2007-08-08 41 1 10 REPS 0 0 2007-08-08 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 1 Miscellaneous 1 09:01:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr HOCKEY —At the request of the Deputy Leader of the House, I move the motion relating to the suspension of standing and sessional orders for the consideration of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007, the terms of which— QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a copy of the Notice Paper. Notice was submitted by the Deputy Leader of the House, Mr McGauran, in whose name it appears. I was wondering whether or not a reason could be given to the honourable members as to why Mr McGauran, having submitted this notice of motion, is not in the House to move it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I believe it is quite in order for another minister to move a motion like this in the absence of the first minister. I call the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —At the request of the Deputy Leader of the House, I move: That: so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended in relation to proceedings on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 such that, at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 1 p.m. on Wednesday 8 August 2007, whichever is the earlier, a Minister be called to sum up the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill be put without amendment or debate; and any variation to this arrangement be made only by a motion moved by a Minister. 1 09:02:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —Labor oppose this, Mr Speaker. As I understand it, no notice has been given to us. The government is holding this parliament in contempt. It is abusing every process known to reasonable decision making. Yesterday we had to debate 500 pages of legislation, 300 pages of explanatory memoranda and 200 pages on appropriations—1,000 pages with 24 hours notice to consider them. Later today the Water Bill will be introduced, a bill which runs, as I understand it, to something like 300 pages. That is something the government announced on 25 January. It still has not been able to conclude agreements with the states but it wants this parliament to ram the legislation through—presumably in expeditious time, when we just got the bill yesterday, as I understand it. Now debate on a bill that has been on the Notice Paper for some time is to be guillotined without any notice. This is a bill which many members in this House have a real interest in because they represent constituencies that contain a lot of people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, people who are interested in the future of citizenship in this country. Where is this parliament going, Mr Speaker? This is the point that we are making. There is no consultation. This is a government that cannot even consult with the states on water and now it will not consult with the opposition about procedures. Some consultation, Minister—well done! This was a circumstance in which you were lauding being on the eve of agreement with the Victorians only some three weeks ago. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —You know that was a stunt. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —You know who was the stunt? The Prime Minister was the stunt, sending that letter to Premier Bracks and—again, without any warning—pulling the plug, saying the government were going to act unilaterally, just as they pulled the plug on Tasmania in its consideration of where public hospitals go, just as they are intervening in local government in Queensland and just as they have intervened in Eden-Monaro to prop up the member against a decision taken legitimately by the New South Wales government. This is a government out of control. This is a government abusing the states, picking a fight with the states at every opportunity, because it cannot get its own house in order. It is not getting this House in order; it is treating this House with contempt. This motion is just the latest manifestation of it, Mr Speaker. This is a disgrace and the Labor Party opposes it. No wonder this government is such a rabble. No wonder it is getting internal— 2 09:05:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr HOCKEY —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 09:10:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 80 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Downer, A.J.G. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 53 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Hockey’s) be agreed to. 09:15:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Hon. David Hawker) 80 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Downer, A.J.G. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nairn, G.R. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 54 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. Windsor, A.H.C. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 3 Bills R2847 3 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hockey. Bill read a first time. 4 4 09:17:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr HOCKEY —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the APEC Public Holiday Bill 2007 is to ensure that employees in the Sydney metropolitan area receive a public holiday on Friday, 7 September 2007 if they are covered by certain pre-reform industrial instruments, including transitional awards, pre-reform AWAs, pre-reform certified agreements and preserved state agreements. This public holiday is necessary to facilitate the holding of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings that will be hosted in Sydney over the week of 2 to 9 September 2007. The APEC Economic Leaders Meeting is one of the most important annual meetings of world leaders. In order to allow for the smooth running of the event, the New South Wales government has declared a one-off APEC public holiday for the Sydney metropolitan area for Friday, 7 September 2007. Currently, while many employees covered by the federal workplace relations system in the Sydney metropolitan area will receive public holiday entitlements for the APEC public holiday, some employees covered by pre-reform industrial instruments do not have an entitlement to this special one-off holiday. This bill proposes to ensure that all employees covered by these federal industrial instruments receive public holiday entitlements for the APEC public holiday. The public holiday will have effect in relation to workplaces within specified local government areas of metropolitan Sydney, not on the basis of a person’s place of residence within those areas. Debate (on motion Mr Crean) adjourned. 4 Bills R2853 4 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Turnbull. Bill read a first time. 4 4 09:20:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 0 Mr TURNBULL —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. For more than a century our greatest system of rivers and aquifers, the Murray-Darling Basin, has been managed between four states each of which has had competing interests with the others. Federal management of the Murray River was called for in the 1890s, but the vested interests of the states prevailed. Over the years different forms of collaborative management have been undertaken, but neglected infrastructure, overallocation and diversion caps routinely ignored testify to the need for a different approach. In 1886 Alfred Deakin, then Chief Secretary in the Victorian government, introduced innovative and, in the minds of many, radical reforms to water management in that state. He introduced the changes with these words: The water legislation of this country, fortunately for us, has proceeded upon one line of continuous and consistent development … The present proposals of the Government, however large they may appear at first sight, are after all, only the necessary consequence of what has gone before ... Those words bear repeating today. The reforms set out in this bill are the most far-reaching in the history of water management in Australia. But they are indeed a necessary consequence of our recognition of the great challenges facing Australia’s environment and the farmers and communities that depend on it. Our scientists tell us that we can expect throughout southern Australia a hotter and drier future. We must learn to do more with less water, we must make every drop count and to do that, we need a new approach where our greatest system of waters is managed in the national interest. The Water Bill delivers the key proposals outlined in the National Plan for Water Security, announced by the Prime Minister on 25 January, 2007. The plan addresses modernising irrigation and the overallocation and overuse of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. It is supported by the $10 billion national investment program announced as part of the plan. The Water Bill and the national plan build on the 2004 National Water Initiative agreement, signed by all governments. The key objectives of the National Water Initiative are to improve the efficiency of water use and establish clear pathways to return all water sources to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction. These are the objectives of the Water Bill and the National Plan for Water Security. Central to the National Plan for Water Security is placing the Murray-Darling Basin on a sustainable footing. The basin is of national significance economically, socially and environmentally. It spans Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, covering an area of one million square kilometres or 14 per cent of Australia. The basin is home to over two million people. A further one million people outside the basin rely on its water. The Murray‑Darling Basin Commission estimates that the basin generates annual agricultural produce worth $10 billion. The current governance framework for the Murray-Darling Basin was designed almost 100 years ago. In 1915, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia signed the River Murray waters agreement, and established the River Murray Commission, which later became the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The governance model requires the agreement of all basin jurisdictions before anything can be done by the commission. Thus, the core arrangements for decision making about basin water management have remained largely unchanged to this day. In the 1920s, 2,000 gigalitres were extracted from the basin each year. Annual water use now often exceeds 10,000 gigalitres—a fivefold increase in water use. While this increase in water use has underpinned massive agricultural development in the basin, it has also been the cause of a marked decline in the basin’s environmental health. In 2001, an assessment for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission found that more than 95 per cent of the river length examined was in a degraded environmental condition. There has been a reduction in the areas of healthy wetland, native fish numbers have declined, salinity levels have risen and algal blooms have increased in frequency. Put simply, with so much water being extracted, there is less water to flow through the system to maintain the basin’s natural balance and ecosystems. There is also increasing evidence that the water resources of a number of catchments and aquifers within the Murray-Darling Basin are seriously overallocated and overused. Exacerbating this problem is the realisation that water flow into the basin is declining—the CSIRO estimates that by 2020 average annual flows could decline by about 15 per cent due to climate change, recovery from bushfire, increased groundwater use and the expansion of farm dams and forest plantations. These changes to water availability are eroding the security of water entitlements, making it harder for irrigators to earn a reliable income. The volume of water extraction in the basin today, combined with record low inflows and the threat of climate change, were not envisaged at the time the River Murray waters agreement was signed. The lowest common denominator governance model established almost a century ago cannot address today’s problems in the basin. Reform is needed to ensure a governance model that is responsive to the current and future challenges facing water management in the basin. Reform is needed to ensure the viability of the basin’s water dependent industries, to ensure healthy and vibrant communities and to ensure the sustainability of the basin’s natural environment. The Water Bill 2007 bill draws heavily on the comprehensive water bill that had been negotiated with most states in the basin over the past five months. The new bill reflects these negotiations in relation to the parts of the comprehensive bill for which the Commonwealth has constitutional power. Thus, a referral of powers from the states is not required for this bill, as was proposed for the comprehensive water bill. This Water Bill relies on a range of powers which are provided to the Commonwealth under the Constitution. These comprise powers in relation to external affairs, interstate trade and commerce, corporations and powers to collect information and statistics. While the Commonwealth is using these Commonwealth constitutional powers to implement the plan in the absence of cooperation from the Victorian Labor government, the Australian government remains committed to cooperating with the states to improve water planning and management in the Murray-Darling Basin. As already noted, the bill relies in part on the external affairs power of the Constitution. The Commonwealth is committed to the implementation of international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. The bill will greatly enhance the government’s capacity to give effect to these agreements and achieve environmental outcomes in the basin. The Water Bill 2007 establishes the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. For the first time in the basin’s history, one basin-wide institution will be responsible for planning the basin’s water resources—requiring planning decisions to be made in the interests of the basin as a whole and not along state lines. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be an expert, independent body which will report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Its primary responsibility is the preparation of the basin plan. Once the bill is enacted, the Commonwealth will move quickly to establish the authority. The chair and chief executive officer of the authority will be appointed on a full-time basis, while the remaining four members will be appointed on a part-time basis. The central element of the basin plan will be the introduction of a sustainable and integrated cap on groundwater and surface water diversions. The basin plan will set limits on the quantity of water that may be taken from the basin’s water resources as a whole, and from particular water resource plan areas. The cap will be enforceable by the authority. The basin plan will be informed by the CSIRO Sustainable Yields Project and detailed socioeconomic analysis. In formulating the basin plan, the authority must conduct public consultation processes and make available the information used to develop the basin plan. These consultations will be important to the authority’s considerations in setting the cap. The first basin plan will be made within two years of the authority being established. The allocation of responsibility for any reductions in water availability between the Commonwealth and the states agreed under the National Water Initiative will remain. I assure Victorian irrigators that the Commonwealth will meet its share of the risk in Victoria, as it will in other jurisdictions, as set out in the National Water Initiative. The bill also codifies the provisions of the National Water Initiative whereby the Commonwealth agrees to take on its share, together with the state governments, of the liabilities for future reductions in water availability. An example of a liability would be changes in government policy, such as imposing a new environmental objective. The taxation implications of the risk management scheme will be addressed in its detailed design, and the government is committed to fully consulting the irrigation sector in this regard. Subject to all basin states signing the intergovernmental agreement, the Commonwealth would also assume the liabilities of basin states under the National Water Initiative, in relation to changes in knowledge. Let me reiterate the Commonwealth’s commitment—clearly stated in the bill—that we will not compulsorily acquire water entitlements. Entitlements will only be purchased from willing sellers. The authority will exercise its functions in a consultative manner. Central to this consultative role is the formation of the Basin Community Committee under this bill. At least eight members of the committee shall be persons who either are or represent water users. The authority will also be responsible for advising the minister on the accreditation of state water resource plans for consistency and compliance with the basin plan. To ensure a smooth transition for water users in the basin, the bill will honour existing state water plans—including any subsidiary instruments such as resource operation plans in Queensland—for the life of those plans. This legislation will not impact on the security of entitlements. It will not affect state water shares under the Murray‑Darling Basin Agreement. A Commonwealth environmental water holder will be established. Water recovered through the roll-out of the irrigation efficiency program and the structural adjustment program of the national plan will be used for environmental water purposes across Australia. The Commonwealth environmental water holder will be required to ensure that this water is delivered to achieve environmental watering objectives. This would include environmental watering objectives for icon sites currently being pursued under the Living Murray Initiative—in particular, the provision of additional water to the Coorong and Murray mouth. The basin plan will also include an environmental watering plan and a water quality and salinity management plan to coordinate the delivery of environmental outcomes across the basin. This bill establishes a new role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The ACCC will monitor and enforce water charge and market rules in the basin. The rules will reflect the water charging and trading principles in the National Water Initiative, ensuring that the water market in the basin works efficiently and that there are no inappropriate barriers to trade. The minister will make the water charge and market rules under part 4 of the bill, having regard to advice from the ACCC and following consultation with affected parties. The rules can provide the ACCC with the ability to determine bulk water charges and exit and termination fees but not to determine access fees set by irrigation infrastructure operators. The government undertakes to respect existing price paths set by state regulators. The bill will also ensure that the development of any new rules takes into account the historical obligations imposed on some irrigation companies and that any new requirements are phased in appropriately. There is also provision for the ACCC to accredit state regulators to determine bulk water charges under the water charge rules. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will be able to charge fees for the services provided in performing its functions and these fees will be subject to the water charge rules set by the minister. The authority will only be able to charge fees for services it provides and will not be able to charge fees that duplicate those already raised by states or in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Further, the authority may not charge certain fees unless the ACCC has advised that such a fee is reasonable. Under part 7 of the bill, the Bureau of Meteorology will collect up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information on water use and availability across Australia. This will be a critical input to the basin plan. In collecting this information, the bureau will consult with industries, such as hydroelectricity providers, on how to ensure appropriate commercial confidentiality is preserved. Further, the bill also provides for the metering of stock and domestic water use under the basin plan. As I have previously done in this place, let me confirm that there is no intention to require metering of stock and domestic bores, except in special circumstances where a groundwater system is under stress or where there are local disputes about water sharing. Those circumstances are canvassed in the National Water Initiative. Better metering and monitoring of water, of course, is a vital element in the national plan and essential for sustainable and informed management of our water and, in particular, our groundwater resources. In the rare cases where metering of stock and domestic bores is warranted, the cost should not be borne by the landholder other than with his or her agreement. The Water Bill 2007 contains enforcement mechanisms to support compliance with its provisions. These include injunctions, enforceable undertakings, civil penalties and enforcement notices. These mechanisms are intended to ensure desired outcomes are achieved. The cooperation of basin states remains an integral element of this reform and its effective implementation. The basin states will continue to have a major water management role. The water entitlement regime will continue to be defined and managed under state legislation. The basin plan and the new cap on extractions will take effect through water resource plans made by the basin states. State water agencies will continue to manage storages, river flows and water deliveries. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Murray-Darling Basin agreement will continue to operate for the time being. The bill provides that the Murray-Darling Basin Commission must not act in a manner which is inconsistent with the basin plan. The commission will continue to run River Murray Water and its major storages, coordinate the management of salinity interception works, and perform a range of natural resource management activities, including the Living Murray Initiative. The Commonwealth objective remains a comprehensive Commonwealth water law. To that end, the Commonwealth will seek to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement on water with the basin states, under which they will refer their powers to underpin such comprehensive legislation within 12 months of signing. The Commonwealth government would then proceed with the remaining elements of the comprehensive Water Bill, including directions on flows, managing shared river control works in the basin and making available water determinations for shared water resources. The Commonwealth government will proceed immediately to roll out the programs announced under the National Plan for Water Security. These programs include $3 billion to address overallocation and overuse of the basin water resources, either by buying out water entitlements or by helping to relocate unviable irrigators or irrigators who are unable to operate their businesses efficiently. That is the structural adjustment element. The sum of $1.6 billion is allocated for on-farm investments in irrigation efficiency and $70 million for hotspot assessments as part of the Improving System Delivery Efficiency program. The amount of $617 million will be provided for more accurate metering and monitoring, including upgrading bulk off-take and on-farm metering, and $450 million in investment will be provided for water information. As the Prime Minister announced on 30 July 2007, funding of up to a further $3.55 billion for the improvement of off-farm delivery system efficiency, river operations and storages programs will be available to each state as they sign the IGA. It must be noted that the Commonwealth is only proceeding with the implementation of this plan on the basis of its own constitutional powers because the Victorian Labor state government refused to cooperate with the referral of powers sought by the Commonwealth. New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland have agreed to refer their powers, but the Victorian government has refused to do so, seeking instead special treatment, with Victoria-specific arrangements—in other words, one rule for the rest of the basin and another rule for Victoria. That conception was always going to be unworkable and unacceptable, not just to the Commonwealth but to every other state. Indeed, Victoria’s proposal would perpetuate a fragmented management system for the Murray-Darling Basin and undermine the cooperative basin-wide approach the plan seeks to achieve. That is unacceptable to all other parties—the Commonwealth, the other states and the ACT. That is why we are pursuing the reforms through this legislation now. This Water Bill is the first water reform program introduced into this parliament in 106 years. It is truly a nation-building bill, not only for this generation but also for the generations to come. It will ensure the sustainability of one of Australia’s great natural assets. It will underpin our nation’s water resources and it will secure the future for the industries, the communities and the environments that rely on them. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. 9 Bills R2854 9 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Turnbull. Bill read a first time. 9 9 09:41:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 0 Mr TURNBULL —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Water (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 deals with the consequential matters in connection to the Water Bill, upon which I have just spoken. This bill makes minor amendments to the Meteorology Act 1955, the National Water Commission Act 2004 and the Trade Practices Act 1974, which are required as a result of the measures contained in the Water Bill. The amendments to the Meteorology Act 1955 will enable the Bureau of Meteorology to take on functions under the Water Bill, including to report on water use and availability and to forecast future water availability. The amendment to the National Water Commission Act 2004 will enable the National Water Commission to carry out its auditing role established under the Water Bill. The amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 are required to enable the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to use its general power of delegation in relation to its new functions under the Water Bill in the making and implementation of water charge and market rules in the Murray-Darling Basin, and to use its power to obtain information in section 155 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to its new water functions. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. 10 Bills R2855 10 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs De-Anne Kelly. Bill read a first time. 10 10 09:43:00 Kelly, De-Anne, MP FK6 Dawson NATS Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 0 Mrs DE-ANNE KELLY —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill will enable the integration of the Australian Maritime College (the College) with the University of Tasmania to proceed. The integration is strongly supported by both organisations as a means of facilitating greater leveraging of capabilities, broadening course offerings and generating cost reductions through rationalisation of facilities. Furthermore, it reflects the continued hard work of the member for Bass in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the college through integration with the university. This bill will ensure that Australia and the region continue to have access to a world-class maritime research, education and training institute. The college has gained recognition as an international leader in maritime education, training and research. The college’s expertise is recognised worldwide and it has established a reputation for the provision of quality services to the maritime industries in Australia and throughout the Asia-Pacific region. The bill includes the repeal of the Maritime College Act 1978, under which the college was established and currently operates, and the transfer of all assets and liabilities from the college to the university. In return, the university will be subject to conditions on certain funding it receives from the Commonwealth under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 for a period of five years. During that period the university will be required to report on key aspects of the college’s operations within the university, including governance, financial, and academic arrangements. The terms of the integration will ensure that the rights and privileges of current staff and students of the college are protected in the transition to the university. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services will issue a certificate indicating whether the university has satisfactorily complied with the funding conditions, and if the certificate indicates unsatisfactory performance the education minister may require repayment of a portion of the Commonwealth funding going to the university. In addition to the conditions specified in the legislation, an agreement is to be negotiated between the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the university defining how the university will deal with the land assets to be transferred to it as a result of the integration. The special conditions will be in place for five years, after which time a review is to be conducted of the operations of the college within the university with a view to determining if further special conditions are warranted as part of the ongoing funding agreements in place between the Department of Education, Science and Training and the university. The government believes these safeguards provide an appropriate balance between protecting the Commonwealth’s interests and not inhibiting the flexibility of the new merged entity to pursue the opportunities that will arise as a result of the integration. There are no direct resource implications from the bill. The 2007-08 budget includes a figure of $61.4 million representing the consolidated net assets that will be gifted to the university as a result of the integration. I commend the member for Bass on his strong support for both the college and the university, and recognition of the broader benefits to his electorate through the integration of these two great institutes of learning. The bill also authorises the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to share its information with other Australian, state and territory government agencies and other parties for the specific purposes of maritime domain awareness, maritime safety, protection of the marine environment, and efficiency of maritime transportation. This information includes data from a new international long range identification and tracking system for ships, which comes into force on 1 January 2008. AMSA has been tasked to receive information from the new system on behalf of Australia for distribution to other government agencies through the Australian Maritime Identification System (AMIS). AMSA receives vessel movement information from other sources, which also is to be fed into AMIS for distribution to other government agencies, including security, intelligence, police, customs, immigration, environment, transport and fisheries agencies, to improve whole-of-government maritime domain awareness. Agencies are already seeking access to live data feeds from AMSA for their own functions and for development and testing of AMIS. There is currently no specific legal authority for AMSA to share information gathered for its purposes with other parties. In addition to the benefit to Australian government agencies in sharing in AMSA’s information sources, states and territories, port authorities and coastal pilot service providers could use AMSA’s information to improve navigation safety, environment protection and transport efficiency, including such areas as improved vessel traffic management, port infrastructure planning and operations. The information will be released only for the purposes specified in the bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. 11 Bills R2748 11 Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr Andrews: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Burke moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading and whilst welcoming the formalising of the current test for Australian Citizenship, the House: notes that the issue is whether the citizenship tests to be determined under the legislation are reasonable; notes the importance of teaching in the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values; and calls on the Government to provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test”. 12 09:50:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —Before debate was adjourned on 21 June on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007, I was making reference to the Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria’s discussion paper Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony, which advances rather compelling arguments against what is being proposed in this legislation. I urge the government to consider its submission seriously as it articulates in a logical and coherent way the substantive views that are reflected in the depth of feeling that has been already expressed in ethnic communities in my electorate of Corio in Geelong and others around the nation in relation to the measures that are being proposed in this legislation. Over the 14 years I have represented the electors of Corio in this parliament, I have attended every citizenship ceremony I have been practically able to get to, given my responsibilities to this House and my former shadow executive commitments as shadow minister for agriculture. I say to this House: those citizenship ceremonies have been absolutely uplifting experiences for me. To see the sincerity and commitment of those choosing to take the oath of allegiance to Australia and their pride in joining this great Australian family is always a very special moment in the life of any member of parliament, as it is for the person making that enormous commitment to Australia. One is always humbled by the stories of the personal journeys of many migrants from all parts of the earth to the point where they commit to Australia in that citizenship ceremony. In the context of this debate, I pay tribute to the City of Greater Geelong and its officers and staff for the great efforts they put into making each ceremony a special one for each participant. I particularly make mention of Stephen Yewdall, whose personal care and professionalism as MC at the city’s conferral ceremonies ensures that they are conducted in a dignified but joyful manner for migrants, their families and friends. Like many members of this parliament, I came up through the ranks of local government. I will not mention the local government at the time, but the citizenship ceremonies were tacked on at the end of a council meeting and people could be kept waiting for three to four hours for the citizenship ceremony to take place, sometimes in the early hours of the morning. That is simply not acceptable in this great country, and I am very pleased that the focus of these ceremonies has changed, with bipartisan support across this parliament and across my community. There are some important points that need to be understood clearly in this debate. The first is that Australia already has a citizenship test, because applicants must already demonstrate a working knowledge of English and establish that they are of good character. The honourable member for Kooyong, who has just entered the chamber, is somebody we all admire because of his unrelenting commitment to these sorts of issues in his own party in his time in this parliament. He has won our enduring respect for the stance that he has taken on these matters and for his demonstrated understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of being an Australian. While members across the political spectrum might agree on the need to put this situation on a more formal basis, as legislators we must be extremely careful that any instituted measure does not simply insert another unreasonable barrier to people becoming Australian citizens. The measures in this bill require a prospective applicant to successfully complete a citizenship test before making their application for Australian citizenship. To successfully complete the test, the applicant will need to demonstrate an understanding of their application and process, possess a basic knowledge of English and have an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Test questions are taken from a citizenship test resource book, with three questions relating to responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and the overall pass mark is set at 60 per cent. Because of the significant political pressure generated as a result of the government’s original, half-baked proposals, the government has been forced to modify its original stance, and I support the exemptions that are now embedded in this legislation and the discretion now available to the minister to provide different tests in certain circumstances and to cater for the needs of those with permanent physical or mental incapacity. One has to question the proposition that this government is serious about encouraging eligible noncitizens to take out Australian citizenship. I find the statistics relating to eligible noncitizens in Australia who have yet to take out citizenship revealing—346,200 people from the UK and 204,900 from New Zealand, and noncitizens from other English-speaking countries such as the USA and Canada would come into this particular category. If the government is really concerned about encouraging citizenship as a gateway for full participation in Australian life then what measures does it have in place to encourage English-speaking noncitizens to take up citizenship? I think a very important point that has to be made in the context of this debate is the sincerity of the proposals that are before us and the context in which they have been put forward. It is extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion, given the process by which this legislation has come into existence, than that the government, for all its rhetoric, is really not about encouraging citizenship participation but about pursuing another agenda. In conclusion, I want to mention that the Corio electorate has a large non-English-speaking population and its people are vitally interested in this bill and these matters. I commend Mr Michael Martinez of Diversitat, the operational arm of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, for the points that he has made publicly in relation to this particular debate. He has not just taken a stick to the government; he has been quite constructive about putting the point of view of Geelong’s ethnic communities in the wider political debate in our region. He said that the federal government’s policy has confused nationalism with patriotism and he warned of its potential to divide rather than to include people. I hope that it does not do that. I hope these measures, once they are instituted on the ground, do not become a barrier to many of our citizens taking out Australian citizenship, because that would be a crying shame. Mr Martinez made the very important point that the money spent on these measures would be far better spent on creating jobs and on teaching English and Australian history to migrants in particular. Of course that is a policy that we have articulated in the context of this debate. Let me restate on the floor of this parliament my commitment to multiculturalism in Geelong. It has worked, and I commend those migrants who have come from non-English-speaking backgrounds who have assisted in building our city to become one of the great provincial cities in the Commonwealth of Australia. 14 09:59:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 1 0 Mrs VALE —The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to provide for the testing of prospective applicants for Australian citizenship. This bill will be welcomed by the wider Australian community because it is the result of a wide-ranging discussion within the community. On 17 September 2006 the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Mr Andrew Robb, released a discussion paper, entitled ‘Australian citizenship: much more than a ceremony’, to seek the Australian community’s views on the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test. The discussion paper particularly sought comment on four questions: (1) should Australia introduce a formal citizenship test; (2) how important is knowledge of Australia for Australian citizens; (3) what level of English is required to participate as an Australian citizen; and (4) how important is a demonstrated commitment to Australia’s way of life and values for those intending to settle permanently in Australia or spend a significant period of time in Australia? Further questions were also asked in relation to the possible parameters of a formal citizenship test and the level of knowledge and understanding of Australian values that applicants for permanent or long-term residence should possess. A series of face-to-face consultations were held in Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart, Darwin and Adelaide. These consultations were attended by some 129 representatives from a range of government, business and community groups. Participants were also invited to comment on the proposals in the discussion paper. Many also subsequently provided written responses. The consultation period ran for two months, closing on 17 November 2006. In total, 1,644 written responses to the discussion paper were received. Overall, there was strong support for the introduction of a formal citizenship test. Sixty per cent of respondents supported a citizenship test, while 25 per cent opposed a citizenship test and 15 per cent were unclear. Responses regarding the other key questions were also in favour of testing. Amongst those who addressed the importance of a knowledge of Australia and Australian values to allow effective participation as an Australian citizen, a large majority agreed that a knowledge of Australia is important, at 92 per cent, and only eight per cent disagreed. Amongst those who addressed the importance of English for effective participation as an Australian citizen, a large majority agreed that English is important, at 95 per cent, and only five per cent disagreed. Amongst those who addressed the importance of a demonstrated commitment to Australia, a large majority agreed that a demonstrated commitment to Australia is important, at 93 per cent, while only seven per cent disagreed. Thinking Australians understand that citizenship is a responsibility, not a right. Australian citizenship is the single most unifying force in our culturally diverse nation. It lies at the heart of our national identity and it gives us a strong sense of who we are and our place in the world. Citizenship provides an opportunity for people to maximise their participation in society and to make a commitment to Australia’s common values, which include a respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual and of others, our support for our parliamentary democracy, our commitment to the rule of law, our commitment to the equality of men and women, the spirit of a fair go, and mutual respect and compassion for those in need. Australian citizenship brings with it considerable values and benefits. Australian citizens have the right to apply for an Australian passport, the right to register children born overseas as Australian citizens by descent, the capacity to seek election to parliament, the right to vote, access to a range of financial assistance from the government, access to a range of employment opportunities and access to full consular assistance when travelling overseas—to name but a few. I am informed that, in 2005-06, 103,050 people from more than 175 different countries were conferred with Australian citizenship at ceremonies across the nation. Overall, more than four million people have become citizens since Australian citizenship was introduced in 1949. Some 95 per cent of our population are Australian citizens and there are currently more than 900,000 permanent residents who are eligible to apply for citizenship. Looking at this bill, we can identify citizenship testing as a key part of the government’s ongoing commitment to help new migrants settle successfully and integrate into Australian society. This test is to ensure that people who wish to become Australian citizens do so by demonstrating a level of understanding and commitment to Australia, our values and our way of life. This is reasonable to ensure that migrants are fully informed and ready to participate in the Australian community. It is also important from a broader perspective as it will support social cohesion and successful integration into the community. The test will be designed so applicants can demonstrate their knowledge of the English language and their knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. It makes sense to encourage the uptake of English if migrants are to take advantage of everything that our country has to offer—both the economic and the social benefits. When people come to Australia they do so because they see it as a land of opportunity. Surely an essential part of our responsibility to them is to ensure that they understand and can use English to their benefit and, of course, to the benefit of their families and of the wider community. There will not be a separate English language test. However, the citizenship test will require the demonstration of a basic knowledge of English comprehension in answering the questions. This bill will amend section 21 of the act to provide that applicants for citizenship under the general eligibility provisions must have successfully completed a test before making an application for Australian citizenship. The bill will also amend section 40, which relates to requests for personal identifiers. The bill will extend the operation of section 40(1) to allow a personal identifier to be requested from a person who has sought to sit a citizenship test. I am advised that the test will be computer based and consist of 20 multiple-choice questions drawn randomly from a larger group of confidential questions. Each test will be in English and include three questions on the privileges and responsibilities of Australian citizenship. All test questions will be derived from the content of a resource book designed to help people prepare for citizenship. An assisted version of the test will be available for people who have completed a minimum of 400 hours of English language tuition under the Adult Migrant English Program, the AMEP, and are assessed by the AMEP provider as having less than basic reading skills in English. The assisted test will involve the test administrator talking the person through the computer based test. The government also recognises that it would be unnecessary and unfair for some people to comply with these requirements. Consequently, people under the age of 18 or over 60, those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application and those with a permanent loss or substantial impairment of hearing, speech or sight will not be required to sit the test. It is also important to note that migrants who come to Australia in the future, whether under skilled, family or humanitarian programs, will not be required to pass the test prior to or upon their arrival. They will only need to pass it when wishing to take up citizenship of Australia, which will usually be some four or five years later. For these people, the Australian government provides services to help them settle into Australia. For humanitarian entrants, settlement assistance begins with the provision of information about Australia before they arrive. The Australian Cultural Orientation Program is a three-day interactive course which provides an introduction to aspects of Australian life. It aims to enhance entrants’ settlement prospects and help develop realistic expectations for their life in Australia. Also, the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy, the IHSS, is designed to provide short-term, intensive settlement support to newly-arrived humanitarian entrants on a needs basis. IHSS services are generally provided for around six months but may be extended to 12 months for particularly vulnerable clients with special needs. Services provided under the IHSS include case coordination, information and referrals, on-arrival reception and assistance, accommodation assistance, short-term torture and trauma counselling and advocacy, and raising community awareness. IHSS service providers also provide mainstream agencies with an appreciation of issues relating to humanitarian entrants. After the initial settlement period, entrants have access to further assistance under the Settlement Grants Program. Settlement support and community capacity building is delivered to humanitarian entrants and eligible migrants with low English proficiency for up to five years after arrival. Services include linking new arrivals to mainstream agencies which deliver health, education and employment services. Community capacity building involves assisting emerging communities to organise and advocate for their own needs. Around $30 million was made available last year for organisations delivering these services. Many of the needs of new arrivals are addressed through mainstream services. An interdepartmental committee of Australian government agency heads is looking into a whole-of-government approach to improving settlement outcomes for humanitarian entrants. The focus is on helping entrants to get a job, to build English language skills and to participate fully in the Australian community. The Australian government also funds English tuition under the Adult Migrant English Program, the AMEP, for migrants and humanitarian entrants who do not have functional English. Refugee and humanitarian entrants under the age of 25 with low levels of schooling are eligible for up to 910 hours of English tuition, while those over 25 are eligible for up to 610 hours. Other migrants are eligible for up to 510 hours of tuition. The tuition is designed to provide clients with basic language skills to settle successfully in Australia. The Australian government also funds education authorities to assist with the cost of delivering intensive English tuition to eligible newly arrived students enrolled in Australian schools. The English as a Second Language: New Arrivals Program aims to improve the educational opportunities and outcomes of newly arrived students of non-English-speaking backgrounds by developing their English language competence and facilitating their participation in mainstream educational activities. There is also the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program, the LLNP, which provides basic language, literacy and numeracy training for eligible job seekers whose skills are below the level considered necessary to secure sustainable employment or pursue further education and training. It is designed to help remove a major barrier to employment and improve participants’ daily lives. To access the LLNP, job seekers must be of working age, be registered as job seekers with a referring agency, not be a full-time student, and satisfy eligibility criteria relating to benefit and visa status. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Australian government’s investment of $924,300 to help refugees and other migrants in my local area under the Settlement Grants Program 2007-08. The grants include $858,000 for four projects at the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre and $66,300 for a program at the Australian Bosnian and Herzegovinian Cultural Association in Liverpool in my electorate. The projects will provide casework and referral services, community leadership and support groups and promote integration, participation and empowerment of the newly arrived Iraqi, Assyrian and Kurdish communities. The projects aim to develop leadership skills and self-reliance for new arrivals, provide youth development initiatives and establish partnerships with service providers to better respond to the needs of women at risk, focusing on African and Dari-speaking communities. The funding will also allow the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Cultural Association to undertake casework and provide referral services and group work to assist newly arrived Bosnian speakers to plan and advocate for services to meet their needs. These are the nuts and bolts that refugees and migrants need to rely upon to integrate quickly into their new communities and to make the most of their opportunities in Australia. Finally, the funding will also provide much-needed support in the crucial transitional period from school to higher education or to employment. In conclusion, the vibrant diversity that makes up the Australian society today has won renown and respect amongst other nations in our increasingly complex world. Whilst we do not expect our newest citizens to forget or forgo the traditions, culture and history of the country of their birth, it is not unreasonable to anticipate that, as they come to live and work in our cities, towns, suburbs and workplaces as one of us—as Australians—they will embrace our traditions, culture and history, together with our values and respect for our parliamentary democracy. Because our citizenship ceremony is at the heart of what it means to be an Australian, an appropriate understanding from our newest Australians will mean that they can take their place with us as one people under one flag. This bill will ensure this objective. I commend the bill to the House. 17 10:15:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 0 0 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —I have the pleasure this morning to talk about the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to ensure that applicants for citizenship complete a more formalised test before applying for citizenship. The bill outlines the general eligibility criteria for Australian citizenship—that is, applicants applying for citizenship understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. It is worthy to note, as other speakers have done, that we already have a citizenship test in this country and this is taking that just a step further. Interestingly, the legislation that we see today is in fact a long way from the citizenship test first proposed back in December 2006 by the government. It is reassuring to me that some of the more level heads in the government seem to have prevailed and that this test does not represent what was going to become an unreasonable barrier to residents of Australia becoming Australian citizens. I am pleased to see the government back-pedalling a little on this particular issue. I understand we will see sensible exemptions for the test, including for those with literacy problems and for people under 18 years of age or over 60 years of age. Those with literacy difficulties will be able to have the test read to them. Also, discretion will be exercised for those people with permanent physical disability or mental impairment which prevents them from fully comprehending the test requirements. That, frankly, is how it should be. This test will comprise 20 multiple-choice questions drawn randomly from a large pool of questions. We have not yet been presented with those questions at this point. A resource book will be available to aspiring citizens to assist them in preparing for the test. Sensibly, applicants for citizenship will be able to take the test as many times as they require to achieve a pass. I believe the pass mark required will be in the order of 60 per cent. Labor, obviously, support this bill. However, our approach is somewhat different from the government’s approach. If we are successful at the upcoming election, Labor will improve the English language services available to migrants to help them learn conversational English. This bill, together with Labor’s proposed boost to English language tuition, should not be seen as putting another obstacle in the way of those people aspiring to be new Australians. Labor’s policy announcement is a way of lifting the language skills and cultural knowledge of our new citizens. It will allow them to more fully participate in their communities, in the workforce and in the education system. Labor’s policy will assist new citizens to have a more rewarding life both socially and economically in our great country. We must ensure that, in imposing this test on them, we do not discourage worthy people from taking up Australian citizenship. We must give them the support they need to improve their English language skills and their understanding of our culture, our government and our society. In the lead-up to this particular bill, I spoke quite strongly in this place about the wonderful contribution that people, historically, have made to this country from other parts of the world, despite not having English language skills. I want to say that again this morning, not in any way to deride the sort of contribution those people have made. If I remember accurately, I referred in more recent times in this place to experiences in my electorate, where the Greek community was holding a massive fundraising event for a charity organisation here in Canberra. All of the thankyou speeches made at that function about the contributions of those people in the room were in Greek. I had no problem with that at all. We on this side of the parliament have very strong opinions about the need for us to stand behind people and to offer them the resources and the support to enable them to participate more fully and the need to offer that English language teaching in a full and proper way. Australia is a country built on the foundations of migration and tolerance. Those who have come here have added immensely to our society, our economy and our government. I am very privileged in this place to represent the electorate of Canberra. There are many great things about my electorate, not least of which is the fact that this parliament sits within my electorate boundaries. I am very proud of that. Another important historical point that I would like to bring to the attention of the House, or remind those who already know it, is that the first citizenship ceremony ever held in this country was held in 1949 in the Albert Hall, just down the road from this building and next to the Hyatt Hotel, as we know it today. There is a very strong historical connection for my city with Australian citizenship, as we know it in our modern processes. One other fantastic feature of this electorate is that it contains over 90 diplomatic missions of countries all around the world. This gives the city of Canberra a bit of a mini United Nations feel. We have a cultural diversity and an appreciation for that diversity which would be unrivalled in any city in Australia. We are very proud of the cultural diversity that the embassies and the high commissions bring to our city. Of course, the diplomatic missions are not the be all and end all of cultural diversity for the bush capital, as we are known. For example, here in Canberra we celebrate the National Multicultural Festival every year. It is a wonderfully colourful gathering, involving not only those people from Canberra but also those many thousands of people from all other parts of the world. I say to members: if you have not already done so, if the next Multicultural Festival in Canberra coincides with a visit to the ACT, I would strongly encourage you to participate. It is the most wonderful gathering of scores of different cultures which are living in this city and of which we are extremely proud. I would also like to take this opportunity to talk briefly about some of the wonderful cultural groups who operate in a very concerted fashion in my community. Every one of these communities makes a fantastic contribution to the fabric of our town and they contribute in so many ways. I will begin with the Greek community in Canberra, a community that I am very proud to be associated with. They have certainly delivered huge cultural benefits to Canberra over many decades. They hold the annual Greek festival, the Glendi, and they operate the very successful Hellenic Club, located just 10 or 15 minutes from this parliament. Many members of this parliament may have taken the short drive down there and enjoyed some of the Greek hospitality at that facility. They have also contributed to the construction of the Australian-Hellenic Memorial on Anzac Parade, commemorating the combined sacrifices of our soldiers in the defence of Greece and Crete in World War II in particular. I have attended many a service at that particular memorial with our Greek community. The other point I want to make about this particular community is its economic contribution to the ACT. Many leading businesspeople in this town are of Greek background. They have stayed here through good times and bad and have invested great confidence in our community here. They are to be respected and regarded for that. Another community I want to mention is the people from Laos. This is a wonderful group, much smaller than the Greek community. They have their Lao new year celebrations. They put a lot of time and effort into participating in the local festivals around the city and they put a lot of work into ensuring that their culture is passed on and inherited by their younger generations so that that connection and that cultural heritage can continue. The Philippine Cultural Society is another group I want to talk about. They participate in virtually any and every opportunity they have to display their culture to the broader community. I have the pleasure of attending the Philippines Independence Day function in June of each year. On a more sad note I want to take the opportunity to note the very sad passing of their past President Mr John Simmons only in the last week. He was the president of that society for many years as well as holding other roles within the organisation. It is very sad to note his passing, but in doing so I pay regard to his dedication to the Filipino community in Canberra and to his determination that they continue with the joy of life that he and others have demonstrated. We also of course have a large community from the Italian part of the world. Again, many members may have visited the Italian club just down the road. Again, they have provided a great investment, in both an economic and a cultural sense, in this city of ours. The Scottish community, or the Canberra Highland Society, as it is known, is based at the Burns Club. The Burns Club Pipe Band, which recently celebrated its 70th anniversary in the ACT, performs nationally and internationally and is a champion pipe band. Again, this is a wonderful retaining of culture by people who work so hard to make sure that they not only retain that culture but develop and grow it, and the community around them gets to experience and understand that culture. Earlier this year I celebrated the Bangladesh Mother Language Day with the Bangladesh Australia Association. We also have a strong Thai community in my electorate, with whom I also have a close association. Again, they put so much effort into ensuring not just the retention but the growth and the continuation of their wonderful culture. On a smaller scale is the Austrian Choir in the Austrian community. This choir has been operating for 27 years, performing all around the city and sharing their cultural contribution with people in Canberra. Then we have Mr Sam Wong and his colleagues from the ACT Chinese Australian Association, who again are dedicated to participating in a wholesome, good, contributing way within the community. The Maltese community is another longstanding ethnic community here in Canberra who represent themselves so well. The list could go on and on. At the risk of missing some, I cannot list them all. But we are very proud here in Canberra. I believe that we practise multiculturalism very well here. The Multicultural Festival is probably the best example that one can trot out of just how all these communities, in their own small ways, contribute so much to our society and on this annual basis get together en masse to show us who they are, where they are from and what values they bring to us. Like many members in this place I get the opportunity to regularly attend citizenship ceremonies. When I stand in front of a room of 40, 50, 60 or 80 people from 20 or 30 different backgrounds, all of whom have made the big decision to not only come here to live, to choose Australia and/or this city for their families’ future, but to take the pledge that they do, I always find those ceremonies very moving. To me it is a very big thing to step out from where you come from and to adopt this new city and this new country in the way that they do. I always say to the people at those ceremonies: ‘Please, never turn your back on where you are from or the culture you have. Bring it with you, share it with us and allow us to learn from you.’ Australia is what it is, Canberra is what it is, because of people like that. I hope we see that continue into the future. The reason that I raise all of these examples of groups who contribute to my local community is that I do not think any of us in this place would want to see Australia denied the rewards of having these tremendously active ethnic communities in our electorates. As I said earlier, the citizenship test should not become another obstacle for aspiring Australians to become citizens. Labor’s recently announced policy for expanding the Adult Migrant English Program, the AMEP, will make sure that this is not the case. The government’s own figures show that in 2005, I understand, only 11 per cent of people who exited the AMEP could speak functional English. There could be a lot of reasons for that, but it is not a very good record. The government say they want migrants to be able to speak English. But I believe you cannot expect that to happen if you do not put the resources and the money into that valid and needed investment. When I have met small groups at our local colleges or the CIT, the TAFE, where there are adult English programs going on, they tell you very clearly: ‘We want to be able to continue this until we feel confident with what we are learning. Please don’t cut us short in our access to these programs.’ We in Labor will ensure that that will in fact happen and that they can have the adequate access that they want. We will fund improved and expanded English language tuition to the tune of almost $50 million. Too many people are left to their own devices when they reach the maximum number of hours allotted to them under the current regime. One size fits all simply does not work. Labor will introduce a traineeship in English and work readiness, which will be designed to allow new entrants to continue their English language tuition while developing knowledge, skills and experience in Australian workplace culture and practice. Our redesigned Adult Migrant English Program will have a greater focus on vocational English to better enable new residents to apply for a job and to communicate at work. We will require tenderers for the new AMEP to have a close relationship with Job Network providers. This will assist new residents to have pathways to employment. Labor will also introduce a new Employment Pathways program, where extra English language tuition hours will be allocated to those students who need it most. In summary, the introduction of a citizenship test can be beneficial to both migrants and Australia as whole, both socially and economically, but only if the introduction of the test is matched with resources to help new migrants become fully engaged in Australian society in every sense. The test should not be an unreasonable barrier to citizenship. In conclusion, I want to thank quite sincerely all the fantastic people who live in my community—the ones I have mentioned and the ones I have not mentioned—and have added so much value and so much understanding for all of us. We have learnt how to live together and how to enjoy each other’s cultures at the same time. We have so many examples of how well it can work here in Canberra. We do it well. I thank those people not only for that but particularly for deciding to come to Australia and choosing to set up home here. They have added enormously to our community and I thank them for it. 21 10:31:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —I rise today to support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. The key provisions of this bill will amend section 21 of the act so that applicants for citizenship under the general eligibility provision must have successfully completed a test before making an application for Australian citizenship. In standing to support this bill, I would like to make mention of the fact that it is very important to emphasise that this is not a test for settlement; it is not a test precluding people from coming to Australia. People can still be permanent residents. They can stay with that status for the term of their existence in Australia. But, if they want to progress further and become a citizen of Australia, they will have to undertake this citizenship test. I have thought long and hard about this, because I too have an electorate which has welcomed people from many nations from across the world. All of these people have contributed in some way, shape or form to the Riverina blossoming into the very productive area that it is now. Many of the people who came and worked on the Snowy were displaced during the European war. They came out to Australia, worked on the Snowy and then made their way down to the Riverina. They increased productivity and exposed our culture to entirely new tastes and experiences, and we have been far the greater for having had those experiences. I thought very seriously about whether or not this would be a major impediment to people who want to come and set up their life in the Riverina. So I talked to a lot of Italian people who had come in. At first, it was a bit daunting and a bit scary for them, because they thought that this meant that people would not be able to settle in Australia. It was explained that this would not stop people from settling in Australia but would be a citizenship test and, if they wanted to take out Australian citizenship, they would have tools made available to assist them, including a booklet. It was explained that it was not an English language test or a test on how you speak English but a test of an applicant’s understanding of the history of Australia and of the values that should be in every person’s mind when they seek to declare themselves to be an Australian citizen. I went to a small school just a few months ago and they made the Australian pledge, and they do it at every assembly. What a fantastic idea. These children knew the Australian pledge off by heart. That is something that we could expand further in our education programs in order to enhance the feeling of pride and passion in being an Australian citizen. When I went through these issues with some of the Italian elder community, many of them said to me, ‘Gee, we wish that we’d had this available to us and that we’d been assisted in learning these things when we came to Australia, because our lives would have been much more inclusive of the Australian way of life and we would not have at times felt excluded because of our lack of understanding of the Australian way.’ There is no doubt that sometimes the Australian way is very different to the culture that people have travelled from. I have in my life five beautiful children from Ethiopia. My children have now been here for four years—in fact, it is four years today since they arrived in Australia. I have found that their commitment and dedication and the effort that they have made to ensure that they are able to participate fully in education has been fantastic. My children are getting older and they have no foundation of education from their grassroots in Ethiopia. But they have a great will to learn in Australia. They have come from an almost impossible situation, but they are doing very well and their English is fantastic. My children are being confronted with understanding life and its meaning. I am sure my five-year-old will rule the world one day because he has been learning in pre-school from the day that he came to Australia. He is very established in Australian ethos, ethics and the way in which he insists on all English being spoken at home because he is an Australian. It becomes quite jovial in our household. But, at the same time, I know this will better prepare these people—not so much the English speaking—to go forward and understand the ways and the life of the Australian community. My children feel very strongly about this; they want to learn. I know that many people have come to live in Australia to seek greater opportunity. It is the opportunity that we want to offer, but one of the responsibilities is to ensure that we, as Australian people and citizens, make the most of what our country has to offer new arrivals, to enable them to have a sense of true belonging and involvement in our community. This is what I believe the citizenship test will ultimately achieve. Yes, it will be daunting in the first stages but you can sit the test again if you do not pass. If you are under the age of 18 or over 60, or if you have a permanent physical or mental incapacity which would prevent you from understanding the nature of an application, you would not be required to sit this test. But it will encourage our prospective citizens to obtain the knowledge that they will require to support their successful integration into Australian society. We have just had an exhibition in Wagga Wagga called From All Four Corners. I launched that exhibition some weeks ago. It was one of the most difficult exhibitions for me to launch. When I went through all of the components and exhibits of that exhibition it was heart-warming to see what many of these people, who I knew intensely closely, had achieved. I had not recognised the difficulties that they had to overcome. One of the families exhibited green hot-water bottles in a glass cabinet. We used to put hot-water bottles in our beds before the advent of electric blankets. HM5 Georgiou, Petro, MP Mr Georgiou —And still do. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL —Yes, some people still do. But the hot-water bottle was significant. The family concerned had settled into San Isador, a community in Wagga Wagga. They had been extremely persecuted in their homeland. They arrived in Wagga Wagga when it was freezing cold. Temperatures in Wagga Wagga go into minuses. The night they arrived they were very cold in their house. The next day the neighbour said to the elder of the family, ‘How are you enjoying it? Are you settling in all right?’ He said, ‘It is very cold here. Last night we were freezing.’ At 9 o’clock that night there was a knock on the door. It was very dark outside; there is no street lighting in San Isador. They were terrified because of the experiences in their country. ‘Who would be knocking on our door at 9 o’clock at night? We know nobody.’ They had to be convinced to open the door by their neighbour cajoling them and saying, ‘We are the neighbours from next door. We are not here to harm you or create problems.’ They opened the door and the neighbour had hot-water bottles for their beds. The man, who is in his 70s, cried because he had never experienced kindness like this in his life. This man and his wife were at the exhibition. When he was explaining his memory of the first night and of the Australian people and the way in which they included him in their lives he cried again; he has lasting memories. This family and many others explained to the gathered crowd at the exhibition just how wonderfully supported they had been while integrating into the Australian community. If they had not been given that very significant support, they would not have understood the difference in the Australian way of life and the Australian ethos. They have all indicated that they required that support. I spoke to many of these people that evening, explaining how the citizenship test would work—that it was not something that should fill them with fear—and asking them to give me an honest appraisal and without exception they all indicated that this was what they believe should take place in Australia. They did not see it as discrimination or as somebody trying to put roadblocks in their way or pressure upon them to forget their past and only embrace a future. They saw it as a true and genuine effort to ensure that we were not just going to assume that people arriving in our country were equipped and able to prepare themselves for the very big differences in the way in which Australians think and act. I am not privy to the questions that will be asked but I am sure that they will encompass some history and some basic facts about Australia. By knowing that, they feel more able to consolidate their relationship. I believe that the government in its wisdom has a plan that is going to provide people many opportunities that are currently being lost. They are lost through no fault of the Australian public and through no fault of the people who are coming into Australia; they are lost because there is a crack, and people are just expected to understand without being given the appropriate tools and learning guides to assist them. You might think that when somebody settles in Australia they would know everything. I just took for granted that my children would know the simple things—my girls are well into their teens and my eldest boy was 14 when he came; he will be 18 in September—about everyday shopping and living. They are things that we take for granted. I was so staggeringly surprised when I took the time to sit down with them and I realised that they were in a maze of confusion about going to a supermarket and getting themselves prepared for personal hygiene and a whole host of different things, because in their country it was totally different. Nobody had taught them. I have learned a lot from that and I do not take anything for granted anymore. I refer back to when we had submissions on the citizenship test. I called for submissions from my electorate, because I knew that they would feel strongly about this—and they did. About 1,600 responses came back to the minister on the discussion paper that was released in September 2006 that sought community views on the merits of introducing a formal citizenship test. It was interesting to note that 60 per cent of respondents supported the introduction of the citizenship test. That means that 40 per cent did not, but 60 per cent saw merit and value and I would suspect that many of that 60 per cent, like the people who had spoken to me, were people who had come from other countries, had experienced difficulties and wanted a clear understanding of some parts of Australian history so that they could feel that they were in the truest sense accepted and welcomed. I do understand that many people have confusion—I certainly have seen it in my communities. There has been an enormous contribution from arrivals from other countries into my electorate. Many of them have done that without being able to speak English and are still unable to speak English—and many have been here for 50 years. I find that there are still some concerns about this issue, but can I reiterate that this is not about English language. There will be assistance made available with people reading this list of questions and assisting applicants through this. This is not a test of English language. I want to explain to the community at large that I do not believe there is anything to fear from this test. I believe that, in the true sense of being Australian and in the true sense of Australians assisting new arrivals into this country, Australians will again step forward and help with going through this booklet and advising and assisting. I made mention of my children. They have had no underpinning education, yet they are able to traverse the internet and they are now out there and active. One of my girls is working in a nursing home. My second daughter has found herself part-time employment. She has done her own CV and applications for work. My third son is now studying for the HSC. How difficult it must be for him competing for the HSC, having started his education from year 10. They are understanding the written word and are able to put things together. I believe that the capacity is there for our new arrivals into Australia to embrace this test if they want to be an Australian citizen and also for it to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. I take this opportunity to commend the minister for this opportunity for all Australians. 25 10:51:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —I am very happy to be speaking on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. I will start by mimicking some of the words of the ALP shadow minister for immigration, the member for Watson. He said that from time to time there are great pieces of legislation that change radically the way we think or deal with certain issues—that are essentially hugely important to society and make a whole world of change and are so important in this place. Unfortunately, this is not one of those bills. This bill actually does not do a great deal at all. You would have to read it twice, and still you would scratch your head and say, ‘What does it actually do?’ The devil, they say, is in the detail. Unfortunately, when you read the detail, there is no devil, because there is not any detail to start with. There is really no devil in it, either. This is not some unusual bill; this is not controversial. It has been made out to be, I think, by all sorts of people from all sorts of sides in a range of cases. I do not find the bill offensive in any way. I think there are a couple of bits in it which we need to know more about—the devil in the detail—because the bill does not resolve issues that have been raised in terms of reasonableness, what the questions might be and exactly how they will be applied. There are a number of unknowns within the bill but it is certainly not a bill that will set the world on fire. This is not a bill that will radically change the way that Australia deals with our citizenship; it just formalises a process that is already there. It is a process that currently takes place every time somebody applies to become an Australian citizen and it has been around in this country for a very long time. I just wanted to start by saying that. I have a range of views in this area, which I think are important. I think this issue is important but the bill does not go to the heart of making some sort of significant change in Australian culture, society, inclusiveness or anything like that. I suppose I should declare here that I actually was not born in Australia. I took up Australian citizenship voluntarily. It is my only citizenship, of course. My family did that because it was something we really wanted to do. We had this burning desire because we thought that if you are going to live in a country you should fully participate and fully contribute to that country. Australia is a great country for that. When I think about it, it is one of the things I get goose bumps about. Just how great is this country when somebody who was not born here, such as me, can be a member of parliament! I am not the only one; there is a whole range of such people on both sides. It is one of the truly great things about this institution—along with the freedoms, democracy and all the things we hold dear. Australian citizenship is part of that formula. It is something that I treasure absolutely. I think that all people who take up citizenship have a similar experience and a similar view. For them it is something significantly important. It is a massive decision to take in their lives. Regardless of where they were born and who they are, they are saying to the whole world, ‘I am making a conscious decision as an adult that I have this new country, new allegiance, new family, new set of values and new culture.’ All of those things are inherent in taking up Australian citizenship. The last thing that any of us would want to do, in good faith, would be to make it more complicated or more difficult for people. I do not believe this bill will do that, by the way. I do not think this bill makes it any more difficult. When we see a bit more of the detail we will be able to make a better judgement and a better assessment of the reasonableness of certain exemptions by the minister and how the questions will work and so forth. I am reasonably confident that if the government is doing this in good faith—and I will have a little bit to say about this as well—then this is not a great departure from where we have been. Probably not everyone understands that prior to the introduction of Citizenship Act in 1948—I do not know whether you would have this as one of the questions because a lot of people would get it wrong—there was no Australian citizenship as such. You were really just a citizen of the British Empire. The only true Australians were our Indigenous people. So, many things have changed. The way we view ourselves and the way that citizenship works today has changed completely. That is normal because that is the history of Australia over 200 years since settlement. There is a changing view. Just as values change, so do views and the ways our systems deal with certain situations. A lot of expectations have changed, and I think all of us would understand that as a result of being members of parliament we have had the great privilege of attending so many citizenship ceremonies. When you see people taking on citizenship you see the emotion and you understand how big a decision it is for some of them. Some of them have been here a long time. For some of them it is just formalising something that they have had in the back of their minds. Maybe they just never got around to it, but they decided that the time had come and they really had to make that leap and become a fully participating Australian. To tell you the truth a lot of those people actually considered themselves to be Australian the whole time. I have often spoken to people from the UK who have been here for 50 or more years. They might get in a little bit of strife when they decide to travel back and do not have the correct documents. They realise they are not Australian citizens. Things like that happen but they are formalising their want to become Australian citizens. It is easy for those who have been here for a really long time. There are those who come here from circumstances of genuine hardship. I hope there is always great agreement between all people about helping people through UNHCR programs and humanitarian programs by trying to give them the ability to come and live in safety and peace here in Australia. Then at some point we can encourage them to become Australian citizens as well. When I first heard from the government of this test and these changes I had an impression in my mind—and I am sure a lot of the public did as well—that it was going to be some massive, radical change. It concerned me. I thought it was going to be a reform of gigantic proportions, which was revolutionary almost. I thought that this was somehow about keeping out undesirables and was linked to terrorism. There were all these connotations floating around. The government certainly did not do anything to dampen that. That may have suited their wider agenda, but when you look at it you will see that there is not a great deal here that would concern too many people. So Labor is supporting this bill. I believe in a citizenship test. We have one now and no-one seems to argue about that. There has been a test around for very long time and no-one seems to have too many problems with that. The formalisation is a little bit different but it is not too strange. I think this legislation can perhaps put in place a more formal mechanism which will give people the opportunity to take up citizenship. It is not so much about the test itself, because it can be sat a number of times, and it is not as if anyone would or should fail. It is perhaps simply making people jump through an extra hoop. Again, that is not too difficult. What the test should be about—what I hope it is about and what Labor supports—is education and providing information. It should make the process more inclusive and, from the Labor Party’s perspective, give people a greater feeling of earning their citizenship and having contributed more to obtaining it. It should not simply be a case of someone downloading a form from the internet, filling it out, sending off a cheque and receiving a piece of paper saying that they are an Australian citizen. It should be more involved than that, and it is. The people of this country take their Australian citizenship very seriously. Taking out Australian citizenship, like taking out the citizenship of any other country, is a strange story. At some point we have all come from another country. Of course, that excludes Indigenous Australians. We meet people all over Australia who are Aussie, dinky-di and true blue and who talk with an Australian colloquial accent but with the hint of an accent from their home country. That is a beautiful thing. It is amazing to travel this country—whether it be to Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide or Perth—and hear all the different accents. That is particularly noticeable with older people who have adopted the new language and lingo but who still have a coarse accent from their home country. We realise that they really are Australian and have fully adopted the little sayings that we use. We also see that in the way their culture changes over time. I have the great privilege in the electorate of Oxley to represent many people from a range of countries and backgrounds, in particular from Vietnam, Laos, China, Samoa, Tonga, the Pacific islands, Spain, Chile, Argentina and the list goes on. Oxley is a very multicultural area. Once upon a time people might not have thought that, but it is true. The local people have made a huge contribution. While they may not all be Australian citizens yet, I know it is a source of great pride and something they promote within their communities. It is a two-way message for them and their communities about never forgetting who they are and where they come from. They do not forget their language and they try to remember their culture, food and people and the reason they came here. That is part of their history and the journey undertaken, whether it was in the past 50 or 200 years. As the members of the second generation of those immigrants from Vietnam and other areas come along they become much more Australian. The third and fourth generations change to the point at which their parents often tell me that they are really concerned about their kids because they cannot speak their language and have forgotten their culture; they are completely Australian. Those parents are also very proud of that, but they are worried because they do not want their children to forget that link to home. I think everyone would understand that. That is simply the way things are; you eventually become so Australian that the old heritage becomes a distant memory. Members might not hear a different accent or notice different mannerisms in members from another place, although given the way we use our hands some might hazard a guess as to our heritage. The application of the test in this bill can and should be about inclusiveness and the principles of fairness. We make judgements and implement strategies to implement values. I love the values debate. We articulate our definition of values differently, but we often return to the same core ideas. I think we all believe in democracy, fairness and free speech. We all subscribe to common values and we often say that ours is a tolerant society. I again use the words used by many others: tolerance is a great thing, but inclusiveness is even better. We see a change in immigrant communities when we suddenly move from tolerating their presence to including them and making them feel part of the fabric and greatness of Australia. This country’s strength today is built on the foundations laid by people from many different backgrounds. We should never fear multiculturalism. Some people say it has no place and that we should get rid of it. I tell them that they are wrong; we cannot get rid of something that is in-built. Multiculturalism is simply a word, but it is one that represents something all around us; it is Australian. We see it in this parliament; this is a multicultural parliament. The biographies of members of parliament demonstrate incredibly rich and diverse histories. All those different views and backgrounds are the strength of this place. Having been born elsewhere and having a different cultural background or heritage does not diminish in any way our devotion and dedication to or our love or the hard work we do for this country. In fact, that strengthens it. We find littered through the records of the great people of this country the fact that some of them could barely speak English, if at all. However, they have still made huge contributions in a range of areas, be it the medical, science or business spheres. Those people have loved this country and have made huge contributions through culture, the arts or business, or simply by making Australia a greater place. We should particularly value that. I have a couple of words of caution. The book that the 200 questions will be drawn from has not been released. Let us make it clear that this bill does two things. Firstly, it formalises a test whereby people will fill out a multiple-choice form of 20 questions. It was going to be 30. We are yet to see the book that the questions will be drawn from and we will make a judgement as to the reasonableness of those questions when we see them, obviously after the first test has been implemented. Secondly, the implementation of a citizenship test is not a radical departure from what Labor’s position has been for a very long time, so I do not think anyone should be overly spooked by it. The legislation enables the government and the minister to make some exemptions and to set some questions. The nature of the questions will be interesting, because we want to make sure that prospective Australians have a reasonable chance of passing them—that the test is not impossibly hard. The test is not some crazy game of Trivial Pursuit, and we would not want to demean our nationality in that way. We would also not want the questions to be of such difficulty that they would incur a huge failure rate in general society—questions that perhaps even members of parliament would commonly get wrong. We would not want to get too much into the animals that are on our coat of arms, because most people would probably get the answer wrong—it is not quite what you think it is; it is something else. Other common errors are made in answer to certain questions. The Sydney Morning Herald and I think the Herald Sun put out an example test, which was purported to be ‘the’ test. However, one of the answers was wrong. You can see where I am going with this: we need to be careful about our approach. The shadow minister, the member for Watson, moved a second reading amendment that goes to a reasonable test of citizenship and notes the importance of teaching English. Although people may have been here for 15 years and may not speak English to the standard we would like, it is important that they learn. It will help them to contribute to society, thereby helping them to become better citizens. It will help them to get a job and it will assist them in a range of areas. I think that is very important. If the government is committed to proficiency in English language and literacy, then a heap of programs that cover adult migrant English need to be enhanced and funded to enable people to feel more a part of society. It is fine to teach English language skills, a bit of Australian history, culture and values, but we need to see improvements to the test. I do not think this test will set the world on fire at any point in time. This is a technical change that really does not change much at all. Changes to Australian citizenship and inclusiveness are about how the government funds programs and treats people. Those are the things that will make a difference. (Time expired) 29 11:11:00 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 1 0 Mr GEORGIOU —It is now transparently clear that both sides of the House will support the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. Unfortunately, I believe this bill is overwhelmingly regressive. I believe that it turns its back on Australia’s tradition of inclusive citizenship and that it imposes a punitive test. I do not support the citizenship testing bill because there has been an utter failure to show that a new citizenship test is needed or that it will operate fairly. I do not support the bill because it sends a corrosive message to many people who would become citizens that they are undeserving of this status. I do not support the bill because the new test will prevent many meritorious aspiring citizens from full membership of the Australian community, and I believe this will diminish us as a nation. This is not a matter of my personal opinion but a matter of evidence, which I and many others can personally affirm. The experience of my father is emblematic of the experience of hundreds of thousands of men and women. My father, Constandino Georgiou, came to Australia after the war. He raised and educated a good family and he worked two jobs for most of his life. He became a citizen in 1957, if I recollect, and he died at age 56. He was like hundreds of thousands of postwar immigrants—he, and they, earnestly tried to learn English but, despite their best efforts, they could not achieve a standard of English that would have enabled them to pass the test that this parliament is about to endorse. But, despite their limited English, these people committed to Australia. They enriched every facet of our nation’s life. They worked hard, they obeyed the law, they were good parents and fine neighbours. This is not about looking backwards; it is about the future. It is about the hundreds of thousands of migrants who are here now and who will come here in the future to make Australia their home and make their children our nation’s inheritance. It is about people who would make wonderful citizens but who would not pass the proposed test. Let me set out why this bill is, in my view, an unsupportable measure. There has been a lot of talk about this test not signalling any significant change—that it is just a formalisation—but I do not believe that to be the case. Since Australian citizenship was created in 1949 and our country began its massive immigration program, successive governments have chosen an inclusive approach to citizenship. Discrimination which once existed against non-English-speaking migrants ended. English language requirements were eased. Residency requirements were made equal for all. Discriminatory voting privileges were addressed. Dual citizenship was allowed. All were required to attend a citizenship ceremony. The belief was that if we encouraged and embraced migrants who wanted to become Australians we would become a better and stronger nation. The inclusiveness of our approach to citizenship has been sustained through massive changes in the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake. It has to be said—and it is unquestionable—that we have sometimes felt anxious about the speed and magnitude of this change. But Australia has held fast and we have not compromised our belief in inclusiveness, and I believe we have been vindicated by society. I think it is ironic that, while paying lip-service to the fact that our citizenship has been outstandingly successful, the advocates of this bill ask the parliament to reverse the longstanding thrust of our approach to citizenship. Let me make it clear: as so many have recognised in the course of this debate, if not before, this bill is not about the introduction of an Australian citizenship test, and I think there is a common misapprehension that no test currently exists. The existing law requires applicants for citizenship to be assessed at a compulsory spoken interview for a basic knowledge of English and an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. What this bill does, which I do not think is sufficiently recognised, is introduce a significantly tougher citizenship test than the present one. That is its explicit intention. The new test represents a fundamental shift from our focus on basic English-speaking ability and an understanding of citizenship. The test will be a test of literacy. It will be a test of the ability to read and comprehend written English and respond to written English at a computer to demonstrate a knowledge of Australian values, culture and history—a knowledge that many native-born Australians do not have. To pass the test applicants will have to study a book written in English and use a computer to answer 20 multiple-choice questions drawn randomly from a large pool of confidential questions determined by the minister. Let us look at how substantial the case is that has been used to justify the imposition of this tougher test. The bottom line is that this case is utterly without substance. It is based on fallacious and unsubstantiated assertions. The first argument repeatedly advanced for a harsher test is that Australia today faces a new unprecedented challenge, a challenge posed by the intake of large numbers of migrants coming from cultures far removed from our own and from the cultures of earlier waves of European immigration. The facts refute this assertion. There has been a fundamental change in the composition of Australia’s immigration intake. That change took place 30 years ago with the demise of the White Australia policy and the growth of Asian immigration, which has exceeded European immigration every year since 1984. Australia met the challenge of that change, and there have been no major changes to our migrant intake since then. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard graphs bearing out some of my statements. Leave granted. The graphs read as follows—     HM5 Georgiou, Petro, MP Mr GEORGIOU —There have been some difficult and ugly moments in the process. In the 1980s we had the Asian immigration debate, which led some to call for a restriction on Asian migration, and we then had the One Nation outbreak. Today most of the people who were concerned about Asian migration have since accepted that they were wrong, and Australia has grown stronger, not by creating new barriers to citizenship but by maintaining our commitment to inclusion. A second argument advanced for the tougher citizenship test is that many citizens do not value Australian citizenship because they can get it too easily. Citizenship, it has been suggested, is being scattered around like confetti. The only so-called proof of this was a single unattributed anecdote that at one citizenship ceremony a number of people left before the national anthem was sung. I think it is difficult to imagine a flimsier basis for a major change in public policy, which in a few years will cost over $100 million to implement. A third argument for imposing a tougher English language test is that it will provide an effective incentive for migrants to learn English. Let me make my position unequivocally clear: I believe it is of the utmost importance that people are encouraged and supported to learn English. It benefits them. It benefits their families and the community. The community consensus shared by both migrants and the native born is that English is important for citizenship and the greater the proficiency in English the greater one’s ability to take advantage of the opportunities that Australia has to offer. Despite this, the proponents of the new test suggest without a single shred of evidence that many migrants are unmotivated or resistant to learning English and that the threat of denial of citizenship is an appropriate and effective spur to get them to study harder. I believe that this utterly misunderstands the migrant experience. Migrants do recognise the centrality of English in Australian society and the importance of learning it. The bill uses the stick of denial of citizenship to penalise people without even having established the nature and extent of limits on English language fluency. Do some immigrants not want to learn or can’t they get into classes? Are they fully occupied in meeting other demands such as employment and family responsibilities? Are there simply limits on how much English some people can learn? It is recognised that some people will not have the literacy skills required. It is said that in these so-called special cases a test administrator will read out the test questions and possible answers. But, if applicants do not have the literacy skills to read the questions, how does the minister think they will be able to study the book on which the questions are based? This is not just a misunderstanding of the migrant experience; it is based on a flawed perception of literacy and knowledge across the Australian community. The plain fact is that hundreds of thousands of Australians would fail such a test even when English is their native language. Studies conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that 2½ million Australians have very poor literacy skills. One and a half million people who have English as their native language have great difficulty in using much of the printed material that is encountered in everyday life. The ABS says that these people cannot locate information on a medicine label giving them the maximum number of days the medicine should be taken and they cannot enter the number of tickets required on an order form. This bill is premised on a belief that questions about Australia’s culture and history can generally be answered by primary school children or by secondary school children. The fact is that studies that have been undertaken show that 77 per cent of year 10 students do not know what Australia Day commemorates or the functions of the Governor-General and that only half of Australian students have a grasp of the purpose of democracy. The native born do not have to pass any tests to be citizens. That is as it should be. We got over the notion of literacy tests a long time ago. But, nonetheless, a test for citizenship for migrants should not demand a level of proficiency that is beyond the reach of a significant number of Australians who have English as their mother tongue. Rather than being an incentive to learn English, the new test will punish those with low English language proficiency who happen to have been born overseas. This is totally inconsistent with Australia’s commitment to equal treatment and a free go. A fourth argument is that we should follow other countries—the USA, Canada and the UK. It has been said that these countries have perfectly functioning citizenship systems. So why, if these models are so good, should our test be even tougher than theirs? Our tests will demand knowledge of history that many native-born Australians would not be able to meet. The UK, which is consistently put forward as the preferred model, does not test history, explicitly on the grounds that it would be unfair to ask immigrants questions that many British people would have difficulty in answering. The so-called successful UK test was introduced in November 2005, less than two years ago. In March 2007, it was revised because it was deemed to be too difficult for people with basic English fluency to study for it. The US test is currently being revised because it was found to be highly deficient in a number of respects, and a pilot program is being mounted in 10 cities to ensure that the new test works fairly and effectively. This experience shows that there is a need to proceed with caution and that we are being harsher than our so-called role models. But, transcending this, why should Australia culturally cringe to countries whose citizenship systems have yielded inferior results? A fifth argument advanced by advocates of a tougher test is that the community needs to be assured that migrants are able to integrate into Australian society. It is said that the ability to pass a formal citizenship test will signal that reassurance to the broader community. Personally, I am not aware of any widespread community disquiet that needs to be addressed by imposing a tougher citizenship test. The evidence that is relied upon is an assertion that 60 per cent of a completely unrepresentative sample who responded to a government discussion paper said that they supported a formal citizenship test. Okay, let us take that for granted. But why is this evidence of a troubled community, in particular given the fact—as has been widely acknowledged in the course of this debate—that a test is already in place? Despite the quite biased presentation in favour of a formal test, a quarter of the respondents opposed it and 15 per cent were unclear. It has been said that 60 per cent supported the introduction of the test. This is not the case. Sixty-seven per cent did not respond to the question asking whether knowledge of Australia is important, 60 per cent did not comment on whether English ability is important and 70 per cent did not address the issue of whether a demonstrated commitment to Australia is important. The question about what should be in a test, let alone in ‘the’ test, yielded no results—and I repeat, no results—that were statistically significant. I could go on, but, in brief, there was absolutely and unequivocally no majority in favour of the test. Let there be no apprehension about the impact of the proposed new test: it will stop many migrants who are committed to Australia as their home from becoming citizens and thereby full members of our community. Hundreds of thousands of native-born Australians would not be able to pass the test. Low literacy skills should not make a new migrant unworthy of citizenship, just as they do not and should not debar the native born who are low in English fluency from the right to fully participate in the life of the nation. Since the introduction of Australian citizenship, many hundreds of thousands of people have been accepted as citizens, despite having only basic English proficiency. They have made enormous and universally acknowledged contributions to their new nation. How can it be in the interests of cohesion and integration to impose new barriers to citizenship, barriers that would have prevented its acquisition by so many Australians who have proved themselves to be model citizens? Would having been refused citizenship have increased their commitment to and identification with Australia? Would it have accelerated their integration into our society? Would they have won the respect of other Australians if they had been permanently relegated to the position of guest workers? The only rational answer is no. The fact that Australian citizenship laws have been made more inclusive in the past has provided a basis of trust, confidence and achievement. The fact that we accepted people with modest English language skills as citizens has broken down barriers, not maintained them. The establishment of this test will, I believe, diminish Australia. I do not believe that this will be apparent immediately, but I believe that it will happen, as the test excludes people who are committed to Australia and who could pass the present test. Their opportunities will be restricted, their participation will be impeded and the fairness and vitality of our society will be eroded. I do not support this bill and I cannot commend it to the House. 34 11:30:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I listened with great interest to the contribution made by the member for Kooyong to this debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. I know he has a very good understanding of immigration and the processes of citizenship in this country, one that is probably better than mine, and that his involvement in this area goes back a lot further than mine. I listened carefully to the reasoned contribution he made about his opposition to the bill, and I can certainly understand his reservations and his personal decision not to support it. I represent a very ethnically diverse electorate in Melbourne; in fact, it is one of the most ethnically diverse electorates in Australia. In my electorate of Gorton, more than half the households—57 per cent—speak a language other than English; on occasion, as well as English. I rise to support the bill and the proposed amendment, but I have to say that the member for Kooyong has highlighted concerns I have had about the original announcement made by the government in relation to this bill. The government’s comments in late 2006 about this matter were very concerning and, in my view, divisive. Indeed, I would suggest they were deliberately divisive and that this matter was being used as a political football by the government, which is consistent with the way it plays with a lot of important matters. The test that was originally proposed by the government has been changed significantly. I had thought that might have been as a result of the conversations that the member for Kooyong had with the government. I am not sure if that is the case, but my thoughts were that a number of government members and maybe some members of other parties convinced the minister not to proceed with the original purpose of this bill. But I do note, as the shadow minister has also noted, that there have been significant changes to the original proposition. Unlike the original proposal, the test is now more flexible. Applicants with literacy difficulties will now be talked through the test and, under this bill, further exemptions and variations can be made at any time. Clearly, that is not sufficient for the member for Kooyong, and I genuinely respect his reasons for that. I have some concerns about the way in which the change will still preclude some residents of this country becoming fully fledged citizens because of their potential incapacity to pass even a test they are being asked to do orally because of their own literacy difficulties. As I said, the original proposal has been watered down in this bill. However, we still do not know the questions that will be asked. It is interesting to be debating a bill and talking about a test when the test itself has not been determined. We are looking to agree upon a matter when we do not have all the detail, although I understand the test itself is quite simple. Labor generally supports the principle of formalising the current citizenship test, but whether the proposal is worth supporting depends on its content—and that, as I said, remains a mystery. We are still waiting for the government to provide the details. It is also important to note that we already have a citizenship test and have had one, in one form or another, since 1948—for as long as Australian citizenship has existed. This bill will formalise a process that was largely opaque, but will still provide discretionary powers. Much latitude will still exist for applicants to overcome literacy obstacles where special arrangements can be made to accommodate them. The very old and those under 18 will be exempt. I am also happy to see that there will not be a separate English test but a test that will be formalised and integrated into the application process. Many proponents of the bill point to a Newspoll that was taken in December last year, and subsequently published in the Australian, claiming that it showed a majority of Australians to be in favour of a citizenship test. The member for Kooyong quite rightly refuted the conclusion that some have made about that Newspoll. The Newspoll question noted that the proposed test ‘must be completed in English, making knowledge of English a requirement to become an Australian citizen’ and asked: ‘Are you in favour or against knowledge of English being a requirement to become an Australian citizen?’ There are two points I would like to make with respect to that poll. Firstly, the poll was on the public reaction to the proposal that citizens should learn English, not on the support for a citizenship test. Secondly, the knowledge of English is already a requirement under the current law for eligibility. In fact, the ability to understand English was first put into the citizenship test in 1948, as I said earlier, when the status of Australian citizenship was first established. The only effective difference between the test being proposed here and the existing test is that at the moment an applicant’s English is tested verbally by interview, whereas in this proposal the test is written, at least initially. However, following any difficulties, the applicant could proceed to a verbal interview. So where a person does not have the literacy skills required to understand the test, the bill provides for more flexibility than existed before. In that event, a test administrator can go through the text of the questions verbally. The bill also provides for different tests should that be required by the particular applicant. We are pleased to see that the government has significantly back-pedalled from its original divisive rhetoric, which it was happy to see played out across the tabloids and talkback stations across the nation in late 2006. In fact the rhetoric on this issue has been at odds somewhat with the content of the legislation before us. Opposition to the government’s tone on the citizenship issue has not been restricted to the opposition. As the member for Kooyong has clearly underlined, there are grave concerns among government members about the motives of the bill and indeed the contents of the bill. The government had claimed that rigorous testing will aid integration, yet their practice has been to strip community groups that actually aid integration of some of their funds, or at least make the terms of their funding much more restrictive. I remember very clearly the anxiety communicated to me by the staff of a migrant resource centre in my own electorate when it became clear that the government was recasting their funding models, making many of their more important functions more difficult or even impossible to maintain. Much of the discussion in this debate has emphasised our common values, yet I wonder how well we actually live up to the values we claim to represent. Values advertise themselves through example, but do we actually live our own values? Many Australians might identify the ‘fair go’ as a quintessentially Australian value. But where was the fair go in the government’s approach to the prosecution of David Hicks? Where was the fair go with the introduction of industrial relations laws entitled Work Choices? Where is the principle of the fair go in those decisions? What are the values that define us as distinct from other nations? And that is another important question we should ask ourselves. Are these values genuine or do they represent a national conceit? Are we testing citizens on our values as we live them or simply testing people’s awareness of the values we aspire to but do not actually live by? I think that these matters should be considered by all members, indeed by society at large. In the past the Prime Minister has mocked those who sought to define the national character. Many would say it was a project which was a by-product of a greater sense of nationhood, a resurgent nationalism, and indeed some attributed it to the Whitlam government in the 1970s. The Prime Minister said he wanted Australians to be ‘comfortable and relaxed’ about their origins and history in some of his earliest speeches as Prime Minister. Certainly it was on his mind at his election in 1996. If the concern is indeed integration, and the most important single hindrance to integration is lack of English, then why not expand the access to English classes and training? I make particular reference to the amendment moved by the shadow minister in part 3. By moving this amendment, he is calling on the government to provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test. So one wonders how genuine the government is in its rhetoric about being inclusive when it does not provide the wherewithal for many migrants to gain access to English classes and encourage those migrants to become more literate and conversant in English. I have some major concerns with this bill. As we have witnessed already this morning, these concerns are shared by members of the government. The member for Kooyong did raise an important issue, I thought, when he drew upon examples in other countries and outlined what they do to process their citizenship. It could be said that we are in danger of following inappropriate European examples where large-scale immigration has proceeded illegally for many years and where immigrants are held back from full citizenship by rigorous controls. In these countries the adoption of a citizenship test has actually increased the access to citizenship. In contrast, Australia has a long history of successful integration of people from all over the globe. Public acceptance of immigration is widespread, an acceptance which increases with greater day-to-day contact with new migrant groups. In fact one might say that multiculturalism itself is an Australian value. The adoption of a too-restrictive citizenship test would be a restriction which was not there before. The reintroduction of a harsh application process for citizenship would be a significant reversal of the trend which has seen successive governments try to open up the process rather than close it down, and I believe that was the point that the member for Kooyong made quite clearly in his contribution. The history of citizenship conferral since it was created through the Australian Citizenship Act 1948—until now—is of a progressively more inclusive approach and the easing of requirements. We should be encouraging new migrants to fully participate in the life of the nation by adopting Australian nationality, not restricting it further. When we inquired about the content of the proposed test—to be made subsequent to this bill being enacted—the government had to admit that it had not yet designed the test. In fact it has not even drafted the book from which the questions will be based. So we must question—as indeed the member for Kooyong did—the government’s sincerity when it makes an announcement and fosters widespread community debate about the notion of a test without actually having any idea what that test might contain. This is yet another example of the government asking the opposition parties, its own members and the community at large to support potentially divisive proposals without any notion of what those proposals might actually contain. No wonder the electorate is cynical about this government. From the outset of this process, the government late last year made claims about the requirements of English for admission to Australian citizenship and then, in a quieter process, pulled back from the hard rhetoric which I say, and others have said, was divisive—and deliberately so—and ultimately proposed this bill. The bill causes me some consternation because some of the matters that we should have before us to properly decide the merits of the bill are not before us—in particular, the test. It is incumbent on the government to provide that test to the public and to the parliament so members can properly consider their decision to support or not support the bill. The member for Kooyong’s comments clearly came as a result of his frustration over the government’s handling of the legislation. I respect his position on that. I have fallen on the other side of the decision, if you like, by supporting this bill. But I do so with reservations and with some questions unresolved. Those questions are unresolved largely because I do not have the information at hand to consider the merits of parts of the bill—in particular, the test itself. I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister. If the government accepts them, I think they will at least assist in more migrants having access to English classes. I support those provisions because they may assist in the greater likelihood of people wanting to become and indeed becoming Australian citizens, but I am certainly concerned about some of the unresolved matters, due to the failure of the minister and the government. 37 11:48:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 0 Mr BROADBENT —A Gippslander am I, though from the west, from dairy, potatoes and asparagus. The good soil of the Kooweerup swamplands drew the immigrants from Europe and so began the great cultural change to our community. Few newcomers spoke English, especially the older immigrants, but their children, whilst maintaining their European ways, quickly adopted the new environs of football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars. We also changed: our chops and three veg were interspersed with spaghetti bolognaise, osso bucco and minestrone soup. We were birthing a multicultural world but we did not know it, where contributions from newcomers to sport, education, church life and the workplace were gratefully accepted. Our community responded to new parameters. My father-in-law, an estate agent and valuer, concluded that he needed to learn to speak Italian to capture the emerging Italian-speaking real estate market. A talented agent he was; he did well and learnt to speak Italian. My father, a draper, employed Italian and Dutch shop assistants to better communicate with his customers and to ensure future customers. At a recent house-warming on the other side of Melbourne for my nephew, who is courting a young lady of Italian descent, revelations of family ties reaching all the way back to early Kooweerup emerged. Three and four generations on, we are one people linked by our common heritage but still with our differences according to that same heritage. Prosperity favours the brave, and brave it was for the postwar Europeans, English and Irish to bring family to an English-speaking country on the other side of the world. How daunting, how embarrassing for eight-year-old sons and daughters interpreting and speaking on behalf of mum and dad. The pre-eminence of the father in a European household and his standing would have made such times difficult, if not downright degrading, for father and son. By the way, as a preteen, local Anglo, as we were called, I had no inkling of the daily problems faced by our own new Australians. After all, their kids went to a different primary school. The Protestant-Catholic divide was still rolling along in the fifties and sixties, so only the Dutch, Germans and those from the Baltic states came to our school. The new kids at school did not talk much. They did not speak English and therefore struggled at school for a while. However, once they mastered the language they shone like beacons in the classrooms. Unlike some local parents, many of whom pulled their kids from school to work on the farm at the earliest opportunity, the new Australians saw the value of education, encouraging their children to stay at school, as long as they were succeeding. New Australians stuck together. No wonder! For them, there was no sense of belonging, except for church, where Latin was the norm in mass and where they outnumbered the locals, pleasing to the church to this day. Every aspect of life—sport, health care, communication, employment, social interaction—was new to them. Everything was different. I for one am in awe of those who came to this country to enjoy its great opportunities and, in return, to repay the nation with generations of proud, intelligent, energetic young Australians. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who come here to participate in the building of this nation, the Great South Land. Today we have immigrants from over 200 countries, many facing the same sense of alienation and separation which those before them faced. Twenty-two per cent of us are overseas born and many more of us are the children of those born outside of Australia. Hopefully, generations will deliver the same dynamic future for our current intake of immigrants. After all, that is the experience of those gone before. As the Howard government introduces a new citizenship test for prospective Australians my community has given me a very clear message: ‘Fine, but don’t make the test too hard.’ Statements of mine have received some considerable coverage—which is surprising, considering the test is not meant to be onerous or a barrier of any sort to gaining citizenship. The fun and games in the run-up to the next election will begin when journalists start randomly using the 70-odd questions in the citizenship test in live interviews with politicians of all persuasions. Perhaps the test set for new citizens will become the bridge too far or a stumbling block of our own making. New Australians must wonder about our collective wisdom sometimes. In my experience they never bothered to fix something that wasn’t broken; anyway, the new arrivals had work to do. The reality of the problems and difficulties faced by new immigrants was writ large for me at the recent funeral of much loved local Corry Kooloos, who came with her husband and seven children from Holland and arrived at the Bonegilla migrant camp. She was on her own because her husband went straight to work on a farm outside Melbourne. She had six boys and three girls, all very close. As Anton said to me this morning, they had all done very well. Corry’s funeral was one that I would not have missed. At the funeral, her daughter Ada recounted the story of her mother never forgetting how life began in Australia with an act of kindness. Two wonderful Italian men who saw the plight of the family getting off the train to go to Bonegilla immediately grabbed their bags and carried them and the youngest children all the way from the train to Bonegilla migrant camp. The first migrants arrived at the Bonegilla Migrant Reception and Training Centre in the Wodonga district in December 1947. They came to Australian under the immigration scheme. During the 24 years Bonegilla was open 320,000 people passed through its gates. Each, like the Kooloos family, has a special story to tell. The experiences of the Bonegilla migrants span the range of human emotions. They often talk of the isolation, fear, discomfort and broken promises, but they remember the warmth of the people they met, the friendships they developed and the opportunities that became theirs. These people came to build a nation. From those who worked at the Snowy River hydro scheme, Latrobe Valley power generation and the coal mines of Wonthaggi to the fruit growers of Shepparton and Mildura, they lived the dream in the new opportunity that was multicultural Australia. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 is an aptly named piece of legislation. It is possibly the most testing approach to the subject since the passing of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 first established the legal category of Australian citizen. It is, I believe, one of the most serious tests of our maturity since we finally discarded the remnants of the Immigration Restriction Act, or White Australia policy, in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the controls built into that legislation was of course the infamous dictation test. This was used to either bar the entry of, or effect the removal of, anyone considered to be an undesirable. It was simple but effective—a 50-word dictation test in any European language, and could be applied at the whim of an immigration officer. I am not for one minute suggesting that the test proposed by this bill represents a return to such draconian measures, but I am concerned that the very idea of a new test will invite comparisons to this effect among newcomers to this country who aspire to Australian citizenship. Part of the rationale behind the proposed test is said to be that it will reassure the Australian public and that it has their overwhelming support. However, it is clear from some of the media reporting of comments on the proposed test that it has anything but universal support. These comments have ranged from derision regarding the form and content of the questions to outright rejection. There is no doubt that the resounding success of Australia’s postwar immigration has been based squarely on the notion of inclusion and a fair go for all. We have welcomed people from more than 200 countries and embraced many aspects of their cultures. Distinguished Scottish author Andrew O’Hagan picked up on this in his opening address to the Sydney Writers Festival earlier this year. He told the festival opening: This is a great country and your greatness may always lie in a notion of your inclusiveness. But he added a qualification: It is your job to make it more than just a notion. Inclusiveness is a virtue to be fought for and won, and Australia has a heart, or it did in the minds of my people growing up ... There is one vital ingredient that is needed if we are to achieve this ideal of inclusiveness: respect, the sort of respect that I and my family hold for the Kooloos family as representatives of the many who came to our country area. A recent article on this very subject in the Melbourne Herald Sun caught my eye. In the article the author Brian Patterson drew together the thoughts on the subject of the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Anglican leader Archbishop Rowan Williams and South African religious leader Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Patterson says that, despite all of the antidiscrimination laws, there is a distinct lack of respect, a lack of tolerance for our diversity of race, creed, sexual orientation, cultural values, political persuasions or ideology. I find this a rather negative view of Australian society—and one, I would hope, that is not widely shared. There are and always will be those who preach intolerance and division, and sadly they seem to attract more than their fair share of headlines. But I am heartened by the tolerance and respect shown by the overwhelming majority of messages received in my office on matters relating to immigration and citizenship. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship said it was important that Australian citizens understand the values that guide us and how our country works. These are values that I believe are already at work in our community. These are the very values that I spoke of earlier. They include the notion of a fair go, and it is this particular value that we need to keep in mind in preparing this citizenship test. Will this legislation offend the imaginings of those who come here in the belief that their dreams of this wonderful land can become a reality? Will this legislation offend the spoken word of an immigrant father, ‘This is my dream; my son manifest’? Will this legislation be born not out of our inclusive history but instead out of an exclusive future? If so, the nation will be poorer for the words. Legislation that comes before this House has to be tested on two levels. First, it must meet the aspirations of and be of benefit to the whole Australian community. Second, it should not be open to abuse so as to disadvantage even the smallest section of the community. While I will support this bill, I would urge the government to keep this latter test at the forefront of its considerations when framing the detail of the proposed test. 40 12:01:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —I commend the previous speaker, the member for McMillan, for his comments. The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 sets out to formalise the citizenship test that applies to the granting of Australian citizenship. The bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act to provide for a more formalised model. My concern with the use of a formal test is to do with what exactly is to be tested and what a formal test will achieve. The mark of any good test is that it should be a valid test—that is, it should test what it is desired to reveal. And in this case that would be the knowledge required of a person seeking to become an Australian citizen. The requirement of this bill is for applicants for Australian citizenship to have successfully completed a citizenship test before making an application to become Australian citizens. Applicants must understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Until now, the test has been in the form of an interview with an officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. This form of assessment is, by its nature, subjective and could be seen to be open to a range of outcomes for similar applicants. But in formalising the test we must be sure that what is being tested is an essential requirement of an Australian citizen. That has thankfully been the result of the government changing the original test proposal. But, even given the watering down of what was originally proposed, I can see the potential for problems depending on the types of questions included in the test. As I said earlier, to be a valid test, the questions must be relevant to the strict requirements of being an Australian citizen. I have noted that the test will contain three mandatory questions on the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship and that those questions will be part of the 60 per cent pass mark. That leaves a further nine of the 20 questions which must also be correctly answered. And it is the point of these questions that causes me some concern. In a similar type of testing that we accept as part of our lives, the testing of drivers, we expect the test to be confined to matters which can be shown to be necessary to demonstrate that the applicant has the required knowledge to be able to drive safely on our roads and obey the relevant traffic rules. We have come a long way from the time when the local police sergeant would ask an applicant to drive around the block and, if they returned in one piece, then tell them that they had passed the test. That test was certainly valid in testing some driving skills but left a lot to be desired when it came to fully testing the driver’s ability to perform under a variety of conditions. Since then, we have seen responsible authorities introduce objective testing of road rules as well as a short road-driving test. But that still leaves many critics calling for a more rigorous driving test and even the inclusion of attitude testing. We should all appreciate the need for drivers to have the knowledge and skills to ensure the safety of all road users. But the purpose of the questions in the proposed citizenship test other than the three mandatory questions on responsibilities and privileges is definitely not entirely clear. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship saw it this way: One of the main reasons people come to Australia is that they see this as a land of opportunity. And I agree with that observation. The minister went on to say: Part of our responsibility to them is to ensure that they have the knowledge to make the most of what our country offers and to help them develop a sense of belonging. Citizenship is at the heart of our national identity, giving us a strong sense of who we are and our place in the world. The minister then went on to express this as follows: Becoming a citizen is a profound step requiring the individual to pledge their loyalty to Australia and its people. It involves a commitment to a shared future and core values. But what are those values? Or should I ask whose values they are? While recognising that Australia is a multicultural society, the minister then said: While people are not expected to leave their own traditions behind, we do expect them to embrace our values and integrate into the Australian society. In becoming a citizen, they pledge their loyalty to Australia. It seems deliberate on the part of the minister to mention the phrase ‘embrace our values’ and the pledge of loyalty in the same paragraph. He went on to say: For generations, Australia has successfully combined people into one community based on a common set of values. And the minister went further and listed those values: These values include our respect for the freedom and the dignity of the individual, support for democracy, our commitment to the rule of law, the equality of men and women, respect for all races and cultures, the spirit of a ‘fair go’, mutual respect, compassion for those in need, and promoting the interests of the community as a whole. I would have thought that those comments would have covered the matter. Although I have to ask how you could put those values into questions as part of the proposed test. The minister takes this seriously as is evidenced by his comment: It is important that Australian citizens understand the values that guide us and how our society works. The minister then gave us a history lesson on the foundation of Australian values as he sees it. Like so many historians he begins as follows: From 1788 the British settlers of Australia brought with them the Anglo-Celtic principles and traditions of Christianity, the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. There is no mention whatsoever in his speech about our beautiful Indigenous Australians and I think I can safely assume that there will be no questions about Indigenous Australians in the citizenship test. The minister told us: The material which will form the basis of the citizenship test will highlight the common values we share, as well as something of our history and our background. As I said, it will not be easy to frame the questions related to the common values we share. The minister spoke about the spirit of a fair go, but how do you put that into words that someone new to Australia and with moderate English language skills can understand well enough to be able to answer test questions about it? For that matter, what is meant by ‘the dignity of the individual’? These are concepts that we can analyse, but it would be difficult to come up with a simple definition and it would be very difficult to come up with a simple statement that could be fairly included in a test. When you look at values such as ‘the equality of men and women’ we need to consider the extent to which they have been adopted in Australia. In my lifetime we have seen the principle of equal pay accepted nationally, so when we talk about established values we need to consider that values are not chiselled in stone. Australian values have evolved over time—and that time includes our prehistory—and continue to evolve. One of the major forces shaping our changing values is the impact of immigration on the make-up of the Australian population. So when we look at those values that we seek to make a part of the citizenship test, we must look at those in the light of the changing nature of the Australian population. I will repeat my earlier quote from the minister’s speech: For generations, Australia has successfully combined people into one community based on a common set of values. But we need to ask just how much that ‘one community’ has changed. Even though I lived in suburban Sydney in my school years, much of what I was taught—and you might say many of the values I developed—were influenced by images of Australia as a rural nation. The school books showed farmers on tractors, sheep and fields of wheat. We recited Dorothea Mackellar’s My Country—and I am sure the member for Throsby would also remember reciting it many times—and my mother, bless her heart, listened to Blue Hills on the wireless. But those images and the cultural values that flowed from them had little significance when it came to my working life in the city of Sydney. Those common values have long since vanished from urban Australia in the 21st century. The community that Australians identify with is more likely to be framed by their immediate surroundings, their workplace, their suburb, their generation, their entertainment and their family background. What is significant in an electorate like Fowler, which I am so privileged to represent in this parliament, is that, while it is home to 150,000 people, it is not typical of even what might be called ‘average Australia’. For a start, in the 2001 census, most Australians described their ancestry as Australian, Anglo-Celtic or European but, in Fowler, the largest group described their ancestry as Chinese. When it came to religion, 94 per cent of the population claimed to have a religious belief but only 54 per cent—slightly more than half—described themselves as Christian. The significance of this is that, while we may seek to identify common values, the values that are common for a person living in Fowler may be quite different to the values of someone living in another part of Australia. Regardless of what may be set out as common values and tested as part of the citizenship test, the evolving values of Australians will be those developed in their local communities and not necessarily those developed in the national community. One of the best examples of the way these values are formed was shown—in what was at the time seen as being a light-hearted way—in the 1960s novel They’re a Weird Mob, which was written by John O’Grady under the pen name of Nino Culotta, and in the similarly-themed book So, You Want to be an Australian by Cyril Pearl. It was made into a film starring Walter Chiari and Chips Rafferty. The plot of the film shows the perils of assimilation faced by an Italian immigrant. Much of the film is devoted to the influence of the workplace on the values and language adopted by the Italian migrant. While knowing of the film might date me, I think it is true to say that its message is as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. The point I wish to make is that, regardless of what the Department of Immigration and Citizenship may put together as a test of Australian values, unless it understands how those values are learnt the test will not be a valid one—that is, it will not be a reasonable test of what are real, common Australian values and it will not be relevant to the community that people seeking citizenship will be part of. The most obvious consequence of a test based on irrelevant values is that it will encourage the kind of shonky schools that we have seen in driving instruction and taxi licence testing. The applicants are given a quick rote-learning way of passing the test without really understanding what it is all about. I think that will be the inevitable result of this legislation. It should be the case that the existing Adult Migrant English Program, which provides access to English for employment, citizenship and community participation, should be expanded to ensure that all candidates for citizenship have access to affordable programs to assist them with the knowledge required to meet the test requirements. But the experience in recent years in New South Wales does not fill me with confidence that this will be the case. Before 1998, adult migrant English programs were conducted by the Adult Migrant English Service of the New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Under this government, the program was put out to tender with a newly established private organisation, ACL, being allocated three of the five regions. As we can now see, the cost of delivery has increased, which has resulted in fewer hours of tuition being provided. By the 1999-2000 year only 11 per cent of existing students achieved a functional English certificate. Since then, ACL has also won the tender for settlement services in New South Wales and, despite what should be the regional nature of the English program, not one refugee client of the ACL settlement service has been referred to AMES. So much for the supposed choice that the tender system was to provide. What we have in New South Wales is a race to the bottom where the leading provider is a for-profit company listed on the Stock Exchange that can set the pace in providing a minimal service to maximise its profit. The losers are those clients who will be less able to function in the workplace or in society as a result of their lack of English skills. If we were to look at where applicants for citizenship should seek the English and other test requirements, it definitely should be the Adult Migrant English Program. Instead, we find that migrants who were required to pay up to $5,000 for English language education before they come to this great country, Australia, often cannot attend at all or can attend only for a short period of time because they need to work full time to get established in their new homeland. These migrants do not achieve the level of functional English often necessary to work in their area of skill. It is not unusual to find skilled migrants—I have found so many living in my electorate—working outside their trade or profession because they simply do not have the necessary English skills. It is a catch-22 situation: they cannot get the English skills they need because they need to work in a low-paid, unskilled job and they cannot work in their trade or profession because their English is not good enough. That is a story told by thousands of skilled migrants in this country. While we suffer from acute skill shortages in many fields, the lack of accessible and affordable English classes prevents us from taking full advantage of the skills of these wonderful people. The second point in relation to learning English is that the amount of time it takes to attain the level needed can be greater than the allocated 510 or 610 hours. We need to take into account the fact that many refugee migrants have very poor literacy in their own language. Learning English is therefore doubly hard. When people do not have the knowledge to read and write in their own language, these skills must also be taught as part of the program. It is little wonder that only 11 per cent of students achieve a functional English certificate. It should also be obvious that a person who speaks a European language based on the same Latin alphabet as English will be able to learn English faster than a person of Chinese background who is literate in a Chinese character based system of writing. One thing is clear: as a country, we are not doing enough to develop the English skills of our migrants and we are paying a hefty price in suffering skills shortages in trades and professions because we are failing to invest enough in these programs. This government should be condemned for that. When it comes to testing applicants for citizenship, I can see three future directions. We can invest in programs that improve the English skills of all migrants and, in the process, impart the most important of Australian values. Secondly, we can continue as we are and water down the English and citizenship tests to the lowest common denominator to ensure people get through. Or, thirdly, we can make a joke of the whole process by failing to fund English language and citizenship knowledge and leaving the process open—and I feel that we will leave this open—to rorting by shonky agents eager to make a buck out of the citizenship test. 45 12:20:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I concur with many of the comments made by my colleague the member for Fowler. Like the electorate of Fowler, the electorate that I represent, Throsby, was built on a very solid foundation of successive waves of migration to this wonderful country, and many wonderful migrants to the Illawarra have availed themselves of citizenship. Since 1949 Australia has taken great pride in this and governments of both persuasions have chosen an inclusive approach to citizenship matters. That has been exemplified, as I say, by successive waves of migration, particularly in the postwar era. The inclusiveness of our approach to citizenship has been sustained despite the massive changes in both the racial and cultural composition of our migrant intake over those decades. I think there has always been a belief at the government level—in governments of both political persuasions—that, if we embrace migrants who want to become Australians, this will result in a better, more tolerant and more successful and unified nation. I do not think anyone can dispute that immigration has been one of this nation’s most obvious success stories, with migrants having come to our wonderful land from more than 200 countries around the globe. Back in 1973, the then Citizenship Act saw the waiting period for citizenship reduced to two years and a requirement that migrants had a basic understanding of the English language—with people over 50 exempt from the test. In the seventies I think multiculturalism was well established and generally accepted in our community. We grew to value Australia’s cultural pluralism and encouraged migrants to belong and identify with this nation’s destiny, its values and its objectives, while at the same time understanding that migrants wanted to retain their cultural and religious ties. In fact, in 1993 a preamble was inserted into the then act acknowledging and implicitly valuing Australia’s cultural diversity. It said: Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia; and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity ... I think it is fair to say that the prevailing attitude in the Australian community is that when people take up citizenship of this nation it is a very important step which involves rights and obligations to our nation. At the same time that those words were introduced the old oath, in which citizens swore allegiance to the Queen of Australia, was dropped. A new pledge, penned by our notable poet Les Murray, was introduced. That pledge says: From this time forward, under God, 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. So from the very early days of citizenship requirements there has always been an understanding that citizenship involves obligations and reciprocal rights. One of those obligations is a professed commitment to share in the democratic values of our nation and to understand the rights and liberties and laws of our country. It seems to me that there has been a decided change in direction in our approach to citizenship in more recent times. That change in direction is reflected in the debate we are now having on the bill before us, in terms of the formal citizenship test requirements. Let us be clear that there has always been a test for citizenship. The test that is in practice now must have worked well because under that test 3½ million people who have come to our shores have become Australian citizens since 1949. Those people, including my family, I believe have enriched every part of our society and the Australian way of life. The current system has overwhelmingly given Australia good citizens. Under this system applicants have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language and, as I said earlier, an understanding of the responsibilities and privileges that citizenship bestows. These understandings and basic competency in the English language are assessed at a compulsory interview. Under the proposals of this bill the current test—which I said had worked remarkably well and had seen 3½ million people accepted into Australian citizenship—will be replaced by a more complex, formal citizenship test that will need to be passed before citizenship can be bestowed. As I read the legislation, the new requirements will include comprehension in the English language and an understanding of Australian values, institutions, traditions and symbols, assessed by a multiple-choice test on the computer. Our Prime Minister has defended these changes and he has argued that the test is about ‘cohesion and integration; it’s not about discrimination and exclusion’. Well, let us hope that that ends up being the case, but we should be clear that this new formal citizenship test does not establish a new test where none existed before. My worry is that it could make it so much harder than it has been in the past for good people to become good Australian citizens. In my view, our nation should not create unreasonable barriers, so that good people who come to our country can continue to become good Australian citizens. What are the ingredients of this new test? According to the minister’s second reading speech on this bill the test will be computer based and consist of 20 multiple-choice questions drawn randomly from a large pool of questions, which are confidential to date. So we are debating a bill but we do not know the specific content of the kinds of questions that would be asked. Each test is expected to include three questions on the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The pass mark is expected to be 60 per cent, including answering three mandatory questions correctly. A person will be able to take the test as many times as required in order to pass. The test questions will assess knowledge of Australian history, culture and values based on information contained in a citizenship test resource book. There will not be, we are told, a separate English language test, although obviously a person’s English language skills, fluency and comprehension will be assessed in terms of their ability to successfully complete the test. The government acknowledges, however—and I take some comfort in this—that there will be some people who do not, and may never, have the literacy skills required. I think it is important that I stress that point; I will come back to it a bit later. I do not think I need to remind the minister that he only needs to look at the level of adult illiteracy among people for whom English is their first language to understand that lack of fluency in the English language and illiteracy are not conditions associated only with people newly arrived in this country. Moreover, we are getting many more migrants to our country who lack literacy skills, often in their own language. The government does acknowledge that provisions may be needed for people who do not have the literacy skills required. It proposes that the test administrator could read out the test questions and possible answers to the applicant. That is as generalised a statement as I can find about how these special provisions would operate. However, the minister also assures us that the bill will provide flexibility to approve more than one test should different arrangements need to be made in the future for certain prospective citizens. I argue that those so-called prospective arrangements would be far better introduced initially rather than left as a possible option down the track. It is clear from my reading of the requirements of the new test that it represents a fundamental shift away from our current focus on the applicant for citizenship having basic English-speaking ability and comprehension to a test of literacy; that is, the ability to read, comprehend and respond to written English and having adequate computer skills. I am concerned that many of the 3.5 million people who have become citizens of our nation since 1949—including, as I said earlier, members of my family—could not have passed the new test. While we do not have examples of the types of questions to be asked, I fear that the complexity of the test may stop many worthwhile immigrants who are committed to making Australia their home from becoming citizens and full members of our community. Members need only to look at some of our nation's greatest individual success stories and ask whether they would have passed the test. Many of them are now famous businesspeople and scientists. Sir Gustav Nossal and Frank Lowy come to mind. Many eminent Australians arrived in this country without fluency in English. Many other people come to mind who are not publicly recognised or in the public gaze—people like my parents and grandmother, who have made their own special and unique contribution and who decades after their citizenship acceptance remained great citizens, albeit without fluency in the English language or the written word. Since 1949, many hundreds of thousands of migrants would have been accepted as citizens and made an enormous contribution to the success of our nation despite having only basic English proficiency.  As I said in my introductory remarks, the region that I represent—the Illawarra—has wonderful citizens who came to Australia in every wave of postwar migration. The migrants I have met and read about have made an enormous economic, social and cultural contribution to the life of our nation and our region. While penning a few thoughts for my contribution I found a lovely letter in the Age. I will quote it because it reflects my family’s experience. The writer—a woman from Blairgowrie—states: Older migrants were not subjected to an English-language test and, in many instances, they never did master the language of their new country. Finding work, establishing a home and family and ensuring a secure future for their children took all their energy and resolve … They did not underestimate the importance of developing knowledge of English and there was a sense of regret and sometimes despair that they needed to rely on others to ease their way in an English-speaking environment ... They were, however, model Australian citizens and their loyalty to this country was rock-solid. I repeat: I wonder if we had applied the stringency of the formal citizenship test during these successive waves of migration how many of the 3.5 million people who have become great citizens of our country would have passed. I am relieved that the government has provided an escape clause. The minister acknowledges that some time down the track there may be a need for another version of the formal citizenship test.  My concerns about the potential difficulty of the new test were articulated in a submission on the bill made by the New South Wales Adult Migrant English Service Teachers Association. I agree with many of the points raised by the association, and I will draw on a few of them. It is worried that an increase in the complexity of the assessment process will install barriers to access to citizenship, especially for migrants and refugees whose first language is not English. It points out that the complexity of issues to be covered—that is, the testing of values and principles like our respect for freedom and dignity of the individual—are well and truly beyond the basic levels of English learnt during the 510 hours of Adult Migrant English Program tuition. The association also points out that at present only 20 per cent of students achieve a certificate III level outcome. As professionals in the field, its members argue that any lesser level outcome would be insufficient for the kinds of assessment proposals canvassed in the discussion paper. As we know, many migrants are unable to attend AMEP classes or do so for a short period because of the need to work to support themselves and their families while there is no access to social security benefits for their first two years in this country. I am heartened by the comments made recently by our shadow minister for immigration in outlining Labor’s vision for a new-style AMEP and promised additional financial commitments. His press release states: “For 11 years, the Howard Government has allowed this program to become stale and outdated. The AMEP was introduced in 1992 by Labor to help new arrivals learn English. But the immigration program has changed significantly over the past decade. We now have many migrants coming to Australia that have never been to school and are not literate in their own language. “Too many people who hit the brick wall when they reach the maximum number of hours they’re allocated, who need to and want to learn more English, but the system is not letting them. “The Howard Government’s policies continue to see new arrivals who have received university education be treated the same as those who cannot even write in their own language. Labor wants to see an end to the one-size-fits-all policy. “The policy continues to disadvantage many people – up to 9 out of 10 people are leaving English language tuition without basic English. It is very sad that Government policy is failing these people. I thought the heading of his news release was very appropriate in the context of the debate we are having today: ‘Labor Will Teach English, Not Just Test It’. Let me reaffirm the great success story of this wonderful nation that we live in. Multiculturalism has been a stunning success which has strengthened our nation economically and socially. It has enriched our culture and has reinforced the principle of social cohesion. One in four of today’s Australians was born overseas, compared with one in 10 in 1947, the year I was born. Another quarter of Australians have at least one overseas born parent. So almost half of us Australians are either migrants or the children of migrants. No doubt immigration is one of our nation’s most noble success stories and one which we should all celebrate. Unity and diversity are not opposites, and I think today’s Australia exemplifies the best of both. Migrants are more likely to want to become citizens and to be part of our wonderful society, knowing that we respect some of those differences and that no-one is dismissive of anybody’s culture, beliefs or traditions. That point was made very well in a recent Fairfax editorial—and of course the test is going to be talking about Australian values. I quote from the editorial: Multiculturalism is not at odds with Australian values, it is an Australian value. And to recognise that Australia embraces a host of nationalities is not to put any nationality ahead of our own. Rather, it is to recognise that the acceptance of difference has itself become an integral part of Australian identity; it is part of the glue that holds our diverse community together. To deny it can only keep us apart. In conclusion, I support the amendment moved by our shadow minister for immigration, which reads: 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 and whilst welcoming the formalising of the current test for Australian Citizenship, the House: notes that the issue is whether the citizenship tests to be determined under the legislation are reasonable; notes the importance of teaching in the development of English language skills and the acquisition of knowledge of Australian history, culture and values; and calls on the Government to provide improvements to the Adult Migrant English Program and other settlement services to assist migrants to participate fully in the Australian community and to pass the citizenship test”. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—I thank the honourable member for Throsby. I am certain that all members of the House would say that this place is somewhat better for her presence as a child of a migrant, a fact she referred to in her speech. 49 12:41:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I can only endorse what you just said, Mr Deputy Speaker, about the credit children of immigrants, like the member for Throsby, bring to this House. The member for Throsby and I have often attended functions together, and her ability to speak Russian to a very large part of my electorate is an adornment to the opposition. It certainly puts Russian-speaking people at ease. Major General McLachlan of the RSL said to me that the function we ran for the Russian veterans in my electorate for the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War was the best function that he had attended in Victoria for that commemoration, from Australia’s point of view and from his point of view as the State President of the Returned and Services League of Victoria. The success of that function was in large part due to Jennie George’s involvement. Labor’s approach to the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 is clear: if you are going to test, you first must teach. This legislation alters laws which were passed earlier this year. It is another example of a government at the end of its mandate. It is legislation made up in a hurry to try and appease a mythical part of the Australian electorate in which the values and bigotry of the ‘Howard battlers’ are elevated. A core value of this Hansonite group which the government has elevated to attention is hostility to certain groups, a ‘value’ which lies at the centre of their values and which I believe is behind this bill. This bill is a dispirited and lame attempt by a government in its last weeks of life to somehow lash out at people who are ‘non Howard battlers’. It attempts to exclude rather than include, to spurn rather than welcome, to create ‘them’ rather than ‘us’. The sensible Labor amendment will be rejected by this non-functioning government. Any attempt to turn this sow’s ear into a vaguely silk purse will be fought bitterly by a coalition slouching towards its well-deserved appointment with the electorate. The act which is being amended today is the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. This legislation requires that applicants for citizenship understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. This bill today now adds a test to be passed by an applicant for citizenship. In our mother parliament in London many years ago, a similar ‘test’ bill was passed. It was in some ways similar to the ‘Howard battlers’ bill that we are considering here, Mr Andrews’s current proposal. The aim of the ‘test’ bill of 1672 was to exclude British Catholics from proper membership of the British nation. It was designed and enforced rigorously by, some people would say, this government’s forebears: serious, God-fearing and righteous British Protestants. The legislation before us today is similarly aimed at a particular community—this time within Australia. I will not name the community because that would create a distracting headline. All members know the community I speak of. Australia, like all Western countries, does have a problem with a political ideology in a minority amongst the community, but that is a separate issue. Recent events at home and abroad contribute to the situation which has brought forth this bill. I do not discount for a moment the objective seriousness of this mainly external situation. I do not make light of the challenge faced by the West, including Australia, and thrown at us by groups who are committed and hostile to us and our way of life. What I question is whether it is sensible policy to automatically assume that we now have a fifth column in our midst. I am aware of individuals and groups listed in various courts in Australia facing very serious charges. I do not know who is guilty. A court will determine that. What I do know is that this almost collapsed government has not a scintilla of policy towards this community other than the stick—there is not a carrot in sight, and there never has been since the election of this government in 1996. It is amazing to me that you can set up all of these tests but not provide the millions of dollars that are necessary towards teaching English to immigrants as they come to Australia. There should be a whole program of absorption and English training that is available as part of the package immigrants to Australia have when they come here. I support a high immigration policy. I think we have 160,000 immigrants coming into this country now per year. Immigration contributes not just to the economic vitality but to the cultural vitality of this great country. But we should be fair to them and make sure that they have English classes available. There are many people who just fail the English test that I know in Moscow and Leningrad and Kiev et cetera who, if they had not failed those tests, would have made excellent immigrants to this country and would have been able to perfect their English here like so many people have previously. The legislation here today is a continuation of that failed ‘all-stick’ policy. Clearly, immigration officers will fail the great majority of applications made by members of the target community. Given that a situation will arise where some members of this community will be in and others will be out, could we have a more fertile field for quite hostile propaganda against Australia within this community? Presumably the minister will deny that his department will fail people under orders. There is no need for us to delude ourselves and argue the pros and cons of departmental probity. We all remember the Vivian Solon case, which the very capable Labor Party candidate for Wentworth brought to public attention. It tells us everything we need to know about the current environment and the way in which some Immigration officials act or were forced to act. My concern is that this test legislation, like the English Test Act of 1672, is based on knowledge of how this government views the world, how the department behaves as a reaction to this government and how people who are rejected and victimised react to this rejection. Every member of this House knows as much of the three aspects of this situation as I do. The coalition members opposite know that the world situation is very complicated. We do not need, in my view, to adopt the lowest common denominator, Mark Textor focus group approach. I can only describe it as a sly and convoluted way of looking at the problem that we face which, in my view, is bound to make the situation worse. I think the government do not care. They are on a mission for this government and the Prime Minister to find another Tampa. Bashing an unpopular group is the best they can do. ‘We say who will pass our test and the conditions under which they will pass’ is a variation of a famous saying of the Prime Minister. Let us look at some of the elements of this legislation and examine some of the problems that flow from them. Presumably, this legislation will need further amendment next year. Hopefully, next year with a change of government we will get a policy of carrots to balance the sticks in dealing with the community. The bill before us is a better version than the original suggestions. The proposed text is now more flexible. If Australia is going to continue taking migrants from underdeveloped countries then we have to take account of literacy problems with many of the test takers. This point is important and relates to my first remark here today: if you are going to test, first you must teach. Labor has always supported education and education services for migrants. The teaching of English and citizenship matters. This is the best way for this parliament to achieve the nobler element of this bill. We are all united here in our desire to see Australia as an integrated, stable, secure and prosperous nation. No-one here on either side wants to see any part of our community fall by the wayside. No-one wants ghettos based on suburbs where a foreign language is the norm and where children are raised physically in Australia but psychologically in a foreign country. This is not multiculturalism; this is multinationalism. The money allocated to migrant education services under this proposal appears substantial but will probably be inadequate. Given the general attitude of the government to migrants, it is unlikely that the inadequate financing will be remedied. This is another example of where it will require a change of government to deal sensibly with an ongoing problem. The bill before us makes another and quite profound change in the migration process. Currently, once an applicant makes an application, all sorts of legal protections for the applicant come into force. There are tribunals and courts available to enforce these protections for an applicant. However, under this bill, persons seeking to stay permanently in Australia must pass this test before they make such an application. Thus, the applicant remains on a temporary and expiring visa that he or she currently holds while trying to pass the test. Clearly, this process will enable the department to use the test in a candidate’s failure to prevent the making of an application. This technique, while being fairly blunt, will be effective. I fully accept that every government has to run a migration program that satisfies members of parliament and meets widespread community acceptability. What concerns me is that this approach uses a broad, slashing sword when a scalpel is required—or a rapier, at least. I think we all accept that migrants coming to Australia are doing so because they see Australia as a better place for them than their old country. It is a big transition for people who are migrating from one country to another to give up their homeland and to make Australia their country. I understand that. Like the member for Throsby, my father made the transition in 1939, from Germany. For whatever reason—economic, cultural, political or merely the meeting of a potential life partner—migrants continue to flock to Australia. This is a marvellous benefit to our nation and also, clearly, a benefit to the migrants. In my electorate of Melbourne Ports, the vibrancy, the liveability and the whole cosmopolitan feeling of the area arise out of the diversity provided by our migration system—and it works. Equally, my standing here in this place speaking to this issue is testament to the opportunity that this country affords migrants and their descendants. Acceptance or integration into Australia is long seen as an issue that remains in the public mind predominantly with respect to some sections of the community unfairly targeted by the present government. What we want in Australia, and what I always say at citizenship ceremonies, is not to judge people by their aristocratic background, or their lack of it, or by the size of their wallet, their ethnicity or their political acceptability, but by the content of their character and what they do here in this country. This bill seeks to apply legislative pressure to target those people who are deemed not to be adapting fast enough. I would urge members to be careful in this application of pressure. We do not want to make a mistake and create fear and anger amongst communities who may consider themselves the target of this bill. The content of this test is not yet available. This is unfortunate, and it is also an indicator of the rushed nature of this proposal. Apparently there will be a body of 300 or so general Australian knowledge questions, from which 20 will be chosen by the officer administering the test. I understand that, to pass, an applicant must answer at least 60 per cent of the questions correctly. Will these tests be given on the streets, to university students, to members of the RSL or to beachgoers in St Kilda? All the mistakes, head-scratching and befuddled responses, no doubt even from amongst some of us in this place, will show this test to be substantially found wanting. A better way to deal with this sensitive matter of citizenship would have been to have had a more focused, measured, less rushed investigation into how to effect a fairer and more effective system, perhaps under the auspices of a parliamentary committee. This would have limited the likelihood of alienating individual communities. The proposed amendments of the opposition go a long way to limiting what would otherwise be the collateral damage of this bill, but I am afraid this government, with its Pavlov’s dog reaction to anything that the opposition suggests, will reject them. I commend the general attitude that Australians have towards immigration. The attitude that has made this country as great as it is rests on our traditions as a free Westminster, open, pluralistic society. But also the vitality of modern Australia rests on the contribution of so many migrants from so many backgrounds to this fantastic country. I am afraid this bill is inadequate. I worry very much about the content of this test and how it will be applied. I think of so many citizens who have come here and to whom English seemed almost impenetrable at the beginning but who have made such a great contribution to this country. It would have been a shame if they had been kept out under the provisions that will be passed with this bill, which is when we will eventually see this test. 52 12:56:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007 requires applicants for citizenship to understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibility and privileges of Australian citizenship. It is my understanding that my contribution to this debate will be truncated because this debate is to be gagged. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—That is correct. It is to be finished at one o’clock. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —I firstly associate myself with the comments made by the member for Melbourne Ports, who made an outstanding contribution to this debate. Secondly, I emphasise the importance of the availability of English language courses. One of the first actions of the Howard government, at a time when I was a member of the state parliament of New South Wales, was to reduce English language courses. That was devastating for the people who relied on those English language courses to develop the skills that they needed to be functional members of our society, to be able to communicate effectively and to obtain employment. When we are talking about English language, we really need to realise that it was the Howard government that, as one of its first acts, reduced and abolished those English language classes. The other point that I would like to make in my very short contribution to this debate is that I, like all members of this House, attend Australian citizenship ceremonies. I find them to be one of the most moving parts of my job. I would like to share with the House what happened at the second-last citizenship ceremony I attended, which was at Lake Macquarie City Council. Along with the other people that were present, I made my contribution to the ceremony. The mayor then stood up and started reading to the applicants. As he read, I looked at one of the applicants in the front row. She was nodding and became highly emotional. She had tears streaming down her face because for her to take out Australian citizenship was such an important event in her life. To her it meant that she had considered what it actually meant to become an Australian citizen. She had been living in Australia for 10 years, so it was not a decision she took lightly, but to her it was an all-encompassing decision—a highly emotional decision. Whilst the government is looking at putting barriers in place when it comes to taking out citizenship, I argue that it should be encouraging people to take out citizenship. One applicant for citizenship in my area had lived in Australia for 87 years and finally decided that she would like to take out Australian citizenship. Australian citizenship is a privilege but, as a nation, we have grown and thrived because of people coming from overseas who are prepared to become Australian citizens. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Order! It being 1 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today I ask the member for Shortland to resume her seat and I call the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. 53 13:00:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —I thank members for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Testing) Bill 2007. This bill amends the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 and provides for the introduction of an Australian citizenship test. People living in Australia enjoy many rights, including equality before the law and freedom of religion and expression. Australian citizens also have the right to vote and to participate in our democratic processes. But we also have responsibilities. We must obey Australia’s laws, respect the common values and respect the rights and freedoms of others. We are also encouraged to become involved in the community to help make Australia an even better place. The material which will form the basis of the test will highlight the common values we share, as well as our history, heritage, symbols, institutions and laws. It will give migrants to Australia the information they need to better understand what it means to be Australian, what their rights are as Australian citizens and what is expected of them in return. The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 requires that applicants for citizenship by conferral under the general eligibility provisions understand the nature of their application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language and have an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. The bill provides that these applicants must have successfully completed a test before making an application for citizenship to demonstrate that they meet these requirements. People who are not required to have a knowledge of the English language or the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship will not be required to sit a citizenship test. This includes applicants under the age of 18 or those aged 60 years or over and those with a permanent physical or mental incapacity which prevents them from understanding the nature of their application. The citizenship test will provide prospective citizens with the opportunity to demonstrate in an objective way that they have a knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and a basic knowledge of English. The test will encourage them to obtain the knowledge that will support successful integration into Australian society and enable them to maximise the opportunities that Australia has to offer. Concerns have been raised regarding the power in the bill that allows for a ministerial determination to establish eligibility criteria for sitting a test. Specifically, the concern is that a determination may establish eligibility criteria that are inappropriate and unfair, with no parliamentary scrutiny and no opportunity for disallowance. Legal advice confirms that the determination-making power in the proposed section 23A does not allow for the setting of eligibility criteria for sitting the test that are inconsistent with the provisions of the act and, in particular, the general eligibility criteria in section 21(2). For example, a determination could not legally provide that only people of French-speaking background are eligible to sit the test. The power is required for two purposes. One is to ensure that the resources available for testing are used only for prospective citizens. The second is to enable access to any special test that may be needed to be limited to those for whom the special test is intended. In this regard, the bill refers to ‘a’ test rather than ‘the’ test so that it is clear that more than one test may be approved by the minister. The introduction of formal testing will be carefully monitored to identify those prospective citizens for whom an alternative test or tests may be appropriate. This approach will enable the development of an alternative test or tests to be designed on the basis of identified need rather than conjecture. To help alleviate the concerns about test eligibility criteria, the government has agreed to insert a note to explain that the power to set eligibility criteria to sit a test does not allow criteria to be set that are inconsistent with the act and, in particular, the general eligibility criteria for citizenship. I will now address the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which recently completed an inquiry into the bill. The committee’s first recommendation was that the operation of the testing regime be reviewed three years after the bill’s commencement. As I have stated publicly, the test will be monitored closely, particularly for the first six months, to determine whether any patterns emerge suggesting a particular cohort has difficulties with the test. I agree with the committee’s recommendation that a formal review of the testing regime should be conducted three years after the commencement of testing. The second recommendation was to table the proposed citizenship test questions in parliament. The rationale behind making the test questions confidential is to provide an incentive for people to read the citizenship test resource book which will help them gain an understanding of the concepts contained in the book. Publicising the questions will serve to promote rote learning of the answers. For this reason, the test questions will remain confidential and will not be tabled in parliament. The third recommendation was that proposed section 23A(1) of the bill be amended to specifically require that the test relate to the eligibility criteria in 21(2)(d)(e) and (f). Legal advice confirms that there is no ambiguity with this subsection of the bill. However, to ensure no further conjecture about this issue, the government has agreed to amend the bill by inserting a note that will explain that citizenship tests must be related to the general eligibility criteria in the new paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). These criteria relate to the requirements for applicants to, first, have an understanding of the nature of the application for citizenship; secondly, possess a basic knowledge of the English language; and, thirdly, have an adequate knowledge of Australia, including the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. Concern has been raised that the content of a citizenship test, including the questions and answers, may be unreasonable. It is important to note that, with the exception of knowledge of Australia, these requirements for citizenship under the general eligibility provisions, which applicants will be required to demonstrate by successful completion of a test, are longstanding. Indeed, the requirement to have a knowledge of the English language has been a feature of Australian citizenship legislation since its commencement on 26 January 1949. It is also the case that most adult applicants for citizenship, including refugee and humanitarian entrants, have been required to satisfy those requirements. The bill will introduce an objective form of assessment as to whether an individual satisfies these requirements. As I noted previously, the test questions will be designed to test knowledge contained in a citizenship resource book that will be freely and widely available to all. I turn now to some points raised by other contributors to the debate, in particular in relation to language and settlement services. The government has consistently demonstrated that it is willing to invest in settlement services to assist migrants and humanitarian entrants to settle in Australia and to learn English—for example, the 2007-08 budget provided an additional $209 million over four years to six Australian government agencies to enhance services for humanitarian entrants. In addition, the Australian government currently spends $285 million annually on the delivery of English language programs to new migrants and refugees. Funding for the Adult Migrant English Program has increased from $98 million, in 2003-04, to $156 million, in 2006-07. The government is also considering providing further assistance to migrants and refugees to help them prepare to pass the new citizenship test. Under the Adult Migrant English Program, migrants who do not have functional English are legislatively entitled to up to 510 hours of English language tuition or until they reach functional English, whichever comes first. In addition to the 510 hours, under the Special Preparatory Program, humanitarian entrants under 25 years of age with low levels of education can access a further 400 hours. In 2006, the Prime Minister agreed to the formation of an interdepartmental committee on English language. The committee, chaired by my department, recently considered options for the provisions of more flexible, vocationally focused and better integrated English language training to meet the needs of migrants and refugees. I will turn now to a couple of other matters raised in debate. One was that the resources book will not assist people who have literacy issues. The resources book will also be available in an audio format and it will be freely available. The book, although sufficient in itself, will not be the only tool for prospective citizens. Prospective citizens wishing to sit the test will already have had a minimum of four years permanent residence in Australia and, as members of parliament who attend citizenship ceremonies on a regular basis know, often people who take out citizenship of Australia have been in this country for 20 or 30 years. The longest time I recall personally is 55 years, but I am sure there are people who had been in this country for longer than that when they actually took out citizenship in Australia. There were also claims that the test introduced by the bill will be harder than the current informal test, that it will be a test of literacy and that it will require an ability to use a computer. It will not be a test of literacy or computer skills as such; indeed, special arrangements will be made for people who have difficulty taking a test because of low levels of literacy or computer skills. Just this morning I sat a mock test as a trial, based on the Canadian questions— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen interjecting— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —I passed the Canadian test, I can respond to the honourable gentleman opposite. My point is that this is a very simple program. The questions come up on a screen. People can see the question. There is a capacity to go back and revise their answer. As I said before, the period to answer the 20 questions is 45 minutes and, where there are special needs, there can be assistance provided to people who have particular difficulties in relation to those matters. This test in Australia is not something that is novel so far as the world is concerned. Countries such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, amongst others, have citizenship testing arrangements. The government believes that this is an important step forward in informing and educating people not just about our heritage and our values but about the history and the institutions of this country. We believe that people coming to Australia as migrants wish to meet their aspirations and to make the most for themselves and their families in Australia. This is an important part of that step forward and that journey to Australia. Migration does not end when a person gets off an aeroplane at Kingsford-Smith airport or Tullamarine, in Melbourne. Migration is an ongoing journey, and settlement and integration into the broader Australian society is something which I and the government believe is crucial for the continuing success of our immigration program. In the context of an ageing population and a global demand for workers, the reality is that migration has, as it has in the last 50 or 60 years, been crucial to Australia’s development and will continue to be crucial for Australia’s development into the future. In summary, this bill will ensure that new citizens have the necessary knowledge of the Australian way of life to which they are required to commit and will aid their successful integration into our society. I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 57 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I put the question: That the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 57 Bills R2842 57 Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mr Costello: That this bill be now read a second time. 57 13:14:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —The Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 has been a long time coming. In 2004, the Senate Standing Committee on Economics produced a report on the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act. Government senators produced a minority report, which, although it made much less far-reaching recommendations, acknowledged that the Trade Practices Act needed to be changed. In 2004, the government released its policy document entitled Committed to small business. The Treasurer said in his second reading speech on this bill that it implemented the things the government said it would do in the document Committed to small business. He is right; it does—only, small business had to wait three years. In Committed to small business, the government said: In response to concerns of small businesses, the Government will work to introduce further amendments to the Trade Practices Act to better balance the interests of large and small business. Small business had to be concerned for three more years before this government was dragged kicking and screaming on the eve of an election to act. All this happened three years ago, at the end of the last term. Now, at the very end of this term, the government has finally got around to legislating its response—and what a disappointing response it is. This bill will do little to rectify the weaknesses in the Trade Practices Act that have long been identified. This is what some of the experts have had to say. A partner in Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Roger Featherston, said: I’d be surprised if the amendments assist small business in any significant way. Professor Bob Baxt, one of the most respected commentators on trade practices matters in Australia—a man recognised as a conservative in his thinking but deeply respected on both sides of the House—said: There is going to be a lot of disappointment in parts of the community if they think this will be a magic wand to fix the problems. Evan Jones, from the University of Sydney, said: ... these proposals constitute a change so mild as to be insignificant. You would be unsurprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I read through all the submissions to the Senate inquiry into this matter. I was drawn to the submission from Woolworths. It is a good submission. This is what Woolworths had to say about the government’s legislation: Woolworths has no major objections to the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (1) 2007 and believes that it is useful in its objective of clarifying principles which the Australian Courts have, in general terms, considered and applied. Woolworths believes that in this Bill, the Government is simply including a list of matters a Court can take into account. We agree. All the government is doing in this bill is confirming what the courts have already said. Woolworths went on to say: These changes clarify what Woolworths understand to be the existing Court’s power to take such matters into consideration. So we have broad agreement that this bill is cosmetic. The government knows it is cosmetic. I would have thought if this bill were really good for small business, really pro-competition and really a major reform, we would have a long list of speakers from the government. Who do we have? The honourable member for Mitchell is the sole government speaker on this bill. He is the sole government representative willing to come into the chamber and say that this bill is good for small business. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism is not on the list. She has not put herself down to speak on this bill. She is not going to pretend in the chamber that this is good for small business. She is going to sum up but she is not going to speak on the bill. She has not put herself down. It is the Treasurer’s bill. She could have put herself down to speak and let the Treasurer sum up. He introduced it. We see a paucity of government representation on the speakers list for this bill, because the government knows that it is not all it is cracked up to be. We will vote for this bill because it will do little harm, and it may do a minor amount of good. However, I will be moving a second reading amendment and I will then be moving six detailed amendments in the consideration in detail stage of the bill. These amendments will be moved and vigorously pursued in the other place. These amendments will represent the approach that Labor will take should we form an administration later in the year. They will form the basis of the legislative response that Labor will take in government as a matter of urgency. We will not be sitting on necessary reforms like this government has done for the last three years and longer. We will be moving swiftly and decisively. I will now deal with the matters encompassed in this bill and, in turn, I will foreshadow the amendments that I will move on behalf of the opposition. I will deal with the gaping holes in this bill—matters which are not addressed at all. This bill seeks to clarify the operation of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. In 1986, then Attorney-General Bowen—no relation—introduced major reforms to section 46 of the act. Before 1986, section 46 was known as the ‘monopolisation clause’. It prohibited a company which substantially controlled a market from abusing their market power. This clause was ineffective because a threshold to establish substantial control of a market meant that only monopolists or people very close to monopolists were captured by the old section 46. So, in 1986, the Labor government amended the act to relax the test. It made it illegal for a firm with substantial power in a market, as opposed to substantial control of a market, to abuse its market power. However, the High Court has interpreted the concept of a substantial degree of power in a market in such a way that it is difficult to discern the difference between substantial control and substantial power. In the Boral case, in particular, the majority of the High Court found that the key test for establishing whether a firm has a substantial degree of power in a market is whether it is able to raise its prices to supracompetitive levels to recoup its losses when it sells goods below cost for a sustained period of time. It is hard to conceive of a company which would be in a position where it could do that if it were not a monopolist or very close to being a monopolist. The ACCC said: The majority judgments in Boral contain several statements indicating an absolute freedom of constraint is required to establish a ‘substantial degree of power’—effectively restoring the threshold to monopolists or near monopolists contrary to Parliament’s intention behind the 1986 amendments. Similarly, Associate Professor Zumbo, from the University of New South Wales, has written: For the small or medium sized entity competing with larger, more economically powerful corporations, the High Court’s decision appears to mean that they will ordinarily have little, if any, recourse under s46 for allegations of predatory pricing by those corporations which, while being large and economically powerful, are unable to set prices unilaterally without losing custom or to act totally or almost totally without competitive restraint. Or as Smith and Trindade—two other respected commentators—have written: The majority were driven by the desire to ensure that price cutting by an efficient firm could not be called into question under s46. However in doing so, the High Court has introduced what amounts to a threshold dominance test and failed to provide a proper framework for distinguishing between conduct which the act is designed to foster and that which the community expects it to prevent. Indeed, as Kirby J has pointed out in the dissenting judgment, the majority have effectively created a case for reform of S46. The government’s response is to legislate to clarify that a substantial degree of power is a lower test than control of the market, even if it is not free of constraint, and that more than one corporation can have a substantial degree of power in the market. It is simply not good enough for the government to declare that ‘substantial power’ in a market is a lower test than ‘control’ of the market. That was abundantly clear to the High Court in the Boral case and has been abundantly clear to the court since the 1986 amendments. That would have been clear to their honours when they read the explanatory memorandum to the 1986 bill. It would also have been clear to their honours when they read Attorney-General Bowen’s second reading speech. They know that ‘substantial power’ in a market is a lower test than ‘control’, yet they have still made the decisions that they have made in Boral and in other cases. I agree with including the clauses that the government proposes in this bill, but it is a fallacy to suggest they will deal with the mischief that has been created by the courts. It is a fallacy to suggest that these measures will fix in any way the shortcomings of section 46. The opposition believes that it is vital to include a provision in the act to make it clear that the ability to recoup losses is not required to establish market power. The government initially flagged that they were considering including an amendment to say that recoupment was a necessary element to prove. They have dropped that. I am glad that they have dropped that, but they need to go further and put a clause in the act which says, ‘It is not necessary for a court, the ACCC or any other litigant to establish that a firm has an ability to recoup losses from under-cost pricing over a sustained period of time to establish market power.’ In the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving a substantive amendment to that effect. There is another element in this bill which the government completely fails to address. That is the definition of ‘take advantage’. Section 46 prohibits a firm from ‘taking advantage’ of its market power, and it has become quite a controversial term. It does not seem like it on the face of it, but the courts have interpreted it in different ways. Different courts have approached ‘take advantage’ in different manners. Some courts have defined ‘take advantage’ in such a way that, if the firm was able to act the way it is alleged, in the absence of market power, then it cannot have ‘taken advantage’ of its market power. This would be the case even if it would make no commercial sense for the company to act in that way. If a company could have technically acted in that way in the absence of market power—even if no rational businessperson would have acted that way—some courts have determined that that means that market power was not taken advantage of. To overcome this, I will be moving an amendment to make it clear that ‘taking advantage’ encompasses action being materially facilitated by market power. This amendment will make it clear that the key test is not whether the firm could have undertaken its actions in the absence of market power but whether it would have been likely to and whether the conduct was related to the market power. This is a very sensible amendment—it is supported by the ACCC; it is supported across the board. For the life of me, I do not know why the government have not embraced it. Maybe the Minister for Small Business and Tourism tried and could not convince the Treasurer. That is possibly true and I would give her credit for trying. The government as a whole need to accept this amendment. If they are sensible and rational, they will accept at least this amendment. If they reject the rest, they should accept at least this one because this is a key amendment in making section 46 a truly procompetitive section in the Trade Practices Act. This bill makes it clear that it is an offence for a firm to abuse its market power in any other Australian market. This is an important amendment due to the finding of the Federal Court in the Rural Press case that it is only an offence to abuse your market power in that particular market. We support this amendment but, again, I stress that this provision by the government will be useless unless they fix ‘taking advantage’ and recoupment. This amendment will make little practical difference unless they fix the other two issues and accept Labor’s position on that. I welcome the moves to clarify that it is an offence to abuse your market power in another market. That is appropriate and we support it. The bill also makes it clear that firms can gain market power by acting in concert with others. The bill amends section 46 to note that a court can take into consideration any market power that a firm has by virtue of agreements with others or covenants which the corporation is bound by or entitled to the benefit of. Again I make the point that no case has fallen because of this. This was not an issue in Boral or in other cases of interest, so we welcome this as a useful clarification, but let us not suggest or pretend that this is a major step forward in terms of anticompetitive conduct. We support the measure nonetheless. In relation to the position of the second deputy chair, we support the creation of this position by this bill. I note that the government has indicated that this will be somebody from a small business background. However, this is not mandated by the legislation. The act does mandate in section 7 that one of the commissioners must be from a consumer background. Why would the act mandate that a commissioner must be from a consumer background but not mandate that the second deputy chair should be from a small business background? I will be moving in the consideration in detail stage that the bill mandate that the second deputy chair be a person of small business background. The bill also amends part IVA of the act, which deals with unconscionable conduct. Section 51AC prohibits unconscionable conduct in transactions between businesses but only applies to transactions under $3 million. The original intent was to only protect small businesses. The Senate committee majority report recommended the $3 million limit be abolished because it is arbitrary. I would make this point in agreement with the Senate committee: unconscionable conduct should be illegal regardless of the size of the transaction or the businesses involved. This is also the recommendation of the ACCC, the government’s own body. Chairman Samuel said, in giving evidence to the Senate inquiry: Our submission indicates that we do not think the current threshold is appropriate and, indeed, we think that the concept of the threshold is itself inappropriate. We think the current threshold is inappropriate because it is a sudden cut off. Just below $3 million is within the section, while just over $3 million is outside the section, when in fact the context of the section is dealing with unconscionable conduct between larger businesses that are in a superior bargaining position compared to businesses that maybe in the lesser bargaining position. We think that ought to be the threshold for the application of the section. As I said, unconscionable conduct is unconscionable conduct. The test for proving unconscionable conduct is very high, and appropriately so; it is not an easy thing to prove. But there are small businesses that engage in transactions greater than $10 million, and we agree with the ACCC, the consumer watchdog, that the concept of a threshold is a flawed one. I will be moving an amendment accordingly in the consideration in detail stage. Under section 51AC of the act—the same section—when considering whether a corporation has engaged in unconscionable conduct in a business transaction, the court may have regard to a non-exhaustive list of factors. This bill amends the section to add the ability to unilaterally vary a contract to the list of matters that can be considered, and this reflects the recommendations of the Senate committee. This is unobjectionable and welcome, but I stress that the list of factors to be considered by the court has always been non-exhaustive. It has always been open to the court to consider any matter which it sees fit. Therefore, while this amendment is perhaps sensible and certainly unobjectionable, it is of questionable value. Unilateral variation clauses are a serious matter. They allow a contract party to vary some aspect of the contract without consulting the other party. In some cases they are reasonable and sensible and allow flexibility, but others allow variations which are unfettered and which give the more powerful party unlimited rights to vary clauses in any circumstances. These are the clauses which cause most concern. Labor will support this measure as it does no harm, but we do not regard it as a significant step forward. I have dealt with the matters contained in this bill. I will now use the rest of the time available to me to deal with the matters ignored by the bill. First among these is the government’s complete failure to deal with the criminalisation of cartel conduct. This has been an issue on the public agenda for years. The Dawson committee recommended the criminalisation of cartel conduct. The Dawson committee took a very conservative approach to these matters. The Dawson committee recommended very few changes, but they did recommend jail terms for cartel conduct, and the government accepted that recommendation. For a reason known only to himself, the Treasurer has refused to legislate for jail terms for cartel conduct. He seems to have a conveyor line. He says that we will do collective bargaining, then we will do section 46 and then, when we get around to it, we might do jail terms for cartel conduct. I know the government have indicated that they intend to introduce the legislation soon, but there could well be only a few more sitting weeks before the election is called—in fact, it is likely that there will be only a couple more sitting weeks before the election is called. It is highly unlikely that the cartel conduct bill will be approved by the House before the election. The government have had three years to do it. On the eve of an election, they flag that they might get around to doing it soon. The case for prison terms remains strong. Successive chairs of the ACCC have called for it, and the current chair sees it as a priority; he has made public statements to that effect. This government has completely ignored the need to do it, but it is the law in the United Kingdom and it is the law in the United States. The United States increased the jail terms from three years to 10 years, yet, by its inaction, this government thinks it is appropriate to have a jail term of zero years. It shows that this government is soft on cartel conduct. It shows that this government does not care about real and serious trade practices reform. The second reading amendment that I will move will call on the government to do this as a matter of urgency. I can flag that an incoming Rudd Labor government, should we be elected, will be doing this as a matter of urgency. We will not wait the three or more years that this government has waited. We will deal with it as a matter of priority. It is important that we give the ACCC the powers it needs to do its job. At the moment, there is a strong case that some of these powers are lacking. Under section 155 of the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC can obtain information relevant to its inquiries by requiring people to provide documents to it or to be interviewed by it. The Butterworths annotated act, which I have spent a lot of time with over the last six weeks or so, describes this power as ‘the principal source of power available to the commission to compel the production of information from businesses and the public’. But the courts have ruled that this power ceases when a court case commences. I understand the legal theory behind that, but it does create real practical difficulties. The ACCC has argued that the revocation of its section 155 powers is a disincentive to begin court cases, and it is easy to see why. It delays the seeking of injunctions for anticompetitive behaviour to stop, thus delaying the provision of relief to affected businesses and consumers. There is a trade-off. Do we seek an injunction to stop this activity but lose our section 155 powers, or do we let the action continue and keep our 155 powers? It is an unacceptable trade-off. It should be unacceptable to the members opposite. It is certainly unacceptable to the members on this side, and when we move into the consideration in detail stage I will be moving an amendment accordingly. The Federal Magistrates Court can hear certain matters under the Trade Practices Act, most notably section 51 cases. However, the Magistrates Court cannot hear section 46 cases. It means that a small business wishing to bring an action under section 46 must commence it in the Federal Court. In addition, under section 83 of the act, a company can bring an action for damages based on findings of fact in another case. For example, if the ACCC brings an action against a company under section 46, small business can bring an action for damages based on the findings of fact in that case. However, this action must also be brought in the Federal Court, forcing small business into the Federal Court. That is a more expensive jurisdiction and does not have conflict resolution as its focus, which the Federal Magistrates Court does. Accordingly, several small business groups have called for the Federal Magistrates Court to be given jurisdiction in both types of matters. The opposition regards this as a reasonable request. I will be moving an amendment to give the Federal Magistrates Court, as well as the Federal Court, jurisdiction over section 46 matters in ACCC cases. Creeping acquisitions is another matter completely ignored in this bill. Section 50 of the act gives the ACCC power to disallow mergers or acquisitions if they will lead to an unacceptable degree of control in a market. The powers of the ACCC to intervene in larger mergers and acquisitions which impact on the market are fairly clear. The commission’s powers in smaller markets are less clear and, in any event, the ACCC is not able to consider the impact of creeping acquisitions on the national market—that is to say, a major chain buying 100 stores in one go would have an effect on the national market; buying one store a week for the next two years would have a similar effect, but the ACCC would have no power to act. The cumulative impact on competition of a series of acquisitions may be something the ACCC wishes to examine, but it currently has no power to do so. It is time to give the ACCC that power, and I will be moving accordingly. A lot of small businesses are concerned about the high definition, the high threshold, that goes with unconscionable conduct. It is difficult to prove. As I said earlier, in my view that is appropriate. It should be difficult to prove. Unconscionable conduct cases can result in significant damages and penalties, and it is appropriate that there be a significant evidentiary hurdle to cross. However, the government should be considering other approaches. The second reading amendment that I will move will call on the government to closely examine the opportunity to have unfair contract terms struck out without penalty or damages in a similar method to the way the Victorian system and the United Kingdom system work. This should be considered for relationships—contracts between businesses and consumers, and between businesses and other businesses. Under this model there would be no penalty. There would be no damages, but what is clearly an unfair contract term—and this has been defined closely in the Victorian and the United Kingdom legislation—could be struck out by the Federal Magistrates Court. I indicate this is something that an incoming Rudd Labor government would seriously consider, and I call on the government to seriously consider it as well. It is appropriate to say that it is important in these matters to reach a balance. We believe the government has not reached that balance. We believe the government has taken nothing near the sort of approach it needs to take to promote competition. This is not about supporting one sector of the economy over another. This is not about giving small business an unfair competitive advantage over big business. This is about stopping businesses behaving in an anticompetitive manner. The government has simply ignored that. This will be a matter of some considerable debate in the other place, so it is appropriate that I spend a couple of minutes dealing with some of the flagged suggestions that have been promoted by people in the other place. Senator Fielding has moved his own private member’s bill, and it is likely he will move amendments based on that private member’s bill. I flag here that I find some of the things in that private member’s bill concerning. I find the fact that predatory pricing would be made illegal in only three industries—sales of groceries, fuel and pharmaceutical products, including toiletries—to be concerning. I think it is a fundamental principle that the Trade Practices Act should apply across the board and should not indicate that one industry is in and other industries are out. I am also concerned about including financial power and an effects test, which is covered in Senator Fielding’s proposed amendments and also in Senator Joyce’s proposed amendments. So I indicate, while I would be happy to have discussions with minor parties in the Senate, I would be very reluctant to be supporting those amendments as they have been flagged in the other place. I have today outlined an alternative approach to the government when it comes to promoting competition. The difference is: Labor believes in the Trade Practices Act. The Labor Party introduced the Trade Practices Act in 1974. The Labor Party strengthened the Trade Practices Act in 1986 against the wishes of the Liberal Party, because the coalition do not support the principles of the Trade Practices Act; they do not believe it. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to introduce these amendments three months before an election, three years after they said they would. This bill is a sop and the government have let small business and consumers down—and they know it and small business knows it. The government are strong on rhetoric when it comes to small business; they are very weak on action. They are very weak on promoting competition. They opposed us when we introduced the Trade Practices Act. They opposed us when we strengthened it and now they have come up with this. It is a sop. It does not achieve real reform. Only Labor’s amendments achieve real reform. I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: notes that the Senate Economics Committee handed down its report on the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act in March 2004, and the Government responded in June 2004 and yet the Government is only now introducing its legislative response; notes that this failure to act represents a disregard for the importance of promoting competition by preventing anti-competitive behaviour directed against small business and consumers; notes that this bill fails to introduce gaol terms for serious cartel operations, despite  the Dawson Review recommending this in 2003 and the Government accepting this recommendation in 2005 and despite the ACCC consistently calling for such penalties to be introduced; condemns the Government for the failure to legislate for gaol terms for serious cartel conduct; further notes with concern that this bill does not give the ACCC power to investigate and regulate “creeping acquisitions” and calls on the Government to legislate for this as soon as possible; and calls on the Government to closely examine options for introducing a regime dealing with unfair contract terms between businesses as well as between businesses and consumers” I foreshadow, as I have done already in my remarks, that I will be moving six amendments in the consideration in detail stage. They will be necessary to ensure real reform. They will form the basis for Labor’s approach in government. Should Labor form office in a couple of months time, they will be our priority to implement in government. Only Labor’s amendments can achieve the necessary reform. Only a Labor government can achieve that reform. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Is the amendment seconded? 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 65 13:43:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —The Trade Practices Act has been dealt with by this parliament on many occasions and has been examined by committees and specialised groups over a long period of time. There have been 33 cases in which the section that deals with competition has been brought before the courts. The 33 cases in which section 46 has been argued have given a mixed picture of the way in which section 46 of the Trade Practices Act operates. In five of the 33 cases there was a breach of section 46, and in 28 cases there was found to be no breach. Since that time there has been a consistent concern raised by small business that they are not playing on a level playing field. These are welcome changes, but as we move forward great caution is needed to ensure that there is a level playing field. I have argued in this House that the Robinson-Patman amendment to the United States trade practices act was a worthy addition. The Robinson-Patman amendment said that there should be no difference in price to a purchaser, whether it be a wholesaler or a retailer, if the quantity of the product is the same and the distance travelled for delivery is the same. We do not have those provisions in the Australian legal system to promote competition, and they would be difficult to apply. But I believe there are many small businesses who, when they compare the prices they are able to sell at, see large corporations as having an unfair advantage. Often small businesses claim that they can purchase products from large corporations for a lower price than they are required to pay wholesale in the operation of their own business. The Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 has come about because of a review put forward by the government in May 2002. Mr Justice Daryl Dawson, a former High Court judge, was asked to conduct a review to investigate the misuse of market power in the provisions of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. This came about because, despite amendments introduced by this government outlining what was unconscionable conduct in the marketplace and despite the provision of something like $3 million for litigants to bring a case of unconscionable conduct against a provider, very slow progress had been made. The definition of ‘unconscionable conduct’ was hard to determine in the courts and, despite many efforts by the then minister for small business, Mr Peter Reith, no cases were actually brought—despite the fact that the government was prepared to pay for those cases and felt that the definition of ‘unconscionable conduct’ as it was put into the act at that time would solve some of the problems. So the difficulty of bringing a case, despite the intentions of the government, the changes to the act and the wish to assist small business, resulted in no cases being brought. But, in the following period, there was what was considered to be a weakening of the act by two High Court cases and, I think, two Federal Court cases. The Australian Labor Party are really exercised about these provisions because they have been caught short on policy on small business. Part of their confected concern being expressed here today is really because, on unfair dismissal and small business, they are left short. Unfair dismissal legislation, as seen by small business, was an impost that cost thousands and thousands of dollars for no benefit to the employee who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed and to the great detriment of small business itself. One can see the impact of those changes by the great upsurge in employment, particularly in small business, since this government has changed the industrial laws. The Australian Labor Party are struggling to find something to identify them with small business because they know small business is strongly supportive of the government’s proposals to leave in the industrial laws lawful reasons why people should not be dismissed but to remove some of those horrific circumstances where people can make false claims or demands—‘go away money’ as it was often called. Small business has come to the government and said, ‘These are the changes that we want,’ and now the Australian Labor Party, through the changes they are proposing to the Trade Practices Act, are seeking to regain ground with small business. This is an area where caution is needed. I want to compliment the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, who is in the chamber, for her persistence in saying that we need changes here but we need good and sensible changes. She has achieved her goal. She has tried hard and long to persuade people both in Treasury and in the Senate of the need for changes and of the way in which those changes should be introduced. She has achieved her goal with the introduction of this legislation. I mentioned earlier the weakening of the Trade Practices Act by a couple of court decisions. One of those cases was the Boral case concerning the activities of Boral during a price war in the concrete, masonry and brick market in Melbourne during the mid-1990s. The ACCC, which is the body responsible for the administration of the Trade Practices Act, alleged that Boral used its market power to engage in predatory pricing to drive out one of its competitors. The High Court found that the ACCC case did not stand and therefore, despite the intentions of the government to strengthen the predatory pricing provisions of the Trade Practices Act by the definition of ‘unconscionable conduct’, the government’s intention was found by the High Court to be flawed. The High Court did not agree that the government’s changes dealt with unconscionable conduct. There was another case that related to Rural Press. It involved a small publisher expanding the geographic coverage of an existing newspaper, the River News, into a new region where the large Rural Press company already had an established paper. In that case, when Rural Press found out that there was going to be an expansion, they responded by telling the small publisher they were considering launching a rival paper right in the middle of the new area to be covered by River News. That process was looked at by the ACCC, and the publisher subsequently ceased covering the expanded area, pulling the River News back to its original circulation area. The court found that taking advantage of market power in one market for anticompetitive purposes in a second market was not prohibited by section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. So there on two occasions were cases of unconscionable conduct by large businesses. Therefore we are making these changes. I would point once more to the fact that, of the 33 cases in which section 46 has been argued, the final judgements indicated that only five were successful and 28 were not. Following the report by what has become known as the Dawson committee, the Senate had a look at the Trade Practices Act and the Dawson recommendations. A Senate inquiry commenced in 2003 and a report was presented in 2004. The Senate Economics References Committee looked at the economic benefits of small businesses. There are over 1.1 million small businesses in Australia. It is a very important and dynamic part of the Australian economy, employing something like 60 per cent of Australians and comprising over 90 per cent of all businesses. The Senate committee looked at the way in which small business promoted competition and the need for fair trading. The committee looked at the competition laws in part IV of the Trade Practices Act which promote competition by prohibiting conduct that may lessen competition. The Senate committee also looked at the provisions of part IVA of the Trade Practices Act which promote fair trading by prohibiting unconscionable conduct—the part that I have just been referring to—including unconscionable conduct in business transactions. The Senate committee looked at the Dawson review recommendations and subsequent case experiences—the Boral case and the Rural Press case, in particular. There were also two Federal Court cases which considered section 46—the Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd case and the Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd case. Both cases were brought to the court by the ACCC in an endeavour to assist small business—but were brought unsuccessfully. As I have said, section 46 of the act, which covers the misuse of market power and unconscionable conduct, was looked at by the Senate committee and they brought down a report. That report forms the basis of what we are doing today. According to the headlines, there has been a bit of a mixed reaction to the Labor Party’s proposal regarding a grocery superspy. It was about the best jawboning effort I have ever seen. They said, ‘We’re going to look at grocery prices, but we can’t do a thing about it.’ We have been through that in this House on many occasions. I am really surprised that the press thought it was a brand-new idea and something that should receive wide coverage. The fact of the matter is that this parliament cannot control prices in Australia. That has been looked at time and time again. I remember when we had the Prices Surveillance Authority, which looked at things like prices. I also remember Caltex going to the Prices Surveillance Authority at one point. There were a lot of smart, intelligent bureaucrats in the Prices Surveillance Authority. Caltex came to them wanting a 5c per litre increase in petrol. The Prices Surveillance Authority examined it for two months and decided that they would not allow a 5c increase; they would allow only a 3c increase in the price of petrol. Caltex accepted that gracefully and entered into a price-cutting war where they reduced their prices by 6c a litre. So much for the capacity of public servants and government authorities to decide what is going on in the market! The only thing we can really rely on is fierce competition for the support of the consumer. So that is why there has been such a mixed reaction to the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition in saying that they would monitor supermarket prices and then having to admit that that would produce no results whatsoever, could bring about no changes whatsoever and would not be a very good way of informing the public about the activities of some stores. I think he was talking about Woolworths and Coles. He tried to gloss over this failure by saying: Good economic policy is also measured by its impact on the lives of individual families. Nothing can impact more upon the lives of individual families than having sensible changes to the Trade Practices Act such as we are doing today to make sure that large business do not use their power to subvert the market and do not use their power in an unconscionable way against small business. The reaction of small business groups to these proposals by the federal government has been strong and supportive. The Australian Financial Review of 22 May said that small business leaders were very happy with the sensible compromise that they had achieved with the government. Mr Bill Healey, of the Australian Hotels Association, said: It does reinvigorate the legislation and it hopefully will maintain fair and appropriate competition. A group that has been particularly concerned about national competition has been the Association of Retail Grocers. The Chairman of the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia, Mr Cummings, said: The government’s action would dissuade big companies from undercutting small shop owners. This will send a clear message to the boards of directors of the big companies that their practices aren’t as rosy as they claimed. Some other small figures were not as supportive, but the main ones said that this was a very important reform. Mr Cummings concluded his remarks by saying: One of the assurances we have achieved from the Treasurer was once there was agreement for these amendments to go through we would engage in discussions to see where we go next on reform. It was a very sensible approach adopted by the government—to make a change, continue negotiations and then be prepared to bring about further amendments to the Trade Practices Act should they be seen as necessary. This House ought to compliment both the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism for moving carefully, picking up the recommendations of the Senate committee and bringing about the changes to the Trade Practices Act which have been long sought but hard to achieve. The efforts of the government to bring about changes to the Trade Practices Act with regard to unconscionable conduct have only partially been successful. The ACCC, despite best efforts, could not bring successful cases against large companies—neither the Boral case nor the Rural Press case was successful. This amendment legislation will sharpen up the Trade Practices Act to a point where fair competition will once more return to the marketplace and small business will receive the support it deserves. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 68 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 68 68 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his party’s 2004 promise ‘to keep interest rates at record lows’. What does the Prime Minister regret most: making the promise or breaking it? 68 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The thing that I regret most is the impact that any interest rate rise will have on working families. That is the thing I regret most. If the Leader of the Opposition were interested in the human impact of these things rather than the politics, he might have addressed his question to the impact of things on Australian families. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the most definitive thing I said in the election campaign of 2004 was in answer to a question from Neil Mitchell, ‘So you would not be embarrassed to win the election and then have an interest rate rise?’ My answer was: I do not seek to give guarantees or judgements about individual movements. It is my argument that they will always be lower under our policies,’ and that argument is supported by the last time Labor were in government and the impact of their industrial relations policies. For the benefit of the House and for a wider audience, I repeat what I said in answer to this question. I regret very much the adverse impact of any interest rate rises on Australian homebuyers. I regret that very much. I would, however, remind the Leader of the Opposition that when the current increase in the cash rate is passed through to housing loans the level of the average housing loan in Australia, at 8.3 per cent, will still be lower than it was at any time under the Hawke and Keating governments. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that interest rates for housing loans averaged 12¾ per cent under the former government, and that is a full 4½ percentage points higher than those interest rates will be as a result of today’s increase in the cash rate. Notoriously, of course, interest rates hit 17 per cent in the late 1980s. I also remind the Leader of the Opposition that the industrial relations policy that he is handcuffed to, if implemented, will push up interest rates. That is the view of economists and of business organisations. It stands to reason that, if you deregulate the labour market and re-establish a centralised wage-fixing system, you will create wages breakouts in areas of the economy that cannot afford to pay those high wages, with adverse consequences for unemployment and for higher interest rates. I say that without moving into the area of fiscal policy, where, despite the Leader of the Opposition’s protestations of conservatism and responsibility, in the eight or nine years he has been in this place he has voted against every attempt by the government to get the budget back into balance and into surplus. 69 69 14:03:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 Mrs MARKUS —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House how strong and disciplined economic management at the national level contributes to the management of Australian household budgets? 69 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Greenway for her question about the impact of strong economic management on the daily lives of Australians. In reply to that question: the most important thing about economic management is the human dividend it produces. Those who sit opposite who seek to look only at the politics of the situations should be reminded that the greatest thing this government has achieved over the last 11½ years is to have driven the unemployment rate down to a 33-year low. A low unemployment rate means that more and more Australian families are in work. A low unemployment rate means that the dignity of work is within the reach and enjoyment of many more Australians than used to be the case under the Labor government. We have seen, in the last 11½ years, 2.1 million new jobs generated. We have seen 365,000 new jobs generated since the government’s recent industrial relations reforms. We have also, as I indicated in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, seen housing interest rates, even after today’s rise, at lower levels than they were at any time under the former Labor government. We have seen an increase of 20.8 per cent in real terms in wages compared with a reduction of 1.7 per cent in real terms during the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments. So strong has been the government’s performance in the area of economic management that the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to make a virtue out of the fact that his economic policy is very close to the economic policy of the coalition. Rather, he has tried to make a virtue out of the claim that his economic policy is similar to ours. In his news conference this morning the Leader of the Opposition said to the Australian people, ‘There is no difference between the government and the opposition when it comes to economic policy.’ That is his claim. If we are so bad in managing the economy, why does the Leader of the Opposition run around Australia saying, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, there is no difference between me and the Prime Minister when it comes to economic management’? That is the claim that I would like to analyse for a moment for the benefit of the House. To start with, it is a palpably false claim because, over the last nine years—and the Leader of the Opposition came into this parliament at the 1998 election, just under nine years ago—he has joined every effort of the opposition to frustrate this government in its efforts to get the Australian economy in the shape that it is today. So impressed is he by that shape that he pretends to the Australian community that he really has no difference with the Australian people on economic policy. If he has no difference, why did he, in virtually his first act as a member of this parliament, vote against taxation reform? Why did he vote against industrial relations reform? Why did he vote against tax cuts two budgets ago? Why did he vote to stop the budget being put further back into surplus? Why did he vote against the privatisation of Telstra? Why did he vote against all of the economic reforms of this government which have made a contribution to the very strong economy with which he now seeks to identify himself? The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition claims to be a fiscal conservative, yet his behaviour in the last nine years has been the exact opposite. I search in vain to find the real economic principles of the Leader of the Opposition. What do I find? I find four things. Firstly, I find a false claim of fiscal conservatism, disproved by his voting record in this place. Secondly, I find a commitment to reregulate the Australian labour market, which will have the effect, if implemented, of reducing the high levels of employment we now have and putting upward pressure on inflation. Thirdly, I find that he will hand spending policy over to the states by removing the restrictions on state profligacy in specific purpose payments. And, finally, I find that he has a policy of not having a tax policy for the next election. In conclusion, I say to the member for Greenway, strong economic management returns an enormous human dividend to the Australian people. I have enumerated some of that dividend. The alternative being offered by the Leader of the Opposition represents not only an empty cupboard but a very serious threat to the maintenance of that economic prosperity years into the future. 70 Distinguished Visitors 70 14:09:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Germany, led by Frau Nina Hauer. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 70 Questions Without Notice 70 70 14:10:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is, again, to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did the Liberal Party run this advertisement during the party’s 2004 election campaign and does the advertisement state that the Liberal Party, if returned to office, would keep interest rates at record lows? 70 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The Liberal Party ran many advertisements, and I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what I have said previously in the House. He can scour every transcript—and I will make them available—of every interview that I gave during that election campaign and he will find no such commitment. 70 70 14:10:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 Mr BARRESI —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the reason for today’s monetary policy announcement by the Reserve Bank of Australia? Are there any threats to the current outlook? 71 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I can inform him that this morning the Reserve Bank announced that it would make a move in the market to increase interest rates by 0.25 of one per cent, from 6¼ per cent to 6½ per cent. The bank issued a statement of the reasons why it had decided to do this. The principal reason which it cited was that domestic economic data in recent months had signalled a pick-up in the pace of growth, demand and activity. In other words, the economy is strengthening, demand is therefore strengthening and activity is therefore strengthening. As a result of that, the board decided to move to increase the official interest rate. Whilst an increase of 0.25 of one per cent will obviously affect mortgage holders and will mean that people will have to pay more for their mortgages and therefore place a heavier burden on those who are paying mortgages, the standard variable rate of 8.3 per cent, which will result from this decision—and of course many homebuyers do not pay 8.3 per cent; that is the reference rate—is still more than two per cent lower than it was when this government was elected—it was then 10½ per cent—and lower than at any time during the previous Labor government, when mortgage interest rates averaged 12¾ per cent. To think that the mortgage interest rate would be lower today than it was in 1996, notwithstanding 11 years of economic growth in the interim and the creation of 2.1 million new jobs, shows how far we have come in Australia since 1996. A big part of the story has been 10 surplus budgets which this government has delivered. We did not have surplus budgets before this government was elected; we had deficit budgets. We had $96 billion of cumulated deficit budgets before this government was elected, culminating in the ripper in 1993 of a deficit of four per cent of GDP—the equivalent of a $40 billion deficit in one year. I was very keen to watch what the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley had to say today about their economic policy. The member for Lilley was asked: ‘Why is Labor promising to keep the budget in surplus on average rather than just point blank in surplus each and every year?’ The member for Lilley said, ‘Because that is prudent fiscal policy’. He went on to say: We would most certainly not be running deficit budgets in the sort of circumstances we have at the moment. We need strong surpluses at the moment. The journalist asked: ‘Why are you leaving yourself wriggle room?’ We know why he is leaving himself wriggle room: because the Labor Party reserve the right to take the budget back into deficit. That is what they are doing. Why did he go to great lengths to say budget surpluses ‘at the moment’? Because, as the journalist pointed out, he wants wriggle room. And why would he want wriggle room? Let me put it this way: if it is important that there be surpluses at the moment, in the current economic conditions, wouldn’t each and every government be running a surplus at the moment, in the current economic conditions? But, Mr Speaker, I regret to inform you that there is only one government which is running a surplus at the moment, in the current economic conditions, because between them the states and the territories, whilst surpluses are required ‘at the moment’—even by the admission by the member for Lilley—are not running surpluses at all but have taken their budgets into deficit. If you want to see what Labor is doing at the moment, rather than what Labor says it would do at the moment, look at the Labor states and territories. We have it that at the moment there is no excuse for not running a surplus and yet at the moment the Labor Party in government at the state and territory level is doing precisely that. Obviously, this was a faux pas from the member for Lilley because twice he had to be cut across by the Leader of the Opposition, who said, firstly, ‘Our position is a mirror position to the government,’ and then had to cut across and say, ‘Our budget position is identical to the government’s.’ So let me get this straight: their position is identical to the government’s. So they obviously endorse totally what the government has done in fiscal policy. It makes me wonder how they could actually criticise the government in relation to monetary policy when their position is identical. But this is what you get from the Labor Party—you get walking both sides of the street. The suggestion is that somehow the government is responsible but, when they are pinned, the answer is that they have an identical position. We have a Leader of the Opposition whose dearest wish is to be a Liberal, to be a mirror of the Liberal Party, to be identical to the Liberal Party. He would like to hold out that a vote for Rudd is a vote for another Liberal government at the next election. If Kevin Rudd wants to be a Liberal prime minister, there are no grounds whatsoever to try to sheet responsibility home to this government, because there is a big difference between Mr Rudd wanting to be a Liberal and this government. This government does not just want Liberal policies; this government delivers Liberal policies. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Treasurer that he should refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his title. 72 Distinguished Visitors 72 14:19:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of South Africa. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 72 Questions Without Notice 72 72 14:19:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s answer to my previous question, when he said he had made ‘no such commitment’—that is, the commitment in thousands of Liberal Party advertisements in the last election campaign that if re-elected they would keep interest rates at record lows. Prime Minister, did you endorse this Liberal Party advertisement or did you not? 72 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I refer the leader to my previous answer. 72 72 14:20:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 Mr SOMLYAY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the claims that the government has not done enough to invest in skills and training? What is the Prime Minister’s response? Are there any alternative policies? 72 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —In his press conference today, to which the Treasurer has already referred, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley had a number of remarkable things to say. One of the claims made by the Leader of the Opposition was that in the whole area of skills the government had effectively ignored taking action over the last 10 years. I take the opportunity of not only refuting that claim but also informing the House that since 1996 the government has provided over $22 billion for skills and over $12 billion to the states and territories for TAFE and vocational training. This compares with spending by the Labor governments during the previous year they were in government of some $1 billion. Over the next four years, the government will spend a record $11.4 billion on vocational and technical education. In the 2007-08 financial year alone the Australian government has committed $2.9 billion, which includes funding for a range of initiatives aimed at addressing skills needs, particularly those in traditional trades. We have established 28 Australian technical colleges in 24 regions across Australia. We are providing a wage top-up of $1,000 per annum for two years for apprentices in trades with skills shortages, $500 a year for two years for training fees for apprentices in trades with skills shortages, FEE-HELP for people studying diplomas and advances diplomas in the VET sector and up to $50,000 for training organisations developing fast-track apprentices. We are establishing the Australian Institute for Trade Skills Excellence. We are providing a tool kit worth up to $800 to Australian apprentices in occupations with skills needs, employer incentives of $4,000 per apprentice, a $13,000 wage subsidy for mature age apprentices and work skills vouchers of up to $3,000 for individuals aged 25 years or over who do not have year 12 or equivalent qualifications We are also providing for apprentices business skills training vouchers of up to $500, the living away from home allowance, Austudy, Abstudy and a $1,000 regional allowance. We are also providing two $500 Commonwealth trade learning scholarships to Australian apprentices who are employed by small- or medium-sized business or group training operations in occupations with skills needs. We are providing an additional 5,000 places in the Access Program, which assists job seekers experiencing barriers to skilled employment. We are providing up to 4,500 prevocational training places in the trades through group training arrangements. We are working in partnership with group training organisations to provide an additional 7,000 Australian school based apprenticeships. We are increasing the funding for Australian apprenticeship centres to allow them to intervene at key points during an apprenticeship to increase retention and completion rates. We are extending the employer incentives to include selected diploma and advanced diploma qualifications. We are establishing the Australian Surf Lifesaver Training Academy, which will provide a nationally consistent approach to surf rescue and public safety training. We are supporting national reforms agreed with the states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments designed to underpin a new genuinely national approach to apprenticeships, training and skills recognition. In the face of that record over the last 11 years, it was a complete distortion of the truth for the Leader of the Opposition to have made the claim that he did this morning. 73 Distinguished Visitors 73 14:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. David Simmons, a former minister and member of this House. On behalf of all members, I extend a very warm welcome to him. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 73 Questions Without Notice 73 73 14:25:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s previous answer, in which he said that he made no such commitment as that contained in this Liberal Party ad, which ran thousands of times on national television. Given that the Prime Minister has today formally disowned the Liberal Party’s ads on interest rates in the last election campaign, why should working families now believe any Liberal Party ads on interest rates in the upcoming election campaign? 73 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The thing that working families should believe is what they experience under different governments. I am very happy that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to talk about the experience of working families under different governments. I am very proud to contrast the experience of working families under this government with the experience of working families under the government of the party to which the Leader of the Opposition is formally committed, the Australian Labor Party. We know what his secret desires about political affiliation are, but he does formally belong to the Australian— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This is the third question about the government’s advertising and whether the Australian public should believe— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has only just begun his answer. The Prime Minister is very much in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I do not pretend to this House or to the Australian public that every working family in this country is enjoying to the full the very strong and prosperous economy we now have. There are some who are, through no fault of their own, missing out. But, if you look at the proper measures that affect the living standards of Australian families, those measures suggest that they have fared better under this government than they did under the previous Labor government—and not only that but that they will fare better through a continuation of this government than they would under a Rudd Labor government. That is what this debate is all about: whether working families were better off under Labor than they are now or would be better off under Labor in the future than they are now. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, this is not a debate; this is an answer to a question. The question was about government advertising. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. If the member wishes to raise a point of order, he should come straight to his point of order, not debate it. The Prime Minister is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —By any measure, be it unemployment, be it interest rates, be it real wages or be it levels of taxation, working families in this country—generally speaking; not every one of them—have fared better under this government than they did under the previous government. 74 74 14:29:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 Mr FAWCETT —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of the state of the US subprime housing market? How does this compare with the situation in Australia? 74 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Wakefield for his question and for his interest in these matters. The Reserve Bank did note in its statement today that it had given careful consideration to recent developments in the global economy and that credit markets, particularly in the US, were experiencing turbulence and that these may provide downside risks to the US economy. That is a reference to what is called the US subprime market. Subprime loans are typically loans that are made to borrowers with impaired credit histories—that is, they may have had a previous payment default, a foreclosure or a bankruptcy. Because they have an impaired credit history, the rate at which the loan is made is generally higher. Subprime mortgages make up about 15 per cent of the US mortgage market. In relation to that 15 per cent, the delinquency rate—that is, those who are in arrears in 90 days—is about 10 per cent. In Australia, the closest thing we have is what we call a non-conforming loan. Far from that making up 15 per cent of the Australian market, in Australia it is about one per cent of the market. The delinquency rate of those borrowers is about 6½ per cent. So the US has a far larger exposure to subprime lending. In relation to all mortgages, in the United States the percentage of all mortgages that are 90 days in arrears is about 2½ per cent. In Australia the percentage of all mortgages that are 90 days in arrears is 0.4 per cent. That rate of arrears is about one-sixth of what you see in the United States. There are some Australian financial institutions that do have an exposure to the US subprime market. These are generally in funds to which mortgages have been on-sold as investments. Some of those financial institutions have been affected by developments in the United States. But I can assure you, Mr Speaker, and the House through you, that the Australian financial institutions are in a very strong position, very well capitalised and highly profitable, and our prudential regulator does not see any of the problems developing in relation to them that have arisen in the US subprime market. 75 75 14:32:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister accept any responsibility whatsoever for nine back-to-back interest rate hikes and their impact on family budgets? Does the Prime Minister still maintain that working families in Australia have never been better off? 75 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP 1 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I accept total responsibility for things that happen under my watch and under the watch of my government. I accept responsibility for the good things as well as the bad things. It is true—and I do not mind saying it to the Leader of the Opposition and through him to the broader Australian community—that there have been increases in interest rates, most recently today. It is true that interest rates have moved up by 1¼ per cent since the last election. It is also the case that interest rates now on housing are still lower than they were at any time in 13 years of Labor. It is still true that interest rates on housing averaged 12¾ per cent under Labor over 13 years—a full 4½ percentage points higher than they are at the present time. It is true that unemployment is now at a 33-year low. It is true that working families’ wages in general have increased significantly in real terms during our time in office. It is true that business conditions now—and the profit share as a result—are at near record levels. It is true that the Australian economy is in a stronger position now than it has been at any time since the end of World War II including, by any proper comparison, the 1950s and 1960s. In asking me if I accept responsibility, I accept responsibility for everything that has gone wrong within the government’s control over the last 11½ years. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —What about the children overboard? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fowler is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —In doing that I am entitled to point to the successes that this government has had. Looking through the transcripts of interviews that I gave during the last election, I have come across an interview I gave with Barry Cassidy of the Insiders program on 7 October 2004. This was two days out from the last election and it was probably the last interview I gave on a significant ABC program during that election campaign. The very last question I was asked was: Prime Minister, if you are fortunate to win on Saturday, what do you think will have made the vital difference? My answer was as follows—I have read through the answer and now, almost three years on, I would not alter a word of this answer because it remains as true today as it was on 7 October 2004: The fact that the people trust us to better manage the Australian economy. That we have delivered periods of very low interest rates, of strong employment growth and great stability. And they better trust us to lead this country at a time of international peril as a result of the threat of terrorism. I would not alter a word of that three years later. 76 76 14:36:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 Mr NEVILLE —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hinkler has the call and the member for Hinkler will be heard. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House how the government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure is promoting jobs and, importantly, keeping our economy strong? Are there any alternative policies and what is the government’s response to them? 76 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Hinkler for his question. Obviously, the government’s investment in road and rail infrastructure during our time in office has been considerable and recently has increased dramatically. Of course, that goes to the very heart of driving economic growth and jobs growth in Australia. As the member for Hinkler would be well aware, under the Auslink 1 program we are in the process of investing $15.8 billion in Australia’s land transport infrastructure. We can do this because of the good economic management that this government has brought to the economy in Australia. We are doing this with funds from revenue, not from borrowings. We do not have to borrow funds to invest in land transport infrastructure. As a result of the budget this year, we have announced that we are going to extend that investment through until 2014 with a further $22.3 billion in land transport infrastructure. That will be a total of $38 billion over 10 years invested in Australia’s land transport infrastructure from revenues, not from borrowings. That is a hallmark of this government which is in stark contrast to many state governments across Australia. Also in delivering the lowest level of unemployment in 33 years—it is down to 4.3 per cent—we have seen 2.1 million new jobs created since 1996. This is fundamental to the ongoing growth of the economy in Australia. The member for Hinkler asked whether there are any alternative policies. There are actually two—not one. In response to the budget announcement of Auslink 2 earlier this year, the member for Batman made a very positive comment when he said, ‘That is why Auslink 2 must build on the investment of Auslink 1 in Australia’s strategic, economic, transport infrastructure.’ We agree. We accepted that as a positive comment on the direction in which we are going, that we need to invest in infrastructure and that it needs to be done very quickly. In contrast, last week the Leader of the Opposition announced his plans for the so-called ‘Infrastructure Australia’, a new statutory authority which he wants to set up. He has committed to, within 100 days of being elected, establishing Infrastructure Australia—that will be three months down the track. Then he is going to give Infrastructure Australia 12 months to produce its first infrastructure priority list. We argue, and we presume the member for Batman agrees, that we have negotiated a priority list with the states and identified the strategic corridors into which we need to invest $38 billion. We are getting on with that job and investing in infrastructure, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to freeze it. He wants to put it all on hold for 15 months, while he establishes a new statutory authority, and that would be going back to the old Labor way of dealing with policy—establish a committee, have an inquiry and look at the options, thereby providing more time for the union movement to get back into control and for the CFMEU to be back on construction sites to help the union masters get back control of the construction industry in Australia. In answer to the member for Hinkler’s question, he knows very well what the government is doing. We are in the process of delivering that infrastructure, including on the Bruce Highway in his electorate, and on local roads and strategic roads in his electorate. But we have two policies from the Labor Party: one from the member for Batman, the shadow spokesman, who seems to support the government strategy of getting on and investing in the infrastructure that we know we need, and another the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to freeze everything, establish another statutory authority and have an inquiry. 77 77 14:42:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his claim that households with mortgages are better off now than under Labor. Is the Prime Minister aware that official Reserve Bank figures show that, even prior to the rise today, the proportion of household disposable income consumed by mortgage interest repayments is 9.5 per cent compared to 6.1 per cent in 1989—that is, higher today than under Mr Keating? Prime Minister, are these figures accurate? 77 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The figures constantly used by the opposition are those which include all mortgage liabilities and are not restricted to homebuyers. They include people who have borrowed money on their existing homes to buy a second property and they include a lot of older people who, having paid off their homes, are remortgaging or repledging their homes under a mortgage arrangement to enable their children to buy homes. If the shadow Treasurer were a little more in touch with the changed practices of homeowners in this country over the last 11 years, he would understand that he is not making a valid comparison. 77 77 14:43:00 Henry, Stuart, MP E0L Hasluck LP 1 Mr HENRY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House what laws are in place to punish employers who engage in acts of bullying and intimidation in the workplace? Is the minister aware of any acts of bullying? What steps are being taken to address these cases? 77 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 Hasluck for the question. I note that this government has introduced laws that provide very strong protection for workers. We guarantee minimum wages, sick leave, parental leave and so on. It is also quite obviously illegal to underpay workers. In the states, in partnership with the Commonwealth, we have strong laws in relation to a range of factors, whether they be discrimination, bullying in the workplace or any other activity that may represent unlawful activity against a worker. Nationally we have strong laws to protect workers, which the Labor Party want to rip up. We have a strong and independent Workplace Ombudsman, who the Labor Party want to sack. The reason the Labor Party, with their half-baked policy, want to rip up our workplace laws and replace them with laws that favour the union bosses, and abolish the Workplace Ombudsman and put in place only an option for workers to go to the unions is that they are doing the bidding of their union mates. That is because 70 of the Labor Party frontbench are former union officials. The Labor Party and the unions are hand in glove, with an agenda to wind back the industrial relations system to the 1970s. Yesterday in this place I pointed out the case of Cassie Whitehill. I outlined an alarming case. Cassie claims that her employer, the Australian Services Union, engaged in bullying and discriminatory behaviour before sacking her on the last working day before Christmas. Cassie claims the Australian Services Union then asked her to sign a deed of release to stop her speaking publicly about the matter. Given that you can hardly hold back the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from getting out there in relation to any other case, it was surprising to hear a deafening silence on the Cassie matter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and our old friend Sharan Burrow. There was not a word about it. In fact, it was reported in today’s newspapers that phone calls were made to union officials and the Labor Party, and they were not returned. That is hard to believe—a media inquiry not returned from the Labor Party! I ask myself: why would the Leader of the Opposition not take action against the employer, the Australian Services Union, and Mr Sean Kelly, who is also the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania? Why would he not take any action against this person? I found out in the Hobart Mercury today that Sean Kelly, the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania, is now trying to find Kevin Harkins a job outside politics to try and get him out of the way in Franklin and ensure that Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, wins the seat. There is a deafening silence from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to Cassie, but when it comes to getting Kevin Harkins a job his mates are doing the bidding. These are serious allegations. In the Hobart Mercury today it says that Mr Harkins has been offered an elevated union position, increased salary and a future Senate seat if he steps down as the Labor candidate in Franklin. I refer the parliament to the Electoral Act, which states: A person shall not, with the intention of influencing or affecting ... any candidature of another person ... give or confer, or promise or offer to give or confer, any property or benefit of any kind to that other person or to a third person. This matter has been referred to the Australian Electoral Commission because it represents, potentially, a very serious offence by Mr Kelly and the Australian Labor Party. According to the Hobart Mercury they are trying to buy their way out of a problem by getting rid of Kevin Harkins in Franklin while they do not have the guts to stand up for a worker that has been sacked by the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania. This is all about Kevin Rudd’s Labor—turning your backs on an innocent young person and taking care of a union thug for a political fix. 78 78 14:49:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Treasurer and relates to his claims about fiscal policy. Can the Treasurer confirm that his own fiscal strategy includes a supplementary objective of ‘maintaining budget surpluses over the forward estimates period while growth prospects are sound’. Treasurer, why doesn’t the government’s own fiscal strategy pledge surpluses over the forward estimates no matter what? 78 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I am confused. I will tell you why I am confused. This is why I am confused. The Labor Party asks me what our policy is but the Labor Party supports it. So what is this? You are now asking me to define what your policy is as well. Do you think you should have asked me what my policy was before you stood up and said that yours was identical? Let me tell you what my policy is and therefore explain to you what your policy ought to be. My policy is to produce surplus budgets. As it turns out, we have produced 10 of them. If it had not been for the fact that when we were first elected the budget was $10 billion in deficit, we would have produced a few more. By producing surplus budgets we have now been able to pay off $96 billion worth of debt. I hold this out as a model, because in the current circumstances in Australia it should not be hard. It was much harder in 1996 to balance the budget, but in the current period in Australia, with booming GST receipts, it should not be hard to balance the budget. What we are seeing in Australia is that there are some levels of government that were in surplus but are now going the other way—they are the Labor governments. They were in surplus in 2005-06. They have booming GST receipts. Some of these states have booming mining royalties. They ought to be able to pay for their infrastructure out of their revenue and yet they are going into debt. Why would that be? It is because they are Labor state governments. The old hairy-chested Leader of the Opposition—who wants everybody to believe he is a fiscal conservative and who dearly wants the electorate to think he is a Liberal—cannot make a statement of complaint about this fiscal policy by the states. Why is it? Mr Speaker, has it ever occurred to you that, if he were such a fiscal conservative, he would have no problem being critical of a level of government that was in surplus in 2005-06 and is now going into deficit? A fiscal conservative would not have any trouble doing that. But, as we know, the truth is that he is no fiscal conservative. He wants people to believe that he is a Liberal—but he only talks the talk; he never walks the walk. He had plenty of occasions to stand up in this parliament and vote for fiscal conservatism. He had plenty of occasions to stand up here and support important economic policy. But, when the crunch came, Kevin Rudd was never on the right side. Kevin Rudd never had the decency or the courage to support good economic policy. If he ever became Prime Minister, he would be as much a patsy in the hands of the Labor premiers then as he is now. The difference is that then he would have some influence and some power; fortunately, now he has none. 79 79 14:54:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 Mr BAKER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister inform the House of the federal government’s proposal to preserve the Mersey hospital and would he report on discussions held in Tasmania yesterday? 79 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Braddon for his question. I appreciate how important this issue is for him and for the people of north-western Tasmania. Let me say that north-western Tasmania has never had a better representative than this member for Braddon. Let me make it absolutely crystal clear— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton! 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms Vamvakinou interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Calwell! ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr Hayes interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Werriwa! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I hope the people of north-west Tasmania are listening to the caterwauling from members opposite. If the members opposite have something to say to those people, let them say it and not cackle like hyenas in this parliament. Let me say to the people of Devonport, La Trobe, Kentish, Sheffield and Ulverstone that they deserve a comprehensive general hospital that delivers services suitable for a catchment of that size. The situation is very simple. The state Labor government wants to destroy Mersey hospital as it has been known, and the Commonwealth government wants to save it. The state government says that it has a plan for hospital services in the north-west. It is true; it has produced hundreds of pages of paper. It has not committed a single dollar—and, without a dollar, its plan is not worth the paper that it is written on. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —It is a paperweight and not a plan. The Commonwealth have a plan; we have a very good plan. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley! Order! The minister has the call and the minister will be heard. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —There are three essential elements to the Commonwealth plan. The Commonwealth will fund the hospital, the community will control the hospital and the hospital will deliver the same level of services that it safely and effectively delivered for many years before the state government started the downgrade. The Commonwealth plan means there will be $45 million more for health services in north-west Tasmania. The Commonwealth plan means one level of government funding the hospital and it means that the community that delivers the services and receives the services is the community that controls the services. This is a good model for public hospital service delivery. It is potentially a better model than that currently practised by the state governments. Let me make this point: a state government that refused to accept what was, in effect, a $45-million free gift in health services for the people of north-western Tasmania would be insane; and a federal opposition that supported such a state government would be equally insane. This is a real challenge for the Leader of the Opposition: does he support what the Commonwealth is doing here? On Radio National, on Monday, he was given a chance to say where he stood five times. He wimped out five times—and he is turning his back now. The people of Australia do not want a wimp for a Prime Minister and they do not want an alternative Prime Minister who swivels around in his seat like this whenever he is put under pressure. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is time to be a leader and not a follower; and it is time to be a decision maker and not a fence-sitter. He now says that he is some kind of a Liberal in disguise, but he cannot even be trusted to support Liberal policy. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Jagajaga is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —He can never be trusted to deliver Liberal policy. The fact is that the people of Australia know what this guy is. He is just a phoney—a simple phoney. 80 80 14:59:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows on from the answer that the Minister for Health and Ageing has just given. Isn’t it the case, Prime Minister, that Liberal Senator Parry’s observation in the lift yesterday that your takeover of the Mersey hospital was a disaster is verified by a letter from Senator Parry to the Tasmanian Minister for Health and Human Services, dated 7 February 2007, in which he states: ... our situation requires a whole of state approach with State-wide services provided in a rational manner. The best model, in my view, is ... where Tasmania would develop three centres of excellence. Hobart, Launceston and Burnie would appear to be the logical choice. It was signed ‘Senator Stephen Parry, Liberal, Tasmania’. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is not responsible for comments by a colleague. If the Prime Minister chooses to answer, the Prime Minister has the call. 81 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I choose to answer the question. It gives me an opportunity to restate the government’s position. The government’s position is to keep the Mersey hospital open as a full public hospital facility. Unlike others, we happen to believe that providing that hospital would be a very good thing, but it is now apparent from the action of the member for Gellibrand that she and the Leader of the Opposition are opposed to keeping the Mersey hospital open. In other words, we are expected to believe that you can behave in question time as if you are opposed to something, you can pretend that you are opposed to something— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the member for Ballarat of rulings on posters. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —but, when you are actually accused of being opposed to something, you stand up and you say, ‘No, I didn’t say that.’ What kind of opposition do you have? Whether you agree with our decision or you do not agree with our decision— DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hotham is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —why doesn’t the opposition have the courage to stand up and say whether or not it supports keeping the Mersey hospital operating to full capacity? Our position is very clear— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gellibrand is warned too! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The member for Gellibrand can play games. I do not think the people of— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have made it clear that the holding up of posters is not in order. I have given the member for Gellibrand a warning. She continues to misbehave. She will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —What matters on this issue is not whether you can hold up a facsimile of a newspaper. What matters is who is prepared to look after the people of Devonport, who is prepared to keep open the Mersey hospital. Those on this side of the House are; those on that side of the House are opposed to doing it. They can score all the points they want. ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr Hayes interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Werriwa is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —They can crack all the jokes they wish to, but there is a very simple difference on this issue. 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms Vamvakinou interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —And so is the member for Calwell! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —We are in favour of this hospital; the Labor Party is against it. We say to the 70,000 people in the catchment area covered by this hospital: we are prepared to invest $45 million to keep this hospital running. The Labor Party thinks so poorly of the people of Devonport that it spends question time making jokes— 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Fowler has already been warned. She continues to interject. She will remove herself under standing order 94(a). The member for Fowler then left the chamber. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Can I let the people of Devonport and the people of Northern Tasmania know that, whilst the government has spent the last few minutes arguing in favour of keeping open a full public hospital facility in Devonport and being willing to contribute $45 million to it, the Labor Party opposition has been so contemptuous of their interests that it has had two members asked to leave the House, it has made jokes at the expense of the interests of the people of Devonport and it has put a passion for playing politics above caring for the interests of the people of Devonport. 82 82 15:05:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 1 Dr JENSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the outcome of East Timor’s elections? 82 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, can I thank the honourable member for Tangney for his question. We were, on balance, very pleased with the way the East Timor elections were conducted. I think they were conducted on the whole quite peacefully, and it was great to see that expression of democracy yet again by the people of East Timor. They elected a parliament and now the president has chosen Xanana Gusmao to be the Prime Minister of East Timor as part of a CNRT party led coalition, which will have 37 seats out of 65 in the East Timor parliament. So they will have a clear majority. We look forward to working with Xanana Gusmao. He is well known to many members of the government. I first met him in 1999 when I visited him in a jail in Jakarta, so he is somebody I have known for a long time. I think we can look forward to a productive relationship with him. Having said that, of course, I know that some people in the Fretilin party—which is the largest single party in the parliament, with 21 seats—will be disappointed that they have not been asked to form the government. Nevertheless, we look forward to maintaining a constructive relationship with the Fretilin leadership and parliamentarians and working with them as they play a part in the new parliament. Let me just make this point: there have been some outbreaks of violence over the past couple of days, seemingly in response to the appointment of Xanana Gusmao and his party and his coalition in East Timor to government. We would urge the East Timorese people to allow the parliament itself to make decisions as to where the majority should lie and, if they have constitutional issues that they wish to raise, then those constitutional issues should be raised where they are meant to be raised—in courts. But the political differences should not be played out on the streets through rock-throwing or, even worse, the use of guns, lawlessness and violence, because in the end not only will that sort of activity be counterproductive, not only is that sort of activity against the laws of East Timor, but it will do devastating damage to the overall state of East Timor and the welfare of the people of East Timor. I would hope that all East Timorese people would first and foremost put the interests of their country before all else. We retain somewhere between 800 and 900 troops in East Timor. We have quite a number of police officers—about 50, I think—working in the United Nations police. That of course underlines the strength of our commitment to East Timor. Those people will stay there for as long as they are needed. We obviously hope that it will be possible to reduce those numbers before too long, but it is going to depend on the situation on the ground in East Timor. I repeat: I very much hope, at this time where we have seen a very successful expression of democracy in a neighbouring country that we have done so much to help, that the people of East Timor—and I mean by that all of the people of East Timor—will accept the democratic results of both the election and of the parliamentary vote, respect the constitution and respect the courts, the broader institutions of the country and not resort to violence. 83 83 15:09:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. The minister is aware of a proposal from the Chaffey Dam upgrade reference panel to enlarge Chaffey Dam near Tamworth. Minister, given that the New South Wales government, the local council and Peel River irrigators have approved the process, could you inform the House of any policy implications at the federal level that could impact on the enlargement of Chaffey Dam from 62 to 100 gigalitres? Does the minister have any objections to this critical piece of infrastructure for the Tamworth district proceeding? 83 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr TURNBULL —I thank the honourable member for his question. The provision of water for Tamworth is squarely within the responsibility of the state government. Nonetheless, as the honourable member knows, the proposed expansion of the Chaffey Dam may well bring to bear relevant elements of federal environmental policy, not least of course being the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. When I have a proposal for the expansion of the Chaffey Dam, I will be able to give the honourable member and other members of this House an informed response. At this stage, I do not have a proposal before me. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Do you have any objections? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I cannot tell the honourable member whether I object to something in respect of which I know no more than that which he offered to the House just a few moments ago. 83 83 15:11:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 Mr BARTLETT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education: what progress is the government making in dealing with labour and skills shortages, and are there any major impediments to further progress? 83 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP Minister for Vocational and Further Education 1 Mr ROBB —I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. Over recent months, in the absence of any worthwhile policy ideas on the other side of the House, they have resorted to asserting that the government has done nothing on skills—and the Leader of the Opposition was at it again this morning. This is just not true; it is a political lie, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it. He knows that apprentices in training in the electorate of Griffith have more than doubled since 1996. In 1996, there were 1,350 young people doing apprenticeships in the seat of Griffith; today there are 2,890 doing apprenticeships. Recent research, released today, also puts a lie to the assertion. It shows a massive increase in the number of trade apprentices since 1995-96—for example, there has been an increase of 67 per cent in the number of apprentices doing construction apprenticeships; there has been a 63 per cent increase in the number of young people doing electrical and electronic apprenticeships. It is the result of the $22 billion worth of initiatives that the Prime Minister detailed earlier. It is why over the last four years in Australia 544,000 young people have completed apprenticeships, compared to 30,000—a lonely 30,000—in 1996 when we took office. This has not happened by accident. It is a response of 10 years of hard work by the Howard government, yet what do we hear from those opposite? On the eve of an election and after eight months as Leader of the Opposition, the member for Griffith has provided no plan whatsoever to address the labour and skills shortages. There has not been one question in this House to me or anybody else about skills shortages from those opposite in eight months, yet we hear them assert again and again that this is a priority for the country; not one question. And why? It is because they are devoid of suggestions and ideas. The only response to date that Labor have announced is a program all the way through to 2018, an 11-year program of spending, to tack on a technical classroom to every secondary school across Australia. Putting an oven or a lathe in a classroom down the back end of every secondary school is not a solution to the skills challenge and will only continue to reinforce the view that a technical education is a second-class career. In every one of those secondary schools, the academic stream will continue to dominate. This response would only serve to reinforce the view that a technical career is a second-class career. Recent research from Monash University shows that the one-size-fits-all approach is counterproductive. Labor made ‘apprenticeships’ and ‘trade training’ dirty words. If they win office, they will do it again. 84 84 15:15:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 Mrs ELLIOT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that working families in Australia have never been better off, given that, according to the Urban Development Institute of Australia, 76 per cent of houses in the Tweed were affordable in 2001 but by 2006 the figure had dropped to just 15 per cent? 84 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I will take those particular figures on notice and have a look. But what I do stand by, in more general response, is what I said earlier in question time—that, although not every Australian family has benefited to the full from the economic bounty of current times, if you look at the general measures there is no doubt that there is a higher level of prosperity now than there has been at any time over the last 30 years. You cannot deny the fact that unemployment is at a 33-year low. You cannot deny the fact that real wages have increased by 20.8 per cent over the last 13 years. You cannot deny the fact that interest rates now, even after today’s increase, are at a lower level than they were at any time under the former government. You cannot deny the fact that, under the 13 years of Hawke and Keating, interest rates for housing averaged 12¾ per cent. Even after today’s rise, which will take them to 8.3 per cent, they are still a full 4½ percentage points lower than the average under 13 years of Labor. These are indisputable facts. I will have a look at the Richmond figures—I have my doubts, but I will have a look at them—but the indisputable facts are as I have described them. DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the member for Cunningham that interjecting from out of her seat is highly disorderly. 84 84 15:17:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 Mr TICEHURST —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 helping to keep the rate of inflation low? Are there any alternative policies that put these gains at risk? 85 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 —In my portfolio there are two simple reasons why interest rates would be higher today if the Labor Party were in government. Firstly, when it comes to industrial relations, an Econtech report released on 16 July says unequivocally that inflation would be one per cent higher if there were no independent building watchdog, which is the Labor Party’s policy. Their policy is to abolish the independent building watchdog, to close down the Building Code. As a result of that, GDP would fall by 1.5 per cent, inflation would increase by 1.2 per cent and that would of course increase interest rates. Secondly, a statement from the Governor of the Reserve Bank says: Capacity utilisation is high after a lengthy period of expansion, and unemployment over recent months has continued to decline. One of the key factors there is about getting people into the workforce, increasing the size of the workforce when there is demand for more workers in the economy. This government had the courage to undertake welfare reform, opposed all the way by the Labor Party. On 1 July this year, nearly a quarter of a million Australians who were in receipt of a parental pension and whose youngest child was of school age had, for the first time, an obligation to go to work for 15 hours a week. We moved that because we knew that Australia needed more workers. The Labor Party, including the Leader of the Opposition, voted against that reform, saying that it was heartless and inappropriate. In fact, the member for Lilley said it should be dumped. We have made the hard decisions about the economy. We made the hard decision on industrial relations reform that Bill Evans from Westpac said on Sky News today is helping to deliver a flexible workplace environment. As he said, if we had the resources boom of the 1970s and the same industrial relations system of the 1970s, things would be out of control. But today we have an equivalent resources boom and we have a flexible workplace that helps to keep unnecessary wage claims in check and at the same time contains inflation—the second area in relation to welfare—opposed all the way by the Labor Party because they do not have the guts to make the hard economic decisions. If you want to know how you can end up with higher interest rates, look no further than the Labor Party if they ever get into government. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 85 Auditor-General's Reports 85 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 4 of 2007-08 entitled Performance Audit: container examination facilities follow-up: Australian Customs Service. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 85 Documents Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland —Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 15:21:00 —Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following document: Indigenous Land Corporation: National indigenous land strategy for 2007-2012 Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 85 Matters of Public Importance 85 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Federal Government’s economic policies to put maximum downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 86 15:22:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 0 Mr SWAN —It is with some regret that I propose this discussion today on the failure of the federal government’s economic policies to put maximum downward pressure on inflation and interest rates because, sadly, today we have had the fifth rate rise since this Prime Minister promised to keep them at record lows. And, of course, we have now had nine rate rises on the trot. The cost to families has been enormous. The last five rate rises, since the Prime Minister promised to keep rates at record lows, have added $250 a month to the cost for a family with a mortgage of $300,000. So today is an anxious day for Australian families and also for small businesses. But you would not have thought that was the case if you listened to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer here today in question time or, indeed, at their press conference. They have absolutely no understanding of the new interest rate reality in this country, no understanding that families are paying the highest percentage of their disposable income in mortgage interest repayments in our history—higher now under Mr Howard than under Mr Keating. We asked Mr Howard about this today and he gave his pat answer, proving he just does not get the new interest rate reality. He does not get the fact that it is harder and harder for somebody to buy a home. He does not get the fact that one in four households with a mortgage are suffering mortgage stress, or that one in three households that rent are paying more than 30 per cent of their income in rental repayments. So there is an enormous amount of stress out there which comes directly from the new interest rate reality—the modern interest rate reality. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer do not understand that people these days have to borrow a lot more to buy a house. There is no such thing as a cheap home loan anymore. There is no such thing as a cheap house. People have to borrow a lot more than they had to in 1989. So when an interest rate rise comes along it has something like three times the punch because people have had to borrow three times as much as the amount that was needed in 1989. But the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are so far out of touch they do not appreciate the modern interest rate reality and so we got no acknowledgement of that from them today, either in the House or at their press conference this morning. In fact, what we got was an enormous amount of bragging about their record. Not a word was said about their long-term plan to fight inflation and lift productivity—that is, to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. Australian working families will be sitting around their lounge rooms tonight looking at the news and figuring out how they are going to cope with this fifth interest rate rise in a row—the fifth since John Howard promised to keep them at record lows— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Lilley will refer to members by their title or by their seat. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —and what they will see is a Prime Minister and a Treasurer completely out of touch and completely out of time. Of course, it was a unique event, wasn’t it, seeing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer together today doing a joint press conference? They have not been getting on terribly well lately. In fact, only a month ago the Treasurer said that the Australian people should not trust the Prime Minister when it comes to the economy. He went out and told those biographers of Mr Howard that the Prime Minister had engaged in reckless spending in the last two election campaigns and that that reckless spending had put upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates. So, if Mr Howard’s Treasurer does not trust him to run the economy, why should the Australian people? Why should the Australian people trust the Prime Minister to put in place a range of policies that put maximum downward pressure on inflation and maximum downward pressure on interest rates? And they do not. The government do not have an answer for this. That is why we are getting the blame game rhetoric from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister all the time: ‘Don’t blame the Howard government; blame the unions. Don’t blame the Howard government; blame the states.’ Don’t blame the Howard government for what they are actually responsible for—don’t blame them at all. So we have a dangerous combination here at the head of this government: we have a PM who wants to cling to power at any cost and a Treasurer who tells us he will spend any amount of money to do it. And haven’t we had the proof of that in recent weeks? But guess what else the Treasurer has told us? He has told us that he does not have the guts to stop the Prime Minister doing it. That is a very dangerous combination if you have a high inflationary environment. The IMF has warned about inflationary pressures in the Australian economy; so has the Secretary to the Treasury. Most reputable economists have warned about inflationary pressures in the Australian economy. But are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer worried about inflationary pressures in the Australian economy? Of course they are not. They are worried about each other. Neither of them have had their eye on the main game, which must be a range of reforms and long-term policies that put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. Of course, they do not have those policies. What they have is a strategy delivered to them by Crosby Textor, and that strategy simply says: ‘Blame everybody else.’ There is no other long-term solution. What we saw today in the parliament and at the press conference was an attempt to blame state governments, to blame the borrowing programs of public corporations at the state level for inflationary pressures in the Australian economy. We are lectured all the time about how the government believe in the independence of the Reserve Bank and how they value its advice. What has the Reserve Bank had to say about the absurd and dishonest proposal they are putting about the states? On 21 February this is what Glenn Stevens had to say: ... infrastructure for investments of various kinds needs to be done. …            …            … Balance sheets of governments in this country by and large are in very good shape, they won’t have any trouble borrowing ... I don’t think it will feed directly into the consumer price index. That just blows away the excuse the government has been making for not attending to inflationary pressures in the economy. They have been quoting former Reserve Bank Governor Macfarlane as if somehow he was supporting their proposal. On 18 August Ian Macfarlane said about this ridiculous and dishonest proposition from the Treasurer: I think the states by and large have had very prudent fiscal policy over most of the period you are referring to ... I have no problem with the states spending money on infrastructure. I do not even have any problem with the general principle of borrowing for long-lived assets like infrastructure. That is what Macfarlane had to say, but the government do not quote it. The challenge today is for this Treasurer to get honest about all of these things and get serious about a long-term program to put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. But we are not going to see any of that. We are not going to see this government attending to the productive needs of this economy through the necessary investments in education or through the necessary political leadership required to put infrastructure in place that will guarantee prosperity in this country beyond the mining boom, investment that will attend to the faltering productivity growth in this economy that is eroding our competitiveness and leading to capacity constraints. The capacity constraints in this economy are pushing inflationary pressures and interest rates upwards. Who is responsible for that? The government is principally responsible for that. It has been ignoring warning after warning from the Reserve Bank about the need to attend to capacity constraints in the Australian economy. There have been some 20 warnings from the Reserve Bank over a period of time and they have been completely ignored by this government. It has had only one strategy in place: to cut wages and working conditions. That strategy has been delivered by the minister across there, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, supported by the Treasurer. Their only solution is to cut wages, not to lift the productive capacity of the Australian economy. And of course we have had this from the Secretary to the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury on numerous occasions, but most particularly in March this year, warned the Treasurer about the government’s addiction to short-term fixes and the need to involve the Treasury more broadly in lifting the productive capacity of this economy. The secretary talked about a serious risk to inflation from policy interventions by the government unless it turned its focus to lifting our nation’s productivity capacity. That was the damning judgement of the Secretary to the Treasury. He has little faith in this government. What he was saying is in some ways reflective of what the Treasurer said to the Prime Minister’s biographers: this government will say anything, do anything, and spend any amount of money to win an election. Labor has been attending to the policy challenges of this country. We have got a plan for the next 10 years—not the next 10 weeks, Treasurer. It is a plan which goes to the core of lifting productivity in this economy, a plan which will deliver an education revolution to address the skills crisis and to take the heat out of inflation. On the government’s own estimates, Australia faces a shortage of more than 240,000 skilled workers over the next nine years. But it is not just a matter of the skills shortage going forward. These are skill shortages right now. This Howard government has underinvested in skills and education. Australia’s overall investment in education and skills lags behind 17 other OECD economies, including Poland, Hungary and New Zealand. If Australia aspires to be first in prosperity, we cannot continue to be 17th in education and skills. It is that simple. What we are debating today is the failure of the government to make those investments, which is putting upward pressure on inflation and interest rates and has been partly responsible for the fifth interest rate rise since the Prime Minister promised to keep interest rates at record lows. Federal Labor will invest in an education revolution to lift the quality of the level of education from early childhood through to schools and trades and higher education. You could see just how sensitive the government was to our proposals in this area today when we saw Mr Robb, the responsible minister. The coalition are running behind Labor. Our investment in new trade facilities in schools has left this government completely for dead and there has been very significant public support for our policy. So stay tuned for the extreme makeover when it comes to skills. Stay tuned for some new initiative from the government just out from the election to try to make up the political ground that it has lost over the last 10 or 11 years. It is the same when we get to infrastructure. The government has ignored persistent calls from business and industry groups for infrastructure planning and development to be nationally coordinated. The government’s own research has shown that Australia ranks 20 out of 25 OECD countries for its investment in public infrastructure as a proportion of GDP. While we support the role of private investment in infrastructure, there is an important role for governments. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I do not have to worry about reading anything, Minister. I can simply look you in the eye and see the problem. You are absolutely the person who personifies how out of touch all these ministers are in this government—you more than anybody else. There was your famous grab on television. When we were talking about something fundamental like the price of groceries, your arrogance— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer interjecting— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Lilley has the call. Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs is warned! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —and absolute lack of affinity with ordinary working people in this country was there for everybody to see. You are matched only by this man over here— 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to the standing orders. I think this fusillade of personal abuse is not really relevant to the topic— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The member for Lilley has the call. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —We have a program of investment and infrastructure. High-speed national broadband is a very good contrast with just how complacent and out of touch this government is. We will put in place the program that will deliver downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates and we will run a disciplined fiscal policy. You could see how embarrassed this Treasurer was today and how dishonest he was prepared to be when it came to talking about fiscal policy, somehow trying to say that we were not being fiscally conservative because we said that we were going to run the budget in surplus on average over the cycle. He knows absolutely well that running it on average over the cycle is his own policy. (Time expired) 89 15:38:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 0 Mr COSTELLO —The topic of the MPI is: The failure of the Federal Government’s economic policies to put maximum downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. What puzzles me about this particular topic is that we have just seen an extensive press conference between the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Lilley. Apart from a few difficult moments, which I will come to in a moment, the essence of the press conference was a determination by the Leader of the Opposition to say that he had a fiscal policy which was identical to the government’s. That is what he said, ‘Our budget position is identical to the government’s.’ And, on another occasion, ‘It is a mirror position to the government’s.’ In other words, the whole object of the press conference was to say that ‘the federal government’s fiscal policy is our policy’. That is what it was—that ‘we have adopted Liberal Party policy’. That was the whole object of the press conference. ‘You can trust us to be good Liberals and you can trust us to do what the Liberal Party has done.’ They then come in here on an MPI and say that they want to discuss the failure of the government’s policy. Which policy is that? The policy which, they say, is identical to theirs. The policy which, they say, is the mirror image of theirs. Why would you do such a thing? Why would you say, on the one hand, ‘The government policy is our policy but we would like to come in and debate the failure of that policy’? It is because it is an old political technique which is known as ‘walking both sides of the street’. On the one hand you want to walk the side of the street that says, ‘If we can find a little part of disaffection, or a tough decision in the economy, we’ll criticise it.’ But then if you are asked, ‘What will you do about it? What policy would you introduce that would be different?’ you never want to be pinned down on a policy, particularly an economic policy which is different from this government’s because of its successful record, and so you say, ‘Our policy is identical. We want to criticise the government for anything that we can find that might be an area of exploitation amongst public opinion but, at the same time, we want to agree with all of the government’s policy.’ That is precisely where the Labor Party is at the moment. I do not find it surprising that the Labor Party would want to say that their policy is our policy. Why would you not want to be an economic conservative now, in Australia, after 11 years of economic conservative policies which have delivered 10 surplus budgets, no Commonwealth debt—a position that we have not been in for a very long time if at all—a future fund which is funding future liabilities, and a higher education endowment fund which is funding the tertiary sector on an ‘in perpetuity’ basis? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative when we have had the longest period of economic expansion in Australian history? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative after 2.1 million new jobs have been created? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative after wholesale sales tax has been replaced with GST, after capital gains tax has been cut in half, after the company tax has been reduced from 36 to 30 per cent, after tax was cut in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and after the top rate of tax, which used to be 47c and cracked in at $50,000, has now been cut to 45c and will not crack in until over $180,000? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative when you do not have to pay income tax with the low income tax offset up to $11,000? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative now when you can have the 15c tax rate up to $30,000? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative now that inflation is averaging 2.5 per cent compared to the Labor Party’s 5.5 per cent? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative if the home mortgage interest rate at 8.3 per cent compares with the Labor average of 12.75 per cent? Why would you not want to be an economic conservative after 11 years and 2.1 million jobs, and the cash rate is still lower than it was in 1996? We now have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition says that his dearest wish is to be a Liberal—I am not quite sure about the member for Lilley. ‘My dearest wish is to be elected and to implement Liberal Party policy. There is no difference with the Liberal Party on fiscal policy.’ The Leader of the Opposition said today, ‘There is no difference with the Liberal Party on monetary policy. We believe in an independent bank with inflation targeting.’ That was introduced by this government. The Labor Party threatened to sue the government for implementing this ‘illegal’ arrangement. He wants to agree with surplus budgeting. Labor had plenty of time to agree with surplus budgeting when it was in office. Let me tell you about the Labor Party’s policy—this party which believes in surplus budgeting. Let us go back to when it was in office. In 1995-96 the deficit was $10 billion; in 1994-95, deficit $13 billion; in 1993-94, deficit $17.1 billion; in 1991-92, deficit $11.5 billion; and—this is the corker for me—in 1992-93 the deficit was $17 billion, or 3.9 per cent of GDP. By the way, we were not even in recession then—the economy was growing, and interest rates were rising. The deficit was at 3.9 per cent of GDP. The Australian economy is now a bit bigger than a trillion dollars. If we were to produce what Labor produced in 1992-93 the federal deficit this year would be over $40 billion. Why wouldn’t you want to be a Liberal when you compare the Liberal Party’s results with the Labor Party’s? The only point I would make is that, if you want to be a Liberal and you want a Liberal government, vote for us, not for Kevin Rudd, because he is a wannabe Liberal. It is like when the government decides that it is going to fix the situation in the Northern Territory—Kevin Rudd wants to be a Liberal government and agrees with that. I think that is right, isn’t it? When the government takes strong action on Dr Haneef, Kevin Rudd wants to be a Liberal—he wants to support it. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The Treasurer will refer to members by their titles or by their seats. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —But the difference is this: we know that Kevin Rudd will support Liberal policies when he thinks they are popular. We also know that if he were in office these decisions would never have been taken. That is what the public knows. The public knows that, if Kevin Rudd had been in office, strong action would not have been taken on Dr Haneef. The public knows that if Kevin Rudd had been in office— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Treasurer will refer to members by their titles or by their seats. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —then the decision would not have been made on the Northern Territory. The public also knows that if Kevin Rudd is in office— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Treasurer, I have asked you to refer to members by their titles or by their seats! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —we will not be having surplus budgets anymore, because the Leader of the Opposition is a wannabe Liberal who can talk the talk but, every time the crunch has come, he has never walked the walk. If Labor actually supported surplus budgets, why did the Leader of the Opposition vote against all those measures required to balance the budget? If Labor really believed in no Commonwealth debt, why did the Leader of the Opposition vote against all the measures that were required to get there? If Labor really believed in a reformed tax system, why did the Leader of the Opposition proclaim the reformation of the tax system as ‘fundamental injustice day’—the day, he said, that the social compact had changed forever? This is not somebody with the record of an economic conservative who was supporting economically conservative policies when they counted; this is the record of somebody who wanted to say ‘me too’ on the results, after the hard work had been done. And after the hard work had been done Kevin Rudd suddenly became an economic conservative. There is no reason to believe that the Leader of the Opposition could take a hard decision in government; everything points to the contrary. I want to come to a couple of things, because I think they were the only substantive things that were actually said by the member for Lilley. The member for Lilley then engaged in selective quotes. I do not know whether he actually knew he was engaging in selective quotes, because he had had his speech written for him and he did not have the source documents so it is quite possible that the staffer concerned had actually doctored the quotes rather than him. But just for the record I will read the conclusion of these quotes. For example, Mr Macfarlane said on 18 August—this is the part of the quote the member for Lilley did read: I think the states by and large have had very prudent fiscal policy over most of the period you are referring to. What we are talking about at the moment is half a per cent of GDP which is earmarked for infrastructure. I have no problem with states spending money on infrastructure. I do not even have any problem with the general principle of borrowing for long-lived assets like infrastructure. Here the member for Lilley stopped. But the quote goes on to say: My only minor worry is that I wish they had done it a few years earlier. It is a bit procyclical to be doing it just now. Oh! We just happened to leave that little bit out of the quote, didn’t we! At a time when the economy is strong, at a time when business is investing, for states to go into the spending business is totally procyclical. This quote of course is from back in August 2006, before they went on the $70 billion spend. Let us then go to Glenn Stevens. This is the bit that the member for Lilley read: ... I do not think the problem here is finding the money. Balance sheets of governments in this country, by and large, are in very good shape. They will not have any trouble borrowing money from the lenders of the world for a reasonable project. That will not be the problem. And here the member for Lilley stopped. This is what the quote goes on to say: The problem, as I said earlier on, will be how you turn the money into the real resources of labour and capital to do the work if the private sector also wants those resources. This is a timing thing. What we are saying is it would appear, at the moment, that that is a hard ask to find those resources. Again, what he was saying was that you can borrow the money—of course you can. But, if you are out there borrowing this money at a time when the private sector is engaging in record investment and borrowing itself, you are being procyclical. What he was saying was: if all of this infrastructure was necessary, why weren’t you doing it back in 1999-2000? There is a good question: why weren’t you? Because back in 1999-2000 it would not have been procyclical; it might have also made a difference. The reason was that none of the Labor states ever believed that resources would come back into vogue. This was the period back in 1999-2000 when the Labor Party, with all of its economic genii, were saying that we were an old economy and we had to get out of mining. That is why there was no money going into infrastructure: because it was commonly believed, not least by the Labor Party, that infrastructure was not important because the whole world was going IT. It might have made a difference back in 1999-2000 if the Queensland government had done something about Dalrymple Bay. They might start doing something now, but it is too late and procyclical. One thing that you will never hear from this member of parliament is a word against the Labor Party, of which he is a paid employee and official. He cannot take an independent position. He cannot pretend that he would be a Liberal. He is a pawn of the Labor Party, created by the Labor Party and in hock to Labor premiers, and is totally unfit to be the Treasurer of Australia. 93 15:53:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —We have heard some weasel words from this government, but today takes the cake. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —I am glad that the honourable member for Stirling is in the chamber, because he is going to get a guernsey. Today takes the cake. We heard the Prime Minister today in question time running away from the ads of the last election campaign and saying: ‘I didn’t authorise them. I might have appeared in them, but I didn’t authorise them. Have a look at the radio interview; don’t look at the ads; don’t look at the scads of ads that we spent millions of dollars on at the last election. Forget about the lectern that I stood behind during the election campaign when I said that we’ll keep interest rates at record lows; forget about the calculators we sent to every marginal seat so that you could pull out your little calculator to see how much your mortgage would go up if interest rates went up. Forget about all that. I didn’t really promise to keep interest rates at record lows.’ We saw weasel words go to a record high in question time today. Now we see the Treasurer coming out and again blaming the states. He accused the honourable member for Lilley of selective quoting. He referred to evidence given by the Governor of the Reserve Bank at a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration hearing on 18 August 2006. He said that the shadow Treasurer was selectively quoting him. The Treasurer then quoted Mr Macfarlane and started the quote with: I think the states by and large have had very prudent fiscal policy over most of the period you are referring to. Talk about selective quoting: he started the quote late. The Treasurer was being tricky—mean and tricky. The honourable member for Stirling asked a question at that House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration hearing. The honourable member for Stirling asked: Are there dangers posed to the economy by the states running their fiscal policy in that way? That was a fair enough question. I am sure that he spent a lot of time thinking about it. He worked it up and asked the governor, and what was the governor’s response? He said: I think that is a bit of an unfair characterisation. We did not hear that from the Treasurer. He started at the next sentence. Talk about selective quoting; talk about gilding the lily; talk about playing with the facts. The Treasurer has been caught bang to rights. The honourable member for Stirling, in his next question, understandably said: I will move on from that. No wonder, because he did not get the answer that he wanted. He went on to say: Given that the latest rate rise was in part in response to factors such as oil prices and bananas ... The government cannot get its lines straight. It is either the fault of the states or the fault of bananas. You cannot blame them both. Apparently, it is everybody’s fault except the government’s. We had the Prime Minister saying in question time today, ‘I didn’t authorise those ads; they didn’t really represent my point of view.’ That is not how the Australian people saw it. The Australian people took the Prime Minister at his word. He said that interest rates would stay at record lows, and millions of Australians believed him. But I agree with the Prime Minister on this point: there is something more important than the politics of this issue. There is something even more important than his credibility, which lies in tatters. What is more important is the effect of today’s interest rate increase on millions of ordinary Australians. That is the most important thing out of today’s debate. There is one very good reason why the first economic responsibility of the Commonwealth government—whoever forms it—must be to have downward pressure on interest rates, and that reason is that people are hurting, and hurting badly. Some of us on this side of the House have been talking about this now for almost two years. We have been talking about the stresses in parts of the economy and the pressures on working families. But nobody on the government side listened until Mark Textor told them that they had better listen. Every single indicator tells a story. This government is so out of touch that it has taken Crosby Textor to tell them that they have a problem. Let us take a snapshot of some of the key indicators. There has been a 13 per cent increase in personal insolvencies across the country—a very substantial increase. In some parts of the country, there has been an increase of much more than that. In Western Sydney, in Greenway, in Lindsay, in Blaxland and in my seat of Prospect there have been massive increases in personal insolvencies. In 2005, $49 million was claimed against mortgage insurance as people defaulted on their home loans. This year, $210 million has been claimed on mortgage insurance. We have seen a massive increase in the amount of superannuation that people are accessing early to get by on a day-to-day basis. That has gone from $31 million in 2001 to $135 million in 2006. Today’s increase is only going to see these types of figures grow. There are more figures, but behind every figure is a family, a family struggling, a family trying to work more, a family reducing expenditure so much that they have already cut out the luxuries and are now into the essentials. This is going on in Western Sydney and elsewhere throughout the country on a day-to-day basis and this government simply does not get it. And these are the people who the Prime Minister says have never been better off. And these are the people who will pay the human price and be the human sacrifices for today’s interest rate increase. This is not what people had in mind when they believed the Prime Minister at the last election when he said, ‘I’ll keep interest rates low.’ They did not have in mind a regime in which Australia has the second-highest interest rates in the Western world, a regime in which only New Zealand, out of all the countries in the Western world and the OECD, has a higher interest rate than Australia. Japan, Greece, Sweden, France, Finland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Italy, Germany, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom all have lower interest rates than Australia. Maybe it is their fault that we have higher interest rates. Today it is the states’ fault; last week it was bananas causing high interest rates; maybe it is Luxembourg which is causing high interest rates. I am sure that we will hear the lines and the excuses. The Australian people do not want false promises. They know that there are no magic solutions. They know that interest rates do not come down overnight. They know that the Reserve Bank sets interest rates. But they expect the government to listen and to put downward pressure on interest rates. They do not expect a blame game. They do not expect the Prime Minister of this country to say, ‘I didn’t promise at the last election to keep interest rates at record lows and, by the way, go and blame the states.’ They expect the Prime Minister to show a bit of empathy and to have an economic framework that puts downward pressure on interest rates. They expect the Prime Minister to run a fiscally conservative stance and not to take every item on the smorgasbord, which the Treasurer condemned him for. They expect the Prime Minister to be running a budget surplus that puts downward pressure on interest rates and not having crazy John’s closing down sale like he did at the last election. They expect a government to invest in the skills crisis—to fix our skills crisis and not to have the Mickey Mouse technical colleges, which are a national disgrace. They expect the government to take infrastructure seriously. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer walk in here and say, ‘Those terrible states; they are spending too much on infrastructure, you know. They are putting upward pressure on interest rates by spending too much on infrastructure,’ when the current and previous Governors of the Reserve Bank have warned them 20 times that the skills crisis and the infrastructure crisis are the things putting pressure on interest rates. I had a look at the Reserve Bank statement today. I thought, ‘Oh well, clearly Morris Iemma, Peter Beattie and John Brumby are going to cop a whack in the Reserve Bank Governor’s monetary policy statement issued today.’ But the word ‘states’ does not get a mention. The word ‘Premier’ does not get a mention. The words ‘deficits run by state governments’ are just not there. What we get is a full page statement from the Governor of the Reserve Bank with no mention of the apparently evil states putting upward pressure on interest rates. Australia has a chance to make its judgement in a few weeks time. Within two months the Australian people will have a chance to make their judgement and they will be reminded of those ads with the Prime Minister saying that interest rates would be kept at record lows. And they will be reminded of something else this Prime Minister said: he said that the Australian people have never been better off. They will be reminded that you can have a government that puts downward pressure on interest rates by investing in infrastructure, by dealing with the skills crisis—by having a plan—and by having a national plan on infrastructure. (Time expired) 95 16:03:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —You have got to give members of the opposition full points for audacity. They come in and try to argue that black is white. Regardless of the facts, they continue to repeat the mantra and repeat the hypocrisy. Their theory obviously is that, if they repeat something often enough, someone somewhere will be convinced, and perhaps somehow they might even convince themselves. Let’s forget the spin, the rhetoric and the posturing. Let’s just look at the simple facts. These are the facts, whichever way you want to look at them. When this government came into office, interest rates were 10.5 per cent. Labor left us interest rates of 10.5 per cent. Even after today and even if today’s rates are passed on, they are now 8.3 per cent, a full 2.2 per cent lower than what Labor left us. If you look at it another way, they are lower now than at any time during Labor’s 13 years. At 8.3 per cent, they are still 0.45 per cent lower than at any time during Labor’s 13 years. The promise that we would keep interest rates at record lows still stands. They are lower by nearly half a per cent than at any time in the 13 years that the last Labor government was in office. Or look at it another way: look at the average. Over this government’s 11½ years interest rates have averaged between 7½ per cent and 7¾ per cent compared with Labor’s average of 12.75 per cent—a full five percentage points on average above this government’s. Look at what they left compared to now, or look at the record low now compared to the lowest point at any time under 13 years of Labor or look at the average. The facts show very clearly that interest rates are still far lower than Labor was ever able to deliver. And look at the high under Labor. For 10 consecutive months homeowners in Australia under Labor suffered 17 per cent interest rates. For 20 months under Labor—over a year and a half—homeowners battled with interest rates of 16 per cent or more. If you look at the context, it makes the comparison even clearer and even more stark. The coalition’s low interest rate regime has prevailed in a time of strong economic growth and strong employment growth. Usually it is one or the other. Usually what happens is that you have a context of low unemployment and strong growth and you will get high inflation and therefore upward pressure on interest rates. Conversely you will have high unemployment, slow growth and low inflation and therefore downward pressure on interest rates. It is usually one or the other. Labor managed the miraculous daily double, or yearly double or 13-year long double. In a regime of slow growth and high unemployment, Labor managed to have high inflation and high interest rates. How they managed that nobody knows, other then through their own gross incompetence. Compare that with the context in which we have had low interest rates under the coalition. We have had a climate of strong growth, of strong employment generation and of low unemployment but we still have low inflation and low interest rates. In fact, low inflation has averaged only 2.5 per cent compared to Labor’s 5.2 per cent. So, in a context of slow growth, Labor still managed high inflation and therefore high interest rates; in a context of strong growth, the coalition has managed low inflation and low interest rates. Look at it in another context. Look at it in the context of real wage growth. The coalition has had real wage growth of 21 per cent over 11 years that has not fed substantially into inflationary pressures. What did we have under Labor? We had the accord, whose whole aim was to drive down wages—and it succeeded, under Labor. Real wages fell under Labor. Real wages fell under the so-called friend of the worker. Real wages fell under the so-called workers’ party by 1.8 per cent, and by driving down wages they could still not contain inflation. What a shambles that was. Yet under this government we have had rising real wages, strong jobs growth and still a low-inflation, low-interest-rate environment. Look at the facts again. Inflation under this government for 11 years has averaged 2½ per cent; under Labor, over five per cent. Interest rates under this government average 7.75 per cent; under Labor, 12.75 per cent. And still, even after today’s interest rate rise, if it is passed on, the rate is still almost half a per cent lower than at any time under Labor. We should turn to the causes here because the causes are important. There are two main causes of higher interest rates. The first is inflation. As I said, in a climate of strong growth, full employment, you often get inflationary pressures. You particularly get them when the labour market is close to capacity. If you have an inflexible industrial relations system, it is very difficult to avoid an outbreak of inflation. If you have a flexible, accommodating industrial relations system, you can have strong growth, full employment and a low-inflation policy. This has been acknowledged by both the previous and the current Governor of the Reserve Bank. In August last year, the former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, said: Obviously, it makes the job of monetary policy [setting interest rates] easier, the more deregulated the labour market ... And he went on to give the reason: If you get pressure in one part of the economy - in the past— that is, under Labor’s regime, which they want to return us to— the fact that wages had risen there would be used as a persuasive argument for it to be carried right across the country, the comparative wage justice argument - it’s easier to have hot spots without the hot spots moving throughout the economy— now with a flexible labour market. The current Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, earlier this year said simply this: ... the fact that the system is— now— less centralised means that industry or regional pressures do not flow over 100 per cent to other areas. A more enterprise focused set of labour market arrangements is also conducive to better outcomes— in terms of inflation and better outcomes as well in terms of interest rates. So a more flexible labour market keeps downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. Yet what does Labor want to do? Labor wants to return us to that very same rigid, centralised industrial relations system which would spread wage rises, through pattern bargaining, into non-productive industries and would put upward pressure on inflation and therefore upward pressure on interest rates. That has been acknowledged by everyone. Look again at what Glenn Stevens said in February this year. A return to a centralised system, he said, would do this: ... what would be the impact of removing or substantially lessening the degree of flexibility which, over quite a long time now, has come into the labour market? I do not think it is any secret that if, for some reason, labour markets became much more rigid— for some reason, such as Labor being elected— much more prone to very large wage increases, which were not related to productivity and which flowed across industries the way they did many years ago— that is, when Labor was in office— that that probably would constitute something of a problem for managing resource booms like we presently have. So a return to Labor’s industrial relations system would clearly put upward pressure on cost inflation and therefore upward pressure on interest rates. It is as clear as day that the contrast is there. An inflexible industrial relations system, which we had under Labor previously, which produced high inflation, which gave us high interest rates and which is the same system to which Labor wants to return Australia, would put upward pressure on interest rates. Conversely, the flexible industrial relations system this government has introduced and wants to maintain is keeping downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates. The second main pressure on interest rates, of course, is borrowing. We have already heard from the Treasurer—and we have seen what the state governments are doing. The state governments, by going into the money market and putting upward pressure on demand for funds, are putting upward pressure on interest rates. By contrast, this government, by being a net saver instead of a net borrower, is keeping downward pressure on interest rates. We have the state governments wanting to borrow $70 billion over the next five years—coincidentally, exactly the same amount that Labor borrowed in its last five years federally. Seventy billion dollars in five years by federal Labor; another $70 billion in the next five years by state Labor—what in the world would we have if Labor were re-elected, and what would the consequences be for interest rates? We know that Labor equals higher deficits. Higher deficits equal upward pressure on interest rates. So in terms of industrial relations policy, in terms of fiscal policy, Labor’s track record, the evidence of the states and what Labor wants to return us to will all put upward pressure on interest rates. The contrast could not be clearer. (Time expired) 98 16:13:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —I do not think I recall ever seeing the Chief Government Whip that animated. I think it is because he does protest too much, because he understands the impact that this rate rise will have on his constituency. He understands the grave pressure it will have, and he is desperately flailing around every way he can to ensure that the impact of this interest rate goes unnoticed in his electorate. Well, there is no hope. And I am sure all the schoolkids who are watching around us know that it is extremely rude to point. I am sure all of them up there are witnessing and know that that is extremely bad behaviour and that the animated instance from the Chief Government Whip tells how desperate this government is. Today’s interest rate rise shows the Howard government’s claims that they are sound economic managers to be complete nonsense. This has been the Howard government’s No. 1 claim to fame over the last 11 years, and they have not delivered on it. It is the ninth straight interest rate rise since 2002 and the fifth interest rate rise since the last election, when the Prime Minister promised to keep interest rates low. Remember this 2004 election campaign promise by the Prime Minister: ‘Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?’ Well, the people who trusted him at the last election know that they invested their trust in the wrong individual. There have been five interest rate rises since the last election. In fact, the cash rate is now at its highest level in more than a decade. For those who follow this issue, that is the interesting number to watch. It will add about $50 a month to an average monthly mortgage repayment of $250,000. That is $50 a month that many families just will not have, because they are already in massive debt. This rate rise is very bad news for working families. Many families are highly geared with huge mortgages or rent payments and credit card debt. Indeed, we have some of the highest debt we have ever seen in this country. Families are struggling to meet their financial commitments as well as coping with the increasing costs of groceries, petrol, health care, child care and education. But what was the Howard government’s reaction to today’s rate rise announcement? The Treasurer said that the official cash rate of 6.5 per cent is lower than it was when this government was elected. That is a great claim to fame! There was no acknowledgement of the suffering that this will cause many working families. That is because the Howard government is completely out of touch with most of the community. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer believe that interest rates are low. They do not understand that increased levels of debt mean that each interest rate rise packs a punch to the family budget. Indeed, Peter Costello said, back in 2005, ‘If you see a single digit in front of your interest rates, that is low.’ Tell that to the working families out there who are now struggling to find that $50 extra. In my electorate of Chisholm, 25.6 per cent of families are suffering mortgage stress, meaning they are spending more than 30 per cent of their household income on mortgage repayments. But those who are renting are also suffering. The Age reported on 25 July this year that 39.6 per cent of Chisholm households are suffering from rent stress, meaning they are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on rental payments. I do not know how you manage to feed your family when 30 per cent goes on rent. The Prime Minister claims that Australian working families have never been better off, but these figures show how out of touch he and his Treasurer really are. Many people just cannot get into the housing market in Chisholm. In the 12 months to July 2007, the median house price in Oakleigh was $478,750. At the other end of my electorate of Chisholm, the median house price in Box Hill in the 12 months to July 2007 was $483,000. Essentially, what that means is that first home buyers—young families—are no longer able to afford a house in my electorate. They certainly cannot find $483,000 to buy their first home. On top of this, there has been an alarming rise in the rate of insolvencies across Australia. Many households are very heavily geared. Households are now carrying three times more debt, so interest rates have three times more impact on household budgets. Today’s rate rise will do nothing to help people in Chisholm suffering mortgage and rent stress, or those trying to get into the housing market. People in Chisholm can quite rightly feel they have been lied to by this government because it has not delivered on the interest rate promise it made at the last election. The Howard government’s economic policies have failed to put maximum downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. We do not hear the Treasurer say anymore that he has slayed the inflation dragon, do we? The government have been asleep at the economic wheel for the last 11 years. In times of great growth they have done nothing. They have allowed these rate rises to happen. The problem with this government is that they have been so busy crowing about how they have cut back spending and government debt that they have forgotten to invest in the infrastructure and resources that are essential to expand our productive capacity and take the pressure off inflation. (Time expired) 99 16:18:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —It has been interesting to listen to the debate that has taken place in this chamber today. From one side it is called the blame game. I guess that is what it is about. I just heard the member for Chisholm reiterating the 2004 slogan ‘Who would you trust to keep your interest rates low?’ Well, we could have trusted Mark Latham or Kim Beazley. Then again, it could have been Kevin Rudd. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Riverina will refer to members by their seat or their title. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL —It could have been the member for Griffith in the current term or it could have been the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong. He is still strong. He is still standing and still delivering, but the most important thing is that he is still accountable. Let me just advise the House that there have been three leaders of the opposition in that time with nobody accountable for any promises made during the 2004 election. It surprises me to see just how much has been played about the 2004 election when nobody is taking responsibility for the promises made by the opposition because nobody that was in the fray at that time is still standing. The member for Prospect also took the time to remove the states from the issue, and indicated that the Reserve Bank did not include the states in the rate rise. However, let me quote from an article that admittedly was in the Weekend Australian on Saturday 12 August 2006. It was a very interesting interview with the then Reserve Bank Governor, Mr Macfarlane. He said: I have been lucky—for most of my time, fiscal policy has consisted of small surpluses. So the movement in the government account has not been big enough to be important in the consideration of monetary policy. It might become an issue because the states are now part of the equation. I remind the House that this government has been the deliverer of significant benefits that have not been recognised. We have had significant tax cuts from a surplus created through the repayment of an enormous Labor debt of $90 billion, saving us $8 billion in interest payments. That has gone to the taxpayer in the form of significant tax cuts. I admit that average house prices have gone up. However, that also means that the mortgage payments are now paying off a hugely increased value of asset. This has to be taken into consideration. There are many people in my electorate—and right across Australia I suspect—who will be hurt by the interest rate rise, as the Prime Minister has indicated today. He has not taken his eye off the ball for one second. He has not set about to not take responsibility or to not indicate that there has been a problem for many homeowners who will find this interest rate rise extraordinarily difficult to deal with. At the same time, I must remind the House that it would be much easier for many of these homeowners to manage this issue than it would have been some years ago. We also have to take into consideration that a report by building industry participants, out of the Housing Industry Association and Real Estate Institute of Australia, has emphasised that rising interest rates, state government land release policy and state and local government charges are the main factors adversely affecting housing affordability. I recall coming into this House not so long ago and talking about this very issue and about new homebuyers having to confront the second highest level of costs— 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. 100 Committees 100 100 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) 16:23:00 —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 13 August 2007. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. The report reads as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 13 August 2007 Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business on Monday, 13 August 2007.  The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows: COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1 DELEGATION TO CAMBODIA AND TO THE 116TH ASSEMBLY OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION (BALI) Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Cambodia (21 – 26 April 2007) and to the 116th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (Bali) (27 April – 4 May 2007) The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 12:40pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 2 STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND INNOVATION Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 12:50pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 3 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER AFFAIRS Indigenous Australians at work: Successful initiatives in Indigenous employment The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1:00pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 4 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY Review of Administration and Expenditure No.5, Australian Intelligence Organisations The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1:10pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 5 PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY Annual Report of Committee Activities 2006-07 The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1:20pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 6 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Australian manufacturing: today and tomorrow—Inquiry into the state of Australia’s manufactured export and import competing base now and beyond the resources boom The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 1:30pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] 7 STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES The great freight task: Is Australia’s transport network up to the challenge? The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude in the time remaining prior to 1:45pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Order of precedence Notices 1 MR FAWCETT: To move—That the House: notes that: over 242,000 British pensioners living in Australia have their pensions frozen in value and thus not increased when the pensions in the United Kingdom (UK) receive annual increases; and this practice of freezing these pensions is wholly unfair and discriminatory: many UK pensioners living overseas do have their pensions increased annually, as expected, given their lifelong mandatory payments into the national UK scheme and in contrast, Australia fully indexes the pensions of its expatriate pensioners living in the UK; calls on the Australian Government to take this issue to the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Kampala in October 2007 and to urge the UK Government to end the unfairness in the current indexation of overseas UK pensions. (Notice given 7 August 2007.) Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MR RUDD: To move—That the House: affirms its recognition of the sacrifices made by Australia’s veterans; accepts its obligation to ensure that veterans’ sacrifices are acknowledged and that benefits earned by veterans are paid to them on a just and fair basis; acknowledges in particular the plight of our most severely disabled veterans; acknowledges that the value of the Special Rate Disability Pension (TPI and TTI), Intermediate Rate and Extreme Disablement Adjustment Pensions have eroded under the Howard Government; and supports Labor’s policy to index the remaining portions of the above general rate disability pensions to movements in male total average weekly earnings, in recognition of the more severe work and lifestyle effects suffered by the recipients of these entitlements. (Notice given 7 August 2007.) Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time. Speech time limits— Mover of motion—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 102 Bills R2824 102 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 102 Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 16:24:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 102 Bills R2782 102 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 102 Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 16:24:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 103 Bills R2808 103 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 103 Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 16:25:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 103 Bills R2729 103 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 103 Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney —Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) 16:26:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 103 Bills R2842 103 Debate resumed. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Prospect has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 103 16:27:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —In my contribution today, I want to set out the purpose of the Trade Practices Act, the amendments that the government has moved and the further amendments that the member for Prospect and shadow minister for competition policy has moved. It is worth asking why we have a Trade Practices Act; what is its purpose? If we are to fashion and sustain an open, competitive economy in Australia, we need some basic rules under which it can operate. I happen to be from the spectrum of the argument that supports competition and openness. I am a very strong supporter of the opening up of the Australian economy to competition from abroad and from within Australia, which the Hawke and Keating governments brought about. Before the election of the Hawke government, the Fraser government and various other coalition governments had dominated the government of Australia since about 1949. The only Labor government had been the Whitlam Labor government, which held office between 1972 and 1975. Over that period of predominantly coalition rule, the Australian economy became heavily regulated. It was an inward-looking economy where, over that period, competition was discouraged, deals were stitched up and tariff protection was raised relentlessly. That did not bring out the best in Australian entrepreneurs; it brought out the worst. It meant that, by 1983, the Australian economy was sclerotic; it was uncompetitive. Unemployment had exceeded 10 per cent; so too had inflation. Indeed, 90-day bank bills—short-term interest rates—reached a record of 22 per cent on 8 April 1982. As a result, the economy was in a shocking state, which was not only because of the drought or a one-off event but also because of policy sloth over a very long period. It took the election of a Labor government to recognise that the economy needed to be opened up. It was a Labor government that recognised that today’s productivity growth is tomorrow’s prosperity and that it was essential to lift productivity growth below the very low levels that had been recorded up to that time. Australia’s poor productivity growth was very much responsible for us slipping down the international ladder in terms of our living standards compared with those of other rich countries. So the Hawke and Keating governments embarked on a program of reform, designed to lift productivity growth through the opening up of the Australian economy. All of the major markets were liberalised, beginning with the floating of the dollar and financial market deregulation, followed by product market deregulation, where quotas and tariffs were reduced, and then by labour market liberalisation through the introduction of enterprise bargaining in 1993. Incidentally, upon election in 1996, the coalition lauded and supported enterprise bargaining; they said it was a great reform. You do not hear them talking about enterprise bargaining anymore. They talk only about individual contracts. But that is a debate that will continue robustly inside and outside this chamber at other opportunities. I ask, then, about the role of trade practices legislation in the opening up of an economy, because, on the surface of it, trade practices regulation is adding more regulation. But, if we are to create an open, competitive economy, some rules are needed. In the first instance, enforceable property rights are needed; otherwise, why work if you can just hack into someone’s bank account and steal their money? If you have no property rights and no rights over the value of your own labour, you can be enslaved, but we do not do that in market economies; we ensure that there are some basic rules that establish and enforce property rights. But in an open, competitive economy we also need to be vigilant. We need to be vigilant against anticompetitive behaviour, and that is where the Trade Practices Act comes in, because, 217 years ago, Adam Smith lamented, and in fact foresaw, the behaviour of some businesspeople and their disposition to collude—to get together and create cartels, to create anticompetitive circumstances to the great cost of the public. It is that monopoly behaviour that Adam Smith described as the enemy of the public good. Adam Smith foresaw, in one way, and called for, in another, the implementation of trade practices acts in market economies. They are essential to ensure that it is truly an open, competitive economy. So Australia’s economy was as an open, competitive economy and the productivity growth that the previous Labor government had expected did in fact occur. During the 1990s, the miracle decade of productivity growth, labour productivity grew, on average, by 2.6 per cent per annum. But, as the Labor Party has pointed out time and time again, since the turn of the century, productivity growth has faltered. During the 2000s to date, productivity growth has fallen from that miracle 2.6 per cent to 2.1 per cent. In the period since the end of 2003 it has fallen away further to an average of 1.2 per cent per annum and in the last 12 months to 0.9 per cent per annum. If today’s productivity growth truly is tomorrow’s prosperity, these are very worrying developments. That is why we need to ensure that we embark upon a new productivity-raising reform agenda. That productivity-raising reform agenda of course will have as its central feature investment in the talents of our young people. It will have the reduction of red tape for business, large and small, in Australia—red tape that had been piled up over the last 11 years. It will involve wise investment in infrastructure, such as Labor’s national high-speed broadband network. But, as important as all of these are, it will also involve ensuring that Australia has an effective Trade Practices Act to ensure that we have open, competitive markets and to ensure that there is not the capacity legally to collude, to engage in predatory pricing and to engage in unconscionable conduct—all at the expense of openness and competitiveness. Labor’s approach to the Trade Practices Act amendments has been guided by this principle: Labor supports competition. Labor is barracking for consumers, for lower prices. Labor is not in the business of protecting business from competition. To the contrary: Labor has faith and confidence in the business community that it performs best in competitive markets, and it is the role of amendments to the Trade Practices Act to ensure competition, not to protect particular businesses, whether they be big businesses, medium sized businesses or small businesses. It is not to protect them from competition but to help enable them to survive and thrive in an open, competitive market. It is against that yardstick that we have measured the government’s amendments. They constitute some very modest progress. They are better than nothing, and for that reason Labor will support them. Those amendments are a product of four years deliberation following the recommendations of the Dawson committee report. The Dawson committee report made a number of other recommendations which have not been accepted by government. So over the period of this government to 2007 there has been a slackness in the resolve that any government should have to ensure that competition prevails, that consumers get the lowest possible prices. We want consumers to get low prices through the operation of competition, and it is a sensible response to the problems being experienced around Australia today of the high cost of living. If you ask anyone around Australia, they complain of the high cost of living. If we can bring that competition blowtorch to the cost of living, we will keep costs down. Since the amendments of the government make some progress, we will support them but, frankly, we are very disappointed in them. If this is the best the government can do after three or four years deliberation on the Dawson committee report, then it tells us a lot about this government’s attitude to competition. It tells us that this government is not fair dinkum about the open, competitive economy just as previous coalition governments were never fair dinkum about creating an open, competitive economy. It was Labor that had to do that, and there would need to be a Rudd Labor government to ensure that we remain an open, competitive economy and that we combat the disposition of some businesses to collude and behave as cartels. I will go through a small number of the amendments that Labor want, which are definable not only by the amendments that we are accepting but by the ones that we have rejected. There have been plenty of people in the small business community—and they do not speak for the small business community at large—who have wanted us to go much further and in some cases to protect them from competition. That is not our business; that is not our go. We want to make sure that competition prevails, and that is what the amendments that Labor want would do. The first amendment relates to recoupment. This issue arose in a High Court decision in relation to Boral. In 2003 the High Court found that, since Boral, in reducing the price of cement below its cost, could not necessarily have recouped the losses from that below-cost pricing, it had not engaged in predatory pricing. The effect of that decision was to gut section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. It meant that the ACCC or another complainant would have to prove that, in order for predatory pricing to be found, the business that was doing the below-cost pricing was able to recoup all of those losses subsequently. It meant that the legislation only applied to monopolies because it could only be a monopoly that could be sure of recouping those losses. If there were one, two or three competitors in the market, they might not be able to fully recoup those losses. As a consequence, the High Court ruled that is not predatory pricing: go for your life. As a result of that decision, the ACCC has not taken any further cases because they believe it to be a waste of taxpayers’ money; they would all fail. The government has not addressed that fundamental problem in its amendments, and we will. Through our amendments we are going to remove the requirement, the obligation, to demonstrate that a business that was engaged in below-cost pricing would have had the ability to recoup all those losses. We want to take that away as an essential test. That will make it easier on the ACCC or another complainant to demonstrate that predatory pricing has occurred. You would think that if the government were interested in genuine competition it would support Labor’s amendments. We do not like the idea of any business large or small—especially a large one in this case, because it would have the power to do it—driving its competitors out of the market through below-cost pricing and then putting the prices back up. Our amendments are designed to deal with the problem of predatory pricing. If the government were fair dinkum, it would say, ‘That’s fair enough,’ because the ACCC says, ‘That’s fair enough.’ If you look at the various submissions that the ACCC have made since the Dawson committee report and various Senate inquiries, you will see that it supports the provision that Labor has put in its amendments relating to recoupment. It supports making that section of the Trade Practices Act effective again, and we support the ACCC in its endeavours. The next area is the area of creeping acquisitions. At present the ACCC does not have the power to take account of other recent acquisitions in assessing whether the purchase of a small competitor by a larger competitor is anticompetitive. So the ACCC is obligated to assess the single purchase of a competitor with reference to the whole market but cannot assess the purchase with reference to previous purchases made—in other words, if a big company is taking over lots of small ones. Say, in the supermarket area, the ACCC wants to be able to take account of the fact that this might not be the first acquisition but the 99th acquisition. Again, this is a power that the ACCC has sought, and the government will not give it to them. Why is that? Why is the government so relaxed about creeping acquisitions, about larger businesses being able to gobble up the small rivals and not be found to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act? I find that very curious, because that is anticompetitive behaviour. If you are able to gobble up all your competitors you become a monopolist. We do not support that; we support competition. The next amendment that Labor is moving relates to cartel operations. The Dawson committee report itself recommended jail terms for serious cartel behaviour. This is not some sort of extreme Left committee; it was very conservative in relation to the recommendations that it made. In the United States there are jail terms for serious cartel behaviour. In many Western countries there are jail terms for serious cartel behaviour. Labor is not modelling its amendment on some former Eastern bloc country. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —It is a long-established practice. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —That is right. Why won’t the government do this? It says it will now, but we probably have only two, three or maybe four weeks of parliamentary sittings remaining and this recommendation was made in 2003. I do not support jail terms for a range of other offences under the Trade Practices Act. One of the many reasons for that is that the ACCC will find it very hard to get a conviction because the courts will not want to send company directors or executives to jail. But you need to be able to respond to serious cartel behaviour with jail terms, and that is why we are recommending it. With regard to enforcement powers, we want to make sure that the ACCC can continue gathering evidence after an injunction has been sought. We want to ensure less expensive justice for small businesses and medium enterprises. Our amendments would allow them to go through the relatively less expensive Federal Magistrates Court. We want the deputy chair to have a small business background. Most of these recommendations have the support of the ACCC, they are pro-competition and they will ensure that Labor can deliver lower prices over time because we will ensure that the open competitive economy, fashioned by Hawke and Keating, remains open and is not closed through the sloth of this government through its meagre amendments to the Trade Practices Act. 107 16:47:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 and to challenge the government where I think it has been weak on reform in Australia. As the opposition has stated in this debate, it is good to see the Treasurer finally doing some work with respect to this important issue. It has taken him a long time, but I suppose it is a bit like his football team: eventually they might win a premiership. At least he has got to the goal line on this occasion. As previous speakers have noted, in 2004 the Senate Economics References Committee produced a report on the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act. The majority report, to which the government senators were not party, made recommendations for far-reaching reform in Australia on the trade practices front. Unfortunately, here we are three years later debating a bill that does very little to implement that reform and, in doing so, to rectify the weaknesses in the Trade Practices Act that have long been identified. Nevertheless, I join with my colleagues today in supporting this bill if for no better reason than it will do no harm and it may do a little good. I want to raise a very important area of reform on the trade practices issue that is completely missing in this bill. I refer to one of the major challenges to Australia at the moment that involves the working of the Trade Practices Act, and that goes to infrastructure bottlenecks in Australia’s major export supply chains, principally coal and iron ore, and the failure by the Treasurer to take reform in this vital area seriously. This is not just the view of the opposition; it is also the view of major mining companies in Australia such as BHP and Rio Tinto. They are crying out for reform and they are sick and tired of the tardiness of the Treasurer and the Howard government with respect to this area of reform. The end result is that we have lost out on the export front and on jobs, and the nation’s slice of the economic cake is smaller than it should be because of the lack of commitment by the Treasurer to the task before him. The failure to reform is caused in large part by Australia’s regulatory regime, and I refer specifically to the Trade Practices Act. At the moment, the current operation of the act is dampening investment that is needed to keep Australia’s coal and iron ore exports growing. Even today there has been reference not only to the potential in China but also to the growing potential out of India. This is not a minor issue. It is a major issue that goes to the heart of Australia’s continued economic growth. The failure of the Treasurer to take this issue seriously is now undermining Australia’s reputation with our coal and iron ore customers to such an extent that Japanese coal buyers visited Australia just a few weeks ago to convey their concern about export bottlenecks. As we appreciate, coal is Australia’s biggest export industry. It is worth $23 billion a year. Japan has historically been our most important trading partner, yet the Treasurer and the Howard government have had their eyes off the ball when it comes to investing in critical rail and port infrastructure that actually gets coal to market. The record shows that over the last decade supply chains from the Hunter Valley and Bowen Basin have been fragmented and bogged down in regulatory disputes, many of which have unfortunately centred around competition law and have proven to be a barrier to investment and efficiency in operation. With multiple infrastructure owners, operators and regulators, there has been insufficient alignment of these objectives and their objectives and a lack of incentive to invest. This has come at substantial cost to Australia. Inefficiency and underinvestment in the coal supply chains—rail and port alone—have cost Australia more than $1 billion in export income over the last two years. That is not an insignificant amount of export income. Moreover, it is not only our reputation with customers that is at risk. The global trade in thermal coal jumped by almost 20 per cent over the last two years, but the record shows that unfortunately, despite that growth, Australia was only able to respond with 3.8 per cent growth in exports over that period. Over the same period—and this is interesting—Indonesia has overtaken Australia to become, for the first time, the world’s largest coal exporter. That might not mean much to the Treasurer, but it does mean a lot in terms of the size of Australia’s economic cake. It is also about positioning us over the next decade or two with respect to these key export markets. In that context, we should not forget that there were serious problems in the 1980s when Japanese buyers became concerned about the reliability of iron ore supplies from Australia. We live in a global market, and buyers will shop around to guarantee security of supply. That is what they did in the 1980s; that is how the giant Brazilian iron ore industry was born. One would have thought that the Treasurer would have learned from those experiences. Having said that, I am pleased that cooperation is now winning the day in both Queensland and New South Wales. But there remains an absence of national leadership from the Australian government or any apparent will by the Treasurer and the Howard government to address the impediments to investment and regulatory issues for the long term. I can assure the House that this $23 billion export industry and the rail and port infrastructure that supports it will be a national priority for a federal Labor government. I also say to the House that we cannot allow the inefficiency and capacity constraints in the coal supply chains to be extended to one of the most efficient export ore chains in the world—namely, the Australian iron ore industry. The iron ore supply chain today is highly efficient; it is a world leader; it is best practice. The system is vertically integrated rather than fragmented, and this is the source of the high level of efficiency. Growth of Australia’s iron ore exports is so far keeping pace, thankfully, with global growth in iron ore trade. However, the application by Fortescue Metals for access to BHP Billiton’s Pilbara rail tracks remains unresolved after three years because of the Treasurer’s monumental failure last year to make a considered decision on the future of the Newman railway. He unfortunately went missing in action. Instead of doing the right thing and clearly articulating the national interest case, the Treasurer went missing in action. That has seriously upset major international iron ore mining companies. I believe this was the clearest demonstration of why the Treasurer is no leader and no potential Prime Minister, because when it comes to doing the hard yards he ducks for cover. No-one would argue against an efficient and effective access regime for all rail haulage for all Pilbara iron ore producers. But the unwillingness of both BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto to make further vital infrastructure investments in rail because of the risk posed by future third-party access arrangements that could limit their ability to recoup the investment or operate their facilities at maximum efficiency is equally understandable. According to a report by Port Jackson Partners in 2006, Australia stands to lose approximately $43 billion in export income and $13 billion in capital investment over the next 20 years if an access regime is imposed on Pilbara railway infrastructure under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act. This part of the act is crying out for reform. Historically, part IIIA was one of the Hilmer reforms and initially was well intended. The purpose of regulated access was to prevent owners of monopoly infrastructure refusing, and correctly so, to supply competitors subject to certain limits. These were, firstly, that there needs to be spare capacity, otherwise access obligations will create a disincentive for expansion where new investment is clearly needed; secondly, that there needs to be an improvement of competition—for example, if an owner uses a facility to supply export markets, access will not improve competition but will weaken the owner-exporter; and, thirdly and finally, that access has to be necessary, not merely convenient, otherwise a third party will always prefer to use someone else’s facilities to avoid the cost and risk of investment in their own facilities. Hilmer recognised these principles, but over the last decade some of these caveats have been lost. The net effect is that the application of competition law now favours access seekers over the operation of existing owners who have borne the huge risk of investment, who maintain the infrastructure at best practice and who operate sophisticated, integrated logistic chains to supply their export markets to the benefit of Australia at large. Consequently, the view of many in the industry is that part IIIA now effectively creates a disincentive to new investment. On these critical regulatory issues for infrastructure investment the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been missing in action for more than a decade, and the costs to the nation speak for themselves. I raise these issues because I think this reform is required now. Australia is losing out because of the government’s failure to address these important issues. More importantly, if we do not make these decisions then investment will start going elsewhere, just as occurred with iron ore in Brazil and is now occurring with coal in Indonesia. Our responsibility is to make sure we have an investment regime in place which enables us to chase medium- to long-term investment in Australia. The issues I raise today represent a serious barrier to success in chasing that investment. If we as a nation do not provide investment certainty for coal and iron ore companies, if we cannot guarantee that they can recoup their investments, get their products to market and meet their contractual commitments with customers such as Japan, then they will take their money and go elsewhere in the world. That is the truth of the matter, and we saw that in the eighties with respect to the development of the iron ore industry in Brazil. I simply say on behalf of the opposition that it is time for the Treasurer to seriously consider an amendment to part IIIA to provide a discretionary power to exempt export facilities from the scope of part IIIA, subject to a public or national interest test which would include a requirement to take into account export infrastructure efficiency. It is not a big ask; it is fundamental to securing investment for Australia’s future and being able to say to our important customers such as Japan, China and India that we can supply on time and meet our contractual obligations. It is also about grabbing the growth potential out there with respect to exports of important minerals such as iron ore and coal. Such a change would implement recommendations of the 2001 Productivity Commission report and of the government’s Exports and Infrastructure Taskforce report of 2005. Both those reports identified the need to reduce regulatory risk to encourage new investment, which is urgently needed in export infrastructure. I raise these issues today because this is an important debate. I also seek to send a signal to government that its tardiness on reform of part IIIA is now a clear problem to Australian industry. We cannot allow it to go on and I think that it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to apply his mind to this area of urgently needed reform. The bill obviously seeks to clarify the operation of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act and the abuse of market power. It also amends part IVA of the act, which deals with unconscionable conduct. This is a commendable amendment from the opposition’s point of view, and previous speakers, including the member for Rankin, made detailed comments on those key issues. I would simply say in conclusion that, while we have some reform, it is a drop in the ocean compared to the more far-reaching reform that I have raised in my speech to the House this afternoon. I commend the bill to the House but I ask the Treasurer to have a hard look at this issue. That is the view not just of the opposition but of key export investors in Australia such as BHP and Rio Tinto. 110 17:02:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —For so long the government has laid claim to being the great defender of small business, yet the introduction of the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 would certainly come as a disappointment particularly to those in small business, whom this government claims to defend. This bill has taken far too long to come to this parliament, and many would be left wondering why it has taken so long and yet does so little. There are few who would question the importance of the Trade Practices Act, as it is a key plank in consumer protection and the prevention of restrictive trade practices by companies. It is essential for providing consumers and small businesses with confidence so that they can adequately participate in competition within markets. As such, it is important that from time to time the act be amended to reflect contemporary business practices or to improve upon its operations. Amendments that strengthen competition should be welcomed and are certainly welcomed by this side of the chamber. Strong and effective competition laws provide the environment that allows businesses to compete effectively in open markets, which is ultimately to the benefit of consumers. To allow competition laws to diminish or to have their value eroded through time only acts to the detriment of business and consumers. It is important that the Australian competition laws remain at a level comparable to those of world’s best practice. As with any legislation of this nature, there is a range of views on how that should best be achieved and how it should best operate. I will make further comments on this a little later on. The important thing to remember is that the application of the Trade Practices Act, and regular maintenance and improvement of it, is not the means through which uncompetitive businesses or industries can be saved. The Trade Practices Act protects and preserves the value of competition first and foremost. Accordingly, the Trade Practices Act should provide a sound basis for fair and reasonable competition to occur in the markets. As I mentioned earlier, this bill has taken some time in coming. It has been some time, primarily because this government has been far too willing to have the Trade Practices Act near wither on the vine. It is interesting that this bill has been introduced in the lead-up to another election. I say that in the context of the government’s approach to the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the act. Members will recall that, in the lead-up to the 2001 election, the government responded to the growing concerns of the small business community about the operation of this act and it promised a review. In 2003 that review concluded in the handing down of the Dawson report. The government provided a detailed response to the report and signalled its intention to legislate in the future. Following the release of the Dawson report, the High Court handed down a decision in the Boral case, which has been well cited so far during this debate. The Boral case involved the abuse of market power and was significant in terms of the operation of section 46 of the act. The Senate economics references committee conducted an inquiry into wide-ranging aspects of this application of the Trade Practices Act. The Labor senators recommended that the act be strengthened, and, unsurprisingly, the government senators recommended something less. Despite the fact that the bill mirrors the recommendation of government senators, it has nevertheless taken since 2004 to get this far. As I said at the outset, from the perspective of many small business operators this bill is disappointing both in its context and its timeliness. The provisions of section 46 relating to the misuse of market power are always cause for debate. They are also subject to varying interpretations about how this provision should properly operate. People have diverse expectations when it comes to section 46, and diverse expectations about the relative ease of action under section 46. The bill that we have before us today does a range of things. In summary, firstly, it clarifies that a substantial degree of power in a market is a lower threshold than a substantial degree of control; secondly, it clarifies that a corporation can have a substantial degree of market power even if it does not have freedom of constraint; thirdly, it makes clear that more than one corporation can have a substantial degree of power in the market; and finally, it clarifies that the court may take into account a substantial period of below-cost pricing when considering whether a firm has abused its market power, and that a court can consider the company’s reasons for engaging in below-cost pricing. The amendments fall short of the preferred position which was recommended by the ACCC. While the amendments in the bill go some way to dealing with the recommendations of the ACCC to the Senate inquiry, they certainly fall short. Bear in mind that the ACCC also recommended: Section 46 requires amendment to provide that in cases involving allegations of predatory pricing, a finding of expectation or likely ability to recoup losses is not required to establish a contravention of section 46. Such amendment would ensure the application of section 46 is consistent with parliament’s stated intention. Labor’s view is simple: that the strengthening of section 46 can be more effective by dealing with recoupment and ascribing a legal definition to the words ‘take advantage’. I will be supporting Labor’s proposals to strengthen section 46 as such proposals are an important improvement to the act. The improvement to the unconscionable conduct provisions of the act is important but, again, the changes stop well short of what many believe they should be. Unconscionable conduct allows legally binding transactions to be disallowed or set aside when one party is at a special disadvantage in dealing with another party to a transaction because of a range of circumstances that affect their ability to look after their own interests and the other party to the transaction unconscionably takes advantage of the opportunity. The section of the Trade Practices Act dealing with unconscionable behaviour applies to goods and services. Limitations exist on the operation of this relevant section of the act, and the bill before us seeks to change that limit. Currently, the act limits the application of the unconscionable conduct provisions where services involved are less than $3 million. This limit was primarily designed to protect small business. The majority of the report of the Senate committee recommended that the monetary limit be removed entirely as, by its very nature, it is arbitrary and that unconscionable conduct should be illegal in all circumstances. This is a position that has been supported by a range of small business groups and the ACCC but, notably, it was not supported by the government senators and, consequently, it has not found its way into the amendments which are contained in this bill. Instead, this bill seeks to raise the application level to $10 million—that is from $3 million to $10 million. While Labor supports this amendment because it makes sense, this level could just as easily be $12 million, $15 million or $50 million. The arbitrariness of the monetary value remains no matter what level is set and no matter what monetary value is finally determined. Through time it must be adjusted. It is patently obvious that establishing a monetary level for the threshold of illegal behaviour is unnecessary. That is why Labor takes the same view that was adopted by the majority recommendation of the Senate inquiry, and as was made in the recommendations of the ACCC—that is, that a monetary value for the purpose of assessing unconscionable conduct is not necessary and should not be part of the section of the act. For this reason I will be supporting the amendments forwarded by the shadow Assistant Treasurer to abolish that threshold. While the bill puts forward a number of amendments that small business and others have been clamouring for for some time now, there are some notable omissions. I will not try to outline all of them here at this stage, but there are some notable ones which I would like to draw attention to. In the government’s response to the Dawson review released in April 2003, it indicated that it would introduce criminal sanctions for serious cartel behaviour. In his media release announcing the response the Treasurer said: The Government has, in principle, accepted the proposal to introduce criminal sanctions for serious cartel behaviour, subject to further examination of the issue by a working party. In a media release that followed in February 2005, entitled ‘Criminal penalties for serious cartel behaviour’, the Treasurer said: I am announcing today that the Australian Government will amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to introduce criminal penalties for serious cartel conduct. In the same media release the Treasurer went on to say that the maximum penalty would be five years imprisonment and a fine of $220,000. The point I am making is that the government certainly emphasised that it was going to be strong on cartel conduct. Despite this rather impressive media splash to describe how tough it was going to be on cartel conduct, absolutely nothing has eventuated in that respect. The government has not introduced legislation that would enact its announcements despite the fact that the case for a custodial sentence remains strong and remains consistent with the approach taken by similar jurisdictions. It applies in the US and other similar jurisdictions looking to have criminal sanctions where there is serious cartel conduct. This is not something that was just an afterthought; this was a recommendation that the government responded to and something it said it was going to do. Yet after all this time there has not been one word on that recommendation; in fact, the government has avoided it. The government has not introduced legislation that would enact its announcements in any way, shape or form. Another notable omission in the bill is an amendment that would give the Federal Magistrates Court jurisdiction over section 46 and section 83 based cases. I support Labor’s amendment in this regard. I support Labor’s amendment because it is a serious attempt to bring legal action to a level that is reasonably accessible for those seeking redress. Currently the act requires that actions brought under section 46 and section 83 must be brought before the Federal Court. The fact that these actions are required to be brought before the Federal Court means that small businesses who seek to take an action are faced with substantial costs. If these actions were able to be brought before the Federal Magistrates Court, this would not only reduce costs but also open up the very real prospect of using that jurisdiction’s conciliation process to resolve matters without a full hearing—which I would have thought would be in everyone’s interest, particularly a small business operator trying to protect a business under section 46. It should not be a surprise that the government has not taken action to place legal remedies within the reach of most people. Having legal remedies that, by virtue of the costs of the jurisdiction in which they are found, are out of the reach of those who might seek to use them, is akin to not having any legal remedy at all. The government, of course, neglects to provide the detail of the hurdles that are faced in seeking legal redress, but it certainly tries to perpetuate the myth. One only has to look at the WorkChoices legislation, where aggrieved employees face going to the Federal Court to pursue unlawful termination actions. Most recently, we had the fake fairness test. To have it reviewed, employees have to run the full gamut of the Federal Court jurisdiction and may in fact end up in the High Court. If this is a reflection of the attitude of this government when it comes to legal redress, it should come as no surprise to the small business community that this government would take no action to make legal redress more accessible and more affordable. A move to allow small business to have access to legal action through the Federal Magistrates Court is reasonable. Members opposite who support small business, who truly believe that small business should have reasonable access to redress, and who truly understand and want to support the desires of small business should vote in support of Labor’s amendment. Not to do so will demonstrate how little they care about small business operators. I also wanted to raise the issue of mergers and acquisitions—an issue that has been quite topical of late and is a concern for many small business operators. It is important that the government’s failure to act on creeping acquisitions is noted by the House today. The ACCC’s power to intervene in some mergers is not in question, but the fact that it is not able to consider creeping acquisitions that impact on national markets is in question. The cumulative impact of a number of acquisitions is something that the ACCC cannot examine; however, it is something that it wishes to examine—and why shouldn’t it be something that ACCC can examine? If you can examine one acquisition and make sure that there are not unfair practices emerging out of it, why would you be prevented from looking at a whole series or pattern of acquisitions that could have an accumulative effect on a national market? Quite frankly, these are things that the government has neglected in putting together this bill. The government has had since 2004 to deal with these things, but we are yet to see anything occur in that respect. Laws that facilitate competition, outlaw anticompetitive behaviour and act to exert downward pressure on prices to the benefit of consumers are essential. That is why I request that members consider voting for Labor’s amendments. (Time expired) 114 17:22:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I have had the benefit of reading the Treasurer’s second reading speech and note his conviction that the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 will improve the Trades Practices Act’s ability to foster competition in Australian markets and to protect us from anticompetitive and unconscionable conduct. How this bill adds anything new to existing provisions which purport to safeguard small businesses from bigger rivals is a mystery. How this bill contributes substantively to existing provisions that purport to ‘enhance the welfare of Australians through the promotion of competition’ also remains a mystery. Nonetheless, the debate into these trade practices matters, particularly the issue of misuse of market power, is timely indeed. It comes at a time when PricewaterhouseCooper’s report suggests that Australia’s two biggest retailers hold 79 per cent of the market in Australia despite mum-and-dad grocers making up 50 per cent of the sector’s workforce. The bill also comes at a time when an election is looming and the Howard government would have us believe that it is friends with almost anyone and anything. We have heard the Howard government proclaim self-righteously that it is ‘the best friend Medicare has ever had’, despite trying to gut our universal healthcare system. We have also heard the con that the government is the best friend ordinary workers have ever had, despite the government’s unfair and extreme industrial relations laws. Now the government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of small businesses by suggesting that mum-and-dad proprietors have no better friend than the Howard government. The government has sought to use these trade practices amendments as a case in point. In a document published in 2004 titled Committed to small business the Prime Minister rightly extolled the virtues of small business and the important contribution it makes to Australia’s economy. The Prime Minister said: The Government’s commitment to small business is undiminished. That is why we remain attuned to their needs and why we continue to respond to their concerns with practical measures. One of the ‘practical measures’ is identified further in the document as amending section 46 of the Trade Practices Act ‘to provide additional guidance to the courts in the consideration of predatory pricing cases’. Despite the government’s assurances as far back as 2004, these amendments to section 46 of the Trade Practices Act contain changes so mild that they are, in effect, not real changes at all. The amendments proposed in this bill are hopelessly ineffective and bear the hallmarks of a government engaged in smoke and mirrors—promise plenty, deliver little and create a false expectation that you are locking in people’s prosperity. This is transparently cynical politics at its worst. Remarkably, it has taken three years to deal with legislation that apparently was a priority for the government. The government has also remained ‘attuned to the needs’ of small business by responding with measures three years down the track that are anything but practical. During the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, New South Wales Labor Senator Ursula Stephens asked a number of pertinent questions which the chair ruled out of order. The questions were highly relevant. Senator Stephens sought advice from Associate Professor Frank Zumbo, a distinguished expert in trade practices law, on the complexity of the government’s proposed changes to the Trade Practices Act and whether, in his view, they are so complex that they would have taken this long to draft. Professor Zumbo was not given the opportunity to respond. Suffice to say, we all know what the answer would have been, as do members of the government. These amendments are so minimalist and simplistic that they would have taken a competent draftsman days, not years, to draft. It has taken three years for the Howard government to deal with a matter of priority, and it has done so in a perfunctory and disingenuous fashion. One can only assume that matters which have not been prioritised by the government will make fascinating reading for those with a penchant for ancient history. Small business and all Australians who are the beneficiaries of competition laws are entitled to shake their heads at the ineptitude shown by the government in managing the very obvious failings in the Trade Practices Act. All manner of experts in trade practices have pointed out the failings, yet nothing has been done. The government should have done more in the past, and it could be doing more now, to resuscitate some sections of the Trade Practices Act. The government has chosen not to. We do not know whether it did not have the political will or whether it fell captive to furious lobbying from those with no interest in promoting a level playing field for small and big business. However, there are several things of which we can be sure: the Trade Practices Act is no friend of small business; the Howard government is no friend of small business, given these disingenuous amendments; consumers will be the ultimate losers in any failure to keep market power under check; and substantive amendments to section 46 are long overdue. As a result of the High Court’s 2003 decision in Boral, big business will not have ‘substantial market power’ unless they have the power to raise prices without losing any custom to their rivals. This notion of having absolute freedom of constraint to raise prices before one is considered to have a ‘substantial degree of market power’ has rendered section 46 useless. It is hard to imagine any business having this power unless it was a monopoly or near monopoly. Presumably a business with any small or large competitors will lose at least some of its custom to those competitors if it raises prices. Section 46 cannot purport to foster competition when one can only resort to the provision when the market is already a monopoly, or close to it. This runs completely counter to the purpose of an amendment introduced in 1986 to replace the ‘substantial control of market power test’ to the current ‘substantial degree of market power’ test. The then Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, stated: Unfortunately, section 46 as presently drafted has proved of quite limited effectiveness in achieving that result, principally because the section applies only to monopolists or those with overwhelming market dominance. The current interpretation of section 46 ‘substantial degree of market power’ test has had the same effect, but by different means. This much is obvious, given that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has not launched a single section 46 case since the Boral decision. The ‘substantial power’ test is a threshold issue which then triggers the operation of section 46. If the ACCC or a small business is unable to leap over this onerously high threshold, the accused company’s conduct automatically escapes scrutiny. This also means any anticompetitive conduct escapes scrutiny. The lack of section 46 action by the ACCC should not be seen as a glowing endorsement of corporate conduct in Australia—not having a single case through the courts is analogous to a lack of penalties in a football match. While the teams are generally well behaved, surely the referee cannot be saying that both teams have been perfect for the duration of the match. Past observations from the ACCC would suggest that the competition referee is saying anything but. To the contrary, it would be appear that this referee wants to act but the rules will not allow it to do so. The commissioner stated that the Boral decision has restored the section 46 threshold to ‘monopolists or near monopolists contrary to parliament’s intention behind the 1986 amendments’. While the amendments in this bill clarify that the ‘substantial power’ test is not the same as the ‘substantial cost’ test, this would have already been abundantly clear to the High Court during Boral when it read the 1986 amendment’s explanatory memorandum or the second reading speech of the minister at the time. To say that a company may have substantial market power even though it does control a market, I think simply restates a consideration that has already been applied by the High Court in a string of cases, including Boral. The government is telling the High Court what it already knows. This bill, in my view, does not provide a clarification of the original intent of the test; it provides an affirmation of the High Court’s interpretation of the test, which now runs contrary to the best interests of small businesses and consumers. Why is it not possible to amend section 46 to rid it of the misguided judicial gloss applied to it? I am not a legislative draftsman, nor have I had years to prepare, but a statement could be imposed to the effect that ‘a corporation may have substantial market power, even though it does not have the ability to raise prices without losing business to rivals’. This would allow the court to engage in a more sophisticated analysis of the issue—a broad analysis that is not initially stonewalled by an overly restrictive definition. Only then would we see the application of section 46 in the manner intended and only then would we see some serious scrutiny of corporate conduct. Of course, the government will not make such amendments. The government will say that the aim of competition is to beat competition. The government will say that ‘substantial market power’ threshold has been set deliberately high so as not to deprive consumers of the benefits of competitive innovation, such as reduced prices. It is true that many businesses compete vigorously and fairly to capture market share through product and price differentiation. Naturally, competition should be vigorous; indeed, competition can be ruthless. However, this is not inconsistent with the proposition that there must be effective laws against any form of anticompetitive conduct, including the misuse of market power. The fruits of the misuse of market power may be beneficial for consumers in the short run; in the long run, however, such anticompetitive conduct threatens to eliminate firms that are providing options that consumers would actually prefer. The intrusion of a new section 46 provision, as outlined earlier, will not cause any thorough haemorrhaging of marketplace competition. The amendment moved by the opposition will not stifle the fair competitive activities of business to the detriment of consumers. The line between vigorous and healthy competition and anticompetitive conduct can be hard to draw. That said, I think it is a line that must be drawn and not ignored—as the government has done. The Howard government cannot continue to hide behind the cloak of healthy competition if conduct is, in fact, strategically engaged in by powerful businesses to undermine the competitive process. Conduct that could be anticompetitive cannot continue to go undetected—and I am sure the government would agree with that. The government ought to adopt our amendment, which provides sensible incremental steps. The influence or lack thereof of section 46 in protecting small businesses is part of the broader subject of what many believe to be the crises of the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act. Many of the provisions in the act are said to be, at best, idealistic. Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act has come under increased fire for talking tough but delivering little. It is not the only provision; there are many amendments that ought to have been proposed in this bill but have not been. Section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act, which prohibits unconscionable conduct, applies only to transactions under $3 million. The government proposes to increase this threshold to another artificial figure of $10 million. It seems absurd to me to suggest that unconscionable conduct during the course of a transaction that is one dollar above the threshold amount should no longer be pursued by the ACCC. The focus of section 51AC should be on the nature of unconscionable conduct, not on arbitrary dollar amounts. Unconscionable conduct is unconscionable conduct, irrespective of the value of the transaction in which that conduct arose. A one-dollar threshold has nothing to add to this analysis. I encourage the government to adopt the opposition’s amendment to abolish this arbitrary threshold. Finally, I remind the Treasurer that the Dawson review, which reported in 2003, recommended the imposition of prison terms for individuals found to have engaged in serious cartel behaviour, yet four years later the government has still not legislated to this effect. Why? This is yet another example of hubris from a government that purports to remain attuned to our needs and to respond with practical measures. Far wiser heads than ours on these matters, including the Chairman of the ACCC and Professor Frank Zumbo, have identified the risk that the mere deterrent of financial penalties may enable cartel operators to weigh up those penalties against the millions that can be earned from a cartel. This cost-benefit analysis needs to be removed from the cartel operators, and a bill that includes prison terms in the Trade Practices Act will go a long way to doing just that. Australia is one of the few countries in the OECD that does not have jail terms for serious cartel conduct, and it appears that that will be the case for some time. The Howard Government cannot continue to pretend that the disparity between the power of small and big business does not exist. Members need only to visit any shopping mall or strip in my electorate of Lowe to see that the relationship is trammelled by inequality, which could lead to abuse by the powerful. The Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 does nothing to alleviate those concerns. The bill fails small businesses in the three key areas that I have mentioned: misuse of market power, unconscionable conduct and cartels. It does not represent genuine reform; it makes amendments that are purely cosmetic, not substantive. However, it does accurately reflect the approach of the government that drafted it: cunning, out of touch and ineffectual. I call on the government to adopt the amendments to be moved by this side of the House so that it can salvage something from a bill that will have a limited effect in a very limited range of circumstances. 118 17:38:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —I will also make a short contribution on the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007. I am very pleased to see the Minister for Small Business and Tourism in the chamber, even though she has decided not to make a formal contribution to this debate. I completely agree with the honourable member for Lowe and I will reinforce some of the points he made in his contribution. This government constantly claims to be the champion of small business. However, when push comes to shove it never stands up for small business, and this legislation is a classic example of that. Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, if honourable members were to visit a shopping mall in Bankstown in your electorate or a shopping mall in the electorate of Lowe or a shopping centre in my electorate of Chifley, they could ask the small traders who pay high rents how they would benefit as a result of the amendments in this bill. I think it is fair to say that their response would be that they will not benefit very much at all. This legislation will not stop Woolworths or Coles, which receive very favourable rental rates for their premises, from continuing to do what they constantly do—that is, to lower their prices if they face competition. They are not required to lower them across the state or the city, and this amendment to the Trade Practices Act makes that abundantly clear. As the shadow minister pointed out, if members were to look at the Senate report dealing with these amendments they would note that the Woolworths submission clearly states that these amendments break no new ground and that they merely codify legislative decisions made by the courts. What an indictment of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism that she cannot stand up for small business. She regularly comes to the dispatch box and claims to be a champion for small business, but Woolworths has said that the effect of these amendments on its operations will be exactly zero. That is abundantly clear. This legislation amends the Trade Practices Act to state that a substantial degree of power in a market is a lower threshold than a substantial degree of control. The legislation clarifies the threshold to state that a corporation can have a substantial degree of power in a market even though it does not have freedom of constraint. The legislation also makes it clear that more than one corporation can have a substantial degree of power in a market. Section 46 will also be amended to clarify that a court may take into account a substantial period of below-cost pricing when considering whether a firm has abused its market power and that it may consider the company’s reasons for engaging in below-cost pricing. The legislation also proposes to appoint a second deputy chair of the ACCC. In the lead-up to the 2001 election, the government—this alleged champion of small business—responded to small business concerns by promising a review of the Trade Practices Act. That was the Dawson review, which was tabled in 2003. It found that the Trade Practices Act was in need of only minor reform. The main recommendation was the imposition of prison penalties for individuals involved in serious cartel operations. The government accepted that recommendation and announced its intention to legislate accordingly in 2005. To date, that legislation has not been introduced and this bill makes no provision for said jail terms. It is worth noting that Australia is one of the few countries in the OECD without jail terms for serious cartel operations. The relevant prison term in the United States was recently increased from three years to 10 years. I say to the minister for small business: your government promised jail terms for cartel operations. Why won’t you stand up for small business and insist that this legislation has jail terms when there are cartel operations? If not, why won’t you state that to the House? You did not participate in the second reading, but in the summing up why didn’t you state to the House what has changed your view? Why were you so hot to trot in insisting that you would bring down jail terms and you fail to do so in this legislation? After the Dawson review was completed the High Court handed down its decision in the Boral case. This was only the third time that the High Court had considered a matter pursuant to Section 46 of the act, abuse of market power, and the first time the court had considered a predatory pricing matter. Predatory pricing is the practice of reducing prices below cost to drive competitors with fewer resources out of business. Other members have made contributions about section 46 and the misuse of market power. I want to place on record that, as far as small business is concerned, I believe that they do need protection from misuse of market power. I regret to say that I think shopping centres are replete in Australia with examples of misuse of market power. There are small businesses that are tenants in those shopping centres that put their financial lives on the line day in and day out and they have no recourse to justice. This legislation is not going to provide it. In fact, the minister for small business thought this was so inconsequential that she could not even make a contribution in the second reading debate. 119 17:46:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —Firstly, I would like to thank all those honourable members who participated in this debate today on the government’s Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007. In the first instance, I make particular reference to the member for Batman’s contribution. His entire speech was devoted to the advocacy of big business, and we are here today ensuring that we are introducing amendments to the Trade Practices Act which are going to make it much easier for small business. I would also like to make reference to the member for Chifley and the speech that he has just given. He has mentioned shopping centres and retail tenancies and for the member’s benefit—as he may not be aware—the government has already initiated a Productivity Commission inquiry into this. It is a very important issue for small business. I could not allow this occasion to pass without also making some reference to the criticism that the member for Chifley levied at me. In terms of championing small business, I will stand and allow small business to make a decision as to who is the real champion of small business—this government or the opposition that the member for Chifley belongs to. When you look at tax reform, capital gains tax reform, superannuation reform, greater accessibility to the simplified tax system and especially workplace relations, getting rid of unfair dismissal and enabling flexibility in the workplace for small business with AWAs, I can tell you, it is no contest. This government is such a strong supporter of small business so, member for Chifley, do not get too carried away. In summing up, the government’s bill delivers for small business in a number of important ways in enhancing the effectiveness of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. The bill addresses the issue of predatory pricing, allowing the court to consider sustained below-cost pricing when looking at a breach of section 46. It clarifies the threshold for misuse of market power in a number of important ways. For example, it refers to leveraging power from one market into another. It specifies that more than one corporation may have a substantial degree of power in a market. It also provides that a corporation can have market power without substantially controlling that market. Further, the bill makes amendments to the unconscionable conduct provisions by raising the transaction limit from $3 million to $10 million. This limit assists in protecting small business from unconscionable conduct. The bill also provides that the court should look at whether a party can unilaterally vary a contract term or condition in considering whether there has been unconscionable conduct. It also creates a deputy chairperson of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The government has announced that the position will be held by a person who is experienced in small business matters, not, as the member for Rankin indicated, someone with just some background but someone who has actual experience in small business. The government has consulted extensively with small business groups in developing these amendments. In fact, I can tell you that the government has consulted over many months with a number of the small business representative organisations. Following the passage of the government’s Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2006, known as the Dawson Act, the government has met with a number of groups to discuss the concerns of small business. We have not assumed what small businesses want; we have engaged one-on-one and in groups with the small business organisations. Both the Treasurer and I have been involved in those meetings along with the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate, Senator Boswell, as well as Senator Barnett. I want to take this occasion to particularly acknowledge the work of Senator Boswell, whose strong advocacy on behalf of small business has been appreciated and has been instrumental in achieving and strengthening these amendments before the House. The consultative process has been a long and involved one but one which the government has worked hard at to try to get right. I particularly want to acknowledge the work of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA; the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia, NARGA; the Fair Trading Coalition; and the National Farmers Federation. The government look forward to continuing our ongoing work program with all of these small business groups on all issues affecting small business. The government welcomes the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics into the provisions of the bill. I would like to thank the committee for its timely consideration of and report on the bill. The committee’s inquiry attracted a broad range of submissions from groups interested in trade practices reform, and many of the above-mentioned groups made a submission to that Senate standing committee. I particularly welcome the committee’s conclusion that the bill should be passed in its current form. This bill delivers for small business; it builds on the agenda implemented by this government to reform the Trade Practices Act. Earlier this year we saw the commencement of the government’s Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006, which contained a number of reforms arising out of the review of the competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act, chaired by Sir Daryl Dawson. The act provided for a simpler notification scheme when small businesses collectively bargain under the Trade Practices Act, making the process quicker, easier and cheaper for small business. It significantly increased the maximum penalties for anticompetitive conduct to the greater of $10 million or three times the value of the benefit of the anticompetitive behaviour or, where that value cannot be determined, 10 per cent of the company’s annual turnover. The act also increased the powers of the ACCC, granting it increased search and seizure powers—and I note the member for Prospect spoke about that issue when he spoke earlier. In fact, we have already done that. The government will shortly be moving to introduce legislation imposing criminal penalties for serious cartel conduct. The government is concerned about the ability of small businesses to be competitive in markets where there is cartel activity, where they are often the direct victims of cartel behaviour. If the opposition is really serious about doing something positive for small business and standing up for small business, it would not reinstate unfair dismissals and it would not get rid of AWAs. That, I can tell you, is the acid test for small business. As I have said, this bill implements a number of important government announcements in relation to the Trade Practices Act and the protection of small business. It comes as a result of extensive discussions with key stakeholder groups. I believe that these amendments achieve the right balance of ensuring small business gets a fair go, while ensuring they can operate in a competitive environment and consumers can benefit from that competitive environment. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the word proposed to be omitted (Mr Bowen’s amendment) stand part of the question. 18:00:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Hatton) 78 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Dutton, P.C. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 55 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Beazley, K.C. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 122 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 122 18:07:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1)    Schedule 1, after item 3, page 3 (after line 11), insert 3A  After subsection 10(1A) Insert:        (1B)    At least one of the deputy chairpersons must have a small business background. The Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007, as the Minister for Small Business and Tourism said in her summing up, creates the position of a second deputy chair of the ACCC. The government has indicated that this will be filled by a person with a small business background. Indeed, the minister emphasised that it will be filled by somebody who has experience in small business—experience at the coalface. I welcome that. If that is the case, why not put it in the legislation? The government already has a similar provision in the legislation under section 7 of the act, which provides that one commissioner must be a person with a consumer background. It is difficult to see why a similar arrangement could not be reached in relation to the position of the second deputy chair. If the government says that it intends to appoint somebody with small business experience as a second deputy chair, we take that at face value. But why not put it in the legislation to ensure that this government and future governments are obliged to do so? I would welcome the minister providing an explanation to the House. 123 18:08:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —In fact, I can say to the member that he is absolutely right. Section 7 of the Trade Practices Act requires that: the Minister must: be satisfied that the person qualifies for the appointment because of the person’s knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce, economics, law, public administration or consumer protection; and consider whether the person has knowledge of, or experience in, small business matters ... We have already announced that the additional deputy chair position will be filled by a candidate who is experienced in small business matters. I cannot give a clearer explanation than that. I would suggest that the member for Prospect stops wasting the time of the House and accepts the government’s explanation. 123 18:09:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —If the Minister for Small Business and Tourism thinks that a debate about small business is a waste of the time of the House, we are in very big trouble and have a very big problem. 123 18:09:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —If the member for Prospect wants to debate this, fine. I am not going to be verballed by him or anyone else in this place. 123 18:10:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —I know that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism has somewhere else to be, but these are important matters and the explanation given by the minister was completely unacceptable. She well knows that part 7 of the act has a specific clause which deals with a commissioner with a consumer background. There is no good or valid reason not to have a similar clause relating to a second deputy chair with a small business background. This side of the House will support this amendment on that basis. We find the explanation from the minister completely unacceptable. 123 18:10:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —Once again, I say to the member for Prospect that if he is serious about standing up for small business then, instead of coming in here and pretending that he is and arguing about some word in part 7 of the Trade Practices Act, he should not reinstate unfair dismissal and not abolish AWAs. That is the real test for whether or not you support small business. 123 18:11:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —I was not going to be provoked, but if we are going to widen the debate during this consideration in detail then I will enter the debate. I say to the Minister of Small Business and Tourism that this is a serious point that the opposition makes. The operation of the ACCC—indeed, the operation of the Trade Practices Act—is something that small business in general looks upon with great suspicion. The Trade Practices Act has been one of those acts that has been discussed by parliaments in great detail since it came in. We are talking about credibility at the moment and yet the minister and the Treasurer only had the support of one member of the coalition in this debate. That interests me. It is very important that we clarify this and make sure that the deputy chair that will be created by this amendment to the act will be of a small business background, as was indicated. That is why the opposition put this amendment forward: to make that certain and to give confidence to all those in small business who are hoping that the changes to the Trade Practices Act and the changes to the power given to the ACCC give them some protection. Question negatived. 124 18:13:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —I move amendment (2) as circulated in my name: (2)    Schedule 2, after item 3, page 6 (after line 12), insert: 3A  After subsection 46(4) Insert:        (4B)    A corporation can have a substantial degree of market power even though there is no proof that the corporation has the ability to or will have the ability to recoup losses from pricing below the relevant cost to the corporation supplying the goods or services. This amendment makes clear the wish of the parliament that, in assessing the market power of a firm, it not be necessary to establish that the firm in question is able to raise prices to supracompetitive levels in the future to recoup losses sustained by predatory behaviour. I believe that this was clearly the wish of the parliament back in 1986 when it passed the Lionel Bowen reforms. On any objective reading, when the then Attorney-General introduced those amendments to lower the threshold from ‘control’ to ‘substantial power’ it was not the wish of the parliament to have the firm being able to recoup its losses as the test. The need for this amendment rises primarily out of the Boral case. I will share with the House some excerpts from the judgement of one of the majority judges, who ruled that Boral did not abuse its market power because it did not have a substantial degree of market power. His Honour Mr Justice McHugh said: Nor was it— Boral— in a position to recover the losses it made by pricing below relevant cost when and if the price-cutting finished. Accordingly, irrespective of the purpose of its pricing, it did not have a substantial degree of market power of which it could take advantage. So in this case there was substantial evidence that Boral was acting with the specific purpose of damaging a competitor. There were, if you like, ‘smoking gun’ memos. It was trying to force a competitor out of business and yet the court found there was no breach of section 46 because it was impossible to abuse a market power that the firm did not have. The court ruled that the firm did not have that market power because it could not be proved that it was in a position to recoup its losses. It was a concentrated but still fairly competitive market. There were other players in the industry. Even if the target firm were forced out of business there would still be others—from memory I think it was Pioneer—in the industry. Therefore, it could not be proved that Boral would eventually be able to recoup their losses, even though it was clearly in their best interests to drive one of their competitors out of business. More eminent commentators than me have commented on the unfortunate implications of the High Court’s decision in this case. Former ACCC chairman Professor Allan Fels said: It should be made clear in the Act that the so-called ‘recoupment’ requirement is not necessary. Alan Fels has called for the amendment that this side of the House has moved. The ACCC, under its current chair, Mr Samuel, who was appointed by this government, said: The ACCC takes the view that s.46 requires amendment to provide that in cases involving allegations of predatory pricing, a finding of expectation or likely ability to recoup losses is not required to establish a contravention of s.46. The eminent practitioners Smith and Trindade said: The High Court has introduced what amounts to a threshold dominance test and failed to provide a proper framework for distinguishing between conduct which the act is designed to foster and that which the community expects it to prevent. Indeed, as is pointed out by Justice Kirby in the dissenting judgement: … the majority have effectively created a cogent case for reform of s 46. So this amendment acts on those reforms. While it is of course entirely up to Their Honours how they interpret the law, it is incumbent on this parliament to make the law as clear as possible and this amendment not only makes it very clear to the courts that ‘substantial degree of power in the market’ is a lower test than the ‘dominance’ test but shows how. This is a key point of difference, and unless the government accepts this amendment its bill will be nothing but a sham. 125 18:17:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —Under the government’s amendments, the courts are free to consider whether a corporation has a reasonable prospect of recouping its losses from below-cost pricing. However, the amendments do not make specific reference to recoupments, so a finding of predatory pricing can be made even if there is no prospect of recoupment. The government is convinced—the law is clear—that recoupment is not a necessary element to prove predatory pricing. 125 18:18:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —My interest in the Trade Practices Act started last century when I was on the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the Reid inquiry, into retail tenancy and then on the Joint Select Committee, the Baird committee, which brought down the report Fair market or market failure? I have either the advantage or the disadvantage of not having a legal background. What interested me in the discussion on the Trade Practices Act was that it became apparent that the way in which the courts were interpreting the Trade Practices Act—by developing case law outcomes based on the act—could be considered to be different to the intent of the legislators in the way in which they had put the act together. I believe that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism should reconsider the opposition amendment. If she is in agreement, as she says, that the court may look at a case where there is no chance of recoupment, then we should put that as our intent in the legislation. The Boral case that is referred to is a very interesting one, because where it was apparent that there were arrangements put in place to squeeze competitors—and these competitors were probably not what you would consider your small business type competitors—there was a problem. Since this legislation has been put forward there has been comment made by Associate Professor Frank Zumbo. He followed intently both the retail tenancy inquiry and the joint select committee inquiry and he has developed a great expertise in trade practices matters. He has worked in conjunction with the ACCC from time to time—he may have been an associate—and he has stated on this point that, for small or medium business, the High Court’s decision appears to mean that they will ordinarily have little if any recourse under section 46 for allegations of predatory pricing and, whilst being large and economically powerful, are unable to set prices unilaterally. These are the problems that we confront. There is this disjunct with the developing case law and the way in which the parliament has tried to indicate its intent that there should be protection for small business. I think that this is again a classic case of putting in the legislation what we absolutely mean. 126 18:20:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —The Minister for Small Business and Tourism made a statement in her previous contribution that recoupment under the current law is not necessary as a precondition for establishing that predatory pricing has occurred. If she believes that under the present law it is not necessary for recoupment to be a condition, why not pass our amendment? Our amendment simply makes the point that it is not necessary. If she thinks it is not necessary, our amendment does no harm and, even by her judgement, some good. The real answer I think is that the ACCC, under the current chair, Mr Graeme Samuel, has said: The ACCC takes the view that s46 requires amendment to provide that in cases involving allegations of predatory pricing a finding of expectation or likely ability to recoup losses is not required to establish a contravention of the act. I will repeat that. He said that it takes the view that section 46 requires amendment to provide so. That is what Labor is doing. You are saying it is not necessary, but the chairman of the ACCC says it is necessary. We are backing the ACCC. We are backing competition. Who are you backing, Minister? It sounds to me that you, as the small business minister, are backing bigger businesses because you want predatory pricing to be able to continue under section 46 of the Trade Practices Act. 126 18:22:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —The government has made its position very clear. The government does not agree with the amendment. 126 18:23:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —It is very embarrassing, is it not, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism is just sticking to the rehearsed line that this amendment is not necessary? That is what she has been told to say by the Treasurer, because the Treasurer is not interested in giving teeth to the competition watchdog in relation to predatory pricing? It is very intriguing to ask why that is the case. If this amendment is not necessary in your view, then it will do no harm, but it can do some good. We have the Chair of the ACCC saying it is necessary. The ACCC takes the view that this amendment is necessary. Where are you getting your advice, Minister? From the Treasurer, obviously. It is terrific that you now have a briefing note. You now might be able to say something informative about the true motivation of the Howard government in indicating that it will not give the ACCC teeth in relation to predatory pricing. Now she has got a brief she can read it and enlighten us not as to the real views of the minister but as to the views of the government. It will be fascinating to hear the answer. 126 18:24:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —The member for Rankin will probably regret asking me that question because, as I indicated during the earlier debate, the government has reached its position on all of these amendments after very long and detailed discussions with all of the small business groups. The government’s amendment is as a result of the unanimous agreement of the small business groups. The member for Rankin can use an unsourced quote from Graeme Samuel—I have not seen that quote—but what I am— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson interjecting— 10000 Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hatton)—Member for Rankin, you have had your go. If you wish to speak again, you may seek to call. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP FRAN BAILEY —They do not want to listen to small business; they just want to railroad small business all the time. As I said, the member for Rankin will not want to hear that response, but these amendments—and let me repeat it for the member for Rankin and the member for Prospect and everyone else on the opposition benches—are the result of detailed discussions and consultation with the small business groups. 127 18:25:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —I do not regret at all asking these questions. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism would be aware—and it is true—that the small business community have accepted that the amendments that the government is making are better than none at all, but they have said to us that they do not go far enough. That is the fundamental point. We support your amendments, to the extent that they make any improvements. They have just passed the House. That is why we backed them. But they do not give effective teeth to the competition watchdog— JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —Only in your opinion. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —Who is Mr Graeme Samuel? I remember Graeme Samuel. Just remind me. He is the Chair of the ACCC—I remember now! The minister is the minister for small business. She is unaware of this statement. This statement is on the public record. This is evidence, and now she has admitted that she did not know that the Chair of the ACCC has called for the amendment that Labor has moved and the government is about to vote against. She did not know that. Why doesn’t she talk to the ACCC? Why doesn’t she talk to the competition watchdog and ask their opinion? Whose opinion does she ask for? Only the Treasurer’s. The Treasurer has got his own motivations in this. It is amazing that here in this parliament tonight the minister for small business has admitted that she did not know that the chair of the ACCC has indicated on the public record, in the quotations I gave, that he wants this amendment—that the ACCC needs this amendment, that small business needs this amendment, that the consumers of Australia need this amendment. With that evidence, I now call on the government to reconsider its opposition and support our amendment here and now. 127 18:28:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —Let me once again put on the record for the opposition that the government has listened to small business. You may listen to whoever you like, but this government listens and responds to the needs of small business and all of their associations. I read out earlier in this debate all of the small business organisations that the government dealt with extensively over a long period and it should come as no surprise that this government actually listens and responds to small business. 127 18:28:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —This is almost embarrassing. I almost feel embarrassed for the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. She says, ‘We listen to small business.’ I wonder whether she read the submissions of small business to the Senate inquiry. Did she read the submission of the Coalition for Fair Trading which called for this amendment? Did she read the submission of NARGA—the organisation which represents small grocers—which called for this amendment? Did she read the submission of various small business groups which called for this amendment that she is rejecting? She says, ‘We listen to small business.’ She has not even read the submissions of small businesses to the Senate inquiry. I could go back and check. I could quote more. I do not want to mislead the House. I am not certain of some of the other small business organisations, but the Coalition for Fair Trading, NAGA, I think COSBOA—although I am not 100 per cent sure—and several small businesses groups called for this amendment. She says, ‘We listen to small business.’ No, she does not; she ignores them. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that she argued for this amendment within government, but she does not have the clout. That is unlike our side, where the shadow minister for small business and I developed our amendments in close consultation over a period of time. Clearly, on the other side, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism goes in and mounts an argument, the Treasurer slaps her down, and that is the end of the story. That is the end of the story because the government do not care about small business. They hide under the masquerade of consultation when clearly the small business advocate in the ministry has not even read the submissions by small business to the Senate inquiry. It is a disgrace. 128 18:30:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —I can reassure the member for Scullin that this will be my last contribution on this matter. I want to make a contribution by way of a question. The question is: Minister, are you asserting here in the parliament that small business organisations do not want this amendment—yes or no? 128 18:31:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —I am happy to answer the member for Rankin’s question on behalf of my colleague from the neighbouring electorate of McEwen. The answer, of course, is that small business did want this amendment. It is clear from the Senate inquiry. It is in the report of the inquiry of the Senate Economics References Committee, The effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business , from March 2004, on pages 17 and 18 about recoupment, at paragraphs 2.39 and 2.45 and recommendation 3. Let us have a look at the summary of what NARGA wanted. At paragraph 2.42 the report says: NARGA argued that recoupment is not currently a component of s.46, since s.46 relates strictly to a corporation’s purpose. NARGA said: All that is required by the wording of s 46 and the parliamentary intention behind s 46 is that the corporation has a substantial degree of market power and has taken advantage of that power for one of the anti-competitive purposes identified in the provision. To require proof of recoupment is to add a new element to s 46, a state of affairs certainly not contemplated by the parliamentary intention ... So it needs to be added. That is clearly what NARGA said. At paragraph 2.44 the Senate committee report says: The ACCC’s submission agreed with NARGA’s view that recoupment should not be necessary under s.46: The ACCC has been quoted during this debate. It said: The ACCC takes the view that s.46 requires amendment to provide that in cases involving allegations of predatory pricing, a finding of expectation or likely ability to recoup losses is not required to establish a contravention of s.46. Such an amendment would ensure that the application of s.46 is consistent with Parliament’s stated intention. That was from the submission of ACCC, submission 30 to the inquiry of the Senate Economics References Committee. I seek leave to table pages 17, 18 and 19 of this report. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is leave granted? JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —The report is already published. Leave not granted. HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr JENKINS —It not being granted I just suggest that my colleague from the neighbouring electorate of McEwen please read it as I need her to read the Melway about a dispute that we have about a road. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey interjecting— 128 18:33:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —Every time I think I am not going to make another contribution the minister says something that I just have to respond to. The minister has put the vehicle into reverse and gone down the road at 100 miles an hour. To start with she said: ‘Small business do not want this amendment. We have consulted with small business and they do not want it.’ The Labor Party provided the evidence and across the table she says, ‘Well, they’re not going to die in a ditch for the amendment.’ The situation has changed. Now she is saying that maybe they want it but they are not going to die in a ditch for it. They might not but we will. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Bowen’s) be agreed to. 18:38:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley) 49 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Garrett, P. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. 78 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. 129 18:44:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —I move amendment (3) circulated in my name: (3)    Schedule 2 after item 3, page 6 (after line 12), insert: 3B  After subsection 46(7) Add:          (8)    In determining for the purposes of this section whether a corporation has taken advantage of its market power, the Court shall have regard to whether:               (a)    the conduct of the corporation is materially facilitated by its substantial degree of market power;               (b)    the corporation engages in the conduct in reliance on its substantial degree of market power;               (c)    the corporation would be likely to engage in the conduct if it lacked a substantial degree of market power; and               (d)    the conduct of the corporation is otherwise related to its substantial degree of market power. This amendment deals with the definition of ‘take advantage’ in the Trade Practices Act. Perhaps I could make it easier for the Minister for Small Business and Tourism by saying that this amendment has been called for by various small business groups in their submissions to the Senate inquiry, and it has also been called for by the ACCC. Section 46 of the act makes it an offence to take advantage of substantial market power. The term ‘take advantage’ has become a controversial one and is in need of definition by the parliament. We regard the failure of the government to define ‘take advantage’ as one of the gross failings in this bill. Nobody disagrees that there should be a connection between market power and allegedly anticompetitive conduct. Of concern, however, is that at least some people have interpreted the High Court’s definition of ‘take advantage’—in the Rural Press case in particular—as being onerous. There is a view—and it is a view that I share on a close reading of the judgements—that the High Court in the Rural Press case did take the definition of ‘take advantage’ to a more onerous level than had previously been expressed in, for example, the Queensland Wire case and the Melway case. The High Court found in Rural Press that a key test was whether the firm in question could have undertaken the activity in question in the absence of substantial market power. The ACCC, again the watchdog, has described the effect of the court’s ruling as follows: What this test means is that, so long as it could physically be possible for a firm to engage in the conduct in the absence of its having market power, it will be held not to have taken advantage of its market power, even though it would not on any rational, commercial basis have engaged in the conduct in the absence of market power. In the commission’s view, such a test defeats the parliament’s intention in amending the act in 1986 of lowering the application threshold for the section. That is entirely and completely in concert with the opposition’s view on this matter. I acknowledge that some jurists—and I am not a jurist—think that the ACCC has that interpretation wrong. On my close reading of the judgements, I think the ACCC has it right. But at the end of the day there is considerable uncertainty about the definition of ‘take advantage’, and the parliament should put an end to that uncertainty. The ACCC’s concerns about the ‘take advantage’ provision are part of the reason the ACCC has not commenced a section 46 case since the round of High Court decisions which have given the ‘take advantage’ provision the more onerous test. This is a key point. The High Court handed down its Boral decision; the ACCC immediately discontinued four, I think, actions. They immediately discontinued them and have not commenced any more. Not since the Boral case has the ACCC, the consumer watchdog, felt that it has been in a position in which it has a case with which it could be successful in the High Court. This government has ignored that for the past four years. In order to eliminate the confusion and uncertainty, Labor moves this amendment to clarify that, when considering whether a firm has taken advantage of market power, the court should consider whether the conduct of the corporation is materially facilitated by its substantial degree of market power, whether the corporation engages in the conduct in reliance on its substantial degree of market power, whether the corporation would be likely to engage in the conduct if it lacked a substantial degree of market power or whether the conduct of the corporation is otherwise related to its substantial degree of market power. I say again for the benefit of the minister: small business groups have called for this amendment, in their submission both to the 2004 Senate inquiry and to the 2007 Senate inquiry. So let us not have the minister get up here and say, ‘Oh, we’ve spoken to small business; they don’t want it,’ or ‘They won’t die in a ditch over it.’ They do want it. The Labor Party wants it. It is a sensible amendment. It is supported by the ACCC. The government should at the very least, if they will not accept any other amendment, accept this one. 131 18:49:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —The government are of the view that the law is very clear that ‘take advantage’ has been interpreted in the case law in section 46 to simply mean ‘use’. This interpretation does not hinder the operation of section 46 and there is not a sufficient level of ambiguity to warrant an amendment. Again I say to those members of the opposition, as I said in my summing-up speech: the government have consulted widely over a long period of time and have listened very carefully to what all of the small business groups have been saying, and we do believe that we have the balance right—balancing the needs of small business operating in a competitive environment and ensuring that consumers benefit from that competitive environment. 131 18:50:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —The minister has just said that there is no ambiguity here. That is my interpretation of what the minister has said. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey —Yes. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —That is now confirmed by the minister. Again the ACCC does not concur. The amendment that has been moved by the shadow competition minister, the member for Prospect, is precisely the wording of an amendment advocated by the ACCC in a public document. We could also obtain that document and seek leave for it to be tabled, if that would be of any benefit, but the ACCC disagrees with the government. It does not agree with the proposition that there is no ambiguity; it is very concerned about ambiguity. This amendment would remove that ambiguity. It is written by the ACCC and, on that basis, there is no decent, sensible policy reason for the government to do anything but to vote for Labor’s amendment. 131 18:51:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —I do not think anyone in this building would regard the Trade Practices Act as a simple or straightforward document. It is the best that we have to work with. The government genuinely believe that we have got the balance right. But let me just say that the amendments that the ALP have moved, the government believe, would extend the scope of ‘take advantage’ to an undesirable level. We also believe that these amendments give insufficient guidance to courts as to what is meant by engaging in conduct in reliance on market power, conduct that would be likely to be engaged in if the corporation lacks substantial market power and conduct that is otherwise related to the corporation’s substantial market power. These amendments moved by the member for Prospect do not ensure a sufficient causal connection between the conduct and the substantial market power. If there is no sufficient connection between the conduct and the substantial market power, section 46 could outlaw or discourage beneficial pro-competitive conduct to the detriment of consumers. Again I say to the member for Prospect and the member for Rankin: even if I gave you the greatest benefit of the doubt, your amendment will not deliver the benefits that you are claiming it will for small business. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —That the ACCC is claiming! JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP FRAN BAILEY —The member for Rankin constantly interjects about the ACCC. Let me tell him that, when it comes to delivering for small business, the government will listen, will go out and will interact directly with small business. We believe that the experience of small business people is paramount, and we make absolutely no apology for that whatsoever. The member for Rankin can quote Frank Zumbo, the ACCC or whoever he likes, but the government will always stand up for small business. We will always listen to them, and we will deliver for them. 132 18:54:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —The minister’s explanation comes to the core of the problem, because it is about what people might consider to be normal competition rather than the misuse of market power. The minister is right: the opposition’s amendment is to give guidance to the courts so we do not get into these arguments about cause and conduct or the intention of conduct. That is the important thing because, for small business, the degree of market power of some of their competitors and the way in which that market power is used leaves small business with no ability to survive. Some people would then argue that that is the way the market operates—and it is a fine line; we understand that it is about balance—but there has been a Senate inquiry and people have made submissions. The Trade Practices Act is a developing beast not only in the way the legislation is framed but in the way it is interpreted in the courts. The minister should not dismiss the fact that one of the real problems is that very few cases are being put before the courts. There is a limitation on the way the case law has developed, either on the basis of deficiencies in the law or on the basis that the ACCC has insufficient resources. Small business is looking to government—governments of any persuasion—for some further guidance. The parliament has indicated that market power should not be misused—and ‘misuse’ may be considered by big business as being about the way they play in the market—but that does not deliver outcomes for small business. I heard the minister say that she felt that the way we had moved on retail tenancy matters sufficiently covered that, but there are still too many things that happen—for instance, when shopping centres are redeveloped, the market power that is used against tenants creates a great difficulty. We should be attempting to make sure that by amending the Trade Practices Act we are giving definite guidance to the courts in respect of interpreting our intentions of this act. 132 18:57:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —I seek leave to table the submission from the ACCC to the Senate Economic References Committee’s inquiry into the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business. The submission contains the amendments that are faithfully reflected in the shadow minister for competition’s amendments. Leave not granted. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Bowen’s) be agreed to. 19:01:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley) 48 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Garrett, P. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. 78 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Nairn, G.R. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question negatived. 133 19:08:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —by leave—I move amendments (4), (5) and (6) circulated in my name: (4)    Schedule 3, item 7, page 11 (line 4), omit                   ‘Omit “$3,000,000”, substitute “$10,000,000”.’,                   substitute                   ‘Repeal the subsection.’ (5)    Schedule 3, item 8, page 11 (line 6), omit                                 ‘Omit “$30,000,000”, substitute “$10,000,000”.’,                                 substitute                                 ‘Repeal the subsection.’ (6)    Schedule 3, after item 8, page 11 (after line 6), insert: 8A Subsection 51AC (11) Repeal the subsection. These amendments deal with the threshold for actions under section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act. Section 51AC prohibits unconscionable conduct in business transactions between companies, particularly between a large company and a small business. The section only applies to transactions that are less than $3 million; the figure was originally $1 million and it was increased to $3 million in 2001 on the recommendation of a Senate committee. This bill increases the threshold to $10 million. After some consideration, the opposition has come to the view that the threshold is not appropriate. The evidentiary hurdle to jump when it comes to unconscionable conduct is high, and appropriately so. An act must be particularly egregious to satisfy the court that it was unconscionable. An act can be unfair, it can be harsh, without being unconscionable. An unconscionable act is one which offends the conscience, one which would make any decent person not be able to sleep at night. The Trade Practices Act, at subsection (4) of 51AC, outlines the factors that a court may have regard to when considering section 51AC cases. First amongst these is ‘the relative strengths of the bargaining positions of the acquirer and the small business supplier’. This makes it clear that this section deals with the relationship between big business and small business, so if the threshold is removed we are not going to see actions between, for example, BHP and Rio Tinto—two large companies of equal or similar bargaining power. The act will still apply to big business doing business with small business exclusively. The ACCC, the government’s watchdog, believes that the threshold should be removed, as we do. Small business can engage in large transactions. The government seem to think that small business only has small transactions, but a small business can engage in a large, one-off transaction. Small businesses should have this section available to them. The government thought that $10 million was an appropriate figure back in 2004. Three years later, they still think that $10 million is the appropriate figure, when inflation would indicate that $11 million or $12 million would be the appropriate figure now. In other, similar arrangements—in other policy areas but related to the Trade Practices Act—the government have said $20 million is the appropriate threshold. Well, let us be done with it. Let us not have Senate committees recommending increases every three or four years; let us abolish the threshold. It makes no good policy sense, it serves no purpose and it should go. 134 19:11:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —The government does not agree with uncapping this. The government agrees that the $3 million threshold was too low, but the government believes that $10 million is the appropriate level. Question negatived. 134 19:11:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —I move amendment (7) circulated in my name: (7)    After schedule 3, page 11 (after line 11), insert Schedule 4 - Other matters 1  After subsection 155(1) Insert:       (1A)    The power under subsection (1) can be exercised at any time prior to the commencement of substantive proceedings in a matter before the courts. 2  Subsection 86(1A) After “any matter arising under “insert” section 46”. Section 155 of the act provides the ACCC with powers, under certain circumstances, to obtain information relevant to its decisions under the act by issuing a notice requiring a person: (a) to furnish to the Commission ... within the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any such information; (b) to produce to the Commission ... in accordance with the notice, any such documents; or (c) to appear before the Commission ... at a time and place specified in the notice to give any such evidence, either orally or in writing, and produce any such documents. There are similar powers available to ASIC, APRA, the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Taxation Office. Currently, the courts have ruled that these powers cease when the ACCC begins an action. The ACCC has consistently argued for the act to be strengthened to enable it to retain these powers when seeking an injunction and for them to continue until the substantive case begins. In evidence before the committee, the ACCC argued that the revocation of section 155 powers is a disincentive to begin court actions and seek injunctions for anticompetitive behaviour to stop, thus delaying the provision of relief to affected businesses and consumers. As the ACCC argued: At the moment, we have a trade-off between either getting an interim injunction and therefore losing the ability to use our section 155 powers thereafter, or not getting an interim injunction until the point where we have ... got our case together and finished using our 155 powers. But that can be a reasonable way down the track and the conduct continues in the meantime. The need for this trade-off is unacceptable. The amendment I have moved will extend the ability of the ACCC to keep its section 155 powers after it has sought an injunction but before a substantive action commences. The ACCC should not be forced to choose between seeking an injunction to stop anticompetitive behaviour and getting more information to prove its case. My amendment will strengthen the ACCC’s powers whilst protecting the rights of a defendant in a substantive court case. I commend the amendment. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. 135 FRAN BAILEY (McEwen —Minister for Small Business and Tourism) 19:14:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 135 Bills R2738 135 Mrs GASH (Gilmore) 19:15:00 —by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 135 Bills R2844 135 Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr McGauran: That this bill be now read a second time. 135 19:16:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. This bill seeks to introduce legislation that will prevent the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund established in 2005 from being drawn upon to deliver telecommunications services to rural, regional and remote Australia. If this bill passes the Australian parliament, enshrined in legislation will be a provision requiring that only the interest earned from the Communications Fund can be spent to provide for the telecommunications needs in rural, regional and remote Australia. This is extraordinary legislation. This suggests that the earnings of the Communications Fund that will be available for spending will be up to $400 million over a three-year period or some $133 million per year. This is meant to implement the recommendations of the regional telecommunications independent review committee that is yet to meet. So what is the motivation for this bill? Firstly, the motive for drafting this legislation as outlined by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in her press release of 21 June 2007 is to prevent the ALP from using the Communications Fund to provide a national broadband network should a Rudd Labor government be elected. This is an extraordinary motivation for legislation. It is evidence, if there was evidence needed, that the Howard government is no longer motivated by the long-term national interest. It is simply motivated by its short-term political interests. In the remaining three to four weeks of parliamentary sittings before the next federal election, the Howard government is more concerned about preventing the Labor Party from delivering high-speed broadband services across Australia than getting on with the job and delivering such a service themselves. This is a government that has simply stopped governing. Let us be clear on the level of absurdity of the proposition before us. This legislation would mean that the Howard government would completely undermine the coalition’s own 2005 funding commitment for the provision of telecommunications services to rural, regional and remote Australia. The member for Gippsland, a member of the National Party, in his second reading speech in this House representing the minister for communications said: This bill will ensure that rural and regional premises are not left stranded without reliable and up-to-date services in the future. Of course it will ensure that occurs because that is the policy of the coalition. This bill is simply a political stunt destined to backfire, not only because Labor intends to oppose this legislation at every possible opportunity but because it will create further division between the Liberal Party and their coalition partner, The Nationals. I wonder what Senator Joyce will have to say about this legislation. Barnaby will go bananas when he understands what this legislation means. The clear fact is that $400 million of funding over a three-year period is completely inadequate to provide services to the bush. The years 2000 and 2002 saw the completion of two government inquiries into the adequacy of telecommunications services in rural, regional and remote Australia—namely, the Besley and Estens inquiries. Both determined that services in the bush were in need of improvement and continued financial and strategic assistance by the federal government. During the 2004 election year the government claimed to have taken a ‘proactive approach’ to improve telecommunication services in rural, regional and remote areas and described their efforts as ‘genuine’. In that same year the Prime Minister stated that a satisfactory level of service in the bush was a precondition for the full sale of Telstra. We know that there is not a satisfactory level of service in the bush. While the Treasurer considered the Deputy Prime Minister’s $2 billion ask for the Communications Fund an idea that could be financially irresponsible—it would ‘raise interest rates’—Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce considered $5 billion to be a far more adequate allocation. Incidentally, the Treasurer later decided the fund was a fair proposition and, indeed, in the spring of 2005 came the birth of this $2 billion Communications Fund. At that time Labor senators in the dissenting report said: Labor Senators do not believe that the quantum of the Communications Fund will be adequate to address these problems. Officials from the department made clear that no independent, needs-based modelling was done to determine the appropriate size of the fund. The touted $2 billion is just a number that the Government persuaded the National Party to accept. No evidence was presented to the inquiry to suggest that a $2 billion fund will be sufficient to address the future telecommunications needs of rural and regional Australia. We know that it is no longer $2 billion. We are talking about approximately $400 million over three years—just $133 million per year. The Australian Labor Party makes no apologies for wishing to provide a long overdue high-speed broadband network to all Australians, regardless of where they live. This government has failed to address issues. It is a weak, timid and pathetic response to Labor’s commitment to a high-speed, fibre-to-the-node broadband network which would offer 98 per cent of the population broadband services some 40 times faster than most current speeds and improve services for the remaining two per cent. The government proposes a dual system of telecommunications services. Australians living in inner suburbs, such as the one that I represent, in the five major cities will have access to a fibre-to-the-node network. But if you do not live in inner Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne and you are in the outer suburbs of those cities or in rural and regional Australia then what you will have to put up with is a pathetic, substandard service—fixed wireless WiMAX, obsolete technology and connection speeds which are shared. Industry experts predict that the average broadband speed will be some 512 kilobits per second. This is not broadband; this is fraudband which the coalition wants to impose on the residents of outer metropolitan areas and rural and regional communities. It is an extraordinary proposition. Let us look at the technology differences, which is why Labor welcome the opportunity to have this debate about broadband, a critical infrastructure. WiMAX solutions are simply not scalable when compared to the enormous potential that exists with fibre networks. The WiMAX solution proposed by the Howard government will actually be severely affected by interruptions to line-of-sight vision. Here we are in 2007 with a proposal which is considering telecommunications technologies which will be unavailable if the topography is not suitable. If there is a hill in the way, if there is a structure or a building in the way, the system simply will not work, and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has had to concede that that is the case. If it is raining or if there is a weather event in between the transmission tower and where people are seeking to get access to broadband services it will also not work. The government produced these maps, but at the bottom of the maps there is a disclaimer. Essentially, it states: ‘These maps are theoretical only.’ DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr Bowen —What does it say? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —It actually says on one of the two pages of disclaimers: Depictions of WiMAX and other wireless coverage on these maps do not take into account local topographical features. That is absolutely extraordinary. Some people may have witnessed the Prime Minister at the launch of this policy, where he got out there with the businesspeople involved with this proposition and he said, ‘This is your spectrum.’ They said, ‘No, Prime Minister, it is not ours.’ He had so little knowledge. So stuck in the middle of the last century, so incapable of leading into the future was this Prime Minister that he did not even understand that the government’s broadband plan does not have its own spectrum to broadcast and that, indeed, it will be a shared spectrum. Those are just some of the problems that exist. The radius from each site is the next major problem. It is a huge technical problem for those who seek access to broadband technology. WiMAX is only able, in theory, to transmit up to 20 kilometres in ideal circumstances—that is, in a laboratory. In practice, industry experts suggest that the coverage will be more like five to 10 kilometres. Compare this with optic fibres: you can actually connect Australia to the world. They can span thousands of kilometres—an extraordinary proposition. Next is the issue of ownership and risk. Of course, there is no risk to the government in undertaking a joint venture to fund a nationwide fibre-to-the-node network, because broadband is essential. Broadband will bring enormous benefits to Australia. If anything, the Howard government’s plan is a risk to our economic prosperity because, unless we are prepared to invest in infrastructure, prepared to take on the challenges so that we can compete in the new, globally competitive economy—and telecommunications are an essential component of that—we simply will not have the economic growth and therefore the employment and living standards in coming years to which Australians aspire. 138 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 138 138 19:30:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —Of all the days on which Australians recall the sacrifice and courage of our people, the anniversary of Victory in the Pacific Day, which Australians commemorate on 14 August, must have the highest significance. The surrender of the forces of the Japanese empire marked the end of one of the darkest chapters in Australia’s history. Three years before the surrender the Australian mainland had been under attack with the bombing of Darwin, Broome and other areas. More than 60 vessels were torpedoed off our shores and, as residents of Sydney recall, Japanese midget submarines entered Sydney Harbour, sinking the converted ferry HMAS Kuttabul with the sad loss of 21 lives. Unlike other wars fought by Australians, the Second World War was fought on our doorstep. Indeed, we had good reason to expect to have to fight off an invasion on our shores and even to surrender part of our landmass to the enemy. That was the extent of our fear. Men like Cabramatta resident Barney Moore, now aged 87, fought in Bardia, Tobruk and later in Crete before returning home to fight in New Guinea. The bravery of men like Barney Moore and the thousands of service men and women, the commitment of our government led by John Curtin and the wholehearted support of the Australian people built our victory in the Pacific. And although the Japanese forces were in retreat for some time before the surrender, Victory in the Pacific Day was certainly remembered by many as the most significant day for the observance of our deliverance from the grave threat to our freedom and the unimaginable horrors of enemy occupation. So it is fitting that we should observe Victory in the Pacific Day as one of the most important events in our history. I am pleased to congratulate the combined initiative of the Canley Heights RSL, Liverpool RSL and Cabra Vale ex-services to commemorate Victory in the Pacific Day again this year. The ceremony will be held in Cabra Vale Park next Tuesday, 14 August. I particularly commend Tony Woollett and Taffy Pritchard of Canley Heights RSL, John Baron of Liverpool RSL, Cabra Vale ex-services and many others for their work in organising this commemoration. The ceremony will be attended by children from a number of local schools and I am sure that the students will be keen to participate and will appreciate the significance of the event. Sixty-two years have past, and relations between Australia and Japan are very different today from how they were in 1945. This week in Sydney we witnessed the visit by family members of the crew of one of the Japanese midget submarines, which has been located off Sydney’s northern beaches. And, while there have been expressions of admiration for the courage of those submariners, many older Australians cannot allow themselves to forgive the criminal actions of Japanese commanders against our service men and women, especially those taken prisoner of war. While we have made our peace with the people of Japan, and now enjoy close trading links, the lessons of the Second World War are far from learned. This week also marks the 62nd anniversary of the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the official justification for the use of such weapons of terror was that it would save the lives of many allied servicemen, the question remains as to whether another course of action may have been as effective in bringing about the surrender of Japan. In Hiroshima, 140,000 civilians died in the bombing or in the months following. A further 60,000 died a slow and painful death in the years that followed as a result of their exposure. Seventy-thousand civilians died in the atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki and thousands more died later. Since the horror of those two bombs dropped on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world has built a nuclear stockpile that could bring to every city in the world that same destruction and even greater loss of life. But instead of phasing out weapons, new developments are taking place. We must remember Victory in the Pacific Day. But we should not forget the risk of destruction that nuclear weapons present to the world and to our beloved country, Australia. 139 139 19:35:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —I rise tonight to relay great news regarding a project that has been close to my heart since I became the Member for Dobell in 2001. Having lived in the area for 24 years at that time I was well aware of the need for this project. A few weeks ago the federal Minister for the Environment and Water Resources made an announcement at Wallarah Point Park on the Central Coast pledging $20 million in federal funding to assist the implementation of the Tuggerah Lakes Estuary Management Plan, as produced by the Wyong Shire Council. The Tuggerah Lakes Estuary system is unique and is one of the Central Coast’s most valuable natural assets, and this plan will restore and help protect the system so that it can be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike for years to come. The implementation of the Tuggerah Lakes Estuary Management Plan will significantly improve the recreational facilities around the lakes and creeks, which are popular with local families, especially during summer. The plan will also reduce sediment and nutrient inputs to the lakes and improve the quality of stormwater entering the lakes from the catchment, which will ensure local residents will be able to enjoy swimming and fishing at lake beaches. Obviously, the New South Wales government owns the lake but, just as I did with Tumbi Creek, I made it my priority to represent local residents’ strong concerns and the urgent need to preserve and protect our precious lake system. After many months of working closely with Wyong council and the local community to put the case forward for federal funding, I am pleased that this funding has now become a reality. To ensure the restoration of Tuggerah Lakes is carried out properly the Howard government has committed to accelerate and drive rescue activity by implementing the plan over four years. In typical Labor fashion, they scrambled to purposely mislead local residents by making yet another empty promise to fund this project, just as they did with the federal funding we announced a month ago for the ‘missing link’ pipeline to future proof the Central Coast’s water supply. This is what Labor is doing across the country: making policy on the run. As far as I am aware, the blow-in from Melbourne who the ALP has parachuted in as their candidate to the electorate of Dobell has not previously expressed any concern over the health of Tuggerah Lakes. He has no history of working on this issue and the best the ALP could come up with was to yet again mirror the policies the coalition government has been working on to continually improve the Central Coast. I have been working on the Estuary Management Plan all two terms. I have had numerous meetings with Wyong council to find a solution to Tuggerah Lakes. I doubt that there would be any record in the GM or the mayor’s diary of the Melbournite seeking a meeting to discuss the future of our lake system. And, unlike Labor’s promise, by working with Wyong council and the community I have secured a real funding commitment toward the clean-up of Tuggerah Lakes. This is not a re-election commitment. The funding will be provided to council immediately to ensure that the job gets done promptly. Tuggerah Lakes is the jewel of the Central Coast and its maintenance is one of the most important issues facing the Wyong Shire community. I am ecstatic that the Howard government recognises and understands the importance of this lake system to our area. I will continue to work hard for the people of Dobell to ensure that Labor’s neglect does not deny our area the services and projects that it deserves. Indeed, the state Labor government have left the Central Coast for dead for many years, doing the very minimum that they can. We see a lot of activity just before a state election but after that we see nothing. 140 140 19:37:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —Last week I visited the community centre and gardens at Riverwood in my electorate. I have been welcomed there many times before. The community centre itself is staffed primarily by volunteers under the management of Mrs Pauline Gallagher. Pauline has put her heart and soul into the community at Riverwood and the results are a testimony to her hard work and perseverance. On the day I visited last week, there was evidence of the extraordinary impact the centre has on the local community. In one room, a group of Arabic mothers were having a meeting and I spoke with them briefly. In another, a number of children were playing with donated equipment under the auspice of volunteers. At the front in a large open area a number of people of Chinese background were playing shuttlecock. I saw people of many ethnic backgrounds playing together, working together and discussing matters of mutual interest. In a community that generally does it tough, that is how it works: everyone works together for their mutual benefit. The community centre hosts many programs arising from the needs of the local community. These include family support, youth services, a neighbourhood aid program, a community care program, a housing and communities service program, a links to learning program, employment assistance and skills development, a child sexual assault service and the tenants resource centre. I have been invited to attend some of the meetings of the various community groups which meet at the centre, such as the Vietnamese social support group, the Chinese elderly social group and the Arabic social support group. I enjoyed talking with the group members about the day-to-day issues they deal with. On average, 2,000 people a week use the centre. Just outside the centre building, the Riverwood Housing Estate is located. I have spoken before about the community garden nearby and the pleasure that it provides to many people from around the community. It has been featured on ABC TV. On my most recent visit last week with Canterbury councillor Karl Saleh, we spoke with several residents tending their gardens, playing cards and just talking together in a community environment. Between the community centre and the community garden, we strolled alongside the wonderful Riverwood wetland. This is something new that Canterbury council has invested in. Originally, this land had been impacted by sediment and nutrient loads in the stormwater, damage from public access, invasion of weed species and the predatory impact of domestic animals on native fauna. The original project involved the construction of a wetland within open drainage and an in-stream sedimentation pond to transport flows from a previously constructed gross pollutant trap to a reed bed for further filtration. Flows in excess of the reed bed capacity—which are one in five year flows—overspill into a natural salt marsh area before entering Salt Pan Creek. Through the culling of weeds and exotic plants and the planting of native species in the reed bed, the Riverwood wetland has become a natural habitat for a diverse range of wildlife. The wetland plants have also had positive effects on the level of pollutants in the stormwater, including heavy metals and sediments. In addition, footpaths, boardwalks and barbecue areas have been established to promote and encourage recreational activities. In a diverse community, it is useful to remind ourselves that with cooperation and common sense magnificent outcomes can be achieved. This area is the most marginalised area in my electorate but—and I have said this before—going there and talking to the people of that community gives me the greatest pleasure. The community spirit is sensational. The support that they have received from the state government—and their local member is the Premier, Morris Iemma—has been unbelievable over the years. We have worked in partnership with Canterbury council. I got money for the community centre to build a basketball court as an addition to the centre when Ros Kelly was giving out those community grants. There are a number of other wonderful projects in our area that we were able to help. I bring this to the House’s attention because it is worthy of the House’s attention. I salute the people in this area, and I will be doing everything that I can to assist them in maintaining their community spirit. 141 141 19:43:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House one of the partnerships that is occurring in South Australia in the seat of Wakefield between the Australian government, industry and schools. One of the things that I often hear from parents as I talk with them is their concern about whether their young people will be able to find a job. I speak with employers, and they talk about the fact that they are struggling to find enough people to come and work in their workplaces. I hear from both trade training organisations and universities about the difficultly in finding young people who have the correct prerequisite subjects to come into some trade or tertiary training courses. It is for this reason that I have been very pleased over the last few years to work with the Northern Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group, which has been led by Connie Woodbury. That was funded originally under the Australian government’s Sustainable Regions Program in Playford and Salisbury. We worked with a number of industry partners—people such as Tenix Defence, BAE Systems, Holden, NTS Global, DANA Australia, Futuris and IMP Printed Circuits—to create a program that took industry into the schools. Upon reaching year 10 in their schooling, many young people are choosing subjects and deciding which stream they want to go down. What became very apparent was that if the students had not been exposed to the possibilities—and, importantly, if their careers adviser teachers and their science teachers and others had not seen what the possibilities are, or what the relevance of school subjects have to the modern workplace in the advanced manufacturing area—then many of these young people at that time will not have made the right choice of subjects that would lead them to be ready and able to move into either particular apprenticeships or further training or tertiary education so that they could go into the very real opportunities in automotive, mining and defence industry sectors in Wakefield in South Australia. This program has led to something called Concept 2 Creation, which is the brainchild of some of the industry partners in South Australia. It allows industry to go and work with the teachers and the children in the schools to give them projects to develop their understanding of advanced manufacturing concepts and technologies. It gives them a real challenge to work on to develop a solution. They then have days where they can highlight those and other people can see them. But, importantly, industry also offers industry tours for the careers adviser teachers, the science teachers and the students so that they can come out and see where some of the subjects they are learning at school are applied in real industry areas. This gives these young people an awareness of what the workplace is like and where these things could lead so that they can start making subject choices that will enable them to pursue those courses and get involved in these industry sectors, which are booming in Wakefield at the moment. There are a number of schools involved at the moment, such as Craigmore High School, Para Hills, Salisbury, St Columba and Thomas More College. I encourage schools to look at this program and invite this group to come in and work with them and their students because it provides an added element to what they are teaching in the schools, and it also provides information for the students who are making the choices. We know that it adds value to industry because they have been prepared to partner with us and devote time. People like Annette Cinnamond from Tenix have been chairing NAMIG and have been providing that support. Industry have committed to it and we are very glad to say that just recently I had the Prime Minister come to Wakefield to announce a further $1.225 million to enable this program to continue into the future. So this is now a partnership between the Australian government, the state government, industry groups and the schools. It is something I encourage other people to be involved with, both in the schools and in industry, because it is making this link for our young people that will equip them with the skills that they need to move into the workplace that exists in South Australia, which is booming and is forecast to continue to do so for a number of years to come. It is part of securing a future for our young people, which is something that I have over the last three years been aiming to work with communities in Wakefield to achieve. 143 143 19:48:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —Something that has characterised this government over its journey has been that, when things are going all right, it always takes the credit and says that it is all because of its brilliance. But you can sure bet that when things are a bit rocky it will be somebody else’s fault. We had that softening up in the run up to today’s Reserve Bank announcement about interest rates: if they went up it was going to be the fault of the states. We got the interest rate rise of 0.25 per cent—it is regrettable but some people expected it. And what do we see from the government? Don’t take any blame for it—blame others. There was not even a discussion about having an understanding of what it means to the people that we represent here. I want to dwell on that because this is the fifth rate rise since the election—it is the ninth in a row. I think that, as people who represent the community, we should start to look at the effect on the people we represent. I have tried to be fair in making an analysis of what it means to families in the electorate of Scullin. I have looked at the average prices for homes and I have adjusted that to what is a reasonable amount of money that people would have borrowed. On the best reckoning I can get over the range of suburbs in the electorate of Scullin, when this rate rise today flows on to mortgage interest it will have an impact of something like $50 per month to $75 per month. If we look at the five increases in interest rates since the election, it is something like $250 per month to $375 per month. This has happened after the election where John Howard—whether it was in a direct, indirect or subliminal shape or form—said to the Australian people that he would keep interest rates low. He has failed and he has got to accept the blame. His government is the national government and has the levers for the national economy. This is a government that took over an economy that even the Prime Minister acknowledged was in good shape—and that was on the basis of the Hawke-Keating years when many hard decisions were made. So this government has had it pretty easy and it galls me that when things seem to be going all right and it is all plain sailing, we get the Treasurer in here taking credit for everything. But when there are a few speed humps thrown his way, it is always somebody else’s fault. Getting back to the kitchen tables tonight, families in Scullin will be sitting down to contemplate the extra impost on their house mortgages. They might be thinking that they are there in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, dependent upon private transport because the new suburbs are deficient in public transport. Their thinking might turn to petrol costs. They will be thinking that, in October 2004, three years ago, at the time of the election, the average price of unleaded petrol in metropolitan Melbourne was around 104.3c per litre. At the moment—being generous—it is around 129.5c. What that means for an average family in Scullin, filling the tank of the family car—which is what they would probably be using, because they have to go long distances to work, to child care and to school—is, say, $20 a week, another $80 a month, since the last election. As I have stated here before, a survey that I did of childcare costs found that prices increased in the short term to something like $47 to $67 a day. That is quite extraordinary when you start to add these things together. That is what the discussion should be about: how we are going to give relief and hope to those people and how we are going to ensure that the stress that they find because of housing costs does not drive them out of their homes, does not put them in the vicious cycle of having to take high rents and losing their homes. That is what the discussion should be about. It should not be about the blame game and pointing fingers; it should be about the realities of the situation that we confront. (Time expired) 144 144 19:53:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise to talk tonight about one of the Wakefield forums, which I had last week in Wakefield, looking at disabilities. The federal Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, came to Wakefield and met with a number of carers for people who have disabilities, at the Northern Carers Network. The Northern Carers Network is led by a lady called Maria Ross. She has been variously described by different people as a saint, as somebody who has kept their sanity and as somebody who very much has made life bearable and workable for these people because she has brought together a body of knowledge but, more importantly, has the passion and the ability to connect people who are caring for those with a disability. Our forum was very instructive. There were a number of areas that people raised that we were able to talk about. There has been a lot of discussion in the media about the need for the federal government to be working with the state government and not to have the blame game. This is one area where I continually see the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs from the federal government reaching out to the states, particularly to South Australia, and inviting them to come to talk and to look at ways that we can work together to meet the needs of people with disabilities in South Australia. What became very clear through some of the questions and answers is that people really are not concerned about which level of government pays for services; they want outcomes. At the end of the day, for the government, the minister explained that we have on a number of occasions sought to engage with the states and territories—in our case, specifically South Australia—to reach an agreed position so that the Commonwealth-state disability agreement could be signed and agreed to well ahead of time. That gives agencies on the ground the time to know where their funding is going to come from so they can retain staff rather than waiting until the last gasp, when people are starting to consider looking for other jobs and so on because the funding is not secured. We were very keen to try and get that funding agreement done early. Yet, time and again, the states have walked out or asked for deferments, which have pushed it out toward the end of this year, so these agencies do not know whether funding is going to continue. The minister was able to highlight some of the initiatives that we have taken, because of that, to directly engage with people. One of the real concerns that have been raised with me time and again by older carers, people in their 60s or 70s who are caring for adult children, is: ‘What is going to happen to our child? What’s going to happen to them when either I pass on or I need care myself? What is their future going to be?’ They are concerned about the lack of care for their children. So one of the initiatives that was very warmly received in this forum was the initiative whereby the Australian government has committed, before the end of this year, to make a care plan—to individually visit each older carer and look at what they and the child that they are caring for need into the future and put in place a care plan; importantly, a funded care plan. I think that is one of the things that have most frustrated families who have come and spoken with me about disability care. Because of the division of responsibilities, they say that in some cases Disability SA, a state-run organisation, have responsibility for things, and their website says, ‘We deliver (a), (b) and (c),’ but when the families come to seek that support they find that that support is not actually available because the agency has not been funded adequately by the South Australian government. So, in some of these interventions by the federal government, we are saying that we are taking a whole slab of responsibility away from the state government—in this case, for senior carers. We are going to be providing that care plan and the funding for that, which means that the state governments can spend a higher proportion of the funding they do have on each of the people who still remain under the area that they have agreed is going to be their responsibility. Certainly, as I sit and listen to the families who talk to me about the caring responsibilities they have and the impact those have on the other children in their family, I welcome the measures by the federal minister, but I also call on states and territories to step up to the mark, take this opportunity, cease the blame game, come on board, talk with us, get this agreement in place and provide the services that these families so desperately need. Question agreed to. 145 19:59:00 House adjourned at 7.59 pm 145 Notices The following notice was given: HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Hardened and Networked Army (HNA) facilities at Edinburgh Defence Precinct, South Australia. 2007-08-08 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am. 146 Statements by Members 146 146 09:30:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 0 Mr DANBY —I rise to speak on the issue of flagrant human rights abuse in Iran. The abduction and brutal beating, again, of Tehran’s Sherkate Vahed bus drivers union leader, Mansour Osanloo, on the evening of 10 July this year is yet another chapter in the growing catalogue of human rights abuses in that country. While there is some disagreement over the extent to which workers’ rights should drive the policy of the government of the day in our country, it goes without saying that all of us in this place support freedom of association—I am sure even members of the government support the right to join trade unions—and, above all, freedom from all forms of persecution. Article 23, section 4, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides: Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 2 provides that these rights are universal and exist regardless of nationality or jurisdiction. Iran’s membership of the International Labour Organisation also binds it to respect the rights of workers to organise, free from fear of prosecution. That the most recent attack on the most basic rights of Mansour Osanloo was carried out following surveillance of him by individuals understood to be members of Iran’s security forces is particularly concerning, of similar concern is that there appears to be no certainty as to whether his abduction was the work of security forces. There was a complete lack of transparency and even procedural fairness in failing to inform him, his family, his friends or colleagues of his fate. In November last year it is believed that the state-sponsored militia, the Basij—the SR of the Tehran regime—stifled political dissent again in that country and were responsible for Osanloo’s earlier abduction and imprisonment. The most recent incident bears the hallmarks of the same kind of underhanded attack—a completely illegal attack, against the declaration of human rights, the rights of freedom of association and Iran’s membership of the ILO. This case of human rights abuse is par for the course with the Iranian regime under its President Ahmadinejad. Thursday, 9 August marks the anniversary of Mansour Osanloo’s release from prison following several months behind bars after his members refused to collect passengers’ fares as a result of price rises in Iran. ACTU officials and members of affiliated unions will undertake a national day of action tomorrow, with protests outside the Embassy of Iran. Union officials will also seek an audience with the Iranian ambassador to lodge a written protest against Mr Osanloo’s unjust and baseless imprisonment, and I wish them every success in working towards securing his release and freedom from further prosecution. This is not just a case of one trade union leader; this man is the leader of the democratic opposition to a very fearful regime in Iran. (Time expired) 146 146 09:33:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 1 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today on behalf of my constituents to raise an issue of serious concern in my electorate. That issue is the increasing incidence of crime in our community. Crime, whether it is a break and enter, motor vehicle theft, vandalism, violence or hoodlums creating a disturbance, affects everyone, not just the victims. People demand and deserve the right to feel safe in our streets and in their homes. There can be no doubt that nothing reduces the incidence of crime, particularly petty crime, more than an increased police presence and a rapid response to an incident. In my communities, the lack of support and assistance from the New South Wales Labor government in providing adequate police resources is a cause of concern. Last week, hundreds of concerned and angry residents turned out to public crime forums organised by the community in the Forster-Tuncurry and Tilligerry Peninsula areas. I attended, along with the federal Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator David Johnston. Every one of those residents was concerned and stressed about the need for greater police presence in the area to help reduce crime. In the Tilligerry, a person complained of having reported his motorbike stolen and claimed that police had not turned up to investigate for some three days. In the Tilligerry Peninsula and Forster-Tuncurry areas, locals have been desperately calling for an increase in police numbers and 24-hour-manned stations for almost a decade. Criminals have learnt of the times when police stations are not manned and they are using that to their advantage. Police resources are stretched to breaking point. In response, the New South Wales Labor government has promised 700 more police over the next four years, yet there are more than 500 police leaving the police force each year. In four years time there will be around 1,300 fewer police than there are today. Identifying the problem is easy; finding solutions is a little harder. Whilst it is the New South Wales Labor government’s responsibility to fund and provide the police force, the federal government has stepped in to offer support to the maximum of their constitutional powers. Through the federally funded National Crime Prevention Program, we are offering to pay for crime prevention programs, but they can only do so much. I am pleased to announce that, through the Port Stephens Council, a crime prevention task force will be established in the Tilligerry Peninsula to help address escalating crime in that area. The federal government will commit up to $150,000, which will help fund a full-time crime strategist for two years. In discussions with the Mayor of Great Lakes, John Chadban, a $150,000 funding package has been offered to help their crime prevention task force develop and implement strategies that will help. On top of this, the councils were advised they could also apply for up to $500,000 for crime prevention solutions. For example, this year I fought for and secured $95,000 for funding for closed circuit television cameras for Nelson Bay CBD to help reduce crime in that area. I make the point: there is no point in having these cameras if we do not have the police numbers to monitor and use them. Nothing will reduce crime more than an increased police presence. (Time expired) 147 147 09:36:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —On Sunday afternoon, when I was travelling to Canberra, I was very saddened to receive a phone call telling me that Mr Bill Galton, a constituent of my electorate of Prospect, had passed away. Bill was an institution in Fairfield and, more importantly, he was a wonderful man whom I knew well. I enjoyed his company and I am very sad to see him go. He was 88. Bill was the foundation member of the Fairfield RSL Club. He was No. 1 badge holder and patron of the club. He first joined the Fairfield RSL subbranch in 1957 and I was glad that he was able to come to the 50th anniversary dinner a few months ago, which I attended as well. It was great to see him there in good health and I am very sad that he lost his battle and his life on the weekend. He saw four years overseas military service in the First Australian Landing Craft Squadron in Rabaul in New Guinea, in Jacono in New Britain and he also served in Borneo. His father was one of the early presidents of the Fairfield RSL Club and the Fred Galton Hall is named after his father. In fact, the street I live in, Galton Street, is named after his family. Bill will be deeply missed in Fairfield. It is the end of an era to see Bill pass away. Until very recently, Bill could be seen walking around the streets of Fairfield and he would always stop and have a word to anybody he knew, which was a lot of people. I recall seeing him several times in the last few months doing his shopping in Fairfield and stopping to talk to him. If I had realised that last time I got to talk to him would be in fact the last time, I would have taken the opportunity to tell him just how much I valued his friendship and just how much the community valued not only his military service but his service to the community through the RSL club. His funeral will be on Friday. I take this opportunity in the parliament to extend my personal condolences to his daughters, Kate and Diane, and his son, Bill Jr. They will miss him, but the entire Fairfield community will miss him. He was an institution in the Fairfield RSL club. He was the patron of the club and was deeply respected by every member of the club because of his humanity, because of his decency and because of the time that he would take to talk to anybody who came his way. He will be sadly missed and I extend my condolences to his family. 148 148 09:39:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 0 Mr VASTA —It has been almost three years since I was elected to the House of Representatives and what an incredible journey it has been. Representing the people of Bonner is a great honour and I am pleased to report that over this time I have been able to work with the community to deliver results and real outcomes for the electorate. The bayside of Brisbane is a key community in Bonner and I am committed to the revitalisation of Wynnum. In 2005 I fought hard to deliver a local Medicare office to the area; a service that was desperately needed not only by the people but by the local economy. Since opening its doors in September 2005, the Medicare office has been a welcome achievement and has played an integral role in helping to stimulate what was a struggling local economy. In cooperation with the community I have also been able to open an Australian Hearing office in Wynnum, which has proved to be a great asset to the local senior and veteran community. Late last year I also announced over $400,000 in black spot road funding for the bayside and $1.2 million towards the costs of a planning study for the future extension of the Port of Brisbane Motorway. In the southside community of Bonner I have worked closely with local schools and their P&C associations to deliver practical outcomes through the Investing in Our Schools Program. Eighteen southside state schools have now received funding for projects specifically designed by the schools to address the needs of students and staff. Throughout the whole of Bonner over $3 million has been provided to 33 schools in the past year alone, and I plan on working to increase this number over the coming months. I am also pleased to report that the southside now has access to a family relationship centre, which was opened on 2 July. This is an invaluable new service to the southside community. This centre will play a key role in supporting local families and single parents. These are but a few examples of what has been achieved over the past 2½ years. While the Bonner community can be proud of the progress that has been made, there is never time to rest and always more to be done. I am committed to improving our local roads and infrastructure, to addressing the needs of our environment and to combating local crime. With the support of the community I plan to deliver funding for the upgrade of the Port of Brisbane Motorway, just as I plan to ensure that all clubhouses and scout halls in Bonner are given the means to install CCTV and combat crime in their local area. I am committed to Bonner. As the 2007 federal election draws closer, I am determined to work even harder to ensure that on a national level this country retains the best government it has ever had so that at a local level even more positive outcomes can be delivered to the community. 149 149 09:42:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I rise today to talk about a very important issue to all of us in Australia—that is, dental care, the arrangements that are currently in place and the changes that should take place. Given the air within the federal government at the moment of moving into areas that they traditionally blamed others for, I urge the Commonwealth to look very closely at this issue. It is an issue that they need to have a much closer look at not only in terms of the Medicare arrangements for dental care but also in terms of some of the training arrangements. I know there is some movement in terms of training, but there is a bottleneck with the delivery of dental care—there are some 600,000 Australians on the waiting list now. There is a need for a degree of federal intervention in relation to this. There was a program some years ago with which the Commonwealth government did assist. For the life of me I cannot understand why dental health is considered to be different to the rest of our bodily health when it comes to Medicare arrangements. A constituent of mine from the little town of Bendemeer, Mrs Ruth Mathews, has been working on a petition to the parliament. I think some 3,000 petitions have been presented, urging the federal government to make some moves in the dental care area. The 3,000 people who have signed the petition—and I am sure many other Australians would too if we asked them—are prepared to pay more in their Medicare levy for dental care to be included. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions by a number of members, and it is an issue that we should be addressing when we have surplus budgets. I congratulate the government on its economic activity in terms of surplus budgets. But, rather than giving $2, a milkshake or half a sandwich back to people in terms of tax cuts, we should address this issue. If there is surplus money, we should transfer some of that money into Medicare so that people with dental problems can avail themselves of the same provisions that they can if they have a problem with their foot, their hand or their heart. There is a very real need for this issue to be part of the election platform of all the major parties. Hopefully, it will be one that the Prime Minister, given his recent attitude, will mention. (Time expired) 149 149 09:45:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —I rise to talk about an issue that I have discussed in this chamber on many other occasions, and that is the failure of the state Labor government to do anything about the Reid Highway in my electorate. Last Friday I had the privilege of hosting the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, the Hon. Jim Lloyd, in my office to meet with members of the Balga Action Group. The Balga Action Group have been campaigning for nine years for an overpass to be built at the very dangerous intersection of Reid Highway in Mirrabooka Avenue. The minister told the action group that in his 2½ years as minister he has never, ever come across a situation where a state government has torn up a cheque for $10 million. The Commonwealth had offered $10 million for this overpass to be built, and astonishingly the state Labor government minister tore up that cheque. Just to remind the House, this road is 100 per cent the responsibility of the state government. Yet extraordinarily, when the Commonwealth comes and offers them $10 million to build infrastructure on one of their roads, they fail to match the funding and accept this offer. That money has now been reallocated in other parts of Australia, and 13 other local councils will be spending that money. I think my community is pretty outraged by that. The local community, through a recent red spot survey which was run by a local community newspaper group, the RAC and Channel 7 put the Reid Highway and Mirrabooka Avenue intersection as the 16th worst in Western Australia. The intersection that the state government continues to say is the worst, based on figures that they refuse to make public, the Reid Highway/Alexandra Drive intersection, was not one that was rated by the community at all. The intersection at Reid Highway and Mirrabooka Avenue is only going to get busier as that area develops further. I do not want to have another family suffer a devastating tragedy in order to get the state government to listen. It is time now for action and I will not stop lobbying my colleagues to put that money back on the table. Extraordinarily, in the Stirling Times, one of my local community newspapers, the WA transport and infrastructure minister, Alannah MacTiernan, said something along the lines of, ‘Well, we don’t do anything until there is a federal Labor government.’ She is essentially threatening my constituents—unless they vote Labor, the state government is not going to put any infrastructure into my electorate. That is what this state government has come to. They are extraordinarily precious, they are extraordinarily arrogant and they are extraordinarily out of touch. It is disgraceful that they hold my electorate to ransom, but I give a commitment to my electorate that I will continue to be lobbying for this overpass to be built, and I call on the state government to put politics aside and join me in building this much needed local infrastructure. 150 150 09:48:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —In January this year I received correspondence from my constituent Michael Boscoscuro seeking my assistance in having the drug Tysabri listed on the PBS. Michael’s letter set out the circumstances of his eventual diagnosis with multiple sclerosis at 18 years of age. Michael was a talented student and a competent sportsman who was expected to achieve dux of his school before he was struck down with MS. Despite ongoing and severe treatment, he battled on courageously and commenced his Bachelor of Commerce degree at the University of Wollongong in 2006. Due to the aggressive nature of his condition and the limited ability of interferons to stabilise the MS, it was decided that he should start a course of mitoxantrone. His is rapidly approaching the maximum permissible dose of this drug. In his letter to me, Michael pointed out that Tysabri had been shown in trials to markedly slow the progress of the relapsing remitting form of MS which he suffers. In his words, Michael said this: ‘Tysabri may not be a cure, but it appears to be by far the best treatment available at this time. But unless it is placed on the PBS, its prohibitive cost—that is, around $36,000—would financially cripple most MS sufferers and their families.’ In response to my representations, the government advised that the PBAC had rejected an initial application for listing at its meeting in November 2006. From my discussions with the manufacturer, I understand that a new application was in fact submitted to the PBAC on 4 July. I appeal to the minister to ensure that the consideration of the new application from the manufacturer, Biogen Idec, is expedited. MS, as we know, is a devastating disease, often hitting people—as it did Michael—in the most productive period of their lives. I understand that there are currently around 18,000 MS sufferers in Australia. Many of these sufferers see the listing of Tysabri on the PBS as light at the end of the tunnel. Clinical trials have shown a remarkable 68 per cent reduction in clinical relapses, and yet its prohibitive cost puts Tysabri beyond the reach of most MS sufferers. I urge the government to act expeditiously and with compassion. 151 151 09:50:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I am right behind my local community in their concerns about local crime. I saw something in the media earlier this week which I think my community would think a great idea. They are always writing to me and always talking to me about hooning in Townsville. It is a problem all over the Commonwealth, and certainly in my city it is a problem: what to do about these irresponsible drivers. The suggestion was that the police be given the power to impound their car, take it to Sims Metal and turn it into a cube. The New South Wales Police Commissioner went one step further and said that the cube should then be taken and put on the front lawn of the house of that particular hoon. I think it is a very popular suggestion. It is a pretty tough penalty, but the community have to make up their minds. Do they want to do something that is effective about hooning, or do they not? I reckon they want it to be addressed. I am certainly going to look at that in the coming weeks, and I am going to ask my community how they feel about that, but I think we are going to get a bit of support for that. I am also behind my community in relation to their concerns about roads. I want to report to the parliament a number of things that have happened. The Townsville ring road is now well under construction. It will connect the Douglas arterial through to the Bruce Highway and have a motorway standard as a bypass for the city of Townsville. It will take a whole lot of heavy trucks out of the suburbs. That is going to be a great boon when it is open. I am also about to officially attend the start of the Woodlands Shopping Centre to Veales Road four-laning of the Bruce Highway. The people along Mount Low Parkway will be very happy to see that happen. In the future, I want something done about the non-walkway between Nelly Bay and Geoffrey Bay on Magnetic Island. It is the most dangerous piece of road, with no footpath, no satisfactory way that our pedestrians can get across between the bays, and it is the most popular walk on the bay. We must do something about it, and I am going to do something about it. On the port access road which now needs to be built, I have given a commitment to my community that I will build that road and I will build it sooner rather than later. I am hoping that in the life of the next government we will see a start on the port access road. I would also like to report to the parliament that I have had meetings with both of Australia’s roads ministers, Jim Lloyd and Mark Vaile, with a North Queensland focus. I thank them for their attention, and I thank them for the support that they are giving me. I hope to make some great announcements in the not too distant future. 152 152 09:53:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise today to share with the House the problems that people in Newcastle and all around Australia are facing in accessing vital dental healthcare services. Research released just last week by the Australia Fair group found that 46 per cent of people reported that it would be difficult for them to pay the $300 needed for basic preventative dental treatment. The same number of people said that the cost of dental care influences their decision to see a dentist regularly. Twenty-three per cent of people said they have not seen a dentist for over two years. We know that there are about 50,000 hospital admissions for preventable dental conditions each year and that there are 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists. To take just one example from my electorate last year, one of my constituents contacted our office seeking assistance. He had been having significant problems with his teeth and needed dentures. After failing to be able to access any public services, being told that it would take 18 months, he finally went to a private dentist and paid the $4,300 fee with his credit card. He is on a pension and is, as you can imagine, barely keeping on top of the interest charge, which may even increase after today. How did it come to this? We have pensioners putting dental treatment on their credit cards. One of the most infamous decisions of the Howard government when it came to power 11 years ago was to abolish the $100 million a year Commonwealth dental program. That is just over $1 billion the Howard government has not spent on dental health care in the last 11 years. That is a lot of money, so what would it have bought? What does it actually buy? Well, if you are the Howard government hell-bent on spending its way back into power, it has bought a lot of advertising. In fact, it is uncanny when you look at the numbers—this government has actually spent $2 billion on advertising in that 11 years. That is two Commonwealth dental programs worth of advertising that we have seen the money spent on, while 650,000 people wait for treatment. People all over this nation are asking the government to do something about dental health. People have been asking why the Howard government has abandoned working families and the Howard government’s response, currently, is to blame the states. It is the same old tired buck-passing and the same old blame game. The Minister for Health and Ageing says, ‘People should direct their concerns to the state governments. They need to take responsibility and I think that public dental care is appropriately in that domain.’ People do not care about that response. The survey found that 75 per cent of Australians think the Commonwealth should at least share the funding for dental care. As the Prime Minister himself said recently: ... Australians are interested in good outcomes, they’re not interested in theories of governance. Here is a good outcome: Kevin Rudd and federal Labor will establish a Commonwealth dental program to make dental care accessible to working families again. Kevin Rudd and federal Labor will end the Howard government’s blame game and actually do what the Commonwealth can and should be doing to address this important issue. 153 153 09:56:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I wish to join Senator Michael Forshaw in congratulating the Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club on achieving 100 years since its establishment. Last Friday there was a special ball held at the Westin Hotel to celebrate the event and then we had the annual general meeting last Sunday on Cronulla Beach, which was attended by some 400 people. This, in the Year of the Surf Lifesaver, is a very significant event and of course it was part of the group of foundation clubs involved in establishing the surf-lifesaving movement. How do you judge a surf club as to how it sits in the Australian scene, as Australian surf clubs are iconic in themselves? Cronulla surf club is probably the most outstanding club in Australia’s history. How do we judge it? Firstly, in terms of the number of lives lost. During the past 100 years, members of the club have performed over 9,000 rescues with no lives lost—a remarkable achievement. Secondly, Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club has been one of the most successful clubs in the history of surf life saving championships, including being the only club to win three consecutive world, Australian, state and branch championships point scores. Finally, you judge a club according to the quality of its members. It is a club that has a strong bond between the members. They are some of the most outstanding men and women, certainly in my electorate and, I think, within the country. I congratulate Kevin Neilsen, the president, who is an outstanding surf champion himself, the deputy president, Greg Holland, John Holt, an Australian who is part of the Australian Surf Life Saving Hall of Fame, and further winners of Australian surf life saving championships, Ian Goode, Daniel McLellan and his sister Kate, Peter Tibbitts, Nick Dixon and Warren Buchan. Peter Tibbitts was involved in the boat crews. Of course, there is also the new generation. Nathan, Tiane and Krystal Smith come from the one family. Nathan and Krystal won successive titles for five years in the New South Wales ironman and ironwoman of the year competition. They are an incredible family. Chris Allum, this year’s winner, who is also a fine young man, took part in the youth leadership forum here in the parliament this year and gave a speech of which we would all be proud. It is a wonderful club, superb people are involved in the club, their achievements are magnificent and I congratulate them, in this the Year of the Lifesaver, on reaching their 100-year anniversary. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 153 Bills R2824 153 Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mr Billson for Mr Abbott: That this bill be now read a second time. 153 10:00:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —The purpose of the National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007 is to amend the National Health Act to ensure and to establish that the National Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination Program Register can operate. As many in this House would know, Labor was instrumental in pushing the government to include Gardasil, the first vaccine available to treat some strains of HPV, on the National Immunisation Program. Of course we will support these measures to establish the register as they will enhance the efficiency of the National HPV Vaccination Program. By way of background, HPV is a sexually transmitted infection mostly affecting women between 20 and 24 years of age. Almost all abnormal pap smear results are caused by HPV. In 98 per cent of cases HPV clears by itself; in rare cases, if the virus persists and is left undetected, it can lead to cervical cancer. We know that, sadly, cervical cancer does kill around 200 women in Australia each year. Gardasil was developed by former Australian of the Year Professor Ian Frazer, and is the first vaccine available that protects against some of the cancer causing strains of HPV, notably HPV strains 16 and 18, which cause around 70 per cent of all cervical cancers. Members would recall that late last year CSL Ltd, the Australian manufacturer and distributor of Gardasil, applied to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for Gardasil to be listed on the National Immunisation Program. As the vaccine was originally on the market at a cost of $460 for a course of three shots, CSL was seeking to have this cost met by the government, rather than borne by Australian families. PBAC knocked back the application of CSL in November 2006 citing a number of reasons including that it was not cost effective for taxpayers to fund Gardasil at the price originally proposed by the manufacturer, but PBAC also at that time raised some other concerns about a lack of information on how long the vaccine remained effective. It was also reported that PBAC was not convinced by CSL’s claims about the protection that the vaccine would provide over a lifetime. I am proud to say that Labor, including my colleague the former shadow minister for health Julia Gillard, led the outcry from health stakeholders, patient groups and pharmaceutical companies that PBAC’s decision required urgent review. Comments by the Prime Minister about driving a hard bargain with manufacturing companies gave credence to the then shadow minister’s concern that PBAC, in making its original decision, had been overly influenced by the government’s focus on cutting the cost of its subsidised medicines program. It is all well and good for the minister to say that he respected PBAC’s integrity and process and therefore would not overrule the decision, but this response ignored the absolute need for the Australian government to do everything that it could, within our health system, to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Eventually, but only after prime ministerial intervention, the minister saw the sense and requested that PBAC reconsider or consider a new application from CSL in which the main initial concerns raised by PBAC were addressed. As we now know, Gardasil was subsequently approved for inclusion in the NIP at the extraordinary PBAC meeting in late November. On 29 November 2006, the government announced that it would fund free the HPV vaccine for females between 12 and 26. The establishment of the HPV register was also announced at that time. Obviously, despite the ups and downs of that process, we do welcome this result, and the availability of this vaccine is going to provide very welcome protection for many Australian women. Let me turn now to the legislation before us, which inserts a new section 9BA into the National Health Act providing for the establishment of a National HPV Vaccination Program Register. Broadly speaking, the establishment of the register will assist in the administration of the vaccination program itself, provide a means to monitor participants in the program and assist in monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in preventing certain cervical cancers. According to the new subsection 9BA(3), the purposes of the register are to ensure the successful implementation of the program and, in doing so, facilitate the establishment and maintenance of an electronic database of records for monitoring vaccination of participants in the program. It is intended that the register will collect information about the vaccination program, including personal identifying details, details about the doses given and the immunisation provider. Labor acknowledges that there will be some people in the community who will have privacy concerns around the collection of such data. On this issue I note that the bill provides for women or the parents of girls to have information removed from the register following a request in writing—an ‘opt off’ register reflecting the arrangements that have been in place in Australian state and territory based Pap test registers for between eight and 18 years, depending on which state or territory you live in. No information about sexual history will be sought or recorded, and the bill precludes the release of personal information except to a vaccination provider or prescribed bodies, either through regulation or as prescribed in the Health Insurance Act. Labor is satisfied on this basis that the bill adequately addresses privacy concerns. Of course, the public interest in the maintenance of this register certainly is a significant factor in the balancing that is always required in these matters. The register will help to monitor the effectiveness of the program in preventing certain cervical cancers by allowing for future cross-referencing of data against Pap smear and other cervical cancer registers maintained by states and territories. The register will also allow for the maintenance of records tracking the HPV vaccination status of eligible persons for the purposes of certifying the completion of the course of vaccination and establishing mechanisms to advise eligible persons, or the parents or guardians of children, if doses of HPV vaccine have been missed or if booster doses are required in the future. The register will allow for the provision of information on new developments associated with the program to vaccination providers, eligible persons, and parents or guardians of children, promoting general health and wellbeing. Finally, the legislation provides for payments to general practitioners who enter information on the register. According to the explanatory memorandum, there is no financial impact arising from this bill. Funding for the register was approved by the Prime Minister on 20 February 2007 as part of an additional $103.5 million over five years allocated for the implementation of this program. A total cost of $8 million to $11 million has been allocated to build and operate the register over three years. As I said earlier, Labor supports this bill and the program that is now in place. Of course, we support measures that are aimed at the promotion of the health and wellbeing of Australians. As I said earlier, Labor is proud of the strong support it gave early to Gardasil in its ability to treat HPV and argued for it to be put on the National Immunisation Program, so we are keen for its implementation to be as efficient as possible and for its evaluation to be as thorough as possible. We would encourage the government to move this legislation through parliament quickly, as I believe is intended. While we understand that the short time frame from the November 2006 announcement to the commencement of the vaccination program in April this year meant that it was difficult to establish the register before immunisations commenced, we believe the register needs to be operational as soon as possible. We understand that state based immunisation programs and individual GPs are currently capturing vaccination data at a jurisdictional or surgery level while they wait for the register to be implemented. Obviously there are some risks around data being mislaid or not making its way onto the register. A uniform national approach to capturing this data is preferable and obviously much needed, particularly given the privacy issues that have been flagged. Even more significantly, until this register is operational, the impact of the program on cervical cancer prevention cannot be effectively assessed. With the funding already allocated, the government should move swiftly to set up this register. Labor would also appreciate some clarification from the government on some eligibility rules around the National HPV Vaccination Program. As members would be well aware, this program has been very widely advertised in media across the country. Those advertisements have heavily promoted the government’s intention to fund free HPV vaccine to all 12- to 26-year-olds. Public information has stated that the HPV National Immunisation Program would be targeted on an ongoing basis for 12- and 13-year-old girls, to be delivered through schools, in addition to a two-year catch-up program for 13- to 18-year-old girls, also delivered in schools, with vaccines to the 18- to 26-year-old age group to be delivered through general practice and community based programs. While it has been widely noted that not all schools will be vaccinated in this first year—rather, there will be a systematic rollout—no similar qualification has been placed on the community based vaccination of women between 18 and 26. As local members, we are concerned that we are increasingly receiving reports from constituents who have examples of women attending community clinics and their GPs being told that only women in certain age brackets are being immunised in this particular year. We are still trying to get to the bottom of these reports. Obviously there may be people who are not within the specifications, but it seems that at this stage a number are. We are not sure whether this is an issue of the shortage of the requisite volume of vaccine or a practical problem of GPs finding the time and resources in their busy schedules to have these consultations within the correct time frames for young women seeking immunisations. Because there are a range of different ways these vaccines can be provided, we do not know whether it is a problem with the rules the government has set or whether it is a distributional or access problem, particularly with regard to the differences that may exist within some of the community health sectors in different states and territories. When you consider that some medical services, such as university medical clinics, may have a large number of women on their books who fall within the 18- to 26-year-old age group and that each of these women will need three shots prior to June 2009, when the cut-off for free vaccinations comes into effect, you would understand why some services might seek to streamline their immunisation programs. I know that some people from the department are here, and I would be appreciative of an answer and some clarification on that. Obviously some constituents are very concerned that, if they cannot access it now, by the time they are able to access it they will fall outside the right age categories or the cut-off times. It would be helpful if the government could look into these issues with some urgency and provide us with that information so we can assure or explain to constituents the process to make sure that they get the coverage they are entitled to. As I have said, given that the vaccination process involves three injections over seven months at a total cost of over $400, if it is not accessed through the HPV Vaccination Program it is a serious cost issue for many families. It is an affordability issue where some families will be forced to make a decision between concern for the health of their daughters and other financial pressures that they have. Obviously the government’s decision has been made. This is a program that is available, and we need to make sure that the rollout is accessible to as many people as possible. After such an extensive advertising campaign has been run we do not want to unnecessarily worry young women, particularly, who want some assurance of knowing that they have been immunised against HPV and who do not want to feel that they have missed out because their local service might not have been able to access the program at the right time. For the benefit of the staff who are here, I can tell you that these reports have come from many different states. They have come from Queensland, Victoria, South Australia—they are the ones that I can remember off the top of my head—but we have had queries from many constituents. My colleague who is speaking next will know whether this has been an issue in Western Australia. It would be helpful if some proper information could be provided so that we can assist our constituents in making sure that they get the coverage they deserve. As I have said, Labor supports this bill. 157 10:13:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 0 Dr WASHER —The purpose of the National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007 is to amend the National Health Act 1953 in order to establish and maintain a National Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination Program Register. It also allows for payments to be made to general practitioners for the provision of vaccination information on the register. Vaccines have had a dramatic effect on the incidence of disease in our populations. According to the World Health Organisation, vaccines are thought to prevent around two million deaths every year. The discovery of vaccines is quite an interesting story, although not always an ethical one. Long before the causes of disease were known and long before the processes of recovery were understood, an interesting thing was observed. If people recovered from a disease, rather than succumbed to it, they appeared to be immune from a second bout of the same illness. It was these types of observations that led the Chinese to try to prevent deadly smallpox by exposing uninfected individuals to material from smallpox lesions. This process, known as variolation, took a variety of forms, from injecting the pus and fluid of lesions under the skin to grinding up dried scabs and inhaling or injecting the ground-up powder. Lady Montagu, wife of the British ambassador, observed this method in the early 1700s and brought it back to England. Although the effects of variolation varied, ranging from causing a mild illness in most individuals to causing death in a few, the mortality and morbidity rates due to smallpox were certainly lower in the populations that used variolation compared with those that did not. One person who experienced variolation as a child in the late 1700s was Edward Jenner, a young boy who survived the process and grew up to become a country doctor in England. As a country doctor, Jenner noticed that many people who milked cows did not get smallpox, even though they were exposed repeatedly. With this in mind, in 1796 Jenner undertook a daring experiment and infected a young boy with the bovine disease, cowpox, in the hope of preventing subsequent smallpox infection. After allowing the boy to recover fully from cowpox, Jenner unethically infected the boy with smallpox by injecting pus from a smallpox lesion directly into his skin. As Jenner had predicted, the boy did not contract smallpox. Jenner’s experiment was initially rejected by those in the medical establishment. However, over the ensuing months, he went on to collect case studies and publish a book detailing his observations. As a result, within a few years thousands of people protected themselves from the deadly smallpox disease by intentionally infecting themselves with cowpox. Jenner’s process came to be called ‘vaccination’ after vacca, the Latin word for cow, and the substance used to vaccinate was called a ‘vaccine’. So how do vaccines work? Disease-causing organisms, such as viruses and bacteria, have at least two distinct effects on the body. The first effect is very obvious—we feel sick and exhibit a range of symptoms. The second effect is less obvious, although it generally leads to eventual recovery from infection—the disease-causing organism induces an immune response in our body. As the response increases in strength over time, the infectious agents are slowly reduced in number until symptoms disappear and recovery is complete. How does this immune response occur? The disease-causing organisms, such as viruses and bacteria, have proteins called ‘antigens’ which stimulate the immune response. The resulting immune response is multifold and includes a synthesis of proteins called ‘antibodies’. These proteins bind to the disease-causing organisms and lead to their eventual destruction. In addition, memory cells are produced in an immune response. These are cells that remain in the bloodstream, sometimes for life, ready to mount a quick, protected immune response against subsequent infections. If such an infection were to occur, the memory cells would respond so quickly that the resulting immune response can activate the organism, and symptoms would be prevented. This response is often so rapid that infection does not develop. Obviously a live or virulent organism cannot be used as a vaccine because it would induce the very disease it should prevent. Therefore, the first step in making a vaccine is to separate the two effects of disease-causing organisms. In practice, this means isolating or creating an organism, or part of one, that is unable to cause full-blown disease but that will still retain the antigens responsible for inducing the host’s immune response. This can be done in many ways. One way is to kill the organism using formalin. Vaccines produced this way are called ‘inactivated’ or ‘killed’ vaccines. Examples of killed vaccines in common use today are the typhoid vaccine and the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine. Another way to produce a vaccine is to use only the antigenic part of the disease-causing organism: for example, the capsule, the flagella or part of the protein cell wall. These types of vaccines are called ‘acellular’ vaccines. An example of an acellular vaccine is the Haemophilus influenza B or Hib vaccine. Acellular vaccines exhibit some similarities to killed vaccines. Neither killed nor acellular vaccines generally induce strong immune responses and may therefore require a booster every few years to ensure their continued effectiveness. A third way of making a vaccine is to attenuate or weaken a live micro-organism by ageing it or altering its growth conditions. Vaccines made in this way are often the most successful vaccines, probably because they multiply in the body, thereby causing a large immune response. Examples of attenuated vaccines are those that protect us against measles, mumps and rubella. Immunity is often lifelong and booster shots are not required. Some vaccines are made from toxins. In these cases, the toxin is often treated with aluminium or adsorbed onto aluminium salts to decrease its harmful effects. After such treatment the toxin is called a toxoid. Examples of toxoids are the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines. Vaccines made from toxoids often induce low-level immune responses and are, therefore, sometimes administered with an adjuvant—an agent which increases the immune response. For example, the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines are often combined with the pertussis vaccine and administered together. Toxoid vaccines often require a booster every 10 years. Another way of making a vaccine is to use an organism that is similar to the virulent organism but that does not cause serious disease, such as Jenner did. A more recent example of this type of vaccine is the BCG vaccine used to protect against mycobacterium tuberculosis. The BCG vaccine currently in use is an attenuated strain of mycobacterium bovis and requires boosters every three to four years. In addition, biotechnology and genetic engineering techniques have been used to produce subunit vaccines—vaccines which use only the parts of an organism which stimulate a strong immune response. To create a subunit vaccine, scientists isolate the gene or genes which code for appropriate subunits from the genome of the infectious agent. This genetic material is placed into bacteria or yeast host cells, which then produce large quantities of subunit molecules by transcribing and translating the inserted foreign DNA. These ‘foreign’ molecules can be isolated, purified and used as a vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine and the human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil are examples of this type of vaccine. Gardasil contains the major capsid protein of human papilloma virus types 6, 11, 16 and 18. The proteins are produced separately by the transgenic yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These proteins self-assemble into a virus like particle that is purified and placed into a sterile liquid for injection. Australia was an early supporter of vaccines. Smallpox vaccination began here in 1804, just five years after Jenner described the protective effect of cowpox, and the vaccine was produced locally from 1847. A vaccine against the plague, Yersinia pestis, developed in 1895, was imported into Australia soon after to control an outbreak in Sydney. The effectiveness of the year-old typhoid vaccine during the Boer War in 1899 led to its production in Australia shortly afterwards. Since World War II vaccination has had an enormous impact on the lives of Australians. At that time, poliomyelitis and diphtheria struck fear in the heart of every parent, and most families had experienced or knew of a tragedy related to one of these diseases. Also, many children died, were significantly incapacitated by whooping cough or measles, or were born with disabilities as a result of intrauterine infection with rubella. In contrast, in 1998 there were no cases of polio, diphtheria or congenital rubella syndrome reported in Australia and no deaths from measles or whooping cough. The Commonwealth first provided free vaccines in 1953 with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. This was followed by the oral polio vaccine in 1966, the rubella vaccine in 1971 and the combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in 1989. These have been followed by a range of other vaccines as they have become available. Another major initiative enacted by the Australian government in the area of vaccination was the establishment of the National Immunisation Program in 1997. Under this program the Australian government provides funding to state and territory governments for the purchase of the 25 vaccines listed on the National Vaccine Schedule and funding to Medicare Australia for the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register, the General Practice Immunisation Incentives Scheme and subsidising individual private consultations involving immunisation through the Medicare Benefits Schedule. In 1996 Australian government expenditure on vaccines was $13 million; this grew to $283 million in 2006-07. In late November 2006 the Australian government added Gardasil to the National Immunisation Program. The reasons for adding this new vaccine to the program were clear. Cervical cancer is the world’s second most common gender-specific cancer amongst women and is currently responsible for the deaths of around 200 women in Australia each year. Before the introduction of the National Cervical Cancer Screening Program in 1991, the mortality rate was around four in 100,000. It is estimated that the screening program prevents around 70 per cent of squamous cervical cancers and the rate of mortality in 2004 dropped to 1.8 per 100,000 women. The introduction of Gardasil, used in conjunction with the screening program, should reduce this mortality incidence further. It is essential however that vaccinated girls and women continue to participate in the national screening program. The prophylactic Gardasil vaccine resulted from research by distinguished medical scientist and 2006 Australian of Year, Professor Ian Frazer, and fellow Australian citizen Dr Jian Zhou. Sadly, Dr Zhou’s life was tragically cut short at the age of 42 in 1999, before he could share in the joy of seeing the vaccine brought to market. Not one to rest on his laurels, Professor Frazer is currently working on a therapeutic vaccine for HPV—in other words, to cure the disease. The vaccine could be one of the first products to come out of the new biopharmaceutical production centre. This centre, incidentally, received $100 million in this year’s federal budget. Gardasil, as mentioned earlier, vaccinates against the human papilloma virus types 16, 18, 6 and 11. Types 16 and 18 are responsible for 70 to 80 per cent of the cervical cancers in Australia and types 6 and 11 cause 90 per cent of genital warts. The human papilloma virus is a common and usually asymptomatic infection. It is highly contagious and many people will acquire an HPV infection within a few weeks of becoming sexually active. In most people the infection clears within 12 to 24 months. However, in three to 10 per cent of women infected with types 16 and 18 the infection does not clear up and can result in cervical abnormalities which in some cases progress to cervical cancer. Through the National Immunisation Program, the vaccine is being administered to girls aged between 12 and 13 years in three injections over a period of six months through schools which wish to participate. It is the most successful school based program yet, with an uptake of greater than 80 per cent as at the end of June. From this month the vaccine is also available free to girls and women aged up to 26 years through GPs and community providers. The establishment of a register for the HPV vaccination program is integral to the success of the program. The register will enable: the recording of the details of individuals who participate in the HPV program, allowing statistics on participation rates to be compiled; the recording of vaccination information which can be compared with information recorded in Pap smear, cervical cytology and cervical cancer registers so as to assess the effectiveness of the HPV program over time; the notification of participants of the HPV program, if booster doses are required, to determine vaccination status or to certify completion of the vaccination course; the collection of statistics to inform health authorities, healthcare providers and the public about the HPV program; participants to be informed, or parents of participants, of developments with the HPV program; and the details of vaccination providers to be recorded. Participants or their parents in the HPV program can opt to have personal details removed from this register at any time. This bill, by enabling such a register, will support the Australian government’s commitment to our progressive, world class immunisation system. I commend the bill to the House. 161 10:29:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —The National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007 inserts a new section 9BA into the National Health Act 1953 providing for the establishment of the National Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination Program Register. The need for this bill arose from the government’s 2006 announcement to fund free HPV vaccine for females in the 12- to 26-year-old age group through the National Immunisation Program with the aim of reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. The government made this announcement after the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council decided that it was not cost effective for taxpayers to fund Gardasil—a decision which, at the time, was not without controversy. The establishment of the HPV register was also announced at that time. Labor is supporting this bill so that the register can be implemented as soon as possible, because the National Immunisation Program has already begun. We are also supporting this bill with the aim that the register will enhance the efficiency of the program. This is especially important after some schoolgirls were hospitalised following injections. It is important to know if there are any side effects from the injection. While the Department of Health and Ageing officials have labelled the effects as psychological, it is still important to have a mechanism to monitor participants in the program. Of course, it is also important that we monitor the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in preventing certain cervical cancers. This vaccine is a huge breakthrough and will save many thousands of lives. It is an Australian innovation that makes me extraordinarily proud when I think of the health effects and protection that women around the world will eventually receive from this vaccine. I congratulate all of the scientists involved in the extraordinary discovery of this vaccine. Turning again to the register, I want to clarify that the register will, firstly, facilitate the establishment and maintenance of an electronic database of records for monitoring vaccination of participants in the program. Secondly, it will facilitate the monitoring of the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing certain cervical cancers by allowing for future cross-referencing of data against Pap smear and other information contained in registers maintained by states and territories. Thirdly, it will facilitate the establishment of mechanisms to advise eligible persons or their parents or guardians if vaccination has been missed or if booster doses are required in the future. It also allows for the maintenance of a record of people who are eligible to complete the course of the vaccination. It also facilitates the promotion of health and wellbeing by providing information on new developments associated with the program to vaccination providers, to women who are eligible and to their parents or guardians. The register also facilitates a payment to GPs for entering information into the register. It is important to know that there was initial controversy about including Gardasil in the National Immunisation Program. Labor is very pleased that it has been included. The vaccine protects against two strains of sexually transmitted human papilloma virus and those two strains are responsible for about 70 per cent of cervical cancers. Free vaccines have been available from April 2007 in schools and from most doctors from July 2007. The Immunisation Program is targeted on an ongoing basis at 12- and 13-year-old girls and is to be delivered through schools, and there will be a two-year catch-up program for 13- to 18-year-old girls in schools. For 18- to 26-year-old women, the program will be delivered through their GPs and community based programs. The government has committed a total of $579.3 million between 2006-07 and 2010-11 for the vaccination program. The program involves three injections over seven months. If the vaccination program had not been included in the National Immunisation Program, it would have cost about $430 for three shots. Of course, while it is a very high cost—more than half a billion dollars—the savings from the treatment of women with cervical cancer and the terrible loss of life associated with this disease certainly makes this half a billion dollars well spent. I am very pleased that the government has decided to provide the vaccine free to all Australian young women. I think we need to acknowledge the work of the then shadow health minister, Julia Gillard, and the current shadow minister, Nicola Roxon, in supporting the government’s introduction of this free vaccine. I know that it has not been without controversy. As I said, there are some people who have expressed concern that vaccinating young women will encourage increased sexual activity. Indeed, Australian Family Association spokeswoman Gabrielle Walsh was reported in the Daily Telegraph in May this year saying: Some parents feel it gives the children a sense they are going to be sexually active ... She further went on to say that, where young girls were going to abstain from sexual activity, it was not necessary to be vaccinated. I understand why parents would certainly be wishing to discourage early sexual activity in their teenage children, and I support a parent’s right to do that. The key is that this course of vaccination will eventually result in lifelong protection. When young girls are at school, it is the easiest way of making sure that we have access to 100 per cent of the relevant population. I do not believe that it will encourage earlier sexual activity. I think probably the last thing that young people who are engaged in sexual activity that is too early are thinking of is whether they are protected from human papilloma virus. The difference it is going to make there I think is negligible. As I say, the benefit of giving it to young girls in schools is that they will achieve lifelong protection from human papilloma virus. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the federal Department of Health and Ageing says that recent overseas research has shown that 14.3 per cent of women who have had only one partner still carry the human papilloma virus. So, for parents who hope that their daughters will not engage in sexual activity before marriage and will have only one sexual partner throughout their lives, even for those women this vaccination is important. According to a South Australian study of 2,000 people that was published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, only five per cent of parents were concerned that the vaccine would make their daughters likely to engage in earlier or promiscuous sexual behaviour, and 75 per cent of parents said that they wanted their daughters to be vaccinated. The key scientist involved in the discovery of the vaccine and 2006 Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, recently said: The opportunity to protect against cervical cancer is as compelling as the opportunity to protect against polio ... It is entirely the parents’ right to decide if they would like their child to be vaccinated. Hopefully they will be able to consider eventually that the vaccine is designed to protect against disease and the reality is that it has to be given early in life. If they wait too long, they could lose the benefit. We know that when women contract cervical cancer they are faced with the potential of a much shorter life expectancy than they otherwise would have had or, secondly, if cervical cancer is not caught and treated early enough, a hysterectomy is the other potential. It is a very serious potential. In 2004—which is the most recent data that we have—212 women died from cervical cancer and many others were forced to undertake either the option of hysterectomy or other very invasive surgical and medical procedures. The idea that we can save hundreds of lives and tens of thousands of treatments I think shows what an important breakthrough this is and what an important thing it is for us as a society to support maximum vaccination. The uncomfortable truth for many people is that a high proportion of teenagers are actually sexually active, the majority of young people in years 10 and 12 are sexually active in some way and a quarter of students in year 10 and half of students in year 12 have engaged in sexual intercourse. My personal view is that those figures are too high, but the reality for many Australian teenagers is that they have become sexually active, and that is another good reason to say it is very important to vaccinate against human papilloma virus from a very early age. I think these figures, which show a large proportion of teenagers become sexually active quite early, suggest that we need to do a lot better with our sex education in schools. We do not have a very good national approach to educating teenagers about not just the physical consequences of sexual activity but also the emotional and psychological aspects of engaging in early sexual activity. I was interested to see that in the recent federal budget the government announced that it had spent half a million dollars on educational research for high school students to talk about the financial aspects of teenage pregnancy and the responsibilities that arise from becoming a teenage parent. Again, if people know teenagers, they know that thinking about the financial aspects of potentially raising a child is probably not going to be the thing that stops them from engaging in sexual activity if that is at the top of their minds at an early age. I think that, as I say, we can do much better in our sexual and reproductive health education. I want to conclude by making a few more general comments about women’s health. Women use Medicare services about twice as much as men. An enormous range of medical problems are faced by women, of which cervical cancer is one of the more serious. We know that one in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 75. The most common age for that diagnosis is between 50 and 69. Rates of lung cancer, melanoma and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are all increasing. The really interesting thing about lung cancer is that Australia has done fantastically well in reducing smoking rates. We have done brilliantly. We now have the lowest smoking rates in the world because of decades of concerted education campaigns, advertising campaigns and because we tax cigarettes quite highly, as we rightly should; but young women are increasingly smoking. Young women are the only group who are taking up smoking in larger numbers. I think that begs the question about why young women are engaging in more risk-taking activities than in previous generations. We are also seeing more young women booked for violent crime, speeding offences and dangerous driving offences. I think there is a very interesting underlying question there about the changes in society that are prompting young women to engage in activities that older men and women see as very dangerous. We know that we have very good screening technologies available for many of these diseases, including cervical cancer and breast cancer, but many groups in the community do not avail themselves of that testing regime as much as they should or in a way that would significantly reduce their development of these diseases. Breast screening participation rates for Indigenous women and women from non-English speaking backgrounds in the target population of 50 to 69 are just 34.8 per cent and 47.4 per cent respectively and are significantly lower than the general rate of 57.1 per cent of the target community. We have increasing problems not just in the population of young women but also in an emerging population of young men when it comes to eating disorders and body image disorders. At the same time, we have increasing levels of obesity in the young Australian population and in the general Australian population. We need to do better in some of these areas when it comes to preventative measures in health care. As I said, we have done very well with smoking, but we have new and emerging challenges all the time which are increasingly related to diet and lifestyle challenges like obesity, leading to diabetes, for example. At the same time as we are seeing these emerging trends in poor health, most Australians are paying more to see a doctor, more for many medicines and more for private health insurance. There was very little in the most recent budget to genuinely tackle some of these health problems that are linked to the increasing expense of accessing normal medical services. In the last few days we have had an incredible intervention from the federal government, saying that they are happy to take over the running of the Mersey hospital in Tasmania. It is no coincidence that the Mersey hospital is in an extremely marginal seat. Setting aside all the cynicism of taking over one hospital in one marginal seat, it really does beg the question of the federal government’s broader vision for health care in this country. The one-off taking over of one hospital, leaving many services in many rural and regional areas facing exactly the same problems of shortages of specialists and shortages of equipment and so on, suggests that the government is prepared to pick and choose the health issues it is involved in in a way that is, I think, detrimental to the running of the broader health system. I will not conclude on a negative note. I want to conclude on a positive note of welcoming the initiative to provide Gardasil to women in the target age group and to other young women to provide them with a lifetime of protection from at least 70 per cent of the cervical cancers that are related to the two particular strains of human papilloma virus associated with this immunisation. It is a terrific step forward. Ian Frazer and his team must be congratulated for what is really a world-class breakthrough in women’s health. It makes me enormously grateful to think that my own daughter and grandchildren, if ever I have them, will be protected against the bulk of human papilloma viruses that may lead to cervical cancer. I want to express my gratitude to the scientific team who have come up with this breakthrough and offer my support not just for the national register but also for the free and ready availability of this vaccination program to young women who will benefit from it. 165 10:49:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —As always, it is my pleasure to speak in the Australian parliament as the federal member for Ryan in the western suburbs of Brisbane, an electorate that I grew up in and that I represent very proudly here in the national parliament. I am delighted to speak on the National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007 because it is something that is of great interest to all my constituents, particularly to the parents of young women in my electorate. They will be very pleased and very proud, I think, that their government has acted very strongly to protect their daughters. I am very proud to be an advocate of this bill and to continue, as a local member, in working to promote this very significant piece of legislation and policy content therein. Australia has a long history of using immunisation in targeted and mass vaccination programs in order to control communicable diseases, although it should be said that in 1996 our immunisation rates were at a disturbingly low level with some 53 per cent of children aged zero to six years fully immunised for their age—so much so that Professor John Horvath, the current Chief Medical Officer in the Department of Health and Ageing, described those levels as ‘on a lower rate than in some developing countries’. I am pleased to say that today those rates are very different. In 1996, interestingly, only $13 million was spent on vaccines by the then Labor government. Again, I am pleased that this is a very different figure today. In the past 10 years the Howard government has been able to turn around this sort of figure. We have been able to increase our immunisation programs to the point where we are the envy of many developed countries around the world. I think that the turning point might be the Howard government’s introduction in February 1997 of the Immunise Australia strategy, which consisted of a seven-point plan and a comprehensive range of initiatives to increase Australia’s immunisation rate as quickly as possible to international levels. Overall, the government increased expenditure on immunisation some 22-fold to a figure of $283 million in 2006. We have been able to do that in the last few years only because of our very prosperous economy. A very strong economic performance allows the government to be able to inject this kind of money into very worthwhile and significant programs. The flip side of that is that, if an economy is going backwards or stuttering along, there is no way in the world that a government will be able to invest heavily in social services and in the communities around the country. It is a very indicative and a very salient point to make that it is only when an economy is performing robustly that governments can invest in their people, and in their young people in particular. The Gardasil vaccination program alone represents an expenditure of $107.4 million a year—eight times the yearly expenditure on all vaccines by the previous Labor government—which brings the predicted expenditure on vaccinations in 2007-08 to $443 million, or a 34-fold increase on 1996 levels. These are not insignificant figures. I am sure that the constituents of Ryan will appreciate this massive 34-fold increase on 1996 levels. Again, it points to the capacity of the government to be able to do this because we are generating revenues from the business community as a result of business doing well in Australia thanks to the policies of the Howard government in the economic area. Immunisation coverage rates have also increased dramatically, despite being at levels as low as 52 per cent in 1995 for children aged zero to six years of age. Since the introduction of the Immunise Australia program, childhood immunisation coverage rates have increased to all-time highs, with over 90 per cent of children aged 12 to 15 months now fully immunised. The Howard government has of course conducted a number of very successful vaccination campaigns during its time in office: firstly, the measles control campaign in 1998, where 1.9 million primary school children were vaccinated with MMR, and, secondly, the current immunisation program against meningococcal disease, which commenced in 2003 and targeted all one- to 19-year-olds over a four-year period. At the time of its commencement the meningococcal vaccination program was the largest of its kind ever undertaken in Australia, at a cost of $298 million over four years. Just think about it: almost $300 million over four years of taxpayers’ money invested in the people of Australia by the government, which is a very significant investment in the people of Australia. Again, I just make the point that the government had the capacity to be able to do this because it has been able to manage the economy very well over the last decade. The benefits of such a large-scale vaccination program are already evident with the reported cases of meningococcal disease dropping from 213 cases in 2002 to just 40 cases in 2005—a decrease of 81 per cent. In 2006, the numbers were better still, with just 24 cases of meningococcal disease reported and one death. The success of this vaccination program is indicative of the benefits of these large-scale immunisation programs and reflects very well on the Howard government’s ability to effectively manage them. The Gardasil vaccination program, of which I will speak in a moment, will be the biggest of these programs yet. Approximately half a million women worldwide develop cervical cancer every year, and 230,000 of these women will die of the disease—many of them from the developing world. In Australia, about 800 women get cervical cancer each year, and about 270 women die from it. Thanks to the success of the Pap smear program in Australia, cervical cancer has dropped from the eighth to the 18th most common cause of cancer death amongst Australian women. Indeed, Australia has the second-lowest incidence of cervical cancer and the lowest mortality rate in the world. However, we all know that one death is still one too many, so whatever our government and our brilliant medical scientists, researchers and doctors can do to minimise cancer—or should the good Lord allow them to rid our society of cancer—would, of course, be a wonderful blessing upon us all. The Cancer Council of Victoria estimates that the Gardasil vaccine has the potential to prevent up to 500 cases of cervical cancer each year in Australia and to save in the order of 200,000 lives every year worldwide. Looking at this figure, one finds it enormously disturbing. However, when one goes beyond it, one must stop and think that this is not just a number on a piece of paper; it is someone’s loved one, someone’s relative, someone’s daughter, someone’s mother or someone’s sister. Whatever we can do, we must do. We must do all we can within the powers of humanity to rid our earth of such cancers and all the other ills and evils of our world. The Gardasil vaccine is a breakthrough in the treatment of cervical cancer, and the Howard government is very proud to be able to make it widely available to young Australian women. It is a good example of politics and government at their very best. Previous speakers and colleagues have mentioned Professor Ian Frazer. He can claim much of the credit for discovering the vaccine, in cooperation with his good friend and colleague—a man who has now sadly passed on—Dr Jian Zhou. I never had the opportunity of meeting Dr Jian Zhou, but he did live in my electorate of Ryan. I do know his wife very well, Ms Sun Xiao-Yi, who still lives in the suburb of Mt Ommaney in the Ryan electorate. She is a wonderful lady. She has become a family friend to me and my wife in the last 10 years, through mutual friends of ours. I regret very much that I did not have the opportunity of meeting her husband, who, from all accounts, was an incredibly gifted man and a wonderful human being. He spent some time at my old alma mater at Cambridge University, in the United Kingdom. I wish very much that I had had the pleasure and honour of meeting him. Ian Frazer, also a Ryan constituent, lives in the suburb of St Lucia and works at the University of Queensland. He is a very distinguished professional, a very smart man and a very kind man. His compassion, humanity and decency and just sheer determination to make an impact on the world through his medical and research skills is an inspiration to all of us and certainly to those in the medical profession. Someone like my brother, who is a young neurosurgeon in this country, looks up to Ian Frazer. My sister is about to graduate from Sydney University as a doctor and aspires, as I think all doctors and medical researchers do, to make a difference in their professional endeavours. I have had the pleasure of meeting Ian Frazer—or as the press like to call him and as media magazines and feature stories like to label him, ‘God’s gift to women’—on many occasions. I am very fortunate that he is a Ryan constituent. His wife has just retired as a teacher at a local primary school in the Ryan electorate, and I want to pay tribute in passing to her for her dedication at that local primary school. She and Ian are wonderful people. Everyone knows Professor Ian Frazer for his Australian of the Year honour in 2006. He relished, of course, this opportunity to promote Australia’s medical research capabilities and to inspire others to pursue a career in this very important field. The vaccine that he came up with protects girls and young women against four strains of the human papilloma virus, which is sexually transmitted. Two of the four strains are responsible for 70 per cent of all cervical cancer, and the remaining two strains cause over 90 per cent of genital warts. Before the vaccine was cleared for use in Australia, more than 8,000 women across 16 countries received the vaccine as part of the clinical trials designed to test the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The results, as published in the very prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, are remarkable and demonstrate that Gardasil protects against a range of cancerous and precancerous conditions. The worldwide take-up of Gardasil has been incredible, with over six million people now being vaccinated in the United States alone. Germany, Italy and France have now also instituted an Australian style widespread immunisation scheme. In November 2006, the Howard government announced a funding outlay of $537 million for the national HPV vaccination program using the Gardasil vaccine. I am pleased that I can stand here and say that I was a very strong advocate of that in the corridors of government here. The $437 million over five years is for the vaccine itself, which retails at approximately $460 over the counter. An additional $100 million over four years is provided to support the implementation of the program with an education campaign and the establishment of a national register, which this bill specifically establishes. The free vaccine is being provided through school based programs to girls aged between 12 and 13 years on an ongoing basis. As part of the program, the Howard government will also fund a two-year catch-up program at schools for girls aged between 13 and 18 years. As well, there is an additional two-year catch-up program to enable young women, aged up to and including 26 years, who have left school to be vaccinated through their local GPs. We might recollect the scenes on national television when, in April this year, Professor Ian Frazer himself vaccinated the first Australian schoolgirl. Speaking of Professor Frazer and Australian schoolgirls being vaccinated, I had the pleasure, during the recess, to be part of Professor Ian Frazer’s visit to a very significant college in my electorate—Brigidine College at Indooroopilly. On behalf of the college principal, Ms Madeleine Sayer, I invited Ian Frazer to speak to the young women at the college about medical research in general, about his life and times, about what inspires him and, in particular, about the Gardasil program and vaccination. On the record in the parliament, I want to thank Brigidine College for having me visit the college with Professor Frazer. I want to thank the college captain, Stephanie Byrnes, for her assistance and hospitality in looking after us and showing Professor Frazer around the college and, of course, to thank the college principal, Madeleine Sayer, for her foresight and very strong reception of the visit by Ian Frazer. For Ms Sayer this was an investment in the young women of her college in a broader sense as well as in the very direct sense, with Professor Frazer speaking of his experience and his skills. The day was a resounding success. This college is at Indooroopilly and has some 500 students. The Brigidine College newsletter published on 27 July and distributed to the parents of the girls states: Mr Michael Johnson, the Federal Member for Ryan organized this visit to the College last Monday. It was a great privilege for the girls to meet and hear an address by Professor Ian Frazer. He spoke of his work in the development of the vaccine that protects women against cancer. All the Yr 12, 11 & 10 students have already been immunised this year (one more injection to complete the series). It is a great initiative of the Federal government and we were able to express our appreciation through Mr Johnson. I thank Madeleine Sayer and Brigidine College for their hospitality. I know that the students of the college would have very much appreciated listening to a very distinguished Australian and someone who is in enormous demand by a lot of schools, organisations and companies for his time and his wisdom. Madeleine Sayer’s letter to me, commenting on this Howard government initiative, says: It is a marvellous program and I would commend all associated with this decision for the investment in the future of our nation. Yours sincerely Madeleine Sayer Principal This bill will amend the National Health Act 1953 to enable the establishment and operation of this national program register. It will ensure the successful implementation of the national HPV program. The national register will enable the government to collect information on girls and women immunised by the cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, to gauge the success of the national immunisation program. Through the compilation of data and statistics, the register will enable the government to determine how many people participated in the HPV vaccination program in relation to the eligible population, and also of course enable outcome based analysis as recorded by cervical cytology registers. The register will also provide a way for participants to be contacted if need be and will help women to find out whether they have been vaccinated and whether they require booster doses. The register will contain personal and vaccination information about women who participate in the program. However, only registered vaccination providers will be given access to the HPV register to allow information to be entered on the register and to check the vaccination status of those to whom they are administering the vaccine. The bill also makes provision for vaccinated persons to make the request in writing at any time to have their details removed from the register. In conclusion, I want to again thank Professor Frazer and pay tribute to him in the parliament. He is of course a very strong advocate of good health policy and of medical research expansion in this country. I know that when he was named Australian of the Year he was very proud of that—and, like me, he is not an Australian by birth. He is an Australian by migration, coming from Scotland—I do not come from Scotland—and is someone that many in this country admire because he has every decency about him to make a difference in our country. Of course, we are a country of only 20 million people. I think the amount of money that the federal government invests in health alone is something we can be very proud of. There is always a case for more money to be spent in every aspect of government and public policy, but as a prosperous nation we can be very proud of what we have spent. That is not to say we cannot do more. We can always do more. Every government can always look to revisit its programs to try and invest in areas where it will really make a difference to people on the ground. This is something that, as a local member, I want to continue to advocate. At the pointy end of life—at the grassroots of our community, in the day-to-day living that takes place across our country—we should always remember what makes a difference, at the end of the day, to people’s lives. It is this sort of thing that people look at very seriously. We can get caught up in theory and academic nonsense about a whole bunch of things but, at the end of the day, we should just remember what actually strikes at people’s hearts and souls. It is this sort of thing that makes a difference in the lives of children and in the lives of their family security. I commend this bill very strongly to the House. 169 11:08:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —It gives me great pleasure to support the National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007, which will record on a register personal and vaccination information for individuals receiving the HPV vaccine under the National HPV Vaccination Program. This register is needed because the existing Australian Childhood Immunisation Register only collects information up to age seven. The aim of this bill is to overcome some technical difficulties with the Department of Health and Ageing being able to collect and use a person’s Medicare card number for purposes other than the purpose for which the Medicare number was generated. The HPV register will assist in monitoring the number of doses of vaccine received, notifying individuals if doses of vaccine have been missed, recalling individuals in the event that booster doses might be required in the future and providing educational materials. It will also allow vaccination information to be compared in the future to patient outcomes, as recorded in Pap smears, cervical cytology or cervical cancer registers. It is so important to have accurate registers of information so that medical professionals have access to a person’s medical history. This information can be vital in diagnosing future illnesses and determining which medications to prescribe to patients. It can be difficult for a teenager or a young adult, and difficult for the families of these people, to remember and have knowledge of all the vaccinations that they have received, so this register will also mean that medical professionals can use this information rather than relying on information from the actual patient or their family. Many times you may have a separation in a family, whereby parents go separate ways, and then records of children’s vaccination programs are not kept intact. Years down the track, it becomes a vital and difficult issue for some of those young people to reconcile exactly which vaccination programs they have undertaken. A mum or a family member could have a tragic death, and with that death goes all of the information on the way in which the children were vaccinated in their early years. That leads to confusion about many illnesses. Particularly when young couples decide to marry, this becomes a problem. Having a register such as this will mean that professionals and those people will be comforted that they can access this kind of information and that it is not lost to them forever. The cross-referencing of information will provide information about the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in reducing cervical cancers and inform the future directions of the HPV program. Australia is one of the first countries in the world to fund a HPV program. It really is a great credit to the Australian government, particularly to the minister, for having acted on this fantastic initiative. This bill will remove the obstacles associated currently with the collection of personal and HPV vaccination details and the disclosure of Commonwealth assigned identifiers, such as the Medicare number, for the purposes of the register. It also establishes the register and provides for the recording of certain personal information about individuals participating in the HPV program. It also details the purposes of the register and provides individuals with an opportunity, on written request, to be able to access these kinds of details in individual circumstances. It also allows for the cross-referencing of information about the vaccination status of females on the register, with Pap smear, cervical cytology or cervical cancer registers maintained by states and territories. It also recognises that some personal information—such as name, address, date of birth and Medicare card number, which are already in the possession of, or under the control of, the Commonwealth—may need to be disclosed to and used by the Department of Health and Ageing in order to facilitate the operation of the register. It facilitates the payment of a small administrative fee to GPs who provide details on the register relating to individuals in the 12- to 18-year-old group who are vaccinated with HPV vaccine. Our immunisation system is now world class, with immunisation coverage rates above 90 per cent for 12-month-old children for the last six years. The proof of the success of the program can be measured by the large decline in the rate of preventable diseases. In the case of polio and smallpox, it has led to the eradication of diseases in Australia. Our childhood immunisation rates have increased. When I was on the Wagga Wagga City Council, I was running a program, through ABC radio, trying to encourage young mums and families to vaccinate their children, because at that time only 53 per cent of children were fully immunised by the age of 12 months. We saw the re-emergence of whooping cough and the threat of other diseases being reintroduced simply because our young mums and dads had never seen the devastating consequences of those diseases. Many people were frightened off by claims—whether or not they were valid—of damage caused to children through having vaccinations. I felt it was almost a national crisis, with almost half the children in Australia not vaccinated against killer diseases and typically terrible diseases. So prior to my coming into this House I encouraged families to vaccinate their children. I am really proud to see that we have now lifted those rates substantially, with over 90 per cent of children now fully immunised. I congratulate the government on this massive effort because it has been committed to ensuring that Australians can access free vaccines to protect the population against vaccine preventable diseases through our National Immunisation Program. As the previous speaker indicated, the Australian government announced in 2006 that a free human PV vaccination program for all Australian girls and women from 12 to 26 years of age would be implemented. In 1996 the Australian government expenditure on vaccines was $13 million a year; when the Howard and Vaile coalition government came into this place, vaccination expenditure was a mere $13 million a year. In 2006-07, our vaccine expenditure was $283 million a year. I am very proud of the government for this extensive program to ensure the protection of Australian children. The HPV program has commenced with $475.9 million of funding over five years from 2006-07 until 2010-11. The commitment to the vaccine funding of that is estimated to be over $443 million. We have a very good program for schools and young girls in particular. This program will provide vaccinations for three groups of females: girls aged 12 and 13 years, which will be delivered through schools on an ongoing basis; girls aged 13 to 18 years, which will be delivered primarily through school for a two-year catch-up period; and young women aged 18 to 26 years, which will be delivered through our community programs, including GPs, for a two-year catch-up period. This will be staged in various ways and by various means, but it has commenced in 2007 and will continue through 2008. I am extremely pleased to see that the government has acted forcefully and decisively, as it does, to ensure that our Australian children, and their families, are supported and protected and to encourage families to move on this issue. I congratulate the minister and the government. I commend this bill to the House. 171 11:19:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 0 Mr SOMLYAY —The Australian government has every reason to be proud of its achievements in the area of health. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for some of our state Labor governments, especially the Queensland state government, which has a dismal record of failure and mismanagement in this area. The Howard government constantly seeks to be proactive in tackling health problems and costs. We know that we face escalating health costs—firstly, because of the scientific and technological advances in medicine; secondly, because our expectations for treatment have risen with those advances; and, thirdly, because we are an ageing population with all the health problems that that entails. It therefore makes sense to concentrate resources on building good health and immunity from infancy, and on the prevention of disease or injury, to minimise future health costs. In my role as Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I am involved in an inquiry at the moment into the breastfeeding of babies in Australia and have heard much evidence regarding the long-term health benefits that this gives our children. We are listening to people and gathering data so that we can say to parents, ‘Here is the latest information; here is the data so that you can make informed choices about ensuring the best lifetime health outcomes for your child.’ A healthy nation is also a more productive nation. Building immunity is an important step in keeping our people healthy, which of course is good for our people, for our economy and for our future health costs. We start building that immunity with care, nutrition and immunisation of babies and young children. Under the Immunise Australia Program, we fund vaccinations in babies and children for a wide range of diseases including hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, pneumococcal, measles, mumps, rubella and meningococcal C. Over the last 20 years, child mortality rates in Australia have been reduced by half; however, some years ago many parents stopped vaccinating their children because diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus, polio and whooping cough appeared to have been eliminated. In 1989-90, only 53 per cent of one-year-olds were immunised; since 2000—that is, on this government’s watch—that figure has been over 90 per cent. When we came to government in 1996, Australian government expenditure on vaccines was $13 million a year—I repeat: $13 million a year. In 2006-07, our vaccine expenditure was $283 million, and that was before the introduction this year of the National Human Papillomavirus—HPV—Vaccination Program, and also the rotavirus vaccinations. The addition of rotavirus vaccine to the National Immunisation Program will cost $124.4 million over five years, while the HPV vaccine program commenced with vaccine funding of $475.9 million over five years. The Australian government’s commitment to vaccine funding in this financial year is estimated to be over $443 million. That contrasts again with the $13 million that it was in 1996. In 2007-08, our expenditure is to be, as I said before, $443 million. That is a very large commitment to proactive health care from the federal government. We would not be responsible managers if we did not try to ensure that that investment is both effective and cost-effective. The National HPV Vaccination Program, announced by the government in November 2006 and introduced in April this year, funds free HPV vaccine for females in the 12- to 26-year-old age group, with the aim of reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. The vaccine is most effective if given before any exposure to HPV infection and is administered as a series of three injections over a period of seven months. As part of that program, the National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007 establishes a register of those vaccinated. There are a number of very good reasons for this register. The first is to ensure that each young woman completes the full course of three injections. The second is that research on this vaccine is ongoing and it is possible that a booster may be necessary in future years. The register enables women to be notified if this is necessary. The third is that it provides data on the efficacy of the vaccine, as well as ascertaining whether the vaccine program causes any drop in the number of women having their regular pap smear test under the National Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Routine pap smear tests have proved highly effective in detecting cervical cancer in early treatable stages, significantly reducing the mortality rate, but there is concern that the vaccination may give some women a false sense of security leading them to neglect having these routine tests in the future. Another concern is that, although the vaccine protects against two strains of HPV responsible for 70 to 80 per cent of cervical cancers, other strains may also adapt or develop over time. Cross-referencing the vaccines with NCSP data will help monitor such changes and allow us to be proactive in combating them. I know most of us get a little bit nervous about personal information being gathered on a computer that may be shared with unknown people or organisations. In this instance, we are talking about a record of vaccination, not of an illness. There are in-built safeguards. The first safeguard is that the HPV register will also hold information about general practitioners and registered nurses who are recognised for the purpose of the HPV register as vaccination providers. Only those registered providers would be given access to the register for the purpose of making an entry or checking the vaccination status of their patient. The second safeguard is of course choice. All vaccinations are voluntary. Good sense, yes; highly desirable, yes—but still voluntary. On top of that, this bill makes the provision for a female or her parent or guardian to make a request in writing at any time to have her details removed from the HPV register. That request must be complied with as soon as practicable. We all need to make choices, preferably informed choices, in our own health care. The government can only do so much to help protect us. We, as individuals, have to make health choices for ourselves and our children regarding diet, lifestyle, exercise, smoking, medical practitioner treatments, vaccinations and the use of this register. I believe it is an important tool in the fight against cervical cancer. Obviously the government also believes that the bottom line is that each individual has a choice. Australia has a world-class immunisation system and we should be proud of it. It is part of this government’s forward-thinking and proactive approach to health. We also have world-class health professionals and clinicians. The problems lie in the administration by state government. I do not mean to play the blame game, which was the name of the report that I tabled last year on behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, but unless you look at where the problem is coming from, look at the cause, not the excuse, you cannot fix the problem. While the federal government, through the GST, funds most state hospitals and health costs, they are administered by the states and the Commonwealth has no say in how those dollars are spent. I find it particularly difficult to see the level to which funding health care in my own state, Queensland, has sunk. This is affecting the morale and retention of health professionals working in the public system, which of course exacerbates the problem. In the Courier-Mail on 6 August there is an article about a report released this week on Queensland Health by the former head of the University of Queensland School of Medicine, Mr Ken Donald. The article says: The latest inquiry into the department, once envied by other states as delivering a model of public health care, reveals a system in meltdown … In five years’ time the breakdown in services will be ‘out of control’. Queenslanders already know about the long waiting lists for public hospitals and the secret waiting lists—the lists that you have to get on to get on the list. That arrangement is used deliberately to mislead people over the length of a waiting list. Last week’s report reveals that in spite of all the press conferences, assurances and hand on heart declarations, the situation is becoming so desperate that some in Queensland Health are marking patients’ files never to be seen by a doctor. Minister Robertson insisted that these people only had minor ailments, but how do you know that they are minor until the person has been examined? Also, the ailments include cancer and stroke—and they are hardly minor conditions. I mention the sad state of Queensland Health as a contrast. This bill is indicative of the federal government’s attitude that it is far more effective to be proactive and spend money ensuring better health early than to wait and treat the problem when it is serious. Queensland Health’s approach to its own health has been to try to hide and deny the symptoms until it is at a point of collapse even in coping with emergency calls. I commend this bill to the House. 173 11:30:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training 1 0 Mr FARMER —In summing up the National Health Amendment (National HPV Vaccination Program Register) Bill 2007, I firstly thank the members who have spoken on this bill. I would like to thank the member for Gellibrand, the member for Sydney, the member for Moore, the member for Fairfax, who has just finished his speech, the member for Ryan and, most importantly, the member for Riverina—and I say that because the member for Riverina brought up a valid point that I can relate to as a single parent. When my wife passed away, when my children were very young, I found it difficult to locate all the records that my wife had for my son and my daughter for their vaccinations over the years. Like a lot of men, I had left that up to my wife to do, and so of course I had a witch-hunt to try and find the necessary papers. I had to contact my doctors et cetera. One of the things that this bill does is to make sure that it takes that onus away from those situations and assists the family unit, in moments of crisis like that, in having a record of vaccinations that have taken place. This bill is about vaccination and information. The bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to insert provisions for the establishment and maintenance of the human papilloma virus, or HPV, register to complement the implementation of the National HPV Vaccination Program. The register will collect personal and vaccination information about people who receive HPV vaccine under the HPV program with a view to evaluating in the long term the effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer. The HPV register will also facilitate a number of other functions relating to the HPV program and the payment of an administration fee to general practitioners who provide information to the register. In summary, the legislation will ensure the collection of information which, in addition to evaluating the success of the HPV program in reducing cervical cancer, will also inform the policy direction of the HPV program and government expenditure in the future. It will also benefit individuals participating in the HPV program by providing them with information about their vaccination status, sending notifications when doses of vaccine have been missed and facilitating a recall system for participants in the event that booster doses may be required in the future. As the father of a 12-year-old girl, I see this bill as being absolutely vital—vitally important not only for my daughter but, indeed, for me and for the rest of my family, my son included, because none of us wants to lose a wife, a daughter or an aunty and none of us wants to lose a close relative when it can be prevented. So this bill shows a vision on behalf of the coalition government—a vision for the future, a vision to monitor the health of young Australians well into the future, well into the years ahead. It is for that reason that I would like to commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 174 Bills R2782 174 Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Mr Billson: That this bill be now read a second time. 174 11:35:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 0 Mr BEVIS —The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 makes minor but nonetheless important amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. There are two amendments contained in the bill and both deal directly with the act. The two amendments are as follows. The first repeals the current subheading for the chemical pesticide binapacryl and creates a new subheading for this chemical. The second moves prepared culture medium for the development and maintenance of viruses from its current subheading where it has a customs duty rate of five per cent to a new subheading where it will receive a customs duty rate of three per cent. The main purpose of the first amendment to the bill is to bring Australia into line with its international obligations under the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, mercifully known simply as the Rotterdam convention, to which Australia is a signatory. The convention operates under the auspices of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. The Rotterdam convention list includes chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in five or more countries. Acutely hazardous pesticides that may not have been banned or severely restricted in any country but that are known to cause health or environmental problems are also able to be included on the list. The Rotterdam convention was adopted at a conference on 10 September 1998 and was signed by Australia in New York on 6 July 1999. The national interest analysis was tabled in both houses of parliament on 9 September 2003. The Joint Committee on Treaties tabled its report, No. 55, covering the convention on 16 October 2003. The committee concluded by quoting and supporting the evidence received from the Department of Environment and Heritage that said: ... ratification would strengthen our existing systems which protect the environment and human health of Australia and Australians and enhance our capacity to influence international efforts to address chemical issues. The Australian government deposited instruments of ratification for the Rotterdam convention on 20 May 2004. Obligations relating to the convention came into force for Australia on 18 August 2004, three years ago. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry describes the convention as a procedure that helps participating countries learn more about the characteristics of potentially hazardous chemicals that may be shipped to them. It also initiates a decision-making process on the future importation of these chemicals by the countries themselves and it helps convey this decision to other countries. It does not involve international bans. The procedure promotes a shared responsibility between exporting and importing countries in protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effects of hazardous chemicals that are being traded internationally. It allows countries to make informed decisions about what chemicals they allow to enter and contributes to the processes of managing chemical risk. The convention covers pesticides and industrial chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons by the parties which have been notified by parties for inclusion in the procedure. One notification from each of two specified regions triggers consideration of the addition of a chemical to annex III of the Rotterdam convention. Severely hazardous pesticides that present a hazard under conditions of use in developing countries or countries with economies in transition may also be nominated for inclusion in annex III. There are 39 chemicals listed in annex III of the Rotterdam convention which subject to these procedures, including 24 pesticides, four severely hazardous pesticide formulations and 11 industrial chemicals. Many more chemicals are expected to be added in the future. The conference of the parties decides on the inclusion of new chemicals. Once a chemical is included in annex III, a decision guidance document containing information concerning the chemical and the regulatory decisions to ban or severely restrict the chemical for health or environmental reasons is circulated to all parties. Parties have nine months to prepare a response concerning the future importation of the chemical. The response can consist of either a final decision to allow importation, not to allow importation or to allow importation subject to specific conditions, or an interim response. Decisions by an importing country must be trade neutral—that is, they have to apply equally to domestic production for domestic use as well as to imports from any source. The import decisions are circulated and exporting country parties are obliged under the Rotterdam convention to take appropriate measures to ensure that exporters within their jurisdiction comply with the decisions. The Rotterdam convention promotes the exchange of information on a very broad range of chemicals. It does so through the requirement for a party to inform other parties of each national ban or severe restriction of the chemical; the possibility for a party which is a developing country or a country in transition to inform other parties that it is experiencing problems caused by a severely hazardous pesticide formulation under conditions of use in its territory; the requirement for a party that plans to export a chemical that is banned or severely restricted for use within a territory to inform the importing party that such exports will take place before the first shipment and annually thereafter; the requirement for an exporting party, when exporting chemicals that are to be used for occupational purposes, to ensure that an up-to-date safety data sheet is sent to the importer; and, finally, labelling requirements for exports of chemicals included in the procedure as well as for chemicals that are banned or severely restricted in the exporting countries. Despite the Rotterdam convention clearly stipulating that binapacryl would be subject to prior informed consent conditions for all signatories from 1 February 2005, it has taken the government over 2½ years to take the appropriate action. This represents yet another example of the Howard government’s lethargy and complacency in office. As in so many areas, it has fallen asleep at the wheel. Today, about 2½ years after the parliament should have been considering this matter, it has finally been brought before us. Although there have been no imports of binapacryl since 1 January 2007, it was not previously classified separately in the tariff and its importation was not readily identifiable. The United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods also classifies binapacryl as a poisonous substance requiring further regulation under the Rotterdam convention. The second amendment in this bill was contained in Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2007, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 15 February 2007. The date of effect of the change was 1 January 2007, as the change was originally included in Customs Tariff Notice No. 1 (2006), which was published in special Commonwealth Gazette S222 on 15 December 2006, in accordance with the requirements of section 273EA of the Customs Act 1901. This amendment will allow for the duty rate of ‘free’ rather than five per cent for the prepared culture media for the development or maintenance of viruses, as intended by the Customs Tariff Amendment (2007 Harmonized System Changes) Act 2006. This is a positive amendment. The Labor Party supports both of the measures contained in this bill. They are both valuable additions to the legislative framework of the country in two respects. I think it is worthy of mention again that our obligations under the Rotterdam convention, to which we all subscribe and which are supported in this bill, seem to have been lost in the paperwork of the Howard government over the course of the last two years. Here we are, in the dying weeks of this parliament and in the lead-up to an election, with the government now tidying up some of these matters. These measures should have been dealt with much earlier. We are pleased that they have finally come before the parliament, and they have bipartisan support. 177 11:45:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 0 Dr STONE —I thank the member for Brisbane for his contribution to the debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007. The legislation is receiving bipartisan support. Government does a very significant amount of work in this area to make sure that the country is protected in all ways. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, which the member for Brisbane referred to, is a multilateral environmental agreement designed to promote shared responsibility and cooperation among parties in international trade of certain hazardous industrial chemicals and pesticides. This government takes the whole business of trading hazardous industrial chemicals and pesticides very seriously indeed. Our agribusiness industry is dependent, as is our manufacturing industry, on the very careful management of these substances and, indeed, the Rotterdam convention is very seriously considered and complied with by this government. The aim of this convention is to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to the environmentally sound use of these hazardous products. The amendment to the classification of the pesticide binapacryl allows for its separate identification. This will allow the Australian Customs Service and other regulatory agencies in Australia and throughout the world to identify and monitor this trade and this pesticide, thereby having greater control over the movement of this good. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2007 contains minor amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. In this final summary of this debate, let me just repeat that the bill contains amendments to repeal the current subheading for binapacryl and create a new subheading for this chemical. This amendment comes as a result of information received from the World Customs Organisation acknowledging that binapacryl was classified incorrectly in the third review of the harmonised commodity description and coding system which forms the basis of Australia’s custom tariff. These measures will take effect on the day the act receives the royal ascent. The bill will also amend the text of the subheading for microbiological culture media to remove the reference to culture media for viruses. This amendment will ensure that the rate of customs duty of ‘free’ will continue to apply to prepared culture media for the development or maintenance of viruses. This measure was implemented via customs tariff notice in December 2006 and then included in Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2007, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 15 February 2007. The measure contained in this bill will take effect from 1 January 2007. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. 178 Bills R2808 178 Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Mr Pearce: That this bill be now read a second time. 178 11:49:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —The Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Bill 2007 is a belated response by the government to the 1997 Review of the Regulation of Corporate Insolvency Practitioners; the 1998 Legal Committee of the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee report Corporate voluntary administration; the 2000 Companies and Securities Advisory Committee report Corporate groups; the 2004 Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee report Rehabilitating large and complex enterprises in financial difficulties; and the 2004 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Corporate insolvency laws: a stocktake. Updated insolvency laws that adequately respond to business practices, provide more clarity for creditors and in turn reduce the cost of obtaining finance are vital for the Australian economy. There is of course a social impact that should be considered, and this is something particularly important to the agenda of those on this side of the House. In 2003, the ACTU estimated that around 19,000 employees may lose up to $500 million—that is, half a billion dollars—in unpaid entitlements each year. Although other creditors have other sources of income sometimes, employees are likely to be dependent on the wages they receive from a company and, as such, the impact on them is likely to be substantial. Labor does welcome the bill, overdue though it is. In particular, changes relating to finetuning of administration processes implement the CAMAC recommendations that date from 1998, and it is good to see, in 2007, that they are finally being implemented in this legislation. The changes that arise from this bill fall into four categories: improving the outcomes for creditors, including employees; deterring misconduct by company officers; improving regulation of insolvency practitioners; and finetuning voluntary administration procedures. Outcomes for creditors are improved by the bill in a number of ways. In the current system, employees are afforded priority amongst unsecured creditors. However, this priority can be displaced by a deed of company arrangement. Employees have only a limited opportunity to challenge any change to this prioritisation in a deed in the event that their priority is displaced by a meeting of creditors. Changes in this bill mean that it will now be mandatory for a deed of company arrangement to preserve the priority of employee entitlements when a company is in voluntary administration unless employee creditors agree to waive their priority. The court may approve the employee creditors’ waiver and alter their priority in the deed of company arrangement where it is satisfied that it would be more beneficial for employee creditors than the immediate winding-up of the company. This is a sensible measure which the opposition supports. Issues relating to the superannuation guarantee will also be clarified. Although the Corporations Act gives priority to the superannuation contributions of employees, it has been held by the courts that the guarantee, which is a statutory tax liability owed by the Commonwealth, cannot be characterised in the same way and therefore does not have the same priority. As the SGC is related to superannuation payments and exists to ensure that the benefits for employees are received, there is a need to clarify and address the priority of the SGC in a receivership, voluntary administration or deed of company arrangement, not just company liquidation. Changes to the superannuation guarantee act and the Corporations Act mean that the SGC will receive the same priority as wages and superannuation contributions. Rights of subrogated creditors—those creditors who are entitled to be substituted for another creditor in a liquidation because they have advanced funds to meet a particular creditor’s debt—are clarified so that they have the same rights as the original creditors, even if an advance has not been made before the relevant date. New disclosure requirements for administrators are introduced to address the concerns about the independence of directors and to make sure that creditors can make well-informed decisions when engaging administrators. Administrators will be required to provide a declaration of any ‘relevant relationships’ and indemnities that apply to them in a document which is a maximum of two pages in length. Greater guidance will be given to courts to set and review remuneration of administrators and deed administrators. A number of amendments are also made to streamline administration processes. The requirement that a company in a creditors’ voluntary liquidation hold an annual members meeting will be removed, as the economic interests of those members is not substantial enough when balanced against the cost of those meetings. However, if the liquidator chooses not to call an annual meeting of creditors, then they must lodge a report with ASIC on the progress of the administration and notify creditors that the report will be available to creditors free of charge. In the case of a members’ voluntary liquidation, where the economic interest is generally greater, the requirement for an annual meeting is retained. Various requirements to publish notices and documents will also be made redundant unless there is a strong policy rationale for the publication of relevant documents. The bill will also allow various notices to be published together to reduce costs. Electronic communication will now be made available to administrators for the distribution of notices to creditors, provided that certain conditions are met. Currently, electronic distribution is only available to notify members of meetings. In order to increase the opportunity to recoup funds for creditors, two types of pooling orders in liquidation, voluntary and court ordered, will be made available. Voluntary pooling will be available to occur when a liquidator of a group of companies that are in the process of winding up makes a determination that the group of companies can be pooled for the purposes of liquidation. Courts will be empowered to order that a group of companies is pooled for the purposes of winding up. An application for court ordered pooling may only be made by the liquidator or liquidators of the companies in the group as each company in the group will be taken to jointly and severally be liable for each debt payable in each claim against the company in that group. The bill also puts forward a number of proposals to deter corporate misconduct. ASIC will now be able to use its compulsory powers to investigate a liquidator’s conduct if it has reason to suspect, for example, that they have failed to carry out their duties. Penalty privilege in relation to proceedings for disqualification, banning suspension or cancellation of orders or declarations to that effect will be removed. This was one of the amendments sought after privilege was claimed in the High Court’s Rich v ASIC case, where ASIC was unable to obtain certain documents in relation to the relevant orders. Banning and disqualification orders and orders to cancel or suspend licences will help deter misconduct of company officers, including in relation to phoenix company activity. Insolvency practitioners will be better regulated under new provisions. Prohibitions on inducements to members or creditors of a company to secure an appointment will now be extended to include directors and providers of professional services, such as legal and accounting firms. Registered liquidators will have to obtain and maintain professional indemnity and fidelity insurance to cover their work as insolvency practitioners. The requirement that registered liquidators provide triennial statements to ASIC will be replaced with a requirement that a detailed statement be provided annually. This means that a liquidator’s suitability for registration will be reviewed more regularly. ASIC will be able to cancel the registration of a liquidator automatically where the liquidator becomes disqualified from managing a corporation or by reason of bankruptcy and where the liquidator does not maintain their insurance. An application will no longer need to be made to the company’s auditors and liquidators’ disciplinary board first. The board will be given more flexibility to deal with disciplinary matters. For example, it will be able to hold a prehearing conference to determine procedural matters. Small changes will be made to increase the efficiency of voluntary administration procedures. New provisions will allow administrators to sell properties subject to a lien, pledge or retention of title clause if they have written consent of the property owner or the security holder, or with leave of the court. Administrators will also be able to consent to the transfer of shares if they are satisfied that it is in the best interests of the company as a whole. The bill will allow slightly longer periods to pass before the first and second meetings of the creditors are required to be held. There will also be some slight amendments to change ‘days’ to ‘business days’, which will consequently affect the timing for things such as when notices for meetings must be given. Labor notes the consultation with stakeholders in insolvency areas, such as the Insolvency Law Advisory Group and the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia. As required by the Corporations Act, the amendments under this bill have also been approved by the states and territories through the Ministerial Council for Corporations. Labor supports this bill in the interests of modernising Australia’s corporate insolvency regime. We reiterate our concern that some of these changes were recommended almost 10 years ago and yet the government is acting only today to legislate. We do, however, support this as being ‘better late than never’ and support in particular the measures which protect employee entitlements upon insolvency. 180 11:58:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer 1 0 Mr PEARCE —I would like to thank the honourable member, Mr Bowen, for his contribution to this particular debate around the Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Bill 2007. Well-designed insolvency laws are critical to any good-functioning economy. They are among the most basic laws that govern commercial life and are, I think, integral in ensuring that Australians can have some certainty when a company experiences some form of financial distress. In this regard, I note that Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are well regarded and essentially sound; they do not require fundamental revision. The government is therefore not proposing radical changes to the law in this bill; rather, this bill provides an integrated package of measured reforms which, together, are expected to have a significant impact on the efficiency and integrity of our corporate insolvency regime. This bill responds to the recommendations of a number of committees, notably the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee and, of course, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Both of these committees examined areas of corporate insolvency law. The bill also, of course, responds to many suggestions for improving the law that have been made by others, including creditors, practitioners and, indeed, members of the judiciary. I would like to take this opportunity if I could to thank all of those who commented on this important bill and to note the role in particular of the Insolvency Law Advisory Group, otherwise known as ILAG, which did provide valuable and technical advice in the course of drafting this legislation. I also want to take the opportunity to note key industry stakeholders, such as the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia, the IPAA, who have welcomed the introduction of the bill and applauded the consultation process. They said: The IPAA believes the legislation contains major improvements in the insolvency regime. It improves the efficiency, efficacy and fairness of the process. We commend the government’s consultative process, which has produced the balanced bill. We look forward to working with the government on the next round of reforms to other areas of insolvency. The bill focuses on improving outcomes for creditors, deterring corporate misconduct, improving the regulatory framework for insolvency practitioners and finetuning the voluntary administration procedure. It also addresses public concerns about the independence of insolvency practitioners and practitioner remuneration. Key initiatives include mandating the priority of employee entitlements in deeds of company arrangement, clarifying the status and priority of the superannuation guarantee charge in insolvency and the introduction of a new statutory process for facilitating the winding-up of companies in corporate groups. The bill will also require practitioners to provide creditors with sufficient information for them to assess whether a remuneration proposal is reasonable. The report will include a summary of the main tasks to be performed by the practitioner and, of course, the costs associated with them. Pooling will permit creditors to agree or a court to make an order that the assets of two or more companies in liquidation be combined so that the liquidation of the companies can proceed together as if they were indeed one company. This important facility will allow for more streamlined administration, consolidated accounts and consolidated meetings and minutes of meetings, thereby providing scope for cost reductions and better returns to creditors. As part of the announced package of insolvency reforms, the government implemented two very important reforms in 2005-06. First, we allocated an additional $62 million over four years to improve the range of entitlements available to employees under the General Employee Entitlement and Redundancy Scheme, otherwise known as GEERS. Secondly, we also established an assetless administration fund involving expenditure of some $23 million over four years to target improper behaviour by directors in the lead-up to a company’s insolvency. The program is already delivering results. Through this bill, the government is demonstrating that it is actively working to minimise the economic and social costs that can regrettably accompany a corporation’s insolvency. Those costs may include the disruption of trade and commerce, the loss of employment, the loss of savings, damage to suppliers and customers and the expenses of the insolvency process itself. This bill demonstrates that the government remains committed as always to improving the insolvency processes in the interests of all Australians and that we want to see the best possible results for all who may be affected by an individual company’s insolvency. I want to take this opportunity to again thank all of the stakeholders who have participated in what has been a very good example of consultation. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the officials from the Department of the Treasury for all of the very hard work and the dedicated approach that they have taken to ensure that there has been effective consultation with our stakeholders. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 182 Bills R2729 182 Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Nairn: That this bill be now read a second time. 182 12:05:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —The main purpose of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 is to make consequential amendments to 30 current acts arising from the establishment of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan on 1 July 2005, the establishment of a single entity to administer the Commonwealth superannuation schemes for Commonwealth government civilian employees, the introduction of a new regime for managing legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and changes to the earning bases for the superannuation guarantee regime from 2008. As background, the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan was established on 1 July 2005. The establishment of this plan was a direct result of the closure to new members of the defined benefits Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. As the honourable member for Cunningham and I know, defined benefits schemes have been closed to several categories of Commonwealth employees. This plan is the main Commonwealth superannuation scheme for those entering the Commonwealth Public Service from 1 July 2005. The establishment of the PSSAP meant there were three Commonwealth civilian superannuation schemes: the CSS, the PSS and the PSSAP. The management of these three schemes is now undertaken by the newly formed Australian Reward Investment Alliance. This body replaced the former CSS and PSS boards. In relation to the LIA, from 1 January 2005 a regime was established to reform and manage procedures for the making, scrutiny and publication of Commonwealth legislative instruments by establishing a federal register of legislative instruments; encouraging rule-makers to undertake appropriate consultation; encouraging high standards in drafting legislative instruments to promote their legal effectiveness, clarity and intelligibility to users; providing public access to legislative instruments; establishing improved mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of legislative instruments; and establishing a sunset mechanism to ensure periodic review of legislative instruments and, if they no longer have a continuing purpose, to repeal them. This bill changes the earnings base for the superannuation guarantee from 1 July 2008. It removes a pre-21 August 1991 lower base for SG calculations, principally in the mining industry. From 1 July 2008, superannuation guarantee requirements are to be changed to simplify the earnings base of an employee for superannuation guarantee purposes. The Superannuation Laws Amendment (2004 Measures No. 2) Act 2004 simplifies the earnings base of an employee for SG purposes. The SG amendments already enacted but to be applied from 1 July 2008 will have the effect that all employers will calculate their SG liability against an employee’s ordinary times earnings. Various provisions will be removed from 1 July 2008 so that simpler ordinary times earnings will be the basis of calculation in all cases. Among the provisions that will be repealed are those which allow the use of a pre-21 August 1991 earnings base and earnings bases specified in industrial awards, superannuation schemes, occupational superannuation arrangements or law of the Commonwealth, state or territory. From 1 July 2008, employers will still be able to use notional earnings bases specified in legislation or industrial agreements on the basis of their superannuation guarantee contributions where these are above an employee’s ordinary times earnings, but the superannuation guarantee will be assessed only against ordinary times earnings. This is largely a technical bill, which the opposition supports. 183 12:09:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I rise today to speak in support of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. I am absolutely delighted to be speaking on the issue of superannuation. I say that because Australia recently celebrated the 15th anniversary of the superannuation guarantee introduced under the Hawke-Keating government in July 1992. That legislation effectively meant that all Australians are entitled to a minimum superannuation payment of nine per cent and that has effectively meant that we have changed the debate in Australia in terms of savings and the capacity of the private sector to invest, for example, in the provision of vital infrastructure. As a former President of the ACTU, I regard that as one of the greatest achievements of the Australian trade union movement, which worked in a constructive partnership with the Australian Labor Party in government from 1983 to 1996. That is not just my view and the view of the opposition; the truth is that Australia’s approach to retirement income is world leading. That is acknowledged by many other countries throughout the world. That view has also been appropriately endorsed by the World Bank since 1993, when it undertook a global study of retirement income systems and demographic factors. It concluded: Systems providing financial security for the old are under increasing strain throughout the world. Rapid demographic transitions caused by rising life expectancy and declining fertility mean that the proportion of old to young is growing rapidly. Traditional safety nets, such as community and extended family care are weakening under the weight of this growing burden. Also in peril are the formal systems, such as government backed pensions, which have proven to be both unstable and difficult to reform. The result is an impending old age crisis that threatens not only the old but also their children and grandchildren who will inevitably shoulder this burden ... Financial security for the old would be better served if governments developed three systems, or ‘pillars’ of old age security: 1) a publicly managed system with mandatory participation and the limited goal of reducing poverty among the old; 2) a privately managed, mandatory savings system; and 3) voluntary savings. That was the intent of the system developed by the federal Labor Party in government. Its groundbreaking legislation came into effect in July 1992. It is clearly about making sure that we look after our senior citizens in retirement and that we have a capacity for a privately managed superannuation scheme that gives them a guaranteed minimum and that requires voluntary savings over and above the guarantee of nine per cent in 1992. I compare that to the system that we inherited from the current Prime Minister when he was the Treasurer in March 1983. We discovered on coming to government in 1983 that for most people the age pension was their main source of retirement income; superannuation was largely the preserve of the wealthy or people employed in local government and state and federal public services. We also had in place a number of private superannuation schemes operated by key companies that suggested to many workers that, if they stayed with their employer for a lengthy period of time, they would get some superannuation on leaving the company or on retirement. What we discovered more and more was that in the fine print there were outs for the companies to escape their superannuation obligations. In March 1983 the Australian Labor Party in government—with Bob Hawke as the Prime Minister and Paul Keating as the Treasurer—realised that as a nation with a major demographic challenge confronting Australia’s future in the 21st century something had to be done about the fundamental issue of retirement, side-by-side with the huge challenge to Australia in building our savings base and creating a universal safety net to guarantee dignity in retirement for all Australians. In addition to that problem we had a taxation problem. That went to the fact that a substantial proportion of concessionally taxed superannuation savings was dissipated well before retirement. It was not just a question of increasing access to superannuation savings; it was also a serious question of having an overhaul of the taxation system in place that was part and parcel of the superannuation system in 1983. The facts showed that, in 1983, 40 per cent of the workforce had some superannuation cover; but, by 1991, through the partnership between the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party in government, that had grown to 72 per cent. People should not forget that the campaign to spread superannuation was resisted by many major companies in Australia, with the support of the then opposition through its various leaders. This was a campaign that they suggested was wrong for Australia. History has now shown that it was absolutely of fundamental importance to the future of retirement income in Australia, our capacity to save and also our capacity to bring forward public investment in infrastructure by a partnership with the private sector. The whole nation has benefited as a result of the initiatives commenced by the Hawke and Keating governments in March 1983. I say that because the record will show that the superannuation guarantee levy built on the achievement and laid the foundation for the income security and higher standards of living in retirement for all future generations that we rightfully expect as a nation. The fruits of the levy are being felt further today, and people my age and younger will see the benefits for decades to come. In some ways this bill continues the tradition of reform started by the Hawke and Keating governments and further enhances the administrative arrangements pertaining to superannuation. It is an ongoing, evolving system. Virtually all employees are now accumulating substantial superannuation savings to help fund their retirement income. It is also interesting to note that the industry wide superannuation funds are performing exceptionally well in terms of earnings and are also exceptionally competitive in terms of the management fees charged, including the death and disability insurance coverage provided by those schemes. Contrary to what was suggested by the current government and many employers at the time, these funds are well managed. They are professionally managed. They are not union dominated. They are joint trustees of employers’ and workers’ representatives, working to achieve the best possible return for ordinary workers who have chosen to join those schemes and, in doing so, to reduce what the nation would have to invest in the old age pension to look after people in retirement in the future. It has been a win-win situation for all, despite the vigorous opposition pursued by the Howard government representatives who, prior to March 1996, were in opposition. I think it is important, because virtually all Australian workers are now accumulating substantial superannuation savings to help fund their retirement income. It is about them paying their way. The increased self-funding of retirement has enabled the Howard government, and will enable successive governments, to improve the retirement conditions for Australians who, for one reason or another, are unable to adequately fund their own retirement incomes. Having said that, let me also say that older Australians trying to make ends meet on the age pension are among the most disadvantaged in our community, and that is a fact of life today. We should also be paying close attention to the struggle that many of those people who did not have access to superannuation now confront on a day-to-day basis. For them, the welfare of the aged still remains conditional on our capacity to maintain a decent old age pension funded through our tax system at this particular point in time. Finally, can I say that self-funding of retirement has and will increase the flexibility in the Commonwealth budget, especially as our population ages, and will increase our national savings overall. We should also not forget that during the 1980s economic debate was dominated by the need to increase private savings and to close the current account deficit. Superannuation, I contend, was not only a measure to increase the benefits to people in retirement; it was also essentially about increasing national savings and thereby reducing the need to borrow from foreign sources by creating a large pool of domestic savings. As we all appreciate, today global capital is footloose. There is enormous foreign investment in Australia, but Australia’s superannuation savings are also going into projects all over the world so as to ensure that we diversify the investment basis of the various superannuation schemes operating in Australia. On that note, another milestone reached this year was the accumulation of over $1 trillion in Australia’s superannuation funds. Who would have thought we would have achieved that when, on winning government, we started this program in March 1983 when we found that retirement income in Australia was in an absolute mess. It is a major achievement and it opens up a wealth of opportunities for Australia in the 21st century. I say that because these funds will continue to be cash flow positive through to 2020, and they provide a significant opportunity for Australians to invest in their future. Governments, and the people whose taxes they collect, simply cannot afford to fund the level of infrastructure investment needed for Australia’s future economic prosperity without the private sector. For example, in November 2005, according to Ernst and Young, the eastern states of Australia needed more than $100 billion of investment in infrastructure on transport, energy and water over the next 10 years. The truth of the matter is that it is no longer a question of planning projects. The key challenge confronting governments at a state and federal level is how we bring forward the delivery and implementation of project plans. That is what is required of an alternative government, through Infrastructure Australia, working in partnership with all the different portfolios from transport and roads to communications—just to name a couple of areas that need investment at this particular point in time. The superannuation funds I referred to are looking for investment opportunities overseas. They cannot find them in Australia at the moment because of tardiness at a federal level and, in some instances, at a state level in their incapacity to put these projects in place and bring forward private sector investment. The truth is that Australia’s retirement incomes are therefore being used, in some instances, to fund other countries’ economic growth. While this is a good thing, here at home we are facing a future funding shortfall of $100 billion in infrastructure investment that could increase economic growth opportunities, create training, apprenticeship and tertiary education opportunities, create jobs for our children and grandchildren, eliminate congestion in our cities and, at the same time, provide good earnings on our superannuation savings, thereby improving the capacity of people to retire with some dignity. I am assured by many that, for example, road tolls will never be accepted. The truth is that tolls developed by government in partnership with the private sector by and large deliver value for money, through more time for work, family or play, lower fuel costs, lower greenhouse emissions, less noise and air pollution, and less wear and tear on vehicles. What is required is delivery and leadership at a government level to bring forward some of this infrastructure investment in partnership with the private sector. In doing so, you deliver to the shareholders who are, effectively, ordinary workers who have chosen to select various superannuation funds in which to invest their retirement incomes. I am not just talking about the big operators, such as the Macquarie Banks and the Leightons, who are at the centre of these projects; I am also talking about the mum and dad investors saving, through superannuation or direct investment in the share market, for the future of their children and grandchildren, and for their own retirement. In the 21st century, public ownership of infrastructure assets does not have to mean public funding. Public ownership today can just as legitimately come from direct investment through the share market, through listed infrastructure funds or through superannuation as through public sector investment derived from taxes and other government fees and charges. It comes back to a capacity at a government level to lead and break through the barriers. It is something that is lacking at the Howard government level through lack of direction and strength at this particular time. It is about time we as a community realised that there is more than one form of community ownership when it comes to roads and infrastructure, including water and communications infrastructure. Community ownership of infrastructure in the modern sense is about the economic empowerment of individuals to make their own investment choices—investment decisions that, I suggest, can build the infrastructure for their children’s and grandchildren’s future and grow their retirement incomes at the same time. Just think, for example, about if we had been able to bring forward some of this infrastructure over the last five to six years in terms of our coal export opportunities. We would have earned hundreds of millions of dollars worth of additional export earnings, if we had not had the blockages in places such as Newcastle, Dalrymple Bay and Hay Point. A lack of leadership at a government level and a failure to actually bring forward the investment has deprived Australia of an even bigger economic cake and, in doing so, ripped away apprenticeship opportunities and employment opportunities in those very key regional centres of Australia. Also, that effectively means that capital is footloose. If we do not bring on these projects in Australia sooner rather than later then they are looking for investment in other countries. That is why, for example, Indonesia has now overtaken Australia as the major coal-exporting nation in the world. That is why Brazil was looked to by some of these major mining companies in the past as an alternative source of supply for iron ore. I stress today that we have a responsibility at state and federal government levels, in partnership with the private sector, to bring forward some of these investment opportunities via the superannuation funds. We can no longer be tardy on this particular front. It is no longer about the extraction of taxes and spending by governments on behalf of the Australian community. This represents a real challenge. The lack of leadership on infrastructure at a Commonwealth level in recent years has meant that Australia has denied itself a wealth of economic and employment opportunities. I say in conclusion in support of the member for Prospect that, as he has already said, the main purpose of the bill before us today is to make consequential amendments to 30 current acts, arising from the establishment of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan on 1 July 2005, the establishment of a single entity to administer the Commonwealth superannuation schemes for Commonwealth government civilian employees, the introduction of a new regime for managing legislative instruments, and, finally, changes to the earnings base of the superannuation guarantee regime from July 2008. Federal Labor support this bill, but let me say that superannuation reform must continue in Australia, regardless of which party is in government, to ensure that it seeks to achieve what we set out to achieve in March 1983—that is, secure incomes for future generations of Australian retirees and a better standard of living for the aged in our society. The superannuation guarantee legislation today is a proud achievement of Labor in government seeking to do the best thing by all Australians, rather than superannuation, as it was previously, being the preserve of the better-off in the Australian community. The 15th anniversary should not be forgotten. It is a great achievement, and Australia is better off. Today’s superannuation legislation builds on the achievements of Labor in government. I commend the bill to the House. 187 12:28:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —As someone under the age of 40, I am amongst the first generation of people who have had access to compulsory superannuation. That contrasts markedly with the experience of my parents’ generation. My father was lucky enough to work for a company—Qantas—that was one of the first companies to give superannuation to all of its employees rather than just to upper management. But, for the majority of people in my father’s generation, superannuation is not adequate retirement income. Looking at this generation of under-40s, we ask: although we have access to compulsory superannuation, will our contributions and our employer contributions over the years actually provide an adequate retirement income? Of course, we have to acknowledge that it was the last Labor government in 1992 that designed and established the framework for the superannuation guarantee contribution. At the time there were many people on the other side of politics saying that it was a bad idea. I think time has proven that it was probably one of the greatest financial and social decisions made by the Labor government, for two reasons: because it has improved the quality of life for many people after retirement, giving them a little bit more spending power than if they had to rely on the old-age pension, and because funds under management—which the member for Batman was referring to—have given us a multi-trillion dollar pool of investment to invest in both Australia and overseas. It has meant that we now have one of the largest pools of funds under management of any country in the world. That gives us enormous opportunities for investing in productive infrastructure in Australia—of course, always keeping in mind that the primary responsibility of superannuation trustees is to their members, to ensure a good return on investment. Whilever we have an ageing population, as we do now, the issue of compulsory superannuation will become more important and our assessment of the adequacy of retirement income will become a greater issue. A report was released on 2 August by the Allen Consulting Group for the Investment and Financial Services Association. The report was entitled Australian national saving revisited. That report shows that we have an ageing population and, although we have compulsory superannuation, the pool of funds that will be available in the future does not meet the needs of that population. A report by AMP at the end of July showed that 3½ million Australians will fall short in their retirement incomes. That is about a third of the workforce. The Allen report for IFSA says that there will be a savings gap of about $452 billion. That shows the magnitude of the gap that we are talking about. Financial planners estimate that retirees need about 60 per cent of their pre-retirement income to live comfortably in retirement. The current level of nine per cent compulsory employer superannuation contribution will give you that 60 per cent of earnings in retirement if you are in employment for 40 years straight. The reality, of course, is that many Australians do not have that unbroken working pattern for a variety of reasons, including unemployment and disability, but most, particularly many women, experience a broken pattern of employment because of their family responsibilities. The median amount of a baby boomer’s superannuation is $30,700 for men but only $8,000 for women, due to a number of factors, including a broken working pattern. While we have these reports showing that retirement income generally, despite compulsory superannuation, will be inadequate, the situation for women is considerably bleaker. NATSEM data shows that 73.4 per cent of women aged 65 and over now live on an income of less than $300 a week. Three-quarters of women in retirement live on less than $300 a week. That trend of the feminisation of poverty in old age will increase as our population ages. Fifty per cent of women who have either retired or will retire in the next 10 years have less than $20,000 in superannuation; 20 per cent of women who are retired or are on the verge of retiring have less than $5,000 in superannuation. These figures are alarming. By 2019, men on average will have accumulated double the superannuation that women on average will have accumulated. So we are looking at a generation where poverty will be starkly gendered. Older women will be much more likely to be living in poverty than older men. In July 2005, Dr Ross Clare of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, in his evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into the superannuation of under 40-year-olds, said: You can do a lot of research and determine quite conclusively that on average women tend to have less entitlement to superannuation than men—or you can ask your mum. Each will give you the same answer. What alarms me even more than this trend is our lack of engagement with the trend, the unlikelihood that things will change very much in the future. So women, even young women under the age of 40 who have been contributing to superannuation for as long as they have been in paid work, face additional barriers that keep their retirement incomes lower than men. They are barriers that are generally unique to women and they are the result of the superannuation guarantee contribution being predicated on a stable paid linear model of employment that does not take account of the breaks that women’s employment generally shows because of time out, particularly around childbirth but also for caring later for parents and others. I want to look a little bit more closely at some of the barriers to women’s superannuation savings. The first is obviously the pay gap. The reality is that women’s earnings over a lifetime are often substantially lower than those of men, even for women with similar qualifications and work histories. The sad truth is that we expect in a modern developed country like Australia that the pay gap between men and women’s wages will improve over time. It has been either steady or worse in recent years, and I think that is something that we need to examine very closely. On average, full-time working men are earning nearly $200 a week more than full-time working women. For the last decade, women have earned about 85 per cent of men’s wages. We forget—we think that these battles have been won and yet the figures for the difference between men and women’s wages, even in full-time employment, are substantial. If you add on to that the fact that women are much more likely to take breaks from paid work to care for children or for other family members, you see the additional problem. Child care is a particular issue. I no longer have shadow ministerial responsibility for child care, but I am still passionately interested in it. One of the main reasons that many women do not return to work within a period after having children is, if you are paying for child care for one child, two children or three children, it is just not worth your while. For some people this is a personal preference, and I applaud that personal preference. It is a wonderful thing if you are able and want to do it. Many women would like to return to work. They see that the longer they stay out of the workforce the more their lifetime earning capacity diminishes, but once they factor in the childcare costs, transport costs and so on, it is just not worth their while. We can improve that situation by improving child care. Countries that have good quality, affordable child care have much higher women’s participation rates. So it is not just about personal preference here. When women return to work after having children, they often sacrifice increased pay for greater flexibility. Again, if that is a personal choice that people make to work part time or more flexible hours that is terrific. What I fear is that a lot of women would love to have more responsible work, would like to have promotions and so on, but that our workplaces are not responsive enough, they are not willing enough to accommodate more flexible working patterns because they do not understand the value and the skills that parents—women—can add to the workplace. So that pay gap is a significant problem when it comes to the accumulation of superannuation savings. Another barrier is the big increase we have seen in the casualisation of work, and especially women’s work. Industries where women are concentrated have seen some of the greatest growth in casualisation. What we often see now are workers generally, but women more likely, to be cobbling together income from more than one job. There might be two, even three, part-time or casual jobs and, because the superannuation guarantee only kicks in when you are earning more than $450 a month, women who are working irregularly or casually may well be missing out because they are not eligible for employer contributions. If you are earning $400 each from three different employees, you can see how this can have an impact on women’s long-term ability to save for their superannuation. That increase in casualisation has seen about a quarter of Australian workers now in casual jobs. About a third of women are employed casually. Work Choices is increasing this trend and we also see Work Choices, by driving down penalty rates and overtime as people are forced on to AWAs, has an effect on women’s ability, and in fact on everyone’s ability, to save for their superannuation. ABS data shows that women who are on AWAs and who work a standard 38-hour week on average are earning $87.40 less per week than those on collective agreements, and women on AWAs who work part-time are earning $85.10 less per week than those collective agreements. If you lose $80 a week or the equivalent moving on to an AWA, obviously your ability to put money away for superannuation is affected—not just the compulsory contribution but any capacity you have to make additional voluntary contributions. For women who choose to spend time out or are forced to spend some time out of the workforce because of their caring responsibilities, they do—or the family does—get additional support through the family tax benefit part B. That is a good thing. We want to enable people to have the broadest range of possibilities, the broadest range of options when it comes to raising their families. But that money is generally never put away for savings; it is spent on the day-to-day expenses of families, which are so high these days. Women may be able to make voluntary contributions during a period out of the workplace or their partner or husband is able to make contributions for them, but for most women the reality is that they assume that they will be able to rely on their partner’s or husband’s retirement savings. In most instances this is terrific, it is fine, but sadly in a growing number of cases where you see divorce, women who have assumed that their retirement income would be comfortable because of their husband’s superannuation find that it is not. Changes in the Family Law Act in 2002 went some of the way to addressing this by allowing superannuation to be divided like other property. But, of course, anyone who has taken action through the Family Court knows that you have to have some money up-front to perhaps get the result that you are after through litigation in this area. The other thing to consider, of course, is that women are more likely to live longer than men. That is not great news for men, I suppose—the longer they live the better. I have some of my parliamentary colleagues very worried here, haven’t I? I would not take any personal action to make that happen. It means that any retirement savings have to last much longer and they are also more likely, with older age, to experience greater health expenses and also greater retirement home or nursing home expenses. So the smaller final superannuation savings of women often have to go a lot further. There have been some measures in this area, such as superannuation contribution splitting and the tax offset, that have helped women who are in unpaid work caring for their families. The measures in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007 allow some growth in superannuation. They allow women to continue to make contributions to grow their superannuation, including by having some of their husband’s contribution transferred to their fund at the year’s end. The take-up of the superannuation co-contribution scheme introduced by the government has also been high amongst women. Indeed, Labor welcomed the announcement in this year’s budget of the doubling of the government’s co-contribution on contributions made in superannuation accounts in the last financial year. All of these things are positives, but there are a number of additional things that we should investigate to truly address this problem. I think the adequacy of women’s retirement savings is one of the greatest financial and social issues that will face us over coming decades. We should look at some of the strategies that have been recommended, including through having a parliamentary inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration but also by a number of other people. We need to look at specific strategies for helping women boost their retirement incomes. We need to start with a recognition by the government that the financial information that women are receiving about superannuation needs to be specifically targeted and that their information needs are different from those of men because they need to include this information about broken working patterns and so on. I noticed that the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Women’s Issues, Julie Bishop, asked the Treasurer what proportion of the $25 million budget set aside for the Financial Literacy Foundation will be spent on women’s superannuation literacy. I was waiting for an answer; I was very interested in the answer. I think unfortunately the answer is no money. I am advised that the Treasurer’s Financial Literacy Foundation spent no specific money on programs which target women’s financial literacy in respect of their superannuation. The members of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, in their inquiry into superannuation for people under 40, agreed that a lack of superannuation is one of the most pressing financial areas where women are especially prone to a lack of financial literacy. The committee recommended that the Financial Literacy Foundation with the Office for Women target specific programs to improve the financial literacy of women under the age of 40 with respect to superannuation. I do not think that has happened. We could have another look at some of the other recommendations of that committee, including helping women who are on paid maternity leave to continue to contribute to superannuation with superannuation guarantee contributions from their employer. That is one of the recommendations we should explore. The standing committee recommended that the government should have a look at the particular issue of the lack of super guarantee contributions during periods of maternity leave. (Time expired). 191 12:48:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer 1 0 Mr PEARCE —I thank all those honourable members who contributed to the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2007. In summing up, I will bring the debate back to what the legislation is all about rather than talk about what we have just been listening to. The main purpose of this bill is to update a range of legislation as a consequence of other legislative changes. The bill amends a number of Commonwealth acts as a consequence of the establishment of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan, otherwise known as the PSSAP, by trust deed under the Superannuation Act 2005. The PSSAP was established on 1 July 2005 and replaced the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, otherwise known as the PSS, as the main superannuation scheme for new Australian government employees and other office holders. The bill proposes amendments to a number of Commonwealth acts that deal with terms and conditions of employment and it includes references to the PSSAP where appropriate. The bill also amends a number of acts to reflect the consolidation of the governance arrangements for the three major superannuation schemes for Australian government employees. They are the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, known as the CSS, the PSS and the PSSAP. Since 1 July 2006, the Australian Reward Investment Alliance, known as ARIA, has been the trustee for the three schemes. From 1 July 2008, all employers will be required to calculate their superannuation guarantee liability for an employee using the employee’s ordinary time earnings. The bill will amend the Superannuation Act 1976, which provides for the CSS, and the Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act 1988 as a consequence of this change. The amendments will enable minimum benefits paid under those acts to comply with the superannuation guarantee requirements following the change to the earnings base from 1 July 2008. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. 192 12:51:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.51 pm 193 Questions in Writing 193 193 4540 193 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 14 September 2006: In respect of any change to the logo of the department and agencies that report to the Minister, (a) when was the most recent change, (b) how many such changes have taken place in the past five years, (c) what was the reason for the change, and (d) what was the total cost of the change, including (i) signage, (ii) stationery, (iii) associated advertising and (iv) website design. 193 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: Common branding for Australian Government departments and agencies was introduced in June 2003 and coordinated by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. One. The common brand was introduced to improve recognition of the many policy initiatives, programmes and financial services delivered across the Australian Government. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry does not have a consolidated detailed record of the costs involved in the change. 1 1 5212 1 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, 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. 1 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: The Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) pays electricity and water costs for a diverse range of owned and leased properties around Australia. Payment arrangements vary depending on the circumstances, including whether Finance is the landlord and/or the tenant. The total costs of electricity for Finance as a landlord were: 2004-05            $1,445,693.96 2005-06            $1,484,582.37 The total costs of electricity for Finance as a tenant were: 2004-05            $1,323,271.36 2005-06            $1,522,966.06 Finance as a tenant used more electricity in 2005-06 than in 2004-05 because machinery of government changes increased the number and size of Finance tenancies. The total costs of water for Finance as a landlord and tenant combined were: 2004-05            $369,191.84 2005-06            $390,288.59 Each of the buildings that Finance is a tenant in has multiple tenancies and there is no facility to accurately attribute water use to individual tenants. Finance is both a landlord and a tenant. In both roles, Finance is seeking to monitor energy and water use more accurately, and reduce consumption as far as possible. Measures instigated since 1 July 2000 to reduce water usage include: waterless urinals systems are currently on trial; progressive installation of water flow control fittings in taps and showers; installation of dripper systems with timers for the four small irrigated courtyards; use of dual flush toilets; installation of water meters on cooling towers and data logger water meters on mains supply lines; and regular checks of storm water drains, toilets, taps and pressure relief valves on hot water systems for leaks and the routine periodic changing of seals. Measures instigated since 1 July 2000 to reduce electricity usage include: timed after hours air-conditioning activation switches; movement activated sensor lighting and computer controlled lighting; staff are encouraged to turn off monitors and log off computers daily, and shut down computers over weekends; consideration of energy efficiency when purchasing items such as whitegoods and office machines for use in Finance tenancies; and a Christmas shutdown with a flow on effect of reduction in energy consumption over that period. 194 194 5456 194 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 15 February 2007: Can he advise how many international passenger flights have taken off from Sydney Airport between (a) 11 p.m. and midnight and (b) 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005 and (vii) 2006; if not, why not. 194 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: Information provided by Airservices Australia indicates that in accordance with the provisions of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 the following number of international flights (including emergency and pre-curfew taxi) took off from Sydney Airport during the curfew shoulder periods in the years 2000 to 2006 inclusive: 11pm—midnight 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 43 29 31 43 71 84 99 5am—6am 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 195 5457 195 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 15 February 2007: Can he advise how many international passenger flights were given approval to land at Sydney Airport by the Secretary of his Department between (a) 11 p.m. and midnight and (b) 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005 and (vii) 2006; if not, why not. 195 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of international flights were given approval to land at Sydney Airport during the curfew shoulder periods in the years between 2000 and 2006 inclusive: 11pm—midnight All landings between 11pm and midnight were landings for which a dispensation was granted by my delegate (an officer of the Department) in accordance with sections 12(4)-(10) and 24(1) of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 (the Act). 5am—6am All landings between 5am and 6am were landings under quota approvals granted by a delegate of the Secretary of the Department in accordance with sections 12(4)-(10) and 24(2) of the Act. 195 195 5458 195 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 15 February 2007: Can he advise how many international passenger flights were given approval to take-off from Sydney Airport by the Secretary of his Department between (a) 11 p.m. and midnight and (b) 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005 and (vii) 2006; if not, why not. 195 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The following number of international flights were given approval in accordance with the provisions of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 to take-off from Sydney Airport during the curfew shoulder periods in the years between 2000 and 2006 inclusive: 11 pm—midnight 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 12 7 14 13 26 14 16 5am—6am 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 These were all take-offs for which a dispensation was granted by my delegate (an officer of the Department) in accordance with sections 12(4)-(10) and 24(1) of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995. 1 1 5499 1 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 February 2007: How many applications have been made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to review a decision refusing approval to (a) take-off from and (b) land at Sydney Airport between 11 p.m. and midnight in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005 and (vii) 2006. How many applications have been made to the AAT to review a decision refusing approval to (a) take-off from and (b) land at Sydney Airport between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005 and (vii) 2006. 1 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: to (vii): nil to (vii): nil 1 1 5532 1 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 20 March 2007: Are any of the airports in Australian capital cities that are regularly used for passenger domestic services not subject to the Airports Act 1996; if so, which airports. Were any of the airports identified in Part (1) sold by the Commonwealth on long-term lease, if so, (a) which airports, (b) what is the term of each lease, (c) what was the selling price of each airport and (d) what planning powers has the Commonwealth retained over the utilisation of these airports for aviation and non-aviation activities. 1 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: Avalon Airport. Avalon Airport was leased by the Department of Defence to the Linfox Group in 1997, with the operations at the airport being governed through a 50 year lease managed by Defence. Questions concerning the details of the lease should be addressed to the Minister for Defence. 196 196 5577 196 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 21 March 2007: Is she aware of a letter written to all school principals by the former Minister for Education, Science and Training stating that ‘it is anticipated that the maximum amount an individual school community will receive [under the Investing in Our Schools program] is $150,000 over the next four years’; if not, why not. Has her department previously advised school principals, teachers, parents and any other members of a school community that they may (a) apply for several projects under the Investing in Our Schools program up to the $150,000 limit and (b) make such applications until the end of 2008. Is she aware of schools that had budgeted on receiving a total of $150,000 under separate applications over three or four years. Will she ensure that those schools identified in Part (3) that had a legitimate expectation that they would be able to apply for up to $150,000 under the Investing in Our Schools program will still be given the opportunity to do so; if so, how; if not, why not. 197 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: Yes. Previous years’ Programme Guidelines have stated that the limit for funding in respect of any one school is $150,000. It has further been stated that this may comprise of a number of smaller applications. It has never been stated in any Programme Guidelines that schools may apply for projects up until the end of 2008. The broad intention of the Investing in Our Schools Programme in respect of distributing funding was to provide $700 million to assist state government school communities deliver small infrastructure projects. To this end, some 15,100 projects have already been approved to 6,166 (or over 90 percent) of state government school communities. This high demand from school communities led to the 2008 Programme year funding being brought forward into the 2006 Programme year. The Schools Assistance (Learning Together – Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 was amended by Parliament in April 2006 to facilitate this reposition. In February 2007, the Australian Government announced a further $127 million would be made available to allow state government schools that have received grants below $100,000 or none at all to apply for funding grants. The funding limit of $100,000 as stated in the 2007 Programme Guidelines will ensure a wider distribution of this new funding. Under the IOSP, school communities apply directly to the Australian Government for funding discrete, small infrastructure projects. Applications are submitted within the Programme Guidelines of each funding round and each application is assessed on its own merits in a competitive process that takes into account the relative needs and risks of each project applied for. It has always been made clear to schools that approval or non-approval for one project does not guarantee that any subsequent project in a later application round will be approved. It is a competitive grant programme. See answer for Question 3, above. 197 197 5585 197 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 22 March 2007: Has she read an article titled ‘Please, sir, they want more’, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 September 2005; if not, why not. Can she confirm that the former Minister for Education, Science and Training is quoted as telling the Channel Nine Today program that ‘We’re giving each public school $150,000 directly to the P&C to do whatever they think is appropriate with it’; if not, why not. Is she aware of schools that had acted in good faith on this and other statements about the Investing in Our Schools program and planned to lodge separate applications over several years, up to a total of $150,000, to repair, replace or install school infrastructure; if so, which of these schools is in the federal electoral division of Lowe; if not, why not. Can she ensure that schools which have spread out the completion of broader projects by applying for separate, smaller grants under the Investing in Our Schools program, and which have not applied for a single grant of the maximum amount of $150,000 for one individual project, will not be disadvantaged by the recent reduction in the maximum sum available to schools under the Investing in Our Schools program; if so, how; if not, why not. Will she ensure that schools which had a legitimate expectation that they would be able to apply for separate grants between 2005 and 2008 to a total of $150,000 will be given the opportunity to do so; if so, how; if not, why not. 198 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: Yes. While the funding limit for any one school was nominally $150,000 over the life of the Programme, there was never enough funding available for every state government school to receive the maximum amount. Given that this is a competitive grants programme and that there are around 7,000 state government schools and the initial IOSP funding pool for these schools was $700 million, the average total grant was inherently going to be $100,000. For the 2007 Round, the funding limit was $100,000 to ensure the widest distribution of the remaining funding. Under the IOSP, school communities apply directly to the Australian Government for funding discrete, small infrastructure projects. Applications are submitted within the Programme Guidelines of each funding round and each application is assessed on its own merits in a competitive process that takes into account the relative needs and risks of each project applied for. It has always been made clear to schools that approval or non-approval for one project does not guarantee that any subsequent project in a later application round will be approved. It is a competitive grants programme. See answer to Question 3, above. Already 90% of state government schools have been successful under the Programme. The Australian Government has decided to introduce the limit of $100,000 for state government schools to ensure the widest distribution of remaining funding can be targeted at those schools which have either not applied for funding or which have received less than $100,000 in funding. Due to the success of the IOSP, an additional $127 million has been committed to state government schools, bringing the total to $827 million for state government schools. 198 198 5592 198 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, in writing, on 26 March 2007: In respect of her involvement in the “G’Day USA: America Week 2007” promotion: What was the total expenditure for her participation in the trip on: airfares; travel advances; accommodation; ground transport; entertainment, and incidentals. Did any of her staff accompany her on the trip? If so, how many staff attended             and what was the total expenditure for staff participation in the trip on: airfares; travel advances; accommodation; ground transport; entertainment, and incidentals. What was Tourism Australia’s budget resources allocation for the program for the calendar year in: 2004; 2005; 2006, and 2007. What proportion of the program’s costs was recouped through cost‑recovery measures, including sponsorship deals for the G’Day USA: America Week 2007 promotion? 199 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 Fran Bailey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (i) Airfares $ 22,818.86 (ii) Travel Allowances $ 567.00 (iii) Accommodation $ 2,595.13 (iv) Ground Transport $ 2,128.17 (v) Entertainment Nil (vi) Incidentals Allowance $ 124.95 TOTAL $ $28,234.11 Yes. One. (i) Airfares $ 22,818.86 (ii) Travel Allowances $ 430.00 (iii) Accommodation $ 1,585.38 (iv) Ground Transport $ 2,128.17 (v) Entertainment Nil (vi) Incidentals Allowance $ 411.73 TOTAL $ 27,374.14 Tourism Australia’s budget resources allocation for past G’Day USA: Australia Week  events are as follows: 2004 2005 2006 2007 Gross Expenditure ($USD) 140,000 505,000 870,000 1,135.000 These figures include Tourism Australia’s contribution to the G’Day USA event budget and the activities which support the event such as cooperative marketing activities and media partnerships. Any cost recovery activities are conducted by the G’Day USA: Australia Week  Organising Committee, and not by the individual organisations associated with the event,  such as Tourism Australia. G’Day USA 2007 was a great success. Tourism Australia advises there were more than 300 million consumer contacts generated from G’Day USA, triple the previous year. Qantas achieved its second highest ever sales week during G’Day USA. In addition, I appointed Terri Irwin as Tourism Ambassador. Terri Irwin promoted Australia heavily throughout the USA, generating priceless promotion of Australia. 200 200 5599 200 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 26 March 2007: Does the SBS have any guidelines for encouraging Indigenous content; if so, (a) what are those details and (b) do the guidelines include targets for the amount of Indigenous content and what are those targets; if not, did the SBS formerly have any guidelines for encouraging Indigenous content. How many people does the SBS employ and what number of those people are Indigenous. Does the SBS have an Indigenous employment strategy; if so, what are those details. 200 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: Yes. SBS has the following guidelines for encouraging Indigenous content: The SBS Charter as outlined in Section 6 of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 states that SBS, in performing its principal function must contribute to meeting the needs of Australia’s multicultural society, including ethnic, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. SBS Independent (SBSi) administers the Special Production Fund, funded by the Federal Government, for the development and commissioning of quality Australian projects from independent filmmakers. The SBSi principles guiding the selection of projects notes that the Special Production Fund be applied to, amongst other things, Indigenous programming. SBSi acknowledges, through its choice of projects, the on-going need to support new Australian talent (both on and off screen) from non-English speaking backgrounds, and to support program production from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island filmmakers, in alignment with the SBS Charter. SBSi expects filmmakers to be guided by the protocols described in the SBS guides “The Greater Perspective, Protocol and Guidelines for the production of Film and Television on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities” and “Indigenous Protocol”. No. However, since the establishment of the Fund, SBSi has consistently allocated over 30% of funding to projects featuring either Indigenous themes or Indigenous creative principles. SBS provides three hours per week of Indigenous programming through its Aboriginal radio program. SBS employs approximately 874 (full-time, part-time or casual) persons, of which 13 identified as being Indigenous. SBS is currently in the process of developing a new Indigenous employment strategy. SBS has also recently approved the establishment of an SBS Indigenous cadetship within its News and Current Affairs Division, to begin in 2008, and is currently in discussions with universities and tertiary institutions on ways of attracting Indigenous journalism students to the SBS Cadetship. 201 201 5603 201 Hoare, Kelly, MP 83Y Charlton ALP 0 Ms Hoare asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 27 March 2007: Can she advise the maximum amount of funding available to a school under the guidelines of the Government’s Investing in Our Schools (IIOS) program. Can she confirm that the maximum amount available to a school under the IIOS program has changed since the conception of the program in 2005. What notification of the change in the maximum funding amount was given to schools that had planned to receive the maximum funding of $150,000 over the life of the program. Is she aware that schools that were approved for IIOS funding for the planning stages of future projects may not now be able to complete those projects using IIOS funds. How many schools in the electoral division of Charlton are in the situation outlined in Part (4) and what is the total allocation of IIOS funding for these schools. Does the allocation of public funds to projects that may not be completed or produce any tangible benefits for schools and students represent effective expenditure of taxpayers’ money. Will she reinstate the original provisions of the IIOS program so that schools can complete their planned projects; if not, why not. 201 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: Under the 2007 Programme Guidelines, state government schools may apply for project grants that take their school’s total IOSP funding up to a maximum of $100,000. Yes. All state government school communities, regardless of their IOSP funding profile, were sent a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary shortly after the IOSP funding extension was announced, advising of the upcoming 2007 Programme. It has always been made clear to schools that approval or non-approval for one project does not guarantee that any subsequent project in a later application round will be approved. The Programme Guidelines did not guarantee that all schools would receive the maximum amount. It is a competitive grant programme. See answer for Question 4, above. The Investing in Our Schools Programme allows school communities to decide which projects are important to their educational needs. These project applications are then assessed by an independent State-based Assessment and Advisory Panel (SAAP) comprising parents and schools principals, who rank the projects on a numerical scale and make recommendations to the Minister. The SAAP assesses each application on its own merits against key criteria such as the demonstrated education benefits of the project, as well as the capacity for the project to be completed within the budget defined in each application. No, see answer to Question 4. 202 202 5606 202 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 27 March 2007: On how many occasions in (a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002, (d) 2003, (e) 2004, (f) 2005 and (g) 2006 did the total number of take-offs and landings of international passenger aircraft at Sydney Airport between 11 p.m. and midnight exceed 4 per day. On which dates did the number of take-offs and landings of international passenger aircraft at Sydney Airport between 11 p.m. and midnight exceed 4 per day and, for each date identified, what was the total number of (a) take-offs and (b) landings between 11 p.m. and midnight. 202 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: Information from Air Services Australia indicates that in accordance with the provisions of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 the total number of take-offs and landings of international passenger aircraft at Sydney airport exceeded 4 per day between 11 p.m. and midnight on the following occasions: – (d) – NIL. – 1 occasion. – 1 occasion. – 1 occasion. Information from Air Services Australia indicates that on the following dates, the number of take-offs and landings of international passenger aircraft exceeded 4 per day between 11 p.m. and midnight: 10 June 2004 – five take-offs took place. 6 December 2005 - five take-offs took place. 26 February 2006 - five take-offs took place. There are no instances of landings exceeding 4 per day between 11 p.m. and midnight. 1 1 5619 1 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 March 2007: For each week in (a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002, (d) 2003, (e) 2004, (f) 2005 and (g) 2006, how many aircraft have been involved in an emergency causing a (i) take-off from, or (ii) landing at, Sydney International Airport in circumstances that would otherwise contravene Sydney Airport curfew hours. In respect of each incident in Part (1), (a) what was the date and time of each take-off or landing, (b) what were the full circumstances of each emergency and (c) who operated each aircraft and/or in whose name was each aircraft registered. 1 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: Information provided by Airservices Australia indicates that the following emergency take-offs and landings occurred during curfew hours: to (g) Information pertaining to aircraft involved in an emergency either taking off or landing at Sydney International Airport during curfew hours is provided at Attachment A, for each week during the specified period. to (c) The requested information on each incident for aircraft involved in an emergency either taking off or landing at Sydney International Airport for each week during curfew hours is provided at Attachment B. Information before 4 August 2000 is not available. Attachment A - 2000 *   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 4/8 – 5/8 1 2 6/8 – 12/8 2 5 13/8 – 19/8 3 2 20/8 – 26/8 2 4 27/8 – 2/9 0 3 3/9 – 9/9 0 0 10/9 – 16/9 1 5 17/9 – 23/9 2 4 24/9 – 30/9 1 5 1/10 – 7/10 0 1 8/10 – 14/10 1 2 15/10 – 21/10 0 4 22/10 – 28/10 0 0 29/10 – 4/11 1 1 5/11 – 11/11 0 5 12/11 – 18/11 3 7 19/11 – 25/11 3 8 26/11 – 2/12 3 1 3/12 – 9/12 0 2 10/12 – 16/12 1 5 17/12 – 23/12 1 6 24/12 – 30/12 0 4 31/12 0 1 *data is only available from August 2000. - 2001   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 1/1 – 6/1 1 2 7/1 – 13/1 9 2 14/1 – 20/1 5 2 21/1 – 27/1 6 0 28/1 – 3/2 8 0 4/2 – 10/2 5 0 11/2 – 17/2 5 2 18/2 – 24/2 4 0 25/2 – 3/3 6 1 4/3 – 10/3 5 0 11/3 – 17/3 6 1 18/3 – 24/3 1 0 25/3 – 31/3 6 0 1/4 - 7/4 8 0 8/4 – 14/4 1 1 15/4 – 21/4 3 0 22/4 – 28/4 2 2 29/4 – 5/5 5 2 6/5 – 12/5 8 0 13/5 – 19/5 7 1 20/5 – 26/5 6 3 27/5 – 2/6 5 0 3/6 – 9/6 2 0 10/6 – 16/6 4 2 17/6 – 23/6 7 0 24/6 – 30/6 6 3 1/7 – 7/7 2 0 8/7 – 14/7 7 0 15/7 – 21/7 0 0 22/7 – 28/7 5 0 29/7 – 4/8 4 1 5/8 – 11/8 2 0 12/8 – 18/8 3 0 19/8 – 25/8 3 0 26/8 – 1/9 7 2 2/9 – 8/9 3 3 9/9 – 15/9 5 2 16/9 – 22/9 4 1 23/9 – 29/9 8 1 30/9 – 6/10 5 3 7/10 – 13/10 3 1 14/10 – 20/10 2 0 21/10 – 27/10 4 3 28/10 – 3/11 5 1 4/11 – 10/11 8 1 11/11 – 17/11 3 0 18/11 – 24/11 9 0 25/11 – 1/12 3 2 2/12 – 8/12 14 1 9/12 – 15/12 7 2 16/12 - 22/12 5 3 23/12 – 29/12 8 5 30/12 – 31/12 5 2 - 2002   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 1/1 – 5/1 4 2 6/1 – 12/1 3 3 13/1 – 19/1 11 0 20/1 – 26/1 7 1 27/1 – 2/2 10 2 3/2 – 9/2 8 0 10/2 – 16/2 3 1 17/2 – 23/2 10 0 24/2 – 2/3 3 1 3/3 – 9/3 8 4 10/3 – 16/3 5 1 17/3 – 23/3 5 1 24/3 – 30/3 3 0 31/3 – 6/4 4 1 7/4 – 13/4 4 2 14/4 – 20/4 2 2 21/4 – 27/4 2 1 28/4 – 4/5 4 0 5/5 – 11/5 2 1 12/5 – 18/5 1 0 19/5 – 23/5 2 0 26/5 – 1/6 3 2 2/6 – 8/6 1 0 9/6 – 15/6 2 2 16/6 – 22/6 4 2 23/6 – 29/6 1 3 30/6 – 6/7 4 2 7/7 – 13/7 3 3 14/7 – 20/7 6 3 21/7 – 27/7 2 1 28/7 – 3/8 2 1 4/8 – 10/8 3 1 11/8 – 17/8 2 0 18/8 – 24/8 7 2 25/8 – 31/8 6 10 1/9 – 7/9 7 3 8/9 – 14/9 6 1 15/9 – 21/9 7 0 22/9 – 28/9 8 1 29/9 – 5/10 2 1 6/10 – 12/10 8 2 13/10 – 19/10 8 5 20/10 – 26/10 15 3 27/10 – 2/11 6 3 3/11 – 9/11 2 1 10/11 – 16/11 7 3 17/11 – 23/11 3 0 24/11 – 30/11 7 2 1/12 – 7/12 10 2 8/12 – 14/12 7 0 15/12 – 21/12 6 2 22/12 – 28/12 8 1 29/12 – 31/12 0 1 - 2003   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 1/1 – 4/1 0 2 5/1 – 11/1 12 2 12/1 – 18/1 5 1 19/1 – 25/1 5 2 26/1 – 1/2 7 1 2/2 – 8/2 5 2 9/2 – 15/2 5 1 16/2 – 22/2 5 1 23/2 – 1/3 7 4 2/3 – 8/3 1 0 9/3 – 15/3 7 0 16/3 – 22/3 4 2 23/3 – 29/3 3 0 30/3 – 5/4 9 1 6/4 – 12/4 5 3 13/4 – 19/4 7 2 20/4 – 26/4 7 1 27/4 – 3/5 2 1 4/5 – 10/5 8 2 11/5 – 17/5 6 2 18/5   – 24/5 2 3 25/5 – 31/5 9 3 1/6 – 7/6 6 1 8/6 – 14/6 4 3 15/6 – 21/6 6 5 22/6 – 28/6 3 1 29/6 – 5/7 9 5 6/7 – 12/7 8 2 13/7 – 19/7 3 3 20/7 – 26/7 6 7 27/7 – 2/8 5 6 3/8 – 9/8 5 4 10/8 – 16/8 2 3 17/8 – 23/8 7 5 24/8 – 30/8 4 4 31/8 – 6/9 7 3 7/9 – 13/9 3 1 14/9 – 20/9 1 2 21/9 – 27/9 5 4 28/9 – 4/10 4 6 5/10 – 11/10 8 8 12/10 – 18/10 6 3 19/10 – 25/10 10 3 26/10 – 1/11 5 4 2/11 – 8/11 6 3 9/11 – 15/11 7 2 16/11 – 22/11 7 0 23/11 – 29/11 12 0 30/11 – 6/12 11 4 7/12 – 13/12 11 12 14/12 – 20/12 7 1 21/12 – 27/12 7 3 28/12 – 31/12 5 4 - 2004   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 1/1 – 3/1 3 4 4/1 – 10/1 6 4 11/1 – 17/1 9 5 18/1 – 24/1 5 3 25/1 – 31/1 11 4 1/2 - 7/2 7 5 8/2 – 14/2 9 4 15/2 – 21/2 8 4 22/2 – 28/2 8 2 29/2 – 6/3 2 2 7/3 – 13/3 6 6 14/3 – 20/3 3 4 21/3 – 27/3 11 3 28/3 – 3/4 11 9 4/4 – 10/4 6 7 11/4 – 17/4 9 6 18/4 – 24/4 5 8 25/4 – 1/5 6 8 2/5 – 8/5 6 6 9/5 – 15/5 5 6 16/5 – 22/5 5 2 23/5 – 29/5 7 1 30/5 – 5/6 5 4 6/6 – 12/6 5 6 13/6 – 19/6 6 5 20/6 – 26/6 10 6 27/6 – 3/7 8 4 4/7 – 10/7 4 6 11/7 – 17/7 5 4 18/7 – 24/7 10 6 25/7 – 31/7 13 7 1/8 – 7/8 18 13 8/8 – 14/8 7 2 15/8 – 21/8 13 3 22/8 – 28/8 11 4 29/8 – 4/9 9 5 5/9 – 11/9 8 6 12/9 – 18/9 6 8 19/9 – 25/9 8 7 26/9 – 2/10 10 4 3/10 – 9/10 5 6 10/10 – 16/10 3 6 17/10 – 23/10 3 1 24/10 – 30/10 6 4 31/10 – 6/11 6 7 7/11 – 13/11 4 2 14/11 – 20/11 5 2 21/11 – 27/11 6 1 28/11 – 4/12 3 2 5/12 – 11/12 6 8 12/12 – 18/12 5 0 19/12 - 25/12 8 3 26/12 – 31/12 10 5 - 2005   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 1/1 1 1 2/1 – 8/1 9 3 9/1 – 15/1 4 2 16/1 – 22/1 8 2 23/1 – 29/1 7 4 30/1 – 5/2 1 6 6/2 – 12/2 4 5 13/2 – 19/2 4 2 20/2 – 26/2 8 3 27/2 – 5/3 8 2 6/3 – 12/3 5 2 13/3 – 19/3 8 4 20/3 – 26/3 8 5 27/3 – 2/4 5 2 3/4 - 9/4 8 3 10/4 – 16/4 6 2 17/4 – 23/4 10 4 24/4 – 30/4 4 3 1/5 – 7/5 11 4 8/5 – 14/5 3 2 15/5 – 21/5 5 1 22/5 – 28/5 7 4 29/5 – 4/6 8 4 5/6 – 11/6 4 7 12/6 – 18/6 9 10 19/6 – 25/6 7 4 26/6 – 2/7 9 4 3/7 – 9/7 5 7 10/7 – 16/7 4 4 17/7 – 23/7 3 3 24/7 – 30/7 7 4 31/7 – 6/8 3 4 7/8 – 13/8 4 1 14/8 – 20/8 8 4 21/8 – 27/8 6 5 28/8 – 3/9 4 2 4/9 – 10/9 8 5 11/9 – 17/9 5 1 18/9 – 24/9 3 3 25/9 – 1/10 3 3 2/10 – 8/10 9 4 9/10 – 15/10 5 3 16/10 – 22/10 4 2 23/10 – 29/10 6 6 30/10 – 5/11 3 4 6/11 – 12/11 8 4 13/11 – 19/11 7 3 20/11 – 26/11 4 4 27/11 – 3/12 2 5 4/12 – 10/12 7 2 11/12 – 17/12 6 5 18/12 – 24/12 6 5 25/12 – 31/12 13 6 - 2006   (i) (ii) Week Take-Offs Landings 1/1 – 7/1 6 8 8/1 – 14/1 4 2 15/1 - 21/1 0 7 22/1 – 28/1 3 3 29/1 – 4/2 2 4 5/2 – 11/2 2 5 12/2 – 18/2 1 2 19/2 – 25/2 5 5 26/2 – 4/3 4 6 5/3 – 11/3 1 1 12/3 – 18/3 2 5 19/3 – 25/3 4 7 26/3 – 1/4 1 4 2/4 – 8/4 4 3 9/4 – 15/4 2 7 16/4 – 22/4 5 10 23/4 – 29/4 7 9 30/4 – 6/5 6 3 7/5 – 13/5 2 9 14/5 – 20/5 5 5 21/5 – 27/5 3 7 28/5 – 3/6 2 2 4/6 – 10/6 1 5 11/6 – 17/6 9 6 18/6 – 24/6 5 6 25/6 – 1/7 3 3 2/7 – 8/7 1 11 9/7 – 15/7 6 7 16/7 – 22/7 8 12 23/7 – 29/7 3 6 30/7 – 5/8 5 9 6/8 – 12/8 5 9 13/8 – 19/8 5 6 20/8 – 26/8 7 7 27/8 – 2/9 4 9 3/9 – 9/9 7 12 10/9 – 16/9 1 9 17/9 – 23/9 6 6 24/9 – 30/9 5 5 1/10 – 7/10 4 7 8/10 – 14/10 5 8 15/10 – 21/10 1 9 22/10 – 28/10 2 5 29/10 – 4/11 4 6 5/11 – 11/11 1 7 12/11 – 18/11 6 7 19/11 – 25/11 4 11 26/11 – 2/12 4 9 3/12 – 9/12 4 11 10/12 – 16/12 5 10 17/12 – 23/12 4 7 24/12 – 30/12 4 4 31/12 0 0 Attachment B 2000 – please note that information sought before 4 August 2000 is not available. (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Arrival 4/08/2000 0455 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Southcare Rescue Helicopter Departure 4/08/2000 0528 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 20 year old male with spinal injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 4/08/2000 2319 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old female for heart/lung transplant. Arrival 6/08/2000 0120 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 day old baby with bronchitis and apnoeic episodes. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 7/08/2000 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old female with heart block. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 7/08/2000 0153 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) Medical flight. Arrival 9/08/2000 0503   Medical emergency on board. Arrival 11/08/2000 0252 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 month old baby with pharyngeal trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 11/08/2000 2332 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 7 year old female with pneumonia and encephalitis. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 12/08/2000 0103 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Southcare Rescue Helicopter Departure 13/08/2000 2346 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight Departure 14/08/2000 0457 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 36 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 15/08/2000 0416 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Southcare Rescue Helicopter Departure 15/08/2000 0456 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Southcare Rescue Helicopter Arrival 15/08/2000 0531 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 66 year old male with extra dural haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 20/08/2000 0039 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 day old baby with bronchitis and apnoiec episodes. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 20/08/2000 0218 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd As for VH-AMM 0039 20/8/00 Arrival 20/08/2000 0249 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 41 year old male with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 20/08/2000 0306 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Pick up medical retrieval team. Arrival 22/08/2000 0324 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical flight. Arrival 25/08/2000 0112 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) Medical flight Arrival 27/08/2000 0156 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 28/08/2000 0230 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 22 year old female with ante partum haemorrhage. 19 month old child with traumatic pancreatitis and fractured tibia. Arrival 2/09/2000 0541 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 month old baby with Bronchilolitis. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 10/09/2000 0455 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old male with dissecting thoracic anuerysm. Arrival 11/09/2000 0215 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) Medical Flight Departure 13/09/2000 0237   Southcare Rescue Helicopter Arrival 13/09/2000 2347 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 62 year old male post cardiac arrest. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 14/09/2000 0220 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 23 year old male with 65% burns. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 16/09/2000 0359 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old female with head injuries. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 18/09/2000 0134 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 9 year old male with head injuries. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 18/09/2000 0342 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Transport of Medical retrieval team for 4 month old baby with respiratory distress. Arrival 20/09/2000 0018 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old female with sub dural haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 22/09/2000 0226 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old male with unstable angina. Departure 22/09/2000 2311 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 12 year old male with kidney trauma. Arrival 23/09/2000 0211 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above patient. Arrival 25/09/2000 0001 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old female with abdominal trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 26/09/2000 2321 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old female with severe aortic regurgitation, 38 weeks pregnant. Arrival 28/09/2000 2313 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 41 year old female with CA ovary. Arrival 29/09/2000 0530 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 54 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 30/09/2000 0045 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Transport of Medical retrieval team for 2 year old male with sub dural haematoma. Arrival 30/09/2000 0212 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with congenital heart disease. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 3/10/2000 0007 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 60 year old male with unstable angina. Arrival 10/10/2000 2327 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 month old baby with bronchiolitis. Arrival 11/10/2000 0053 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old male for heart transplant. Departure 14/10/2000 0453 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 29 year old male with extra dural haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 16/10/2000 2313 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 26 year old female, premature labour. Arrival 16/10/2000 2357 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Medical retrieval team transport for 10 month old baby with brain tumour. Arrival 17/10/2000 0348 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 74 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 17/10/2000 2314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 62 year old male with unstable angina. Departure 30/10/2000 0550 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Medical retrieval team transport for newborn baby. Arrival 1/11/2000 0424 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with heart disease. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 6/11/2000 0443 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 month old baby with pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 6/11/2000 2301 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 87 year old female with fractured femur. Arrival 7/11/2000 0429 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 month old baby with pyloric stenosis and 55 year old female with infected femoral graft. Arrival 10/11/2000 0317   Recue helicopter. Arrival 11/11/2000 2303 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 71 year old female with unstable angina. Arrival 12/11/2000 0132 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Test Flight (engineer's clearance for emergency flight). Arrival 12/11/2000 0139 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 75 year old male with acute myocardial infarction and abdominal aortic aneurism. Departure 12/11/2000 0448 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old male with respiratory distress. Arrival 13/11/2000 2300 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Flight. Arrival 13/11/2000 2357 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 14/11/2000 0443 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Flight. Departure 15/11/2000 0123 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female, overdose. Arrival 16/11/2000 0330 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 57 year old female with pulmonary oedema, ? Acute myocardial infarction. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 18/11/2000 0125 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 16 year old female with closed head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 18/11/2000 0256 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 year old with compound fractured middle finger. Arrival 19/11/2000 0130 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 23 year old male severe arm laceration. Departure 20/11/2000 0105 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 29 year old female, premature labour. Arrival 20/11/2000 0256 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Arrival 20/11/2000 0504 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) Medical Flight. Departure 21/11/2000 0103 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 16 year old male with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 21/11/2000 0347 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 16 year old male with closed head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 21/11/2000 0458 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See 01:03am departure. Departure 22/11/2000 0118 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 46 year old female with spinal cord compression. 22 year old male with cancer of testes. Arrival 24/11/2000 0449 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 14 year old male with burns. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 25/11/2000 0135 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old female with spinal and head trauma. Arrival 25/11/2000 0333 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 28/11/2000 2314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 year old female with closed head injury. Departure 29/11/2000 0042 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 26 year old pregnant female with pre eclampsia, hypertension. Arrival 29/11/2000 0315 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 49 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 30/11/2000 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) Medical Flight. Arrival 6/12/2000 2318 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 74 year old female with cardiac failure. Arrival 9/12/2000 0033 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 64 year old male with bowel obstruction. Arrival 10/12/2000 0202 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 25 year old male with burns. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 10/12/2000 0308 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 10/12/2000 0527 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Arrival 12/12/2000 2339 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 74 year old male with pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 14/12/2000 0234 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 15/12/2000 0119 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female in premature labour, foetal abnormalities. Arrival 18/12/2000 0034 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old male with burns. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 18/12/2000 0146 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 3 year old female with ingection of alkaline substance. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 18/12/2000 0532 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Arrival 19/12/2000 0205 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 59 year old male with acute myocardial infarction and 73 year old male with spinal cord compression. Arrival 19/12/2000 0237 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 11 month old baby with head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 21/12/2000 0534 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Transport of Medical retrieval team for newborn with lung collapse. Arrival 22/12/2000 0338 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 28/12/2000 0446 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 year old female with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 28/12/2000 0539 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 67 year old female with respiratory arrest. Medical retrieval team on board. 67 year old female with ischaemic arm. Arrival 29/12/2000 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 7 year old male with septic arthritis of ankle and 48 year old male with unstable angina. Arrival 29/12/2000 0502 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Medical Flight. Arrival 31/12/2000 0227 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 7 year old male with ? Hepatitis. Medical retrieval team on board. 2001 (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Departure 5/01/2001 0108 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 11 year old male with pulmonary oedema. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 6/01/2001 0204 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 12 year old male with head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 6/01/2001 0456 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 17 year old female with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 7/01/2001 0055 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 24 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 7/01/2001 0257 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Arrival 9/01/2001 0003 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 8 month old baby with pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 9/01/2001 0435 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 33 year old male with spinal fractures and 61 year old male with detached retina. Arrival 10/01/2001 0011 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 22 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 10/01/2001 0330 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 year old male with cardiac abnormality and respiratory infection. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 12/01/2001 0120 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 87 year old female with sub dural haematoma, Arrival 12/01/2001 2313 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 11 year old male with spinal fractures. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 12/01/2001 2334 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 67 year old male with unstable angina and 45 year old female with sepsis liver failure. Arrival 13/01/2001 0206 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 3 year old male with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 13/01/2001 2312 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 59 year old male with liver cancer. Arrival 14/01/2001 0444 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 50 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 14/01/2001 2326 Information not available Medical Flight. Departure 14/01/2001 2334 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 25 year old female in premature labour. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 16/01/2001 0025 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 16/01/2001 0321 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 month old baby with hypertension of pregnancy. Arrival 19/01/2001 0212 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 month old baby with intussusception. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 20/01/2001 0340 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 22/01/2001 2322 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 45 year old female with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 23/01/2001 0301 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 69 year old male with acute renal failure. Arrival 25/01/2001 0210 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 3 year old male with fitting. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 25/01/2001 0329 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 26/01/2001 0344 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old female with intracerebral haemorrhage. Arrival 27/01/2001 0304 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old male with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 28/01/2001 0435 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female with antepartum haemorrhage. Arrival 28/01/2001 2319 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old male with intracerebral haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 30/01/2001 0028 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 26 year old female with premature rupture of membranes - 28 weeks. Arrival 30/01/2001 2332 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 10 year old female with blocked shunt. Arrival 31/01/2001 0013 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 75 year old female with mitral valve stenosis. Arrival 1/02/2001 0359 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 2/02/2001 0421 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 day old baby with cardiac murmur. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 2/02/2001 0436 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 33 year old male with Acute Myocardial Infarction. Arrival 5/02/2001 0345 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 5/02/2001 2327 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female - premature labour. Arrival 6/02/2001 0135 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 61 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. 75 year old male with unstable angina. Arrival 6/02/2001 2322 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with diaphragmatic hernia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 7/02/2001 0105 Ansett Australia Ltd Aircraft landed on Runway 34R due to Runway 34L closed for minor repair 00:52am to 01:22am. Arrival 11/02/2001 0132 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 11/02/2001 0202 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 70 year old male with unstable angina. Departure 12/02/2001 2323 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old female post partum haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 13/02/2001 2350 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 39 year old male with bleeding varices. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 14/02/2001 2312 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old male with gunshot wound to face. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 15/02/2001 2305 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old male with spinal fusion instability. Arrival 16/02/2001 0344 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 45 year old male with multi trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 18/02/2001 0538 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 61 year old male with Fourieres gangrene. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 22/02/2001 0300 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 23/02/2001 0049 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 44 year old female with hepatic renal and respiratory failure. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 23/02/2001 0203 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 year old female with multi trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 25/02/2001 0154 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 25/02/2001 0256 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 27/02/2001 0225 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 38 year old male with multi trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 1/03/2001 0418 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 year old female with acute leukemia. Arrival 1/03/2001 0508 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 48 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 3/03/2001 0047 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 71 year old male with unstable angina. 51 year old male with aplastic anaemia. Arrival 3/03/2001 0228 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 57 year old male with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Arrival 5/03/2001 2307 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 75 year old male with abdominal aortic aneurism. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 5/03/2001 2342 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 17 year old female with osteosarcoma and decreased white cell count. Arrival 7/03/2001 0003 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old female with double vessel disease. 70 year old female with fractured pubic rami, chronic renal failure and arterial graft. Arrival 7/03/2001 0034 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 76 year old female with unstable angina. 76 year old female with sick sinus syndrome. Arrival 10/03/2001 0451 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight Departure 11/03/2001 0051 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old female with ante partum haemorrhage - premature labour. 19 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 11/03/2001 0106 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old male with unstable angina. Arrival 11/03/2001 0458 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd see departure 0051 11/3/01. Arrival 13/03/2001 0009 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 13/03/2001 0245 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 13/03/2001 0323 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 67 year old male with ischaemic foot. Arrival 13/03/2001 0533 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Medical retrieval team transport for 7 week old baby with apnoea. Arrival 20/03/2001 0014 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old female with ruptured oesophagus, sepsis. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 26/03/2001 2335 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. 76 year old female with complete heart block. Arrival 28/03/2001 0200 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 28/03/2001 0400 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with asphyxia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 28/03/2001 2333 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old male with hip dislocation. Arrival 29/03/2001 2305 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 59 year old male and 78 year old female with thromocytopaenia. Arrival 30/03/2001 0156 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female with ante partum haemorrhage. Arrival 1/04/2001 0149 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old female with ante partum haemorrhage. Arrival 2/04/2001 0011 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 20 year old female with pregnancy induced hypertension. Medical retrieval team on board Arrival 2/04/2001 0015 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old male with fractured C5/6. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 2/04/2001 0423 E Brown Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 3/04/2001 0137 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 62 year old female with mycotic aneurysm of the carotid artery. Arrival 4/04/2001 0457 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 6/04/2001 2355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight Arrival 7/04/2001 0116 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Birth Asphyxia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 12/04/2001 0250 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 51 year old female with unstable chest wall pain. Departure 14/04/2001 0553 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 24 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 17/04/2001 0103 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old male with a closed head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 19/04/2001 2355 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 74 year old male with unstable fracture C6/7. Arrival 20/04/2001 0222 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 43 year old male with a sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Departure 22/04/2001 0043 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Medical retrieval team transport to premature baby with apnoea. Arrival 22/04/2001 0307 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 66 year old female with chronic airways limitation. Ventilator dependent. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 26/04/2001 0007 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Medical Flight Departure 27/04/2001 2339 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 year old male with cardiac arrhythmias. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 29/04/2001 0037 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight Departure 29/04/2001 0128 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 30/04/2001 0018 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 89 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Departure 30/04/2001 2343 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 28 year old female in premature labour with twins at 32 weeks. Arrival 1/05/2001 0019 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 77 year old male with anterior acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 2/05/2001 0100 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 4/05/2001 0249 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 6/05/2001 2306 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 44 year old male in respiratory failure ? Drug overdose. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 8/05/2001 0114 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 75 year old female with acute pneumonia. Arrival 8/05/2001 0123 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 9/05/2001 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 9/05/2001 0021 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 39 year old female with an aneurysm. Arrival 9/05/2001 0330 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 25 year old female in acute acute renal failure. Arrival 10/05/2001 2318 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 72 year old male with a sub dural haematoma. Arrival 11/05/2001 0408 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 year old female with meningococcal septacemia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 13/05/2001 0030 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 41 year old male with cardiac arrest. Arrival 13/05/2001 0145 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 13/05/2001 0344 Avtex Air Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 18/05/2001 0102 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 50 year old male with a sub arachnoid haemorrhage grade 1. Arrival 18/05/2001 0157 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 78 year old male with an acute myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease. Arrival 18/05/2001 0335 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 18/05/2001 0354 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd see departure 01:02. Arrival 18/05/2001 2346 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 40 year old male with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina. Arrival 20/05/2001 0043 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd see departure 22:57 (19/05/01). Departure 21/05/2001 0119 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 51 year old male with a head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 21/05/2001 0512 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd see departure 01:19. Arrival 21/05/2001 0553 Queensland Treasury Corporatio Medical Flight. Arrival 22/05/2001 0444 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 22/05/2001 2342 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old male with multiple fractures and ruptured bladder. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 25/05/2001 0403 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 26/05/2001 0535 Lloyd Offshore Helicopters Pty Medical Flight. Departure 26/05/2001 0547 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 33 year old female with an extra dural haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 29/05/2001 0234 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 66 year old male with cerebral tumour for urgent treatment. Arrival 29/05/2001 2315 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old female with an acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina. Arrival 30/05/2001 2316 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 year old male with leukemia for urgent treatment. Arrival 1/06/2001 0451 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 day old baby with respiratory distress. Arrival 1/06/2001 2340 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 70 year old male with multiple myeloma, sick sinus syndrome. Arrival 4/06/2001 0208 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 23 month old baby with Bronchiolitis, pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 6/06/2001 0041 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old female with intracerebral event. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 11/06/2001 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old male with spinal injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 11/06/2001 0430 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old male with head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 12/06/2001 0250 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 15/06/2001 0024 Southern Region Slsa Heli Resc Medical Flight. Departure 15/06/2001 0047 Southern Region Slsa Heli Resc Medical Flight. Arrival 15/06/2001 0451 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old male with knife wound to heart. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 17/06/2001 0338 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 89 year old female with cardigenic shock. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 18/06/2001 0353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Transport medical retrieval team and fire personnel to HAZMAT incident. Arrival 18/06/2001 2309 One Air Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 19/06/2001 0035 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 69 year old female with intracerebral bleed and aspiration pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 21/06/2001 0552 One Air Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 22/06/2001 2317 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 11 day old baby with Bronchiolitis. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 23/06/2001 2344 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn premature baby. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 24/06/2001 0055 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old male with multiple trauma. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 24/06/2001 0348 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 34 year old female in premature labour with twins. Arrival 24/06/2001 0523 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd see previous departure 0055. Arrival 24/06/2001 0550 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd see previous departure 0348. Arrival 25/06/2001 0009 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Departure 25/06/2001 0034 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Departed to pick up patient with unstable angina, aircraft windscreen shattered, returned to Sydney. Arrival 27/06/2001 2301 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 28/06/2001 0108 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Baby with congenital abnormalities. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 29/06/2001 0553 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 40 year old female with cerebral spasm. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 1/07/2001 2340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 2/07/2001 0115 Five Star Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 9/07/2001 0430 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with respiratory distress. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 10/07/2001 0108 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 10/07/2001 0132 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 9 year old male with cardiomyopathy. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 10/07/2001 2319 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 36 year old female with atrial fibrillation. Arrival 10/07/2001 2324 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 11/07/2001 0117 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 10 month old baby with blocked shunt. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 12/07/2001 2332 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 48 year old male with penetrating chest injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 23/07/2001 0134 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old female with chicken pox, respiratory distress. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 27/07/2001 0025 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Arrival 27/07/2001 0348 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 7 month old baby with meningococcal septicaemia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 28/07/2001 0510 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 15 year old female with failed fistula and 75 year old male with infected shunt. Arrival 28/07/2001 0520 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 22 year old male with spinal injury. Arrival 30/07/2001 0008 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 72 year old female with intracerebral haemorrhage. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 30/07/2001 0306 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 58 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Departure 30/07/2001 0355 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old male with cerebral infarction. Arrival 31/07/2001 0215 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 56 year old male quadraplegic with respiratory failure. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 3/08/2001 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS Arrival 11/08/2001 0057 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 33 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 11/08/2001 0103 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 52 year old male with head injuries. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 13/08/2001 0414 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with respiratory distress. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 14/08/2001 0353 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 15/08/2001 0151 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old male with head injury. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 22/08/2001 0505 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS Arrival 22/08/2001 2305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS Arrival 23/08/2001 2308 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 year old male with fractured femur. 35 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 26/08/2001 0046 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 74 year old male with pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 26/08/2001 0347 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female in premature labour. Departure 28/08/2001 2326 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 17 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 29/08/2001 0414 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 22 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 29/08/2001 2334 Lessbrook Pty Ltd In flight emergency. One engine shut down. Arrival 29/08/2001 2351 National Jet Systems Pty Ltd Runway 34L not available due to VH-TFG in flight emergency. Departure 30/08/2001 0501 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 3 year old male with epilepsy. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 31/08/2001 0056 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old male with acute renal failure. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 31/08/2001 2310 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 12 year old female with pneumonia. Medical retrieval team on board. Arrival 3/09/2001 0147 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old male with multiple trauma. Departure 3/09/2001 0358 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 56 year old male with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Departure 6/09/2001 0130 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd SouthCare Helicopter Arrival 6/09/2001 0147 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 month old baby with pneumonia. Departure 6/09/2001 0510 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 76 year old female with pulmonary oedema, post respiratory and cardiac arrest. Arrival 7/09/2001 0333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS Arrival 9/09/2001 0012 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 year old male with partial amputation of fingers. Arrival 9/09/2001 0050 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 80 year old male with heart block. 53 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 11/09/2001 0238 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old male with sub dural haemorrhage. Arrival 11/09/2001 0448 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 12/09/2001 0307 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female - threatened premature labour. Departure 13/09/2001 0306 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 day old baby with cardiac and respiratory problems. Arrival 15/09/2001 0316 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 12 year old female with spinal trauma. Arrival 16/09/2001 0018 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 year old male with pneumonia. Departure 16/09/2001 0039 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 16/09/2001 0530 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Arrival 17/09/2001 2309 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 47 year old male with status epilepticus. Arrival 21/09/2001 0123 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 35 year old male with spinal trauma. 85 year old female with heart block. Arrival 23/09/2001 0547 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 month old baby with bronchiolitis. Departure 24/09/2001 0219 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 24/09/2001 2309 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 25/09/2001 0545 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 35 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 25/09/2001 2324 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 24 year old male with ischaemic leg. Arrival 26/09/2001 0547 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 month old baby with pneumonia. Arrival 27/09/2001 0424 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 53 year old male with spinal trauma. Arrival 27/09/2001 0531 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 43 year old female - threatened premature labour with triplets. Arrival 29/09/2001 2310 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 40 year old male with multiple trauma. Departure 30/09/2001 0133 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Departure 30/09/2001 0201 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old female with spinal trauma and 62 year old male with spinal trauma. Arrival 30/09/2001 0504 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Departure 1/10/2001 0108 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 34 year old male with drug overdose. Arrival 1/10/2001 0521 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd See above. Arrival 3/10/2001 2328 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 61 year old female with leaking sub clavian artery. Arrival 4/10/2001 0325 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 17 year old female with multiple trauma. 79 year old female with decomposing cornea. Arrival 4/10/2001 2315 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 day old baby with respiratory distress. Arrival 7/10/2001 0420 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 8/10/2001 0209 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old female with head injury. Arrival 8/10/2001 0446 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 12/10/2001 0457 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Deliver Medical retrieval team for newborn. Arrival 14/10/2001 0238 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Medical Flight. Arrival 20/10/2001 0245 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 12 day old baby with respiratory distress. Arrival 21/10/2001 0029 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 54 year old male with sub dural haemorrhage. Arrival 21/10/2001 2321 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 73 year old female with multiple trauma. Departure 21/10/2001 2356 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 month old baby with respiratory distress. Departure 23/10/2001 0552 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old female with blocked shunt. Arrival 23/10/2001 0553 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 43 year old male with traumatic facial injuries. Arrival 26/10/2001 0019 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 77 year old male post cardiac arrest. Departure 27/10/2001 0001 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S Medical Flight. Departure 29/10/2001 0137 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 29 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 29/10/2001 2301 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 81 year old with abdominal aortic anuerysm. Arrival 30/10/2001 0400 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 20 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 30/10/2001 0404 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Aircraft returned to Sydney with unserviceability. Arrival 2/11/2001 0141 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 month old baby with organophosphate poisoning. Arrival 3/11/2001 0210 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female - premature labour. Arrival 5/11/2001 0541 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 month old baby with apnoea. Arrival 6/11/2001 2302 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 79 year old with acute bowel obstruction. Arrival 7/11/2001 0108 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 61 year old male with head injury. Arrival 7/11/2001 0352 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 54 year old female for heart transplant. Departure 7/11/2001 0545 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 7/11/2001 2308 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old male with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. 68 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 8/11/2001 0102 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old female with spinal compression. Arrival 8/11/2001 0253 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 year old male with asthma. Arrival 8/11/2001 0359 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 56 year old male with congestive cardiac failure. 56 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 11/11/2001 0309 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 13 year old female with pneumonia. Arrival 14/11/2001 2309 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 9 month old baby with meningitis. Arrival 17/11/2001 0434 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 47 year old male with sub dural haemorrhage. Arrival 18/11/2001 0222 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old male with head injury. Arrival 19/11/2001 0107 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old male with cardiac arrhythmia. Arrival 20/11/2001 0102 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with congenital heart disease. Arrival 20/11/2001 0500 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 75 year old male with second degree heart block. Arrival 21/11/2001 2339 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 3 month old baby with respiratory distress. 65 year old female with unstable angina. Arrival 22/11/2001 0144 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS. Arrival 23/11/2001 0020 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 80 year old female with head trauma. Arrival 23/11/2001 0403 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 40 year old male with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Arrival 23/11/2001 0511 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 66 year old male with upper gastrointestinal bleed. Departure 26/11/2001 0051 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old female - drug overdose. Departure 26/11/2001 0120 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female - premature labour. Arrival 27/11/2001 0312 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 46 year old with head injury. Arrival 28/11/2001 0010 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 36 year old male with unstable angina. 70 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 1/12/2001 0335 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 15 year old male with head injury. Departure 3/12/2001 0013 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 57 year old female with cardiogenic shock. Arrival 3/12/2001 0345 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to departure at 00:13. Arrival 3/12/2001 2347 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS. Arrival 4/12/2001 0015 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Transport Medical Retrieval Team for premature baby. Arrival 4/12/2001 0307 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 77 year old male with sub dural haematoma. Arrival 4/12/2001 0507 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature baby. Arrival 5/12/2001 0227 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern S RFDS. Arrival 5/12/2001 0242 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 61 year old male with head injury. Arrival 5/12/2001 0244 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 53 year old male with unstable angina. 60 year old male with cardiac arrythmia. Arrival 5/12/2001 0534 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 76 year old female with heart block. 69 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 6/12/2001 0156 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 7/12/2001 0449 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 28 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 7/12/2001 2324 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 76 year old male with pleural effusion. 51 year old female with shunt infection. Arrival 8/12/2001 0358 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 week old baby with seizures. Arrival 8/12/2001 0421 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 60 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Departure 9/12/2001 0206 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 52 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Arrival 9/12/2001 0504 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 10/12/2001 0500 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 11/12/2001 0143 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 year old male with burns. Arrival 12/12/2001 0033 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 68 year old male with complete heart block. Arrival 13/12/2001 2356 M/v Purchasing Company Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 15/12/2001 0353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old female with renal failure. Arrival 15/12/2001 0504 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 68 year old female with sub arachnoid haemorrhage. Arrival 15/12/2001 2351 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 52 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 17/12/2001 0140 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old female in premature labour. Departure 18/12/2001 0052 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn and 2 day old baby with duodenal stenosis. Departure 20/12/2001 0359 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature twins. Arrival 20/12/2001 2314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 9 year old female with failed cardiac pacemaker. Arrival 21/12/2001 2319 Rfds (central Section) RFDS. Arrival 22/12/2001 0055 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 20 year old female in premature labour. Departure 22/12/2001 0258 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 year old male with seizures. Arrival 22/12/2001 0519 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 23/12/2001 0413 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 24/12/2001 0014 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 25/12/2001 0251 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Southcare Helicopter. Arrival 26/12/2001 0027 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 8 year old male with intracerebral haemorrhage. Arrival 26/12/2001 0127 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 year old male with acute abdomen. Departure 26/12/2001 0212 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 26/12/2001 0350 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to departure at 02:12. Arrival 26/12/2001 0434 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 26 year old male with spinal trauma, post cardio/respiratory arrest. Departure 27/12/2001 0026 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old female with pregnancy induced hypertension. Arrival 27/12/2001 0207 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to departure at 00:26. Departure 27/12/2001 0310 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 16 year old female in premature labour. Departure 27/12/2001 0406 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 28/12/2001 0003 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 29 year old female in premature labour. Departure 30/12/2001 0041 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 40 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 30/12/2001 0112 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 30/12/2001 0511 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to departure at 00:41. Arrival 30/12/2001 2332 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 66 year old female with unstable angina. 60 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 30/12/2001 2346 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 12 year old male with blocked shunt. Departure 31/12/2001 0058 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 75 year old female with guillian barre syndrome. Arrival 31/12/2001 0426 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to departure at 00:58. 2002 (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Arrival 2/01/2002 0405 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 29 year old female in premature labour. Departure 2/01/2002 2326 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Transfer of medical personnel to Nowra for bushfire situation. Arrival 3/01/2002 0029 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Return of aircraft from above transfer. Arrival 3/01/2002 0246 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old female in premature labour. Departure 3/01/2002 2356 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 7 year old male with head injury. Arrival 4/01/2002 0448 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 23:56 departure. Departure 7/01/2002 0544 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with respiratory distress. Departure 8/01/2002 0034 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female with pregnancy induced hypertension. Arrival 8/01/2002 0241 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 00:34 departure. Departure 8/01/2002 0517 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 1 year old male with sepsis. Arrival 10/01/2002 0252 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 10/01/2002 2315 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with respiratory distress. Arrival 13/01/2002 0032 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 24 year old female in premature labour. 25 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 13/01/2002 0208 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 43 year old male with bleeding varices. Arrival 14/01/2002 2343 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 66 year old male with pulmonary oedema. Arrival 15/01/2002 0322 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 15/01/2002 0450 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 29 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 15/01/2002 2317 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 16/01/2002 0034 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 59 year old male with unstable angina. Arrival 16/01/2002 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 81 year old female with obstructive jaundice. Arrival 17/01/2002 0108 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 17/01/2002 0130 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 year old male with penetrating eye injury. Arrival 17/01/2002 0342 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 15 month old baby with sepsis. Arrival 22/01/2002 0120 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Adult male of unknown age with multiple trauma. Arrival 23/01/2002 0334 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old female with spinal trauma. Arrival 23/01/2002 2313 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 23/01/2002 2317 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 61 year old male with thoracic aneurysm. Arrival 25/01/2002 0334 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 9 month old baby with burns. Arrival 25/01/2002 0340 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 40 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 26/01/2002 0111 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 63 year old female with acute myocardial infarction. Departure 26/01/2002 2353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 54 year old male with abdominal trauma. Departure 27/01/2002 0033 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old male with blocked femoral graft. 62 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 27/01/2002 0346 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 23:53 departure. Arrival 27/01/2002 0445 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 00:33 departure. Arrival 27/01/2002 2348 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female with head injury. Departure 30/01/2002 0059 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 59 year old male with cerebral haemorrhage. Arrival 30/01/2002 0525 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 00:59 departure. Arrival 31/01/2002 0412 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 9 month old baby with sepsis, pneumonia. Arrival 31/01/2002 2310 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 48 year old male with cardiac arrythmia. 75 year old female with cardiac arrythmia. 80 year old female with unstable angina. Arrival 1/02/2002 0351 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old female with head injury. Arrival 1/02/2002 0443 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old - threatened premature labour. Arrival 1/02/2002 0534   Medical Flight. Arrival 2/02/2002 0025 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 month old baby with head injury. Arrival 3/02/2002 0009 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 86 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 4/02/2002 0035 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Flight. Arrival 4/02/2002 0555 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 38 year old male with head injury. Arrival 5/02/2002 0039 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 80 year old female with multiple trauma. Arrival 5/02/2002 0350 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 35 year old female - threatened premature labour. Arrival 6/02/2002 0025 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 7 month old baby with pericardial effusion. Arrival 7/02/2002 0350 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 69 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 9/02/2002 0212 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 22 year old male with respiratory arrest. Arrival 12/02/2002 0210 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old female with congestive cardiac failure. Arrival 12/02/2002 2312 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 31 year old male in renal failure and 62 year old male with acute myocardial infarction. Arrival 15/02/2002 0030 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Departure 16/02/2002 0031 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 17 month old baby with burns. Arrival 17/02/2002 0046 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 79 year old male with sub dural heamorrhage. Arrival 17/02/2002 2358 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 47 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 18/02/2002 0051 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old male with partial amputation great toe. Arrival 19/02/2002 0149 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 20/02/2002 0124 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 36 year old male with blocked shunt. Arrival 21/02/2002 2316 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 71 year old female with cardiac arrhythmia. Arrival 22/02/2002 0440 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 30 year old male with head injury. Arrival 22/02/2002 0545 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old male with spinal injury. Arrival 23/02/2002 0106 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Arrival 23/02/2002 2319 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with seizures/apnoeas. Departure 26/02/2002 2319 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 46 year old female with multiple trauma. Arrival 27/02/2002 0533 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 24 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 27/02/2002 2335 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) Medical Flight. Arrival 28/02/2002 0057 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 26 year old female - threatened premature labour. Arrival 3/03/2002 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 24 year old male with multiple trauma. 48 year old female with unstable angina. Arrival 4/03/2002 2354 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 38 year old and 34 year old males with head injuries. Departure 5/03/2002 2303 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female with ante partum haemorrhage. Departure 6/03/2002 0054 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Deliver urgent blood products for baby. Aircraft became unserviceable and returned to Sydney. Refer to 01:47 arrival and 02:31 departure. Arrival 6/03/2002 0104 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 day old baby with pneumonia. Arrival 6/03/2002 0122 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 23:03 departure 5/3/02. Arrival 6/03/2002 0147 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 00:54 departure. Departure 6/03/2002 0231 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Deliver urgent blood products for baby. Transport 65 year old female with spinal trauma. Arrival 9/03/2002 0042 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 47 year old female with spinal cord compression. Arrival 9/03/2002 0304 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 42 year old female with rectal vaginal fistula. Arrival 9/03/2002 0424 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 21 year old female with pregnancy induced hypertension. Departure 9/03/2002 2352 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 10/03/2002 0039 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 60 year old with intra cerebral bleed. Arrival 10/03/2002 0227 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 year old female with bowel obstruction and viral illness. Arrival 10/03/2002 0425 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 00:39 departure. Arrival 12/03/2002 0327 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 13/03/2002 0423 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 72 year old female with acute pulmonary oedema. Arrival 14/03/2002 0339 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Departure 17/03/2002 0103 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 19 year old male with severe hand trauma. Arrival 17/03/2002 0255 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 01:03 departure. Arrival 20/03/2002 0512 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 21/03/2002 0111 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 6 year old female with multiple trauma. Arrival 22/03/2002 0155 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 14 month old male with sub mandibular swelling. 56 year old female with meningioma. Arrival 22/03/2002 0442 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 33 year old female with ante partum haemorrhage. 1 month old baby with cyanotic congenital heart disease. Arrival 27/03/2002 2347 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 41 year old male with burns. Arrival 28/03/2002 0012 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 65 year old female with multiple trauma. 13 year old male with head trauma. Arrival 28/03/2002 2314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 64 year old female with multiple trauma. Departure 1/04/2002 0209 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 22 year old female - threatened premature labour. Arrival 1/04/2002 0543 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 02:09 departure. Arrival 3/04/2002 0131 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 20 year old female - premature labour with twins. Arrival 5/04/2002 0212 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 5/04/2002 0345 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 85 year old male with hypocalcaemia. Arrival 7/04/2002 2311 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS. Arrival 8/04/2002 0558 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 9/04/2002 0330 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 25 year old female - Premature labour. Departure 10/04/2002 0300 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 55 year old male - acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock. Departure 11/04/2002 0248 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 36 eyar old female - ante partum haemorrhage. Arrival 11/04/2002 0542 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Refer to 02:48 departure. Arrival 14/04/2002 0002 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 57 year old female - sub dural haematoma. Departure 15/04/2002 0258 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Premature newborn. Arrival 19/04/2002 0256 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with diabetic keto acidosis. Departure 19/04/2002 0535 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 5 year old with burns. Departure 22/04/2002 0149 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 81 year old female - pneumonia and sepsis. Arrival 25/04/2002 0045 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 34 year old female - decreased foetal welfare. Arrival 27/04/2002 0220 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female - threatened premature labour. Arrival 28/04/2002 0007 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 8 year old male with head injury. Arrival 29/04/2002 0556 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 30/04/2002 0222 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 4 year old male with brain tumour. Arrival 1/05/2002 0521 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Newborn with diaphragmatic hernia. Departure 5/05/2002 0110 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 2 month old baby with respiratory distress syndrome. Arrival 6/05/2002 2307 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 43 year old female with pnuemothorax, respiratory distress. Arrival 10/05/2002 0522 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 27 year old female in premature labour. Arrival 18/05/2002 0505 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Twin premature newborns. Arrival 23/05/2002 0409 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 70 year old male with multiple trauma. Arrival 25/05/2002 2322 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 72 year old female with renal failure. Departure 29/05/2002 0146 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 29/05/2002 2304 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 32 year old female in premature labour. Departure 30/05/2002 0402 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd 18 year old female with overdose, pulmonary embolism. Arrival 31/05/2002 2333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/06/2002 0518 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 7/06/2002 0340 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 9/06/2002 0026 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 10/06/2002 0226 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 11/06/2002 0125 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 15/06/2002 0132 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 16/06/2002 0244 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 16/06/2002 2343 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section)  Information not available Departure 18/06/2002 0325 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 20/06/2002 2359 Jet City Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 21/06/2002 0150 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 22/06/2002 0337 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 24/06/2002 0017 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 25/06/2002 0131 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 29/06/2002 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 29/06/2002 0118 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Departure 30/06/2002 2330 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd  Information not available Arrival 1/07/2002 0438 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 3/07/2002 0008 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 3/07/2002 0102 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 5/07/2002 0123 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 5/07/2002 2343 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 7/07/2002 0041 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 8/07/2002 0148 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 13/07/2002 0219 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 13/07/2002 0233 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 13/07/2002 0528 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 13/07/2002 0545 Mr Neville Scott Pringle Medical Flight Arrival 14/07/2002 2314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 15/07/2002 0255 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 15/07/2002 0353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 17/07/2002 0139 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 19/07/2002 0033 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 19/07/2002 0048 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 19/07/2002 0235 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 19/07/2002 2322 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 20/07/2002 2352 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 21/07/2002 0141 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 21/07/2002 0313 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 25/07/2002 0202 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 30/07/2002 0104 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 1/08/2002 0248 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 2/08/2002 0319 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 4/08/2002 0044 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 5/08/2002 0127 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 5/08/2002 0209 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 8/08/2002 0435 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 14/08/2002 2355 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 15/08/2002 0014 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 18/08/2002 0216 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 19/08/2002 0041 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 21/08/2002 0033 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 21/08/2002 0412 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 22/08/2002 0135 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 22/08/2002 0312 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 22/08/2002 0412 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/08/2002 0229 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/08/2002 0320 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 25/08/2002 0303 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 26/08/2002 0531 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 26/08/2002 0534 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 27/08/2002 0028 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 28/08/2002 2321 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 29/08/2002 0005 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 0009 Pel-air Express Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 0033 National Jet Systems Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 0038 Pel-air Express Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 0055 Pacific Aviation (a'asia) Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Arrival 29/08/2002 0117 Vee H Aviation Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 0120 Pacific Aviation (a'asia) Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 0121 Horizon Airlines Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Arrival 29/08/2002 0126 National Jet Systems Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Arrival 29/08/2002 0130 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Runway lights failure Runway 16R/34L Departure 29/08/2002 2340 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 1/09/2002 0202 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 1/09/2002 0421 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 1/09/2002 2309 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 2/09/2002 0017 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 2/09/2002 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/09/2002 0048 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 2/09/2002 0316 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 3/09/2002 0001 Qantas Airways Ltd Medical Emergency. Departure 6/09/2002 0037 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 6/09/2002 0326 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 8/09/2002 0125 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 9/09/2002 0105 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 9/09/2002 2350 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 11/09/2002 0150 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 11/09/2002 0156 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 11/09/2002 2329 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 12/09/2002 0535 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 15/09/2002 0132 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 17/09/2002 0121 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/09/2002 0127 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 17/09/2002 2341 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 18/09/2002 2344 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 20/09/2002 2341 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 21/09/2002 2302 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 22/09/2002 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/09/2002 2339 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/09/2002 0013 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/09/2002 0504 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 24/09/2002 0008 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 24/09/2002 0012 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 27/09/2002 0040 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 27/09/2002 2311 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 27/09/2002 2357  Information not available Medical Flight Arrival 30/09/2002 0102 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 30/09/2002 0409 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 4/10/2002 0125 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 6/10/2002 0027 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 6/10/2002 0437 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/10/2002 0532 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 7/10/2002 0035 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 9/10/2002 0038 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 10/10/2002 0511 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 10/10/2002 2322 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/10/2002 0323 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 12/10/2002 0128 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 12/10/2002 0413 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 13/10/2002 0427 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 13/10/2002 2305 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 14/10/2002 0125 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 14/10/2002 0139 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 14/10/2002 0403 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 14/10/2002 0545 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 15/10/2002 0147 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 15/10/2002 0236 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 15/10/2002 0245 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 17/10/2002 0125 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 18/10/2002 0037 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 18/10/2002 0202 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 19/10/2002 0519 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 20/10/2002 0006 Mr Douglas Keith Thornton Medical Flight. Arrival 20/10/2002 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/10/2002 0143 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 21/10/2002 2316 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 22/10/2002 0030 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 22/10/2002 0046 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 22/10/2002 0055 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 22/10/2002 0241 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/10/2002 0332 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 23/10/2002 0124 Rfds (central Section) RFDS Departure 23/10/2002 0242 Rfds (central Section) RFDS Arrival 23/10/2002 2333 Qantas Airways Ltd Inflight Emergency. Arrival 24/10/2002 0022 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 24/10/2002 0035 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 24/10/2002 0340 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 25/10/2002 2301 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 26/10/2002 0508 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 26/10/2002 2302 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Departure 27/10/2002 0039 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 27/10/2002 0137 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 27/10/2002 0333 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 27/10/2002 0335 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 27/10/2002 0353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 27/10/2002 0416 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 27/10/2002 0515 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 28/10/2002 0001 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance. Arrival 1/11/2002 0103 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 3/11/2002 0116 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 7/11/2002 0002 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 9/11/2002 0429 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Arrival 10/11/2002 0525 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 11/11/2002 0504 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 12/11/2002 0505 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 15/11/2002 0037 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 15/11/2002 0043 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 15/11/2002 0225 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 16/11/2002 0025 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/11/2002 0041 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 16/11/2002 0139 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 16/11/2002 0155 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 22/11/2002 0021 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/11/2002 0038 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/11/2002 0052 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 25/11/2002 0559 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 26/11/2002 0104 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 28/11/2002 0029 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 28/11/2002 0338 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 29/11/2002 0003 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 29/11/2002 0040 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 29/11/2002 0227 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 29/11/2002 2318 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 30/11/2002 0334 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 1/12/2002 0100 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 1/12/2002 0450 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 1/12/2002 2331 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 5/12/2002 0024 Qantas Airways Ltd In flight emergency required aircraft to return to Sydney. Arrival 5/12/2002 0229 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 5/12/2002 0358 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 6/12/2002 0301 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 6/12/2002 0309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/12/2002 0436 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 6/12/2002 0540 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 7/12/2002 0019 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 7/12/2002 0040 Aviation Centre Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 9/12/2002 0405 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 10/12/2002 0027 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 11/12/2002 0007 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 11/12/2002 0115 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 11/12/2002 0311 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 12/12/2002 0348 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 13/12/2002 2316 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 17/12/2002 0314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 18/12/2002 0039 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 18/12/2002 0242 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 18/12/2002 0249 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 18/12/2002 0322 Mr Douglas Keith Thornton Medical Flight Arrival 18/12/2002 0554 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 20/12/2002 2351 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 21/12/2002 0406 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/12/2002 0338 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 23/12/2002 2324 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 24/12/2002 0200 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 25/12/2002 0126 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 25/12/2002 0317 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 26/12/2002 0055 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 26/12/2002 0153 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 27/12/2002 0011 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Arrival 27/12/2002 0012 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance Departure 30/12/2002 0350 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd Air Ambulance 2003 (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Departure 1/01/2003 0052 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 4/01/2003 2311 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 5/01/2003 0341 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 5/01/2003 2305 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 6/01/2003 0117 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 6/01/2003 2314 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 7/01/2003 0301 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 8/01/2003 0011 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 8/01/2003 0238 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 8/01/2003 2356 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 9/01/2003 0353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 10/01/2003 0259 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 10/01/2003 0324 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 11/01/2003 0323 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 11/01/2003 0352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/01/2003 2344 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 13/01/2003 0203 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 13/01/2003 0522 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 13/01/2003 2353 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 14/01/2003 0552 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 15/01/2003 0558 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 16/01/2003 2357 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 19/01/2003 0059 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 21/01/2003 0119 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 22/01/2003 0227 Pearl Aviation Australia Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 22/01/2003 0401 Mr Douglas Keith Thornton Medical Flight. Arrival 24/01/2003 0056 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/01/2003 0233 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/01/2003 0321 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/01/2003 0005 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/01/2003 0131 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/01/2003 0520 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/01/2003 2318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/01/2003 0007 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/01/2003 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/01/2003 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/02/2003 0015 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/02/2003 0014 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/02/2003 0242 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/02/2003 0317 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/02/2003 0128 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/02/2003 0358 Information not available Medical Flight. Departure 7/02/2003 0459 Information not available Medical Flight. Arrival 8/02/2003 2330 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight. Departure 10/02/2003 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/02/2003 0226 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/02/2003 0127 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/02/2003 0318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/02/2003 2302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/02/2003 0428 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/02/2003 0207 Rfds Of Aust (central Operations) Inc RFDS Arrival 17/02/2003 0513 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/02/2003 0403 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/02/2003 2322 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/02/2003 2350 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/02/2003 0016 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/02/2003 0057 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/02/2003 0313 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/02/2003 0142 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/02/2003 0459 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/02/2003 2328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/02/2003 0009 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/02/2003 0153 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/02/2003 0512 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/02/2003 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/03/2003 0219 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/03/2003 0445 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/03/2003 0343 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/03/2003 0256 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/03/2003 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/03/2003 2302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/03/2003 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/03/2003 0011 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/03/2003 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/03/2003 2312 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/03/2003 0159 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/03/2003 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/03/2003 0331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/03/2003 0348 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/03/2003 0450 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/03/2003 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/03/2003 0421 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/03/2003 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/03/2003 0408 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/03/2003 0258 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/03/2003 2320 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/04/2003 0401 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2003 0055 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2003 0147 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2003 0321 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/04/2003 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/04/2003 0103 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/04/2003 0242 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/04/2003 0256 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/04/2003 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/04/2003 2312 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/04/2003 0428 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/04/2003 0117 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/04/2003 0155 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/04/2003 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 12/04/2003 0403 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/04/2003 2341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/04/2003 0030 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/04/2003 0537 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/04/2003 2345 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/04/2003 0202 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/04/2003 0407 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/04/2003 2335 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/04/2003 0216 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/04/2003 0303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/04/2003 2301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/04/2003 2342 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/04/2003 2337 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/04/2003 0103 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/04/2003 0437 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/04/2003 2343 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/04/2003 0059 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/04/2003 0337 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/04/2003 0346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/04/2003 2313 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/04/2003 2336 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/05/2003 0040 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/05/2003 0116 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/05/2003 0520 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/05/2003 2345 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/05/2003 2349 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/05/2003 0002 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/05/2003 0033 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 7/05/2003 0211 Mr Douglas Keith Thornton Medical Flight Departure 8/05/2003 0043 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/05/2003 0337 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/05/2003 0147 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/05/2003 0357 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/05/2003 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/05/2003 0213 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/05/2003 0332 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/05/2003 0115 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/05/2003 0047 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/05/2003 0533 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/05/2003 0206 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/05/2003 0016 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/05/2003 0136 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/05/2003 0057 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/05/2003 0353 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/05/2003 2355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/05/2003 0313 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/05/2003 0409 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/05/2003 0024 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/05/2003 0158 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 26/05/2003 0214 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/05/2003 2319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/05/2003 0057 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/05/2003 0136 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/05/2003 0556 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/05/2003 2317 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/05/2003 2339 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/05/2003 0517 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/06/2003 0200 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/06/2003 2336 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/06/2003 0148 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 5/06/2003 0214 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/06/2003 2301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/06/2003 0022 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/06/2003 0221 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/06/2003 0148 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/06/2003 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/06/2003 0355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/06/2003 0236 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/06/2003 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/06/2003 0406 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/06/2003 2342 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 15/06/2003 0457 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight Departure 15/06/2003 2301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/06/2003 0141 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/06/2003 0207 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/06/2003 0349 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/06/2003 2307 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/06/2003 2356 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/06/2003 0305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/06/2003 2322 Information not available RFDS Departure 21/06/2003 2345 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/06/2003 2345  Information not available RFDS Departure 22/06/2003 0108 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/06/2003 0205 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/06/2003 0259 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/06/2003 0534 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/06/2003 0204 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/06/2003 0456 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/06/2003 0037 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/06/2003 0150 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/06/2003 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/06/2003 0253 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/07/2003 0528 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/07/2003 2338 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/07/2003 0552 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/07/2003 0012 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/07/2003 0308 Information not available Emergency diversion due weather. Arrival 4/07/2003 0438 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/07/2003 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/07/2003 0241 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/07/2003 0200 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/07/2003 0103 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/07/2003 0358 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/07/2003 0441 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/07/2003 0036 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/07/2003 0507 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/07/2003 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/07/2003 2316 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/07/2003 0059 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/07/2003 0026 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/07/2003 0325 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/07/2003 0231 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/07/2003 0013 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/07/2003 0359 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/07/2003 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/07/2003 0110 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/07/2003 0117 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/07/2003 0209 Executive Jet Charter Pty Ltd Medical Flight Departure 20/07/2003 0301 Executive Jet Charter Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 20/07/2003 0446 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/07/2003 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/07/2003 0245 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/07/2003 2313 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/07/2003 0057 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight Departure 24/07/2003 0215 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Departure 24/07/2003 0247 Rfds Of Aust (central Operations) Inc RFDS Arrival 24/07/2003 2306 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/07/2003 0046 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/07/2003 0346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/07/2003 0013 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/07/2003 0053 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/07/2003 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/07/2003 0303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/07/2003 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/07/2003 0457 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/07/2003 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/07/2003 0317 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/07/2003 0444 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/08/2003 0113 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/08/2003 0542 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/08/2003 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/08/2003 0227 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/08/2003 0336 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/08/2003 0450 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/08/2003 0232 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/08/2003 0112 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/08/2003 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/08/2003 0049 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/08/2003 0553 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/08/2003 0341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/08/2003 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/08/2003 0112 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/08/2003 0129 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/08/2003 0516 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/08/2003 0222 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/08/2003 0408 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/08/2003 0439 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/08/2003 0152 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/08/2003 2341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/08/2003 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/08/2003 2319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/08/2003 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/08/2003 0052 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/08/2003 0527 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/08/2003 0533 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/08/2003 0158 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/08/2003 0102 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/08/2003 0251 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/08/2003 0548 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/08/2003 2315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/08/2003 2355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/08/2003 0327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/08/2003 0531 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/08/2003 0142 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/08/2003 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/08/2003 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/08/2003 0119 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/08/2003 0350 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/08/2003 0530 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/08/2003 2326 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/09/2003 0231 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/09/2003 0404 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/09/2003 0528 Edwards Coaches Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 6/09/2003 0545 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/09/2003 0424 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/09/2003 0307 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/09/2003 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/09/2003 0415 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/09/2003 0049 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/09/2003 0014 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/09/2003 2307 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/09/2003 0406 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/09/2003 0235 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/09/2003 0440 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/09/2003 2342 Flight Charter Services Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 22/09/2003 2348 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/09/2003 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/09/2003 0425 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/09/2003 0223 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/09/2003 2339 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Medical Flight Arrival 28/09/2003 0104 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Medical Flight Departure 29/09/2003 0025 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Medical Flight Departure 30/09/2003 0435 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Medical Flight Departure 1/10/2003 0517 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/10/2003 0551 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/10/2003 0311 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/10/2003 0454 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight Departure 4/10/2003 0005 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/10/2003 0104 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 4/10/2003 0346 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 5/10/2003 0004 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/10/2003 0410 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/10/2003 0413 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/10/2003 0553 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 7/10/2003 0043 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/10/2003 0314 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/10/2003 0417 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Departure 7/10/2003 2332 Macarthur Jet Charter Medical Flight Arrival 8/10/2003 2322 Delway Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 9/10/2003 0436 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/10/2003 0022 Information not available Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 10/10/2003 0246 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/10/2003 2343 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/10/2003 0035 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/10/2003 0201 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/10/2003 0458 Rfds Of Aust (central Operations) Inc RFDS Departure 12/10/2003 0054 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/10/2003 0140 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 12/10/2003 0149 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/10/2003 0042 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/10/2003 0425 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 16/10/2003 2327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/10/2003 0013 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 17/10/2003 0227 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Departure 17/10/2003 0513 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 19/10/2003 2331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/10/2003 0056 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/10/2003 0433 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/10/2003 0002 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/10/2003 0239 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 23/10/2003 0007 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/10/2003 0346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/10/2003 2328 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Departure 24/10/2003 0225 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 24/10/2003 0505 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/10/2003 0524 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Departure 24/10/2003 2333 Information not available Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 25/10/2003 2310 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/10/2003 2301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/10/2003 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/10/2003 2346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/10/2003 2309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/10/2003 0322 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Arrival 29/10/2003 0506 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saver Helicopter Departure 1/11/2003 0036 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/11/2003 0040 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/11/2003 0251 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/11/2003 0053 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/11/2003 0111 Department Of Premier & Cabinet Medical Flight Departure 2/11/2003 0127 Department Of Premier & Cabinet Medical Flight Arrival 2/11/2003 0156 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/11/2003 0421 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/11/2003 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/11/2003 2317 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/11/2003 0426 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/11/2003 0452 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/11/2003 0042 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/11/2003 2333 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 10/11/2003 0108 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/11/2003 2336 Asian Express Airlines Pty Ltd Infilght emergency - flap problem. Arrival 11/11/2003 2334 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/11/2003 0013 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/11/2003 0026 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/11/2003 0221 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 14/11/2003 0054 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/11/2003 0219 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/11/2003 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/11/2003 0436 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/11/2003 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/11/2003 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/11/2003 0328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/11/2003 2314 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/11/2003 0020 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/11/2003 0152 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/11/2003 0304 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Flight Arrival 24/11/2003 0101 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/11/2003 0004 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/11/2003 0513 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/11/2003 0037 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/11/2003 0157 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/11/2003 2300 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/11/2003 0009 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/11/2003 0035 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/11/2003 0406 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 30/11/2003 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/11/2003 0206 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/11/2003 0417 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/12/2003 0230 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd MED1 flight Arrival 2/12/2003 0101 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/12/2003 0147 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/12/2003 0519 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/12/2003 0532 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/12/2003 2315 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 3/12/2003 0105 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/12/2003 0106 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/12/2003 2356 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/12/2003 0107 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/12/2003 0133 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/12/2003 0545 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/12/2003 0014 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/12/2003 0436 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 8/12/2003 0120 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/12/2003 0328 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/12/2003 0354 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/12/2003 0532 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/12/2003 0117 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/12/2003 0148 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/12/2003 2357 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/12/2003 0053 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/12/2003 0424 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2003 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2003 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/12/2003 0258 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/12/2003 0328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2003 0406 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2003 0440 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 11/12/2003 2330 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/12/2003 0352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/12/2003 0001 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/12/2003 0229 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/12/2003 0520 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 13/12/2003 2304 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/12/2003 0311 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/12/2003 0536 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/12/2003 0410 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 19/12/2003 0020 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/12/2003 0145 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/12/2003 2315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/12/2003 0321 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/12/2003 0428 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/12/2003 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/12/2003 0137 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/12/2003 0321 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 21/12/2003 0345 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/12/2003 0452 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/12/2003 0459 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/12/2003 2356 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 24/12/2003 0556 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/12/2003 0105 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 26/12/2003 0452 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/12/2003 0055 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 28/12/2003 0437 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/12/2003 0011 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 29/12/2003 0016 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/12/2003 0226 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/12/2003 0458 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/12/2003 2359 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Life Saving Helicopter Departure 30/12/2003 0120 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/12/2003 0331 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd MED1 flight 2004 (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Departure 2/01/2004 0056 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/01/2004 0435 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/01/2004 0116 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/01/2004 0204 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 3/01/2004 0212 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/01/2004 0400 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 3/01/2004 2355 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 4/01/2004 0129 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/01/2004 0053 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 5/01/2004 2325 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 6/01/2004 0013 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/01/2004 0158 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 7/01/2004 0205 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/01/2004 0558 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/01/2004 0022 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/01/2004 0046 Information not available  Life Saving Helicopter Departure 8/01/2004 0455 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/01/2004 0543 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 12/01/2004 0105 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/01/2004 2300 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/01/2004 0049 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/01/2004 0514 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 15/01/2004 0009 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/01/2004 0121 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 15/01/2004 0325 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 15/01/2004 0334 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/01/2004 2310 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 16/01/2004 0147 Information not available Arrival 16/01/2004 0533 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 16/01/2004 2333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/01/2004 2311 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/01/2004 0144 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/01/2004 0510 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/01/2004 0523 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/01/2004 2314 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/01/2004 2315 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 24/01/2004 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/01/2004 0352 Information not available Life saving Helicopter Departure 24/01/2004 0556 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/01/2004 0306 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/01/2004 0512 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/01/2004 0542 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/01/2004 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/01/2004 0332 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/01/2004 0406 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/01/2004 2319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/01/2004 0151 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 28/01/2004 2357 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/01/2004 0458 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/01/2004 0141 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Departure 30/01/2004 0328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/01/2004 0511 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 31/01/2004 0004 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/01/2004 0007 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/02/2004 2305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/02/2004 2327 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 2/02/2004 0156 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 2/02/2004 0159 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/02/2004 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/02/2004 0544 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/02/2004 2347 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 5/02/2004 2352 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 6/02/2004 0128 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/02/2004 0209 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 7/02/2004 0044 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 7/02/2004 0220 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 8/02/2004 0001 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 8/02/2004 0100 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/02/2004 0531 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/02/2004 0149 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/02/2004 2305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/02/2004 2329 National Jet Express Pty Ltd Medical Departure 11/02/2004 2350 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 12/02/2004 0111 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 12/02/2004 0229 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 13/02/2004 0140 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 13/02/2004 0454 Information not available Medical - Priority 2 Arrival 13/02/2004 2340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/02/2004 0306 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/02/2004 2305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/02/2004 2306 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/02/2004 0553 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/02/2004 2336 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 18/02/2004 2345 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/02/2004 0153 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 19/02/2004 0509 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/02/2004 0035 Dramatic Investments Pty Ltd Medical Departure 20/02/2004 0524 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/02/2004 2309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/02/2004 0118 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 21/02/2004 2358 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/02/2004 0036 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/02/2004 0222 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/02/2004 0310 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Departure 22/02/2004 0522 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 2 Arrival 23/02/2004 0059 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/02/2004 2301 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 26/02/2004 0134 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/02/2004 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/02/2004 0455 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/02/2004 0106 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/03/2004 0215 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/03/2004 0518 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/03/2004 2310 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 6/03/2004 0116 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/03/2004 2328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/03/2004 0129 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/03/2004 0510 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 10/03/2004 0048 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/03/2004 0231 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/03/2004 0405 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/03/2004 0516 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/03/2004 2302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 12/03/2004 0009 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/03/2004 0242 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 12/03/2004 0521 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Prioirty 1 Departure 13/03/2004 2347 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/03/2004 0221 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/03/2004 0314 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/03/2004 0212 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 18/03/2004 0542 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/03/2004 2328 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 20/03/2004 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/03/2004 0340 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 21/03/2004 0047 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/03/2004 0352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/03/2004 2342 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/03/2004 0026 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/03/2004 0308 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/03/2004 0400 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/03/2004 2313 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/03/2004 0328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/03/2004 0001 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 25/03/2004 0155 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/03/2004 0111 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/03/2004 2307 Macarthur Jet Charter Medical - Prioirty 2 Arrival 27/03/2004 2325 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/03/2004 2345 Macarthur Jet Charter Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 28/03/2004 0044 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/03/2004 0107 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Prioirty 1 Departure 28/03/2004 0110 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/03/2004 0135 Airflite Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Departure 28/03/2004 0203 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Prioirty 1 Arrival 28/03/2004 0204 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 28/03/2004 0324 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/03/2004 0340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/03/2004 0429 Airflite Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 28/03/2004 0523 Macarthur Jet Charter Medical - Prioirty 1 Departure 29/03/2004 0128 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 30/03/2004 0059 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/03/2004 2358 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 31/03/2004 0053 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 31/03/2004 0158 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 31/03/2004 0441 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/03/2004 2340 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical - Prioirty 1 Departure 1/04/2004 0402 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/04/2004 0330 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 3/04/2004 2354 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 4/04/2004 0120 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/04/2004 0132 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2004 0510 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/04/2004 0251 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/04/2004 2338 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/04/2004 0054 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/04/2004 0041 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 9/04/2004 0201 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/04/2004 0528 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/04/2004 0036 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 10/04/2004 0230 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 10/04/2004 2303 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 10/04/2004 2348 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/04/2004 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/04/2004 0233 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 11/04/2004 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/04/2004 0433 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/04/2004 0528 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/04/2004 2351 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/04/2004 0047 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 12/04/2004 0109 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 12/04/2004 0340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/04/2004 0036 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 16/04/2004 0320 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 16/04/2004 0520 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 16/04/2004 2358 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/04/2004 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/04/2004 0431 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/04/2004 0052 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 19/04/2004 0421 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/04/2004 0116 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/04/2004 0320 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/04/2004 0351 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/04/2004 0245 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/04/2004 0450 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/04/2004 0005 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 23/04/2004 0046 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 24/04/2004 0139 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 24/04/2004 0232 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/04/2004 0358 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 24/04/2004 2333 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 25/04/2004 0046 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/04/2004 0236 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/04/2004 0458 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/04/2004 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/04/2004 0043 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/04/2004 0341 Ansett Australia Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 27/04/2004 0512 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/04/2004 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/04/2004 0327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/04/2004 2333 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 30/04/2004 0537 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 1/05/2004 0037 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/05/2004 0220 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 1/05/2004 0450 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 2/05/2004 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/05/2004 0134 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/05/2004 0308 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/05/2004 2302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/05/2004 0147 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 3/05/2004 0401 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 7/05/2004 0301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/05/2004 0311 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/05/2004 0455 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/05/2004 0157 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medial Flight - Priority 1 Departure 8/05/2004 0241 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 8/05/2004 0420 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 9/05/2004 0017 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medial Flight - Priority 1 Departure 11/05/2004 0042 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 11/05/2004 0541 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 11/05/2004 2337 Information not available Medical Emergency advised by The Department of Transport and Regional Services. Arrival 12/05/2004 0232 Ansett Australia Ltd Medical Flight - Priority 1 Departure 12/05/2004 0406 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/05/2004 2348 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/05/2004 0048 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/05/2004 0258 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/05/2004 2319 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 15/05/2004 2352 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 16/05/2004 0001 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/05/2004 0113 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/05/2004 0158 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 17/05/2004 0403 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 17/05/2004 2321 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/05/2004 0028 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 22/05/2004 2332 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/05/2004 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/05/2004 0135 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/05/2004 0437 Rfds Of Aust (central Operations) Inc RFDS Arrival 25/05/2004 0213 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 28/05/2004 0509 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/05/2004 0204 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/05/2004 0441 Information not available Medical Flight - Prioirty 1 Arrival 29/05/2004 2327 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 30/05/2004 0056 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/05/2004 0232 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 30/05/2004 0421 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 3/06/2004 0022 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/06/2004 0150 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 3/06/2004 0414 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/06/2004 0451 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/06/2004 0059 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/06/2004 0054 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 6/06/2004 0202 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 6/06/2004 0204 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/06/2004 0408 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/06/2004 2347 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 8/06/2004 0402 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/06/2004 2346 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 10/06/2004 0020 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/06/2004 0511 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/06/2004 2316 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/06/2004 2350 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 11/06/2004 0257 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 13/06/2004 0150 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 13/06/2004 0344 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 13/06/2004 2305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/06/2004 2323 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/06/2004 0003 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/06/2004 0211 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/06/2004 0037 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/06/2004 0401 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/06/2004 2355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/06/2004 0446 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/06/2004 2327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/06/2004 0012 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 20/06/2004 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/06/2004 0208 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 20/06/2004 0514 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/06/2004 0040 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/06/2004 0123 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 23/06/2004 0341 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 24/06/2004 0024 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 24/06/2004 0050 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/06/2004 0310 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/06/2004 0512 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 24/06/2004 0554 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/06/2004 2300 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/06/2004 0111 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/06/2004 0535 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/06/2004 2307 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 29/06/2004 0052 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 30/06/2004 0153 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/06/2004 0156 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 1/07/2004 0124 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/07/2004 0124 Information not available Arrival 2/07/2004 0231 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/07/2004 0026 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/07/2004 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/07/2004 0246 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 3/07/2004 0453 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 3/07/2004 0511 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/07/2004 0559 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/07/2004 0306 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 4/07/2004 0318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/07/2004 0458 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/07/2004 0559 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/07/2004 0244 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 6/07/2004 0427 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 7/07/2004 2304 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/07/2004 0319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/07/2004 0401 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 9/07/2004 0558 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 11/07/2004 0038 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 12/07/2004 0105 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 12/07/2004 2316 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/07/2004 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/07/2004 0150 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/07/2004 0233 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 15/07/2004 0039 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 16/07/2004 0151 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/07/2004 0544 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/07/2004 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/07/2004 0129 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 18/07/2004 0550 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 19/07/2004 0018 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/07/2004 0311 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/07/2004 2318 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 21/07/2004 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/07/2004 0204 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 21/07/2004 0419 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/07/2004 2321 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 23/07/2004 0355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/07/2004 0422 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 23/07/2004 0500 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 23/07/2004 2336 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 24/07/2004 0101 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 24/07/2004 0544 Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 25/07/2004 0041 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 25/07/2004 0109 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Departure 25/07/2004 0140 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/07/2004 0506 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/07/2004 0116 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 26/07/2004 0135 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/07/2004 0402 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/07/2004 0106 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/07/2004 0128 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/07/2004 0210 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/07/2004 0319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/07/2004 0516 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/07/2004 0424 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 30/07/2004 0000 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/07/2004 0055 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/07/2004 0406 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/07/2004 0419 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/07/2004 2346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/07/2004 2359 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 31/07/2004 2316 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/08/2004 0203 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/08/2004 0504 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/08/2004 0544 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/08/2004 0557 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/08/2004 2359 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/08/2004 0142 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 2/08/2004 0333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/08/2004 2342 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/08/2004 0506 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/08/2004 0006 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/08/2004 0009 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/08/2004 0056 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/08/2004 0127 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/08/2004 0319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/08/2004 0517 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/08/2004 0531 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/08/2004 2312 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 5/08/2004 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/08/2004 0115 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/08/2004 0204 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/08/2004 0229 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/08/2004 0314 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 5/08/2004 0405 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/08/2004 0412 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/08/2004 2333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/08/2004 2342 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 6/08/2004 0024 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 6/08/2004 0026 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/08/2004 0246 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/08/2004 2307 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/08/2004 0254 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 8/08/2004 0057 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 8/08/2004 0206 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/08/2004 0009 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/08/2004 0122 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/08/2004 2338 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/08/2004 2353 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/08/2004 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/08/2004 0035 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/08/2004 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/08/2004 2315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/08/2004 2334 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 17/08/2004 0113 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/08/2004 0024 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 18/08/2004 0120 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/08/2004 0215 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/08/2004 0129 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 19/08/2004 0236 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/08/2004 0455 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/08/2004 2339 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 19/08/2004 2359 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/08/2004 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/08/2004 0333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/08/2004 0334 Air Charter Australia Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 20/08/2004 2336 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/08/2004 0031 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 22/08/2004 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/08/2004 0243 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 23/08/2004 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/08/2004 0159 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/08/2004 0402 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 25/08/2004 0015 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 25/08/2004 2308 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/08/2004 2316 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/08/2004 2318 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 26/08/2004 0046 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/08/2004 2341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/08/2004 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/08/2004 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/08/2004 0204 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 28/08/2004 0545 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/08/2004 0039 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/08/2004 0047 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/08/2004 0140 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/08/2004 0339 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/08/2004 0512 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/08/2004 0014 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/08/2004 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/08/2004 0246 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/08/2004 2352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/09/2004 2315 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 2/09/2004 0041 Executive Airlines Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 3/09/2004 0229 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/09/2004 0341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/09/2004 0445 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/09/2004 0031 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/09/2004 0401 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/09/2004 0120 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 7/09/2004 0320 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 7/09/2004 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/09/2004 0352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/09/2004 0042 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/09/2004 0008 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/09/2004 0019 Dr Robert Paul Woolf Medical - Priority 1 Departure 11/09/2004 0027 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 11/09/2004 0045 Dr Robert Paul Woolf Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 11/09/2004 0442 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 11/09/2004 2345 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 11/09/2004 2345 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 12/09/2004 0047 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 12/09/2004 0049 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 12/09/2004 0233 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/09/2004 0316 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 13/09/2004 0004 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/09/2004 0407 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Departure 14/09/2004 0100 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/09/2004 0002 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 15/09/2004 0316 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Arrival 15/09/2004 0419 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 15/09/2004 2335 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/09/2004 0538 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/09/2004 0211 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/09/2004 0533 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 19/09/2004 0123 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/09/2004 0356 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/09/2004 0357 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 19/09/2004 0546 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/09/2004 0113 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/09/2004 0024 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/09/2004 0119 Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd RFDS Departure 22/09/2004 0139 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 22/09/2004 0322 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 23/09/2004 0023 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/09/2004 0039 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/09/2004 2301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/09/2004 0106 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/09/2004 0559 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/09/2004 2318 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 26/09/2004 0122 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/09/2004 0505 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/09/2004 0114 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 27/09/2004 0215 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/09/2004 0310 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/09/2004 2324 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/09/2004 0018 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/09/2004 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/10/2004 0216 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 1/10/2004 0402 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/10/2004 0407 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 2/10/2004 0021 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/10/2004 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/10/2004 0353 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 3/10/2004 0233 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/10/2004 0122 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/10/2004 0135 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 5/10/2004 0550 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/10/2004 0138 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/10/2004 0537 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/10/2004 0012 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 8/10/2004 0050 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/10/2004 0159 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 8/10/2004 2321 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 9/10/2004 0436 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/10/2004 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/10/2004 0511 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/10/2004 0006 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/10/2004 0311 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/10/2004 0339 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 11/10/2004 2304 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 12/10/2004 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/10/2004 0030 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 16/10/2004 0527 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/10/2004 0120 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/10/2004 0122 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/10/2004 0105 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/10/2004 0413 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/10/2004 0241 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/10/2004 2335 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 27/10/2004 2329 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 28/10/2004 0533 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 29/10/2004 0020 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/10/2004 0033 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/10/2004 0209 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/10/2004 0507 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/10/2004 0238 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 30/10/2004 0411 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 31/10/2004 0100 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/11/2004 0100 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 2/11/2004 0205 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/11/2004 0220 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/11/2004 0517 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/11/2004 2337 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/11/2004 0059 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 3/11/2004 0449 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/11/2004 0519 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/11/2004 0100 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/11/2004 2303 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/11/2004 0151 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 6/11/2004 0420 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 7/11/2004 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/11/2004 0229 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/11/2004 0534 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/11/2004 0100 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/11/2004 0202 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 13/11/2004 2314 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 16/11/2004 0509 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 17/11/2004 0253 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/11/2004 0230 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/11/2004 0001 Information not available Childflight Life Saving Helicopter Departure 19/11/2004 0054 Information not available Childflight Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/11/2004 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/11/2004 0430 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/11/2004 0110 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/11/2004 0539 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/11/2004 0559 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/11/2004 0226 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical - Priority 1 Arrival 23/11/2004 0129 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/11/2004 0156 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/11/2004 2356 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 28/11/2004 0049 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 28/11/2004 0309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/11/2004 0323 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/12/2004 0018 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/12/2004 0327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/12/2004 0108 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/12/2004 0358 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 5/12/2004 0546 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/12/2004 0145 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Priority 2 Departure 6/12/2004 0252 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 6/12/2004 0441 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 6/12/2004 0522 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/12/2004 0556 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Priority 1 Departure 7/12/2004 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/12/2004 0111 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/12/2004 0518 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 7/12/2004 2333 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 8/12/2004 0012 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/12/2004 0456 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/12/2004 0023 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 12/12/2004 2314 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/12/2004 0512 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/12/2004 0319 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority ! Arrival 18/12/2004 2354 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/12/2004 0517 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/12/2004 2307 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 23/12/2004 0002 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 24/12/2004 0030 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/12/2004 0453 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 24/12/2004 0553 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/12/2004 0555 Orkdale Pty Ltd Medial Priority 1 Arrival 25/12/2004 0159 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/12/2004 0238 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/12/2004 0255 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/12/2004 2309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/12/2004 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/12/2004 0045 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 26/12/2004 0047 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/12/2004 0442 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/12/2004 0113 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/12/2004 0348 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/12/2004 0529 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Departure 27/12/2004 2320 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 27/12/2004 2340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/12/2004 0048 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/12/2004 0153 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service Arrival 28/12/2004 2300 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 30/12/2004 0156 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/12/2004 0255 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 31/12/2004 0404 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 2005 (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Arrival 1/01/2005 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/01/2005 2334 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/01/2005 0025 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/01/2005 0128 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/01/2005 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/01/2005 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/01/2005 0550 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/01/2005 0331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/01/2005 0357 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/01/2005 2319 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 5/01/2005 0113 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/01/2005 0021 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/01/2005 0226 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/01/2005 0559 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/01/2005 0309 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 12/01/2005 2302 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/01/2005 2330 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 13/01/2005 0145 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/01/2005 0150 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 15/01/2005 2352 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 16/01/2005 0120 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 16/01/2005 0211 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/01/2005 0550 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/01/2005 2318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/01/2005 0050 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/01/2005 0030 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/01/2005 0156 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/01/2005 0211 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/01/2005 0323 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/01/2005 2325 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 23/01/2005 0034 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/01/2005 0213 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/01/2005 0522 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/01/2005 0028 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/01/2005 0159 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 26/01/2005 0110 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/01/2005 2340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/01/2005 0207 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/01/2005 0222 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/01/2005 0451 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/01/2005 0225 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/02/2005 0458 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 2/02/2005 2351 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/02/2005 0223 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/02/2005 0328 Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 5/02/2005 0023 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/02/2005 0248 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 5/02/2005 2334 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 6/02/2005 0055 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/02/2005 0253 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/02/2005 0239 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/02/2005 0323 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/02/2005 0549 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/02/2005 0514 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 12/02/2005 0126 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/02/2005 2326 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/02/2005 2329 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/02/2005 0552 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/02/2005 2324 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/02/2005 0449 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/02/2005 2306 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/02/2005 2318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/02/2005 2355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/02/2005 0040 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/02/2005 0137 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/02/2005 0246 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/02/2005 0440 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/02/2005 2350 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 21/02/2005 0031 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/02/2005 0331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/02/2005 0404 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/02/2005 0154 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/02/2005 0440 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/02/2005 2331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/02/2005 0215 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/02/2005 0431 Sydney Jet Charter Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 1/03/2005 2328 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 2/03/2005 0302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/03/2005 0530 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/03/2005 0102 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/03/2005 0355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/03/2005 0105 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/03/2005 0108 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/03/2005 2331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/03/2005 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/03/2005 0144 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/03/2005 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/03/2005 0136 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/03/2005 0226 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/03/2005 0554 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/03/2005 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/03/2005 0408 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 14/03/2005 0544 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/03/2005 2317 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/03/2005 0148 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/03/2005 0153 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/03/2005 0506 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/03/2005 2301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/03/2005 2317 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/03/2005 2330 Edwards Coaches Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 19/03/2005 0107 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/03/2005 0440 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/03/2005 0456 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 20/03/2005 0036 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 20/03/2005 2308 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/03/2005 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/03/2005 0525 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/03/2005 2305 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 21/03/2005 2335 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/03/2005 2340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/03/2005 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/03/2005 2355 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/03/2005 0350 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/03/2005 2318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/03/2005 0214 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/03/2005 2330 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 27/03/2005 0018 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 27/03/2005 0052 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/03/2005 0155 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 30/03/2005 0359 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/04/2005 0007 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/04/2005 0122 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 2/04/2005 0329 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/04/2005 0046 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/04/2005 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/04/2005 0337 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/04/2005 0414 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/04/2005 0521 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/04/2005 0155 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2005 0457 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2005 0539 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/04/2005 0510 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/04/2005 0157 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/04/2005 0407 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/04/2005 0159 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/04/2005 2341 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 13/04/2005 0343 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 13/04/2005 0547 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/04/2005 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/04/2005 0550 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/04/2005 0546 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 16/04/2005 2358 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/04/2005 0008 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/04/2005 0344 Mr Douglas Keith Thornton Medical Priority 1 Departure 17/04/2005 0417 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/04/2005 0145 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 19/04/2005 0037 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/04/2005 0339 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/04/2005 0535 Information not available Medical Priority 1 Arrival 19/04/2005 0559 Qantas Airways Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 19/04/2005 2310 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/04/2005 0134 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 21/04/2005 0218 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 21/04/2005 0557 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/04/2005 0538 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/04/2005 0248 Melbourne Air Holdings Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 24/04/2005 0212 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/04/2005 0235 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/04/2005 0049 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/04/2005 0237 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/04/2005 0148 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 26/04/2005 0252 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/04/2005 0219 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/05/2005 0117 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/05/2005 0140 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/05/2005 0244 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/05/2005 0354 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/05/2005 0004 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/05/2005 0421 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/05/2005 0149 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 3/05/2005 0429 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/05/2005 0022 Information not available Medical Priority 2 Departure 7/05/2005 0037 Information not available Medical Priority 1 Arrival 7/05/2005 0058 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/05/2005 0118 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Chc Helicopters (australia) Snowy Hydro SouthCare Rescue Helicopter Departure 7/05/2005 0150 Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd Chc Helicopters (australia) Medical Priority 1 Arrival 7/05/2005 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/05/2005 0358 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/05/2005 0540 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/05/2005 2309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/05/2005 0201 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/05/2005 2307 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 13/05/2005 0256 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/05/2005 0042 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/05/2005 0504 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/05/2005 0126 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/05/2005 0046 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/05/2005 0115 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/05/2005 0430 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/05/2005 0143 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/05/2005 0207 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 22/05/2005 0319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/05/2005 2313 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 23/05/2005 0155 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 2 Arrival 25/05/2005 0424 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/05/2005 2347 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/05/2005 2356 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/05/2005 0014 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 28/05/2005 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/05/2005 0118 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/05/2005 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/05/2005 0032 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/05/2005 0408 Information not available RFDS Departure 30/05/2005 0238 Melbourne Air Holdings Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 31/05/2005 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/05/2005 0116 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 31/05/2005 0431 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/06/2005 0050 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/06/2005 0359 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 3/06/2005 2308 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 3/06/2005 2315 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 4/06/2005 2347 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/06/2005 0045 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 5/06/2005 0114 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/06/2005 0229 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/06/2005 0322 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/06/2005 0324 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/06/2005 0357 Child Flight Inc Childflight Helicopter Departure 7/06/2005 0410 Information not available Childflight Helicopter Departure 7/06/2005 0441 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/06/2005 0438 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/06/2005 0331 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/06/2005 0541 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/06/2005 0001 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/06/2005 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 12/06/2005 0042 Buzz Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 12/06/2005 0058 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 12/06/2005 0315 Hunter Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Ser Hunter Region SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/06/2005 0403 Hunter Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Ser Hunter Region SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 12/06/2005 0410 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/06/2005 0530 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 12/06/2005 2340 Buzz Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 13/06/2005 0551 Buzz Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 14/06/2005 0555 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 14/06/2005 2350 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/06/2005 0446 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/06/2005 2346 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 18/06/2005 0004 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 18/06/2005 0310 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/06/2005 0502 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/06/2005 2321 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/06/2005 2336 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/06/2005 0032 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/06/2005 2314 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/06/2005 2349 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 21/06/2005 0303 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/06/2005 0151 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/06/2005 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/06/2005 0037 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 25/06/2005 0127 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/06/2005 0129 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 25/06/2005 0150 Rfds Of Aust (central Operations) Inc Medical Priority 1 Departure 25/06/2005 0352 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 26/06/2005 0006 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/06/2005 0152 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/06/2005 0159 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 26/06/2005 0325 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/06/2005 2328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/06/2005 0347 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 28/06/2005 0524 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/06/2005 0024 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 29/06/2005 0113 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/06/2005 0346 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/06/2005 2310 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/06/2005 2301 Information not available Medical Priority 2 Arrival 2/07/2005 0053 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/07/2005 0020 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/07/2005 0054 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/07/2005 0105 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/07/2005 0202 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/07/2005 0251 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/07/2005 0043 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 6/07/2005 0255 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 9/07/2005 0120 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 9/07/2005 0149 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 9/07/2005 2305 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority Departure 9/07/2005 2319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/07/2005 2348 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 10/07/2005 0114 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 10/07/2005 0408 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 13/07/2005 0206 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/07/2005 0138 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/07/2005 0316 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 15/07/2005 0502 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 16/07/2005 0332 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 16/07/2005 2306 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/07/2005 0032 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/07/2005 0250 Information not available RFDS Departure 19/07/2005 0525 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/07/2005 2319 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/07/2005 0505 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/07/2005 2302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/07/2005 0106 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 24/07/2005 0256 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/07/2005 0353 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section)   Arrival 24/07/2005 0456 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/07/2005 0207 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/07/2005 0415 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/07/2005 0348 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/07/2005 2307 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/07/2005 0132 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/07/2005 0412 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 30/07/2005 2355 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/07/2005 0116 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/07/2005 0156 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/07/2005 0441 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 4/08/2005 0457 Child Flight Inc Child Flight Helicopteer Arrival 5/08/2005 0359 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/08/2005 0049 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/08/2005 0109 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 7/08/2005 0005 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/08/2005 0008 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/08/2005 2317 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 10/08/2005 0534 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/08/2005 2350 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/08/2005 2325 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/08/2005 0213 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/08/2005 0417 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 15/08/2005 2300 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/08/2005 0002 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/08/2005 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/08/2005 0355 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/08/2005 0002 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/08/2005 0245 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/08/2005 0349 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/08/2005 0039 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/08/2005 0209 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/08/2005 0040 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/08/2005 0518 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/08/2005 0557 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/08/2005 2328 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 24/08/2005 0226 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/08/2005 0217 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/08/2005 0328 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/08/2005 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/08/2005 2349 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/08/2005 0043 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/08/2005 0347 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 28/08/2005 0234 Information not available RFDS Departure 1/09/2005 0334 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 1/09/2005 0540 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 1/09/2005 2327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/09/2005 0142 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/09/2005 2322 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 4/09/2005 0032 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/09/2005 0050 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/09/2005 0135 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/09/2005 0349 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/09/2005 0526 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 5/09/2005 2315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/09/2005 0454 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/09/2005 0547 Vbnc4 Pty Ltd Medical Priority Arrival 6/09/2005 2338 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/09/2005 2337 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 8/09/2005 0525 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 9/09/2005 0508 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/09/2005 2313 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 11/09/2005 0209 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/09/2005 2338 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 13/09/2005 0007 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 13/09/2005 2331 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/09/2005 0437 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 16/09/2005 0556 Information not available Medical Priority Arrival 18/09/2005 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/09/2005 0054 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/09/2005 0146 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/09/2005 0407 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/09/2005 0116 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/09/2005 0306 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 26/09/2005 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 26/09/2005 0556 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/09/2005 0143 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/09/2005 0558 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 30/09/2005 0231 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 30/09/2005 0537 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 2/10/2005 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/10/2005 0202 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/10/2005 0346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/10/2005 0031 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/10/2005 2308 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/10/2005 2351 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/10/2005 0038 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 4/10/2005 0318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/10/2005 0319 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/10/2005 0351 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/10/2005 2306 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/10/2005 0140   SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 8/10/2005 2322 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/10/2005 0235 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/10/2005 2328 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 11/10/2005 0131 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 11/10/2005 2324 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 12/10/2005 0152 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/10/2005 0153 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/10/2005 0156 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 15/10/2005 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 16/10/2005 0104 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 18/10/2005 0031 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/10/2005 0038 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 18/10/2005 0226 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/10/2005 0525 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/10/2005 0343 Buzz Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 23/10/2005 0026 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/10/2005 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/10/2005 0041 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/10/2005 0454 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/10/2005 2348 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/10/2005 0055 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 25/10/2005 0144 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 25/10/2005 0218 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/10/2005 0341 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 26/10/2005 0536 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 29/10/2005 0214 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 29/10/2005 0534 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/10/2005 0546 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 31/10/2005 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 31/10/2005 2332 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/11/2005 0011 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 3/11/2005 0022 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/11/2005 0157 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 3/11/2005 0217 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/11/2005 0045 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/11/2005 0323 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 6/11/2005 0413 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/11/2005 2354 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/11/2005 2316 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 10/11/2005 0452 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 10/11/2005 2330 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/11/2005 2338 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/11/2005 0357 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 11/11/2005 0431 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/11/2005 0540 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/11/2005 0050 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 13/11/2005 0000 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/11/2005 0036 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/11/2005 0215 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 14/11/2005 2331 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/11/2005 0134 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/11/2005 2352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/11/2005 0244 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/11/2005 0255 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/11/2005 0117 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/11/2005 0354 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 20/11/2005 0205 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/11/2005 0345 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/11/2005 0416 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/11/2005 0015 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 23/11/2005 0342 Hunter Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Ser Hunter Region SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/11/2005 0421 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/11/2005 0537 Jet City Pty Ltd Medical Priority 2 Departure 25/11/2005 0214 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 27/11/2005 0000 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/11/2005 0330 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/11/2005 0529 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 2/12/2005 0418 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/12/2005 0013 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/12/2005 0047 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/12/2005 0214 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/12/2005 0134 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 5/12/2005 0442 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/12/2005 0533 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 5/12/2005 2320 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 6/12/2005 0418 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 7/12/2005 2304 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/12/2005 0045 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 10/12/2005 2302 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/12/2005 2308 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2005 0008 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2005 0042 Buzz Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 11/12/2005 0353 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/12/2005 0431 Buzz Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 11/12/2005 0511 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/12/2005 0437 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 16/12/2005 0351 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 17/12/2005 0006 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/12/2005 0157 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/12/2005 2332 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/12/2005 2342 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/12/2005 0528 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/12/2005 2319 Information not available Snowy Hydro Southcare Rescue Helicopter Service Departure 19/12/2005 2355 Information not available Snowy Hydro Southcare Rescue Helicopter Service Arrival 22/12/2005 0204 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/12/2005 0346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/12/2005 0114 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/12/2005 0249 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/12/2005 0520 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/12/2005 0051 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/12/2005 0141 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/12/2005 0533 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/12/2005 0138 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/12/2005 0517 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/12/2005 2315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/12/2005 0139 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Priority 1 Departure 26/12/2005 0205 Queensland Treasury Corporation Medical Priority 1 Arrival 26/12/2005 0236 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 26/12/2005 0511 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/12/2005 0209 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/12/2005 0213 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/12/2005 2320 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 28/12/2005 0357 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 28/12/2005 2319 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/12/2005 0026 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/12/2005 0104 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 29/12/2005 0243 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/12/2005 2337 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 31/12/2005 0040 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 31/12/2005 0210 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 31/12/2005 0323 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter 2006 (i) & (ii) (2)(a) (2)(a) (2)(c) (2)(b) Operation Date Time Registered operator Comment Departure 1/01/2006 0105 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 1/01/2006 0214 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/01/2006 0215 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 1/01/2006 0327 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 1/01/2006 0551 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 2/01/2006 0045 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 2/01/2006 0208 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 3/01/2006 0203 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/01/2006 0224 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/01/2006 0425 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 4/01/2006 0534 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 5/01/2006 0408 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/01/2006 0517 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 7/01/2006 2346 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/01/2006 0052 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/01/2006 2320 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 11/01/2006 0301 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/01/2006 0437 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/01/2006 0043 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 14/01/2006 0115 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 15/01/2006 0159 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/01/2006 0340 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/01/2006 0427 Lloyd Off-shore Helicopters Pty Ltd South Care Rescue Helicopter Arrival 18/01/2006 0216 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/01/2006 0315 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/01/2006 0058 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 21/01/2006 2351 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/01/2006 0122 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/01/2006 0357 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 22/01/2006 0453 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/01/2006 0129 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/01/2006 0012 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/01/2006 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/01/2006 0132 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 29/01/2006 0556 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/01/2006 0031 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/01/2006 0313 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 1/02/2006 0554 Child Flight Inc Child Flight Helicopter Arrival 4/02/2006 2352 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 5/02/2006 0001 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/02/2006 0420 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 8/02/2006 2309 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 9/02/2006 0114 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 9/02/2006 0142 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 9/02/2006 2325 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/02/2006 2301 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/02/2006 0036 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/02/2006 0254 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/02/2006 0106 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/02/2006 0041 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/02/2006 0404 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/02/2006 0428 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 20/02/2006 0531 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/02/2006 0007 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/02/2006 0552 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 22/02/2006 0139 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 25/02/2006 0006 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 25/02/2006 0142 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/02/2006 0231 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 26/02/2006 0029 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/02/2006 2334 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/02/2006 0056 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 27/02/2006 0314 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/02/2006 0526 Southern Region Slsa Heli Rescue Service SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 2/03/2006 0008 Lifeflight Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 2/03/2006 0059 Lifeflight Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Departure 3/03/2006 0438 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Departure 4/03/2006 0503 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 4/03/2006 2326 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 7/03/2006 0250 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 10/03/2006 2309 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 12/03/2006 0037 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Departure 12/03/2006 0049 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 12/03/2006 0259 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/03/2006 0003 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/03/2006 0048 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/03/2006 0129 Information not available Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/03/2006 0325 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/03/2006 0047 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Departure 19/03/2006 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 20/03/2006 0341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 21/03/2006 0537 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 21/03/2006 2310 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/03/2006 0005 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Departure 23/03/2006 0238 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/03/2006 0501 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/03/2006 0333 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/03/2006 0444 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 25/03/2006 2338 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/03/2006 0010 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/03/2006 0412 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/03/2006 0448 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 29/03/2006 0550 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/03/2006 0033 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life Saving Helicopter Departure 2/04/2006 0057 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 2/04/2006 0334 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/04/2006 0528 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 4/04/2006 0007 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 5/04/2006 0453 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/04/2006 2308 Lloyd Off-shore Helicopters Pty Ltd South Care Rescue Helicopter Departure 7/04/2006 0527 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 9/04/2006 0115 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 9/04/2006 0305 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 10/04/2006 2341 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/04/2006 0429 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 13/04/2006 0440 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 14/04/2006 0140 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 15/04/2006 0053 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/04/2006 0101 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/04/2006 0149 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 16/04/2006 0052 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/04/2006 2332 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 17/04/2006 0042 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 17/04/2006 0144 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 17/04/2006 0431 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 17/04/2006 0521 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 18/04/2006 0032 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/04/2006 0237 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 18/04/2006 0353 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/04/2006 0531 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/04/2006 0158 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 19/04/2006 0459 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/04/2006 2314 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 21/04/2006 0056 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 22/04/2006 0456 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/04/2006 0122 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 23/04/2006 0149 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 23/04/2006 0424 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/04/2006 0015 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/04/2006 0059 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 24/04/2006 0107 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/04/2006 0501 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 24/04/2006 2318 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/04/2006 0203 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 25/04/2006 0325 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Departure 26/04/2006 0058 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 27/04/2006 0246 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 27/04/2006 0450 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/04/2006 0557 Vbnc 4 Pty Ltd Medical Priority 1 Arrival 27/04/2006 2309 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (central Operations) Incorporated RFDS Departure 29/04/2006 2310 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 30/04/2006 0045 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 30/04/2006 0105 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/04/2006 0535 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 1/05/2006 0440 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 3/05/2006 0545 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 4/05/2006 0222 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 4/05/2006 0551 Qantas Airways Ltd Med 1 Departure 6/05/2006 0034 Information not available SLSA life saving helicopter Departure 6/05/2006 0425 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 7/05/2006 0013 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 7/05/2006 0108 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 8/05/2006 0036 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 9/05/2006 0021 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 9/05/2006 0342 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 9/05/2006 0545 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 11/05/2006 2332 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 12/05/2006 0059 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 12/05/2006 0527 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 13/05/2006 0521 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 13/05/2006 2331 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 14/05/2006 0044 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 14/05/2006 0417 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 15/05/2006 0003 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 15/05/2006 0523 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 18/05/2006 0435 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 18/05/2006 2310 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 20/05/2006 0139 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 20/05/2006 0546 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 20/05/2006 2338 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 20/05/2006 2342 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 21/05/2006 0144 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 21/05/2006 0514 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/05/2006 0001 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 22/05/2006 0111 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 24/05/2006 0454 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 25/05/2006 0005 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/05/2006 2327 Information not available SLSA Departure 27/05/2006 0224 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/05/2006 0409 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/05/2006 2338 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 28/05/2006 0301 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 30/05/2006 0051 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 30/05/2006 0444 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 3/06/2006 0439 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 4/06/2006 0125 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 5/06/2006 0038 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 5/06/2006 2317 Rfds Of Australia (s Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 6/06/2006 0136 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 6/06/2006 0401 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 10/06/2006 2325 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 11/06/2006 2322 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 12/06/2006 0240 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 12/06/2006 0514 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd MED 1 Departure 13/06/2006 0332 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 13/06/2006 0349 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 13/06/2006 0514 Executive Airlines Pty Ltd MED 1 Arrival 13/06/2006 0543 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 14/06/2006 0046 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 14/06/2006 0251 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 16/06/2006 0505 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 17/06/2006 0001 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 17/06/2006 0138 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 17/06/2006 0237 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 17/06/2006 0420 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 17/06/2006 2331 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 18/06/2006 2323 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 18/06/2006 2355 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 20/06/2006 0012 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 20/06/2006 0143 Information not available Life saving helicopter Departure 20/06/2006 0331 Information not available Life saving helicopter Departure 22/06/2006 0001 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd MED 1 Departure 22/06/2006 0049 Information not available MED 1 Arrival 22/06/2006 0447 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd MED 1 Arrival 23/06/2006 0234 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 24/06/2006 0115 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd Medical Departure 24/06/2006 2335 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 25/06/2006 0127 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 25/06/2006 0343 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 27/06/2006 0457 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 28/06/2006 2306 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 29/06/2006 0109 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 29/06/2006 0315 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 2/07/2006 2330 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 3/07/2006 2310 Information not available RFDS Arrival 3/07/2006 2345 Information not available Life saving helicopter Arrival 4/07/2006 0110 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 4/07/2006 0115 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 4/07/2006 0257 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd MED 1 Arrival 4/07/2006 0316 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 5/07/2006 0142 Information not available Life saving helicopter Arrival 5/07/2006 0500 Pel-air Aviation Pty Ltd MED 1 Arrival 7/07/2006 0047 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 8/07/2006 0229 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 8/07/2006 0535 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 9/07/2006 0024 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 9/07/2006 2337 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 10/07/2006 0145 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 12/07/2006 0116 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 12/07/2006 0125 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 12/07/2006 0407 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 13/07/2006 0048 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 13/07/2006 0054 Information not available Life saving helicopter Arrival 13/07/2006 0120 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 15/07/2006 0038 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 15/07/2006 0127 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 15/07/2006 0255 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 15/07/2006 0520 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 16/07/2006 2334 Information not available Life saving helicopter Departure 16/07/2006 2346 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 17/07/2006 0057 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 17/07/2006 0301 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 17/07/2006 0541 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 18/07/2006 0033 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 18/07/2006 0057 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 18/07/2006 0330 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 18/07/2006 0443 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 18/07/2006 0529 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 19/07/2006 0122 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 19/07/2006 0254 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 19/07/2006 2333 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 20/07/2006 0415 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 20/07/2006 0541 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 20/07/2006 2317 Eagle Creek Investments 71 Pty Ltd MED 1 Departure 21/07/2006 0213 Information not available Search and rescue - Lebanon Departure 21/07/2006 2343 Information not available Search and rescue - Lebanon Departure 22/07/2006 0133 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 22/07/2006 0524 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 23/07/2006 0109 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 23/07/2006 0216 Information not available Life saving helicopter Departure 23/07/2006 0335 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 25/07/2006 0019 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 25/07/2006 0027 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 26/07/2006 0028 Qantas Airways Ltd Search and rescue evacuation from Lebanon Departure 26/07/2006 0133 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 26/07/2006 0346 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 27/07/2006 2306 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 30/07/2006 0225 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 30/07/2006 0520 Information not available Life saving helicopter Departure 30/07/2006 0531 Information not available Life saving helicopter Arrival 31/07/2006 0051 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 31/07/2006 0104 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 31/07/2006 0105 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 31/07/2006 0234 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 1/08/2006 0218 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 1/08/2006 2309 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 1/08/2006 2327 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 2/08/2006 0148 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 3/08/2006 2326 Information not available Search and rescue evacuation from Lebanon Arrival 5/08/2006 0010 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 5/08/2006 0041 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 6/08/2006 0012 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 6/08/2006 0047 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 6/08/2006 0055 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 6/08/2006 0057 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 6/08/2006 0252 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 6/08/2006 0435 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Arrival 7/08/2006 0215 National Australia Bank Ltd RFDS Departure 7/08/2006 2334 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 8/08/2006 0147 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 10/08/2006 0200 Addenbrooke Aviation Pty Limited Medical 1 Departure 11/08/2006 0203 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 11/08/2006 0456 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 12/08/2006 0129 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 12/08/2006 0507 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 13/08/2006 0201 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 13/08/2006 0415 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 13/08/2006 0544 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 13/08/2006 2311 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 14/08/2006 0114 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 14/08/2006 0244 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 17/08/2006 0116 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 18/08/2006 0043 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 18/08/2006 0109 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/08/2006 0300 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/08/2006 0358 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 20/08/2006 0017 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 20/08/2006 0051 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 20/08/2006 0316 Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited Medical 1 Arrival 20/08/2006 0440 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 21/08/2006 0235 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 21/08/2006 0458 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 21/08/2006 2331 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 23/08/2006 0204 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 24/08/2006 0437 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 24/08/2006 2350 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 25/08/2006 0251 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 26/08/2006 0307 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 26/08/2006 0541 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 26/08/2006 2343 National Australia Bank Limited RFDs Departure 27/08/2006 0040 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 27/08/2006 0238 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 28/08/2006 0343 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 28/08/2006 0432 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/08/2006 0009 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/08/2006 0013 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/08/2006 0325 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 30/08/2006 0021 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 30/08/2006 0251 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 30/08/2006 2332 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 31/08/2006 2335 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 2/09/2006 0246 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 2/09/2006 2325 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 3/09/2006 0023 Information not available SLSA Life saving helicopter Arrival 3/09/2006 0151 Information not available SLSA Life saving helicopter Departure 3/09/2006 0207 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 3/09/2006 0220 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 3/09/2006 0526 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 4/09/2006 2302 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 6/09/2006 0055 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Arrival 6/09/2006 0118 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 6/09/2006 2306 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 6/09/2006 2335 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Departure 7/09/2006 0240 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 7/09/2006 0343 Falcon 50 Pty Limited Medical 1 Arrival 7/09/2006 0346 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 7/09/2006 2335 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/09/2006 0156 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 8/09/2006 0512 Information not available SLSA Life saving helicopter Arrival 8/09/2006 2349 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 9/09/2006 0212 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 9/09/2006 0352 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 11/09/2006 0259 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 11/09/2006 0559 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 11/09/2006 2302 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 13/09/2006 0152 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/09/2006 0119 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Arrival 15/09/2006 0130 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/09/2006 0557 Information not available Medical 1 Arrival 16/09/2006 0116 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Departure 16/09/2006 0118 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 16/09/2006 0431 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 17/09/2006 0102 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 18/09/2006 0013 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Departure 18/09/2006 0519 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Departure 18/09/2006 2321 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 18/09/2006 2349 Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited Medical 1 Arrival 19/09/2006 0118 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 19/09/2006 0214 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 19/09/2006 0553 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Arrival 21/09/2006 0354 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 22/09/2006 0217 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life saving helicopter Arrival 23/09/2006 0007 Information not available SLSA Life saving helicopter Departure 23/09/2006 0247 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 24/09/2006 0046 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 24/09/2006 0335 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 24/09/2006 0340 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 27/09/2006 0006 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 27/09/2006 0145 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 27/09/2006 0151 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 27/09/2006 2318 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 30/09/2006 0033 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 30/09/2006 0347 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 30/09/2006 0550 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 1/10/2006 0241 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 1/10/2006 0422 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 2/10/2006 0110 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 2/10/2006 0141 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 2/10/2006 0353 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 2/10/2006 0402 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 2/10/2006 2337 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 3/10/2006 0439 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 3/10/2006 2311 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 5/10/2006 0130 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 6/10/2006 0331 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/10/2006 0006 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 8/10/2006 0116 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 8/10/2006 0133 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/10/2006 0353 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/10/2006 0402 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 10/10/2006 0015 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 10/10/2006 0219 Eagle Creek Investments 71 Pty Ltd MED 1 Departure 11/10/2006 0526 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 13/10/2006 0235 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 13/10/2006 0513 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 14/10/2006 0100 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 14/10/2006 0419 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 14/10/2006 2342 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/10/2006 0101 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/10/2006 0325 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/10/2006 0504 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 16/10/2006 0331 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 17/10/2006 0104 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Departure 17/10/2006 0358 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 18/10/2006 2323 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 18/10/2006 2358 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 21/10/2006 0105 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 21/10/2006 0359 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 22/10/2006 0115 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 22/10/2006 0238 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 22/10/2006 0434 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 23/10/2006 0032 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 25/10/2006 0411 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 26/10/2006 0031 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 26/10/2006 0145 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 30/10/2006 0153 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 30/10/2006 2356 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 31/10/2006 2324 Lloyd Off-shore Helicopters Pty. Ltd. Life saving helicopter Departure 31/10/2006 2350 Lloyd Off-shore Helicopters Pty. Ltd. Life saving helicopter Departure 3/11/2006 2338 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 4/11/2006 0101 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 4/11/2006 0106 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 4/11/2006 0238 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 4/11/2006 0426 Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited Medical 1 Arrival 4/11/2006 0540 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 5/11/2006 0326 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 7/11/2006 0054 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/11/2006 0207 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 8/11/2006 0354 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 8/11/2006 0358 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/11/2006 0554 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 9/11/2006 0357 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 11/11/2006 0006 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 12/11/2006 0027 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 12/11/2006 0232 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 13/11/2006 0127 Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited Medical 1 Arrival 13/11/2006 0218 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 15/11/2006 0029 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/11/2006 0326 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/11/2006 0348 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/11/2006 2303 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 16/11/2006 0141 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 17/11/2006 0213 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 17/11/2006 0515 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 18/11/2006 0300 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 18/11/2006 2357 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 19/11/2006 0012 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 19/11/2006 0055 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 19/11/2006 0347 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 19/11/2006 0442 Information not available Medical 2 Departure 21/11/2006 0101 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 21/11/2006 0442 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Departure 22/11/2006 0428 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 23/11/2006 0236 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (central Operations) Incorporated Medical 1 Arrival 23/11/2006 0240 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 23/11/2006 0323 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 24/11/2006 0023 Information not available SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 24/11/2006 0217 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 25/11/2006 0152 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 25/11/2006 0341 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 25/11/2006 0447 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 26/11/2006 0119 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 26/11/2006 2340 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 27/11/2006 0038 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 27/11/2006 0336 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd SLSA Life Saving Helicopter Arrival 27/11/2006 0338 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/11/2006 0004 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 29/11/2006 0114 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/11/2006 0530 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/11/2006 2307 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 30/11/2006 0424 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 1/12/2006 0434 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 2/12/2006 0159 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 2/12/2006 0237 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 3/12/2006 0354 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 3/12/2006 2306 Information not available RFDS Arrival 4/12/2006 0002 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 4/12/2006 0206 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 4/12/2006 0416 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 4/12/2006 2345 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 6/12/2006 0032 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 7/12/2006 0150 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 7/12/2006 0505 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 7/12/2006 0556 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 7/12/2006 2334 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 8/12/2006 0434 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 9/12/2006 0053 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 9/12/2006 0216 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 9/12/2006 0519 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 10/12/2006 0044 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 10/12/2006 0101 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 10/12/2006 0307 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 10/12/2006 2340 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 11/12/2006 0027 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 11/12/2006 0054 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 11/12/2006 0138 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 11/12/2006 0150 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 11/12/2006 0546 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 12/12/2006 0037 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 15/12/2006 2321 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Arrival 15/12/2006 2325 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 16/12/2006 0114 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 16/12/2006 0147 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 16/12/2006 2334 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 17/12/2006 0338 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 18/12/2006 0031 Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited Medical 1 Departure 18/12/2006 0252 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 18/12/2006 0332 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 19/12/2006 0000 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 19/12/2006 0456 Royal Flying Doctor Service Of Australia (south Eastern Section) RFDS Departure 19/12/2006 0508 Southern Region Slsa Helicopter Rescue Service Pty Ltd Life saving helicopter Arrival 20/12/2006 0552 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 23/12/2006 0046 Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited Medical Arrival 23/12/2006 0213 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 23/12/2006 0413 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 24/12/2006 0048 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 24/12/2006 0143 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 24/12/2006 0540 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 25/12/2006 0244 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 28/12/2006 0128 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 28/12/2006 0432 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Arrival 29/12/2006 0046 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS Departure 29/12/2006 0058 National Australia Bank Limited RFDS 1 1 5620 1 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 March 2007: Are there guidelines for the granting of ministerial dispensations that authorise aircraft to take-off from, or land at, Sydney Airport in exceptional circumstances that would otherwise contravene Sydney Airport curfew hours; if so, (a) what constitutes an exceptional circumstance; and (b) to what conditions are such dispensations subject; if not, why not. 1 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Dispensation Guidelines made pursuant to section 20(5) of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 are a legislative instrument (Instrument No: M35/96) and can be found on the Commonwealth of Australia Law (Comlaw) website at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/. Paragraph 6 through to paragraph 12 inclusive of the Dispensation Guidelines detail the criteria to be taken into account by the decision maker when granting a dispensation. Paragraph 13 of the Dispensation Guidelines prescribes that if granted, dispensations will be subject to conditions specifying the procedures to be followed to limit the noise exposure of Sydney residents. 1 1 5621 1 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 March 2007: On how many occasions has he granted a dispensation authorising an aircraft to (a) take-off from, or (b) land at, Sydney Airport in circumstances that would otherwise contravene Sydney Airport curfew hours in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002, (iv) 2003, (v) 2004, (vi) 2005 and (vii) 2006. In respect of each incident identified in Part (1), (a) what was the date and time of each take-off or landing, (b) who operated each aircraft and/or in whose name was each aircraft registered, (c) what were the exceptional circumstances justifying each take-off or landing and (d) what conditions were attached to each dispensation. 1 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: Dispensations were granted for aircraft to take-off and land during curfew hours on the following occasions: 24 dispensations were granted in 2000 35 dispensations were granted in 2001 52 dispensations were granted in 2002 30 dispensations were granted in 2003 45 dispensations were granted in 2004 78 dispensations were granted in 2005 34 dispensations were granted in 2006. Section 20(4) of the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 requires that a report on any dispensations granted must be tabled in Parliament. Information on dispensations authorised and the other information sought is available from the Tabling Office. 300 300 5627 300 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 29 March 2007: Has Austrade contributed to the activities of Longway Industrial Development Pty Ltd and Coverdale Trading Limited; if so, (a) in which years did this occur and (b) what was the purpose of any contribution. Have there been complaints regarding the connections between the activities of the companies identified in Part (1) and those of Coverdale Christian School Limited, now trading as Norwest Christian College, Riverstone, NSW. Have any investigations been undertaken into the expenditure, by any of the companies identified in Parts (1) and (2), of Commonwealth grant monies for purposes other than those for which the grant was made; if so, what are those details. 300 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Austrade has not contributed to the activities of Longway Industrial Development Pty Ltd and Coverdale Trading Limited. Seven grants totalling $309,760 were paid to Coverdale Christian School Ltd under the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme administered by Austrade, as set out below. Grant year 1996-97 $23,792 Grant year 1997-98 $32,842 Grant year 1998-99 $21,017 Grant year 1999-00 $34,160 Grant year 2000-01 $54,797 Grant year 2001-02 $66,728 Grant year 2002-03 $76,424 No. No. The eligibility rules for EMDG grants are legislated in the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 and provide for a partial reimbursement of export promotion expenditure already undertaken by eligible applicants. 300 300 5634 300 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 29 March 2007 : In respect of Figure 2.11, page 192 of the Department of Families, Communities Services and Indigenous Affairs Annual Report 2005-06, which shows full-time childcare gap fees as a proportion of weekly disposable income before and after the childcare benefit and the childcare tax rebate; under the modelling used to create the graph, and for each of the income ranges represented, what, in dollar terms, is: (a) the estimated average fees paid; (b) the assumed value of the childcare benefit received; and (c) the assumed value of the childcare tax rebate received. 300 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: Noting that those paying full-time fees are a minority, the FaCSIA Annual Report for 2005-06 estimated the average weekly fee for each income as $236. Following the release of the 2006 Australian Government Census of Child Care Services the average weekly fee in LDC was revised to $233. The calculated Child Care Benefit and Child Care Tax Rebate are not assumptions but are the actual benefits that would be paid for each income level. 301 301 5644 301 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 March 2007: What are the (a) current and (b) new bands for rental expenses for each rank group in each major defence area. Do Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel pay higher rent in expensive cities than in remote locations; if so, are ADF wages subsidised to meet any additional cost. What fringe benefits tax expenses are paid by the Defence Housing Authority or the Department of Defence in respect of the subsidisation of rental accommodation for ADF personnel. 301 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Rental expenses for Australian Defence Force rank groups are established on a national basis rather than by major Defence area. The accommodation contribution that an ADF member pays is determined by their rank and circumstances. The accommodation contributions for rank groups in specified circumstances, at the time the question was asked, are provided below. The accommodation contributions for rank groups under the new rent band structure were tabled in the House of Representatives on 30 May 2007. No. The Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) expense paid by the Department of Defence in relation to subsidisation of accommodation for ADF members was $197,295,213 for the FBT year 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. Current Australian Defence Force member contributions for accommodation Member with dependants Contribution for a Service residence or for rent allowance Item Rank Group (including equivalent ranks) Group of Service residence Contribution for a residence with 2 bedrooms or less $ per week Contribution for a residence with 3 bedrooms or more $ per week 1 Major General or higher E 340.00 377.75 2 Colonel, Brigadier D 218.70 243.00 3 Major, Lieutenant Colonel C 178.65 198.50 4 Warrant Officer Class 1, Warrant Officer Class 2, Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain B2 161.25 179.15 5 Sergeant, Staff Sergeant B1 142.10 157.85 6 Corporal or lower, trainee A 118.60 131.75 7 Major or lower 1A 105.95 117.70 Note: Item 7 – 1A properties are below the ‘Group A’ standard may be occupied on a voluntary basis by members of Major or lower rank. Member without dependants Contribution for a Service residence – not sharing Classification of Service residence Service residence with 2 bedrooms or less $ per week Service residence with 3 or more bedrooms $ per week E 340.00 377.75 D 218.70 243.00 C 178.65 198.50 B2 161.25 179.15 B1 142.10 157.85 A 118.60 131.75 1A 105.95 117.70 Member without dependants Contribution for a Service residence – sharing Description of member Member sharing with 1 other person $ per week Member sharing with 2 or more people $ per week Colonel or higher 109.40 81.00 Major, Lieutenant Colonel 89.30 66.15 Warrant Officer, Captain or lower officer rank (other than trainee) 80.60 59.75 Sergeant, Staff Sergeant 71.05 52.60 Corporal or lower, trainee 59.30 43.90 Contribution for rent allowance where member is eligible for partial rent allowance Description of member Member not sharing, or sharing with 1 other person $ per week Member sharing with 2 or more people $ per week Colonel or higher 109.40 81.00 Major, Lieutenant Colonel 89.30 66.15 Warrant Officer, Captain or lower officer rank (other than trainee) 80.60 59.75 Sergeant, Staff Sergeant 71.05 52.60 Corporal or lower, trainee 59.30 43.90 Contribution for rent allowance where member is eligible for full rent allowance Description of member Member not sharing $ per week Member sharing with 1 other person $ per week Member sharing with 2 or more people $ per week Major General or higher 340.00 - - Colonel, Brigadier 218.70 109.40 81.00 Major, Lieutenant Colonel 178.65 89.30 66.15 Warrant Officer Class 1, Warrant Officer Class 2, Second Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain 161.25 80.60 59.75 Sergeant, Staff Sergeant 142.10 71.05 52.60 Corporal or lower, trainee 118.60 59.30 43.90