Regional package  -  Unlimited access to all Australian international airports other than SMBP Notes:    1.  Under the Country column, “Passenger” allows for the carriage of cargo and mail on passenger aircraft. “Freight” means freight (cargo) only aircraft.  Under some agreements, passenger capacity entitlements may be used for dedicated freight aircraft services.  In most cases freight capacity cannot be converted into passenger capacity. 2.   Where the capacity entitlement is for a number of services per week, the services can be operated with aircraft of any type and seating capacity, unless otherwise stated. 3.   Where an aircraft type is named in the capacity column it is normally accompanied by words such as “or equivalent” and an aircraft substitution formula is included to allow for the use of aircraft of greater or lesser capacity at a lower of higher weekly frequency. Source:   DOTARS ATTACHMENT B INTERNATIONAL SCHEDULED AIR TRANSPORT - data supplied by the airlines Years ended June Operated seats to and from Australia AIRLINE 2003 2004 2005 2006 Aerolineas Argentinas 51,519 58,539 72,618 77,558 Air Caledonie 105,524 110,184 114,482 112,312 Air Canada 197,238 204,577 200,190 179,728 Air China 179,302 209,646 212,282 197,968 Air Mauritius 33,810 42,896 52,892 57,239 Air Nauru 22,510 23,464 25,824 16,639 Air New Zealand 2,002,741 2,057,102 2,405,904 2,688,761 Air Niugini 221,743 220,862 232,157 272,275 Air Pacific 474,816 594,764 617,476 602,368 (a) Air Paradise International 47,922 212,196 297,298 121,036 Air Tahiti Nui 67,032 Air Vanuatu 104,081 107,642 121,048 105,616 Airlines PNG 11,814 Asiana Airlines 225,680 226,920 225,680 190,960 Australian Airlines 422,703 788,328 920,075 866,613 Austrian Airlines/Lauda Air 243,552 254,904 304,784 316,200 British Airways 728,152 794,480 803,339 735,592 Cathay Pacific Airways 912,360 946,602 1,204,273 1,278,152 China Airlines 95,460 158,538 206,570 207,552 China Eastern Airlines 102,746 167,174 232,308 228,118 China Southern Airlines 96,432 95,284 157,661 151,880 Continental Micronesia 33,282 48,048 47,894 40,502 EgyptAir 4,680 Emirates 564,012 1,505,486 2,040,006 2,337,139 Eva Air 103,232 106,156 135,400 131,040 Freedom Air International 647,682 713,530 742,471 583,974 Garuda Indonesia 570,640 507,115 529,197 490,754 Gulf Air 115,010 192,390 192,390 Hawaiian Airlines 13,200 109,252 104,776 Japan Airlines 954,662 979,488 1,004,717 950,213 Jetstar 288,156 Korean Air 308,588 362,264 353,858 308,485 Lan Chile 79,940 79,772 96,089 115,514 Malaysia Airlines 1,438,342 1,507,716 1,516,268 1,453,399 (b) Merpati Nusantara Airlines 0 280 6,088 6,360 (c) Norfolk Jet Express 0 Olympic Airways 17,110 Pacific Blue 174,240 630,540 740,160 Philippine Airlines 94,072 97,522 94,470 94,224 (d) Polynesian Airlines 37,280 31,416 32,204 2,926 Polynesian Blue 37,260 Qantas Airways 7,345,022 7,435,502 8,176,490 8,042,077 Royal Brunei Airlines 182,586 249,522 287,950 303,848 (e) Royal Tongan Airlines 13,280 0 Singapore Airlines 2,399,530 2,478,634 2,780,775 3,052,523 Solomon Airlines 28,560 29,788 38,528 33,864 South African Airways 128,214 141,047 126,889 125,122 Thai Airways International 1,279,510 1,335,110 1,381,126 1,042,762 Tiger Airways 38,880 United Airlines 495,863 508,355 535,421 552,077 (f) Valuair 65,454 18,720 (g) Vietnam Airlines 68,513 192,384 235,552 246,142 Virgin Atlantic Airways 125,388 222,302 Total 23,062,891 25,885,687 29,691,278 30,041,002           (a) Service ceased November 2005. No data for November 2005 and some data unavailable for September 2005. (b) Some data unavailable for 2002-03 and 2003-04. (c) Operated between August and December 2004. No data received. (d) Service ceased October 2005. No data for August, September and October 2005. (e) Some data unavailable for 2002-03.  Service ceased in 2004. (f) Service ceased October 2005. No data for September and October 2005. (g) Some data unavailable for 2002-03. Source:  Department of Transport and Regional Services 178 178 5463 178 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 26 February 2007: Is he aware of the recommendation of the Ministerial Council of Australian Governments that Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 be amended to provide for an “efficiency override”, whereby he could declare key infrastructure facilities to be exempt from third-party access. Does he intend to bring forward amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 to implement the recommendation referred to in Part (1); if so, when; if not, why not. 178 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As part of its February 2006 National Reform Agenda, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) signed the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement to provide for a simpler and consistent national approach to the economic regulation of nationally significant infrastructure—including for ports, railways and other export-related infrastructure. The Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement supports efficient use of and investment in significant national infrastructure, by promoting commercial negotiations between service providers and access seekers, increasing regulatory certainty and consistency and reducing compliance costs for infrastructure operators and users. It contains commitments to streamline regulatory processes in Part IIIA, and other access regimes, by incorporating binding time limits and a limited form of merits review for regulatory decisions. The Government is currently progressing implementation of initiatives in the Competition and Infrastructure Reform Agreement with the states and territories. At its 13 April 2007 meeting, COAG reaffirmed its commitments in this area and agreed on a range of implementation milestones and timeframes for the Agreement. The framework for access to nationally significant infrastructure provided through Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act (the National Access Regime) is designed to support efficient use of and investment in significant infrastructure. To this effect, Part IIIA contains clear safeguards to ensure that regulated access to significant infrastructure would result in economically efficient outcomes. For example, among other criteria, nationally significant infrastructure cannot be declared under Part IIIA unless: it is uneconomical to develop another facility; the facilities do not comprise part of a production process; access would promote a material increase in competition in another market; and access would not be contrary to the public interest. In addition, on 1 October 2006, legislation took effect implementing the Australian Government’s response to a Productivity Commission inquiry on the National Access Regime, including measures to promote more efficient investment in and operation of essential infrastructure, such as: insertion of an objects clause that emphasises the promotion of economically efficient operation of, use of and investment in infrastructure, and to which decision makers under Part IIIA are required explicitly to have regard when making decisions; and inclusion of pricing principles for access terms and conditions to which the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) must have regard when conducting arbitrations for declared services and assessing access undertaking and access code applications. The amendments also facilitate more timely and, in turn, less costly regulatory procedures, including the introduction of target time limits for regulatory decisions, and enhance the transparency and accountability of the Regime through strengthened consultation and reporting requirements for the National Competition Council and the ACCC. 179 179 5508 179 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 Ms Owens asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 1 March 2007: For each financial year from 1999-2000 to 2005-2006, What was the total sum allocated nationally for Migrant Resource Centre (MRC)/Migrant Resource Agency (MSA) core funding and What was the total sum allocated to those services in New South Wales. For each financial year from 1999-2000 to 2005-2006, What sum of MRC/MSA funding was received by services in the federal electorate of Parramatta Which centres received funding and What sum did each receive. For each financial year from 1999-2000 to 2005-2006, What sum of MRC/MSA core funding was received by services in the federal electorate of Greenway Which centres received funding and What sum did each receive. 179 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 total sum allocated nationally can be seen in Table 1. The total sum allocated for these services in NSW is set out in Table 1.         The Department of Immigration and Citizenship does not store funding information based on electorate. The amounts of core funding received by MRCs/MSAs in the Parramatta area are set out in Table 1. The centre which received funding in the Parramatta area is Baulkham Hills Holroyd Parramatta MRC. The sum received each year is set out in Table 1. The amounts of core funding received by MRCs/MSAs in the Blacktown area are set out in Table 1. The centre which received funding in the Blacktown area is the Blacktown MRC. The sum received each year is set out in Table 1.         Table 1: MRC Core funding allocations Financial year National NSW$ Baulkham Hills Holroyd Parramatta MRC Blacktown MRC $ $ $ $ 1999-2000 8 739 414 3 498 168 264 968 286 541 2000-2001 8 952 346 3 077 485 279 567 295 572 2001-2002 9 098 472 3 735 649 285 158 301 484 2003-2004 8 704 195 3 459 246 296 678 313 664 2004-2005 8 010 823 3 351 413 302 612 319 937 2005-2006 8 140 890 3 388 300 308 665 326 335 180 180 5556 180 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 21 March 2007: Does his department collect information from State and Territory governments on the number of learner drivers who take out a probationary driver licence; if so, how many new probationary driver licences were issued in the financial year (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05, (d) 2005-06 and (e) 2006-07. For each financial year identified in Part (1), what proportion of new probationary licences was issued to drivers under the age of 25. 180 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows: The Department of Transport and Regional Services does not routinely collect this information. Unknown. 180 180 5557 and 5558 180 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 21 March 2007: In respect of the lease at Avalon Airport to Foxerco Pty Ltd in 1997 for $1.5 million on 50 year contract with a forty nine year option, What was the basis of the formula that determines the annual airfield lease payments? What payments have been received from Foxerco Pty Ltd for each financial year since the initial lease of the airport? 181 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —I am answering on behalf of myself and the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Following a competitive process, a base rental per annum, payable in advance, was negotiated between the Commonwealth and Foxerco Pty Ltd for the lease of Avalon Airport. This rent is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and is now also subject to GST. There is scope for additional payments resulting from revenue growth at the airport. An amount is payable by the lessee each financial year for the gross revenue it receives in excess of the agreed base revenue, with the latter indexed annually to the CPI. The amount payable by the lessee is ten per cent of the difference between the base as adjusted and gross revenue. The following payments have been made each financial year since the initial lease of the airport; Period Total 1996/97 $59,041.10 1997/98 $162,231.00 1998/99 $234,943.87 1999/2000 $151,454.84 2000/01 $155,450.42 2001/02 $160,519.92 2002/03 $165,616.88 2003/04 $170,071.19 2004/05 $173,878.96 2005/06 $178,096.33 2006/07 (to 30/4/07) $151,783.85