2007-08-09 41 1 10 REPS 0 0 2007-08-09 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers. 1 Bills R2844 1 Debate resumed from 8 August, on motion by Mr McGauran: That this bill be now read a second time. 1 09:01:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —Labor is totally opposed to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. This legislation is, of course, just the latest communications proposal from the Howard government. They have made some 17 different broadband program announcements in less than five years, but none of them has given Australia the national broadband network that we need to be competitive with the rest of the developed world. There are many issues that draw a vast distinction between Labor’s comprehensive broadband plan and the government’s policy, and I outlined some of those earlier in this debate. However, I believe price to consumers is a critical issue. Unlike the Howard government, Labor does not believe that a government should set consumer prices. Prices should be set by an independent regulator—after negotiations with the parties—who will ensure the best possible outcomes for the consumer. What will achieve the best outcome for the consumer is establishing a structure which encourages the market to work. Labor’s fibre-to-the-node network is open access. This will ensure more competition between providers, which will lead to a lowering of prices. The Howard government’s proposed program, even for the cities to which it is restricted, has no starting date. The government has said that it will form a committee—that is what the government has as its plan to move forward. Because Labor is prepared to move to that superior technology of a fibre-to-the-node network, Labor’s plan will ensure that we move more quickly to where we need to end up. We know that it is unsustainable to think that Australia would continue to be in the position we are in now. We know that the Howard government’s half-baked proposals for cities, and very inferior and second-tier proposals for rural and regional Australia and outer suburbs, are unsustainable in the long term. Therefore, the more quickly we move to a fibre-to-the-node network, the more quickly we will be in a position to actually compete with other countries in our region. The government have been extraordinarily negligent in the way that they have dealt with these issues. They have responded, and this legislation is a product of that response, to the fact that Labor’s broadband strategy has been well received by consumers and well received by business. It is a part of Labor’s comprehensive strategy to deal with infrastructure. In the past 24 hours we have had a debate about the increase in interest rates. Labor will continue to argue that one of the threats to the economy, as has been indicated by the Reserve Bank of Australia, is the failure to invest in skills and infrastructure—the failure to invest in our human capital and the failure to invest in our physical capital. Of those infrastructure shortfalls, communications is a critical component. It is one of the four areas—along with energy, water and transport—that Labor have identified as our priority, because we have a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Labor will create Infrastructure Australia, a statutory authority made up of representatives of Commonwealth and state governments and the private sector. It will be a statutory authority that will drive the prioritisation of infrastructure and coordination that Australia needs. We will of course have an infrastructure minister—something that this government has not bothered to do because it does not regard the coordination of infrastructure as a necessity. That body will conduct an audit and establish an infrastructure priority list. When I listen to the criticisms of those opposite—and it happened in question time again yesterday—they say, ‘We have AusLink’. That is infrastructure; nothing else. Telecommunications, energy, water, a coordinated approach to infrastructure for the nation for regional and rural Australia and urban Australia are simply not on the agenda of the Howard government. Let us be clear: the earnings of the Communications Fund, which this bill provides for to sustain the roll-out of telecommunications services in rural, regional and remote Australia, are simply not enough. Labor makes no apologies for using the Communications Fund to build a national broadband network that will vastly improve telecommunications services across Australia, including rural, regional and remote Australia. The Howard government have ceased to govern for the national interest—in fact some would already argue that they have ceased to govern completely. This legislation is at best a political stunt against the Labor Party, but one that undermines their coalition partners in the National Party. I wish therefore to move the following amendment: That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “the House declines to give the Bill a second reading and condemns the Government for it sfailure to invest the $2 billion Communications Fund in a national fibre to the node broadband network to ensure: parity of service and metro comparable pricing for all Australians serviced by the fibre to the node network; the state of broadband services in Australia is turned around, after the past 11 years of neglect under the Howard Government; Australians have access to the best available telecommunication technologies; Australians in rural and regional areas have improved telecommunication services, including access to e-health and e-eduction, which are only possible over a fibre to the node network. The interest earned on the Communications Fund (up to $400 million every 3 years) is not enough to ensure this; 98 per  cent of Australians, including those in rural and regional areas, have access to future proof telecommunications technology; and the two per cent of people that the new fibre to node network will not reach have a standard of service, depending on the available technology, that is as close as possible to that provided by the new network”. Labor moves that amendment to put very clearly the choice that is there: on the one hand, under the government, essentially up to $133 million a year for rural and regional telecommunications; under Labor, a comprehensive $4.7 billion program done as a private-public partnership to ensure that all Australians have access to high-speed broadband, not just because this is a communications issue somehow viewed in isolation but because telecommunications are a driver of economic growth. Without being competitive in the area of telecommunications as a vital piece of infrastructure we cannot compete economically. This legislation would ensure that we will increasingly have a two-tiered system whereby people, because of where they live—such as in your electorate, Mr Speaker—will not have the same services that are available in my electorate in inner Sydney. That is what this is about. If you live in inner Sydney you are going to have high-speed broadband services—not as good under the government’s option as what we are putting forward but nonetheless better in comparison with those for people in outer suburban areas or in rural and regional Australia. That is not the only matter. This government, because of its tired leadership that is old in its ideas and incapable of moving forward with the challenges in the new century, just does not get how vital this is for education, health and our future economic and social development. This is a tired old government that has been here for too long—that this week told the rest of the Australia that it has given up on governing, that it is simply about trying to buy its way to another election victory regardless of the economic consequences—and not just regardless of the economic consequences but regardless of the fact that it is neglecting the big issues and challenges which need to be taken on if we are truly going to be able to move forward in Australia’s long-term national interest rather than just the short-term political interest. In this case, however, I cannot understand how any regional or rural representative, whether of the Liberal Party or of the appendage laughingly called the National Party, can possibly support this totally inadequate legislation. I can understand how the member for Gippsland, who represents the communications minister, can support this—because I have met him. Anyone who meets him understands why he could support totally inadequate legislation—because he is simply not up to it. But I would call upon other members to stand up for their constituents and demand the same services for all Australians regardless of where they live. I commend the amendment to the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 3 09:16:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 will ensure that Australia’s perpetual $2 billion Communications Fund cannot be raided and frivolously spent. It will protect in legislation the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund so that only the interest earned from the fund, up to $400 million every three years, can be spent. The Communications Fund was established by the government in 2005 and provides a guaranteed income stream to fund hard infrastructure for regional communities, such as additional mobile towers, broadband provision and even backhaul fibre capabilities. The fund’s capital will be invested and the revenue generated will be spent on ensuring rural, regional and remote Australians can access affordable and reliable telecommunications services in the future. This will provide certainty for people in regional and remote Australia that the improvements in their telecommunications services will keep pace with the rest of the nation, effectively future proofing telecommunications services. Spending from the fund will be tied to independent, regular reviews of telecommunications services in rural, regional and remote Australia. The first review will be conducted in 2008, with reviews to follow every three years after that. The Communications Fund, along with Australia Connected and the Australian Broadband Guarantee initiatives, clearly demonstrate the Australian government’s commitment to ensuring all Australians will have access to competitive state-of-the-art telecommunications. Australia Connected is immediately rolling out a new competitive state-of-the-art broadband network that will extend high-speed services to 99 per cent of the population, utilising a mix of fibre optic cabling, ADSL2+ and wireless broadband platforms. By using the variety of the broadband mediums available to us the Australian government is able to ensure the residents of the Central Coast are receiving the best quality broadband services at the best price. In direct contrast, Labor’s belief that one type of broadband delivery will adequately service all is ludicrous. If Labor knew anything about broadband, they would know that Australia’s geographic conditions require the best mix of technologies. The Australian government is making the best use of this mix. It has been 10 years since the Howard government took the landmark decision to open up Australia’s telecommunications regime to competition, forever changing our telecommunications landscape by delivering significant benefits to consumers in terms of choice and price. Australia’s telecommunications industry has been transformed from a single dominant provider to full and open competition, with 167 licensed carriers in the marketplace and prices falling by over 26 per cent. Recently the government released the much anticipated Australia Connected announcement and named OPEL as the winning bidder to roll out a new, wholesale high-speed broadband network across Australia. OPEL, a joint venture by Optus and rural group Elders, will deliver Australia one of the world’s most comprehensive rural and regional broadband networks for a country of our size and population spread. Broadband speeds will be 20 to 40 times faster than those used today and delivered in the country at city comparable prices. OPEL’s new network will be funded by government support of $600 million from the program and $358 million of additional funding to a total of $958 million. OPEL’s own commercial contribution to the network is $917 million. The new broadband services will retail for between $35 and $60 per month, depending on the speed package chosen by the consumer. This sound technological investment in broadband means that local residents living and working in the Dobell electorate will very soon have access to high-quality, fast and affordable broadband for the first time. It is a shame that Telstra CEO Sol Trujillo is demonstrating sour grapes. They did not have the wit to put in an innovative alternative tender. The Next G technology that they are providing is really first class. Surely they could have come up with a better price proposition than what they have come up with. OPEL’s sound technology investment means that local residents will certainly be much better off. Under the Australia Connected scheme, areas such as Bateau Bay, Blue Haven, Wyoming, Mardi, Warnervale and even most of Jilliby in the Yarramalong Valley can look forward to internet speeds of six, 12 and eventually even 20 megabits. By 2009 Australia Connected will provide 99 per cent of Australians with access to a broadband speed of 12 megabits, which is 20 to 40 times faster than that in use by most customers today. This is a huge win for local residents, who have been lobbying for a long time to get access to even basic broadband and telecommunications services. Within the next couple of years they will have access to the latest technical improvements in this field. Everyone in Dobell can benefit from these telecommunications initiatives, including those running their businesses from home, those working in our hospitals and schools, families who use the internet to keep in touch with loved ones, and our business people who use it to contact their customers and suppliers and to find new markets for their products and services. Indeed, many small businesses are microbusinesses, mainly run by women operating from home. Broadband certainly improves their access. Students and parents on the Central Coast are especially pleased with this federal government initiative as it will make completing schoolwork at home a lot easier, as they will have fast access to relevant information and sources. On the other hand, Labor plans to waste $4.7 billion of taxpayers’ money on a broadband proposal about which they refuse to disclose until after the election basic information such as coverage maps, detailed costing and how their joint arrangement would work. The member for Grayndler criticised some of the maps produced by OPEL. Where are the Labor maps? What technology are they going to use? How are they going to get fibre to the node to 98 per cent of the Australian population? Telstra cannot do it. Some of the people on that side have some technical competence, like the member for Blaxland, who has been dumped for another union heavyweight. He is the one member over there who understands something about telecommunications; the rest of them are Rudd duds. Industry analysts have also slammed Labor’s claim to reach 98 per cent of Australia’s population and are predicting a massive cost blow-out by Labor. Indeed, this $4.7 billion plan is an old rehash of something Telstra proposed some years ago. That is why there is no detail—Labor does not understand it. It demonstrates a real economic risk that Labor presents to the taxpayers. Even Telstra’s five-city program is going to cost $4 billion or $5 billion, and that will only cover a very small proportion of the Australian population. It certainly will not do anything for the people in Dobell. On top of that Labor has committed to drain the entire $2 billion from the Communications Fund, rob the bush of its ongoing funding and squander the funds on a network that is estimated to reach only about 75 per cent of the population. The remaining 25 per cent of the population in rural and regional areas will be stranded without any future service upgrades under Labor. Ironically, it is the 25 per cent of consumers in rural and regional Australia that the Communications Fund was established to protect and that the Labor Party will abandon if elected. Not content with pillaging the Communications Fund, Labor has also promised to grab a further $2.7 billion from the Future Fund for a total of $4.7 billion to waste on a broadband network that the industry says will fund itself. And we know that governments cannot run businesses. Furthermore, having racked up $96 billion in debt when last in power, the Labor Party has now committed to raiding the Future Fund to pay for its election promises. This represents an irresponsible and short-sighted policy which would penalise future generations by running down the money set aside to meet future costs. Taxpayer funds should be used to deliver equity in underserved areas and ensure regional and rural Australians are not left behind in the ongoing telecommunications technology revolution. This is a particularly important bill, as its passage through parliament will protect rural and regional Australia from the gross economic irresponsibility of the Labor Party. The very clear challenge to the Leader of the Opposition and his party is to provide the costings, coverage maps and technical information about their broadband proposal for the full scrutiny of the Australian public. This needs to be done before the election; otherwise, it will just be another Rudd dud. All details of the government’s new national broadband network are in the public domain, but we have heard nothing but rhetoric from the Labor Party. It is clear that Labor does not have a genuine broadband strategy for Australia beyond our major capital cities. That is its base, that is where its constituents are, and that is where its union heavyweights live. Its plan has no detail, no technical backing and no plan for the 25 per cent of the population that Labor will leave stranded without a service. We saw this happen in the mobile telephony area. When it dumped AMPS, rural communication was left without any mobile service until the Howard government introduced the CDMA network. This bill will prevent a future government covertly abolishing the Communications Fund. Any future government that wants to abolish the Communications Fund will have to publicly introduce legislation to do so. This whole process provides certainty for people in rural and regional Australia that the improvements in their telecommunications services will keep pace with the rest of the nation in stark contrast to Labor’s proposal. Labor is not interested in the needs of rural and regional constituents of Dobell; it is only interested in having more union bosses in Canberra. We have seen the disdain it has for the constituents in the Central Coast area by parachuting in candidates from Victoria. Candidates could not get a seat down there. Many members were being dumped and even the member for Hotham had to mount a rearguard action to maintain his preselection. The Labor Party’s hurry to raid both the Future Fund and the regional Communications Fund for short-term political fixes reveals its dire inability to manage the country’s economy. This demonstrates Labor’s complete lack of interest in Australia’s future. We cannot avoid the fact that we are an ageing population. This funding has been quarantined to deal with our future liabilities. The unfortunate truth for the opposition is that the government’s broadband programs have now achieved much more than Labor claimed they would, and we have done it four years earlier and for a fraction of the cost to taxpayers. Our proposals are fully costed and fully planned, and the new national broadband network will start rolling out immediately. Australia cannot afford to wait until 2013 for the ALP’s network to be completed. The coalition government will not need to raid the Future Fund to establish a national broadband network. We have been able to do this because of the government’s commitment to having appropriate and focused policies and strategies in place. We have introduced policies to foster a competitive environment for the delivery of broadband services. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. In fact, the fibre-to-the-node network would not provide a service in the area I live, and I am 10 kilometres off the Sydney-Newcastle freeway and three kilometres off the main distributor road from the freeway into most of the Central Coast population. Fibre to the node will do absolutely nothing for other people who live in an area like mine. We are about two kilometres from residential customers. That is the fallacy of fibre to the node. You cannot achieve full broadband with one technology. The government has created the environment, and investment in telecommunications infrastructure and services is strong. This bill secures the Communications Fund to protect the long-term interests of rural, regional and remote Australia. I am confident that the Australian government has got the balance right and that this new network will deliver an enormous productivity boost to the electorate of Dobell. Indeed, the member for Grayndler rubbished the Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access program. He obviously does not understand that WiMAX is a new and developing technology. It is similar to Next G in its infancy. Both of these programs can be improved. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 00ANF Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP Mr TICEHURST —The member for Hotham, who is interjecting, should read the article in Tuesday’s edition of the Australian containing a report about Sony Ericsson’s prediction that users will need only one phone; they will not need a fixed house phone because one phone will be able to access both the mobile and fixed phone networks. Catch up with the technology and he might understand what it is all about. Telstra can provide ADSL2+ because many of its exchanges are fitted with the appropriate technology. However, it refuses to turn it on until it has a competitor providing a service out of the same exchange. That is one example of Telstra trying to maintain its monopoly; it is trying to protect its fibre-to-the-node idea. It is obvious that the Labor Party is trying to get into government so that it can get people signed up to a new phone network resulting in more and more unionists. That is what it is all about. I commend this bill to the House. 7 09:31:00 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 0 Mr CREAN —The Labor Party opposes the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. It is merely a stunt designed to hide the government’s incompetence in connecting the nation with world-class broadband access. Despite what the member for Dobell said, having sold Telstra, this government has had 11 years to provide world-class broadband services across this nation, but it has failed to do so. That demonstrates its incompetence in delivery writ large. It cannot get its water policy right and it cannot get its health policy right, and it flounders—Abbott for Mersey! This is another example of where the government has failed the nation. Despite selling off Telstra, it has failed to make the essential investment in connecting all the nation, not only the capital cities. Labor has a plan, and I will come to that in a minute. I hope the member for Dobell, if he is interested in learning something, will stay in the chamber and listen. Of course, he is not interested. He comes into this place and makes wild accusations— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —I am listening! DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr CREAN —Here he is over in the corner! We’ve got the member for O’Connor. We really have the heavyweights here. It is very interesting to note that when this government says its legislation is designed to do something it gives it a title that suggests it will do the exact opposite. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might remember that the title of the GST legislation stated that it would lead to a fairer tax system. It did anything but. The industrial relations reform legislation was called Work Choices, but it allowed no choice—in fact, the only choice is to sign a contract or to be sacked. The government has now introduced the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill, which will prevent regions getting world-class telecommunications services. The government has not been content to demonstrate its incompetence; it has now introduced legislation that has no purpose other than to block Labor’s plan. The government’s solution to its incapacity and incompetence is to block something. Because it is not a doer, it becomes a spoiler. That is what this legislation represents. Labor’s plan is to use the $2 billion Communications Fund to help build world-class telecommunications services for the entire country. However, this bill attempts to prevent Labor from using that $2-billion fund to implement its plan. It quarantines that money for the government to use if left to its own devices. The government’s plan is to use the interest on that $2 billion for telecommunications services. However, it still has not said how that interest will be invested; none of that has been disclosed despite the previous speaker’s assertions. How did this fund come about? It was the buy-off to get Senator Barnaby Joyce’s vote in the Senate for the further sale of Telstra. The government champions the fact that it has established a $2 billion fund, but it can access only the interest earned from it—that is, a little over $100 million a year. What will that achieve in connecting the nation? It will not have any significant impact. It is no wonder that the system is failing. The government wants the kudos of saying it has a $2 billion fund, but it is not allocating that money for its stated purpose. The Treasurer’s response has been to say that there should be no government investment in telecommunications. He says that the private sector will provide the services all on its own and asks why the government should intervene. He says that Labor is pouring money into an area in which the private sector should invest. The fact is that the private sector will invest only where it can get an economic return. It will not invest in the regions because it is not economic unless it charges exorbitant prices. That is market failure and it is the reason that in the past this parliament has made a bipartisan commitment to providing universal access to standard telephone lines. We must make a commitment today that everyone in Australia, regardless of where they live, will have access to world-class broadband services. This government will mouth the words, but it will not make the commitment. If the Treasurer is right that the government does not have to invest any money, why is it making commitments to do so? Just recently, it had to increase the funding available to the successful bidder, OPEL, in a contract that had previously been put out at $650 million. The government upped it to almost $1 billion. The winning consortium was OPEL, but Telstra is now suing the government because it was not advised of the increase that the government was putting into play. And the previous member was talking about transparency and openness and about the government coming clean! If we are talking about openness, where is that extra $350 million being funded from? I have heard no mention of the interest from the Communications Fund going into it, and the government still has not explained where the additional $350 million is coming from. On top of that fiasco, this government has also bragged on other occasions about how it has already invested $4 billion to try and improve telecommunications. We know this has not improved it. That has been a dismal failure. How can the government have the hypocrisy to come into this place and attack Labor’s plan on the basis of putting in money when it has put in money and wasted it? Labor’s plan is to commit $4.7 billion, of which $2 billion is to come from the Communications Fund. This is not just from the interest on it but from an allocation as an investment in the future of this country. The additional $2.7 billion is to come from the further sale of the Telstra share, which the government will put into the Future Fund. Understand that this is the sale of a government asset that the whole of Australia owned. The government’s solution is to put it into the Future Fund, which does what? It meets the unfunded superannuation liabilities of who? Commonwealth public servants. Why should the nation’s savings be used for such a limited purpose? If, in fact, we are realising the savings of that which the nation made from a great investment in the past, why shouldn’t those savings be reinvested in our future? That is what Labor says we should do. What we are talking about in terms of this Telstra component is the remaining 17 per cent of Telstra. Labor’s proposal will not even have to draw on that full amount. But I make this point: this is a government that has failed to connect the nation, having sold 83 per cent of Telstra already. Labor will do more with the remaining 17 per cent to connect the nation than this government has done by selling 83 per cent. That is how incompetent and uncommitted this government is in addressing this problem. Labor’s plan is costed, it is funded and it is comprehensive. It will see 98 per cent of the country covered by fibre-to-the-node technology. The remaining two per cent that cannot be covered by fibre to the node will be covered by technologies that aim to achieve the equivalent speed of it. That is our commitment. That is where wireless technologies, satellites and any other technologies can be used, but fibre to the node has to provide the essential base. If anyone doubts the importance of achieving this agenda, let me explain why rolling out broadband to the whole of the nation is so essential. In the 19th century, railways were important to connect the nation; in the 21st century, connecting to the information superhighway is the imperative—particularly for the regions, because their capacity to develop economic opportunities is critically linked to their ability to access fast-speed broadband. They cannot compete in the marketplace in accessing information, in tendering documents, in operating from home—especially those living in more remote locations—and in participating in electronic commerce if they cannot access the speed that the cities take for granted. They will not have a chance. It is very interesting that the Australian Local Government Association found in its State of the regions report—I had the pleasure of speaking at their conference on this last year—that the cost of inferior broadband in 2006—just one year—was $2.7 billion in forgone gross domestic product and 30,000 regional jobs. Just think of that in terms of the regions. We talk about regional development but, if we get this right, this technology will provide an economic underpinning. The simple fact from that report is that regions that have access to broadband are doing well; those that do not have access are the ones that are being left behind. But the benefits of broadband are not just economic. For individuals, businesses and regions broadband is the great enabling infrastructure of our age. It offers our children the opportunity to secure educational outcomes regardless of where they live. It enables them to connect with a world of learning that they would not otherwise have. It is also about giving Australians access to an advanced range of services, including e-health and e-education—not to mention the vital capacity for Australians to be able to communicate more effectively from wherever they are so that they are able to remain in touch with their loved ones, their community groups and their friends. This technology also has the ability to deliver quality entertainment and recreational facilities. That is why it is important. It has economic but also cultural and social benefits. These are the sorts of things that are good public goods and why governments must make the investment where the market fails in its economic coverage. It is only Labor that is committed to build such a network. I have said before how we intend to fund our commitment to the plan. Why should the Future Fund be used to pay only the superannuation liabilities of Commonwealth public servants? Why should the proceeds of Telstra not be reinvested in the telecommunications network of this nation? Why should the Communications Fund be restricted to an interest-only payment? Labor will not stand for that, and neither, I believe, will the Australian public. Labor acted in relation to the ALGA report. Labor understands the importance of connecting the nation, and we put our proposal into the public domain. The government’s plan will hold the regions and the nation back. As more details emerge about the government’s broadband pre-election bandaid, more evidence is emerging that the regions will not only be consigned to a second-rate system but will be slugged for the privilege. Country residents could be slugged with internet installation bills of up to $1,000 as they will have to install satellite-dish-like antennas. This cost will not only be an additional burden but provide them with an inferior system which will duplicate existing services, including exchanges which have already been upgraded and Telstra’s Next G network. It is not just our word that I ask people to take note of in relation to this. Leading academics and the OECD have found wireless inferior to fibre for speed and reliability. Fibre is the Labor solution. The WiMAX wireless solution, the inferior solution, is what the government proposes. Wireless does have a place, I accept that, but only as a complementary technology to the fixed-line network. It is what we would use, for example, as part of the solution to address the two per cent that we cannot connect with fibre to the node. We have to aim for the biggest capacity, but a number of important telecommunications experts confirmed, when the government’s report came out in June, that wireless technologies would always be slower than fibre and would suffer from interference and low quality and that fibre provides the largest bandwidth. Neil Weste from Macquarie University has said so. Andrew Parfitt from the University of South Australia has said so. Eryk Dutkiewicz from the University of Wollongong has said so. But what does the government do? It ignores the experts. It trots out the incompetent Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. At a press conference on 27 June, she claimed: The network design and rollout has addressed topography and local weather conditions … That is what the minister said on the public record. But that is not what her department’s own website says. That website features maps of Australia from OPEL, the consortium that won the bid, showing what it seeks to cover. They look impressive and seem to show that the whole of the nation is being covered. But at the top it says: Users should note the disclaimer on these maps. You have to click the link to find the disclaimer, but when you do, the disclaimer says: … these maps do not take into account local topographic features. Hang on—didn’t the minister tell us that they did? Didn’t the minister say that on 27 June? Why is it important to take account of those sorts of things? Because, if you do not, you do not understand whether the network is going to be effectively connected. If the maps do not take account of the topographical features, they are rendered useless. For example, line of sight problems mean the signal will not transmit through mountains, hills, trees or buildings. In addition, because OPEL will transmit the WiMAX signal in the shared spectrum frequency, it will not be permitted to transmit at powers greater than four watts. This means that the signal will not transmit over 20 kilometres, even in flat terrain. Industry experts consider five to 10 kilometres more likely. The disclaimer goes on to say that the existence of technical impediments to service provision in the existing copper network is not taken into account. And, finally, it says that the minister’s own department: … makes no guarantee about the suitability of these maps for any purpose by any person whatsoever. What is the point of putting out maps like that? The minister goes to the Press Club, rants on about how effective this is going to be, and her own department is bagging her. Her own department says it will not give any guarantee about the maps’ suitability for any purpose by any person. This government has again shown its incompetence in this area. It is not committed to regional Australia. It is not committed to connecting the nation. It believes that the private sector should do it and everyone should pay the price. We believe the government has a responsibility to make the investment. We have the plan to do it. We should be able to get on with it and not have this legislation block it. (Time expired) 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Before calling the honourable member for O’Connor, as a former Fitzroy supporter and a Brisbane Lions supporter, I acknowledge a Brisbane Lions supporter in the gallery. 11 09:51:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 1 0 Mr TUCKEY —A very significant issue of policy has just been put on the record in this House by a very senior member of the opposition: ‘Commonwealth public servants don’t count. Public servants are not entitled to a guarantee of the superannuation to which they are appropriately entitled.’ And this comes from the mouth of one of the people who have lectured us about redundancy and entitlements. The member for Hotham has just said it plans to diminish the Future Fund by extracting shares, now the property of the managers of the Future Fund. They say it is more important to achieve some political gain of their impression—I think they are wrong—with an opportunity that goes from the ability to do business at the higher speed, which is to be applauded, to the downloading of movies. They say it does not matter whether the money will be there to pay the people who are totally dependent on this Future Fund and are so important to our nation today in the defence forces and the Federal Police and of course the large number of public servants of long service who do not come under modern contributory arrangements. That is what he said. Consult the Hansard and you will see that the member for Hotham, on behalf of the opposition, said it is only going to Commonwealth public servants. I am pleased to say it is—that was the purpose, because we are going to see a huge demographic change. There is a view that the poor old taxpayer will have to stump up for them in another 20 years time. Who says? The taxpayer may be confronted with an offer from the government at that time saying: ‘We are not going to increase your taxes by X per cent. We are just going to put those public servants on the pension.’ To insulate those public servants and their entitlements, we have put the Future Fund in place, and they will be the losers if one dollar is extracted from it for other purposes. But what has the previous speaker, the member for Hotham, just told us? It will be back to the future—suddenly the government is going to buy back into telecommunications and become the owner of a network. It is interesting to note that both the commercial independent parties fighting over the right to spend $4 billion of their shareholders’ money say that it will only address 72 per cent of the people in the network. Somehow or other a miracle is going to happen and the government will manage to deliver, for the same money, to 98 per cent! But above all—won’t it be nice?—there was not a word about the recurrent costs of this investment. Who is going to look after it? Who is going to get paid to do that? Or are we going to go back to the future and get another 20,000 public servants who will all be members of the union? That is about the only repository of membership the trade union has left—public servants. And they of course will all be up for their $5 levy to guarantee the re-election of a future Labor government. So that is what we are being told—they are going to take $4 billion of taxpayers’ money and go and fight with two consortiums who are both fighting over the same bit of territory. What is the $2 billion being put into reserve for, to guarantee protection from the avariciousness of future treasurers, be they Liberal or Labor? What is the purpose of it? To use the words of the member for Hotham, to address market failure. In a commercial environment, government must always assume the responsibility of delivering balance by using some taxpayers’ money to address areas of market failure, because we as Australians believe in egalitarianism. We believe that the person most remote from where we stand today in the centre of government should have access to, particularly, the same communications services—probably above all else. I am quite interested in this back to the future issue, because I have been around this place for quite a bit of time. I remember when the government owned Telecom, and I remember having 160 outstanding applications in one shire, the Shire of Denmark—I’ll name it—from people waiting to get an ordinary telephone connected. I remember fighting tooth and nail to try and reduce in the early 1980s the $6,000 the old-fashioned ‘government, we love you’ Telecom would charge to run a single wire up from the road to the household of a farming property. I well remember the fellow that rang me once and said: ‘Wilson, you can’t sell Telstra. The service is not as good as in the old days.’ I said, ‘Yeah, and I remember what sort of service you got when I first came, because I helped you get your first telephone.’ He did not have any complaints because he did not have a telephone. I always think it is a bit humorous when people complain over the internet to me about the standard of their internet service. I remember when that was a dream beyond anything, and that was when the government ran the shop. So what are we talking about? A sensible approach. Let the private sector fight over it. I understand that Telstra has its nose out of joint. I am somewhat supportive of some of Telstra’s claims. I think they do have a responsibility to their shareholders and I think, when they sort out a few things, their 3G network, Next G, will be a very significant service across Australia. We have the right as the licensing authority to make sure they meet the commitments they made to the public. But we do not need to go back to the future and invest $4 billion of taxpayers’ money, stealing half of it from the defence forces and the other half from officers’ superannuation, because we need every cent of it. Something like $140 billion is the liability that is going to arise. There are probably people working in this parliament who are dependent on that money. Do not ever think—I repeat, do not ever think—that without that money a future government will necessarily stand by those people. Do not ever think that. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, I and some other people sitting in this room have been around too long to believe that idea, other than with a guarantee. So do not touch it, because it would be a very foolish thing to do. We have seen a senior shadow minister stand up in this place and say that public servants do not count, that this money is only for public servants. I hope a few public servants read this copy of Hansard because that is what was said and that was the reason given. ‘Give the children the opportunity to download movies now and someone else can worry about whether people in the defence forces et cetera get their proper superannuation entitlement.’ I have looked at the pious opposition amendment. There again we find the reference that they are going to fix 98 per cent of the population, when the private sector says that $4 billion will look after only 72 per cent. We want to protect these funds now. It is suggested that somewhere between $100 million and $150 million per annum will accumulate as profits from this fund—a fairly significant amount of money. I note the member for Hotham wanted to tell us that people will want to be connected to the satellite. That service is as fast as you would want today. You can go to various providers of satellite services and tell them what speed you want. You do not have to wait for high-speed broadband, fibre to the node or anything else. There is a problem in that: when you get to very high speeds, companies want to charge you more. Even that has become competitive. If in the process you take VOIP—in other words, you connect your telephone to the same system—you no longer pay $40 a month for a telephone connection. When you put all those figures together, you can get well up into the hundreds out of a satellite. The member for Hotham said that that might cost somebody a $1,000 connection fee. The current arrangements still provide $2,750 of capital investment for the installation. The reality is that we get a situation where there is a direct subsidy. Let me say, to be fair, I think Telstra ran around and got too much of the HiBIS money to upgrade their exchanges with which, unfortunately—one starts talking about the various technical issues—ADSL travels only five kilometres of wire. That is not five kilometres of radius; that is five kilometres of wire. As a wire culture, Telstra encouraged people to form consortiums. They took the $1,000, or whatever it was, available under HiBIS and they aggregated it for an exchange upgrade. In my mind, they did not sufficiently vigorously market satellite for individual homesteads which are all, collectively, both five kilometres radius and more than five kilometres away from a central exchange. I have told them that. I have told them they should take back, at their own cost, all the dodgy handsets that they let people buy without making sure that they were adequate for the outer regions. They now have a blue tick system. It is a bit late but in that process I have written to them and said that they should make an open offer. They all went for the kids’ handsets, all the nice little flip-flop ones, instead of getting a more suitable tradesman’s set, as one brand calls them. They did not get the tradesman’s set; rather they went for the others on the understanding that this unit would do what the CDMA unit they had traded in, got rid of or junked had done. Telstra has a responsibility, as does anyone else who marketed those handsets—Crazy John—to take them back and give people the right one, just as you would expect had you bought a deficient item from another retailer. I think that would have a significant effect. I also point out that this much criticised minister has said on television, it is my personal observation, that we, using the licensing power, will insist that there be an appropriate service before CDMA is turned off. That did not happen when the analog service was turned off—it was just turned off. I well remember it. There was no such service with the digital changeover. The decision was made for the right reasons—because analog uses up too much of the spectrum—but it was a bad decision because the new service did not stand up. Then when we came to office Telstra found it appropriate to discover CDMA. Over time that has become a very good service. I always make sure, when meeting with my constituents, that I leave my phone turned on in the hope that it rings. It might be embarrassing but I say, ‘I thought this thing didn’t work in your town’—just for a bit of fun. The reality is that it has become a very good service and, what is more, it is time the new service was demonstrated to meet that requirement. This is a universal service. It will work as well for my constituents in St Georges Terrace or for people in capital cities around Australia as it will for people on farming properties. That is what we expect. If you buy the appropriate plug and put it into your desktop computer, it will give you high-speed broadband. That is a development happening in the private sector. I am sympathetic to Telstra—that it is doing all that and is being treated as the bad boy. All strength to their arm if they want to give us a clip around the ear because they are a commercial body and are entitled to do so. And the member for Hotham stands up and says, ‘We’re going to steal $4 billion from the superannuation of public servants and we’re going to take this $2 billion so we can spend it now but we will have no proceeds in future for meeting areas of market failure, and we’re going to start our own little business.’ Not one word has been said in this place—and there is an opportunity for speakers to do so—about recurrent costs. Who is going to own it? Who is going to manage it and are those people going to be paid workers, who will, of course, all join the telecommunications union and be subject to the same sorts of levies that have become fundamental to the electoral returns of the Labor Party? I do not think for a minute that this $4 billion has been identified or its expenditure proposed out of the goodness of the heart of the Labor Party. What a nice little investment; all those extra government workers to prop up their election funding! I also see the irony of the situation of the member for Hotham criticising the sale of Telstra. In any commercial sense, Telstra was the only surviving commercial asset of the Australian parliament or government on the day that we won the election and it was mortgaged to the extent of $96 billion. If this parliament was subject to the normal rules of commerce it would have been an issue, as it properly was, of an election where we went to the people and said, ‘If you re-elect us we are going to start selling Telstra.’ That stands in stark contrast to what one Paul Keating did, as I recollect, when he signed a letter to the Commonwealth Bank officers union promising before the election they would never sell the other half of the Commonwealth Bank—the 51 per cent, to be exact—and no sooner did they get re-elected in a surprise result than they announced they would sell it. We told people we were going to do it. But had we been a proper commercial entity the bank manager would have told us to sell it because we were overextended in debt. What had been done under the Hawke-Keating government with the other assets—with TAA, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory, Qantas in its revised form, the Commonwealth Bank, as I just mentioned? Each and every one of them was sold and, as is proposed with the Future Fund, the money was spent. It was not used to pay off debt. While all those proceeds were being disposed of, the debt of this parliament went up from $16 billion to $96 billion in five years. There is the situation: it is a proposal that has no business planning, and you are just going to spend the money. You are going to do for 98 per cent what the private sector says it can only do for 72 per cent—and, of course, there is no money for the two per cent. There is no reserve fund for addressing market failure, which is the one and only responsibility of government. Of course we should do that. We have some opportunity to do it, as demonstrated with CDMA through the licensing, but I think that is a secondary choice. If you want to privatise things you then identify areas of market failure. We are putting in a fund and we are now guaranteeing it in law, so in the future, before you get your sticky fingers as a government on that money, you will have to pass laws in both houses of parliament. If the election was won by Labor they would have a majority in this place but they would have a much tougher job in the Senate—and thank goodness for that. My people want this protection, they want it guaranteed, and so do the public servants. Every public servant in the defence forces and in the Federal Police and those others I mentioned can sleep well at night while the Liberal coalition stays in office, because we have guaranteed their retirement funds. They must start to lose a bit of sleep on the announcement made today that they do not count, that there are other political imperatives that accede on that occasion. (Time expired) 15 10:11:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 0 Ms KING —The stated purpose of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 is to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act to protect the $2 billion Communications Fund. The real purpose of this bill—and we have just heard it from the member for O’Connor—is that the government wants to try and have a crack at Labor’s plans to use the Communications Fund to build a national broadband network. I say to the government: thank you for the opportunity to show, once and for all, that it is Labor that has the plan to build and deliver high-speed broadband to this country, that it is Labor that believes it is the responsibility of governments to nation build, that it is Labor that understands that investing in broadband is one of the most important infrastructure investments we can make towards ensuring future economic growth. The government wants to lock the Communications Fund away so that it is only the income or interest earned on the investments of the fund that are available to implement recommendations proposed by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee. Despite the bill’s title, the bill will not protect regional and rural services, nor will it improve across the board the woeful broadband services we have currently. In fact, what this bill does is condemn regional and rural Australia to a second-class broadband future. The story of the Howard government when it comes to broadband really is a case study of what you should not do. This bill is the 19th time the government has tried to fix up regional and rural services. The problem is that the Howard government has an outdated view of the needs of regional and rural communities, particulary of their broadband needs. The fact is painfully underlined by the Howard government’s announcement of the roll-out of a wireless network for regional and rural communities, the shortsightedness of which I will discuss later. Coming from a regional electorate, I know firsthand that the standard of telecommunications in regional and rural areas is of great concern. People and businesses alike have had to endure a second-rate service when it comes to high-speed broadband—in fact, calling it second-rate is to give it a compliment. In my electorate, the furthest town of which is only an hour and a half from Melbourne—hardly remote; hardly at times even rural—the problems we have with accessing ADSL, let alone anything faster, would lead you to think we are in a Third World country. This has serious implications for our ability to compete not just globally, which is what many companies in my district do, but even within our own state. I know the line the government will take on this bill; they are going to claim that by investing the interest of the $2 billion Communications Fund into regional and rural Australia they will fix our broadband problems. Nothing could be further from the truth. It only highlights how little the government actually understand the problem. The income and interest earned by the Communications Fund is nowhere near enough revenue to raise the standard of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia. It is a drop in the ocean of what is needed and what investment is needed to build a national fibre-optic network. It really is the case of far too little and it will be far too late. Australia’s broadband performance is poor; we are ranked only 16th out of 30 countries surveyed by OECD. It will take more than the interest payments from the Communications Fund to bring regional and rural Australia up to speed with metropolitan centres, let alone the rest of the world. It will take more than the government’s fraudulent Optus-Elders wireless plan to improve broadband services in this country. In the 19th and 20th centuries, governments laid out railway networks as the arteries of the country. In the 21st century, governments around the world are ensuring that high-speed broadband networks are laid out as the arteries of the new economy. After 11 years of the Howard government, we have nothing more than a patchwork network which lags behind those of most developed countries. As is the case with most areas, regional and rural communities are doing it the toughest. Fifteen per cent fewer people in regional Victoria have broadband access than in metropolitan areas. It shows there are still more than 55,000 Victorians who want metropolitan-equivalent broadband coverage but who cannot access it, up nine per cent since 2005. Broadband services in Australian cities are second rate by world standards. In Australia, broadband is defined by access speeds equal to or greater than 256 kilobits per second. In other countries, the service is not even considered to be broadband unless it provides minimum speeds in the megabits or 1,000 kilobits range. In Hong Kong, the slowest broadband speed is 1.5 megabits per second. In Australia less than half of households have access to broadband speeds in excess of two megabits per second, whereas in the UK, Sweden, France, Italy, Canada and the USA 80 to 90 per cent of households have access to faster broadband. For 11 years regional Australia has had to endure broadband speeds that are slower than those of our metropolitan centres. That is not a matter for debate but a matter of fact. The Howard government’s latest broadband plan has effectively locked regional communities into a second-class future by cementing a two-tiered system across the nation. The Prime Minister’s solution to the broadband problem in regional communities is to roll out a wireless network. That is not the solution; it is a fix to try and get broadband off the agenda before the election. I recall that in question time the Prime Minister held up a map of my electorate—a map of the communities that, he claimed, would be able to access faster internet speeds. Having had time to study that map in some detail and consult with telecommunications experts, I can say that the map held up by the Prime Minister in question time, the whiz-bang broadband plan for the electorate of Ballarat, is a complete and utter sham. The Prime Minister stated that the map showed five areas in the electorate of Ballarat that were going to get the benefit of ADSL2+. The first problem is that only three of the communities identified on the map that were going to be able to access ADSL2+ are actually in the electorate of Ballarat; the other two are in other electorates entirely. Of the three that were going to have access to ADSL2+, two of those already have ADSL2+ and will notice very little difference in their broadband speeds. I do not know who put the map together but I am pretty sure that the children at Bacchus Marsh Primary School or Bacchus Marsh preschool could have done a better job of drawing one up. They would have at least known to put Bacchus Marsh on the map in the first place. Bacchus Marsh is a pretty large community and to leave it off the map was an astounding omission. They would also know that condemning a town the size of Bacchus Marsh, only 35 minutes from metropolitan Melbourne, to wireless is simply a dumb idea. The map was also supposed to show which communities would be able to access wireless. When I observed the map, I saw that many communities that have been crying out for faster internet speeds could supposedly access a wireless network. ‘Okay,’ I thought, ‘I will have a look at that.’ The problem is that the map is entirely wrong. Communities such as Yandoit, Shepherds Flat, Mount Rowsley and Blackwood will not be able to access the wireless network, despite the claims on the Howard government map. When devising the map, the Howard government did not take into account the topography of the area—the variations in vegetation, buildings, rain et cetera that will prevent significant numbers of people in my district receiving broadband services under the Howard government’s plan. The wireless network is a line-of-sight technology, which means that, if you cannot see the transmitting tower, you cannot access the network. The problem is that regional and rural Australia is not flat: it is blessed with vast numbers of valleys, hills and, occasionally, mountains which cut off many communities from accessing the network. The data delivered using a WiMAX solution is shared between multiple users. Rather than delivering a minimum 12 megabits per second to customers, the Howard government will deliver up to 12 megabits per second, shared between multiple customers. Broadband speeds are more likely to be 512 kilobits per second. It really is ‘fraudband’. The government maps that depict the OPEL coverage are misleading and they now come with two pages of disclaimers, disclaimers the Prime Minister did not even mention when he was in here in question time holding up the map for Ballarat. The disclaimers state that depictions of WiMAX and other wireless coverage on these maps do not take into account local topographical features, a disclaimer that John Howard did not see fit to bring up in question time. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has admitted that the maps only provide indicative coverage and that exact coverage maps would be available once the network was operational. That is a bit too late if you have decided that, because of the map, you will be able to get WiMAX—and then you find that you cannot. Industry experts suggest that WiMAX coverage from a base station is more like five to 10 kilometres. This is ignoring power limitation issues and is certainly nowhere near the 20 kilometres that the government has claimed. If you thought that this cobbled-together policy could become any shabbier, then think again. The Howard government’s broadband plan does not have its own spectrum to broadcast. Instead, spectrum must be shared, which leads to a number of issues. For example, power limitations apply to the shared spectrum, limitations which will severely limit overall transmission distance. Because use of the shared spectrum in WiMAX deployments is atypical, Australians will require customised computer chip sets in order to access bandwidth, delivered over a shared spectrum. In addition, the WiMAX service offered by the Howard government may suffer from interference, due to the fact that other household appliances, such as your garage door opener, share the same spectrum, as do cordless phones and microwaves. It did not take long for businesses and constituents and local experts from my electorate to contact me, outraged at the government’s political fix. I was emailed by one of my constituents some time ago, and I want to read out quite a bit of his email as it illustrates the depth of the government’s failure to understand just why regional and rural communities need fibre to the node, not WiMAX. Now while Ian is a very sophisticated internet user, with technologies such as voice over IP increasingly being used it will not be long before people realise how woeful their system is. Ian assists in a global network of volunteers who develop the Ubuntu Linux system, quite a complex system. There are lots of people who describe themselves as IT geeks right across the country all the way from small rural communities to metropolitan areas. They get onto this network and are part of the system of building Ubuntu Linux, a system that is used by many large-scale online businesses. The problem for Ian is that he lives in a small community which is not too far from Melbourne, some 45 minutes away, and he is only able to get ISDN. Currently he is on a 128-kilobit ISDN home service, which is the best he can do via copper. He says in his email: Downloading one 650 megabit CD image takes me about 11½ hours. The 1,599 megabit version upgrade is going to take nearly 30 hours and one DVD, if you could be bothered to attempt it, would take about 3½ days of continuous downloading. He usually starts his CD downloading in the evening before he goes to bed and leaves it running overnight to have it finished sometime next morning. These are theoretical maximum times because it can depend on whether there are interruptions and whether the full speed on the line is available for the entire period. While he says that 11½ hours is a long time, he is very fortunate to be on an unlimited data ISDN internet plan, so there is no additional cost other than the long time it takes to complete a download. Currently Ian pays $46.40 per month for his internet access through Telstra BigPond. On the other hand, if he were to take up the government’s program, which is to get satellite broadband into his area, he would be paying $300 per month. It is not a matter of just saying that there are other technologies available; it is also the cost of those technologies that is the problem, and that is not something that the government has taken into account. As Ian says: As you will appreciate, any of these outcomes are financially unviable for a home user and are significantly more than the $46.40. I am therefore better off remaining on a narrowband but unlimited download ISDN internet plan than being lured to a broadband plan by conditional promises of faster connection. He goes on to say specifically: Only when our bandwidth issues are seriously addressed, such as through fibre to the node or fibre to the home—core infrastructure development schemes—will the internet move from being seen as a first-generation option to being embedded in society as a mature fundamental communications medium. I am sure that history recorded a similar sequence of progress in the introduction of the telephone 130 years ago. It went from being a scientific curiosity to being a luxury item that only the very rich could afford to being a commercially exploitable mass communication option and finally to being embedded in society as fundamental and essential infrastructure. Television has also followed a similar path since the 1950s. The faster the internet also reaches that final stage the better. I could not agree more with Ian. George Fong, a local IT expert, in response to the Prime Minister’s plan for condemning regional Australia to a wireless future, said: Australia lacks a big-picture strategy and without that seems doomed to continue with a litany of short-term solutions that ultimately will leave the country’s telecommunications languishing behind the rest of the world. I could not have said it better myself. For George Fong, the only future to pursue is one that invests in fibre-to-the-node technology. In fact one of his and my major concerns with the direction of the Howard government’s proposal is that it will delay rather than enhance the kinds of broadband services in regional and rural areas. If you look across the globe, all developed countries have or are rolling out fibre-to-the-node networks. If regional Australia is going to stay competitive we have to go down the fibre path. There is no choice about that. Local businesses within the IT sector have already told me that companies will not locate to regional areas because they cannot access fast enough broadband. If regional and rural communities are to remain competitive, they will have to have access to fibre to the node. A failure to do this would have catastrophic effects on regional communities. So why not start now? Why wait? Why delay the inevitable? The answer is that there is an election only weeks away and the government needed a short-term political fix instead of what is needed in the long-term interests of regional Australia. The Howard government is keen to point out that the wireless network will be available before Labor’s fibre to the node. But, if you look at it in terms of what you do in your own household, you would not spend $10,000 on building an extension to a house—because you could get it up quickly—knowing that in a couple of years you are going to knock down the whole building to build something better. You can apply the same logic to the Howard government’s wireless network. What is the point of investing $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on something that will be well past its use-by date in less than two years? Compare this to Labor’s broadband policy. Once a fibre network is rolled out it will make sure regional and rural areas have access to a first-class broadband network for the next 50 years. The Victorian Department of Infrastructure’s economic modelling shows that, by 2015, an IT industry with 21st-century broadband has the potential to add $15 billion to Victoria’s gross state product and create 153,000 new jobs. Let us not put regional communities further behind the roll-out. Under the Howard government’s plan, metropolitan areas and other countries will move further ahead. Their economies will grow while regional and rural communities are strangled both economically and socially by a second-rate service. The internet is not something that only people in the cities use. People and businesses in regional and rural Australia use the internet and they use it in more and more sophisticated ways. They do not just use it, as we saw in the case of Ian, to send emails every now and again. They use it in more innovative and sophisticated ways than we could have imagined even a year ago. Again, I want to quote from Ian to explain why it is so important for rural and regional communities. He says: Professionals in any industry sector who want to work online from home will sooner or later face a similar issue to me. For obvious lifestyle reasons, some of these people want to live in rural or rural fringe areas such as Greendale. Being within an hour of the Melbourne CBD, this area is arguably metropolitan fringe. However, in terms of internet access, we are treated the same as someone living in a dugout in Tibooburra. Not that that is a bad thing to do. He continues: That aside—though a key feature of the internet is that it breaks down physical barriers, and a person working in cyberspace who happens to physically be in Creswick needs to be on the same level of access as a person working in the same cyberspace who happens to be in Carlton or Coober Pedy or Tennant Creek or Paris or Baghdad or Denpasar, for that matter—if rural people do not have the same access pipeline into cyberspace as those in the suburbs, the internet carries with it similar limitations to their physical location. One could even argue that the most remote and isolated locations in Australia should really get high-speed broadband internet access first, to offset the ‘tyranny of distance’ issues that those in cities and less remote areas don’t have to contend with. I think most home users of the internet aren’t even aware of the potential that the internet holds once high-volume data streams come into play. A lot of people only use the internet for email and to surf web pages. Those use cases can easily be serviced by dial-up connection, and barely scratch the surface. The computer and the network connection are sitting idle 99 per cent of the time in this usage pattern. When voice over IP telephony, videoconferencing and multimedia streaming start becoming seriously mainstream, which isn’t too far away now, then the limitations of the infrastructure will start to become more apparent to the user community. Labor have a plan to invest $4.7 billion in our broadband infrastructure. Labor’s plan does not discriminate between taxpayers living in urban, suburban, regional and rural areas. The $4.7 billion Labor plan is to build a national broadband network. Labor’s plan is for a state-of-the-art fibre-to-the-node network that has speeds of 12 megabits per second, capable of upscaling, to be laid out over a five-year period. The Howard government has already spent $5 billion of taxpayers’ money on 17 broadband proposals, none of which have delivered true broadband capabilities. Labor’s national broadband network is the sort of nation building that this country needs, and the sort of nation building that only a Labor government will deliver. 20 10:31:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 0 Mr WAKELIN —History is always the best judge of these matters but, in speaking to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007, I have enough knowledge of this place now to remember some of the previous elections and some of the previous promises. It is vital that this bill be brought to the House and that it be put in place. I can recall the efforts of this government in bringing the most modern telecommunications to the regions some decade or so ago under Minister Richard Alston. In those days, we had a fund called the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. There was a board, as I recall, chaired by a distinguished Australian, Mr Doug Anthony. Australians from all over regional Australia served on that board. We were able to get a fairer distribution of telecommunications services across Australia in a way which would never have happened unless we had done it. It included mobile services. It included internet. It included a whole suite of services which we could only imagine a decade before we came to government. The reason this legislation is so important is that, immediately we came to the election after our policies were announced, it was the opposition policy to abolish that fund. There is no doubt about it. Whether the then opposition spokesman, Senator Chris Schacht, can recall those days, I guess only time will tell. But we know that efforts to improve telecommunications services in regional Australia were clearly under threat at that election. And of course we all recall, from this side of the chamber, the scare campaign about selling Telstra. It was a political program as regular as clockwork: ‘The coalition will sell Telstra; the sun won’t rise tomorrow’ type of politics. Three elections we went to on that policy; three elections, the people returned us. So this legislation is vital. The nonsense of the argument about corporatisation of Telstra—that somehow, because it is privatised, it cannot deliver a better service—is so easily demonstrated. When Kim Beazley was minister in the Labor government in 1991 when Telstra was corporatised—some may recall that it went from Telecom to Telstra—it did much more than make a name change. It was required to act like all other corporations in Australia. It was required to have a board responsible to its shareholder, the Commonwealth government. So all of this nonsense was a political facade anyway. Yes, we had a universal service obligation and, yes, this government introduced the service guarantee, which was important and set some standards. Now, in this current parliament, we have the final sale process. That gave us the Communications Fund, which we are here protecting today. We will hear a lot in this campaign about the issues of the competing teams for government—that is, Labor and the coalition. I am sure it will be said many times in this debate, but I must repeat it: Labor promises to deliver a fibre-to-the-node program, which is not practical for rural Australia. It will have an access radius of four kilometres from the exchange. It will spend $4.7 billion, it will have a start date of mid-2008 and a completion date of 2013, and the Communications Fund will be abolished. The government, by comparison, has a program proven to reach 100 per cent of the population, with a high speed of 99 per cent. It consists of fibre, WiMAX, which is fixed wireless, ADSL2+ and satellite. It is already out there and being put in place. It will be a minimum of 20 kilometres from base station. It will cost the taxpayers $958 million and will guarantee affordable and metro comparable prices for all Australians. National retail prices range from $35 to $60 per month depending on the service speed chosen by the consumer. As I was saying, with the Labor party, it will not happen until mid-2008 to 2013; with the coalition policy, the government policy, it will be immediate. The start date is immediate and the completion date is expected by mid-2009. The Communications Fund will be retained and $400 million will be available every three years for emerging needs, because one thing we know for certain in this debate is that telecommunications technology will advance. It will be changing all the time. One of the great challenges is to stay abreast of it, and Australia is seizing that opportunity now. But it would be remiss of me not to mention why we are able to offer a Communications Fund, why we are able to have the sort of economy we have these days. Remember that we started with a $96 billion debt. If you think back to the efforts by this government in 1996 to improve telecommunications at a time when we were still dealing with Labor’s debt, you will see that as one of the hallmarks of this government—that and its commitment to regional Australia. Labor was accumulating debt. It was selling private assets. It was raising taxes and it was raising fuel prices to pay Australia’s way. I just ask people to compare that with the current government’s approach. I now turn to some of the issues around Telstra. With a policy that has been out there for 20 years to make a more competitive telecommunications system in Australia, Telstra has found itself caught up in its old culture of monopoly rent and has no doubt found itself frustrated by government ownership and then by the transition to private ownership. Nevertheless, that is our history, our culture, and that is the basis of our current system. To make that happen, a competitor is required to have a declared service declared, or if a declared service is supplied or proposed to be supplied by a carrier or carriage service provider they must declare that. Then we go to the great difficulties with the ACCC—the great challenges. I think there is something like 40 or more groups or companies now trying to negotiate access with the ACCC as the arbiter. I will just let that sit there. Telstra is, as I say, caught up in this rather anachronistic system, and its tactics are quite interesting to observe. As I understand it, it can withdraw its price and conditions—put them in front of the ACCC—and then submit new ones. So we have what looks to me like a significant delaying process. I do not envy the job of the ACCC or in fact all players in trying to negotiate when they are locked into this old culture. But it is a matter of both sides of this parliament respecting the policy—that this is about competition and offering alternative services. That is what our society and our economy is based on. Telstra will recall the issues around the COTs case. Once again, it brings out these monopoly practices. I think it is still struggling with that attitude in many ways. We regularly have issues in our electorate office where Telstra could resolve some consumer issues much more readily and we find ourselves a little too often going to people like the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I would like to try to describe, as I see it, the current culture in telecommunications in Australia. Somebody much more expert than I am on this issue, Mr Paul Budde, makes some quite astute observations. This comes to this issue of where Telstra thinks it might be at in the current world. He said: The best option would have been for Telstra to work with the government and the industry, but the incumbent has clearly indicated that it has no interest in collaborating with the government, the regulator or the industry to achieve a national broadband plan. He went on to say: Telstra may have succeeded in delaying the development of broadband in Australia, but it has certainly lost the case it was arguing for—that it needed a monopoly in order to advance broadband in Australia. It is now facing severe competition in both regional and metropolitan Australia. This is a far worse outcome for its shareholders than if the company had opted for a cooperative process in which it could have had a serious input. It has now been pretty much sidelined. He further said—and I think this is accurate: Fortunately for Telstra it is so dominant that it will be able to maintain a strong position, but this will no longer be on its own terms. That is as far as I need to go. Telstra is out there as one of our largest, if not the largest, corporations—although, with the capitalisation of some companies these days, it is a bit risky to say whether or not it is the largest. The other thing I would like to mention about Telstra being a key player in the Australian telecommunications industry, in regional Australia in particular, is the issue of their attack on the government and on the Optus company, particularly, because they are an overseas entity. I remind Telstra and the people of Australia that Telstra is 20 per cent owned by overseas interests and is led by—much of its senior management are—overseas people, so we need to be a bit careful about attacking the bone fides of others just because they happen to be from overseas. I support the minister in reminding all of us that it is the consumers of Australia whom we are here to serve, particularly regional consumers on this occasion. I do want to put on the record, though, that we should not presume that metro-Australia has perfect telecommunications services, because it does not have perfect services. So we need to keep every Australian in mind. I welcome the OPEL bid and I wish it well. In my final few minutes, I want to cover two or three things and then sum up. There is a grievance that I need to bring to the chamber, and I cannot think of a better time to do it. I appeal to Telstra to be a positive community and corporate leader. I think it is vital that it does that. A small contracting firm in my electorate have been arguing with Telstra about a contract that they had with Telstra some years ago and they have not been able to resolve the issue. I am sure that we are all aware that commercial contracts can go astray, and these things can happen, but I know these people rather well. I will quote from their senior executive, who says: We feel that Telstra have treated us harshly and unjustly, using their position of strength to overwhelm a small regional business which lacks the financial capacity to take on such a large corporation (with seemingly limitless legal and financial resources) in the court system. From perusing Telstra’s annual reports, I note that one of their corporate objectives is to be a good corporate citizen. Telstra has not acted as a good corporate citizen in their treatment of us. That was from the senior executive of Cowell Electric—a firm in my electorate. I wanted to put that to the chamber to demonstrate the tough environment and the tough way that Telstra sometimes operates. The government is to be congratulated for what it is doing here today to protect the $2 billion Communications Fund. This coalition’s term in government has been a time of progress for this nation with regard to telecommunications. We are protecting the Communications Fund from the Labor Party. We are not on some political witch-hunt or looking for some political opportunity; we are defending the Communications Fund against what the Labor Party has previously said that it would do. That is a fact. That is on the record. I welcome the legislation and remind the House, to quote from the minister’s media release: The Australian Government will ensure that 99 per cent of the population has access to fast affordable broadband by June 2009. Australia has now entered into a whole new broadband era with speeds 20 to 40 times faster than those used by most consumers today ... Let me say here that I do not see that the task force that is charged with the responsibility of the $400 million interest on the Communications Fund being restricted exclusively to broadband. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I think you and I would agree that some mobile services would go well in some places within our electorates. This is the future, and the government is responding to it. Everyone pretty much knows this, but it is important that I remind the House that there is a safety net that ensures that Australians living in the most remote or difficult to reach areas—the remaining one per cent—are entitled to a broadband subsidy of $2,750 per household. I support the WiMAX technology, but it is only one of a number of technologies that have been used—and no doubt there will be new technologies coming on all the time. That is what the Communications Fund is all about. In addition to WiMAX, a further 426 exchanges, representing more than three million premises, will be enabled with very fast ADSL2+ broadband for the first time. So the march goes on and the services continue to improve. It is very important to understand that the OPEL network will enable, as I understand it, a reduction in regional backhaul prices of around 30 per cent. That is very important. I have touched on the expert task force and the distinguished people who will serve on it, so I will not repeat myself other than to say that, in order to expedite the plan, the competitive bids process will start immediately and the expert task force will be formed straightaway. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to speak on this bill today. It is important that it be locked in for posterity. This government has been able to facilitate telecommunications in a way that is far removed from previous telecommunications, including during Labor’s era, of eight-gauge fencing wire and pine posts and where the best we could hope for were party lines that did not go down when a tree branch fell down on them. 24 10:51:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —In reference to the parting comments of the member for Grey, I remember as a relatively young person having to go out and untangle the party line, which the galahs or whatever had twisted up, or a branch had fallen across it. Irrespective of our views on telecommunications, some of which I am about to give, I think we would all say that there have been some improvements over those years. Telecommunications, obviously, as I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would fully recognise, is quite possibly the most important piece of infrastructure of this century. We talk about roads and railway lines et cetera, but telecommunications will be the most important infrastructure, particularly in country Australia, because it is the one thing that negates distance as being a disadvantage for rural Australians. It can do that on a whole range of levels. It can do that at the medical level, for instance, by piping through information, analysis, diagnoses of various diseases and engagement with specialists irrespective of where they happen to be located. There is a whole range of benefits in areas such as health and education. We are all fully aware of that. It has the capacity to allow people to do business in a country location and, in a sense, if they can gain equity of access in price and conditions of service, it gives country people an advantage over their city cousins because of the obvious lower infrastructure and overhead costs in running a business in the country compared to in the city. The keyword is ‘equity’ in service, access to that service and the price of those services, whether they are telephone services, broadband services or services that we do not even know exist. I will be supporting the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 today. The member for Grey said that this was going to ‘lock in’ the $2 billion Communications Fund. We are all adult enough to know that nothing locks anything in in this place. No government or piece of legislation can guarantee that the Communications Fund lasts more than the term of this parliament, which could be two or three months. Our Constitution says that no parliament can bind a future parliament. To say that this is locked in to future proof country Australians as to telecommunications is really a myth. I know the coalition would say that the only way to lock it in is to vote for the coalition. People will make up their own minds about that but, in technical terms, it does not lock in this fund. This is a $2 billion fund, the interest of which will be available. That is roughly $100 million a year—maybe a little more after yesterday’s announcement, but about $100 million annually—to future proof country Australia from some of the impacts of future technology and attempt to provide some equity. Most of us would know that $100 million in this fast moving technological age will be quite meaningless in the longer term and can be changed at the drop of a hat. We are amending the legislation today. We can amend it tomorrow and do something completely different with it. I remember the days when the National Party in particular said that they would never sell Telstra. Times have changed. ‘Never’ does not always mean never, does it? These sorts of things can change. There has been a tendency to demonise Telstra lately. The government should reflect on what it has done for Telstra. It was the government that moved to privatise Telstra; it was the government, as the custodians of the public purse, who had a controlling interest in Telstra on behalf of the public; and now it is the government that is whining about a private company, which it has created in a sense, trying to make market movements to achieve the highest share price for its shareholders. I have been critical of Telstra over some of the things that it has done over the years, but there has been a constant barrage of insults coming from the government towards the management of Telstra in recent months. The government should examine who created the monster that is now being demonised. It is quite visible to all now that the very things that were being spoken about at the time of the privatisation—that country people would expect a better service under a private business where there was some competition apparently, and that it would provide a better service for country people than public ownership—are coming home to roost. We have an extraordinary circumstance at the moment, which is being articulated in a number of country areas. I will give an example of one circumstance in my electorate, and I would be very surprised if it were not happening in the electorate of Mr Deputy Speaker Haase as well. The little town of Yetman, where a number of international businesses are attempting to operate or would like to operate, does not have any mobile services at all. Its people have not got to the argument of broadband, WiMAX, ADSL2+ and the optic fibre of the city. They do not have mobile services at all. They have been appealing to the government and to Telstra for some time about the provision of those services and the provision of a tower. I attended a meeting in Yetman some months ago where Telstra Countrywide made the point that they would look at providing a service to the people of that area, which is right on the Queensland border, if the community came together and provided a site, a road, electricity and the tower. I am pleased the member for Maranoa is here today, because that tower would provide some services to his electorate. If the community provided the site, the road, the tower and the electricity to the tower, Telstra would look at potentially putting a mobile aerial on top of the tower. In the seat of the member for Gwydir at the moment a similar arrangement is being broached in the small community of Pilliga, which is in the middle of the Pilliga scrub. That is not what the government committed to when it sold Telstra. It did not say to people in small communities, ‘By the way, when we sell this, competition will provide.’ I did not notice any of the competitors out in the street of Yetman, and I have not heard of them in Pilliga. Obviously, competition is not going to provide in those smaller communities where you have commercial operators who have to make a return on their investment. I was shocked when the former leader of the National Farmers Federation, Peter Corish, made the public statement that the NFF would support the sale of Telstra and that it had conveyed that message to Senator Barnaby Joyce because he was wavering. Senator Joyce used the NFF’s support for the legislation as a reason finally to vote for the legislation. In a sense, this bill grew out of those circumstances. Peter Corish said at the time that he had received written guarantees from the government that there would be equity of access to broadband and telephone services for country people, and the minister confirmed that. A number of questions have been asked during Senate estimates hearings, in the Senate and in this House about the issue, but people seem to have forgotten about that. The issue raised its head again even as late as last week, when the minister referred to a draft regulation to bind Telstra not to turn off the CDMA network until Next G is comparable. That relates to the equivalence-of-service argument, which reminds me of the up-to-scratch argument. If a reference to equity of access to service had been in the letter to Mr Corish and had been enshrined in legislation, there would be no need for the minister to introduce regulations because the CDMA/Next G switchover seemed to be slipping away. I am sure that the election has absolutely nothing to do with that draft regulation. People will remember that the government, not Telstra, gave those commitments about equity of access to broadband and telephone services. But what will we get? We will have a two-tiered system: an optical fibre network in the major cities and a combination of ADSL2+ in some regional centres, WiMAX—which provides slower broadband coverage—and subsidised satellite coverage for one per cent of the country, which no-one seems to know about. Of course, satellite technology is subject to a range of climatic effects. As a result of these arrangements we will not have equity; we will have a two-tiered system. Country people may have accepted that if the government had told them the truth, but it said that competition would drive many of these issues. The government guaranteed and said it would enshrine equity of access to broadband and telephone services in legislation, but that has not happened. Rather than simply shifting the debate to demonise Telstra, the government parties—particularly the National Party and country Liberals, who should have known that they were being sold a pup at the time—should look at the way they made some of those decisions. I have referred to the regulation that the minister has foreshadowed introducing to ensure that Telstra does not switch off the CDMA network before Next G provides at least an equivalent service. I have a couple of points to raise about that. I have received about 3,000 completed surveys from constituents about their attitudes to the changeover and the problem areas. Telstra, to its credit, has offered a vehicle to have its officers visit the areas in my electorate where people are saying that they are not getting the service that they did with CDMA, or any service at all in some cases. We will be able to rely on the information provided by real people in real circumstances rather than on Telstra and government maps. Those officers will be visiting the electorate of New England in a couple of weeks, and I am pleased to be able to take part in that process. Next G advertisements state that the service will be available anywhere that it is needed. In fact, a large roadside sign has been erected with that ad on it, but you cannot get through. I will not identify the site, but I will take the Telstra officers there. It will probably have an aerial within a week! That advertising campaign should be looked at. I have a Next G phone and I would rather it was much narrower. If it were flattened by a semi-trailer it might work better than it does now.  The changeover to Next G has not been handled well. I raised equivalence of service with the Prime Minister on two occasions in one week in the parliament and he eventually wrote back to me. I made my initial complaint during Senate estimates hearings when officers from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority and the minister were being questioned about how they intended to gauge equivalence of service. Their response was that a truck would be driven around Australia for eight days to gauge equivalence between CDMA and Next G services. It was also admitted that the truck would not go anywhere near the Northern Territory, Western Australia or Tasmania. The theory was that if a service existed in New South Wales the same service would exist in Western Australia. The Prime Minister did write back, and I thank him for his letter. He said that it has changed. I notice that the minister has also said that it has changed because they need an extended period of time—which will get them past the election—to examine equivalence of service. They will now need a 12-week period to examine it. So the period of time to examine the equivalence of service has gone from eight days to 12 weeks. That is an improvement. Why wasn’t it done in the first place? Why say that you can gauge the equivalence of service in eight days? It is impossible to drive around a quarter of Australia in that time and measure the reception that people would receive. Today in Tamworth, which is where my electorate office is located, staff from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts are in town. They are holding a communications forum on broadband, mobile and consumer issues. This is very good. They communicated with the people in that area about this forum yesterday afternoon. They put out a press release at 12 o’clock. I received a call from one of the media at about two o’clock saying, ‘Are you going to this?’ I said: ‘No. I am in Canberra. I doubt whether many other people will go because no-one knows it is on.’ Minister Coonan has sent these people to Tamworth. I raise this today because, if she is going to send staff around Australia to talk to people about their concerns, she should give them some notice—communicate with them so that they can turn up. Or is the agenda to have something on record so that they can say, ‘We went to Tamworth and no-one turned up, so there is no problem.’ People cannot turn up if they do not know something is on. I had a call from the ABC media this morning saying that they had just found the press release. The meeting is on now. It started at 11 o’clock—seven minutes ago. If that is the form of communication that country Australia can look forward to from this minister and this government, God help us. My electorate office rang me this morning to say, ‘We’ve just had a call from a receptionist’—I do not know whether she is the minister’s receptionist or the department’s receptionist—‘saying that she is getting calls in Canberra about a meeting that the department is supposedly having in Tamworth and could my electorate office inform her of what is happening so that she can tell the people who are ringing her up.’ These people have just heard on the radio that there is going to be a government briefing, which is how it is being promoted, in Tamworth. If the minister is serious about the concerns of people then give them time. Or is the agenda, as I said, one of knowing what the concerns are but not really wanting to hear them? I will convey to the minister and to the Prime Minister and others the results of the survey that I am doing in my electorate. I will be participating with Telstra in a survey to gauge the equivalence of service between the two networks. I would encourage other members to do that. I believe that every member has been offered the opportunity, and only five have accepted. The current system is going to offer a two-tiered system, which is contrary to the government’s commitment on the sale of Telstra. Liberal Senator Adams gave the game away when she said at a doorstop interview that rural areas cannot expect proper services. I raised this with the Prime Minister and I raise it again now: why not? In a nation that has done so well with its economic advancement, why can’t country Australians expect equity with their telecommunications now and into the future? In conclusion, this legislation, which I am supporting, guarantees for at least three months that $100 million a year will be available for future proofing. That is not sufficient for any future proofing. (Time expired) 28 11:11:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I am delighted to speak in the House today in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. The bill protects the $2 billion Communications Fund that the government put aside from the proceeds of the full sale of Telstra. This legislation is very important, because we know there are bandits on the other side of the House who, if they ever came to this side of the House, would raid this fund and destroy it for future generations. So this legislation is extremely important. Anyone out there in the community who is listening to this debate today should understand that we are doing this to ensure that this fund cannot be raided by any future government. This money was put aside when the government fully privatised Telstra. I would like to recap the history of the fund. It is well known by many across Australia that the National Party were very much opposed to the full sale of Telstra unless we could have agreement with the government on certain policy principles. They were very sound principles. They were about ensuring that, on the basis of parity of service and parity of price, all Australians could have access to high-quality communications and new technologies as they became available. One of those policy principles was not about picking technologies but about ensuring that money would be available should relevant technologies be developed in the future and the market failed to provide them. That is what the fund is about. It is about ensuring that an income stream is available from the $2 billion Communications Fund so that future communities are never left behind. I am reminded at this moment of the situation we confronted when we came to government. The previous Labor government had abolished by law in this place and in the Senate the very successful and usable analog mobile phone service. It was a particularly good technology in rural and regional areas because of the distance that it could cover. It was a very good service, but it was abolished by the Labor Party without there being any alternative to replace it. I remind people living in rural and regional Australia of the Labor Party’s policy at that time. And the Labor Party do not provide solutions for the people of rural and regional Australia in their amendments to this legislation. What they propose in their policies is to raid the Future Fund completely, spend the money and leave nothing for future generations to ensure that, when markets fail in the future, they do not have to go back to Treasury to get the money. The money that we have put aside will provide that income stream, but the Labor policy is to just grab that money and spend it and not spend it in rural and remote parts of Australia. I think Labor’s policy will cover 75 per cent of the people of Australia, not 100 per cent. There are market failures in Australia when it comes to a whole range of services, but nothing could be more important for people living in rural and remote Australia, or anywhere in Australia, than high-quality communications services now and into the future. Roads are important and access to a whole range of other infrastructure is important, but if there is one technology that breaks down the tyranny of distance it is high-quality communications networks. If you have them, you are only as far away from the best access to medicine, education, counselling services or any business activity you might like to conduct as the technology that connects you to the rest of the world. One of the technologies that I believe is going to meet the communications needs of rural and remote Australians into the future is optic fibre cable. The copper network across Australia has been providing a conduit between people and businesses since the overland telegraph line went from Adelaide through to Darwin. Copper line was used then. Today it is optic fibre. I would like to think we will be able to build a national network once we are able to move forward and utilise the $400 million income stream that will come from the earnings of the Future Fund. I mentioned market failure a moment ago. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Haase, holding a very large rural electorate in Western Australia with very large mining communities—I have a similar electorate in many ways—there have been market failures since prior to Federation. I heard the member for Grey and, I think, the member for New England mention their experiences living on the land and having to repair their own party lines. We really have come a long way. Whereas once upon a time people in rural communities built their own telephone lines to the local exchange, today, thank heavens, the national network, through various technologies, goes right out to very remote homesteads and communities. I have remote communities such as Birdsville and Bedourie out in the west of my electorate. Birdsville is a very small community in the Diamantina shire. I believe, and I am sure you do too, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that people in these communities should be treated just the same as any other Australians in relation to access to and parity of service and price of technologies and communications in the future. But I often remind myself and my colleagues that until 1984 the people of Birdsville did not have any telecommunications access other than a two-way radio set through the Royal Flying Doctor Service. When they did get their first telephone service into the community, via satellite, they themselves raised half of the money to bring it to their community. This was back in 1984. It is not very long ago in history. But it demonstrates that, where markets fail in the future to provide communications services and new technologies, there is a need for government to step in and provide taxpayer funds to assist communities, to ensure that they are part of the Australian network. I welcome the fact that, under the Australia Connected package, 99 per cent of Australia will get access to high-speed broadband. It will be through a variety of technologies. I have never been one to pick the technology. I always hope that the market will provide the solution. In this case, the Optus and Elders consortium was successful in its bid. It will receive some $930 million or $940 million from the government and will put forward a similar amount itself. But this demonstrated to me yet again that there are areas where the market fails. Some one per cent of Australians will not greatly benefit from that Australia Connected package. There are towns in my electorate that have ADSL. There are towns that only have dial-up access. They are part of that one per cent. Once again it shows that there is a market failure. It identifies that, even with 99 per cent of Australians gaining access to high-speed internet, which I welcome, one per cent are going to be left behind. I know it is very difficult to address those needs for those communities. I know there is a challenge in how we provide the technology to ensure that those communities are not left behind. I note in the minister’s releases that we will continue—and I welcome it—the $2,750 satellite subsidy to allow fast internet speed. It will not be massively fast by comparison with what fibre to the node could provide in cities, but we will continue to provide that subsidy to allow that service. I think there will always be some remote homesteads for which satellite is going to be the only solution. But I am also sure that there are small communities that would greatly benefit from being connected by optic fibre to the main network. Telemedicine could be brought into those communities with a much improved quality of the signal through optic fibre. As I said a moment ago, just as the copper wire has served us well for more than 100 years, I believe for the next 100 years it is going to be optic fibre that will future proof the communications needs through the national network. In order for the government to be able to spend the $400 million we need to, as per the act, conduct a review of communications needs similar to the Besley and Estens inquiries and come forward with recommendations of the identified need. That committee is going to have a huge challenge in front of it. I think it is important that on that committee we have people who understand the communities like the ones you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Haase, and I represent. I would hope that we would be able to announce it shortly, but I would want to make sure that on that committee we had people who actually live in those rural and remote parts of Australia and people who conduct their business there. It is terribly important that we have people with an understanding of the importance of communications to our rural and remote communities—that one per cent of Australians who are not greatly benefiting from the Australia Connected package. I look forward to the announcement, whenever it might be. I know that the people who are chosen by the minister to conduct that review have an enormous challenge in front of them. They will have to look at a very large part of Australia, probably 98 per cent of the landmass, including the islands off the mainland of Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. They will have a massive job in front of them, but I am confident that, if we have the right people there—people who have an understanding of those communities, who have lived and worked in rural and remote parts of Australia—they will come forward with recommendations that will address their needs and we will be able to see this $400 million spent wisely, ensuring that we deliver on one of the very core policy principles that the National Party put up before we were able to support the full sale of Telstra: a parity of service and a parity of price with urban Australia. I am sure you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Haase, would concur that that is one of the obligations that we as members of parliament have to ensure we deliver on. I have looked at the amendment that the Labor Party wish to bring forward and I cannot support any of it. It is quite hypocritical of the Labor Party to suggest that what they want to do is invest money so that: 98% of Australians, including those in rural and regional areas, have access to future proof telecommunications technology; That does not say much; it is mealy-mouthed, in my mind. Out in the bush in my electorate they would soon snap the head off any politician who used words like that. It continues: the two per cent of people that the new fibre to node network will not reach have a standard of service ... In the universal service obligation, a standard service is a telephone that works with access to local calls at a regulated price. That is what the Labor Party is offering that two per cent—a standard service. It goes on to say: depending on the available technology ... We all know what technology is available today. Perhaps they want to pick a technology, but we know what they are like when it comes to technology. They were the party that abolished the analog mobile telephone network without an adequate replacement. So I warn the people of rural and remote parts of Australia and many regional communities that, if the Labor Party were ever elected to govern this country, they would gut the Future Fund, spend it in one hit and some $2 billion would be gone. Future generations would then have to fund any upgrade they wanted for the communities outside of the metropolitan areas and certainly for the two per cent of Australians they suggest the new fibre-to-the-node network will not reach. They would be left behind forever under a Labor Party government. Finally, in relation to Telstra and Telstra Country Wide, one of the other conditions that the National Party were insisting on was that, as part of those policy principles, Telstra, as the universal service provider, have a physical presence in rural and regional areas of Australia. We were concerned because, when the Labor Party was in government and they moved to corporatise Telecom—as it was called in those days—Telecom took the opportunity to withdraw their physical presence from rural areas of Australia and go to the big regional centres, the capital cities. When this government came to power, the National Party wanted to make sure, through the process of looking at the sale of Telstra bill, that Telstra, as a condition of their licence, maintained a physical presence in rural and regional areas of Australia. In my own electorate I have two such Telstra Country Wide offices, one in my home town of Roma and another one in Longreach. They are an invaluable conduit to the people, many of them, obviously, the ones that they have to service. I have recently been travelling with Telstra Country Wide into many rural, regional and very remote parts of my electorate, testing out the CDMA network and the Next G network and comparing those two networks. In my electorate I have witnessed problems with handsets for the Next G network, which are not really suitable for operating in rural and remote parts of Australia. I have also seen that, unless you have a good aerial on your motor vehicle and a car kit, you are not going to get the same sort of signal that you would get in town or in a capital city. Just like the radio in our cars, if you put the aerial down and try to listen to the radio when you get out to the limits of the broadcast beam, you find that you are flat out hearing the radio. The same principle applies to the mobile phone network. When you are travelling in rural and remote parts of Australia, you need a good high-gain aerial and a car kit, and you find that many handsets are not necessarily suitable to our areas. The Telstra Country Wide network is providing services out in rural and remote parts of Australia. I want to continue to work with Telstra, because of their physical presence in my electorate, to provide solutions to the Next G network problems. The Telstra Country Wide people working in my electorate are dedicated to providing that service and reliability in communications out in my part of the country. I reject the amendment moved by the Labor Party. I commend the bill to the House because it will secure the Future Fund for generations, ensuring that the future communication needs of rural Australia will be met. 32 11:31:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007. I say from the outset that I would always be happy to support any bill that supports telecommunications services for rural and regional areas but, unfortunately, this bill does no such thing. Having adequate telecommunications services in regional areas such as my electorate of Richmond is very important. I certainly support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. Access to telecommunications services continues to have a huge impact on my electorate of Richmond. I am constantly told by locals that services right across the board—from internet access and mobile reception to delays in home and business landline connections—are simply not up to scratch. They cause a huge amount of distress and concern. Even people living in Tweed Heads experience many of the problems I just referred to. Remember that Tweed Heads is only five minutes from the Gold Coast, a major regional centre. It is only 1½ hours from Brisbane, yet right in the heart of Tweed Heads people experience problems. Right throughout the electorate of Richmond there is a very high proportion of elderly people, and their phones and access to the internet can be their lifeline—from a social perspective and very often from a medical perspective. For those people, access to those services is vital. If it were merely a matter of inconvenience, that would be one thing, but the simple truth, which the Howard government and their National Party counterparts have failed to comprehend, is that substandard services can affect people’s lives and even threaten them in the case of the elderly, who need to know that their telecommunication services are working. When they urgently need access to medical services, poor communications can create a huge amount of distress for them. Substandard telecommunications services can diminish educational opportunities for locals and impact on the productivity and viability of many rural and regional small businesses. Many in my electorate have experienced massive problems due to a lack of internet access or the slow speed of it. The bill fails to deal with the many real problems in this area. Like so much coming from the opposite side of the chamber at the moment, this bill is a politically motivated stunt. It is being debated not out of any real concern for regional services but out of a very real concern that there may be a federal election in the next couple of months. Nonetheless, it is worth looking at the substance of this bill. Its purpose is to amend the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 and relates to the $2 billion Communications Fund, which was established in September 2005. The bill dictates that only income or interest earned on this fund will be available to implement recommendations of the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee, which will report to the government every three years. The bill will mean that the principal $2 billion of this fund will not be available to improve services in rural and regional areas; instead, only the interest and income—up to $400 million every three years—will be available. It is clear, when looking at the substance of this bill, that there is little commitment by the coalition, particularly the National Party, to raise the standards of telecommunications services in rural and regional Australia. Otherwise they would be investing this $2 billion in what it is supposed to be invested in. Rather than governing and conducting themselves in a manner expected by their regional constituents, it is clear that the National Party is more interested in playing the role of ring man for their senior coalition partners, who, as we all know, have never been interested in protecting services in the bush. It is for these reasons that I fully support federal Labor’s amendment to this bill. In essence, it states that the House condemns the government for its failure to invest the $2 billion Communications Fund in a national fibre-to-the-node broadband network. This would mean that the fund would be used for what it was designed for—to ensure that Australians have access to the best available telecommunication technologies, that there is parity of service and metro-comparable pricing for all Australians serviced by the fibre-to-the-node network and that, in particular, Australians in rural and regional areas have improved telecommunication services, including access to e-health and e-education, which are only possible over a fibre-to-the-node network. I am merely asking here that the continued sell-out of regional areas by the National Party stops, that they finally stand up for what their constituents were promised and honour their commitment in this area. Despite the National Party still protesting publicly that they support rural and regional interests, their constituents woke up to them quite a long time ago. We can also look at other issues such as the original sell-off of Telstra or the coalition’s extreme industrial relations law—all coalition policies having a disproportionately negative impact on rural and regional areas and all supported overwhelmingly by the National Party. But I think the game is up for them now; the truth is out. This measure is further proof they are only interested in maintaining their coalition partnership with the Liberal Party, not in representing the issues and concerns important to people living in rural and regional Australia. In contrast, federal Labor is committed to ensuring there is telecommunications access for people in rural and regional areas. We will use this fund because we on this side of the House believe that $400 million every three years is not enough to raise communications standards in rural and regional areas. We believe that when you say you are going to spend money on services that help rural and regional areas, the right thing to do is just that. Federal Labor are committed to ensuring that rural and regional areas have access to modern and reliable telecommunications services. In particular, we understand the importance of reliable broadband for regional health, education and business, large and small. It was for these reasons that in March federal Labor announced our policy of a national broadband network to be funded by a public-private partnership. That is a $4.7 billion commitment, $2 billion of which will come from the Communications Fund we are discussing today. Federal Labor’s commitment will ensure that Australians in rural and regional areas receive metro-comparable broadband services where possible, with 98 per cent of areas being serviced by the fibre-to-the-node network. I am very proud of federal Labor’s policy in this area. We are listening to Australians, in particular those in rural and regional areas, and we understand the real impacts that substandard telecommunications services have on people’s daily lives and on their business lives as well. As opposed to the National Party, federal Labor believe that many rural and regional centres need this sort of investment in order to survive. An initiative such as federal Labor’s national broadband policy commitment is long overdue. Australia’s performance in this area is on par with lesser developed nations, and that is a staggering indictment of the Howard government and its failure to invest in Australia’s future. The continued inaction of the Howard government in this area, as well as its lack of understanding about the importance of this investment, proves once again that it has lost touch with the needs of our nation, particularly the needs of people living in regional areas. Labor’s broadband policy has had a very positive response from my constituents in Richmond, as I understand it has throughout regional and rural Australia. The response in my electorate was highlighted when federal Labor’s shadow minister for communications was recently in Tweed Heads. Many locals attended a forum on broadband access and the shadow minister spoke about federal Labor’s policy. The interest in this issue and the number of people who constantly contact me about it shows there is a huge demand for this problem to be rectified. People were certainly pleased to hear about Labor’s very positive policy. At the forum we heard familiar stories from parents who are frustrated that their children have difficulties accessing the internet for homework and research. We also heard small businesses speaking about the lost productivity that the unreliable internet causes and how that has severely impacted on their businesses. There were also local families who want to take advantage of new technologies but are unable to do so because of the very slow download speeds that are currently available. Many locals also spoke of the very high cost of accessing broadband, when it is even available at all. Those who could get it were quite distressed about its increasingly high cost. The cost-of-living pressures are already being felt disproportionately in Richmond, where we have the highest incidence of rental stress in the nation, and the high cost for the internet is another one to be added to groceries, petrol, child care and health services, particularly dental health. As I have said before, the issue of reliable communications infrastructure and services is not new in my area, and I know it is not new in most parts of regional Australia. The simple fact of the matter is that in the 11 years of the Howard government there has been total inaction in this area. In fact, the plight of people in rural and regional Australia has worsened in this time. The reality is that they have consistently been sold out by the National Party on this and so many other issues. The federal Labor Party and the Australians who live in rural and regional areas foresaw the situation we now face with regard to communications infrastructure and services. A reduction in services was one of the reasons why rural and regional Australians wanted the government to keep Telstra under government control. As a representative of these people, I voted against the sale of Telstra. I did it not only because it was the wish of the constituents I represent but also because I knew the sale would lead to a reduction in services—which, quite obviously, it has. As I said earlier, I am constantly being told that the telecommunications services in the Richmond electorate are not up to scratch, and this has certainly got a lot worse since the privatisation of Telstra. To give an example, I have recently been told about a couple who had a six-month delay in connecting a landline phone. How absurd is that in this day and age? They were also paying the monthly connection fee while they were waiting—so: no phone but still paying the connection fee. Eventually Telstra provided them with a satellite phone which—surprisingly!—has very limited reception. You can just imagine the frustration and distress such a situation has caused. This is an example of the stories I hear from people quite frequently. There are numerous stories as well about service failures for internet, landline and mobile phones in regional areas. This was the anticipated consequence of privatising Telstra, and it was supposedly one of the reasons the Howard government established the $2 billion Communications Fund that this bill we are debating relates to. It demonstrates the ludicrous nature of this bill that there is legislation to establish this fund and then a bill to amend the legislation to ensure the fund is not used. It is certainly one of the more bizarre acts of governing by the Howard government. By contrast, I again highlight federal Labor’s broadband policy for Australia: the $4.7 billion joint commitment with private enterprise to invest in a fibre-to-the-node technology which will be rolled out to 98 per cent of Australia, with comparable speed for the two per cent where this is not possible. It will deliver this with comparable cost to metropolitan areas, ensuring that people in rural and regional Australia are treated with equity. It is certainly an overdue investment and one which will have a dramatic impact on regional areas, helping them to access e-health and e-education as well as contributing to the continuing productivity and profitability of local businesses, whether they be independent contractors, small businesses or larger franchises and enterprises. Such a commitment is essential to the continuing viability of so many regional and rural areas—my electorate of Richmond included—which really do depend so much upon small businesses. For an area such as my electorate, there is no doubt that small businesses are the backbone of our local economy. That is why the commitment is so vitally important to them, because this lack of access to the internet has had a severe impact upon so many of those small businesses. I call upon all coalition members, but particularly those in the National Party, to vote in favour of the amendment put forward by the member for Grayndler. This amendment gives the National Party the opportunity to stand up for their constituents. It is a chance for them to show their communities that, when in Canberra, they will act in the best interests of their local constituents. Supporting the member for Grayndler’s amendment is perhaps one of the last opportunities for the National Party to prove that they do truly represent the bush. We see them time and time again selling it out, so I would certainly like to see them support the amendment and stand up for people in the bush. The National Party, in this instance, do not have to make a choice between being right and being popular by voting for federal Labor’s amendment; they have the chance to be both. However, knowing the past history of the National Party, I have doubts they will do that, but I will certainly call on them to take a stand. It is no good saying one thing once they are back in their electorates and then saying another thing when they are in Canberra and toeing the line of their Liberal Party masters. As I have pointed out, there has been a very positive response to federal Labor’s broadband plan in terms of it making a real difference to people’s lives. Yesterday the government released another broadband plan; I think it is their 18th now. We saw the minister releasing some draft guidelines for a supposed process to build a high-speed broadband network. This will be of no assurance to the millions of Australians who for years have been crying out for better services in this area. What we see is another stunt by the Howard government in trying to look like they are doing something about broadband, but people have realised that they are not interested in or committed to doing anything about it. This is now the 18th plan and it is just another stunt designed to see the government through to the election. They are not actually committed to solving Australia’s broadband issues at all. The guidelines that were released failed on a whole range of matters. They did not specify who the network would reach or minimum connection speeds; there was no detail about that. The guidelines were very vague right across the board. Given the government’s disastrous track record, I do not think anyone would take much comfort from the 18th broadband plan that they have put out. It seems that every other week they try and pull some sort of stunt to try to look as though they are serious about this issue. I do not think that they really understand the issue or how important it is, particularly to people in rural and regional areas. Those of us in the federal Labor Party have been listening for a long time to the concerns of people living in regional areas, and we have responded to them with our broadband policy. We want to make sure that all of those people have equity of access right across the board, whether it be for educational purposes, for business purposes or for medical purposes. It is very important in this day and age that people have adequate access, yet we see that the Howard government, after 11 years in office, are not interested in these issues and are out of touch with the everyday concerns of people. Let us face it: people have been crying out for years for something to be done in this area, but the government just keep stumbling from plan to plan. Now we see yet another plan, and I am sure we will see another plan in a couple of weeks time—another election stunt from them. In contrast, federal Labor’s policy is out there and we are continuously listening to the concerns of people and continually addressing them. We know it is about making a real investment in the future of our nation to ensure that there is equitable access, particularly for people in rural and regional areas such as those in my electorate of Richmond. Even though they live in a regional area, the people of Richmond deserve to have adequate access particularly to broadband. Tweed Heads is not that far from Brisbane or the Gold Coast, but the issues that people there have with access to basic services like landlines are absolutely astounding. So many senior citizens have contacted me with their concerns, very distressed about not even being able to get decent access to a landline. In this day and age, if you are living in a major regional centre like Tweed Heads, it is absurd that people are having difficulties accessing decent landline facilities, let alone accessing the internet. People are very distressed and very angry and they are saying that the Howard government is out of touch on so many issues right across the board but particularly on this issue. So many people depend on having a landline service, particularly the elderly. A lot of people move to areas like Tweed Heads after they have retired. Not only is a landline connection their access for social and of course medical needs but, for a lot of them, having decent internet access is their link to the world, to their families and friends, and not being able to access it causes a great deal of difficulty. Some people are very isolated, and it has caused them a huge amount of distress. In conclusion, I certainly support the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I call on the National Party to support it and stand up for once for regional Australia 36 11:51:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 1 0 Mrs MOYLAN —It is a great pleasure to be able to stand here and support a substantial electorate that includes urban, rural and regional constituencies. I am very proud, of course, of what the Howard government has managed to achieve in telecommunications. Telecommunications, like much of the technology we use today, is a work in progress; things are changing dramatically all the time. We are seeing that now with the Next G mobile phone network and the things that it can do. When you think back to the old mobile phones we used to have, you realise that they were a pretty basic service. Representing an electorate that has both urban and substantial rural and regional constituencies makes the future of equitable telecommunications a very high priority for representatives such as me, and there are many others in this place who represent mixed electorates. Adequate telecommunications services today are not optional extras. In an increasingly global trading environment it is just as important, probably even more important, for rural and regional industries as well as individuals to have access to fast, efficient telecommunications services as it is for those in the cities. I was therefore pleased when the government conducted the first independent inquiry into telecommunications in regional, rural and remote areas before the full privatisation of Telstra. It is not a matter of who owns Telstra, as I have said many times to people in the constituency of Pearce. What is important to them is the timely, efficient, affordable and fast delivery of telecommunications. My constituents want affordable access and they want reliable, speedy services and the maintenance of their services in peak condition. They want a government that recognises that telecommunications and a lot of other technological advances today are works in progress, and we need to continue to move with the times and have the flexibility to ensure that our constituencies have the best possible options and that there is strong competition in the telecommunications industry. Over the years that this government has been in power, telecommunications affordability has improved dramatically. The Besley report—the initial report that the government commissioned—recommended that the government continue financial and strategic assistance to areas outside the boundaries of cities and suburbs, and the government responded positively to that. Four years later the government followed up with a review of services in regional, rural and remote areas. The Estens report recognised that progress had been made following the Besley recommendations but reported that further improvements could be made to the delivery of telecommunications to rural, regional and remote areas. This is a government that is sensitive to the needs of the community and that makes the necessary adjustments as the technology improves and is able to deliver better outcomes for all Australians. I am very pleased to say that the government accepted all of the recommendations made in the Estens report and committed $2 billion to be directed specifically to improving telecommunications services in rural, regional and remote communities. There has been a consistent commitment by the government to ensure that community service obligations, particularly in rural areas, are a top priority. The future-proofing of telecommunications in rural Australia included the establishment of the $2 billion fund once the Telstra sale legislation received royal assent. In addition, over $1 billion in direct capital was made available to invest in the Connect Australia initiative, which has been welcomed by the people in the electorate of Pearce. It will ensure nation-wide fast, affordable broadband connections for all. It is very difficult to understand the unwarranted attack being made on the government by some members sitting on the other side when you consider that, since 2001, 4.3 million homes and small businesses have gained access to broadband services and the average price paid by consumers has dropped by more than 64 per cent. In regional Australia an additional 1.3 million premises have broadband access as a result of more than $500 million in subsidies that have been made available by this government. So the attack by the member for Richmond and others is totally unwarranted. The aim of the government is to ensure that, by 2009, 99 per cent of Australian households and small businesses will be able to access high-speed broadband services with a capacity for live video streaming, five-second CD downloads and multichannel television. Most importantly, the plan includes fast-speed broadband to rural and regional communities at prices comparable to those charged in metropolitan areas. The establishment of the Communications Fund, a perpetual fund, means that moneys will be invested initially in a short-term deposit with the Reserve Bank of Australia until a framework can be established on a permanent basis, primarily investing in short-term, low-risk assets to ensure that there is a fund to continue to meet the undoubted changing needs of rural communities into the future. This is smart management of public money. It is smart management to have a perpetual fund, one that we invest a capital amount in and have the interest accruing to that going to continually update services to people living in rural areas. It is anticipated that the Communications Fund will earn interest of up to $400 million, and every three years that will be reinvested into telecommunications in rural, regional and remote areas of need. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 ensures the longevity of the Communications Fund and therefore ensures continuous improvement to rural, regional and remote area services. The priorities for the use of this money will be determined by regular independent reviews. The legislation to preserve this fund is in direct response to the opposition’s threat to abolish the Communications Fund and spend the entire capital on a broadband network in highly commercial and predominantly metropolitan areas. This should ring alarm bells for those increasing numbers of Australian people living and working in rural, regional and remote areas of the country, as it would leave several million people and important industries—including mining, farming and pastoral businesses—without any targeted assistance for basic telecommunications services. It would be a bad day for all but a few Australians, perhaps those living in the leafy suburbs of some of the major capital cities. For a state as big and as diverse as Western Australia and for an electorate as large and as diverse as the electorate of Pearce, it would be a disaster. Nothing hampers development and prosperity more than poor transport and poor telecommunications. This is something the Howard government understands deeply and has made considerable investment in. The government has demonstrated its commitment to delivering modern telecommunications to all Australians through HiBIS, the Broadband Connect incentive program and Metropolitan Broadband Connect. The Australian Broadband Guarantee provides subsidised broadband for very remote locations that may not be covered by the new regional network. I do not have very remote locations in my electorate, but there are many people in this big country that live in remote areas, and they are entitled to also share in the wealth and to have affordable services delivered to their regions. The Clever Networks and the CCIF programs support the latest in broadband technology to deliver virtual health care, remotely accessible interactive education services and integrated statewide emergency services. While the opposition talks about the value of broadband, the government is actually delivering services and outcomes that are making a real contribution to remote area health and education services. The government has been thinking and planning ahead, with a $60 million investment in the Advanced Networks Program to ensure Australia’s active participation in global development of advanced networking technologies—applications, services and content. National ICT Australia has for some time been working on Super G and 4G mobile wireless technologies, which will provide faster data rates, larger coverage and terminals at lower cost, and will reduce network deployment costs. Diverting slightly from the bill, I know that many people, including those in the country, are looking forward to using the impressive Next G technology, but there are still accessibility issues in many country areas. There is some alarm that Telstra intends to disconnect the CDMA network by January 2008. When the Labor government was last in office, Labor legalised an arbitrary switch-off date for the analog network, without any plans for an orderly transition, and left many regional and rural Australian without a replacement service. This government will not do that. The government remains alert and sensitive to ensuring that the needs of those living in rural, regional and remote areas are met and that there is a seamless transition from the current CDMA technology to the new Next G technology. Having conveyed to Minister Coonan the concerns raised with me by people in the Pearce electorate about the lack of adequate cover at the moment through the Next G mobile phone network—there is certainly a lot of anxiety about that in the country—I am pleased to hear of the minister’s quick response. The government’s decision to issue a draft licence condition on Telstra, requiring them to keep the CDMA network open until the government is satisfied that Telstra has made good on its promise that the Next G network provides coverage and services as good as, if not better than, those of the current CDMA network, will be very welcome. Those living in rural, regional and remote areas are relieved that the government has intervened to ensure that country mobile phone users are not left high and dry, as they were by the actions of the previous Labor government, when they were in office. They will not be left high and dry with this government’s proposal to make sure that that transition is seamless and that there is not a premature closure of the CDMA network. In making the announcement, the minister has directed the Australian Communications and Media Authority to undertake independent coverage audits of both the CDMA and Next G networks. ACMA requires 12 weeks to complete the audits and the government needs time to consider those findings in order to ensure that services in rural and regional areas are protected. There is no doubt, judging by some of the comments I have heard in my electorate, that there is a high level of anxiety at the present time about the coverage at the moment. Coming back to the bill that is before us today, the amendment legislation protecting the future of the Communications Fund and the delivery of broadband services, it is clear that Labor does not have a genuine broadband strategy for those people living beyond our major capital cities. The Leader of the Opposition has no detailed plan, no technical backing and no plan for the 25 per cent of people living outside the metropolitan region. They will be left abandoned and stranded without the services available to those in the cities if Labor is given a chance to act on its promise to scrap this fund. By way of contrast, the government is committed to responding in a timely way to provide up-to-date services to those living in rural Australia. The massive investment made available through the Communications Fund will provide certainty and security for the increasing population and for important rural and mining industries operating outside the metropolitan area. It will mean services in rural Australia will keep pace with the rest of the nation and remain affordable. This bill secures the Communications Fund to protect the long-term interests of rural, regional and remote Australians so that affordable telecommunications can be delivered to all Australians. I have to say that I think Minister Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, is doing an absolutely outstanding job in constantly looking at the current requirements of all telecommunications users and making sure that Australia has a comprehensive policy to deliver these services and to ensure that there is competition in the market. So, where services have not always been delivered very speedily in the past, they will be delivered because there will be competition to make sure that telecommunications companies are out there making sure that the public are getting value for money with the services that they deliver. I commend the work that our minister is doing in telecommunications. It is a very important service which the Australian public are entitled to. I very strongly support this bill, which protects the future of this fund to continue to deliver affordable, relevant services to all Australians, particularly those living in rural, regional and remote Australia. 40 12:08:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today, because it gives me another opportunity to raise the problems with, and the inadequacy of, access to broadband internet in my electorate of Capricornia. It is one of those issues that consistently comes up in phone calls and emails to my office. I am pleased that once again the focus in the House is back on broadband and that, inevitably, the focus is on the government’s failures in this important area and on the ALP’s plans to bring Australia into the 21st century with a world-class broadband network. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 provides for amendments to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. The aim of the bill is to protect the $2 billion Communications Fund so that only income or interest earned on the investments of the fund will be available to implement recommendations proposed by the Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee. Throughout this debate, members from the Liberal Party and the National Party have been lauding the Communications Fund, telling us about how this fund is the be-all and end-all and the answer to all of those problems that have built up after 11 years of neglect of this important infrastructure area. But we need to look back to where this fund actually came from. The fund was the fig leaf, the pay-off, from the Liberal Party to the National Party for securing the votes of the National Party members for the full sale of Telstra back in 2005. So the Communications Fund, which the Liberals and Nationals are lauding so generously in this debate, was really nothing more than a bribe to the National Party. It was a fig leaf—something that the National Party members could go back into their electorates with and sell to their constituents after they had sold out their regional and rural constituents so comprehensively by backing down on their longstanding commitment to keep Telstra in government hands. When the Nationals rolled over to the Liberals and sold Telstra, they needed to have something to try to cover up the fact that they had been rolled by the Liberals and had sold out so easily and cheaply. It is interesting to note when you listen to Liberal Party and National Party members heaping praise on the Communications Fund that if you look back to when it started in 2005, you see that, back then, the Liberals bemoaned the fund. The Treasurer actually called the Communications Fund financially irresponsible. At the time Senator Barnaby Joyce claimed that the $2 billion that was being put into the Communications Fund was inadequate. Back in those days, when Senator Joyce was pretending to have a bit more backbone, he threatened to cross the floor on the Telstra sale. At that time, Senator Joyce wanted $5 billion for the fund, because he knew what we all know: that the government’s funding level was not going to be enough to fix the shambles that is broadband and telecommunications infrastructure around Australia. We on the Labor side always knew that the expected income from the Communications Fund would be inadequate to cover the amount of investment required to ensure Australia’s broadband future. These concerns were matched by the member for Calare, who labelled the fund a con. So it is interesting to contrast the praise being heaped on the Communications Fund at the moment by National Party and Liberal Party members with their views about it back at the time of the Telstra debate in 2005. When you look at the history of where the Communications Fund came from and what the government is trying to achieve through the introduction of this bill, you realise that this is very much a stunt. It is something to try to cover up and deflect attention away from the government’s woeful performance on high-speed internet in this country. Through the introduction of this bill and this debate, the government wants to highlight the fact that Labor want to use the $2 billion in the Communications Fund to build a national broadband network. We want to use that money to do something serious, genuine and long lasting. The fund, as it is set up, is expected to deliver about $400 million every three years to put towards telecommunications infrastructure in rural and regional Australia. We do not see that as being adequate. We think that we need to get serious and give access to broadband internet to everyone right across the country, wherever they live, and that needs to be made a national priority because that infrastructure is absolutely essential if rural and regional Australia—indeed, all of Australia—is to keep pace with the demands of the modern world. I said at the outset that access to broadband is an issue that often comes up when I am out and about in my electorate. You would have thought that, after 11 years, the government would be using the time in this House to address some of those concerns rather than using the time to take pot shots at Labor’s comprehensive plan. I will share with the House some examples that have come to me recently which highlight where we are at and what the government has to answer for after 11 years of not taking telecommunications infrastructure seriously. One example comes from Janine Bennett of Eton, which is west of Mackay. It is not very far west of Mackay. It is only about 20 or 30 minutes down the road from Mackay. So we are not talking about a rural or remote area. Janine sent me a copy of a letter that she sent to Telstra in response to their telling her that she was not able to access ADSL broadband in her area. In her letter, Janine laments the fact that she is stuck with dial-up internet and states: Let me make it really simple for you to understand how frustrating it is. It takes us about 4 hours to bring our email in, I actually go into my webmail and delete messages that are over 1 MB because it just takes too long to download. We can ‘t even get on our bank sites some days and when we do, I can do my housework while it opens each page, takes me all morning to do any little thing, and we often get kicked off as it times out. We never surf the net cause we can only have one page open at a time, it’s just too hard. We have to take our computer into Mackay and pay the dealer $25 to do our updates because there’s no way we could download them on dial-up. Janine was offered wireless access on the Next G network but had this to say: Yes very good thing and yes we can get it. But again it’s totally unaffordable for the average person and not recommended for heavy users. Janine continued, saying: I’d like you to just take a minute and think about what it would be like for you to not have broadband for just one day. I think that would be an impossible thought for most people in the city areas who have had access to affordable broadband for years now. Another disgruntled resident is Mr Neil Hoy of North Rockhampton. Mr Hoy contacted Telstra about getting broadband and was told that he could not get ADSL and that his only option was to use wireless on the Next G network. Mr Hoy was shocked to discover that he could not access affordable broadband in a major regional centre such as Rockhampton. Mr Hoy is one of thousands who cannot understand that very point, including me. Around Rockhampton and the fast-growing areas on the Capricorn Coast are the areas where this is raised with me the most often. So we are not talking about places that are in outback Queensland; we are talking about new estates close to a major regional centre. Adam Humphries of Yeppoon—a fast-growing seaside community about 30 kilometres from Rockhampton—recently moved into a new residence. Upon applying for broadband through Telstra, Adam was told that there were no ADSL ports available and that he was unable to gain access to broadband. Adam’s next-door neighbour, on the other hand, has ADSL broadband. But, because Telstra does not find it commercially viable to put in the necessary infrastructure, Adam has to miss out. Adam’s wife runs a small bookkeeping business but is now unable to run this business from home without broadband. Another constituent, Shane Woods, has contacted me in relation to the inadequacy of the government’s Australian Broadband Guarantee. Mr Woods is also unable to access ADSL broadband but is within the Broadband Guarantee area and did investigate this option. Mr Woods stated that he was initially content to see that the Broadband Guarantee offered a ‘metro-comparable’ service but was later dismayed to discover that he would have to pay much more than a ‘metro-comparable’ price. Shane stated that he would pay each month under the Broadband Guarantee for the offered one gigabit download limit the same as he would pay for a download limit of between 15 and 30 gigabit with an ADSL service. For this size download under the Broadband Guarantee, Shane would have to pay $440 per month. Who can afford to pay those kinds of prices for something that is an essential facet of today’s life? People in the city would not dream of having to pay those prices. That is just a snapshot of what is going on in my electorate, and I am sure the situation is replicated right around the country. While in those examples Telstra’s name came up quite a bit, we have to be clear about where the blame for this lies. This is a national priority. This is essential infrastructure if our country is to develop and stay competitive with other countries around the world and if we are to make sure that people have the business, education and health opportunities that life in the 21st century demands. The government has been sitting back and not keeping pace with what has been going on in the rest of the world. We have had something like 17 broadband plans put into place by this government. Government members want to stand up and laud the government’s initiatives in this area, but they should talk to people like Shane Woods and Janine Bennett, who are not able to get the broadband services that they need, whether it is for education, for their home businesses or for government and banking services—services that people with broadband can take for granted. So while Telstra’s name came up in those examples, I am certainly very clear about where I see the responsibility lying—and it is with the government, which has let this major national infrastructure priority pass it by. It really comes back to the government always seeing things as political problems that need to be fixed—’Let’s throw money at this plan’; ‘Now we’ve got the Communications Fund’; ‘Now we’ve got the Broadband Guarantee’. It is about: ‘How do we get out of our latest political fix and how do we cover up the fact that we just have not been on the ball for the last 11 years in this important area of national infrastructure?’ As I said, we have had 17 broadband plans, yet the latest OECD figures show that we are still ranked only 16th out of 30 countries that have been surveyed by that organisation. They are the OECD figures, but the sense that I am getting from my electorate is that we are being left even further behind, being in a regional area. After 11 years of fiddling around on this, the government has come out with its latest plan, which is a complete insult to people in my electorate and to people in rural and regional areas because it proposes a two-tiered system. The government’s plan, which involves giving $1 billion to the Singapore government, amongst other organisations in the consortium, Optus and Elders, will create a two-tiered system. Australians living in the inner suburbs of one of the five major cities will have access to a fibre-to-the-node network, but Australians who do not live in those areas will have to put up with a substandard service. The proposal put forward by the OPEL consortium will deliver fixed wireless WiMAX to regional areas. That is regarded as obsolete technology by many experts in this area. Connection speeds are shared and industry experts predict that the average broadband speed will be 512 kilobits per second. Again, it comes back to the government grabbing whatever straw is handed to them five minutes before an election to try and get over the fact that they have done nothing about this for 11 years. It is becoming a critical political problem for them because people are not getting the broadband access and speed that they want and deserve. On the other hand, some months ago, well before the government decided to play catch-up, Labor presented its plan for this important infrastructure. Labor wants to build a national network of fibre to the node which will deliver internet speeds of at least 12 megabits and have the ability to be scaled up even further than that so that it will evolve as demand and technology grow. Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world in this important area, and Labor has identified this as an absolute national priority if we are going to maintain the level of prosperity that we currently enjoy, thanks to the mining boom. There is plenty of evidence about what broadband means for the productivity of our economy. Labor’s broadband network will deliver benefits such as $30 billion in additional economic activity each year, making Australian small businesses more competitive, creating new markets for businesses and new jobs for Australians and extending media diversity. If Australia is to prosper after the mining boom we have to be smart about what we do. We need to focus on not only being the best educated country in the world but also our information and communications technology abilities through greater investment and innovation. Labor has a plan for the long-term prosperity of the nation while the government consider only the short-term prosperity of their own political interests. This is the defining difference between us and the government. As noted in our New directions for communications policy document, several studies have shown the sheer importance of broadband in stimulating economic activity. Some of these include the economic modelling by the Victorian Department of Infrastructure that shows that, by 2015, the IT industry, with 21st century broadband, has the potential to add $15 billion to the state’s economy and create 153,000 new jobs. True broadband in Queensland alone would boost that state’s economy by $4 billion and create 1,200 new jobs. A New South Wales broadband network would boost that state’s economy by $1.4 billion a year, increase employment by 3,400 and raise exports by $400 million over the first decade. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology found: The assumed (and oft-touted) economic impacts of broadband are real and measurable. And: Broadband does matter to the economy. Broadband is clearly related to economic well-being and is thus a critical component of our national communications infrastructure. The Australian Local Government Association in its State of the regions report last year found that the cost of inferior broadband for 2006 alone was a staggering $2.7 billion in forgone gross domestic product and 30,000 regional jobs. The report estimated that my home region of Central Queensland could have added at least $56.9 million per year in additional exports had we had a high-speed broadband network. That is $56.9 million that businesses in my region would have loved to have been able to have accessed but were denied the opportunity due to the neglect of this government and its failure over 11 years to understand the importance of this infrastructure and the importance of maintaining parity between regional and rural areas and metropolitan areas. There is no doubt that broadband is vitally important to the Australian economy and is a cornerstone in ensuring the future prosperity of this nation, especially in the inevitable event of the current mining boom coming to an end in the coming years. We cannot afford to rest on our laurels and expect the boom to continue indefinitely. This government should have acted a long time ago to ensure that we are insulated from any downturn in the resources sector. (Time expired) 44 12:28:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 before us today is the key to ongoing locked-in protection for rural, regional and remote telecommunications services for all Australians. Note that I say ‘all Australians’, not the 75 per cent of Australians who might be covered by Labor’s program. The bill amends the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 to establish permanent protection for the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund. It stems from the government’s response to the recommendations of the regional telecommunications independent review committee regarding the adequacy of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote areas. In effect, this bill locks away the Communications Fund’s principal of about $2 billion so that only the interest earned from that amount—up to $400 million over three years or so—can be drawn upon to fund telecommunications infrastructure upgrades in regional areas. Earlier this year, the opposition criticised the creation of a perpetual Communications Fund for regional Australia and alluded to it being created just to assuage the rural voters about future services for the bush. Dead right it was! It was meant to assuage the rural voters and their concerns over the years. We do not seem to realise that the whole field of telecommunications is changing dramatically. When I came into this place—I can remember campaigning back in 1993—the telephone that used to hang off my waist and half pull my trousers down was about the size of a bottle of tomato sauce. Today mobile phones are tiny little things that you can put in your pocket and they can almost be unseen. The same thing applies to computers. We thought some of those early kilobit speeds were just marvellous. I do not dispute what the member for Capricornia said about greater speeds being required in the future, but she spoke as if that had always been known. It was not known to be so. Even after we have made these decisions this year—and even assuming that the opposition become the government and they implement what they propose—in another three or four years that will all change again. It is a moving feast. We in the National Party understand that millions of people who live outside the major capital cities make a huge contribution to the wealth of this nation and that without communications technology that is comparable to the cities these communities will be choked off from any further development. That is not just a wide claim from a National Party country member; that is really what happens. To me it always beggars belief why anyone would want to have the top telecommunications ports and abilities in the capital cities and then deny the same level of service to those at the far extremities of the services in regional and rural Australia. Trade is a two-way thing. I have met some graziers in recent times, including one grazier who turns off 170,000 head a year and another who turns off 240,000 head. They are constantly on the internet. They have to arrange for live cattle exports. They have to track slaughtered meat: they have to track cattle to feedlots and from there to abattoirs and to marketing organisations. They have to buy chemicals. They have large payroll obligations on their properties. Of course they need high speeds. They need high speeds just as much as any business in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or Brisbane. That is why I find Labor’s plan somewhat deficient. Theirs is going to take longer to implement. As I said, in four or five years time the whole thing will have changed again, so that by the time the Labor scheme is in place the agenda will have moved on. Not only that; the Labor plan covers 75 per cent. In our scheme, we are now drilling down to the last one or two per cent of Australians; we are looking at the 98-plus per cent area. That is why I found the member for Capricornia’s dismissive disregard for the OPEL proposal so disappointing. For a start, it requires only $950 million of government input, and it leverages up a comparable amount. So, all in all, it is a $1.9 billion service. In her speech the member for Capricornia quoted some people from Rockhampton. I come from that same Central Queensland environment. I know the sorts of problems people are having, but we all know by now that ADSL will only go out 4¼ kilometres. We all know that, so we look for other alternatives. I have not seen the maps, I must admit, for the electorate of Capricornia, but I have certainly seen the ones for Hinkler—as I said, we are in the same general environment—and just about the whole of the new Hinkler electorate will be covered. There is a small corner in a place called Didcot that will not be covered, but the whole of the rest of the electorate will be covered, including three large areas at Bargara, Dundowran and Hervey Bay that will have ADSL2+. If I were the member for Capricornia I would be wondering how people in my electorate might engage with WiMAX. I do not know where she got this dismissive idea that it is obsolete technology. I know that there is a debate going on about the unallocated spectrum aspects of WiMAX, but not about the basic technology. In fact, I took the time, the week before last, to meet an international expert on this who came Australia. I met this person in Sydney and spent some time with them to understand where the rest of the world is going with WiMAX. It is clearly not going where the member for Capricornia thinks it is going. The opposition have been trying to woo the people of rural and regional Australia, but their take on the matter of protecting telecommunications for these people is emblematic of a very myopic commitment to non-metropolitan Australians. If the opposition had a genuine understanding of the needs of regional Australia, they would back this Communications Fund to the hilt. They would say in office, ‘We will build on it.’ But, no, what did they say? Did they say, ‘We will go out and build some more mobile towers and do things like that’? No, they will throw $4.7 billion at it. Where will they get it from? Will they be leveraging up what the private sector should be doing or will it just be Christmas Day for one lucky telecommunications company that ends up with $4.7 billion? Where will it come from? It will come from a fund that was designed to provide protection for country people into the future. There has always been, as I have understood it, a certain protocol in politics, whereby if you set up a fund to do things like this the other side respect it. They may not agree with it or with every aspect of it. But, where it is of a perpetual nature, you tend to respect it. You do not say, ‘Forget those guys in the bush; we’re going to have that fund.’ Everyone knows where the immediate beneficiaries will be. They will be in the capital cities and the larger provincials: Gold Coast, Geelong, Wollongong, Townsville. I am not against those people having top-grade telecommunications, but I want to see it happen across Australia in an orderly fashion. The other $2.7 billion that will make up this $4.7 billion that the Labor Party is proposing to spend would come from the Future Fund. We all know what that is meant to guarantee in the future. Successive Commonwealth governments, in good times, have never made provision for their liabilities into the future, especially in matters like superannuation. The one thing that the Queensland government, of all political colours, has done over the years is look to the future and cover its liabilities. It has done that with, for example, workers compensation and superannuation. That will be a great boon to the state as it moves forward. The current Treasurer, realising that we were going through a time of prosperity, said, ‘This is the golden opportunity for Australia, for the Commonwealth government, to do the same thing—to make provision for our liabilities—so that, as the Australian population ages and there are fewer taxpayers, we will have funds put aside to cover that superannuation.’ Labor will raid it. Some have said, ‘If you raid it for one thing, the next time you get into a tight corner, what do you do? You raid it again and again and again,’ and then you come back to where you were in the first instance. We can see the mess the states have already got themselves into in a very short time. Within the next five years they will be carrying $70 billion worth of debt. There are people out there today, when we have seen interest rates go up a quarter of one per cent, saying, ‘There are no inflationary factors.’ Well, that is an inflationary factor, and that has been brought upon us. It will be even more so if things like the Future Fund are raided. As I said, this $4.7 billion is not guaranteed to cover the whole of Australia. It is going to be a slower roll-out. Optimistically, it will cover about 75 per cent of people. We recently announced the Australia Connected program, which is designed from the grassroots to meet the specific needs of regional and rural people. The government will spend $958 million, and that will be complemented by $970 million from the OPEL conglomerate, which, as we all know, is Optus and Elders. People have made the crass statement, ‘We are giving a billion dollars to Singapore.’ We do not say that to companies that are operating in Australia in other fields. Why would we make such a crass statement? People come here to invest in our country and build profit centred units of various sorts, with various companies in manufacturing or delivering various products and services. On an open tender basis, they agree to do a certain job for this country; when they win the tender, you do not turn around and say, ‘You are giving a billion dollars to Singapore.’ That is crass. That is unworthy of the Labor Party. We all know on both sides of the House how these things work. That is not the way the government acts and that is not the way I believe the opposition would act either. I heard the member for Capricornia talking about people in Central Queensland and people in North Rockhampton and just west of Rockhampton. As I said earlier, we are going to try to get to 99-plus per cent of the people of Australia at speeds of 12 megabits, and we will do it by 2009. That is a far more optimistic view than that of Labor. What they will do is slower, its coverage is not as wide, and to get there they raid two important funds—the Communications Fund and the Future Fund. I am delighted that we have got ADSL2+ broadband going into Bargara and Dundowran, and Torquay, in Hervey Bay. In my old electorate there will be two sites at Gladstone, with 25 other wireless tower sites around the Hinkler electorate. That is going to provide amazing coverage and it will give people who have never had it before access to 12 megabits. I would have thought that that was a good basis for starting a roll-out rather than just dismissively saying, ‘It is old technology and we are paying a billion dollars to the Singaporeans.’ The Australia Connected package will not raid the Communications Fund, it will not neglect the three million households and small business who make up the 25 per cent who are not covered and it will not take four years to establish. As I said before, at the end of the four years, we will probably see a change in technology anyhow. I was interested to hear what the President of the National Farmers Federation, David Crombie, had to say. David, like me, is originally a Warwick boy. We grew up in a country area. We know what the needs of country areas are. I quote his statement on this: ... the funding injection of some $1.8 billion will help ensure rural and regional Australians can keep pace with new technologies as they come online ... The choice of Wimax wireless technology, supplementing the additional ADSL2+ technology, to deliver services ‘from the exchange to the farm’ is vitally important, but also provides the opportunity for scalable high speed broadband into the future. That is an optimistic view not of someone who is sitting on the sidelines as a critic or a theorist but of someone who comes from a farming and grazing background and who would know on a day-to-day basis what the needs of his members might be. In the few minutes remaining I would like to say a bit about mobile telephony. I accept that that too will have a lot of changes in the future. I accept that there will be bigger, better and more empowered forms of handsets coming on stream, and I accept that 3G, or Next G, technology—whatever you like to call it—will deliver that. But, equally, we need to be sure that, as we roll out a new technology like that, it gets the coverage of all regional and rural Australia. I am not yet convinced. I have constituents, particularly in the Wallaville and Childers areas of my electorate, who tell me that they are not getting the same coverage from Next G as they have been getting from CDMA. We all have the memory—those of us in the country, anyhow—of the Labor Party turning off analog before GSM had been properly tested. Despite the protestations at the time, GSM, although a good technology, did not have the coverage for regional and rural people. That caused, in a period of about 18 to 21 months, the roll-out of CDMA, and CDMA has been good technology for regional Australia. I am not a stick-in-the-mud—I know that new technologies have to roll on—but I want to be absolutely sure that we take regional and rural people with us as we do that. I am a sceptic. I do not want to see the CDMA turned off until that coverage is there. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has said that an audit will be carried out by ACMA to make sure that we have at least equivalent, if not better, coverage from Next G. I for one back her to the hilt on that. I know that Telstra have had some other problems in the roll-out of Next G—and I am not critical of that—in that some of the handsets were not suitable to Australian conditions, and I compliment them on going ahead and designing a new handset with a navy blue tick on it. I think that is a good idea. But I would also say to them: if, as you are tuning up this new technology, people who have surrendered their CDMAs find that they cannot get the same coverage as they might have with Next G, those handsets should be returned until such time as Next G has been fully proven. I think that is an essential part of this mobile agenda. I compliment the government on this bill. (Time expired) 48 12:49:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —It is essential that this legislation is passed through the House, because the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 has had to be introduced in response to the Labor Party’s policy to abolish the $2 billion Communications Fund, thereby abandoning rural and regional Australia. This bill will ensure that rural and regional premises are not left stranded without reliable and up-to-date services in the future. We have significant issues right across Australia and we need to resolve many of those issues. That is what our Future Fund was put in place to do. Our $2 billion investment in the Communications Fund was to be preserved to provide an income stream for future telecommunications improvements in regional, rural and remote areas, yet we see a proposal from the Labor Party, the opposition, that completely disregards our needs in rural and regional Australia. It is a proposal that is aimed primarily at the major cities and, obviously, the major voting areas for the opposition and disregards, as per usual, the issues of country people. In these circumstances and under these conditions, this promise that the opposition is making is partly funded by hard-fought-for money that has been set aside by The Nationals and rural members to ensure that we have a stream of income to adequately update rural and regional services from the very low base that they have operated from in the past. We are starting to move forward a little at present, but we need to improve telecommunications services in rural and regional areas for the future. The promise is a fibre-to-the node network and it is simply not possible. It is impractical and it is not possible to provide a fibre-to-the node broadband network to the vast majority of rural and regional Australia for the costs that Labor is proposing—and there are plenty of statistics to back up my assertions here today in the House. Under the Labor Party’s proposal, I can imagine that we will have, at best, up to 70 per cent of people connected at a competitive price, leaving around 30 per cent who will not get any benefit. And you know where those people will be? Those people will be in rural and regional Australia. They will be in places like the Riverina, which I represent. I simply cannot stand by, having fought on behalf of my constituents for so long, and let this happen. At The Nationals Federal Council on the weekend, we passed a resolution to extend the cut-off date of CDMA. I congratulate Minister Coonan for exercising the licence condition over Telstra to ensure that this happens. I moved that motion at The Nationals Federal Council on the weekend because I feel very strongly about it. My office is very often in touch with people who are having significant problems. Fibre to the node, which is Labor’s proposal, is simply not going to happen, because the infrastructure out there will not enable it to happen. In April this year, one of my constituents applied to be connected to BigPond broadband in his new home. He was told that the connection would be made in 10 working days. In May he phoned and was told that no connection was available and that an upgrade to the exchange was required. In June he phoned again and was told that there was no estimated time for a connection and that his case would be investigated. Then he was told that ADSL would be available in July. He then received a phone call from the provider on 13 June and was told that they could not meet the request for an ADSL broadband line and would be withdrawing my constituent’s order. There has been no time frame given to him for availability, and it could be anything up to two years before this upgrade is completed. The constituent then phoned Telstra Country Wide, regarding his broadband options, and was informed that they were unable to connect him to broadband and that the telephone line was on a split connection. This is the point that I am making: most people in my electorate are on hubs, rims or split connections. This particular Bourkelands hub has no ports available and an upgrade is required. However, they could not give my constituent any information as to when that will happen. His options are to wait for an upgrade—and who knows when that would be—or connect to BigPond wireless at $100 a month. I am not talking about somebody sitting out in the bush 100 kilometres from any major community wanting to plug in at every gum tree; I am talking about somebody who is in one of the largest and most rapidly expanding subdivisions in Wagga Wagga. They are about three kilometres from the old post office. I am not talking about somebody who is isolated out in some corner of the world; I am talking about the largest inland city in New South Wales having this kind of service offered to its residents. This is not an isolated case. I have plucked this one out because it is the most recent one with no possible options or responses available—except for wireless at $100 a month. My constituents are entitled to better. That is second-rate service delivery at a first-rate price. They are being penalised because they live in the largest inland city in New South Wales. I wonder what happens to you if you live in a more remote area or a smaller area. We have had numerous complaints from businesses that are losing money. There is a particular coach company in my electorate that has been losing significant amounts of money. It used to be contactable through CDMA, but it is now not contactable through the current service that it has been provided with under Next G. I know that Telstra have done a fabulous job in rolling out Next G in the time frame that they put upon themselves. But it is not equivalent to CDMA signal strength and coverage. I have copious proof of that in my office. These people cannot all be in conspiracy against the carrier. This is actually happening out there. The coach company is losing thousands and thousands of dollars because once it could get these calls and now it simply cannot get them. There is a major winery near Griffith that employs approximately 450 people. They have an account that covers around 150 mobile phones. They had to go through a lot of drama in order to finally get some resolution to their problems, with the winery offering free land to put a tower on so that they could service their business. The largest exporter of wine in Australia runs this business, and the problems caused a significant downturn for them. We have been having problem after problem. There is an advertisement that tells us that we can speak to anyone from Coffs Harbour to Mt Isa or wherever. That simply is not happening in my electorate. I thank the minister for exercising this licence condition to do with CDMA, because my electorate is being severely penalised. While Telstra has been willing to attempt to resolve these issues, it is not happening at this present time. My people are not getting an equivalent signal strength and service to what they had with CDMA. We have been told that some of these problems are in the hardware. But that is not what my constituents are told when they walk into an outlet. They are encouraged to go to a new phone and are told that they will get equivalent or better coverage or better outcomes, but they do not. They may get data that they were not getting on CDMA, but they want to make calls and receive calls, because that is what their businesses and lives exist around. They do not want to be walking around getting a signal at every gum tree in the Riverina—that is not what they are asking. They are saying, ‘Let me have the same coverage with Next G that I had with a hand-held phone on CDMA.’ That is what they are asking. If you require a car kit and significantly powerful aerials and a hard-wire kit for CDMA, you will most definitely have to invest in exactly the same type of equipment for Next G. That is not what Telstra promised. They did not tell you, ‘We are going to provide you with Next G and you are no longer going to have a car kit or a hard-wire attached to a high-signal aerial.’ That is not what they said. They said that you would get the equivalent—that is all we are asking for. We want further access to better handsets, hardware and car kits. We want more variety and a bigger range of equipment to cope with what we require in rural areas. I have personal experience of this issue. I took the option of a PDA because I am on the road all the time. I have done 9,700 kilometres in six weeks in a new car doing my normal July tour around my electorate and I want to have a mobile to help me do my business whilst I am out meeting with constituents and doing interviews in the smaller communities, but I can no longer have a PDA because it is not suited to rural and regional conditions. I had to go back to a normal Next G phone and, to Telstra’s credit, I have fabulous reception with the Next G phone that I currently have, but it does not have data. I as a rural member believe that I am being discriminated against. Under the future Labor proposal and also under what currently exists, my city counterparts can walk around and access their communications and data from their offices, wherever they are. But I cannot do that. I am out on the road covering far greater distances than city members. That is the way not just my constituents but I as their member get treated when I am trying to do business. As I said, Telstra has worked very hard to try to resolve the complaints that we have, but we cannot leave anything to chance—everything has to be working properly. In the short time that I have had available, I have taken the opportunity to come into this House to raise the concerns of my constituents. I congratulate the minister for exercising her licence over CDMA. I call on the House to pass this bill and to recognise its intent and to recognise that Labor’s proposal will be at the expense of rural and regional people. My constituents have had enough expense. I do not accept there should be any further downward pressure on their services, including the fact that they are unable to carry out any substantial business. A system is being rolled out at the moment on the instructions of the minister. I trust her to deliver to the people I represent. But I need this Future Fund in place. It cannot be raided by anybody. It has to be in place so that the people whom I represent, and others, can get adequate services in the future. I commend the bill to the House. 51 13:03:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training 1 0 Mr FARMER —I thank all the members who spoke on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007, especially the members for Riverina, Pearce, Maranoa, Grey, O’Connor and Dobell. In particular I thank the member for Riverina for her passionate plea to protect and improve telecommunications for people in the bush. It is in the interests not only of people in the bush but also of the whole nation that we provide the bush with the services that they need for the expansion of our communications networks and to assist with the nation’s wealth. We live in a country that has the same land mass as Europe. We have a population of around 22 million people and of those people about nine million are taxpayers. We are expected to provide services to the whole nation. I would like to think that both sides of the political fence would see this country as being the greatest nation on the face of the earth. We punch well above our weight in medical research and in many other fields. We do this because we have a government that provides the people of this nation with the opportunity to be the best that they possibly can be at whatever it is that they choose to do. In saying that in this debate, I draw everyone’s attention to the needs and the plight of the people in rural and remote areas of Australia and to how important telecommunications is for them. It once again shows that the Howard coalition government has a vision for the future of the whole nation. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Protecting Services for Rural and Regional Australia into the Future) Bill 2007 has been brought forward by the Howard government to ensure that its $2 billion investment in the Communications Fund is preserved in perpetuity to provide an income stream for future telecommunications improvements in regional, rural and remote Australia. This bill protects by legislation the $2 billion principal of the Communications Fund so that only the interest earned on the fund’s investments—around $400 million every three years—can be drawn upon. It will also provide certainty for people in regional and remote Australia that improvements in their telecommunications services will keep apace with those in the rest of the nation. It is important to note that Labor has committed to drain the entire $2 billion from the Communications Fund—to rob the bush of its ongoing funding—and squander it on a commercially viable network in built-up metropolitan areas. Rural areas would be stranded without future services or upgrades under a Labor government. Ironically, it is rural and regional Australians that the Communications Fund was established to protect. The whole Labor Party will end up abandoning them. Taxpayers’ funds should be used to deliver equity in underserviced areas to ensure that regional and rural Australians are not left behind in the ongoing telecommunications technology revolution. The Communications Fund was established by the government in 2005 and provides a guaranteed income stream to fund services and infrastructure for regional communities, such as additional mobile towers, broadband provision and even fast fibre capabilities. (Quorum formed) Interest earned from the Communications Fund is used to implement the government’s responses to recommendations made by the triennial independent regional telecommunications review. This bill will prevent a future government covertly abolishing the Communications Fund, and any future government that wants to abolish the Communications Fund will have to publicly introduce legislation to do so. This whole process provides certainty for people in regional and rural areas and remote parts of Australia that the improvements in their telecommunications services will keep pace with those of the rest of the nation—and this is in stark contrast to the Labor Party’s policy. The bill ensures that the Communications Fund cannot be pillaged. It protects the long-term interests of regional and rural and remote parts of Australia and it will protect rural and regional Australia from the gross economic irresponsibility of the Labor Party. This bill has a raft of applications that will support the nation’s communications needs. To give an example, out of this fund will come $113 million, which has also been allocated to the Clever Networks initiative, that will see improved delivery of services in regional and rural and remote parts of Australia through innovative broadband projects. It could allow an Australian company to use Australian qualified radiologists based in Israel, for instance, to support area health services by receiving patients’ scans overnight and providing expert diagnoses while the rest of Australia is asleep. This bill shows a vision for the future. It shows the Howard government’s vision for the future prosperity of this nation and I commend it to this House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Albanese’s amendment) stand part of the question. 13:17:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr Secker) 82 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. 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. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. 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. 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. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Ticehurst, K.V. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 52 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. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Irwin, J. Jenkins, H.A. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. 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. 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. 53 Mr FARMER (Macarthur —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training) 13:24:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 53 Committees 53 53 53 13:24:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 0 Mr SOMLYAY —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I present the committee’s report entitled The best start: report on the inquiry into the health benefits of breastfeeding, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. ZT4 Somlyay, Alex, MP Mr SOMLYAY —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Secker)—The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 54 Miscellaneous 54 54 Mr SOMLYAY (Fairfax) 13:25:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 54 Committees 54 54 54 13:26:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 0 Ms BURKE —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a supplementary comment, entitled Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, together with the evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms BURKE —by leave—I would like to commend, as always, ASIC for making itself available to the committee. It had been through Senate estimates and then had to come under a grilling from the committee as well, so we are very appreciative of its time. I would also like to put on record my appreciation to the secretariat, which I failed to do when I presented the report into superannuation earlier this week. Our committee secretariat have been exceptionally busy. This is another fine report, and I thank them for all their hard work. The statutory oversight hearing went through many issues predominantly to do with property investment scheme collapses, bank conduct and dispute resolution procedures, professional indemnity insurance for planners, ASIC’s review of the EFT code, superannuation advice, ASIC’s ‘shadow shopper’ survey and the ANAO report on ASIC’s investigation procedures. I will go into only a couple of these. Predominantly, I want to talk about property investment scheme collapses. Since the report was written, we have seen yet another property investment scheme collapse. With the interest rate rise yesterday, this will have a greater bearing on the people who have invested their money in these schemes. The report says: At the Senate estimates hearing on 30 May 2007, ASIC indicated that the $8 billion unlisted and unrated debenture market, representing 1.5 per cent of the total debt securities market, will be given additional attention. The Westpoint, Fincorp and ACR schemes are part of this sector. A three point plan was outlined by new ASIC Chairman, Mr Tony D’Aloisio: 1. Assess the business models of existing schemes. 2. Intervene with/guide proposed new schemes to add protection to business models and improve disclosure. 3. Improve investor education programs. We need to know why people are being tempted into these very risky schemes that have been collapsing. Predominantly, these people are older and they are losing their entire retirement savings. The report continues: ASIC indicated that ascertaining the reasons why these unsecured products have attracted investors is a priority: ... we are looking very closely at what was the investor profile, but more importantly we are also looking at what motivated the decision, what were the decision points; the extent and role advertising played; advice, where they sought the advice, where they did not; how they characterised an unlisted, unrated debenture, unsecured note compared to a term deposit; was there confusion. I, like many in this place, have constituents who have been caught out by these schemes and have lost their entire life savings. We need to do more to protect people from themselves. We need to ensure that there is greater financial literacy out there. More and more people are coming into large sums of superannuation and they need to have sound advice on which to make decisions about where to put those moneys. These schemes all seemed sound, but they have all collapsed. Labor has moved to include a supplementary comment in the last paragraph of the report. Given the very lengthy observations and concerns expressed about property entity collapses and the significant number of people hurt as a consequence, it is time for a full and thorough public inquiry into all aspects of the collapses, including ASIC’s performance. Senator Nick Sherry has written to the chairman of our committee seeking such an inquiry to ensure that people do not lose their money in these schemes in the future. I also commend the recommendation in the report to ask ASIC to do a shadow-shopping exercise again on superannuation switching, before the end of 2007. The last time it conducted such an exercise it discovered many faults in the system. Once again, people need to be given appropriate, timely advice. They need to know what they are leaving and what they are going to, and that information should be in a format that they can understand. Greater financial literacy is needed throughout our community and we must ensure that people have that advice and information. The oversight of ASIC is a fairly dry and boring exercise, but we should all pay more attention to our superannuation and future. I commend the report to the House. 55 55 55 13:32:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —I 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, SA. The hardened and networked Army initiative, which was approved by the government in December 2005, greatly strengthens the Army’s protection, mobility, firepower and communications, allowing operations in more complex, dangerous and uncertain environments. I was certainly pleased to attend the parade at Robertson Barracks a few weeks ago when the new Abrams tanks replaced the old tanks in the Army’s order of battle. This initiative will increase the government’s options in both the combat weight of the force that can be deployed and the duration that forces can be sustained on operations. As part of this initiative, the 7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment is being reraised as a mechanised infantry battalion to be based at Edinburgh Defence Precinct, Adelaide, along with supporting artillery, combat engineering and logistics troops. The hardened and networked Army facilities project at the Edinburgh Defence Precinct will be delivered at an estimated out-turn cost of $623.68 million plus GST. It will provide working accommodation, training facilities, urban warfare training facilities, a driver training area, a vehicle wash point and common user facilities for the Army and the Air Force, including medical, fitness and community facilities and infrastructure works. This will be a huge boost for South Australia. The project will deliver a high-priority defence capability requirement. It will also deliver economic benefits for South Australia and provide a popular posting location for Army personnel. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence later next year and to be completed progressively between December 2010 and December 2011 to enable occupation from January 2011. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 56 Bills R2833 56 Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mr Robb: That this bill be now read a second time. 56 13:33:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007 provides funding for three more Australian technical colleges. This implements a measure announced in this year’s budget. While Labor supports additional expenditure in the critical area of vocational education and training, it believes that the Australian technical colleges are a political, cynical, duplicative and inadequate policy response to the national skills crisis. I will move a second reading amendment to this effect at the conclusion of my remarks. This bill provides an additional $74.7 million for three new Australian technical colleges announced in the 2007-08 budget, to be located respectively in Perth, Brisbane and Western Sydney. This appropriation takes the total cost of establishing 28 colleges to $548 million. Labor’s approach to these additional colleges is the same approach that it has adopted on previous occasions when legislation in respect of Australian technical colleges has been presented to the House. Labor does not oppose the implementation by the government of its 2004 election commitment. Labor does, however, express its very grave reservations about the public policy, public administration and financial effectiveness of the government’s election commitment and the measure to establish Australian technical colleges. The government’s rationale behind the creation of the Australian technical colleges is twofold: firstly, to isolate and attack the states and territories in an area that has traditionally been the responsibility of the states and territories and, secondly, to try to find a political fix to a policy problem that the government has neglected over its 11 long years in office. The creation of the ATCs has followed successive Howard government funding cutbacks for the TAFE sector since 1997. After spending more than $500 million on a standalone network of ATCs that have not yet produced one graduate, the Howard government’s plan to build three additional colleges is again an inadequate response to the national skills crisis. The government’s own estimates show Australia facing a shortage of more than 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years. Again on the government’s own figures, the ATCs are expected to produce only 10,000 graduates by 2010. This is a crisis of the Howard government’s own making. Over the past decade the government has slashed investment in vocational education and training, and the TAFE system has been forced to turn away over 325,000 young Australians. In 1997 the Howard government cut funding to the TAFE system, with Commonwealth revenues in vocational education decreasing by 13 per cent from 1997 to 2000 and increasing by only one per cent from 2000 to 2004. The amount of vocational education and training funding per student has decreased, and that has had an adverse impact on the quality of vocational education and training available to those students. According to data from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, since 1997 real expenditure per hour of TAFE curriculum has fallen by nearly 24 per cent. TAFE Directors Australia have also identified the fact that, in terms of revenue expenditure, vocational education has fallen behind other education sectors both in aggregate terms and on a per student basis, despite it being the area that will bear the greatest responsibility for the skills, vocational education and training development of our workforce. TAFE is the major provider of vocational education and training in Australia, with more than 1.2 million students, which accounts for 75 per cent of all students and 85 per cent of all training hours. Yet the system is crying out for much needed additional recurrent funding and much needed investment in infrastructure—both of which have been neglected by this government. Instead of delivering good public policy to address Australia’s skills needs and investing in the TAFE system that provides the vast majority of training in this country, the Howard government has allowed itself to be blinded, firstly, by its own blind ideology against the TAFE sector; and, secondly, by its neglect and complacency so far as skills and training are concerned. Instead of cooperating with the states and territories and investing in TAFE, the government is establishing a duplicative and stand-alone network of 28 Australian technical colleges across the country that will only produce their first qualified tradesperson in another three years and will only see approximately 10,000 graduates by 2010. The government has embarked on a costly project to essentially duplicate vocational education and training infrastructure that exists elsewhere across our vocational education and training system. This is not the first time this parliament has dealt with additional appropriations for the Australian technical colleges. This occurred, firstly, when the government was forced to bring forward funding for the colleges as costs mounted up much earlier than expected and, subsequently, when there were further cost blow-outs and the funding was increased from the initial $343.6 million to $456.2 million. The additional appropriation we are debating here today will push the total cost of these colleges to $548 million. This was done without conversation, coordination or consultation with the states and territories. On the other hand, 2,650 secondary schools throughout the Commonwealth are catering for over 1.2 million students in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 alone, yet the ATCs have no relationship with the state and territory based secondary school systems and are out of reach for the vast majority of Australian students. On any measure, the creation of a stand-alone facility is expensive. Instead of cooperating with the states and territories and seeing whether existing facilities could be enhanced or refurbished, the Commonwealth unilaterally decided to go it alone. That is at the heart of the cost blow-out and the expenditure here. Instead of working in partnership with already established vocational education providers and tapping into the existing expertise there to maximise training outcomes, the Howard government has embarked upon a course of setting up its own stand-alone system. This has led to inherent inefficiency and additional cost to the taxpayer. Aside from the cost blow-out, the establishment of the ATCs has been plagued with difficulties and low enrolments. The truth is that, after three years and more than half a billion dollars, the ATCs have not produced one graduate. They have only 1,800 enrolments. Only 21 out of 25 colleges announced to date are open. Just two out of the 21 colleges are meeting their 2007 enrolment targets. There is an average cost of nearly $175,000 per student. Only one-third of the colleges are legally registered to provide training, and many have outsourced the bulk of their training to TAFEs or registered training organisations. Despite this, the Minister for Vocational and Further Education told the ABC Insiders program on 15 June 2007 that the colleges were ‘going gangbusters’. The Howard government deliberately established the ATCs as a stand-alone network outside existing training infrastructure. As a consequence, only one-third of the colleges are legally registered to provide training. The majority of students who are enrolled in ATCs have had their training outsourced to existing training providers. For example, in Victoria, five out of the six colleges have outsourced their training to TAFE—the same system that has suffered funding cuts under the Howard government. According to the Minister for Vocational and Further Education, only nine of the 21 colleges that are currently operating have no involvement with the existing TAFE system. Even though the ATCs cannot fill their enrolment targets and two-thirds of the colleges have been forced to rely on existing TAFE and training providers, the colleges have not been able to secure apprenticeships for all those students who have enrolled. For example, with an enrolment target of 50, the Illawarra ATC has been able to attract only 35 students to the college, and only 20 of these students are in apprenticeships. Ensuring students are enrolled in apprenticeships is supposedly one of the key features of the colleges. The recent audit of ATCs conducted by the Australian National Audit Office—report No. 3 2007-08: Performance audit: Department of Education, Science and Training: Australian Technical Colleges Programme—confirmed all these problems with the ATCs. The Audit Office found that insufficient attention was paid to state and territory governments; initial tender applications were weak and inadequate; and there was little choice among ATC applicants. The ANAO report is a damning indictment on the Howard government’s ATC program. The Audit Office found that the government had not given enough consideration to the role of state and territory governments when setting up the ATCs, noting: In one region, the program had to address significant issues because of the coexistence of a new college with existing State Government secondary schools. The report also found that, in many cases, there were delays in finalising funding agreements, as the ATC proposals that were deemed ‘successful’ still required additional work to bring them up to an appropriate standard for the Commonwealth to provide funding. Additionally, the ANAO found that, in nearly half of the first 24 colleges, the tenders were awarded based on only one or two applications. Given this limited choice, the Audit Office reported: ... an option ... may have been to return to the market to develop more industry and community interest ... This is despite the government’s ATC website noting that the colleges would be established in: ... areas where there are skills needs, a high youth population and a strong industry base. What the government’s website or the government generally does not advertise is the fact that 90 per cent of the colleges are in coalition or marginal seats. While the government is only concerned about getting re-elected by building a network of ATCs in coalition and marginal seats, Labor wants to address the magnitude of the current skills crisis for all Australians. We must focus on the areas of maximum impact, including TAFEs, which remain responsible for the substantial majority of post-secondary vocational education and training, vocational education and training in our secondary schools and on-the-job training. Labor has already announced a $2.5 billion trades training centres plan aimed at the 1.2 million students in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 in all of Australia’s 2,650 secondary schools. By contrast, the government’s own estimates show that a maximum of 10,000 students are expected to graduate from the ATCs by 2010. Labor’s plan will provide secondary schools with between $500,000 and $1.5 million to build or upgrade vocational education and training facilities in order to keep kids in school, enhance the profile and quality of vocational education and training in schools and provide real career paths to trades and apprenticeships for students. As well as providing infrastructure to improve vocational education and trades training in secondary schools, Labor has a plan for practical measures to enable schools to provide on-the-job training for their students. Labor will provide $84 million over four years to enable interested secondary school students participating in vocational education and training in years 9 to 12 to access one day a week of on-the-job training for 20 weeks a year. Payments of up to $10,000 will be made directly to individual schools to broker on-the-job training or work experience. Labor also has a plan to introduce a job ready certificate for all vocational education and training in schools students. This certificate will assess the job readiness of secondary school students engaged in trades and vocational education and training. Students will obtain the job ready certificate through on-the-job training placements as part of Labor’s trades training centres in schools plan. The job ready certificate will be a stand-alone statement of a student’s readiness for work and will be in addition to a year 12 certificate and any separate vocational education or trades training qualification. The certificate will provide students who complete secondary school with an increased focus and awareness of the skills necessary in the modern workplace. It will also provide employers with a tangible reference, indicating whether students are capable and ready to work. The job ready certificate will demonstrate that students possess basic workplace skills, including communication, initiative, self-management, technology, teamwork, problem solving, planning and organisation. At present, there is no requirement for education and training providers to formally issue a statement of employability skills. This has been an ongoing issue for industry, with repeated calls from the Business Council of Australia, BCA; the Australian Industry Group, AiG; and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, ACCI. As early as 2002, the Howard government in response to these calls developed an employability skills framework. Its implementation, however, has stalled. Labor is committed to making education and training more responsive to the needs of industry. Our ability to meet the growing need for skilled employees across the country is crucial to ensuring our future prosperity. The job ready certificate is part of Labor’s 10-year $2.5 billion trades training centres in schools plan. It will be implemented in cooperation with industry, the states and territories and schools. By making vocational education and training a viable option for all our secondary students, Labor’s plan will make a real and significant dent in the current skills shortage. It will be a key plank in our goal to lift year 12 retention rates from 75 per cent to 85 per cent by 2015 and to 90 per cent by 2020. While Labor’s trades training centres program will provide opportunities to all secondary school students, Labor will not close the Australian technical colleges. After more than half a billion dollars has been spent on this network of colleges, Labor will inherit 28 ATCs. We will not close any of these ATCs down. We will honour all their existing contracts. We will sit down with the interested parties and we will, over time, when contracts expire and when it is appropriate, after consultation with the interested parties, work out the best way of folding the management of the ATCs back into the state and territory government and Catholic and independent school sectors to improve the vocational education and training offered by schools nationally. Labor does not oppose the appropriation of funds for the additional three ATCs provided for in this bill which will see the establishment of these additional ATCs. Again, in due course Labor will consult interested parties on the most effective way of integrating these new ATCs into the existing state and territory based educational systems. The ATCs are effectively secondary schools run by the Commonwealth for year 11 and 12 students. Unfortunately the Commonwealth has no history or expertise in establishing or running stand-alone secondary schools. It may well be, depending upon individual circumstances, that ultimately the management of the ATCs goes back into the state based education system. Depending on the circumstances of the college, this could be either the secondary school system or the TAFE system. Management of a college might equally go to the independent or the Catholic secondary school system. It also might be the case that they continue to operate with management from private industry. For example, in the north-west of my home state of Western Australia there is the minerals and petroleum resources ATC, and it may be appropriate, for example, for part of the management of that ATC to rest with the relevant industry. Labor will respect contractual arrangements, but we do want to make sure that the ATCs are integrated into the overall trades and training effort, that what they are doing is complementary to what a TAFE down the road might be doing, what a secondary school down the road might be doing or what an industry based skills and training centre might be doing. The states have had longstanding responsibility in this area. In my view, the sensible way of moving forward is to do this in cooperation and in conjunction with the states and territories and industry, so that the Commonwealth can apply its own priorities through an integrated system. The Minister for Vocational and Further Education argued in this place on 6 February this year that, if the colleges were to be folded back into the states, employers involved would be shown the door. He went on to say: As a consequence, the unique and innovative role of training students with skills that are highly tailored to the needs of local employers will collapse. The colleges will disappear if they are handed back to the states. If Labor were to hand back these colleges to the states, history would repeat itself and the status of technical training would be reduced once again to that of a second-class career. Now he says that the states are copying the Commonwealth. He said in June: ... the state Labor governments around the country have proceeded to follow suit. In other words, they have proceeded to follow the ATCs. He cannot have it both ways. I certainly do not believe that vocational education and training or a technical career is second class. Labor makes no apologies for valuing a vocational education or trade qualification as highly as a university degree. Secondly, that analysis by the minister defies the existence around the country of very strong partnerships between local TAFE colleges and industry. In my own state of Western Australia, the Challenger TAFE, in Fremantle, is a very good example. The government has been exposed here. In the 2004 election campaign, it tried to effect a political fix. It might well have had some short-term political benefit for the government, but we have been left with a long-term public policy problem that will only be resolved by a much greater investment in vocational education and training generally. That investment must be on behalf of the Commonwealth but made in conjunction with the states, using facilities that are currently available—refurbishing and enhancing them. The longer the government pretends that a few technical colleges will make up for more than 11 years of complacency and neglect in vocational education and training, the more damage it will do to the prospects of our children and our economy. We need agreement between the states and the Commonwealth about priorities, and agreement with industry about what the skills needs will be down the track. That is the only sensible way forward, and that will be the approach that Labor adopts in opposition and in government, if we are successful in the election. My remarks are reflected by the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House recognises that the Government has failed to act to address the skills needs of the Australian economy by: its continued failure over 11 long years in office to ensure Australians get the training they need for a skilled job and to meet the skills needs of the economy; slashing funding to the existing TAFE system, with Commonwealth revenues in vocational education decreasing by 13 per cent from 1997 to 2000 and only increasing by one per cent from 2000 to 2004; failing to make the necessary investments in existing vocational education and training infrastructure to create opportunities for young Australians to access high quality vocational education and training in all our secondary schools and in the TAFE system; creating an expensive, inefficient, and duplicative network of stand alone Australian Technical Colleges, without cooperation or consultation with the States within the existing Vocational Education and Training framework; appropriating more than half a billion dollars for 28 Colleges that will produce 10,000 graduates by 2010 when by the Government’s own estimates there will be a shortage of 200,000 skilled workers over the next five years; failing to provide opportunities for young people interested in pursuing vocational education and trades training who do not live near the 28 Australian Technical Colleges; and not recognising that a broad approach covering all of Australia’s 2650 secondary schools and the 1.2 million students in Years 9, 10, 11 and 12 is needed to meet Australia’s future skills needs.” I commend the amendment and the bill to the House. 10000 Bishop, Bronwyn (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—Is the amendment seconded? 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 61 13:53:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —It is my pleasure to speak to the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007 today in the short period before question time. I will conclude my comments later in the day. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005. In effect the act provides funding for colleges over the period 2005 to 2009. This bill is providing further funds for three more technical colleges to be placed around Australia. Those colleges are to be located in Penrith, Western Sydney; north of Perth, which I will come back to shortly; and south of Brisbane. It is amazing to come into this place and find the opposition saying, ‘We support the bill,’ while subliminally they are out there trying to trash the whole concept of technical and further education in this country by saying that they will hand it back to the union bosses. I will demonstrate this shortly. It is what has happened in Perth in technical education. In terms of the argument that the opposition raise about skills not being provided, the Prime Minister did the right thing in 2004—realising that Australia needed a shot in the arm to enhance the skills level of our young people, he created the opportunity for Australian technical colleges because the state governments, along with the previous federal Labor government, had dropped the ball on this issue. To demonstrate this, before we took office in 1996 the Australian Labor Party had driven down the level of apprenticeships in this country to just over 100,000. What did they replace them with? They replaced them with these so-called short training courses. You might recall Bill Hunter on those very expensive ads saying, ‘We now have all these people that are job ready and ready to go to work.’ They were not. They were only trained for three months. If you really want a bricklayer slapping up your house for you after a three-month training course, you are going to have a very teetering edifice some time later. These three-month, mickey mouse courses that were being run by the previous Labor minister, the member for Hotham, were a shame. What have we done? We have put into place greater emphasis on and funding for apprenticeships. The proof of the pudding is that the number of apprenticeships has gone from 105,000 in 1996, when the Howard government took over, to well over 400,000 now—four times the number of apprenticeships are available to young people in Australia now, compared to what the Labor party offered. And they say they are the friend of the workers. It is cant and hypocrisy for the Labor Party to talk about supporting the workers. They do not support the workers; they were the ones who gave them record unemployment. What has this government done? Given 30-year record levels of employment. The best thing you can do for a worker is give them a job. If you really want to look after the workers in this country and not just talk about it—not use weasel words but really do something for a worker—make sure they get a job. They have a greater chance of getting a job if they have a skill. In this case the Australian government realised that the state governments, through their technical colleges, had dropped the ball on apprenticeships in this country. So, correctly, the Prime Minister identified areas of greatest skills shortage. The Labor Party bang on, saying, ‘They’re not up to capacity and they haven’t graduated anyone.’ Of course they have not graduated anyone—they have only been going for a couple of years. We do not run three-month mickey mouse courses like they did. Of course it is going to take a few years for them to get through. It is for students in years 11 and 12, and it takes two years for them to get through the system in any case, so of course it is going to take more than three months to get through these training schedules. At the end of the day, these courses are producing real jobs because they provide real skills. For example, in my own vicinity, the Perth South technical college is providing real technical skills for the construction industry, such as carpentry, and in auto-electrics and mechanics. These will lead to greater jobs. At the moment, if you are a young person with an apprenticeship in mechanics and you end up in the Pilbara, you are going to end up with a job paying far greater than my job in this House today. The real rich of this country are the young people who have a transportable skill and are using it to its best effect to access high-paid jobs, not only in the mining industry but throughout Australia. What is the alternative? The Labor Party want to take these well-constructed colleges and put them back into the hands of the state governments. By doing that, they would be putting them back into a hole in the ground, because we know that the technical colleges at a state level at the moment are top heavy with administrators and short of good-quality teachers. Teachers are in short supply all over Australia. They say they will put money into secondary schools, but they cannot even fill the schools with teachers at the moment. How are they going to put all these extra trade teachers into secondary schools when they cannot even provide enough teachers for schools in Western Australia at the moment? This is hypocrisy at its worst. The Labor Party are saying one thing and trying to do another. With their mates in the state governments they are trying to collapse Australian technical colleges by going to the schools and saying: ‘Whatever you do, don’t you talk to the people involved in running the Australian technical colleges. We don’t want you to have any of your students go into those colleges, because we can’t control them. We like to control the supply of blue-collar and trade-skilled workers. If these students go through your system, the union bosses will have no opportunity to grab them and dragoon them into their industries and unions and to control them that way.’ I will continue my comments after question time because I have greater information on the state governments and federal Labor trying to subvert the success of the technical colleges. 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. 63 Ministerial Arrangements 63 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I inform the House that the Minister for Small Business and Tourism will be absent from question time today. She is interstate on official business. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources will answer questions on her behalf. 63 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 63 14:00:00 63 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s refusal to acknowledge that he and his party made a promise to the Australian people at the last election to keep interest rates at record lows. Why is the Prime Minister’s promise to keep interest rates at record lows still on the Liberal Party’s website today? 63 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The promise I made at the last election—and I repeat it today—is that interest rates will always be lower under a coalition government than under a Labor government. That is supported by the experience of the last few years—indeed, I suspect of the last 25 to 30 years. Even after the latest increase—which, if flowed through by the banks, will take the housing loan rate to 8.3 per cent—interest rates for housing will still be a full 4½ per cent lower than the average of housing interest rates under the former Labor government. Moreover, the policies of the opposition which diverge from those of the government in relation to economic policy—namely, in the area of industrial relations—if implemented, will exert upward pressure on interest rates. The promise I made has been validated by the experience of the last 2½ years and is validated by a comparison of the policies of the government and the opposition. 64 64 14:02:00 Ferguson, Michael, MP DYH Bass LP 1 Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON —My question today is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the government’s response to the latest employment statistics? Prime Minister, are there any threats to this 33-year low in unemployment in Australia? 64 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Bass for that question. I am very pleased to inform the House that unemployment remains at 4.3 per cent, which represents the lowest unemployment rate this country has had for 33 years. An additional 21,800 jobs were created in July. All of those jobs were full time and half of those jobs were created in Victoria, which gives the lie to the argument advanced by the opposition that all of the jobs growth in Australia over the last few years has been due to the mining boom in Western Australia and in Queensland. I am happy to tell those who sit opposite that 387,500 jobs have been created since the new industrial relations laws were introduced in March last year. I say that again: 387,500 jobs have been created since the new industrial relations laws were introduced, despite the warnings of the former opposition leader, echoed no doubt by the current opposition leader and by leading union officials, that, so far from creating new jobs, the new industrial relations laws would in fact destroy jobs. I am also happy to note that 84 per cent of the jobs created since the industrial relations changes have been full-time jobs. One of the features of the new industrial relations laws is that they have encouraged the provision of full-time as distinct from part-time jobs and that is very welcome and very pleasing to the workforce in Australia today. What today’s labour force figures tell us is that there has been no change in the underlying strength in the Australian labour market. Unemployment remains at a remarkably low level and the participation rate remains at a record high. Looking below the headline figures, there are some interesting further statistics which paint a picture of a wonderful social and human dividend from the good economic policies of the last 10 years. Between 1997 and 2006, the proportion of single parents in the labour force has increased from 52 to 62 per cent, an increase of 10 per cent over the last 10 years. The proportion of lone mothers in the labour force rose over the same period from 49 to 60 per cent and, very significantly, the number of dependent children aged 15 or less in families where no parent is employed has fallen by 117,200 or 17½ per cent since June 1996. I would have thought that that particular figure is a wonderful validation of the value of a sustained fall in unemployment in Australia. Since the introduction of the Welfare to Work reforms, the number of all welfare recipients has fallen by 100,000, a reduction of 3.9 per cent. Welfare to Work has been a great success. It is a reform that was bitterly opposed by the Labor Party when we introduced it. We were told that we were heartless, we were told that we were indifferent and we were told that we were contemptuous towards people who, after their children had reached a certain age, were being asked to return to the workforce. The evidence has been to the contrary. Welfare to Work has been a great success. And now, of course, we hear not a word of criticism offered about Welfare to Work from the man who sits opposite me, the Leader of the Opposition. Having scathingly attacked Welfare to Work, he now of course faithfully says that he agrees with me on Welfare to Work. He is practising ‘echonomics’ on this, as he is on so many other issues. The member for Bass asked me whether there was any threat to the very low level of unemployment in Australia at the present time. I would have thought the biggest threat to the low level of unemployment in Australia would be the abandonment of the workplace relations reforms of this government. If we go back on workplace relations, if we turn back the clock, if we retreat on a major economic reform, that will not only have a negative effect on the economy overall but specifically, if we bring back the unfair dismissal laws, small business in Australia once again will be frightened to take on new staff. One of the spectacular features of the labour market at the moment is that there has been over the last year a fall of about 26 per cent in the level of the full-time unemployed in this country. They are people who have been out of work for more than a year. It should be a matter of jubilation for everybody in this parliament that that figure has fallen by 26 per cent over the last year. We should all be saying, ‘What a wonderful thing for the unemployed of this country.’ Why has that happened? I think one of the reasons it has happened is that, faced no longer with the threat of the old unfair dismissal laws, many small businesses in this country have taken on more staff. They have taken a risk. They have taken on more staff knowing that if, unfortunately in some cases, it does not work out somebody can be allowed to go, without the small business operator facing the prospect of paying $30,000 or $40,000 of ‘go away’ money and eating into the meagre profits that some of them make. I think it would be a tragedy for long-term unemployment in this country if we bring back those old unfair dismissal laws. And the only party that is promising to do that is the Australian Labor Party. 65 Distinguished Visitors 65 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 the Hon. Grant Tambling, Administrator of Norfolk Island and a former member of the House and senator for the Northern Territory. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 65 Questions Without Notice 65 14:09:00 65 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I again refer to his 2004 election promise to keep interest rates at record lows. Is the Prime Minister aware that, barely one hour after the Prime Minister repudiated this election commitment in the House yesterday, the Chief Government Whip and member for Macquarie yesterday (a) reaffirmed the 2004 election promise and (b) said that the promise to keep interest rates at record lows was ‘still standing’. Prime Minister, who is telling the truth—you or the member for Macquarie? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister is not required to comment on a colleague, but if the Prime Minister chooses to answer I call the Prime Minister. 65 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I saw the member’s remark earlier today because somebody mentioned it to me. If you look at the context of it, the member for Macquarie has been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to have a look at everything I said in the last election campaign; it will enlighten him a great deal. What I said in the last election campaign, what the Treasurer said—and it is absolutely the truth—is that interest rates under a coalition government will always be lower than they are under a Labor government. I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition understood— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hansard from yesterday says: The promise that we would keep interest rates at record lows still stands. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will come to his point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I seek leave to table the Hansard. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. If he wishes to table a document he will wait until the answer is completed. I call the Prime Minister. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition understood that if you subtracted 8.3 from 12.75 you would be left with in excess of 4½. That is the difference between what interest rates will be for housing in Australia after the latest increase by the Reserve Bank and what they averaged under the former Labor government. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition understood that if you take 8.3 and you double it you get 16.6, which is still 0.4 below 17 per cent, which was the level that housing interest rates hit when the Labor Party was last in office. So when I say now, when I said three years ago and when I will say over the weeks and months ahead that interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than they are under Labor, I speak the truth. Not only is it verified by the experience of the last Labor government compared with ours; if you look at the policies of the Labor Party for this coming election, particularly its industrial relations policy, according to independent economic experts the industrial relations policies of the Labor Party will exert upward pressure on interest rates. So not only do we have history but we also have current policy to validate my claim and my argument that interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under the Labor Party. 66 66 14:13:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 Mr KEENAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House the results of the July labour force survey? What does this indicate about the benefits of the government’s economic management? 66 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. I can inform the House that the labour force in the month of July just passed showed that an additional 21,800 Australians were able to find a job. And they were, nearly totally, full-time jobs. This means that although we have a record number of people that want to participate in the labour market—a participation rate of 65 per cent—we still have an unemployment rate which is the lowest in 33 years. That rate is 4.3 per cent. Over the last year there have been a quarter of a million new jobs created in Australia. That is net new jobs: after you allow for those people that have lost work, the number of people in net terms who have gained work in Australia over the last year has been 250,000. A quarter of a million Australians have come into the workforce, and many of those have come off welfare. People who otherwise would have gone onto a disability pension, people who otherwise would have been on a single parent pension—these people are now joining the labour force, they are now looking for work, and the good news is they are now finding it. Managing the economy at a time when unemployment is at 4.3 per cent brings a whole range of new challenges. One of the challenges, of course, is that in some areas of the country we now have a labour shortage—that is, we have more jobs than there are people to fill them. As you might imagine, that puts pressure on wages and on inflation. Therefore, it takes a great deal more care to manage inflation when you are at very low levels of unemployment. It would not be possible to manage the inflationary pressures if we were operating under an award system of industrial relations or a pattern bargaining system of industrial relations, because what would happen is that you would get wage settlements taken from profitable areas of the economy and applied across the board—general wages increases and general inflation. I said earlier that an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent puts pressure on inflation. At the moment, on an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent, the Reserve Bank’s official cash rate is 6½ per cent. That 6½ per cent is still lower than the cash rate was when unemployment was nearly double what it is today, and that is a fair comparison. When we were back in 1996 and the unemployment rate was at 8.3 per cent, we were not getting pressure from full employment or labour shortage. In fact, we had a big margin of unemployed labour which was acting to keep a brake on wages, and yet, even though the unemployment rate was nearly double what it is today, the cash rate was higher. If you want to go back to the early 1990s when unemployment was around 10 per cent, the mortgage rates were still higher than they are today, and that is a fair comparison, because you are comparing a monetary policy in the context of capacity in the economy. So, when you actually view interest rates and compare them to the context of employment, the fact that unemployment is so low and yet the interest rate is lower than at periods when there was much higher unemployment shows you how far we have come in the Australian economy. And we have come a long way. It could not have been done if we had not reformed the budget, got rid of debt, improved the tax system and improved the waterfront. If we had not had Welfare to Work and all those measures it could not have been done. These are the policies that have put people back in work, and putting people back in work is the object of economic policy—to give young Australians a start in life and to give families security in employment. This is the goal of economic policy, and we must continue to keep unemployment low in this country. 67 Distinguished Visitors 67 14:18:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Indonesia. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 67 Questions Without Notice 67 67 14:18:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that interest rates were too high when they reached 17 per cent in 1989, just as interest rates were too high when they reached 22 per cent in 1982 when the Prime Minister was Treasurer? Is this why the Treasurer has said that ‘the Howard treasurership was not a success in terms of interest rates and inflation’? 67 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I suppose, on occasions, I agree with the member for Lilley. I agree with the member for Lilley when he agrees with me in relation to my action over Queensland. The member for Lilley is a great follower. He belongs to the school of ‘echonomics’, which, it seems to me, will rival the Chicago School soon. We have the Chicago School of Economics, we have monetarism, we have Keynesianism and we now have ‘echonomics’ coming from those who sit opposite. There is something that the member for Lilley said this morning that I certainly did not agree with. He said that, if Labor had won the election, there would not have been any interest rate rises. Can you imagine that? What a fool I have been. All I have to do to stop interest rates ever going up in this country is to sign a piece of cardboard paper, which is what Mark Latham did in the last election campaign. But there he is, there is the member for Lilley, the shadow Treasurer— Opposition members interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —They are getting very carried away with themselves at the moment. Hubris has taken over the frontbench of the Labor Party. I would have thought that he would have drawn the line somewhere. But basically what the member for Lilley is suggesting is that, if Mark Latham had become Prime Minister, he would have been able to stop any increases in interest rates. Let me say that occasionally I do agree with the member for Lilley. Maybe we might barrack occasionally for the same football team or one or two things like that, but, I tell you what, to try to suggest to the Australian people that Mark Latham, if he had become Prime Minister of this country, would have put a permanent lid on interest rates is really stretching things a bit too far. 68 68 14:21:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 Dr SOUTHCOTT —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House all the elements of the government’s fiscal policy? Are there any alternative proposals that could damage the economy? 68 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. It is the government’s view that, in a growing economy as we have now, it is important that the government deliver a surplus in its budget—that is, that the government keep its expenditure within its revenues and that it add to savings at the end of the day. This government has now delivered 10 surplus budgets and cleared Australia of the Labor Party debt—the $96 billion Labor Party debt—which was in place in 1996. The would-be Liberals on the other side, the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Treasurer, say that their policy is a mirror image of the government’s. This was the claim by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday: ‘There isn’t a sliver of light between him and the government when it comes to fiscal policy.’ Leave aside the fact that he voted against every measure that was required to balance the budget, leave aside the fact that he was against paying off government debt, leave aside the fact that he voted against tax reform and leave aside the fact that he is opposed to industrialisation and modernisation, he says there is not a sliver of light between his economic policy and the government’s economic policy. Let me show where a massive gap—not a sliver of light, but a massive gap—opens up between the Liberal government and the Labor Party. I said earlier that the Liberal government believes in surplus budgeting and paying off debt. Between 1996 and 2005, the state governments were also paying off debt. The Commonwealth reduced its debt from $96 billion to zero, and the states reduced their debt from $48 billion to $10 billion. So there was a net reduction in debt of $96 billion at the Commonwealth level and $38 billion at the state level. Between 2006 and 2010, we will continue to reduce debt, this time by building savings up, with another $60 billion—so $96 billion and a $60 billion asset position. The states mirrored us for those first 10 years. They reduced by $38 billion. Now, what are the states going to do over the next five years? Will they keep their debt reduction going? No, because the states—now all controlled by Labor, as they were not back in 1996—instead of continuing to reduce debt as they did for 10 years between 1996 and 2006, will build their net debt from $10 billion to $80 billion between now and 2010. What we had was the states following the Commonwealth with debt reduction of $38 billion, but instead of continuing to follow the Commonwealth, the states are now building $70 billion of debt between now and 2010-11. When you add together the two levels of government—the Commonwealth and the states—whilst the Commonwealth over the next five years will be building savings of $60 billion, the states will be borrowing savings of $70 billion. They will completely net out the surplus budgeting of the Commonwealth over the next five years, so that between the two levels of government in fact there will not be surplus budgeting—there will not be government putting savings back into the economy. Between the two levels of government, they will be completely netting out. I see the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to get an instruction from the member for Melbourne as to how this situation could possibly have occurred. It occurred because, between 2005-06 and 2007-08, the states decided to start going into deficit budgeting and they decided to go into borrowing. Let me say this to the Labor Party: if there is not a sliver of light between us and the Labor Party on fiscal policy, the Leader of the Opposition will have no hesitation in condemning this move by the states into deficit and will have no hesitation in demanding that the state governments do not counteract federal fiscal policy. If there is not a sliver of light, if his fiscal policy is the mirror image, if we stand identically, he will have no trouble at all demanding that the Labor level of government do precisely what the coalition is doing—that is, get their budgets back into surplus, stop borrowing, and add in to savings. The fact that they are borrowing at a time when the economy is strong means they are going procyclical at the wrong time. If they had wanted to do this, the time to go procyclical would have been in 1999-2000. The time not to go procyclical is in 2007-08. We await the new economic conservative, the Leader of the Opposition, who claims to support coalition policy. We await him walking to the dispatch box to say unequivocally that he condemns the Labor state level of government, that he demands surpluses and that he does not want federal fiscal policy to be countervailed by the Labor states. 69 69 14:28:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP 0 Mr SWAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the AAP report of 1.51 today entitled: ‘People better able to deal with rate rises now: Turnbull’? Following his earlier comment that the impact of interest rate increases on working families should not be overdramatised, doesn’t today’s statement just demonstrate yet again how out of touch the member for Wentworth and your government are? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is not required to comment, but I will call the Prime Minister. 69 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I have not seen that report, but I can assure you that the member for Lilley is wrong in saying that the member for Wentworth is out of touch. I have found the member for Wentworth, in matters relating not only to economics but also to his own portfolio area, to be very, very much in touch. I think he knows a bit more about economics than you do. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister for employment! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the comments. Leave granted. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The member for Wentworth has had some experience in putting into practice his economic beliefs. He has some acquaintance with the business community and he demonstrates a better understanding of economics than anybody who sits over there. The truth is that those who sit opposite do not have an economic plan of their own for Australia’s future. Those who sit opposite are desperately trying to agree with the government and practising what I call ‘echo-nomics’. The member for Lilley reminds me a bit of my childhood. My parents used to take me to a place called Katoomba in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. The first spot we went to was Echo Point. You would stand there at Echo Point and look out to Mount Solitary and when you called something out the echo would come back. I am reminded a bit about that in the parliament these days. You stand up here and you say ‘budget surplus’ and ‘budget surplus’ comes back. You say ‘rigorous monetary policy’ and ‘rigorous monetary policy’ comes back. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this was a question about interest rate increases and their impact on working families. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am listening carefully to the Prime Minister. I call the Prime Minister. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Can I say in relation to working families that there has not been an echo because when Labor was in office there were fewer working families than there are now. The echo did not work. Let me say again—and it is a very, very serious point to make in this place—that the man who sits opposite me does not have a plan of his own for Australia’s economic future. He either mouths a platitudinous agreement with things that we have done and practices what I call ‘echo-nomics’ or, alternatively, when he cannot do that and he is told what he has to do by the trade union movement, he advocates policies that are dangerous to Australia’s future. This country wants as its leader somebody who has got some plans of his own—not plans that are an expeditious echo of those of others or the dictatorial requirements of an out of touch trade union movement. 70 70 14:32:00 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 attitude of the Queensland government to this government’s offer to authorise and pay for the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct referenda for local councils? What is the Prime Minister’s response? 70 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. I have been quite amazed at developments in Queensland today where the Queensland Labor government, led by Mr Beattie, has taken the extraordinary step of proposing legislative amendments to enable them to sack any local council that seeks to hold a plebiscite to provide Queenslanders with a democratic say in the proposed amalgamations. We will come to them in a minute. What Mr Beattie said today is this—and I ask everybody on both sides of the House to listen: … we will amend the Bill today to provide for the immediate dismissal of any council which goes ahead with plans for a poll or referendum or plebiscite. This is a slap in the face for every Queenslander. It is the act of a Labor government that is drunk with power. It is the act of a man who in his hubris boasted in the Queensland parliament the other day that he could govern for 100 years. And it is an example of what this whole country would become if you had state Labor governments everywhere untrammelled by the check and the balance of a coalition government at the federal level. He is proposing to fine the councillors. He now wants to sack them. I suppose the next step will be to put them in the slammer, because that is essentially the attitude of the Queensland government in relation to this matter. We are not arguing that all the amalgamations are wrong; we are not arguing that all of them are right. We are arguing to give the people of Queensland the right to vote to express their view, which is a fundamental right of any citizen when you are talking about dismantling a structure of government. So, Mr Speaker, our offer stands: we will finance the holding of plebiscites in local government areas so that Queenslanders can express their views on these proposals. Once again we have seen Mount Solitary at work. I stand up here and say, ‘Let us have a referendum to let the people of Queensland decide whether they like the amalgamations,’ and back it comes: ‘Yes, let’s have a referendum to let the people of Queensland decide.’ But everybody in this parliament knows that if the Leader of the Opposition were now the Prime Minister he would not have proposed the referenda. Everybody knows that, just as he would not have proposed those referenda, if he had been Prime Minister on 21 June this year he would not have proposed the intervention in the Northern Territory because it was totally against everything that the Labor Party had said and done in relation to Indigenous policies. The only reason that the Leader of the Opposition has faithfully echoed, in a very rapid-fire fashion, what I have said is that he has become a follower rather than a leader on these sorts of issues. He knows how monstrously unpopular the tactics of the Queensland government are in relation to local government amalgamations. Every man and his dog, including Rusty, knows that Peter Beattie is going to retire in September or October this year and his retirement gift to the people of Queensland is to put the jackboot into the democratically elected people of various local government bodies. Let me say to the people of Queensland that, if you were facing a federal Labor government as well as a state Labor government, you would not be getting any help from that federal Labor government. It is only the check and the balance provided by a coalition government at a federal level that is giving to the people of Queensland the opportunity to express their disdain for the violently undemocratic way in which their Premier has behaved. 71 Distinguished Visitors 71 14:37:00 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 Latvia led by His Excellency Mr Indulis Emsis, Speaker of the Saeima. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 71 Questions Without Notice 71 71 14:38:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —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, in the five years from 2001 to 2006 affordable houses in the Blue Mountains dropped from 71 per cent of the total to just 29 per cent? 71 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —What I have repeatedly said is that I recognise that not every Australian family has enjoyed to the full the bounty of the last few years. I recognise that. I have never argued that every single family is equally as well off as they may have been. But having said that and acknowledged that, I do argue that generically, looking at unemployment levels, you cannot have any wealth if you do not have a job. If you do not have a job you cannot afford to buy a house, you have difficulty paying your rent and you have difficulty looking after your family. I read out some statistics at the beginning of question time that illustrated just how much this fall in unemployment had reduced social deprivation in Australia. There are 117,000 fewer children in households with either parent unemployed. That is a massive improvement. It is a 17½ per cent reduction. OECD research has shown that there is no country in the developed world that has done better than Australia in providing for the less well off in the Australian community. One of the great lies of the Labor Party against the government is that we do not care about the underprivileged. The best way to care about the underprivileged in this country is to give them a job. If you use that as a measure you will have to acknowledge that this government has done everything it humanly could to help the underprivileged. You asked me about the Urban Development Institute. I have read that report, and I have had a look at the housing affordability comparisons. I can confirm a large number of them. I will have to check whether the one used by the member is correct. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say it is. I do not want to accuse her of deliberately distorting the figure in the document but I can confirm that the Urban Development Institute in that same report—and I am sure the member has read this as well—says that there were a number of factors affecting home affordability. The three factors given particular attention in the report— 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —We do not like this, do we? No, we do not like this! This is the cherry picker exposed. They do not really like that. These are the three things: firstly, supply issues; secondly, delays in approval processes; and thirdly, state and local government costs and charges. I can also confirm that the report gets even better, my friends. It says: It is acknowledged that the vast majority of steps that need to be taken (and in some jurisdictions are being taken) are at local government and state government level. I think if the member for Sydney were—shall I put it this way?—objective enough in relation to these matters she might have prefaced her question by acknowledging those facts from that very same report. 72 72 14:42:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 Mr VASTA —My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on any representations from concerned Queenslanders about the Australian government’s offer to fund referenda on Labor’s forced local government amalgamations? 72 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Bonner for his question. As the member for Bonner would well recognise there has been an enormous amount of communication and correspondence with members in Queensland, particularly the member for Bonner, from many constituents in Queensland who are extremely concerned at the way the Beattie Labor government is trampling on their democratic rights in Queensland—from voters and constituents in the community through to people involved in local councils and the Queensland Local Government Association. I think all Australians would have a great deal of sympathy, today, with Queenslanders when they see how the democratic processes in Queensland have been trampled on. No Australian would condone the value that has been destroyed in the political freedoms and democracy in Queensland, where the Queensland Labor government is forcing amalgamations on local government authorities across Queensland. We watched Premier Beattie arrogantly mouthing off his government’s position on television last night and this morning. He is acting like an emperor in the Ming dynasty, where there is only one person that counts, and that is him. He is going to lord it over every single individual Queenslander. Of course, we have not heard boo from the leader of the Labor Party here in Canberra, who has a bit of form on this issue. Actually, he is like a mandarin in the imperial court kowtowing to Premier Beattie in Queensland. We all remember that when the current Leader of the Opposition was a senior bureaucrat in the Goss Labor government in Queensland they did exactly the same thing. There were amalgamations with no consultation with the people that were being affected. There was no consultation at all and no referendum. That happened back then, and he has form now. But now he is trying to echo the concern that the coalition government is expressing, by giving the people of Queensland the opportunity to have a say through a plebiscite or referendum conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. That is a bit of a telling line about the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. At the end of the day, all they are doing is kowtowing to the union movement in Queensland. It is outrageous that, in the democracy that we have in Australia, the Premier of Queensland has today introduced legislation that will give him the power to instantly dismiss any council major or councillor who seeks the views of the people they represent. What a horrible thought—to seek the views from the people! They will sack anyone who dares to exercise that political freedom of speech. That is Stalinism, Queensland Labor style, in 2007. It is just outrageous and should be condemned by every Australian. Labor are effectively making political prisoners out of every mayor and every councillor in Queensland by threatening to charge them and to put them in jail if they dare seek the views of the people they represent. So what is driving this? Where the councils are being amalgamated forcibly by the Queensland Labor government, they are being driven by the union bosses of the Labor Party in Queensland. If you drill down into this, you see that when this legislation goes through there will be transition committees established in every local government area across Queensland to manage the transition to the new authorities and mandated to be on those committees are three union delegates in every local government area. In every local government area, there will be three union delegates on those committees. There will not be three representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the CWA, the National Farmers Federation or AgForce in Queensland, but it is mandated that there will be three union delegates on every committee. Premier Beattie not only wants to exercise these jackboot tactics over councils across Queensland but also wants to put unions into these committees. The unions will decide who the CEOs of the new councils will be. The unions will decide who runs the Labor Party in the local area. The unions will decide who runs the Labor Party in Brisbane. The unions will decide who will be the Premier in Queensland. The unions decide who will lead the Labor Party down here and who sits on the frontbench down here. All Australians need to understand very clearly that not only can the Labor Party not be trusted to manage money but also you can guarantee that the Labor Party will be the patsies of the union movement. The unions control the government in Queensland and, if there were ever a Labor government elected here in Canberra, the unions would control them. 74 74 14:47:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Minister for Ageing—who seems to be ageing in place down here. My question relates to the National Seniors Australia launch of its election priorities in Parliament House yesterday. The minister would be aware that one of the concerns raised was the limited implementation of the government’s National Oral Health Plan. Could the minister inform ageing Australians of the measures he intends to take in terms of oral health care? 74 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 Mr PYNE —I thank the member for New England for his question. I think his question could properly have been put to the Minister for Health and Ageing, because it is a question about dental health. I would refer him to the budget announcements about dental health, which were generous and important and linked the Commonwealth government’s role with respect to dental health for older Australians—with a commitment of, I think, over $380 million specifically for dental health—to chronic illnesses associated with dental health. The Commonwealth government has, through the PBS, the Medicare benefits schedule and through this particular commitment and program in the budget announced this year, specifically catered for senior Australians. That is just one of the areas in which the Commonwealth government, led by John Howard, have put seniors front in centre in our policy. I am very proud to be the Minister for Ageing, following on from a number of ministers over the last 11 years who have increased the spending on aged care from $3.1 billion in 1996 to $10.1 billion by 2010; increased support for respite for carers of older Australians from a measly $18 million in 1996 to $184 million this year—and an extra $41 million was announced in this year’s budget for respite; increased the number of community aged-care packages from 4,500 in 1996 to over 45,000 in the present day; and increased the places per 1,000 people aged 70 and over from a measly 93 in 1996 to 108 today. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister for Ageing that he should refer to the Prime Minister by his title. 74 74 14:50:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 Mr BAKER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister explain to the House the lasting health benefits of the Commonwealth’s proposal to create a Commonwealth-funded community controlled hospital at the Mersey in Latrobe in Tasmania? Are there any alternative policies, and what is the government’s response? 74 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I am delighted to follow the Minister for Ageing and inform the House of more good news from the Howard government. I want to thank the member for Braddon for his question, and I want to again congratulate him on his ceaseless advocacy for the people of north-west Tasmania. Let me make it very clear that the only government with a proper plan for health services in north-west Tasmania is the federal government. The Tasmanian government has a big, fat pile of paper but it is not a plan, because there are no dollars associated with it. Without dollars involved, it is nothing but a wish list. The Commonwealth’s plan has three essential elements. The Commonwealth will fund the hospital to the tune of $45 million a year, the community will control the hospital, and the hospital will deliver the same range of services that were safely and effectively delivered at the Mersey hospital for many years before the Tasmanian Labor government began the downgrade. This is a good model for public hospitals. It ends the blame game, because just one level of government pays the bills, and it cuts the bureaucracy, because management decisions are made locally and not at head office. The federal government is offering to permanently relieve the state government of responsibility for Mersey hospital. This gives the state government up to $45 million a year extra to spend on health services at Burnie and Launceston hospitals. Woe betide any state government that wilfully refuses a $45 million a year free gift to north-west Tasmania out of sheer bloody-mindedness and hurt pride. We have bizarre behaviour from the state government. What about the Leader of the Opposition? Yesterday the Treasurer said that the Leader of the Opposition was desperately trying to be a Liberal. With respect, no Liberal would be such a fake. Yesterday at a press conference he denounced the Mersey decision as absolutely rotten and then he said he would not oppose it. This is how the journalist Matt Price described the Leader of the Opposition’s me too’ism. He said: Rudd agreed it was too early not to agree with Howard on the Mersey, so he agreed instead to agree with the intervention until it was agreed he might agree to disagree. This is the kind of verbal sludge that we constantly get from the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say this: if he is not willing to lead, he is not ready to govern, and the last thing the Australian people want is a phoney in the Lodge. 75 75 14:54:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —My question is also to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I refer to the statement by Dr Bert Shugg, the Acting Director of the Women and Children’s Services at North West Regional Hospital, after his meeting with the minister on Tuesday, that he was concerned that women and children were at the bottom of the agenda under the Prime Minister’s Mersey takeover plan, and also that he ‘can’t understand’ how the government will ensure the range of services and that ‘there has yet been no consultation at all with the obstetric and paediatric staff’. Minister, what specific assurances have you given to obstetric and paediatric staff that services for women and children will not be affected by your plan to take over a state hospital? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind the member for Gellibrand that the use of the word ‘you’ is not to be encouraged. 75 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —The shadow minister complains that there had not been consultations with clinical staff at Burnie Hospital. I will tell the shadow minister why there have been no consultations with clinicians at Burnie Hospital. It is because the state government will not allow it. The Tasmanian state government has threatened clinicians with the loss of their jobs if they engage— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gellibrand has asked the question. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. The minister is entirely in order. I call the Minister for Health and Ageing. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —It gets crazier and crazier from the member for Gellibrand. On the one hand she says that there were no consultations and the next minute she says, ‘I met with them.’ Come on, Mr Speaker. She has got to— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. The level of interjects is far too high. The minister has been asked a serious question. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is obvious that the minister did not hear the question. I am quite happy to ask it again if he would like me to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I listened carefully to the question. The minister is entirely in order. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —First of all, she says that there have been no consultations. I point out that consultations have been prohibited by the state government. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —And then she says, ‘I have actually met with this guy.’ She cannot have it both ways. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gellibrand is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I say to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘If you want the opposition to be taken seriously on health, put a serious person in as health shadow minister.’ 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Has the minister completed his answer? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the minister, as I have just said to the member for Gellibrand, that he should not be using the word ‘you’ in the context that he was. 76 76 14:58:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Would the minister advise the House of government action to address climate change through protecting forests? Are there any alternative views? 76 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr TURNBULL —I thank the honourable member for his question. No government in the world is doing more today to put forestry on top of the climate change agenda. One of the great omissions of the Kyoto protocol was forestry. As a consequence, we now have the bizarre situation that Professor Tom Lovejoy spoke about in Australia only a few days ago that the Kyoto protocol is actively encouraging deforestation in tropical developing countries, such as Indonesia, where incentives are offered to produce palm oil and to grow other biofuel crops but no disincentives to reduce deforestation. We now have commitments from leading nations in the developed world to establish a global network to monitor forests and forest cover and emissions. That will enable, for the first time, the vast and growing pools of money available to abate CO emissions to be connected to sustainable forestry around the world. The Australian government is in the lead there and is developing a new approach to ensure that the new global arrangement—the new Kyoto, if you like—will be effective. This government’s approach to climate change is based on effective results and on doing the hard work required to ensure that we get the economics right. We do not apologise for spending time to build the framework necessary in what will be the world’s most comprehensive emissions trading scheme to ensure that the economic implications, the implications for Australian families and businesses and the implications for Australia of the actions of other countries are fully understood. The government does not apologise for doing that work. The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was in Australia this week. Interestingly, he complimented the government’s approach. He said that informed debate based on rational thinking and rigorous analysis had to precede the rolling out of policies on climate change. Dr Pachauri said: Otherwise one might come up with a lot of emotional and political responses that may or may not be the best, and I think in a democracy it’s important to see there is an informed debate in officialdom as well as in the public. One would also have to look at the macroeconomic effects—will that result in a decline in jobs and economic output? I am asked about alternative policies. The Labor Party’s policy on greenhouse is to set a massive target of 60 per cent for emissions cuts by 2050 regardless of what any other country does and regardless of the cost. It is a policy that is as reckless as it will be environmentally ineffective. We need not just a cut in Australia but also a massive global emissions cut, and the Labor Party has nothing to offer on that. It is a consequence of its climate change policies not being driven by economics or environmental science but by hard-left ideology. One need refer only to the remarks of the member for Kingsford Smith reported in the Age a few years ago when he said that every step forward in economic growth is matched by environment degradation or perhaps when he spoke to Liz Hayes in 1989—and this was the undiluted member for Kingsford Smith—and said: We’ve got to overthrow one very important furphy and that is that we can continue with economic growth— That is a furphy—continuing with economic growth. He went on to say: Both of the parties talk about economic growth, but what we now know globally and nationally is that continued economic growth will ultimately mean continued destruction. That is the genuine voice of the ideology that is informing Labor’s climate change policy. It is antagonistic to growth and economic prosperity and it will deny the poor of the world the economic growth they deserve. You said— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett interjecting— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Do you still believe that? Come on! On your feet! Do you still believe that? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat. I remind the minister that he will not use the word ‘you’ in that context. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I invite the honourable member for Kingsford Smith to tell us whether he still believes that continued economic growth will ultimately mean continued destruction—yes or no. 77 77 15:03:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —My question is again to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I refer to comments of the Tasmanian Australian Medical Association president, Professor Haydn Walters, in the Australian about the Commonwealth’s takeover of the Mersey hospital: If neither hospital can get the critical mass in terms of manpower and equipment needed to operate a really good hospital of excellence, then both hospitals will fail. Minister, given this new Crosby Textor research, which indicates that you are much less popular than the local pharmacist, the family doctor, the Australian Medical Association, the health system in general, pharmaceutical companies, even the federal government, why should anyone believe you? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the member for Gellibrand that not only was the last part of that question out of order but I have told her before that she will not use the word ‘you’ in that context. If she continues to do it, I will rule the question totally out of order. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I apologise, Mr Speaker. I can repeat the question for you and rephrase it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No. The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. 78 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I hope you will not mind if I do not respond to the ad hominem element in that question. On the subject of the AMA, I quote in response Dr Roger Watts, who said that morale at the hospital had already improved since Prime Minister Howard announced last Wednesday his $45 million a year plan to underwrite the Mersey. And Dr Watts is the Australian Medical Association North West Tasmanian branch secretary. 78 78 15:06:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 Mr TOLLNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on Australia’s international security policies? 78 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I would like to thank the member for Solomon for his question and his interest. He is a great supporter of the Australian Defence Force. I know that Defence Force personnel in Solomon appreciate very much the work he does for them. I explained in a speech last night the importance that Australia places on our relations with the Pacific and the energetic and activist approach we take in promoting improvement in a region which obviously has real problems with stability. When I got back to my office, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition had also made a speech on strategic policy. That is a speech which deserves a little bit of scrutiny. I flicked through it early in the evening, and it interested me for a couple of reasons. First of all, I was reflecting on what happened when Labor were in government. During the last five years of the Hawke-Keating government, they reduced defence personnel by 10,000. They closed down two army battalions. They cut defence spending by about four per cent in the last two years of the Keating government. When we became the government, our Defence Force did not have the capability to do the outstanding work it does today, contributing to regional and international security. In the Leader of the Opposition’s speech last night, I noticed that he would commit to the forward outlays—that is, a three per cent real increase per annum in defence expenditure up to 2016. He would commit to forward outlays of the present government. He said, very interestingly, that the ‘US alliance sits squarely in the centre of our strategic vision’. When he was the opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and, indeed, before his time, when others were spokesmen on foreign affairs, the Labor Party—all the people sitting in this chamber to the left of the Speaker—argued that this government was too close to the United States. They always argued that we were too close to the Americans and now they say that the ‘US alliance sits squarely in the centre of our strategic vision’. By the way, Mr Speaker, I think members on this side need to know that the Leader of the Opposition claims the American alliance was formed by John Curtin. Actually, the alliance was formally formed during the Menzies’ years, but informally it was formed back in the First World War. I know that those on the other side of the House never mention Billy Hughes. He was a good man, Billy Hughes. He was a great Labor leader—the last decent Labor leader. It was Billy Hughes who formed the American alliance. Regardless of that, I make this point: the opposition leader has yet again said: ‘I agree with the Prime Minister. I agree with John Howard.’ The fact is that the opposition leader either agrees with John Howard or agrees with the trade union leadership. He has no ideas of his own. What is worse, if he became the Prime Minister, he would have no ideas of his own. He could, of course, still ring up the trade unions and ask them what to do. But what would he do when it came to economic policy? Ring up Peter Costello down in Melbourne and say: ‘What should I do next? I don’t know what to do.’ Ring up John Howard and ask what to do about security policy— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will refer to people by their title. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —I would just be John Howard then. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —The Prime Minister would be John Howard then. The point is that he would ring him up and ask him what to do about good security policy or he would ring up the member for Wentworth and ask him what to do about environment policy. The fact is that, if the Leader of the Opposition wins the election, we will of course be gone and he will have no-one left to copy. He will be on his own, and the only people he will be able to go to will be the ACTU. It is a pathetic thing that the Leader of the Opposition in this country has no ideas or policies but instead just a series of stunts. We had the T-shirt competition this week, the Kevin07, cribbed almost literally from the Obama ‘08 website, as the Herald Sun pointed out, under the headline: ‘Copycat Kevin takes his cue from the US’. At least there is somebody making policy for the Leader of the Opposition at the moment, and that is the government. God forbid that we would lose the election and he would have no-one to guide him. 79 79 15:13:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr TANNER —My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to his continued claim that the Liberal Party will always have lower interest rates than the Labor Party. 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr Downer interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs has completed his answer. The member for Melbourne has the call. 79 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr TANNER —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will commence my question again. My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to his continued claim that the Liberal Party will always have lower interest rates than the Labor Party. Is the Prime Minister aware of comments by former Reserve Bank Governor Ian Macfarlane, who said that these claims, also made at the last election, were ‘incorrect’ ? Prime Minister, who should Australian families with a mortgage trust? The former Reserve Bank Governor or you? 79 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do not know what comments of Mr Macfarlane the member is referring to. But let us put that aside and look at the facts. The last time the Labor Party was in office, housing interest rates averaged 12¾ per cent. The housing interest rate after the latest increase will be 8.3 per cent—that is a full 4½ per cent below. Housing interest rates hit 17 per cent. If you double 8.3 you get 16.6, which is still 0.4 below 17 per cent. So the facts speak for themselves. I imagine that the member for Melbourne has verballed Ian Macfarlane. They verbal just about everybody when they get up in this House. They even verbal some members of the government when they get up in the parliament and ask these questions. If the member for Melbourne wants to have a serious debate about which party has got a better interest rate record, all we say is: bring it on. Look at the last Labor government and compare it with this government. Look at the policies of the Labor Party on display at the moment in industrial relations, which will, according to Econtech, according to the ACCI, drive up inflation and thereby put upward pressure on interest rates. Labor would take away the industrial relations system we now have. You would have wages break-outs because sectors of the economy could not afford to pay wage increases demanded and received in the more prosperous areas of the economy. You would therefore end up with an extraordinary situation where there would be upward pressure on interest rates, and that would be to the detriment of the entire Australian community. If the member for Melbourne wants to continue to argue that interest rates would be lower under a Labor government than under a coalition government, he is fighting against all of the available evidence and he is about as misguided on the subject as the member for Lilley is. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table an article from the Sydney Morning Herald of 19 August 2006 which states that the Reserve Bank governor revealed that the Reserve Bank had considered going public before the 2004 election to point out that the government was incorrect. Leave granted. 80 80 15:16:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 Mr WOOD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House how the government’s workplace relations laws are helping employers create more jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies and what impact they would have on employment? 80 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 La Trobe for his question. I recognise he is a great local member, someone with real-life experience as a former senior policeman. It was this government that removed the burden of Labor’s unfair dismissal laws on small business. The result of that is that, since we removed the unfair dismissal laws on small business, 387,000 new jobs have been created, 84 per cent of them full time. Why has this occurred? It is because now small business has the courage to go out and employ people with no employment history. That is why the number of people who are long-term unemployed has dropped to record low levels in Australia. That is why youth unemployment has dropped to low levels in Australia. The OECD found that restrictive and punitive laws, such as the unfair dismissal laws, act as a disincentive for employers to take on more staff and disadvantage those most disadvantaged. Of course, the Labor Party has a rather complicated policy in relation to the unfair dismissal laws. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Not compared to yours! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked by David Spears on Sky News yesterday about the application of the unfair dismissal laws to Cassie Whitehill in Tasmania, and she did not understand her own laws. What a surprise! They want to abolish our laws, but they do not even understand their own. Of course, whether the laws are in or the laws are out, they do not apply to the Labor Party and they do not apply to the unions. That is why, when we heard about the case of Cassie Whitehill, who was sacked the day before Christmas by the President of the Australian Services Union in Tasmania—who also happens to be the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania—the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not lift a finger. But we hear today that Kevin Harkins has been sacked. A government member—Unfair dismissal! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —We do not know if it is unfair dismissal, but what we do know is that on the following dates the Leader of the Opposition backed Kevin Harkins as the candidate for Franklin. He backed him on 22 and 24 June and on 19 and 20 July. On 23 July the Leader of the Opposition said this about Mr Harkins: Well, Mr Harkins is the candidate for the Australian Labor Party and I have seen nothing to date which would require me to cause any change in that position. As I said, the matters which we are dealing with here are civil matters. And we really need to start rocking and rolling. ‘We really need to start rocking and rolling’—I am not quite sure what that means; it is a Kevinism. On 24 July the Leader of the Opposition backed Harkins as well. So what changed? Government members—Harry! Harry! Harry! DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Is it the scalp that sits on the belt of the member for Franklin? No. Was it only last week that I went down to Franklin and campaigned for Vanessa Goodwin and there were all these endorsements from the Leader of the Opposition of his candidate in Franklin? And yet yesterday we saw a report in the Mercury under the headline ‘Jettison Harkins push’. It said: … despite offers of an elevated union position, increased salary and a future Senate seat, Mr Harkins is determined not to quit voluntarily. This was yesterday. So what happened in the last 24 hours? These are the questions that the Leader of the Opposition has to answer. He has lost his candidate in Franklin and he has not explained to anyone why. Why has he lost his candidate in Franklin? That was a candidate that he has supported on numerous occasions. That was a candidate endorsed by the Labor Party. And yet, as soon as a report comes out of possible inducements, even perhaps bribery, in relation to the candidate in Franklin—that he has been bought off, that he might end up at a later time in the Senate as a representative for Tasmania from the Labor Party—all of a sudden Harkins resigns. There was no explanation from Sean Kelly, the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania, and no explanation from the Leader of the Opposition. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? Because the Leader of the Opposition is totally in the control of the union bosses—that is why. The Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to stand up for the people of Australia because he is being dictated to by union bosses, union thugs, and people that preach one message and do not adhere to it when it applies to them. The Leader of the Opposition has to answer some questions. These are serious allegations involving, perhaps, breaches of the Electoral Act. He cannot laugh it away. He cannot continue to be controlled by the union bosses and expect the people of Australia to back him. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 81 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 81 81 15:23:00 Mr HOWARD,MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Can I correct an answer I gave to the question I was asked by the member for Bass about unemployment. I said that the long-term unemployment rate had fallen by 26 per cent. That was wrong. It has in fact, through the year to June 2007, fallen by 29 per cent. So 29 per cent fewer people are long-term unemployed as a result of the good economic conditions this country now enjoys. 81 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:24:00 —Documents are presented 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: Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—Funding and disclosure: Inquiry into disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates—Government response, August 2007 Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned. 82 Matters of Public Importance 82 Interest Rates 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to ensure low interest rates and genuine housing affordability. 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— 82 15:25:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 Mr TANNER —Many years ago, when the Prime Minister was in his heyday as Leader of the Opposition, cartoonists were often happy to depict him as a little schoolboy, with the short pants held up high under his armpits, the funny old satchel, the weird glasses, the multicoloured pen in the pocket—all of those kinds of things. Gradually over the years he has grown in stature, he has shed the schoolboy image and he has become the man of steel, marching arm in arm with George Bush around the world sorting out the bad guys. It has been a truly astonishing transformation. But in recent times the wheel has turned, and gradually we are seeing the Prime Minister’s inner schoolboy re-emerge. He is now coming back to the petulant, pouting, recalcitrant schoolboy that was so damaging for the conservatives back in the 1980s. In doing that, he is peddling ever more creative versions of the old ‘dog ate my homework’ story—ever more creative stories that cast the blame on everybody other than him. The satchel, the multicoloured pen, the short pants up around his pectorals—all those kinds of things—are returning. It is all back. The statesman is gone and we now have the blame-game merchant—the Prime Minister who is never to blame, who is never responsible for anything bad and who takes all the credit, all the glory, when anything good happens and is always looking to shift the blame to someone else. We have now had nine interest rate increases in a row—five since the election in 2004, when, we all recall, the Prime Minister asked the Australian people through the Liberal Party to trust him in order that he could keep interest rates at record lows. He now tries to wriggle out of that and suggest that none of that happened, that in fact his commitment was to have interest rates lower than any Labor government had. But today those words are still on the Liberal Party website: ‘keeping interest rates at record lows’. Over recent years, when interest rates have been rising, notwithstanding the government’s commitment to keep them at record lows, the narrative of excuses has been roughly as follows. First it was the drought. Then it was Cyclone Larry and bananas. Then it was petrol prices. More recently, in the last few days, it has been state governments A couple of days ago it suddenly became the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party were irresponsible for putting up an advertisement during the election campaign saying the government was going to keep interest rates at record lows, and the Prime Minister was not told about it. It was nothing to do with him; he has no responsibility for Liberal Party advertising during a campaign. It was absolutely nothing to do with him whatsoever. Presumably, on that logic, the fact that this slogan is on the Liberal Party website even today is nothing to do with him either. Of course, the coda to this position is that if Labor were elected then the alleged reintroduction of centralised wage fixing would put up interest rates. So in other words there is a scapegoat, an excuse, wherever you look. It is an amazingly wide variety of versions of the old ‘dog ate my homework’ story. The one thing that is central to this message is that it is never his fault. Every time that interest rates go up it is not his fault. There is a new excuse every time. When interest rates are low, all credit is due to the Prime Minister. Remember the slogan was ‘keeping interest rates at record lows’—not ‘helping to keep interest rates at record lows’, ‘chipping in to keep interest rates at record lows’, ‘influencing interest rates to stay at record lows’, ‘doing our bit to keep interest rates at record lows’ or even ‘enabling the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates at record lows’. No, the Howard government were going to do it all by themselves: ‘keeping interest rates at record lows’. Isn’t it incredible that, when interest rates are low, it is all due to John Howard’s good work, it is all due to the Prime Minister’s good work, but when they go up, someone else is always to blame? Does anybody in the House remember the Prime Minister congratulating state governments in 2002 and 2003 for their good work in helping to keep interest rates down? I do not recall that. Yet apparently now, when interest rates are going up, it is their actions that are causing the problem. Back a few years ago when they were low, no, the states clearly had nothing to do with it. Two days ago it is suddenly the fault of all the states. They have record low debt and they all have AAA credit ratings. A couple of years ago the Prime Minister was attacking them for not investing in infrastructure. Now that they are investing in infrastructure they are accused of putting interest rates up. Of course, he is using misleading figures—he was at it again today. And the Treasurer was at it again today, comparing net Commonwealth debt with gross state debt. Numerous leading economists have rubbished this suggestion. Both previous heads and the current head of the Reserve Bank have rubbished this suggestion and said that the states are not putting upward pressure on interest rates, and all the way he is busily marching in, talking over every last conceivable state responsibility at the same time. While he is blaming state governments and their activities for putting upward pressure on interest rates, the Prime Minister is busily grabbing every last piece of state responsibility, interfering in every last state role that he can manage. Yet somehow, magically, the states are the villains in this interest rates drama. His story with respect to the Labor alternative is equally ridiculous. Centralised wage fixing is going to be reintroduced, according to the Prime Minister. It would be funny if it were not so dishonest. It was a Labor government that dismantled the centralised wage fixing system in this country in 1993. I remember it well because I was a member of the Labor caucus at the time and there were vigorous debates about the detail of the industrial relations reforms that were introduced. Will we abolish enterprise bargaining? Of course not. Will we abolish non-union enterprise agreements? No, we will not. Will we restore the principle of comparative wage justice, which is effectively the mechanism, the transmission belt, through which increases in strong productive areas were transferred through to less economically strong areas in the past? No, we will not restore comparative wage justice. So the claim that the Labor Party is going to reintroduce centralised wage fixing is simply ludicrous. In effect, the Prime Minister is saying that in order to keep downward pressure on interest rates you have to take penalty rates, overtime and all of the entitlements away from vulnerable workers—cleaners, servo attendants, security guards and shop assistants. That, effectively, is what he is saying—that any attempt to restore the basic rights at work of ordinary working people, particularly those who do not have much bargaining power, who are on low wages and who struggle to get by, is going to put upward pressure on interest rates. The implication of that is very clear. All you low-paid workers out there are going to have to sacrifice your penalty rates, entitlements and overtime in order to get lower interest rates. That is the Prime Minister’s real message. The truth is that the Prime Minister is in complete denial. In March, as we all know, he famously told the Australian people and this parliament that working people in this country have never been better off. The Treasurer was at it too. A few weeks ago he said, ‘We have inflation right where we want it.’ What has happened subsequently suggests that he may now regret that statement because the cold reality is that a lot of people out there are hurting. A lot of Australians are struggling and will suffer as a result of these interest rates increases. We have the second highest interest rates in the developed world. Interest repayments as a percentage of disposable income are at record levels. We have record levels of people under housing stress: large numbers of Australians are unable to enter the housing market and an increasingly large number of Australians are struggling to enter the rental market. There is no better indicator of a government that is tired, stale and out of touch and that has lost the capacity to govern in the interests of the nation than the statement that working people have never been better off. This essentially is a government in cruise control. It is sitting back with its hands behind its head and it is steering with its knees. That is basically what the Howard government is doing. It is having a great time. It is relaxed and it really does not care. It is traditional in the economic debate about the relationship between government spending and interest rates to focus on the quantity of government spending, the size of the surplus and the size of the deficit. That is vital; it is very important, but there is another dimension which is often overlooked—that is, the quality of government spending. What is that money being spent on? Quantity is obviously vital and the settings are vital but so too is the quality. It is quality where this government is most culpable. The debate continues among economists about whether or not the last budget put upward pressure on interest rates. The real culpability, the real failure, is the government’s refusal over a number of years to invest in the capacity that creates the ability for greater productivity growth, greater economic growth and general benefit to the wellbeing of the country. The failure to invest in productive capabilities such as infrastructure, education and skills, and broadband, is where the real culpability lies. That is precisely what Secretary to the Treasury, Ken Henry, was talking about in March in his famous speech in which he said ‘policy outcomes would have been far superior had our views been more influential’. What were those views? They were that the government needed to focus more on investing in pushing out the speed limits to growth so that non-inflationary, non high interest rates growth could be better. Howard government decisions contributing to the latest interest rates increase were not taken last week, last month or, even to some extent, last year; they are decisions that have accumulated over three, five or even seven years—starving universities, starving TAFEs, not doing anything about broadband other than silly little mickey mouse handouts in National Party seats for political purposes and failing to tackle the infrastructure problem. All of this was in the context of an economy growing and public spending, government spending, growing even faster. I will give you one concession, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is one really good thing the government have done in recent years on the macroeconomic front, and that is that they have increased immigration. They never talk about that. I wonder why. Why don’t we have the Treasurer and the Prime Minister here at question time talking about what a great contribution to the health of the Australian economy the increase in the immigration program is making? I wonder why we never hear anything about that. They should talk about it because they deserve genuine credit for that. The government is drowning in revenue. Where has it all gone? Often it is hard to tell because the financial information we are now allowed to get is so curtailed. But here are a few examples. There is over $1 billion on promoting Work Choices. There is $350-odd million in the last financial year on government advertising alone. Labor’s highest spend was $85 million. There is $484 million on consultants in the previous financial year—we do not have the figures for the last one. That is 2½ times Labor’s higher spending. There is a 30 per cent increase in ministerial staff. There are nine ministerial staff for Senator Ron Boswell, who has no ministerial responsibilities—none. There are endless rorts to prop up sitting members—increasing the printing allowance and grants to National Party seats, and increasing the number of parliamentary liaison officers so that all their electorate staff can be off playing factional games in the New South Wales branch. The Special Executive Service level of the Public Service has increased by 44 per cent over the past seven years. And there is the crowning glory: the $350,000, signed off by cabinet no less, for a private gift to the Queen of a jewel-encrusted, gold, air-conditioned, horse-drawn carriage—the ultimate signature of the profligacy and stupidity of the Howard government. Just last week there was a coda to this list, and that is the Mersey hospital decision: a desperate grab for votes through a unilateral takeover of the hospital, overturning a carefully considered and developed hospital services rationalisation plan by the state government—the government that is actually in charge of hospitals. It is still without any details or any costings. Senator Minchin, the Minister for Finance and Administration, said on Sunday, ‘Obviously my department will be involved ultimately in the costing exercise.’ My apologies, but I thought the department of finance costed proposals before they were announced, not after. Clearly, there has been a change in practice. What you have now is a government that is operating on the basis of: write the cheque first and then check the bank balance later. It is an extraordinary spectacle—you have the government wandering around Australia handing out money randomly to anybody who asks for it and, at the same time, saying that the No. 1 issue in the forthcoming federal election campaign is the economic and financial credibility of their opponents. They are the ones wandering around just handing out money like confetti, yet they are saying that our economic credibility is the issue. This election is about quality of government more than anything else, and the Australian people are entitled to expect more. We have a tired, stale, out of touch government trying to take credit when things are good and blaming everybody else when things go wrong. The Australian people deserve better. (Time expired) 86 15:40:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr DUTTON —I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this important matter of public importance debate today. I just want to make one response to the previous speaker’s contribution, and that is to say that in the upcoming election I think one of the things that will backfire on Labor is their arrogance. Their arrogant belief that they have one foot inside the Lodge, one foot on this side of the parliament, was exemplified by that contribution today by the shadow minister for finance. To say that John Howard is old not because of his age but because of his ideas just showed how shallow and personal the member’s attack was on the Prime Minister. The member, in his argument, went directly to the age of the Prime Minister. That is something that Mr Swan and the Leader of the Opposition are saying they are not interested in doing, but the previous speaker today showed the true colour of the opposition and the nature of their personal attacks. Until today the attack has just been by way of briefing journalists and by snide little remarks on the side to public audiences. Today, the true colours of the opposition were shown in the spiteful attack on the Prime Minister and on the fact that he is now in his 60s. The Prime Minister is incredibly energetic, not just in a physical sense but in a mental sense. He provides great stability to this government. He has done that over the last 11 years; he continues to do it today. My view is that he will continue to do it into the future. No personal attack by the members opposite will muddy the waters for the Australian people. Many Australians are in their 60s and I think they would look with disgust upon the argument put by the Labor Party today. Through these thinly veiled attacks the Labor Party is clearly saying to people in their 60s that they are past it. I say to mature-age Australians: do not look at some of the comments made by Mr Rudd or Mr Swan in trying to butter-up their lines to the media, look at the contribution by the shadow minister today to see the Labor Party’s true attack on the Prime Minister. I am pleased to be a part of this debate today because I want to take the opportunity to speak directly to younger Australians. At 36 years of age, I am someone in this parliament who is relatively young and I understand some of the angst that is out there at the moment, not just among people in my own age cohort, at the older end of Gen X, as we are called—people in their early to mid-30s, people who have mortgages, who have children, who are faced with all of the demands of modern life. I have an understanding of the stress and pressure that they are going through. I also have an understanding of the stress and pressure that people younger than me are going through at the moment—people in their late teens and early 20s who might be saving for a house and paying high rents, saving towards buying a car, setting up a small business or whatever the case might be. There are huge demands in today’s society and huge expectations on younger people and, in particular, people with young families. There are huge expectations on my generation that we live in a house that is bigger than the one our parents owned. There are huge expectations on people in their mid to late teens, their 20s and 30s. The age group between 18 and 40 face expectations that they drive a new car, have the plasma screen TV and all the trappings that go with modern life, and that has brought with it pressure on households in this country. It is not just because people have proportionally higher mortgages than people had a generation ago but because with the mortgage repayments there are also now payments for credit cards, personal debt and motor vehicle debt, and all of that aggregates to put pressure on families in today’s society. What I can say directly to people who are experiencing difficulties in meeting their mortgage repayments at the moment is that it is a very similar circumstance, but for different reasons, to the pressure that was held against people in their late teens and early 20s in the late eighties and early nineties. The pressure at that time, when I was in my late teens and early 20s, was directed at young people because interest rates were at 17 per cent. People in small business faced overdraft rates of 20 per cent. At that time, if you were a young tradie of 21 or 22 years of age who was trying to set up your own business, it was almost impossible. It was almost impossible because the climate set up by Labor when they were last in government meant that people were paying huge interest rates. They could not cope with the stress of interest rates under Labor. I say to people today: have an historic understanding of where interest rates have been and where they would be in my view—and many economists in this country share the same view—if Labor were to be returned. Over the last 10 years this country has not had union domination in the workplace. We have not had the poor workplace practices that operated in the early eighties. I say to young people that our country today is a very different place to what it was then. If the Labor Party is returned after this election we will go back 10 or 20 years. We will go back to a situation, in my view and in the view of many economists, where unions are back in control, where strike rates will go up and where company profits will go down, which will mean people going back on to the unemployment queues. It will mean that the millions of Australians who own shares directly or indirectly by way of dividends will see reducing returns. That will send a very poor message for the future of this country and this economy. It is a difficult message to deliver, because people aged 18, 20, 25 or 35 do not have an historic understanding of where interest rates were in the eighties under Labor and where we have come to over the last 11 years. It is essential that we explain to people the difficulty that they would be exposed to if Labor were to be elected again. It is important to say to young people today that when Labor were last in government interest rates averaged 12¾ per cent. Under this government they have averaged around 7.24 per cent. The standard variable home loan rate has fallen from 10½ per cent in March 1996, when we were elected, to around 8.3 per cent today. I say to younger people, consider this statistic: with the interest rate reductions—from 10½ per cent, when Labor were last in government in 1996, to 8.3 per cent today—people are saving around $449 a month in interest charges on an interest only loan for an average mortgage of $245,000. Say interest rates under Labor only went to 12 per cent; say they do not peak at 17 per cent like they did when Labor was last in government: somebody on a $300,000 mortgage would need to find an extra $1,000 a month. I say to people in their 20s and 30s today—people of a similar age to me—who do have high mortgages, perhaps because as a generation we have a higher expectation than many of our parents, just consider the fact of where, if Labor got into power, you would find an extra $1,000 a month. I think a Labor government in this country would be a disaster for younger people—on many fronts, not just the economic front. It is important as part of this debate that we talk not just about interest rates but about home loan affordability. When you look at some of the research that has been done—and I have taken an active interest in this issue over a number of months—you see that a number of factors have driven up housing prices. If you look specifically at some of the work that the independent institutes and property associations around the country have done, you see that there is a common theme to each of them: the prices that have been charged by local and state government authorities have increased quite dramatically. In some areas of the country, I am told that $150,000 of an average house price of $435,000 is made up of local and state government charges. Those figures are quite alarming. That is the most significant part of the house price increase and the reason we have difficulty with affordability in the current market. We know that the expectation of people who are buying these houses has increased. In 1984 the average floor area of a newly constructed house was 162.2 square metres. In 2005 it was 247 square metres. That is an increase of 52½ per cent. The expectation of younger people of my generation has increased by that much over the last 20 years. It is something that we need to take into consideration. People who are borrowing money at the moment need to factor in that, if Labor were to be elected at the end of the year, they would need to be able to afford interest rate rises that would come under a Labor government. They have come before under Labor governments. If you look at the way in which Labor governments are managing the states and territories, you will see that the economic policies would be replicated at a federal level by federal Labor, and that would mark a stark increase in interest rates in this country. It is a sobering discussion, but it is one that has to be had. It is a message that we need to send clearly to younger Australians and in particular to younger Australian families. The issue of home affordability in my own state of Queensland is particularly relevant, because councils in Queensland—indeed, right around the country—have been forced to pass on to consumers, to young families out there buying blocks of land, costs that have been passed on to them by state governments. The state government in Queensland, through their infrastructure planning act, have added tens of thousands of dollars to the price that consumers in Queensland are paying today for land. When you talk to councils around the state, in many cases they are as frustrated as the federal government is at this development. What has happened is that there has been a shift in costs from the state governments to local government authorities for roads or upgrades of sewer systems. These costs would perhaps historically have been met by the state government but they are now being passed directly onto consumers by developers through the increased price of land. That is an alarming trend. On my assessment, it is not one that is likely to abate any time soon. That is of great concern to all Australians, because what it means is that Labor is locking younger people out of home loan affordability. Labor governments in every state and territory are contributing to the generation of Australians currently in the market being unable to afford a house. The great Australian dream should be preserved. We should protect it at every opportunity. At the moment, there seems to be a renewed level of dictatorship in Queensland by Peter Beattie, who is showing himself as somebody who will not listen to the people of Queensland. Peter Beattie is behaving in a deplorable way, not just in relation to amalgamation but in relation to consultation with councils and others within the property industry who have some ideas and who are talking about ways in which they can make homes more affordable. Peter Beattie at the moment is showing arrogance by the way in which he is conducting his activities. That was highlighted by his comments yesterday, when he said that if he wanted he could be in power in Queensland for the next 100 years. That shows the arrogance of Labor at a state level and the underlying arrogance of this Labor opposition as well. The Labor Party have had a lot to say about home affordability, but nothing of substance. This of course is a common theme that is running through the federal Labor Party at the moment. They have focus groups in which they shop these lines about home affordability, the economy or environmental matters—whatever it might be. Mr Rudd goes off with these focus groups and goes off talking to Hawker Britton, his specialists and his union boss advisers, about what it is that they should be saying in the media. Give Mr Rudd marks for his mastery of the media at the moment. He gets out there with these glib one-liners, says that he is going to fix it and then pulls back from the media without giving any policy detail or substance whatsoever for consideration or scrutiny. The Australian people are starting to see that the bloke who sits opposite and wants to be Prime Minister has no substance to him whatsoever. The reality is that that will come home to bite the Leader of the Opposition very quickly, because you cannot run around in this country putting up one-liners and saying that you have all the answers to all the problems and then, when you are asked for the policy detail, have nothing to show for it. Nothing better demonstrated this than when a 30-page document on the issue of home loan affordability was put out by the Leader of the Opposition that showed nothing of substance whatsoever. (Time expired) 89 15:55:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —I learnt something very interesting from the Minister for Revenue. I learnt that increased interest rates are not only not the fault of the federal government but the fault of all those ordinary families out there—the mums and dads—because they are so selfish that they want big houses, TVs and cars. Interest rates are nothing to do with anything that the federal government— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. That is a misleading statement and she should retract it. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—There is no point of order. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —He is very sensitive. He should not have said it if he did not mean it. It is very disappointing to hear the minister say that the reason families are struggling is because they want too much; because they want to put a roof over their heads; because they want to put a roof over their kids’ heads. Selfish parents—unbelievable. It is a lot like that Larson cartoon in which there is a dog owner talking to a dog. The line under the cartoon is, ‘What people say; what dogs hear.’ The person is saying: ‘Sit down! Bad dog! Stay there!’ What the dog hears is, ‘Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof! Woof!’ The minister and the government are just not listening. They are not hearing what people are saying when they say that they are having a tough time with interest rate increases. The minister was also not hearing when the shadow finance minister was talking about the government and its lack of ideas. What we say is that the government has lost touch, is running short on new ideas, is not tackling the pressures that are pushing interest rates up and is failing to invest in productivity. What the minister obviously hears is, ‘The Prime Minister is too old.’ I do not know what kind of Freudian thing he has got going on there. When the shadow finance minister says that there is a lack of ideas and investment, what the minister hears is, ‘The Prime Minister’s too old.’ YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Did I say that? 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —You certainly did not say it, but that is what he heard. Over recent years, as interest rates have dropped, the government has been so very quick to take credit for it; you could not believe how quickly they took credit for interest rates dropping. It was all about the Prime Minister’s wonderful economic management; it was all about the Treasurer’s brilliance. Actually, it was not about the Treasurer’s brilliance, was it? It was always the Prime Minister taking responsibility for it. So it was not the Treasurer; it was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister tells us that his leadership and his economic brilliance kept interest rates low. But as soon as they start going up again he says, ‘It’s not my fault; it’s nothing to do with me.’ Whose fault is it? It was the drought; it was the cyclone; it was this; it was that. He has run out of things to blame, so he turns to the states. Fascinating, isn’t it: although the states had nothing to do with interest rates falling, they are completely responsible for interest rates going up. It is incredible, too, that when it comes to the issue of housing affordability it is nothing to do with the federal government—according to the federal government—but always the fault of local government and the states. And we heard from the minister today that it is actually the fault of those greedy parents wanting to put a roof over their kids’ heads. If you look at any analysis of the cause of housing unaffordability, there are things that local governments could do to improve it and there are things that state governments could do to improve it. But every single credible analysis says that high interest rates are affecting housing affordability. People have borrowed more than ever before, so even small increases in interest rates affect housing affordability. When houses cost four times the average annual wage 10 years ago and now cost seven times the average annual wage, you do not have to be a genius to work out that people are borrowing more. They have household debt three times the size that they had when interest rates were high under the last Labor government. As such, miniscule increases in interest rates make their housing unaffordable. We now have a million people in this country who pay more than 30 per cent of their household income—not their personal income—on the rent or the mortgage. That is a historic high. Never before have we seen figures like that. Is the Treasurer worried? No, he is not worried, because on 27 February 2005 he said that any interest rate under 10 per cent is low. He said: If you see a single digit in front of your interest rate, that’s low. Well, it is not low for families who have borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars to afford the average home. We now have a situation where the average family cannot afford the average home. We know now what you have to be earning to service a mortgage on a median-priced home. In Australia’s capital cities you need a family income of $115,777 to service a mortgage on the median-priced home. That is not a mansion or a home in the eastern suburbs of Sydney or the eastern suburbs of Melbourne; on the median-priced home you have to be earning well over $100,000 to service a mortgage. That means that there are a lot of people locked out of the housing market. There has been a lot of debate over the last couple of days about whether the Prime Minister said he would keep interest rates at record lows or keep interest rates lower than they would ever be under Labor—blah, blah, blah. What people heard during the last election was that the Prime Minister gave his words that interest rates would stay low under a Liberal government. That is what people heard. It is like the cartoon—what people say; what dogs hear. The message that people got, loud and clear, is that the Prime Minister would keep interest rates low. Perhaps it was a non-core promise! It is interesting that we have seen an enormous move since the note that was leaked from Shane Stone, saying that the government was mean and tricky. We have really revolutionised things! Textor says that the government is arrogant and out of touch, not mean and tricky. Things have really changed in the last few years! I guess we should not be surprised by the broken promise on interest rates, because Janette Howard—someone who knows the Prime Minister pretty well!—said to the authors of a book about Mr Howard: You talk about a whole lot of things when you’re trying to convince people to do things— like vote for you in a federal election— but you don’t go back and honour every single one of those unless you have made a firm commitment about it and John wasn’t into making firm commitments. That was about the leadership but it really applies here, doesn’t it? Obviously, in the Prime Minister’s mind when he said he would keep interest rates low—when the Liberal Party advertising said that they would keep interest rates low and when the website, just today or yesterday, was still saying they would keep interest rates low—it was not a firm commitment, because the Prime Minister is not into firm commitments. I do not know how the Prime Minister expects the Australian people to believe a single word he says in the next election campaign. People are always going to be looking for what the catch is here. If he says he is going to keep interest rates at historic lows, what does he really mean by that? Does he mean we are going to see five back-to-back interest rate rises after the election? Is that what he means by keeping interest rates at historic lows? Who knows? Why would the Liberal Party spend a single dollar on advertising when it means nothing? Why have a website if you cannot trust a single word that is on the website? The Prime Minister has wonderfully selective amnesia! I have to take my hat off to him. He is so brazen in talking about 17 per cent interest rates under the last Labor government when he, as Treasurer, presided over 22 per cent interest rates. How can he possibly think that nobody is going to call him on that inconsistency? DZP Bird, Sharon, MP Ms Bird —The Treasurer did. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —Indeed, fortunately the Treasurer does not have selective amnesia. The trouble with the Treasurer is that he spilled his guts in one book. We would like to hear a bit more of it now. We would like to see him have the courage of his convictions in the chamber sometimes. The reality is that people are paying more of their household income on interest repayments than they ever did under Labor. They are paying 9½ per cent of gross household income on their mortgage interest repayments. The highest level it ever reached under the Keating government was 6.1 per cent. Household debt has doubled as a share of income in the last 10 years; it has tripled since 1989, when interest rates hit 17 per cent. We are the only party which has been talking about housing affordability and solutions to it. (Time expired) 91 16:05:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —As usual from the Labor Party, we have only heard half the story. I suspect that the Labor Party is very much a glass-half-empty type of party, because there was another figure that came out from the Australian Bureau of Statistics today, and that was the unemployment rate for the last month. The unemployment rate for the last month was 4.3 per cent—the lowest unemployment rate, again, since November 1974. When we look at the last 35 years we see that it has taken us until now to get back to where we were before the excesses of the Whitlam Labor government. If anyone had suggested in the 1970s or the 1980s that you could have an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent and an inflation rate of 2.1 per cent—if anyone had suggested you could have an economy running like that—they would have been laughed out of the place. One of the features of the Australian economy in recent years has been the extraordinary flexibility that we now see. This has not been due to chance. It has not been, as some suggest, just due to a resources boom. It has not been, as Paul Keating suggested, all due to the changes he made in 1983 and 1984. It has come from a very disciplined approach to economic management. It has come from having budgets in surplus. It has come from taking steps to reform the financial system. It has come from taking a very tough decision to reform our tax system when we made the decision to go to a broad-based consumption tax and have lower income tax at the same time. It has come from having an independent Reserve Bank and giving it the target of keeping inflation between two and three per cent. All of these things together mean that the Australian economy now has a degree of flexibility that it did not have in the seventies and eighties. As members we should look at the Australian economy in toto. What you see today is an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent and annual inflation of 2.1 per cent, at the lower end of the band, and we have a standard variable rate for mortgages of 8.3 per cent. The Labor Party have delighted in talking about the overdraft interest rate for 1982. They neglect to say that that was not the housing rate then. The housing rate was capped—and Labor Party members should know that—until 1986. The record rate paid for mortgages is 17 per cent and that was under the Labor Party. When the Labor Party were last in government the Reserve Bank did not raise rates by a quarter of one per cent at a time; they raised them by one per cent on more than one occasion. As for the MPI that we are debating today—the government’s failure to ensure low interest rates—let us look at what a government can do in this area. Firstly, we have an independent Reserve Bank. No-one is suggesting that the Reserve Bank should be directed on interest rates. Clearly, the Reserve Bank is independent and it has the goal of keeping inflation between two and three per cent. I do not need to remind people of the dangers of letting inflation get out of control. We saw it happen a couple of times in 1974 and 1981 with wage breakouts that led to enormous rises in inflation that, as a consequence, absolutely wrecked the Australian economy. As I said earlier, it has taken us over 30 years to repair the damage that was caused to the Australian economy in the Whitlam years. There are a lot of problems with Labor’s approach to economic management, but I would like to highlight two of them, and these are the reasons why interest rates will always be higher under a Labor government. The first of these is the impact of labour market flexibility on monetary policy. A number of Reserve Bank governors have given testimony to the effect of having flexibility in the labour market. It makes the decision for monetary policy much easier. We had an inflexible labour market in 1981—and I think of 1981 particularly—and the enormous rises in wages that occurred that year did lead to a recession in the early 1980s. It is very clear that having more rigidity in the labour market has consequences for interest rates. One of the things that we need to acknowledge is the elephant in the room. The elephant is the union movement and the union movement’s say in the Labor Party. This is why the Labor Party were never able to go as far down the track of introducing flexibility in the labour market as the economy needed. I acknowledge that when Labor were last in government they took a whole lot of decisions that helped the Australian economy—having a flexible exchange rate and allowing competition in the banking market, for example. But because the Labor Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the union movement, they are unable to introduce the reforms that the Australian economy requires. The government has done that. As a consequence we have seen real wage rises of 20.8 per cent for workers since the Howard government was elected. Importantly, because the labour market is flexible, businesses have had the capacity to pay so we have not seen damage to the economy that we saw in the past. To examine the second reason why interest rates will always be higher under Labor, we can look at the example of the state governments. How would Labor operate in government? At the federal level we have increased services in health and we have increased spending on education and child care. But we have done these things within our own resources. We do not run deficit budgets. In four of the jurisdictions around Australia we see Labor state governments increasing debt. It will be $70 billion over the next five years. Ian Macfarlane, the former Reserve Bank governor—and I know the former Leader of the Opposition got confused about which Ian Macfarlane it was—in the Weekend Australian of 12 August 2006 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. These are two of the principal reasons that Labor cannot handle money. This is not something new. Anyone who has followed Australian politics, and older voters, understand that the Labor Party cannot handle money. It is quite possible that there may be a change of government this year. Labor may win government. We now see that the Australian economy is running with an unemployment rate of 4.3 per cent, with inflation at 2.1 per cent and with a mortgage rate of 8.3 per cent, which is higher than it has been in recent years but is still lower than it was for any month of Labor’s 13 years in power. (Time expired) 93 16:15:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 0 Ms OWENS —I know that, when I go back to my electorate tonight, I am going to start meeting people who are struggling with the ninth back-to-back interest rate rise—and the fifth since John Howard promised the people of my electorate to keep interest rates at record lows. The people in Kings Langley, Winston Hill and Toongabbie are right to feel betrayed, because households, families and individuals out there are hurting. In my electorate of Parramatta, the number of households paying more than one-third of their income in mortgage payments in 2001 was 2,214. Five years later, in 2006, it was four times higher, at 9,020 households. Over a third of households that rent are suffering rental stress. Of the detached houses sold in my region in 2006, only four per cent were judged affordable—down from 28 per cent just five years ago. And the situation is likely to have deteriorated further than that, as the figures that I am relying on were produced after the first six back-to-back interest rate rises and there have now been three more since then. So what do we get from the government in response to all this? We do not see the work of government. We do not see them knuckling down to keep downward pressure on inflation. We do not see them investing in infrastructure or working to improve the skills crisis—both issues that impact on inflation and that have grown into massive problems through 11 years of neglect by this government. No, we do not see that. What we do see is them looking for a way to spin and spend their way out of electoral trouble, even though the Reserve Bank and reputable economists make it clear that spending like a drunken sailor, like we saw John Howard do in the 2004 election campaign—and he has already started again in the marginal seats around Australia—will put upward pressure on interest rates. But we know that it is not upward pressure on interest rates that interests the Prime Minister; it is upward pressure on his votes in marginal seats. We know this is true, not just because it is obvious from the patterns but also because the Treasurer told us in interviews given for the Prime Minister’s biography. This is a government that is well and truly in denial, in a way that working families around the country cannot be. We have already seen that family pressure denial from the Prime Minister, with his statement, ‘Working families have never been better off,’ and we have already had, ‘It’s all the states’ fault.’ That has been recognised as drivel by economist after economist. And from the Treasurer, when talking about skills shortages and upward pressure on interest rates as a result, we heard: ‘It’s a good problem to have.’ Nothing that puts upward pressure on interest rates is a good problem to have. But the skills shortage is a good problem to solve. This government has had 11 years to solve it, and what do we get? We get: ‘It’s a good problem to have.’ I am looking forward to telling that to the people in my electorate tomorrow when I go doorknocking. And what did we get today? We got: ‘Families are under incredible financial pressure because of our prosperity. It’s the price of our prosperity. We’re too prosperous,’ says the Prime Minister. I have been doorknocking in my electorate for three years now, and I am looking forward to explaining to people who are suffering incredible financial pressure, particularly those in Northmead—which has one of the highest insolvency rates in the country and the highest number of repossessions—that the problem is that they are too prosperous. This goes to show just how much John Howard has lost touch with ordinary Australians. I meet people in my electorate—and I met another one on Sunday—who have started to reach the conclusion that their children will not be better off than they are. After 15 years of unprecedented levels of growth, people are saying to me that they now believe that their children will not be better off than they are. That is how profound the concern out there is about the cost of living, the cost of education, the effect of Work Choices—which rips away any semblance of security—housing affordability and these latest increases in interest rates. Today John Howard tried to get a little bit back in touch. I notice that he has been trying for a few days. Today he qualified his statements by saying that he knows that some families are not sharing in the prosperity. He needs to get a bit further in touch, because there are some suburbs in my electorate where the opposite is absolutely true. There are some families who are sharing in the prosperity, but the vast majority are not. There is no excuse for this government or any government—not even one that has so lost touch—to not notice the pain of families. This government is so filled with hubris and self-congratulation that it does not even notice the pain of families. We on the Labor side believe that every Australian deserves secure, affordable housing. We will work hard, if the Australian people give us the opportunity, to help Australians achieve their housing aspirations. 95 16:20:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I often like to start speeches like this by quoting famous thinkers, and today I would like to quote one in particular. I would like to quote one of the leading lights of the Australian Labor Party, one of the intellectuals of the Australian Labor Party, one of the giants of the Australian Labor Party. They would gather around his feet and listen to his pearls of wisdom. But I see a couple of puzzled looks coming from the opposition as they frantically start to think, ‘Who could that possibly be?’ I talk of course about the former member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, who said, ‘Politics is show business for ugly people.’ I have to say that I think we are witnessing that here. Some might unkindly remark that about me—and I will cop that—but if there is an Oscar going for acting, it has to go to the Australian Labor Party in this debate this afternoon. Members of the Australian Labor Party have, one after another, stood up with their most sombre faces on, decried the lot of Australians and said how, if they were in power, they would improve the lot of ordinary Australians and how outraged the Labor Party are that, under the Howard government, interest rates have increased. If you were to take them at their word, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might actually think that the Australian Labor Party genuinely believed that. If you were to take them at their word, you might actually believe that the Australian Labor Party are powerless to not have an impact on interest rates or housing affordability. But the very opposite is true. The Australian Labor Party are more able than the coalition government to rein in interest rates and to bring down housing costs so that they are more affordable. The question is: how could that possibly be done? How could the Labor Party do that? The answer is very straightforward, and members opposite do not need to take my word for it. I will quote two third parties. The first is the Residential Development Council, which have made it perfectly clear that the single biggest problem with housing affordability is state Labor governments and the outrageous taxes and fees that state Labor governments levy on first home buyers and home buyers across the board. That is the single largest problem, and if the Labor Party were genuine, if the Labor Party were serious, if the Leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd really cared about housing affordability, the Leader of the Opposition would pick up the phone, call his state Labor mates and tell them to scrap or cut stamp duty and make more land available, because these are the absolute triggers that are causing the housing affordability crisis in this country. There is no blame game involved in this. They are the facts. They are not the facts because I as the member for Moncrieff say they are. The Residential Development Council says they are the facts. I say to the Australian Labor Party: do not just stand up here and be hypocrites; do something about it. You have the power. Ring your state Labor mates and get them to fix this problem. At the moment the Howard government provides a $7,000 first home owner’s grant to first home buyers. It is not a lot of money, but it makes a big difference to the lives of ordinary Australians. What does the Australian Labor Party do? The Howard government provides a $7,000 grant to first home buyers to help get them into their first home and the Labor Party takes it straight off them as stamp duty. That is the Australian Labor Party. Look through the crocodile tears. It says, ‘Thank you very much, Prime Minister Howard; we will take that as tax at a state government level.’ Do something about it. The Australian Labor Party should get serious and cut stamp duty rates so that it is not ripping that $7,000 out of the hands of Australia’s first home buyers. The second issue is state Labor debt. The Australian Labor Party is borrowing $70 billion. We have paid off $96 billion. (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded. 96 Bills R2524 96 Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Main Committee’s amendments— (1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 13), after “retired”, insert “disabled”. (2)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 22), omit “65 years”, substitute “70 years”. (3)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 6), omit “65 years”, substitute “70 years”. (4)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 23 to 25), omit subclause 9B(4) of Schedule 1, substitute:          (4)    For the purposes of subclause (2), the annual rate of salary is the annual rate of remuneration determined under clause 5:               (a)    excluding any allowances that are paid in lieu of any other entitlement; and               (b)    if any arrangements have been entered into for any amount of the annual rate of remuneration (other than an allowance covered by paragraph (a)) to be provided in the form of another benefit—including that amount. (5)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (line 6), after “retired disabled Federal Magistrate”, insert “who has not attained the age of 65 years”. (6)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (line 24), after “retired”, insert “disabled”. (7)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (line 17), after “retired”, insert “disabled”. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. 96 Dr STONE (Murray —Minister for Workforce Participation) 16:26:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 96 Bills R2737 96 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that the bill be considered at the next sitting. 97 Bills R2824 97 Bills R2814 97 Bills R2739 97 Bills R2782 97 Bills R2808 97 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 97 Bills S542 97 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 97 Bills S581 97 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 97 Bills R2832 97 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 97 Bills R2833 97 Debate resumed. 97 16:28:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —What a fractured speech we will have here; we have only a minute. Before question time I was discussing the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007 and I will certainly be discussing it the next time we get back here. I was pointing out that the Australian technical colleges fill a void which has been left in place particularly by the state Labor governments where technical colleges went away from their traditional trade skills and, as a result, a dearth in skills pervades the entire Australian community. The Prime Minister has, quite rightly, made provision for quality upskilling of young people, particularly years 11 and 12 students at secondary schools. This provides an opportunity for them to connect with the businesses and workplaces in the community, to seek an apprenticeship and to use these transportable skills to provide themselves with better jobs into the future. Debate interrupted. 97 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 97 97 16:30:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I asked a question of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources during question time yesterday about the upgrade of Chaffey Dam, which is the major source of water for Tamworth and the Peel River irrigators in the electorate of New England. The question related to any policy objections that the minister might have at a federal level. As part of his answer the minister said that the states were responsible for water even though changes were proposed at the federal level, but he did indicate that there could be some federal policy implications as a result of the enlargement of the dam and that the Environmental and Biodiversity Conservation Act might be an issue. I asked the minister whether he had any objections, and he replied: 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. I call on the minister to correct the parliamentary record. He is essentially saying that he knew nothing about the enlargement of Chaffey Dam. He should revisit his answer. I am told that departmental officers have been in a quandary today about how to handle the minister’s misleading of the House that I allege occurred yesterday. The record shows that the minister was well aware of the proposal to augment Chaffey Dam. This proposal has been through a range of processes and it has been ticked off by the state government, the local council and the local irrigators. I asked a simple question of the minister yesterday and received a two-part answer. He said, first, that he did not know about it and, secondly, that he was unable— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the accusations being levelled by the member are fairly serious and they should be dealt with by substantive motion rather than in an adjournment debate. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am listening carefully to the member for New England. I am sure that he is well aware that if he wants to move a substantive motion he should do so at the appropriate time. But I will call the member for New England again. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —A series of meetings has been held about the enlargement of the Chaffey Dam and the Mayor of Tamworth has met with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Vaile, and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Turnbull. The Namoi Catchment Management Authority has also met with Mr Turnbull and the irrigators have met with the Assistant Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Hon. John Cobb. The Deputy Prime Minister has spoken to the Chairman of the Chaffey Dam upgrade reference panel, Deputy Mayor Mr Betts. Despite all this, the minister suggested that he knew nothing about it until I mentioned it in parliament yesterday. There are many letters referring to this matter. I refer to a letter from the Deputy Prime Minister’s chief of staff dated 21 March 2007 to Mr Betts concerning the potential for the Commonwealth government to invest in the upgrade of the Chaffey Dam. He states: Mr Vaile has passed your letter on to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources the Hon Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Turnbull has asked me to thank you for your letter and to reply on his behalf. The assistant minister for water has received numerous submissions about this issue and a proposal has been before the government since February, when the Deputy Prime Minister came to Tamworth and met with the mayor. I call upon Mr Betts, Mr Treloar, the mayor of that community, Mr Vaile, Mr Cobb and Mr Turnbull to tell the public what is going on. The continuing delays are impacting on the security of the water supply of the city of Tamworth. Given the ongoing uncertainty about the new Water Bill and the approval processes that have been put in place at the state level, the Tamworth and Peel River communities need a decision. My simple question to the minister was whether he had an objection. He should come into this place and revisit the answer he gave yesterday, where he in my view misled the House—because he knew very well about this— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will not make an allegation like that. The honourable member will withdraw that. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. More importantly, the minister should tell the people of Tamworth whether he has an objection to this proposal. He has known about it for six months. (Time expired) 99 99 16:35:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 0 Mr VASTA —As a former small businessman, I know that small businesses are the engine room of Australia’s $1.1 trillion economy. The coalition government knows that the key to small business success is being able to plan for the future with confidence and certainty. A fair and flexible workplace, less government regulation, continued economic stability and consumer confidence are all crucial. The Australian economy is now in the longest period of continuous growth ever recorded. Inflation remains low and the budget is in surplus, which keeps pressure off small business interest rates. There is no doubt that this would all be put at risk if we were to return to union dominated workplaces. The government’s new workplace system which was introduced in March last year, is giving small businesses the freedom to employ more staff and to grow their operations. The facts speak for themselves: 358,700 new jobs have been created, real wages have increased, more than 375,000 new AWAs have been lodged since March 2006 and the unemployment rate is now just 4.2 per cent—the lowest level in 33 years. I am pleased to report that the unemployment rate in Bonner is now lower than the national rate at just four per cent. This is a significant change from 6.7 per cent in 1996. As I come into contact with more businesses throughout the electorate, I am increasingly confident about the range of employment opportunities that now exist. I have received positive feedback from small business men and women alike, who now, more than ever, are able to employ the staff they need to begin to expand and develop their businesses. The certainty created by the government’s responsible economic management has helped to increase the number of small businesses from 1.79 million in June 2003 to 1.88 million in June 2006. Interestingly, the number of working days lost through industrial disputes per 1,000 employees has fallen from 104.6 in December 1992 to just 0.8 in March 2007. All of these things have not happened by accident. The government’s economic discipline has ensured that the needs of small business and Australians are paramount. Most importantly, the government is also helping small businesses turn good ideas and innovations into successful commercial products through the Commercial Ready Plus program. Recently, an innovative company in the bayside area of Bonner received $64,000 in funding through this program to take its clever eMedia Campaigns software suite to market. Emedia Campaigns in Wynnum has developed a cost-effective event management and e-ticketing software application system that could potentially revolutionise the way tickets and merchandise are sold to patrons of music festivals, concerts, cinemas, sporting events, seminars and exhibitions. The company’s ‘do-it-yourself’ online e-ticketing system allows event managers or promoters to build a valuable database of customers by doing the ticketing themselves, thereby effectively reducing their costs by more targeted marketing and by eliminating ticketing agent fees. I commend the company on its outstanding success, and I will remain committed to helping businesses like eMedia Campaigns take the important steps that turn bright ideas into great commercial products. eMedia’s project is a good example of a clever Australian idea that just needs some extra help from the government to make it to the marketplace. This support is important to the local economy because innovative companies, like eMedia and the products and services they develop, hold the key to future jobs, exports and economic growth. I will continue to work with small businesses throughout Bonner to ensure that they are supported in accessing the great wealth of resources and assistance that has been made available by the coalition government. 100 100 16:39:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —I rise today to speak on international development assistance and the work of the TEAR group in raising awareness about the plight of the less fortunate in our world. As members will be aware, Australia has a long history of providing development assistance to emerging nations. It is something which many Australians are justly proud of. Indeed, it is something which engages many of the young people in our community in the wider world in which they live. Unfortunately, the government has not kept pace with the instinct of Australian people to reach out and help those who are less fortunate than themselves. Under this government, our international assistance to the poorest of the poor has fallen dramatically. Australia is now in the bottom half of donor countries in the OECD. By 2004 our aid budget had fallen as a percentage of gross national income to 0.25 per cent—far below any previous Australian Government contribution. In 2005, the government announced an increase of 0.3 per cent of GNI. However, this still compares unfavourably with the OECD average of 0.46 per cent of GNI. Labor, on the other hand, has made an historic commitment to lift Australia’s international development assistance performance to hit the intermediate UN target of 0.5 per cent of GNI by 2015. The date 7 July 2007 marked the half-way point of an ambitious international project—the global commitment to make poverty history. Many of us have participated in activities in our electorates and here in Canberra to show our support for the Make Poverty History campaign. At the turn of the century, to mark the new millennium, the international community adopted the Millennium Development Goals. It is worth reminding the House of what the eight Millennium Development Goals are: first, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; second, achieve universal primary education; third, promote gender equality and empower women; fourth, reduce child mortality; fifth, improve maternal health; sixth, combat HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases; seventh, ensure environmental sustainability; and, eighth, develop a global partnership for development. These are laudable goals. The people of Cunningham want the Australian government to help make their achievement a reality. I met with the TEAR group recently at my electorate office, where they presented me with a petition calling on the government to increase the aid budget to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2010 and to 0.7 per cent of gross national income by 2015. Unfortunately, the petition is not strictly in accordance with the parliamentary rules. However, it does show the feeling of many in the Cunningham electorate, so I am taking this opportunity to bring before the parliament the views of the local group and the 78 local people who signed the petition on the one day that it was available. As members will be aware, TEAR is a Christian movement that works with a range of denominations on issues affecting the poor in our community and in the global community. The Wollongong convenor, Mr Craig Gaymer, and the other members of this group deserve our thanks for their continuing commitment to work to help the poor and to raise awareness of the many issues affecting those less fortunate than us in the world. I am pleased to present their concerns to the House. At a fair day in our local area, 78 people took the time out from fairy floss, rides and taking the kids around to buy show bags to sign the petition. They want the House to be aware that they are requesting the government to go further than its current target and to reach the target of 0.5 per cent by 2010 and the target of 0.7 per cent by 2015. They request that the aid budget be explicitly directed towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, as well as the goal to halve global poverty by 2015. I am very proud to present their support for these goals to the House. I also indicate my ongoing support for their work in addressing this very important issue of global poverty. 101 101 16:44:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 0 Mr BAKER —The choice of the Mersey hospital as an innovative pilot for a community governed model has been based on sound reason and research. Whilst, due to serious mismanagement by state government entities, Australia has many hospitals at risk—some 700 being the most recent number touted by the Leader of the Opposition—the Australian government would be economically irresponsible if it tried to save all hospitals. However, what is economically responsible is to provide required funding to a major regional facility that is a linchpin to the long-term sustainability of a region, both economically and socially. Both state and Australian governments in the past have, when necessary, provided packages to regional facilities, including sporting, business, community services and infrastructure, to sustain developing regions. The Mersey hospital package is no different. The Mersey region has extenuating circumstances that supported this decision. The No. 1 priority for the Australian government was the safety and wellbeing of this thriving community in north-west Tasmania. The question of funding concerns over the implementation of the state government’s Future Health within the region created an initial catalyst. The downgrading of services without a plan for the commencement of upgrades into the Launceston and Burnie hospitals led to my office becoming a medical referral centre. However, this was only the first consideration prior to the decision. Major economic and regional development considerations came into play to support this action. The Mersey region is one of the fastest-growing regions in the state and the country. The quoted range for growth is between 5.5 and eight per cent per annum, which is based upon 2006 ABS statistics. The growth is occurring due not to internal birthrate growth but rather to investment and relocation of families to the region. Decisions by families and investors to relocate are based on many factors. The key factor is the availability of services—in particular, health services. The downgrading of the Mersey hospital would be economically damaging to the continued growth of the region, which would be totally unacceptable. Local businesses, current and those moving to the region, have strongly voiced their concern at the impact that downgraded health services at the Mersey hospital would have on the region, especially as those businesses actively seek to hire new staff to relocate to north-west Tasmania. Currently there is $400 million on the planning board for investment into the region. This $400 million represents over 3,000 jobs for the region and income to our local retail, trade, and service businesses throughout the north-west coast. The downgrading of the Mersey hospital, where the hospital is one of the largest businesses in the region, would have a dramatic effect for the north-west region. As the ‘medical income’ is redirected outside of the region, to Launceston and Hobart, so less subsidiary business in the region occurs. The region has already suffered from the continual closing of state government businesses due to centralisation in Hobart or Launceston, resulting in job and business activity loss. Businesses who have the Mersey hospital as a major client would suffer economic loss, and there would be the subsequent loss of jobs in the region by the removal of income from the economic landscape. Another disturbing factor that came from direct discussions between medical staff, Mersey employees and the government was the fact that many of the key medical resources intended to leave the region and, for that matter, the state. Such an exodus would place both North West Regional Hospital campuses in a dire situation. Other important considerations that were addressed in the decision included supporting the Australian government’s Rural Clinical School and its students located on the north-west coast, the growing aged-care facilities and the University of Tasmania north-west Campus. This innovative and exciting package being provided to the Mersey hospital will support the long-term sustainability of the north-west coast and protect the future social, economic and community needs of the region. Then, once this learning curve has been conquered, the Australian government will be in a position to support the possibility of the community model throughout Australian regional locations, which is very exciting for all regional areas of Australia. Finally, I conclude that this exciting innovative pilot would not be possible if not for the excellent economic management of the Australian federal government over the past 11 years. 102 102 16:49:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —On 21 June this year Mark Textor provided one of his research reports to the government. It found that the government was arrogant, complacent and reactive. Mark Textor told the government that his report found that there was significant disillusionment with Liberals on issues with broken promises and dishonesty. This week we have seen it reinforced yet again why the Australian public thinks that that is the case—the fifth interest rate increase since the election. When asked about the advertisement that the Liberals would ‘keep interest rates at record lows’, the Prime Minister said that if you search through the transcripts you will not be able to find anywhere where he said that. Forget about the fact that it was in the Liberal Party advertising shown night after night. Forget about the fact that it was the central theme of his 2004 campaign and the fact that it is still on the Liberal Party website today. It is unclear what the Prime Minister regrets most about this promise: making it, breaking it or denying its existence. It is clear that this government has no long-term plans for Australia’s future, just short-term politics. It is desperate, a party eating itself from the inside like a cancer growing day by day. Nowhere is that more evident than in the New South Wales branch. This is a dysfunctional branch, where the leadership of the branch now talk to each other through lawyers. First of all, we saw the preselection of Alex Hawke in Mitchell—the protege of David Clarke, the associate of Ljenko Urbancic. These forces have not stopped at stacking out a local branch; they have stacked out an entire state branch. Those that disagree with them, they have destroyed. Just ask John Brogden. In the old days, the Prime Minister would have intervened, as he did prior to the 1996 election to replace inappropriate candidates in Parramatta, Macarthur, Paterson, Macquarie and Gilmore—but not anymore. Alan Cadman, the member for Mitchell, is quoted in Tuesday’s edition of the Hills News as saying it was possible that he would run as an Independent. If he does that, he would join disenchanted Liberal councillor Peter Dimbrowsky, who is standing to ‘stop the rot and give moderate Hills voters a conservative alternative’. But the Alex Hawke debacle is nothing compared with the debacle in Cook—a preselection dominated by lawyers, allegations, fraudulent behaviour and simple hatred, a preselection where the Liberal majority of the extreme right thought it was a good idea to support the commander of the Bulldogs Army from Redfern being the candidate in the seat of Cook to replace Bruce Baird. The allegations about Mr Towke go to his former membership of the Labor Party, breaches of electoral enrolment and misrepresentations of his business history and his educational qualifications. These have all come from within the Liberal Party itself. Michael Towke earned his spurs assisting Malcolm Turnbull to recruit hundreds of people in the Wentworth preselection to help stack out the Point Piper branch. After a month of brawling, when Michael Towke was preselected, the Prime Minister said this: I think he’s an excellent candidate, he’s a successful small businessman; we always like those people in the Liberal Party. If he is so good, why was he disendorsed? Now Marie Ficarra is putting up her hand to be the Liberal candidate for Cook, backed by the extreme right faction. But it does not stop there. In Ashfield, Nick Adams is trying to secure Lowe preselection, even though his proposals on council have included banning lawnmowers between 1 pm and 5 pm, introducing a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and banning pigeons from the municipality of Ashfield. But it does not stop there. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, will be opening the Christian Democratic Party Convention 2007, which runs between 17 August and 19 August. Greg Smith, the shadow Attorney-General in the New South Wales parliament, will be speaking there as well. This is a different political party from the Liberal Party. So extreme and so out of touch have the Liberal Party become they are actually speaking at party conferences of opposing parties. It is quite extraordinary. Michael Derby, is also speaking at that conference. (Time expired) 103 103 16:54:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 0 Mr McARTHUR —I rise tonight to draw to the attention of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in the Senate, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, several matters of concern about identity security and safety protections regarding information posted on the MySpace internet site, which is a commercial service provided by News Corporation’s Fox Interactive Media. On Wednesday, 25 July the Colac Herald newspaper in Corangamite reported what was accurately described as a ‘chilling image’ of a young person holding a high-powered rifle to the head of another person. This photo was posted on the Colac teenager’s MySpace website. I show that to members for them to see how terrible it was. Anyone could look on the internet and find this picture, without any warnings provided as to the nature of the content. MySpace is very popular with teenagers, and this example shows there is no security. If it is easy for a MySpace user to post a picture of a gun held to a head, it would be easy for pornographic and sexually suggestive images to be posted and for those pictures to be viewed by children. The internet provides a welcome opportunity for young people to express themselves and network with their friends. It would be nice to see some protections to ensure the security of their private information and to protect users from harm. One has to wonder that the people behind MySpace Australia could be so lax in their security arrangements that such disturbing images could be posted without protections or warnings. This circumstance makes a mockery of whatever security procedures MySpace have in place and raises concerns with the competence of the people running the service. The MySpace problems go further. On Wednesday, 1 August, the Colac Herald reported that the Colac Otway Shire Mayor, Councillor Warren Riches, was a victim of MySpace identity fraud. A fake MySpace page was established in his name to defame and ridicule the mayor. Councillor Riches is a distinguished member of the Colac and district community and he has given great service and leadership over many years. Because of MySpace security lapses Councillor Riches, a community figure, was forced to seek legal advice to protect his reputation. A mayor or a public figure should not have to go to the expense of seeking legal advice to protect his reputation. The example of Councillor Riches and many other people across our community demonstrates that those people responsible for identity security and information integrity within MySpace have failed in their duty of care to the public. I ask the minister to note that Councillor Riches had to wait two weeks, despite publicly threatening legal action, for the people running MySpace to remove the fake site. A fake MySpace page was also established under my name, with a photograph. Whilst there might have been some conjecture about the name ‘McArthur’, there can be no doubt about the name and photograph being a well-known political identity in the electorate of Corangamite. The content was so offensive, vulgar and inflammatory that local media were not legally able to report the contents. The Geelong Advertiser reported that they could not print the comments ‘for legal reasons’. I show the Geelong Advertiser article, ‘A-List Cyber Fakes Anger’. It says, ‘Geelong identities fume over MySpace.’ This material was so extreme that the site was obviously fake, but the management of MySpace left this fraudulent site on the internet for over three months, smearing me, smearing the Liberal Party in Corangamite and smearing the Howard government. When I was informed of this fake MySpace site last week my office sent an official request to MySpace to take down the site, using the complaints feature on the MySpace site. The next day a MySpace representative told the Geelong Advertiser the site had been removed as a result of media coverage, not as a result of the contact by my office. This raises further concerns about the effectiveness of MySpace’s complaints system and the people in charge. The official request from my office to remove this fake site has still not been acknowledged. Reputable media organisations would not be able to print some of the slurs, rumours and unauthorised comment that pass for content on MySpace. People use MySpace to smear reputations while hiding behind anonymity. If MySpace cannot more effectively ensure protection of individuals’ identities and reputations then MySpace management should be answerable for the content on the site. Good people, whether they be public figures or private citizens, should not be at risk of having their reputations harmed on the internet. I encourage the minister to consider what action can be taken to protect people from identity fraud and access to pornographic and violent images on MySpace. 105 105 16:59:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 0 Mr ALBANESE —On 23 June I had the pleasure of attending the Marrickville Anzac Memorial Club. There the family of Harry Pereira had gathered for his 100th birthday celebrations, which occurred on Monday, 25 June. Harry, still very much a lively character and very much loved by his family and friends, has lived in Marrickville his whole life. He is the proud father of Doug Pereira, who was the Mayor of Marrickville Council and a long-time Marrickville councillor. It was a splendid afternoon. I wish Harry, his family and his friends all the best. I am pleased to put on the record what a terrific opportunity—indeed, an honour—it is as federal members to attend functions such as this for people such as Harry who have made such an outstanding contribution to the local community. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 105 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5.00 pm 2007-08-09 The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the chair at 9.30 am. 106 Statements by Members 106 106 09:30:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —In the decade or so since coming to power the Howard government has obsequiously followed the orthodoxies of neo-liberalism. Australian consumers have been amongst those hardest hit. Consumer protection policy has disappeared from the agenda of the federal government. What was surely amongst the pettiest of government actions, ranking with the abolition of dental assistance to pensioners, was that, upon taking power, the government adopted a scorched earth policy towards consumer organisations and agencies by systematically removing funding from virtually all policy related consumer advocacy. My colleague the member for Melbourne aptly stated that this government has abolished the ministry of consumer affairs and rid itself of the Bureau of Consumer Affairs, shifting it into a tiny cubbyhole in Treasury and radically downgrading its resources. It has failed to act on a variety of significant consumer affairs issues, particularly with regard to emerging problems that are a consequence of changes in our economy and the introduction of the information economy—the internet, mobile phones and a variety of other services. It is not interested in acting because, ultimately, it has a studied indulgence towards interests that are out there trying to rip off consumers. For that reason, it would require a Labor government to take action for consumers. To this end, a Labor government will be examining options for the introduction of an unfair contracts regime based on the models in Victoria and the United Kingdom. Unfair contracts are a manifestation of harsh and unconscionable conduct. They usually take place when individuals enter into contracts with a larger entity, such as an employer or trading enterprise, without fully understanding the content of the contract or reading the small print. Unfair contract terms help eliminate market distortion by enabling consumers to take action against misleading and deceptive conduct. Under the current Trade Practices Act, consumers who have entered into unfair contracts are only able to seek remedy through very expensive litigation by way of misleading and deceptive provisions of the TPA. Naturally the majority of consumers are unable to enter into such litigation. The Victorian regime makes any unfair contract void and allows the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria to declare whole classes of unfair contract terms void. Consumers are able to directly take disputes to the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. Choice has said: We think unfair contract terms should be banned by national laws which apply to all industries. Unfair contract terms legislation would give consumers the right to challenge the consequences of an unfair term affecting them, or obtain compensation where justified. It would enable regulatory authorities to force an organisation to remove an unfair contract term from its standard contracts. In conclusion, Labor has a proud history of championing consumer rights. Our promise to Australian consumers is that a Rudd Labor government would reverse the insidious policies with regard to the consumer affairs of this government. An examination of ways to protect the people from unfair contracts will be a very high priority. 107 107 09:32:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 1 0 Mr WOOD —On 19 May I had the great privilege of going to the Shangri-La Wildlife Rehabilitation Shelter in my electorate in the suburb of Macclesfield. I must give a plug to the local Mail newspaper. Tania Martin wrote an article stating that the shelter was doing a great job but was in desperate need of funding. The shelter is run by volunteers Rodney and Tina Hudson-Davies, along with their two sons Ashley, 18, and Aiden, 14. Rodney and Tina have been taking in orphaned and injured wildlife for many years now and have an incredibly long history, dating back to 1975, with Rodney’s grandparents Frank and Doris Hulbert. Rodney and Tina now make up three straight generations of wildlife shelters within the same family and now take up the challenge of being handed down all that has been learnt over the past 32 years and moving to a larger and more sustainable 10-acre farm at Macclesfield. Rod and Tina have great help and assistance from other carers, and the wildlife shelters work very closely together. They specialise in kangaroos and wallabies. The wildlife shelter is a non-commercial shelter, receiving no funding except that of collection cans. The funding has pretty much come from the family itself. Shangri-La, like many wildlife shelters, falls through the gaps of funding, whether it be council, state or federal. What they require for the animals, the large kangaroos and wallabies, are enclosures—one of five acres and another, smaller one, of two acres. Where the mother has been killed by a car, it allows the wildlife, in particular wallabies, to recover and slowly move back into the environment. They require fencing to the value of $24,000 and also shelters to the value of $9,000. Unlike most other types of native wildlife, such as possums, birds, echidnas et cetera, kangaroos, wallabies and wombats have special needs to be successfully raised and rehabilitated back into the forest. That brings me to a great announcement by Malcolm Turnbull. On 12 July, he announced funding of the amount required—in the vicinity of $34,000—to greatly assist the Shangri-La Wildlife Shelter. I am very proud of this announcement. They do an amazing job. I again thank Rodney, Tina and the family. 107 107 09:35:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —Education has become history in a small area of Tasmania. Finding Woodsdale and Levendale on the map would be hard for the uninitiated, yet those two settlements have a long and rich history. Early in the 1880s, Mr PC Wagner wrote to the board of education to ask whether a school could be built in the area. For some time he and his wife had been attempting to provide a smattering of education in spelling, writing and arithmetic at their home. This must have gone on for some time as it was not until 22 September 1882 when Mr Wagner was asked to furnish information required on the application form for the erection of a school. This was duly sent in. On 12 December that year he received a letter from the chief secretary of the board of education to say his request had been approved and a site of 4½ acres had been purchased. It took two years but, in 1884, the school was established and Mr Herbert Goetze was appointed headmaster. It continued as a school over the years until it was finally closed in 1965. A lot of the material and history was lost to the area. Levendale’s school, Woodsdale’s neighbouring establishment, was started in 1901 and is still going strong; recently celebrating its centenary. The significance of these schools to the history of the area has at last been noted. In 2004 the local history group contacted the current owners of the Woodsdale school, the Tasmanian Fire Service, and asked whether it was possible to have a lease and restore the Woodsdale school to its former glory. They were issued a lease in 2005. The group has now begun to restore the school, starting with the roof. They are also searching for artefacts from between 1860 and 1920 so they can develop a small museum as part of the school. The rest of the school is becoming a community centre, with computers and printers for the community and visitors alike. They will also be doing temporary exhibitions, education programs and cataloguing, research, providing a multifunctional premise for local community activities, such as craft lessons, social gatherings, local eight-ball groups and family occasions. All this is being done by a few enthusiastic volunteers. They are working hard to raise funds, as well as undertaking the mammoth task of restoration. Local children attending the Levendale school are able to get a feel for what it was like to be at school in the area 100 years ago and are also helping make a bit of history themselves by continuing the great tradition of public education in the area. Congratulations to all the volunteers and thank you to all the sponsors who have helped and are continuing to help to keep this important piece of history alive and active. I wish them every success and will help them wherever I can. (Time expired) 108 108 09:39:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —In Adelaide, infrastructure upgrades have not kept up with population growth. This is clearly evident today. The roads are increasingly congested and we still have in the metropolitan area the same road network we had 40 years ago. While this was sufficient to carry the traffic 20 years ago, it is not sufficient anymore. Adelaide needs a north-south expressway that can efficiently transport goods and motorists. A north-south corridor in Adelaide has been identified as a key priority by the South Australian Freight Council, Business SA, the RAA of South Australia and the Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board, a newly formed partnership between the Marion and Onkaparinga councils, which has been set up to forge a new economic direction for southern Adelaide. Recently meeting with the Southern Adelaide Economic Development Board, I was told that, as well as broadband, the issue of a north-south expressway is the major priority for southern Adelaide. I am actively supporting the campaign to extend the AusLink network and develop a future plan for a north-south expressway in Adelaide’s metropolitan area. What this requires is a 10½ kilometre extension of the network along South Road from Sir Donald Bradman Drive to the Southern Expressway. The second part includes Cross Road from the South Eastern Freeway intersection to South Road at a length of 6½ kilometres. Cross Road is a connecting route from the South Eastern Freeway to South Road. It commutes heavy volumes of traffic. It was upgraded in the mid-nineties to carry this traffic and should be included as part of the AusLink network. Also, South Road is only partly in the AusLink network. It needs to be added so we can prepare for a future north-south expressway that will ease traffic congestion and help southern Adelaide prosper to its full potential. I commend the Australian government for already including part of South Road in the AusLink network, but to cease it at the Sir Donald Bradman Drive intersection does not make sense. Commuters use South Road to get to Darlington, Flagstaff Hill, Hallett Cove and Lonsdale, and that requires travelling south of Sir Donald Bradman Drive. The RAA has flagged the cost at approximately $2 billion. This is obviously a long-term project but one that is critical for South Australia and Adelaide, and for southern Adelaide in particular. What we need is a true long-term blueprint for South Road. Extending the AusLink network to the Southern Expressway is the beginning of developing such a plan. As I travel around Australia I see that the infrastructure in Adelaide has lagged well behind other states. If we do not take this step our roads will continue to deteriorate and become increasingly congested. They will restrict business growth in the southern area and we will continue to lose out on vital business investment. (Time expired) 109 109 09:42:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —On 27 July this year I was privileged to attend the dinner marking the 50th anniversary of the Australian Air League Riverwood Hornet Squadron. My state colleague Kayee Griffin MLC, a former mayor of the City of Canterbury, was made a patron on that night and my congratulations go to her; she has had a long association with the squadron. The Riverwood squadron was established in 1957 and it represents one of the Air League squadrons established for the benefit of young people aged eight years or more. In addition to aviation education, they instil community values by getting young people involved in community events and fundraising. The organisation also develops ingenuity and resourcefulness in its members. Indeed, a cadet from the Riverwood squadron, Ian Kent, was honoured by the City of Canterbury as its 2007 young citizen of the year. This award is for community service and leadership. Ian represents the values and traditions of the Air League. The Australian Air League had its origins in 1934 in New South Wales. This was an era when Australian aviators such as Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, Charles Ulm, Bert Hinkler, Sir Ross and Sir Keith Smith and others were household names and heroes. On 1 August 1934, the Australian Air League was incorporated, with Mr George Robey as one of the signatories. Mr Robey was an original Anzac and he had a connection with this place. In 1927 he assisted in the ceremonial opening of Parliament House. The first training squadron opened at Manly, New South Wales, on 17 January 1935 with 30 cadets. Following the outbreak of World War II, membership increased dramatically, as young men saw the league as a stepping-stone to the RAAF. Not surprisingly, a number of local air leagues were established in the local community around Bankstown Airport, and the Riverwood Hornets were no exception. Riverwood Hornets has a proud history. As recently as June this year, the Riverwood squadron gained first place in the New South Wales boys groups ceremonial parade for boys best squadron, first place for boys best band, and second place for boys best flight and for the boys best drum-major. I would like to congratulate those who have passed through the Riverwood Air League over the past 50 years. I would also like to pass on my particular congratulations to Chris Bailey, the officer commanding the squadron. The Australian Air League have become part of Australia’s future, being recognised in the aviation industry and armed services as the primary school of aviation. They have done their area proud, they have done their parents proud, and the seeds have been sown in relation to each of these children to make outstanding citizens in this country. (Time expired) 110 110 09:45:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 1 0 Mrs MARKUS —I rise to speak about a matter which has united my community. In late June this year the board of directors of the University of Western Sydney, without consultation with stakeholders, the community, the federal member or the government, announced that it would be closing the Blacktown campus—just like that. How can a university make a decision to close the only campus in the north-west region without consulting the community or its students? The university tells us that the numbers on the campus are decreasing. Of course they are, and no wonder. The University of Western Sydney has progressively moved courses off the Blacktown campus and, logically, students will only choose courses they want to do. This explains why there are only 2,705 students on the site. Upon hearing the announcement, I got to work organising a meeting between the minister and the vice-chancellor and I prepared a petition to be mailed out to all the households in the electorate. I would like to thank the hundreds of people who have already signed the petition. The Labor candidate for Greenway has called this petition a sham. I wonder whether any of the people who have signed it and mailed it, faxed it or brought it back think so. What the Labor candidate does not realise is that people power does work—which is why people have signed this petition and why Blacktown City Council have also started a petition asking people to ‘save UWS Nirimba’. I wonder whether the Labor candidate will be telling his state and federal Labor council colleagues that their petition is a sham as well. As I have committed, I will continue to fight to ensure that the youth of the north-west sector are not robbed of choice. The removal of this campus will mean our youth will have to travel to Parramatta or Penrith to study for a university degree that they may otherwise have been able to do at the Blacktown campus. A few weeks ago the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, and I met with the chancellor and the deputy vice-chancellor to discuss the closure and options. I was extremely disappointed that the vice-chancellor, Janice Reid, could not be there. She was in Melbourne attending a function—a birthday party, I understand. During that meeting we were assured by the University of Western Sydney that the community and students would be consulted. The student consultations are happening. By chance last week when I was at Blacktown campus, a student walked past and mentioned that the student forums were happening at that point in time. I am extremely disappointed that I was not made aware of these forums—as the university had committed to do—so that I could attend and hear firsthand what the students had to say. I am sure that my federal colleagues would also like to have known about the consultations so that they too could hear what the students want. Like many people in the community, I am extremely disappointed that the board of directors has made a decision, without consultation, which will have a great impact on the community. The University of Western Sydney told the minister and I at the meeting that it was not an issue of funding but that they wanted to consolidate their campuses to ensure quality education. What about the choice of access to quality education for our youth in the north-west sector? I was delighted last week to be able to announce the greenfield site for the Australian Technical College of Western Sydney at Schofields, right next to Nirimba. My job as the federal member for Greenway is to continue to fight to ensure the youth of the north-west sector have choice. (Time expired) 111 111 09:48:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I raise a matter that should be of serious concern to all members today. Australia is facing a growing public health burden due to asbestos related diseases. In the past, Australians were heavy users of asbestos—particularly building products for commercial, rural and domestic premises. In the 1950s housing boom, thousands and thousands of homes were built using asbestos cement sheets. Many members have no doubt encountered an asbestos product, given that it was used in around 3,000 different items until 1982. Although asbestos is no longer used, no Australian is immune from the dangers of asbestos. In the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of Australians have unknowingly been exposed to asbestos products in their homes and at work, whether they be asbestos miners; workers in asbestos industries; men and women serving in the armed forces; workers in government owned industries such as hospitals, schools and power stations; mums washing clothes covered in asbestos fibres; or dads cutting fibro sheets in the backyard where kids play. None of them knew of the dangers that confronted them or, if they did, they underestimated the reach of asbestos related diseases. There is now a wave of cases of asbestos related diseases appearing among a new generation of home renovators. In my electorate of Lowe, where old federation and California bungalow homes abound, there are many homes that have some asbestos in them. It may take one asbestos fibre to cause an asbestos related disease decades after initial exposure, and the risk is cumulative—that is, the longer the exposure to asbestos particles, the greater the risk of developing an asbestos related disease in the future. The most aggressive asbestos related disease is malignant pleural mesothelioma, for which there is no cure. Predictive modelling suggests the incidence of new mesothelioma cases will increase and not peak until 2020. This is a most frightening thought, particularly when the risk of contracting the disease is entirely preventable through awareness and education. The prognosis for mesothelioma is poor. The average life expectancy from diagnosis to death is 152 days. Treatment options are limited. However, recent studies have provided evidence that the chemotherapy agent Alimta can inhibit the tumour growth and increase life expectancy. Given how precious each day is to mesothelioma patients and their families, this is surely a drug that should be made available to them. However, the drug costs $18,000, putting it out of the reach of many families. Many people who fall prey to this insidious disease through absolutely no fault of their own deserve our compassion and, more importantly, our support. I will not be able to go into detail about the benefits of Alimta in the very short time available to me today, but I will seek to do so when the opportunity arises in the House next week. However, given the urgent nature of the problems that face us, I have already asked the Minister for Health and Ageing a number of very important questions in writing about asbestos generally and listing Alimta on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for use by those with mesothelioma. I appreciate that the minister has a busy schedule; however, I trust an answer will be forthcoming as soon as possible. (Time expired) 112 112 09:51:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 0 Mr HARDGRAVE —I wish to outline to the House the latest sightings of a complete lack of concern, interest and, indeed, understanding of the key issue within the electorate of Moreton, and that is the way our area has been put under pressure by decades of failed investment, or no investment, in infrastructure. Our area is very much at the epicentre of Queensland’s transport industry. The Labor Party’s ignorance about these issues is just breathtaking. Two recent sightings are as follows. The Labor Party recently sponsored the member for Batman to visit and have a look. He reconfirmed that the Brisbane urban corridor is the preferred route for trucks. He reconfirmed that the upgrading of the Ipswich Motorway from Granard Road, Rocklea West is the only option that they see for trucks. 84C Thompson, Cameron, MP Mr Cameron Thompson —Shame. CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —The member for Blair understands very clearly that, unless the $2.3 billion Goodna bypass that the Howard government is committed to, which will connect the trucks from the Warrego and Cunningham Highways to the Logan Motorway, the Gateway Motorway and around to the Port of Brisbane, goes ahead at a fast pace—and this will be immediately stopped by a Labor government—my area is going to be forever the area for trucks. Labor have yet again confirmed that the Brisbane urban corridor, the Kessels Road corridor, is the route for trucks. Not only that, the Labor Party have said to the local media that they want to put an underpass at the Kessels Road and Mains Road intersection to—and I quote their press release—‘make it easier for trucks’. They are trying to use the parlous excuse that this may stop diesel particulates spewing out at traffic lights at the top of the Kessels and Mains Road hill. But, of course, if the trucks are not there, the diesel particulates will not be either. On top of this, we have a sighting just this week by Mr K Boyne. Mr Boyne is a letter writer from Yeronga. Mr Boyne is a well-known Labor Party apparatchik. His wife is a former full-time union official—she is probably still getting paid by the union as well. She works as a Labor Party staffer. Mr Boyne is softening up local residents around Yeronga, Fairfield, Yeerongpilly and Annerley with the notion that we need trucks—we need to get more trucks. He is softening us up for more trucks and saying that, unless we have trucks, we will have to travel further to get the things we want. Mr Boyne and the Labor Party may want more trucks into my area but the Liberal Party does not. Our plan is very simple. We want a truck no-go zone built around residential parts, particularly centring in on suburbs like Sunnybank. We want to make sure that truck paths are built—and they are; the Logan Motorway and the Goodna bypass. We want local residents to use local roads—not interstate trucks. For us the choice is quite simple. Why the Labor Party put trucks ahead of local people is something for which I think they are going to have to account to the people of Moreton. (Time expired) 112 112 09:54:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —I would like to raise an issue of great concern to me and a number of people within my electorate, and that is the lack of communication from and accountability upon Centrelink, whereas conversely there is an enormous amount of accountability upon people who must respond to Centrelink directions. I put very clearly on the record that my contribution here is not a criticism of Centrelink; rather, it is a criticism of the system that is in place. To demonstrate this, I would like to put before the House the story of a young man who lives in the Shortland electorate. He suffers from cerebral palsy as a result of a premature birth. He is dyslexic, he had testicle cancer nine years ago and it spread. It was treated with chemotherapy and he is currently in a chair. He needs a wheelchair for mobility. His pension was stopped recently because he did not attend an interview at Centrelink. He received no notification of the interview and the only advice he received from Centrelink was a notice saying that his pension had been stopped. That letter arrived after he had been to the bank and found he had no money in his account. He further contacted Centrelink and was advised that he had to attend interviews even if he did not know that those interviews had been arranged and that it was totally and absolutely his responsibility. I believe that accountability goes both ways. I believe it is imperative that we do not make the lives of people with disabilities like this young man I have spoken to you about, Stephen, unbearable. Rather, we need some compassion and we need an agency that works with people rather than one that causes angst for not only him but his family. In the seconds I have remaining, I would like to put on the record my absolute disgust at the government’s handling of interest rates in this country and the Prime Minister’s performance on them. Interest rates have risen nine times in a row. The recent one is the fifth since the last election, when the Prime Minister was telling everyone that interest rates would not go up if he was re-elected. That was in countless commercials. Working families are under more pressure and the Prime Minister has told them that they have never been better off. The reality is that working families are suffering under further rate rises, and within my electorate they are suffering particularly. We have low to medium incomes and over 30 per cent of the population are paying off their homes. (Time expired) 113 113 09:57:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 1 0 Mr NEVILLE —Queenslanders should never forget the Leader of the Opposition’s role in the former Goss government and that government’s treatment of people in regional areas. Let’s look at the CV of the man who aspires to lead this country and his track record in delivering services for regional areas. As chief of staff to the then Queensland Premier and director general of the cabinet office, he presided over the closure of 13 train lines and 46 court houses. He pulled more than 600 DPI officers out of rural areas and cut the DPI budget by 20 per cent. He failed to build strategic dams, including the Wolffdene dam, and actually boasted about closing that at the time. On his watch, country schools were closed, regional police stations were shut and—would you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker—regional councils were forcibly amalgamated. A certain Kevin Rudd was the architect of that regime, so why would anyone believe that he would act any differently if given the reins of federal power? On the point of forced amalgamations I am incredulous that the Leader of the Opposition would trot around Queensland mouthing platitudes like, ‘I disagree with the way this is being done,’ and, ‘It’s a matter for Mr Beattie and the Queensland government.’ I thought democracy was a bit more fundamental than that and that you would speak from state and federal levels if you saw it being ravished. Where is his spine? Where are the true-blue country roots he has talked up in his advertising? Perhaps the clearest indication of his concern for regional communities was when he went to air on ABC Wide Bay. He and the shadow environment minister were asked what their opinion was about the despised Traveston Crossing dam. First the shadow minister asked about ‘the dam that they want to build outside of Brisbane’. His leader then jumped in to say, ‘We need to get ourselves properly briefed by the state government on arguments in support of this particular proposal, and when we’ve done that we’ll come back to you.’ What rubbish! For heaven’s sake, the public feeling about this project was well known. It is red-hot anti dam, so why would these two allegedly savvy politicians accept the word of the Brisbane-centric state government rather than listen to the concerns of the actual residents of the Gympie area? By the way, fellas, we are still waiting for you to come back with your opinion and tell us what you really do think about this dam. When it gets down to the final analysis, silence can never be an option for a person—or, for that matter, a party—that seeks to lead this nation. 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. 114 Bills R2524 114 Debate resumed from 29 March 2006, on motion by Mr Ruddock: That this bill be now read a second time. 114 10:00:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —I rise to speak on the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. I would like to indicate at the outset that Labor supports the bill—as far as it goes—as it appears to be a perfectly sound and uncontroversial piece of legislation and I know that federal magistrates have been concerned to have it attended to for a number of years. However, I would like to flag Labor’s concern that, once again, persons in same-sex de facto relationships are being shortchanged by the government, despite promises made time and time again by members of the government that this will be fixed in an orderly way. In fact, the bill makes things slightly worse for people who are in same-sex de facto relationships. The bill as it stands not only fails to attend to and address existing discrimination against same-sex de facto couples but also introduces a new form of discrimination against them by denying same-sex partners of federal magistrates the same rights to death benefits that spouses and now even heterosexual de facto partners are being given. I will foreshadow now that Labor will in the other place be moving amendments which will seek to address this inequity that is presently in the bill. I will come back to that matter in a moment, but firstly I would like to give a brief overview of the bill. The bill has a twofold purpose: it seeks to enact a pension scheme for magistrates who are no longer capable of doing their job for medical reasons and it updates the provisions for magistrates’ death benefits. Turning first to the bill’s disability pension scheme, this bill enacts a pension scheme for federal magistrates who are no longer capable of doing their job for medical reasons, allowing magistrates to retire due to ill health and to receive a payment. This provision would make the position of federal magistrates more consistent with other federal judicial officers. At the moment, federal magistrates operate under a separate scheme to the pension scheme that exists for other judicial officers under the Judges Pensions Act 1968, which I note is scheduled for amendment during this sitting period. Federal magistrates receive a superannuation fund or retirement savings account to which the Commonwealth contributes. Currently, if a federal magistrate retires before the age of 65, they are not eligible to receive a pension. This creates an incentive for federal magistrates to continue to work, even if illness or disability is preventing them from effectively performing their job. Obviously, that is not desirable for the administration of justice and the proposed legislation will alter this situation, allowing a federal magistrate who retires for reasons of illness or disability to have access to a continued source of income via the judicial pension scheme. Specifically, the scheme enacted by this bill will allow a magistrate who retires to request, post retirement, that the Attorney-General certify that their retirement was due to permanent disability or infirmity. This is modelled on the process that occurs for other federal judicial officers under the Judges Pensions Act. A refusal by the Attorney-General to certify would be appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If the request is granted then the federal magistrate in question would be eligible to receive a pension of 60 per cent of a federal magistrate’s salary until they reach the age of 65. They would continue to be eligible to receive superannuation contributions from the Commonwealth until that age as well. Labor supports this provision not only because it brings federal magistrates into line with other federal judicial officers but also because it removes the incentive for federal magistrates to continue on in a position after ill health or disability begins to affect their performance. Given the difficulties in and restrictions on removing judges on the grounds of poor health—difficulties and restrictions which are there for other important reasons—this is a sensible option. It will help to maintain the high standard of the Australian judiciary. As I said at the outset, this bill also updates the provisions for magistrates’ death benefits, bringing them more closely into line with those of other judges. The new provisions would allow lump sums for death benefits to be paid to eligible spouses and eligible children if a magistrate dies before the age of 65. These payments would be equal to the superannuation contribution that a federal magistrate would have received had they lived to that age. Magistrates who retired on the disability pension scheme established by this bill would also be eligible for death benefits. A point that is contained in the bill before us that I want to bring to the attention of the House is that the bill will extend death benefits not only to spouses in a marital relationship but also to heterosexual de facto couples. Yet the bill will not extend death benefits to same-sex de facto couples. This bill, once again, highlights how ludicrous and inconsistent it is to continue to refuse access to these types of benefits to same-sex de facto couples. I note, for example, that same-sex de facto couples are now included under the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 under the definition of an interdependency relationship. However, this bill seems to be a step back from this position. We cannot understand what the government’s rationale could possibly be for continuing to exclude same-sex de facto couples, particularly when the Attorney, on a number of occasions in the past few years, has promised that the government is working through this in a methodical way. I know the member for Leichhardt, the member for Wentworth and others have, at times, argued within government ranks for these changes. But we do not see any action being taken—even when an opportunity like this presents itself. It could be done in a piece-by-piece way, if the government is not prepared to make more comprehensive changes—changes which Labor has committed itself to—in terms of having equality between different de facto relationships. As I said at the outset, I can foreshadow that Labor will be moving amendments in the Senate to provide that same-sex de facto couples can access these benefits on the same grounds as heterosexual de facto couples. I hope that the government will support this amendment, and I call on those in the coalition ranks who share our view that this is important, as a change that needs to be made consistently through a range of legislation, to urge their government to accept this suggestion. Labor will be moving amendments to remove discrimination because there is simply no rationale for continuing to refuse access for these benefits to same-sex couples. The logic behind the payment of a spousal death benefit to a spouse is quite simple. These are benefits in recognition of the immense work and contribution that federal magistrates put in during their tenure, and it is a payment made to ensure that their partners are not left high and dry in the event of their death. We can see no logical reason why payment of benefits to spouses after death should not be extended to include same-sex de facto partners. As I said earlier, the bill already includes heterosexual de facto partners. Simply put, the contribution of a federal magistrate in a same-sex relationship is the same as that of a married federal magistrate, yet the legislation as it stands does not allow for a death benefit to be paid to their spouse. To be perfectly frank, it is about time that Australian society extended these benefits to persons in same-sex relationships. There is no longer any argument against the extension of these benefits, and, as everyone in this House should know, the issue of the legality of homosexuality and such relationships has been well and truly resolved. It is hard to believe that it is over a decade since the Keating government passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994, which overrode Tasmanian laws outlawing homosexuality. The debate on this matter is well and truly settled. And, as I have said, Labor has committed to a comprehensive plan for removing discrimination between de facto heterosexual couples and de facto same-sex couples. Under the Howard government we have had a decade of inaction in respect of the removal of discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships. The enormity of this discrimination was made abundantly clear in the recent report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission entitled, Same-sex: same entitlements. That report found a total of 58 pieces of legislation which discriminated against same-sex couples. With this legislation, I believe the government is hoping to make that total 59 pieces of discriminatory legislation. In some cases, of course, that discrimination may be beneficial. Some benefits are reduced where a person is living in a marriage-like situation with a person of the opposite sex and this does not have the same impact for same-sex de facto relationships. In those limited circumstances, some same-sex couples actually get a financial advantage out of the discrimination, but for the most part they are denied the benefits and certainly the recognition which are provided to heterosexual de facto couples. As I said, the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Ludwig, will be moving amendments in the Senate to remove this discrimination. I hope that the government will support these amendments, but I must say that I do not hold out any great hope. The government has previously indicated in media releases that it will support if not these specific amendments then certainly some of these types of measures, and I hope that those pledges translate into Liberal and National Party support for our amendments. I draw the attention of the House to the Attorney-General’s media release of 21 June this year in response to the HREOC report, in which he said: In connection with interdependent relationships, including same-sex relationships, the Government will consider making further changes to the relevant legislation on a case-by-case basis. This case is before the parliament. It can be done now. It does not require any extra action. It will not have any extra impact on other pieces of legislation. It seems to me that if the Attorney-General is going to stick to his word, he should support our amendments when we move them in the Senate. It is a case that is about as clear-cut as it gets, and the clear benefit being denied to same-sex couples in de facto relationships is unwarranted. We also foreshadow that we will be moving two additional amendments in the Senate. These amendments will provide for federal magistrates to be entitled to apply for a certificate of impairment before retirement rather than afterwards and also provide for the certificate to be issued by a panel of doctors rather than the Attorney-General. These are two common-sense amendments which will provide greater security to federal magistrates who are contemplating retirement and will provide for a panel with greater expertise in these matters to be able to make judgements on whether or not a federal magistrate can continue to work. Of course, it will also remove any suggestion of political interference. Again, I hope these amendments will receive government support. I would like to address one more issue. It is an issue which it appears that the government has addressed partly but not completely. The bill as it stands without amendments would effectively allow the various benefits up until the age of 65. So a federal magistrate could apply for a disability pension up until the age of 65 and their spouse would be eligible for a death benefit up until the magistrate turned 65 and so on. This creates an incongruity which was pointed out in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Simply put, the federal magistrates have a compulsory retirement age of 70, so there is a gap of five years between the benefits structure being introduced by this bill and the retirement provisions already in existence. The issue was brought up in the inquiry by the Federal Magistrates Court, which called on the government to amend the legislation to remove this inconsistency. I note that the government has circulated some amendments to this bill. They are partly based on the recommendations of the Senate committee and go some way towards addressing the inconsistency and age gap that the government has let creep into this legislation. However, at least up until now, the government has ignored at least half of the committee’s recommendations. The government, in items 2, 3 and 5 of the amendments, partially closes this age gap. Unfortunately, though, it does not seem to have gone the whole way, and we cannot understand why. Some of the inconsistency has been removed, and a federal magistrate between the age of 65 and 70 is now entitled to retire and apply for a disability pension. However, superannuation contribution continues to cut out at 65. So a federal magistrate who retires at 68 and receives a disability pension will not be eligible to receive superannuation for the two years left on their pension, but a federal magistrate who retires at 63 will receive superannuation for two years until they attain the age of 65. Similarly, death benefits continue to be awarded only to magistrates up to the age of 65. If a magistrate is 64 and 11 months old when he or she dies then the spouse is eligible for a sizeable death benefit. If it is one month later, that benefit does not exist at all. It is difficult to see the logic behind this. The government do appear to have agreed with the findings of the Senate inquiry and have made some movement on the issue, but they continue to maintain inconsistency for the remaining parts of this provision. In the Senate, Labor will move amendments to remove the remainder of that age gap from this legislation and, again, we hope that the government will support these amendments. In conclusion, I reiterate that Labor supports the outcome of this bill and will vote in favour of it. However, we will be moving amendments in the Senate to try to improve it. We will be moving amendments in the Senate to ensure that same-sex de facto couples have access to these benefits on the same grounds as heterosexual de facto couples and we will be moving the remaining recommendations of the Senate committee report and the two recommendations I touched on earlier. I hope that the government will consider this on the case-by-case basis that the Attorney previously promised. It is a good opportunity to fix what is a serious anomaly. I call on the government to consider those amendments and I hope that, in the other place, both sides of parliament will be voting in favour of them. Aside from those reservations, I commend the bill to the House. 118 10:15:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I am very pleased to join in the debate on the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. Since the government’s election to office, one of its best initiatives in the area of the Attorney-General’s and justice portfolios is the establishment of federal magistrates. Federal magistrates have carried out a very important role since 2000 in helping to ensure that Australia gets the sort of justice it deserves in the federal arena. We have had a number of very high quality federal magistrates appointed, and they certainly help to ensure that we as a country have the necessary judicial officers available in a range of areas to ensure that people are able to obtain justice. It is important that the federal magistrates service be independent. It is independent, and the government has always supported the independence of the federal magistracy. With respect to the vitally important role that magistrates have, it is essential that their employment conditions be such that they are appropriately remunerated at a level that befits their responsibilities and also, of course, that their benefits extend to giving them some level of support in the event of disability or death. Their benefits must be set at a level that is reasonable, just and fitting given their responsibilities. This bill amends the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 to provide federal magistrates with disability cover and death benefits. It seems almost an oversight that the terms of employment for these senior magistrates have not, up until now, included any specific entitlements for their retirement should it occur as a result of disability or in the unfortunate case of death while in service of the judiciary. I do not know whether we are appointing people who are fit and well and unlikely to need to access these particular services, but clearly it is a problem when we contemplate that federal magistrates are able to hold office until age 70. I will briefly digress to say that I think history has recorded that the constitutional amendment that required judges to retire at age 70 is not entirely in the interests of the country at the moment. With a declining birthrate, an ageing population, increasing levels of health and increasing longevity, people these days are able to serve beyond 70 and I would like, at some stage, to see a government amend the Constitution once again to make provision for judges of the High Court to serve until at least age 75. The old life appointment was probably inappropriate, but in practice it worked fairly well because judges who were incapable of continuing their work usually retired. I think that to force judges to retire at 70, as is currently the case, is regressive and retrograde, and it deprives Australia of the judicial services of some excellent judicial officers just because chronologically they happen to be 70-plus. The current situation with federal magistrates is that they are entitled to make a contribution equal to 13.1 per cent of their salary to a super fund or towards their savings for their retirement. But the lack of entitlements or insurance in the case of disability or death brings about the obvious dilemma. In the case of disability, if they are to be removed due to incapacity before age 70 and they have no protection, they may well be unwilling to leave. There is a fairly messy procedure required to actually dismiss a federal magistrate or a federal judge. That is why this legislation is important. It brings about the sort of reform that is necessary in the interests of fairness and equity but also in the interests of the appropriate administration of the judicial system in Australia. It would be terrible if we had people clinging to office even though they had lost their ability to fulfil their role at a satisfactory level, because they simply could not afford to retire. This bill will introduce changes that will help to rectify the situation. It introduces changes that will make it easier and less financially disadvantageous for a magistrate whose health is deteriorating to step down voluntarily from office. The bill also introduces changes that, on the resignation of a federal magistrate due to permanent disability or infirmity, will give the Attorney-General the ability to certify that disability is the reason for the premature departure, which then would entitle the resigning magistrate to a pension equal to 60 per cent of his or her salary until he or she turns 65 or dies, whichever comes first. In addition to this payment, the retired magistrate would receive ongoing superannuation payments from the Australian government while in receipt of that disability pension. The superannuation payments would be the same as if the magistrate had continued working up until age 65. Additionally, the bill provides for the introduction of a benefit that will take effect only on his or her death while in office or, in the case of a former magistrate who has left office as a consequence of disability, if he or she dies before attaining the age of 65. The benefit is in the form of a lump sum payment that is payable to the spouse of the deceased magistrate and also to the dependent children of the deceased magistrate, should the deceased magistrate have dependent children. The lump sum would be an amount equal to the superannuation payments that would have been made from the date of death to his or her 65th birthday had the former magistrate not passed away. I am pleased that the opposition is supporting this bill, even though it is doing so with some reservations. The federal magistracy is far too important an institution to Australia for it to be politicised, and I am pleased that both sides of the House will be voting for the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. The changes reflect the great importance of the roles of senior federal magistrates and I am particularly pleased to be able to commend this bill to the chamber. 119 10:23:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —I thank the member for Fisher for his comments on the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006. Certainly it is true that on this issue there is broad bipartisanship, but there are a number of significant issues which are material to this debate on which I wish to make comment. Before I do and before the member for Fisher leaves, I noted his comments about the compulsory retirement age of justices of the High Court, Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court, a provision that flows from constitutional changes that were made in the early seventies, I think. That was a different time and Australia was a very different society. We have now introduced age discrimination legislation such that people, as long as they are fit, capable and able, can continue to work. We recognise and seek to encourage people to do so. Without making anything other than an oblique comment, I note that the leader of the parliamentary party to which the honourable member for Fisher belongs is proposing to contest the next election which, if he is successful, will take him well past the retiring age that is proposed or required for judges. I do agree with the member for Fisher that there is a decent and proper case to be made for reviewing those provisions. It will not be easy to change, because they are constitutionally entrenched. But they were entrenched at a time when there was essentially a compulsory retirement age—65 for men and, I think, 60 for women. In those circumstances, it was understandable that people felt it odd that we did not have such a rule that applied to judges. But I say to the member for Fisher—and I commend his reflection on this—the corollary is that, if we do bring ourselves to a position where we support a change to that regime, we need to have a mechanism for dealing with people who do not understand that they have passed the point of competence. That can happen even with a retirement age of 70. I am aware of instances where members of the federal judiciary had to be confronted by their chief justices on the question of whether they were still fit to perform their duties, notwithstanding that they were well under the age of 70. The situation is that, if a judge or person appointed under the Constitution to a chapter III court were to decline an invitation to consider their future in those circumstances, there really is no effective mechanism for addressing it. The only way a judge can be removed is by an address to both houses of the parliament. We have no independent external mechanism to deal with what inevitably will become an issue in the future. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr Slipper —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Is the member for Denison willing to give way? RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr KERR —Yes. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr Slipper —I agree with the honourable member for Denison that it is appropriate, as I said, that in 2007 judges ought to be able to serve beyond the age of 70. I think he quite rightly drew to our attention the fact that there needs to be a mechanism, and my question to the honourable member is: what sort of mechanism do you think should be put in place? I think your suggestion is valuable—it is essential—and I accept that you would need that mechanism if you were to have the age extended. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr KERR —I thank the honourable member. It was almost a dorothy dixer because early in the term of this parliament I proposed private member’s legislation that would establish a parliamentary commission to which a matter raised in the parliament could be referred so that it would not be a political consideration. The parliament would receive a report from persons of independent standing and of substance—usually former judges—so that it could address these situations. In that debate I raised not only the instance of where a judge suffers some disability that they themselves do not recognise but also the terrible prospect of an instance where allegations of wrongdoing were made against a judge, those allegations were not accepted, the allegations were contested and the issue then came before the parliament and we had no mechanism that was fair, independent, transparent and known in advance—so that everybody understood the procedure—that would enable such issues to be properly considered so that we would not be making what are essentially political decisions. In the address that I gave on the introduction of the bill, I drew attention to the circumstance where serious allegations were made against Justice Kirby of the High Court. Fortunately, in that instance the disproof of those allegations emerged quickly. Had they not, the only mechanism available would have been an address in the houses. There would have been a political contest and it would have been a politicised debate about the future of a judge. It would have been an entirely inappropriate way to deal with the matter. With the expansion of the federal judiciary—and because the magistrates are appointed under the Constitution, as are the Federal Court judges and the High Court judges—it is inevitable that at some stage we will be confronted with an issue where the propriety of the conduct of a federal judicial office holder emerges and we have nothing other than an ad hoc method of dealing with these matters. We have no arrangement that we have agreed amongst ourselves or that would be known to the judges that would address natural justice, permit them to put their case and give proper consideration to the whole range of matters that would be material. That seems to me to be a great deficiency, given the expansion of the federal judiciary. Essentially, for the first 60 years of our Federation the only federal justices were High Court justices. It was most improbable that such an instance would arise. If it did, I suppose it was thought that the parliament would give time and appropriate consideration to those matters. But now we have a federal judiciary which comprises the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the federal Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Allegations against a number of persons regarding competence and continuing competence may emerge—hopefully they will not but inevitably, given the nature of things, they may—or indeed allegations of impropriety may be made. We need to anticipate this and put in place mechanisms that will be fair, transparent and understood well in advance so that any person against whom such allegations are made can be confident that there is an independent process and that the parliament will not be dealing with these matters in an ad hoc way in a partisan environment, because that is just what will destroy the sense of integrity of the independence of the judiciary. Those remarks are rather oblique to the bill, and I did not intend to speak to those matters but for the fact that the member for Fisher raised those matters. I thank him for doing so and I thank him for his question. As to this particular legislation, when the Federal Magistrates Court was established, it was intended to be a lower cost jurisdiction and a lower cost court than the other federal courts, but I think insufficient thought was given to the circumstances of federal magistrates, who were denied judicial pensions under the arrangements which were put in place. This bill addresses that fact because it recognises that some people will have to retire because of ill-health and some will die in circumstances where proper provision is not made for their dependants. Just as judges who take positions and appointments in other federal courts often forsake quite remunerative practices at the bar, so too do persons who take office as federal judicial officers in the magistracy usually come from a profession where, had they continued in their practice, they would have put aside proper arrangements for their possible disability or death. Going to the Federal Magistrates Court should not be an impediment that is put in their way. Labor is particularly concerned about two points. The first point concerns the discriminatory arrangements which deny same-sex partners of federal magistrates the same death benefits which spouses and even heterosexual de facto partners are entitled to. This is a serious concern. As a matter of principle, the federal opposition has indicated that, were it to come to office, it would ensure, through federal legislation, that established and stable same-sex relationships are given the same legal recognition as de facto relationships of a heterosexual kind so that there is no discrimination. We need to address that issue. We will be proposing amendments in the Senate which we hope the government picks up so that the issues do not fall to the next administration. A simple mechanism could address them by amendment. The other point that I draw the attention of the House to is that the design of these measures does not properly take into account the period between age 65 and age 70. The bill, as it stands, would effectively allow various benefits up to the age of 65. So a federal magistrate could apply for a disability pension up to the age of 65, and their spouse would be eligible for a death benefit up to the age of 65. But, given that federal magistrates are entitled to give service until they are age 70—and we would hope they would continue to—what happens in that period? This bill does not address those matters effectively. There is an oddity—for example, if a magistrate age 64 and 11 months were to die then their spouse would be eligible to a sizeable death benefit; if the magistrate were to die two months later after passing the age of 65, there would be no entitlement to the death benefit. Of course, we expect magistrates to continue to serve—we would like them to continue to serve—but it really does present a conundrum to us as parliamentarians to pass legislation which has this gap in it. I understand that amendments will be proposed in the Senate to try to address these matters. Again, I commend those possible amendments to the government with a view to fixing that small area of omission so that federal magistrates are able to continue to serve past the age of 65 until their compulsory retirement at age 70 without a sense that they have passed a point at which they are creating a difficulty for the support of their spouse. I hope the government will support the amendments that will be moved by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Ludwig, in the Senate. With those remarks, and with the reflections that were encouraged by the contribution by the member for Fisher, who again I thank for opening up that particular area of debate, I commend the legislation to the chamber. 122 10:36:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I too rise to speak in support of the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006, though, as with many other bills in this House, I do have some reservations about certain aspects of the bill. In that respect, amendments have been proposed by the opposition which the member for Denison has just referred to and which I endorse. I ask members on the other side to consider these amendments on their merits before exercising their votes. We hope that the Senate pays close attention to them too. It would be pertinent to make an inquiry into the genesis of this bill. Though the government will never admit it, the bill was cynically produced to address a single case that had arisen in Brisbane concerning a Brisbane magistrate. We should all be concerned about bills which seek to address specific examples rather than enunciate a general principle of law. There can be no doubt that the Howard government will leave behind an appalling legacy of ‘in the heat of the moment’ drafting and knee-jerk reaction laws to address specific and one-off incidents. I ask: where is the good long-term policy in this? Why are laws from this government reactive and not proactive? Why does it take one incident to kick-start the government into action? After 11 years the government should know better. I say all this as a precursor to the bill before us this morning. It is the Federal Magistrates Court which is the subject of this bill. My remarks will focus on the interplay of case management between the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. In light of the growing interplay of case management between both courts, it defies logic to have great disparity between entitlements afforded to Federal Court judges and Federal Magistrates Court magistrates, something which this bill belatedly tries to address. It was clear that the government’s intention when establishing the Federal Magistrates Court was that it would be a low-cost court. Presumably it was as a result of this intention that federal magistrates were not covered by the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968. The Judges’ Pensions Act applies only to Federal Court, Family Court and High Court judges, as we know. This is very telling of the Howard government’s approach to the administration of justice. What message does it send when the government engages in an attitude of penny pinching towards its own judiciary? We take great pride in the rule of law in Australia. It is a cornerstone of a free nation that laws that emanate from the parliament be upheld by a free judiciary. The judiciary is one of the most important arms of government, particularly given the Howard government’s predilection for exercising executive power without proper public scrutiny, yet the government treats the third arm of government, including the Federal Magistrates Court, with complete disdain, in my opinion. Notwithstanding that, the judiciary are often given appalling laws to work with—whether they are poorly drafted or attempt to confine all power in the hands of the executive through the privative clauses. The laws that come out of this parliament must be interpreted by the judges and magistrates of our jurisdiction. The saying ‘garbage in; garbage out’ comes to mind. A bad law will result in poor administrative procedures which must be ironed out by long-suffering members of the federal judiciary. Nowhere is this better seen than in the increasing workload of the federal judiciary. Ever-growing lists of cases are being piled and filed in the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court. Members are no doubt mindful of administrative law cases, particularly those concerning the powers exercised under migration law. These administrative cases consume very high percentages of court time and effort. We should also note the modern phenomenon of jurisdiction swapping that is endemic within the Federal Court and the High Court of Australia. While the Federal Magistrates Court is supposed to be a low-cost court to deal quickly and, in the eyes of the government, cheaply with the ever-growing list of court cases which clog our administrative procedures, nothing has changed. The Federal Magistrates Court is dealing with large numbers of long and complex cases, yet in its usual attempt to pinch pennies wherever it can, federal magistrates are ineligible to receive a pension if they retire before reaching the age of 65. Federal magistrates do complex and extremely important work which, in many ways, is similar to the work completed by judges, yet they are denied similar benefits. In practice, there is little difference in complexity between many of the cases heard in the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. So I ask: why the disparity in benefits? No doubt some matters heard by federal judges are extremely complex in nature. However, whatever higher complexities the judges of the Federal Court must contend with, this is counterbalanced by the caseload issues within the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court, and their judicial and administrative officers, are working increasingly hard as more cases are piled upon them. The filing and piling of new cases is not being assisted by the phenomenon of jurisdiction swapping, which I referred to earlier. In a bid to iron out caseload management the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court are being subjected to jurisdiction swaps in migration law, industrial law, intellectual property law, bankruptcy law and insolvency law. It would be a lengthy exercise to review all the legal administrative changes that have occurred within the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court during the Howard government’s tenure; however, one theme would be constant: the government is always pressing the judiciary to do law on the cheap rather than be effective. There are good policy factors to maximise access to justice, particularly by addressing the financial cost of litigation. I am the strongest advocate for cheap and effective access to the law; however, court cost overheads should not be paid for at the expense of the entitlements of judicial officers. I say this once again in the context of the reality of the ever-increasing workloads: justice and the administration of just laws is expensive and time consuming. The execution of justice by our independent judiciary requires laws that afford rights and duties to the citizen and state. Enforcing these rights and duties is a monumental task. It is tempting—indeed this government has succumbed to the temptation—to cut corners in an attempt to reduce the cost of justice. By allowing the disparity between judges and magistrates to fester for so long the government has implicitly stated that magistrates are not as valuable as judges in the work that they do. That can be the only reason they have not had access to the same entitlements as judges. We should not detract from the notable experience, higher skills and jurisdictional wisdom that a judge must exercise compared with a magistrate. There are obvious significant jurisdictional and legal distinctions between a judge’s role and a magistrate’s role. However, there are the same legal professional duties, often the same case preparation and the same time constraints in a legal matter before the Federal Court and one before the Federal Magistrates Court. Again, the exercise of jurisdiction swapping, which is often simply an administrative decision to shift matters from the Federal Court to the Magistrates Court, has ensured that this is the case. The substance of a matter does not change just because it has been shifted from one bench to another. The complexity of the laws applicable to the matter does not change because the case has been shifted from one bench to another. The case and laws are the same. The only thing that changes is that the matter is now before a magistrate and not a full judge. With that, the cost of administration of law drops. This sounds like a good thing—until we see the means by which the Howard government has attempted to cut costs. There has also been a belated recognition by the Howard government that circumstances may arise in which a magistrate may feel compelled to retire before reaching the age of 65 years. In the eventuality that this occurs, the law must be sympathetic and make provision for such a circumstance. Magistrates in ill health ought to be given the option to retire rather than continue to sit on the bench. Given the lack of a process for removing magistrates suffering from ill health, this is a logical outcome. It is this aspect of the bill which I shake my head at. How could such an obvious change be denied by the government for so long? This bill is a symptom of the broader issues of the administration of our federal justice system to which I have referred earlier—in particular, jurisdiction swapping and the ever growing lists. Members of this House will be aware that there are specific lists—particularly the migration law list—which are growing inexorably and are therefore constant sources of challenge to the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court. The practical issue is how to administer lists that seem to grow exponentially. I can only say that this government is determined to continue with populist policies. Making populist laws about affording access to a legal system results in the social cost of more cases. This government must be resigned to the fact that the administration of justice is an expensive affair. The manner in which the government seeks to delimit jurisdiction and rights of appeal to the federal courts is, in my view, not the way to go. In any event, looking at the growth in the cases of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court through a labyrinth of lesser quasi judicial tribunals, it is hard to justify the absolute cost of appeals, appeals upon appeals and so forth in the regime that has been put in place. And nor is this about cost per se. If justice were actually afforded, there would be a reduction in the number of absolute appeals and with it a reduction in the number of cases, and hence management of case load at the source rather than this constant jurisdictional shuffling. I urge the government and all members of the House and the Senate to fight vigorously for the full natural industrial entitlements that judges and court, tribunal and administrative officers in our federal courts are properly entitled to. Further, I say that it is a false economy and a diseconomy to deny basic accoutrements to our magistrates in the hope of artificially lowering the price of justice. Further, such cutting of corners only diminishes the quality of service, in that magistrates—whom I note are human beings, like the rest of us—suffer the same vicissitudes of life and will fall sick, become frail, die or be otherwise unable to perform their duties at certain times in their lives before or after reaching the age of 65. In conclusion, for this reason the utilitarian ethic of simply cutting costs is a single- and bloody-minded approach to reducing cost. The real social cost of such policy is that magistrates become distracted with the daily cross that they must bear. The final and ultimate consequence of this cross is an uncharitable and unjust circumstance that distracts the magistrate and causes a diminution of service, to say nothing about the injustice to the magistrate. I commend the bill. 125 10:49:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Although there is no requirement to do so, before speaking on the Federal Magistrates Amendment (Disability and Death Benefits) Bill 2006, I disclose that my father-in-law is a federal magistrate. The bill amends the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 to provide statutory disability and death cover for federal magistrates. Currently, under the Federal Magistrates Act there are no specific entitlements which cover retirement on the grounds of disability or in the event of death. As a consequence of the changes to the Constitution after the referendum of 1977, federal magistrates hold office until age 70 unless they resign, die in office or are removed by the parliament on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity before this age. One of the issues is that, in the absence of adequate protection in the event of serious disability, a federal magistrate whose performance is significantly impaired for medical reasons may be unwilling to resign. This bill fills a gap in the disability cover for federal magistrates. This bill has gone to a Senate committee, and in its report of 2 May 2006 the committee recommended that the age limit specified in the bill limiting eligibility for disability cover and death benefits be raised from 65 to 70 years. The proposed amendments to the bill raise the age limit for payment of a disability pension to 70 years and therefore give effect to this recommendation, in part. This is a good bill. I note that it is supported by the opposition. It removes the incentive for a magistrate to stay on in office when they are faced with serious ill health. These amendments provide federal magistrates with cover in addition to that which was proposed in the original bill when retiring on disability grounds. With those brief remarks I commend the bill to the House. 126 10:52:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —Firstly, I apologise. I had some House duty in another place, and I appreciate that colleagues have extended some courtesy to me. I thank them for that. I note that those who have addressed this bill include the members for Gellibrand, Lowe, Denison, Fisher and Boothby. I thank them for the contributions they have made. Before I deal with a couple of observations on matters that I understand have been the subject of comment, I reiterate that this bill will provide federal magistrates and their dependants with improved financial protection in the event of serious disability or death. The government acknowledges the significant contribution magistrates have made to an efficient federal civil justice system. It is the government’s view that the public interest is served by ensuring that federal magistrates with disabilities which prevent them performing their duties retire with adequate financial provision. Currently, a federal magistrate whose performance is significantly impaired for medical reasons might nonetheless be unwilling to resign. This is particularly important where magistrates have tenure to age 70 and can only be removed on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. If the performance of a federal magistrate were significantly impaired for medical reasons, it is desirable that the lack of adequate disability provision not be a barrier to the magistrate’s willingness to resign. I understand that during the course of the debate there was some concern about this measure in the context of superannuation benefits, and people foreshadowed that there may be amendments in another place. I understand they may seek to do that. I say only that moving amendments to judicial pensions and those in relation to magistrates in isolation from the wider class of people to whom that issue may be relevant would not be, in my view, appropriate. While the government has said that it wants to deal with those— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. Would the member agree to a question on this matter? 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the member for Berowra willing to give way? 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —I was going to expand on the matter, but I am willing to answer a question. It may be appropriate to do that. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —Can the Attorney, given his view that this matter should not be dealt with in isolation, provide us with any information about when he is going to act on it not in isolation? Your government has promised time and time again that this issue would be dealt with. Why should the Labor Party or anyone else not pursue this case by case, as you have indicated you want to consider it? At other times you say that, when it is done case by case, it is being done in isolation. I do not understand the government’s position to be consistent at all. Could the Attorney explain when action is going to be taken? 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —The government is giving consideration to these matters. I have made that clear. The government has said that it will address issues when they are raised and deal with them on a case-by-case basis. But believing that it is appropriate to do it on an individual case basis, I think, flies in the face of reality. If you are going to expand entitlements to what are defined benefits superannuation measures, a much wider class of people in the group of cases that you want to deal with have to be considered. I do not believe it is appropriate to deal with the judges or magistrates in isolation from returned servicemen, public servants or even members of parliament. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —When are you going to do those? 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —I simply make the point that there is a wider range of issues that have to be looked at, and you would not separate out judges or magistrates from the wider class. In dealing with the issue of defined benefits superannuation entitlements, you would want to make those decisions with some very clear advice as to what the impact would be on the financial bottom line. If you dealt with judges and magistrates in isolation, the impact would probably not be very significant in budgetary terms. But if you move to the wider class of defined benefits schemes, you are talking potentially of billions of dollars being added to the forward estimates. The opposition may think it is fine to look at these matters in isolation and to do them without regard to the budgetary impacts and future budgetary impacts. If that is the way they see budgeting, they can take the approach that they have. They are welcome to bring their amendments forward, but that does not mean the government would support them when the broader financial implications have to be addressed in considering the principal issue. I simply make that point. While relatively new, the Federal Magistrates Court is now an integral and important part of the federal civil justice system. The government is committed to ensuring that federal magistrates have adequate and appropriate terms and conditions of service. This is a very important measure in assisting to ensure both the continued and high calibre of appointments and that federal magistrates can focus on important duties without being distracted by concerns over the adequacy of the protection available to them and their dependants in the sad event of disability or death. I just say in a personal way that I think we have been extraordinarily well served by the magistracy. They have acquitted themselves with diligence, application and professionalism. The outcomes are there to be seen in the very considerable case loads that the Federal Magistrates Court disposes of. Dealing with this issue is important for ensuring that they understand that the tasks they are fulfilling are recognised as important and that we are determined to deal with the disability issues. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Messages from the Governor-General recommending appropriations for the bill and proposed amendments announced. 127 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 127 11:01:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and—by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7): (1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 13), after “retired”, insert “disabled”. (2)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 22), omit “65 years”, substitute “70 years”. (3)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (line 6), omit “65 years”, substitute “70 years”. (4)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 23 to 25), omit subclause 9B(4) of Schedule 1, substitute:          (4)    For the purposes of subclause (2), the annual rate of salary is the annual rate of remuneration determined under clause 5:               (a)    excluding any allowances that are paid in lieu of any other entitlement; and               (b)    if any arrangements have been entered into for any amount of the annual rate of remuneration (other than an allowance covered by paragraph (a)) to be provided in the form of another benefit—including that amount. (5)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (line 6), after “retired disabled Federal Magistrate”, insert “who has not attained the age of 65 years”. (6)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (line 24), after “retired”, insert “disabled”. (7)    Schedule 1, item 13, page 11 (line 17), after “retired”, insert “disabled”. I have acknowledged the very significant contribution of federal magistrates to an efficient federal civil justice system and our commitment to ensuring that they are provided with fair and adequate conditions. The bill was the subject of some committee consideration and, as a result of the committee’s deliberations, certain amendments were suggested. These amendments are those proposed by the government to deal with the issues raised in the report by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The government amendments give effect, so far as is consistent with government policy, to the recommendation made that the age limit specified in the bill, limiting eligibility for disability cover and death benefits, be raised from 65 to 70 years. The government amendments implement the committee’s recommendation to pay a pension to retired and disabled federal magistrates to the age of 70. This amendment is in line with the government’s view that the public interest is served by ensuring that federal magistrates with disabilities which prevent them from performing their duties may retire with adequate financial provision. The age limit specified in the bill limiting eligibility for superannuation contributions for retired and disabled federal magistrates to age 65 would, however, remain. This is because the superannuation industry supervision legislation generally precludes superannuation funds from accepting contributions made in respect of members who have attained the age of 65 and who are no longer working. As the death benefits are equivalent to the amount of superannuation contributions that federal magistrates, or retired disabled federal magistrates, would have received from the date of death to age 65, for similar reasons it would be inappropriate to make a benefit payable beyond age 65. The committee also recommended that benefits payable to an eligible spouse or children under the bill, when a federal magistrate dies in office or a retired disabled federal magistrate dies, be reviewed to provide more adequate compensation payments. The government considers the bill provides satisfactory compensation payments. If a magistrate who is not disabled chooses to retire before age 65 and then dies, no additional benefits are payable to the former magistrate’s dependants. It would be anomalous to provide additional benefits where a magistrate dies in office or a retired disabled federal magistrate dies. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. 129 Bills R2737 129 Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by Mr Ruddock: That this bill be now read a second time. 129 11:05:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007. This bill has two purposes: firstly, it seeks to establish a scheme for the self-assessment of films and computer games to enable them to be advertised before they are formally classified by the Office of Film and Literature Classification; and, secondly, it seeks to revise and simplify the process for applying for a classification of compilations of TV series that have already been broadcast in Australia. I note now that the bill will be receiving Labor’s full support both here and in the Senate. The bill does not appear to weaken or strengthen Australia’s classification system in any way—only to streamline processes for advertisements of films and for certain types of applications. This bill was introduced in March and arose out of discussion papers released by the government in June and August of last year. The bill itself contains two schedules, the purposes of which I have just outlined. The first schedule brings in new sections which enable the advertising of unclassified films and computer games. The scheme as it currently stands places industry at a disadvantage in that, due to the growing trends towards and ease of piracy, producers are not able to put their material forward to be classified until very close to the release date. This places quite restrictive burdens on them in terms of how they are able to advertise their films. The amendments proposed in schedule 1 would set up a scheme that allows for industry based assessors to conduct preliminary self-assessments, in turn allowing them to conduct more extensive advertising campaigns before the material is formally rated by the OFLC. This does not include material which is likely to be rated X18+ or refused classification. Advertisement of that material will continue to be illegal. Subdivision A of the bill allows for the particulars of the scheme to be established by legislative instrument. These include elements such as where the material may be advertised, the conditions under which it may be advertised, the requirements to be named as a self-assessor, the basis on which the self-assessor may make assessments and other issues. This legislative instrument will, according to the bill, be decided upon in consultation with other censorship ministers across Australia. There is also provision in subdivision B of the legislation for applications to be made to the Classification Board, rather than a self-assessor, for assessment of a likely classification of the material. The explanatory memorandum states in this respect: It is envisaged that applicants would use this provision for an assessment in difficult cases, or where they want the assurance of the Board’s consideration, or where it is not feasible or cost effective to obtain an assessment from an authorised assessor. The amendments will also alter the definition of ‘advertisement’ to specifically include advertising on the internet and to exclude product merchandising from the definition. The amendments contained in schedule 2 relate to the classification of compilations of TV series that have already been aired in Australia and, of course, have therefore already been classified. Naturally, this is in response to the increasing number of TV series which are being released on DVD. The rationale is simple—the material has already been aired in Australia and, as such, the process for applying should be streamlined to take this into account. The bill establishes another industry based self-assessment system, which allows an industry based assessor to perform an assessment of the material and then to submit a report to the Classification Board, which the board may then use as the basis of its classification decision. Naturally, the board retains the authority to revoke a classification if the assessment is later found to be misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate and where a different classification would have been given. That is just a brief outline of the bill before us, which is a relatively simple one. Labor is in favour of it and commends it to the House. 130 11:09:00 Draper, Trish, MP 0L6 Makin LP 1 0 Mrs DRAPER —The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007 has involved working with the states and territories to implement a new scheme which will supposedly mean greater levels of advertising for the film and computer game industries. This bill has been developed in response to industry concern, and concern for their profits, in relation to the current arrangements. The government, I am informed, has worked with film producers and advertisers, who have strongly voiced their concerns with the current legislation and the impact that its restrictions have on their ability to combat piracy. This bill is set to combat the risk of piracy as it permits companies to advertise their product further in advance of the release date. It is also supposed to eliminate red tape and clarify legal requirements to improve compliance, which of course remains to be seen. As the chairman of the Classification Issues Group, I have long held concerns about this bill. This legislation, if passed, would replace the current prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games with a new scheme which permits the industry to self-assess and self-regulate their advertising regime. We all know about self-assessment and self-regulation. As the Australian community experienced in the latter half of 2006 with Channel 10’s Big Brother series, self-assessment and self-regulation overwhelmingly fail. As a result, the government and the office of the Hon. Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, have been working to secure stronger powers for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, in introducing tougher regulations, not abolishing them, to strengthen the regime. The Australian community continued to express their concern that, when advertising and industry profits are the paramount consideration, consumers and especially minors may be exposed to inappropriate advertising and graphically adult material, particularly in relation to violence. This bill was set to introduce a scheme whereby unclassified films and computer games could be advertised together with classified material. Yes, there have been statements by the Attorney-General’s office that there are adequate safeguards by ensuring that the Classification Board or an authorised assessor will deal with the likely classification. This authorised assessor is explained as one with industry experience who has satisfied mandatory training requirements. The Classification Board and industry have made, in my view, dubious and wrong decisions in the past with regard to the classification and appropriateness of viewing material. In the past I have had to voice my grave concern and ask the Attorney-General to intervene, in the public interest, and have the Classification Board’s decision on these films reviewed by the Classification Review Board. I have done this with, for example, the films Lolita, Anatomy of Hell, Baise-Moi and Irreversible, just to name a few. This bill was supposed to include several safeguards. The government has secured an assurance from the CEOs of major industry groups that, if this scheme is introduced, their organisations will act responsibly and in compliance with the scheme. This is all well and good, but are we willing to risk community classifications standards on these assurances? What happens if these companies move on or do not live up to their side of the bargain? The scheme is only able to be reviewed in three years time. This is a risk I am not willing to take. Another supposed safeguard mentioned is the training of the authorised assessors, who will undertake training provided by the director of the Classification Board. I cannot support this bill in its current form. I have no confidence in the safeguards that have been provided. When the opportunity arises, I look forward to amendments being introduced, either in this place or in the other place, which will strike out this bill to ensure the protection of community standards relating to the classification of film and computer games. I am extremely disappointed that this bill is going ahead regardless of the objections of many of my colleagues. 131 11:14:00 Wakelin, Barry, MP HV5 Grey LP 1 0 Mr WAKELIN —I support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007. It is a sign that the government is responding to the issues that the previous speaker raised, even though we may see things slightly differently. The bill has been well described; there are clearly two areas of reform of classification procedures. As my colleague said, the amendments contained in this legislation are in conjunction with those in state and territory legislation. The definition of ‘advertisement’ is important. It addresses the issue of new and evolving technology and the internet. There has been a lot of public consultation in response to industry concerns. The issue of piracy has arisen. I have already mentioned rapid advances in technology, which means there is quite a limited time frame within which to view and make classifications of film and other product. The bill also enables a legislative instrument to set conditions on the advertising of unclassified films and computer games. An aspect that was interesting to me was a strong new advertising message to encourage consumers to check the classification. I must admit that it is only in recent years that I have become more aware of this matter, the whole debate around it and what is actually occurring. It is quite topical, having regard to the discussion of the Northern Territory Indigenous issue as well. It is important to check the classifications, and that those classifications endeavour to resonate with the people that we hope they might resonate with. Industry based self-assessment is always the preferred method for me. I heard what my colleague said in the previous contribution. I am happy to have industry self-assessment, but I signal to the industry that if we need to firm this up, I would be more than happy to look at that as well. The general appeals mechanism, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal able to review decisions by the director, seems sensible. Other safeguards include initial and annual training for individual assessors, random and complaints based auditing procedures, and allowing the director to call in advertisements. I thank the Attorney-General for the work that has gone into this. In his second reading speech he stated: The amendments contained in this bill will ensure that the national classification scheme continues to serve both industry and the public well by responding to the needs of the rapidly evolving world of entertainment media while still guaranteeing the reliability of classification information for consumers. I turn to the explanatory memorandum. It states that the bill enables an advertising assessment scheme and a television series assessment scheme to be established under the 1995 legislation. Schedules 1 and 2 give the details that I have already described. With respect to the financial impact statement, the Commonwealth does not expect there to be any particular impact in that regard. In fact, it makes the point that the television series assessment scheme is intended to result in cost reductions to industry. That will no doubt be welcomed by industry. Item 4, ‘exempt film or computer game’, makes a consequential amendment to the definition of an exempt film or computer game in order to reflect the change in policy that unclassified films and computer games can be advertised where it is done in accordance with the conditions to be set out in a new instrument. The effect of the amendment is that a film or computer game is not exempt from classification if it contains an advertisement for an unclassified film or computer game that has not been assessed or has been assessed as likely to be classified M or higher. I do not think I can add anything more to the discussion of this legislation. I thank the Main Committee for its time. 132 11:20:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to be able to join this debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007. I suppose it is an aspect of human nature, given the fact that film piracy seems to be quite rampant, that people who commit this film piracy always seem to find new and innovative ways to carry out what they want to achieve. Consequently, movie producers must constantly come up with new and innovative ways to reduce that piracy. Technological advances, which have wide-ranging benefits, have also opened up new opportunities for those who wish to exploit another to make a quick, easy buck. We all know that, unfortunately, video piracy and computer game counterfeiting is very much the norm these days, and indeed it appears to be a growing problem. It comes down to legislators playing a role in introducing laws that will help control what many people see as a major difficulty. This bill introduces some measures that will support the producers of these products in further addressing what they see as a costly and unwelcome situation. Producers have been forced to severely restrict any prerelease circulation of their productions to reduce the opportunities for pirates to get their hands on a copy—a scenario which, unfortunately, can set in motion a process of unauthorised copying and distribution. An interesting statistic is that illegal copying is estimated to cost the international movie industry more than $US3.5 billion each year. The estimated cost of video piracy to the Australian film and video industry in 2003 was estimated at $100 million. It must be quite challenging—and I suppose you could say character building, maybe heartbreaking—for those in the film industry who invest an incredible amount of time and energy into creating such a work only to see pirates ripping it off to produce poor-quality copies—and, in some cases, high-quality copies—to make money. This difficulty is not restricted to film; it affects DVDs and indeed computer games. A study into the cost of counterfeiting computer games in Australia found some $100 million in lost sales for the industry in 2003 due to video game piracy. Further breakdowns suggest $21.8 million in lost profit for suppliers and $4.3 million in lost profit for retailers. It is understandable that copyright owners are not happy with those sorts of losses. Copyright is a system of law designed to protect the property which individuals might have in the matter the subject of the copyright. Understandably, copyright owners really want to see something done and the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007 is an attempt to achieve a legislative solution to what many people believe is an endemic problem. The bill introduces measures that will add clout to the ongoing offensive against the theft and piracy of such works. It will support those who have invested the time, effort and money to deliver these new entertainment products. In attempts to defeat the pirates, producers of films and computer games are often forced to release these productions quickly, thereby giving limited time for the usual classification procedures. As a result, the producers have little time to generate prerelease interest in their products through advertising. This bill introduces measures giving the producers of those films and computer games the ability to proceed with advance marketing and advertising within strict guidelines before the product has received an official rating from the Classification Board. This would enable the producers to build up consumer demand and get the best possible return for their product. I understand that my colleague the member for Makin expressed some concerns in relation to aspects of this legislation. I can understand that many in the community would be genuinely concerned at the measure in this bill which allows producers to proceed with advance marketing and advertising before the product has received an official rating from the Classification Board. Many people in the community would believe that there ought not to be any advance marketing and advertising until such time as there has been a classification given by the Classification Board. I see that the honourable member for Makin is nodding. That was the point that she was interested in when she made her contribution to the chamber. The government has come to a balanced decision with respect to this and there will be some people who undoubtedly will be happy with it and others, including many parents in the community, who will undoubtedly be outraged by this provision. Maybe this is a matter that the government can look at again because it is important to get the legislation right. It is easy to work out the reason that this provision has been included in the legislation given the challenges that piracy cause. But, having said that, you really do not want to bring about a situation where inappropriate material could well be publicly advertised before the Classification Board has had the opportunity of determining whether indeed it is fit and suitable for release at all. One can only hope that the producers of films will be somewhat circumspect in what they do. The member for Makin says that they will not be. Hopefully, the only productions that will take advantage of this measure will be those which would not be subject to objections from the general community. The problem is, once you have a provision on the statute books it can be accessed by those who have good intent and equally it can be accessed by those who have ill intent. Overwhelmingly the producers of films and computer games are upright citizens who would want to do the right thing. But unfortunately in a democracy we often have to have laws to protect the community at large from those who might want to do the wrong thing as opposed to the right thing. The people who are pushing this provision in the bill believe that the changes in the legislation will enable producers to build up consumer demand to get the best possible return for their product. The bill enables the establishment of a set of guidelines for the advertising of as yet unclassified videos, computer games and DVD TV compilations. It also provides for the creation of a scheme by which a product is assessed for its likely classification for the purpose of pre-classification advertising and promotions. This scheme will be self-assessable in the industry. I suspect this is another matter which would cause grief to the honourable member for Makin and indeed many in the community. With respect to DVD compilations of TV shows, the bill enables the Classification Board to be supported in its deliberations by an authorised assessor who can access any additional content on a DVD that accompanies a film production that has already been classified. I suppose one thing that I have always been concerned about is that sometimes these computer games have elements hidden within them which are not immediately apparent, particularly to those who might be less computer savvy than some young children in our community obviously are. I was talking to a person recently who spends 60 hours a week playing computer games and I just thought that that was absolutely appalling. But people who do use those computer games to that level obviously attain a degree of expertise. I can recall that about 12 or 18 months ago there was a computer game that appeared to be relatively innocent to start with, but lurking within the dim dark recesses of that computer game was material that was actually very dangerous. I suppose that is one of the reasons why many people in the community will have some misgivings about the extra opportunities given to producers of material to advertise that material prior to it actually receiving a classification. The member for Makin no doubt will continue to vigorously espouse the concerns of many people in the community in relation to that matter. I have to say I think it is a tremendous tragedy that the honourable member for Makin is retiring at the next election. She has been an outstanding campaigner for causes not always popular, but she has always been prepared to stand up and be counted. It has not mattered whether there was political angst to be borne as a result of the very strong stand that the member for Makin has taken, but she has been prepared to do it and I think that the parliament will be the poorer for her—I will not say ‘passing’ because she will obviously be a vigorous, active member of the community—political retirement. I want to commend the member for Makin. She has my unabashed admiration— TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mine too. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased that the member for Boothby agrees and I suspect you, Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, would also have admiration for the member for Makin, as indeed do others right around the parliament. The member for Mitchell is being quite silent, but I am sure he also has tremendous admiration for the member for Makin. What we as a parliament need are more people who are prepared to stand up and be counted regardless of the political costs. I am sorry that the member for Makin has decided not to contest the next election. The government—and I am hopeful that the government will be returned—will certainly miss her constant contributions. Having said that, these amendments before the chamber will apply to the Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, and I commend the bill to the House on that basis, subject to the reservations that I understand many people in the community would have in relation to aspects of the bill. 135 11:32:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I too want to pay tribute to the member for Makin for her capacity to raise difficult issues in the parliament and to truly represent the people in her electorate. I have visited her electorate many times and the way in which Trish Draper is regarded by the people who live in Adelaide—she is just a legend—must be seen to be believed. She has contact with all levels of her community and they all respect, appreciate and like her. A few do not vote for her, but they should. I think if she stayed there a little longer she would persuade more to vote for her than currently do. Trish has taken up causes relating to women and children, particularly young children, and to the prospect of the abuse of young children. I think my first introduction to her courage in this situation was when the House was considering changes to the classification of films and television. Trish played a role in bringing forward some horrible films that really were pornographic and that related to the abuse of children, and she was courageous in drawing the attention both of this House and of the Attorney-General at the time, Daryl Williams, to the problems he was creating by refusing to classify certain films, which I will not name, in a way that would have completely restricted their use. Trish sought always to protect the safety of women and children, and today we have the federal government seeking to protect the lives and ways of women and children in the Northern Territory’s Indigenous community—taking strong steps to ban pornographic material, taking strong steps to make sure that classifications in the Northern Territory are observed and that material is removed. The Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, is going after anything he can to make sure that pornography and the abuse of children does not continue in Indigenous communities. But here in this city, in Canberra, it is being created. It is being created in this territory to go to another territory. The government will take action against the Northern Territory, but another area where action needs to be taken is in the general area of classifications. The waffle that the former Attorney-General Daryl Williams put up has made it very difficult for classifiers. It is such an open and undefined area that I would hate to be a classifier because you are always going to be wrong; you are going to be too harsh or too easy on material placed before you. The lack of clarity in SCAG, the meeting of Attorneys-General of Australia, was in my view a detrimental step. Before he retired Minister Williams said that if the scheme proved to be more open under his regime he would change it. He never had that opportunity. I do not know whether he had any intention of doing so, but his statement at the time was that he would review the classification of film and television. Is this a prudish approach? No. Some may think that of me, but I think that adults have a right to watch material even though it may be destructive of their minds. I find it destructive, from the glimpses I have had of it. I do not like it one little bit. I find it extremely difficult to scrub it from my consciousness. I assume that everybody is somewhat the same, although some seem impervious to it—but not the Indigenous community, because night after night, day after day, they have been watching pornographic material and abuse of children— 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: we are swaying from the topic somewhat extraordinarily, and I really ask that the member comes back to the legislation at hand today. SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —You are sensitive to this issue. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke —No, I am not. I think this is an abuse of the parliamentary— SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —No it is not. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke —It is. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! The member for Mitchell has the call. SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr CADMAN —The abuse by the Indigenous community indicates that there will be a softening of process if there is no certainty in classification. The current classification guidelines show that there is no certainty. The classifiers cannot do their job. The review board cannot do their job. What is happening with this legislation? We are bringing a new group of material into a classification process that currently exists. Therefore, to describe what we are doing we need to know what the current situation is. I have described it to some degree. Unclassified films, computer games and publications can be brought now into a system. There is going to be more consistency now between different types of media than has formerly been the case. One area of interest to me—and I know the member for Makin was aware of this too—is the abuse in the series Big Brother. That series, which was created outside the studios and sold to Channel 10, overstepped normal classifications. I am thankful that there has been a bringing together of the classification of programs for film and television, video games, computer games and publications and unclassified films. I think that what is being done is an advantage. However, I hold, with the member for Makin, some really serious concerns about some aspects of this process. The advertising program has been changed so that advertising can go ahead at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way on an estimation of a likely classification made by classifiers employed by the firms providing the material. That is my understanding. That, for me, has raised some concern because there is a training program for this privatisation process. For Big Brother there were two classifiers. They are currently surveying the material as it is being made and after it has been produced. They did not do their job. That was obvious and it was proved later that they did not do their job. We are seeking some certainty that the training process in this instance will provide classifiers who are going to stick with the rules and who will be able to apply with sufficient vigour the processes desired by the parliament. The parliament is very clear and the minister has made it clear what his intention is. My concern is: will it be tight enough for the individuals who have previously strayed or individuals like those who have strayed? There is a simplification of the rules. It is supposed to provide a scheme which operates effectively in the current entertainment market. It is supposed to provide better information for consumers and promote compliance. They are the objectives of this legislation. So I have that one concern, as expressed. Unclassified films and computer games can be advertised with classified material only if an assessment has been made by an authorised assessor of likely classification. Such an assessment can be made only by the Classification Board or an appropriately trained or authorised industry assessor. That is very clear. That is what this legislation does. Industry assessors have strict mandatory training requirements on an ongoing basis—that is, initially and at annual refresher courses. Training must be approved by the Director of the Classification Board and cannot be training completed for other classification systems. For example, people who assess content for the purpose of broadcasting will not be considered as adequately trained or authorised for this scheme. There we have perhaps a difference, and I have pointed to that difference. This indicates that this is going to be a more rigid and certain process—and I hope it is. But our experience has not been good in this area. A new advertising scheme will eliminate unnecessary red tape and clarify legal requirements to improve compliance. It is limited to unclassified films and computer games only, and it will not permit unclassified submittable publications to be advertised and will not permit sexually explicit material likely to be classified as 18+ or material likely to be refused classification to be advertised. So there are two areas that cannot be advertised. There are all sorts of combinations in the ways in which advertising can work. I have seen appalling advertising of late-night television taking place at family viewing times. I have been to cinemas and seen inappropriate advertising or trailers of coming films prior to the presentation of a G-rated film. I have seen those things happen; they are things that the public do not want. The public want to know with certainty that what they are going to see is what they expect to see. The classification guidelines have been a problem and continue to be a problem. There is a prospect of people enjoying salacious, dangerous and violent activities over the internet and one on one with video games. That is a real problem and a real possibility. I am pleased that we are bringing video games into this process. It needs to happen and it is a good thing that it is happening. I have mentioned the problems with classifiers. I move on to the capacity to classify episodes. This is an area where I have previously sought clarification because it appears—and I may be completely mistaken—that a series such as Big Brother could be classified on the average viewing quality rather than on specific episodes. That is where I would seek some clarification. If there is an episode that is off, out of classification, wrongly typed for what is presented, then that episode really sets the standard for the whole lot. It is not an average that is being sought by the community; it is for the unexpected, the shock, the thing that parents do not wish children to see and that they are not prepared for. That episodical inconsistency needs addressing. Then there are the safeguards for advertising: the Director of the Classification Board can call in advertisements to the board for approval and a distributor must within three business days submit to the Classification Board for approval a copy of each advertisement used or intended to be used. So there is capacity for the board if they are concerned to intervene. It will address advertisements that the board considers describe, depict or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence, or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be approved. It also addresses material that is used or likely to be used in a way that is offensive to a reasonable adult, or advertisements for films or computer games that are likely to be refused classification—and I think also those classified 18+, but I could be wrong there. There is also a revocation process. The authority of assessors to continue to make assessments under the scheme can be withdrawn if they have fallen down in the eyes of the director. There is a capacity also for the director of classifications to revoke distributors’ ability to participate in the scheme if they transgress. The scheme proposes that the director can revoke a Classification Board decision on the likely classification of an unclassified film or computer game. Under the existing arrangements for exemptions for cinema release films there is an anomaly that allows films likely to be classified PG to be advertised during exhibition of G-rated films. This will be removed. I am pleased about this because that is the circumstance I described previously in my remarks. There is going to be a community liaison scheme, whereby a community committee is going to monitor compliance with the scheme. There is going to be education of the industry about the obligations and, where appropriate, the referral of matters to law enforcement agencies. There will be a three-year review. The government has consulted—and I have received papers for consultation. I want to thank the Attorney for endeavouring to bring my views into this scheme. I continue to express doubts because I have been bitten twice in this area, although not by the current Attorney. I am really concerned about the power of the industry and the capacity for state attorneys-general to take the easy option that will put the Attorney-General in a difficult situation. I would like to see that change because I believe that I am expressing the views of the community. I am not seeking to censor material; I am seeking to have greater certainty in the way in which things are done and have no failures. It is the nasty failures that produce the pain here, in my electorate and in families. It is with the unexpected and the nasty that people want to push the boundaries. This industry is notorious for pushing the boundaries. It will try to get away with the most subtle suggestions of things occurring. In some of the film material that I have seen—and I say again how I hated seeing some of those clips—there was violent and horrible treatment of human beings. If people want to see that and it is within the classifications of 18+ or RC, then so be it. From my perspective, we need greater certainty. I would be wrong to say that this does not move towards greater certainty, but there are still areas of concern. They have not been completely removed, but I am looking forward to a change. I hope that this is the start of the change that I have been looking forward to for a long time. Certain decisions made by the previous Attorney-General worried me at the time and nothing that has occurred since has alleviated that concern, and I guess that is the next area for attention. I thank the House for its time and I thank the member for Makin and once more pay tribute to the member for Makin for her courage and determination to make sure that families and family living have the prospect of stability and not abuse. There is too much abuse between family members, particularly family members that are not blood relatives, and we have seen an extreme reflection of that in the Northern Territory. 138 11:50:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr RUDDOCK —in reply—I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Advertising and Other Matters) Bill 2007—the member for Gellibrand, who I understand has confirmed the opposition’s support for the measure, the member for Grey, the member for Makin, the member for Fisher and the member for Mitchell. I hope I will be able to positively contribute to some of the points that have been made. The classification scheme is a difficult scheme because it is one that requires unanimity of view if you are going to alter the classification code and guidelines. That is not easy to achieve. There may be a view that these are issues that you might be able to use the corporations power and ease the states out of, but that has not been a position that people have argued or put before and, when you are trying to work through difficult issues, you try to ensure that you do get appropriate unanimity of view, which reflects the spectrum of views that I think we have heard in this debate. I would have thought that one of the aspects of interest to the member for Makin is that normally there is a coalition of view in South Australia involving the South Australian government and its Attorney and the member for Makin’s views. I find that. In fact, in relation to the efforts to enable a wider classification group of categories for computer games, it has been the South Australian and the Commonwealth’s resistance to that measure that to date has ensured that it has not occurred, and I think games are very different to films, videos and the like. I guess the member for Makin may also be interested in other legislation that we will be dealing with during these sittings which deals with the classification of products that may be seen to advocate terrorism. I sought amendments to the classification code and guidelines and thought from comments that had been made by some premiers and the Leader of the Opposition that I would have very strong support for the efforts that I had embarked upon there. Interestingly, when we went before the ministers, I had support from New South Wales and again South Australia but I did not get support from Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory or even the ACT. We will have that debate on another day, but the Commonwealth is persisting with an amendment to the act to achieve that objective. This issue is one in which we have tried to get a balance. At the moment films can be advertised where there is an expectation that they will be for general viewing. We get something like 100 films advertised now under arrangements which will not be or are not as comprehensive as these in terms of the vetting of them. I am not saying that there has been a bad experience with those 100, but the arrangements that we are putting in place through these amendments are to implement measures to the classification practices in recognition that those who now cannot advertise and seek to do so need to have a basis upon which that can be obtained. These reforms are to reduce the burden and cost to industry where they have to wait until classification, and to enable—and the point has been made by some—them to deal with advertising products in advance of classification where there is the potential for piracy to undermine their product if they cannot advertise and get a product on the market quickly. The bill has been developed to respond to industry concerns. We did consult widely; the member for Mitchell mentioned that. The public discussion paper on the scheme was released in August 2006, and overwhelmingly positive comments were received. The relevant industry stakeholders have been consulted and agree with the proposals. The states and territories, as I have mentioned, were consulted and obviously had to agree. The bill contains two areas of reform to classification procedures. It changes the way the classification act deals with advertisements for unclassified product and television series that are released for sale and hire. In relation to the television schemes—the member for Mitchell raised some questions there—although the content of television series is already assessed before broadcasting, the television codes of practice do not pick up the full scope of the principles contained in the classification act and the national classification code and guidelines and that is something we are seeking to address. There is different training and the Big Brother matter brought that to our attention. In relation to those series that might be aggregated and sold separately, and for which advertising might be undertaken, I am advised that the scheme will require the compilation to be classified at the highest classification. So if one episode is higher than the rest, it is that higher level that has to apply. The bill will replace the prohibition on advertising unclassified films and computer games with a new scheme to allow advertising subject to conditions which will be set out in the Commonwealth instrument. A new advertising message—a strong message—will be established advising consumers to check the classification. This new advertising message will remain relevant for consumers even where the advertising message has been superseded by the actual classification. An industry based self-assessment scheme will be introduced whereby the likely classification of an unclassified film or computer game is assessed before the advertising can take place. The assessor must be appropriately trained and authorised by the director. A stronger commensurate audience rule will be part of the package. This means that advertisements for films and computer games likely to be classified PG may no longer be screened to an audience for a G film computer game. The second initiative is to extend the industry based self-assessment scheme to include films that are compilations of episodes of television series. We have already mentioned that. The bill establishes a scheme where a person appropriately trained and authorised by the director may recommend to the board classification of the box set of episodes of a television series and the board will remain responsible for the actual classification decision. Both self-assessment schemes are based on the current approach to classification of computer games, which has been operating over 10 years—they will not be expanding that—and modelled on the reforms implemented for the additional content on DVD. As mentioned earlier, the bill includes a broad suite of safeguards. I am confident that the integrity of the scheme will be maintained and consumers will continue to receive consistent and accurate advice. The amendments contained in the bill will ensure that the national classification scheme continues to serve industry and the public well into the future. The amendments recognise changes in the entertainment media and ensure the scheme will not provide an inappropriate regulatory burden on industry. The reforms will also ensure that consumers continue to obtain reliable information about their entertainment choices. In the context of the discussion, particularly the matters raised by the members for Makin, Fisher and Mitchell, I took out the actual safeguards that I mentioned and I want to go through them, if I may. They are important safeguards and they are to protect the community from misleading and incorrect or grossly inadequate assessments being made. Breaches of the requirements for the advertising of unclassified material will be added to the range of compliance issues monitored and identified by community liaison staff, and they will continue to meet with traders and industry representatives to investigate complaints through a program of site visits in each jurisdiction. As you know, the Classification Board has a new director and he will be in a position—because the existing powers under state and territory legislation allow him to—to call in advertisements for approval. If something went up that had been classified by a classifier, was reported by the community liaison people as being a matter of concern and came to the director’s attention and he said, ‘This is clearly outside our guidelines,’ he would be able to call it in. Following the call-in, the board must refuse to approve the advertisement if it meets the criteria outlined in section 29(4) through to 29(7) of the Commonwealth act. The board must revoke an assessment of a likely classification of an unclassified computer game or film where the information provided to the board on which the likely classification was based was unreliable—for example, if the applicant did not include relevant information about the classifiable elements of the film or the computer game and that material were not properly entertained. The bill empowers a legislative instrument to impose sanctions on a person who is or was authorised as an assessor and to find that person unacceptable. The director may revoke the authorised advertising assessor’s authorisation where an assessor does not reveal classifiable elements in its report; where an assessment was misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate; where the assessor has not completed the mandatory training; and where the assessor has prepared two or more assessments that contain misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate information. A person who is assessing these matters will be deprived of their capacity to make such an assessment if, when they classify a film, they are found to have classified it on the wrong basis. The instrument will provide sanctions for unacceptable use of the scheme by a distributor, publisher or industry applicant. Under the instrument, the director may bar a person from using the scheme for up to three years by issuing a notice. A barring notice may impact upon a person’s business by making the applicant unable to use the advertising self-assessment scheme. That is a very important safeguard. The important point I make is that there is a capacity to review those decisions and that is in the interests of fairness and the AAT is involved. I did foreshadow that there would be a comprehensive review of the new arrangements to be conducted three years after operation. The review will consider the effectiveness of the new arrangements, including compliance and ensuring that consumers are not exposed to inappropriate material. My colleague the member for Makin has expressed concern that this review may only happen after three years, so I just make the point that I would be—and I hope I am in a position to be—able to deal with these issues and that, if problems were identified, the review could occur earlier. I give that assurance to the honourable member. I know that, in relation to these issues, those who would like to see some fundamental changes—which have not been possible under a regime that is, in fact, a cooperative model—often feel that in these debates we can extend greater supervision. I welcome the input of views that help and involve me in my discussions with my state colleagues to continue pressing the barriers, but I do make this point: at the moment we have a scheme which is unfair to some because they cannot advertise and which permits advertising that is not subject to the safeguards that we are proposing here. While some may think that the safeguards are not strong enough, I simply make the point that I think they are a significant advance on where we are. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to continue their support of the measure. Mrs DRAPER (Makin) 12:05:00 —I move: That further proceedings on the bill be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 142 Bills R2738 142 Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Dr Stone: That this bill be now read a second time. 142 12:05:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome this bill, which will extend the activities of the federal government in ensuring good occupational health and safety practice in the building and construction industry. By its very nature, the industry always has been and always will be a relatively dangerous place to work. But Australia’s record in this field has not been good. If we go back to 2003, when the royal commission into the industry reported, there were 37 compensated fatalities and more than 12,500 compensated injuries—or 34 injuries per day—in the industry. That is clearly a heavy human toll on the families of the bereaved and on the individuals injured. We clearly owe it to those who undertake this kind of work on our behalf to ensure that the conditions under which they operate are made as safe as is possible. Whatever pressure may be exerted to get the job done on time, safety should never be sacrificed. Cutting corners to save time and therefore costs is unlikely to pay dividends if the result is injury or death. Indeed, the broader economic consequences of poor safety on construction sites are also worth bearing in mind. Without wishing to underestimate the individual human consequences of such accidents, there is also a price to pay in terms of health care and rehabilitation costs, various benefits and costs such as higher insurance premiums. In individual, human and economic terms it makes sense to have a comprehensive, workable safety regime with effective inspections. We have to recognise that safety is not solely the responsibility of the employer or the employee. Both need to recognise that they have responsibilities. No safety regime will be able to protect workers if either party wilfully ignores its requirements. As a major provider of funds for construction projects, the federal government has both an obligation and an opportunity to ensure that work done on its behalf is carried out in a safe manner. No visitor to Coffs Harbour in my electorate would fail to miss two large projects currently underway, both part-funded by the federal government. The Hobgin Drive extension will take traffic out of the city centre and provide new economic opportunity for the eastern part of the city and the Bonville deviation to the Pacific Highway, which is a long awaited scheme by the New South Wales government, will take traffic out of a narrow, winding section of road which has been the scene of many fatalities and will greatly extend the dual carriageway in and around Coffs Harbour. Projects like these, with their own engineering and safety challenges, as contractors cope with the natural environment will, from the passage of this bill, be brought under the federal umbrella. The original Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act established an occupational health and safety accreditation scheme which applied to Commonwealth government contracts. The act regulated the appointment and powers of federal safety officers. Those entering into contracts with the federal government had to be accredited by Commonwealth authorities. The effect of the current bill is to bring projects, such as those mentioned earlier, in which the federal government is an indirect but significant source of funds, into the scheme. It seems right that the requirements of the government regarding health and safety should flow from the acceptance of funds, not just from the name on the contract. The bill provides an opportunity to further promote the kind of cultural change necessary to reduce death and injury on our construction sites. The bill will also ensure that those engaged in work on site are accredited for the whole of the contract rather than continuing on site after their accreditation has lapsed. Currently, the process for appointing federal safety commissioners is unwieldy and inefficient as a candidate has to, firstly, be engaged as a consultant by the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations before being appointed as a safety officer by the Federal Safety Commissioner. Following the passage of this bill, the commissioner will be able to make appointments directly, which will mean officers can be engaged and audits undertaken more quickly. There will be those who will see this as an attempt by the federal government to take over the responsibility for occupational health and safety from the states and territories. Clearly that must be a temptation as there are, as with much else administered by the states, significant difficulties. For instance, take the Bonville deviation, that major road project I mentioned earlier—a project that the New South Wales state government originally promised to fully fund and complete by 2003 and which they were shamed into commencing just late last year, with 50 per cent of the funds coming from the federal government. As with so many areas where the states have failed to deliver much needed infrastructure projects and services, the question could be asked: should the federal government take over where the state has failed? Narranga Primary School, the largest primary school in my electorate, has been refused a school hall by the state government. Circumstances such as these prompt many to ask: should the federal government take over schools? Our trains fail to run on time in New South Wales. Should the federal government run passenger services as well as being involved in freight through the ARTC? These are questions that are being asked in the community. The community is saying that state governments cannot run hospitals effectively. Certainly, the states and territories have not distinguished themselves in the field of occupational health and safety, but perhaps the idea of a single national OH&S system is worthy of debate on another day. There is much to commend the idea of harmonising our occupational health and safety legislation, just as in the context of workplace relations it makes little sense for a nation of 20 million people to have six separate industrial relations systems, with extra burdens being placed on companies which work across state borders. It would make much more sense to have one national set of regulations for occupational health and safety. Personally, I look forward to that day but, as I say, perhaps that is a debate for a later time. In the meantime we must work with what we have, and with this bill we will drive change where we can. This bill does not override any state or territory legislation, nor does it affect the right of entry to sites by union officials, provided they have a right of entry permit and have complied with relevant legislation—more is the pity, some might say. I am sure that in an ideal world the unions have a productive role to play in matters of health and safety on building sites, but I might have a hard job convincing Mr Ken Winton in my electorate of that. He advised me that fairly recently his site was visited by two officials from the good old CFMEU under the cover of a health and safety complaint. Mr Winton said, ‘I comply with the local WorkCover inspectors, but these fellows have a different set of rules, which are aimed at disrupting the job.’ As a result of the visit, a WorkCover inspector spent some hours on the site bringing work to a halt. However, Mr Winton advised me that there were no problems uncovered. The union visit therefore appears to have had little effect other than that of reducing productivity. I will move on to the Australian of Tuesday, 19 June for further evidence of the constructive role that the CFMEU plays in health and safety! It is good to know that this shining example of responsible behaviour comes right from the top of the union—in fact, from the federal secretary, Mr Dave Noonan. The paper reported that Mr Noonan, his assistant state secretary Joe McDonald and three other officials tried to gain admission to a site managed by Broad Construction in Perth. The admission was refused on the grounds that the gang of five did not hold their right of entry cards, which led to seven minutes of abuse and threatening language. However, I am pleased to say that there are some constructive players in this area. The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner was set up almost two years ago to ensure that workplace relations laws are enforced in the industry, and I quote from the ABCC website:  The ABCC also promotes proper conduct through educating industry participants on their rights and obligations. Presumably those rights are the rights of union officials to enter a site to investigate OH&S breaches, and obligations of union officials to carry right of entry cards when doing so. Clearly asking for proper conduct was a terrible imposition on the likes of the CFMEU’s Mr Noonan, who, as we know from the Perth incident, sees no need to carry his card. His good old mates in the Labor Party voted at their recent conference to scrap the ABCC without delay to save him any further embarrassment. Whether this outcome had anything to do with the fact that the CFMEU donated more than $6.3 million to Labor since 1995-96 who can really say? But if so, Mr Noonan might now be thinking that his money has not been well spent. Why? Because the opposition frontbench has somehow changed its mind. It has gone against the conference decision because it was shamed into retaining the ABCC, but only until 2010. Why 2010? Why not 2009? Why not 2011? Why not leave it there altogether? I guess it is an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to avoid blame for the so-called Rudd premium—the premium that some construction companies are prepared to include in contracts to compensate for the wave of union disruption that our building operators expect should Labor come to power. It is designed to get them through the campaign period without having to answer the consequences of being in the pocket of the union. Will all union thugs be miraculously banished by the year 2010? Will the world suddenly be a brighter place where unionists comply with the law? I think not. I think that, if Labor were to come to power and the ABCC was to be eliminated in 2010, 2011 could be a very rocky year for the construction industry. It could be ‘GST’ time or get square time. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —It could be a boom time too. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —It will not be a boom time if Labor is removing the Building and Construction Commission. We will have the shop stewards controlling the jobs again. Labor has made much this week about the plight of homeowners and aspiring homeowners. The consequences of being in the pockets of the unions and winding up the ABCC would be lower productivity in the building industry and, as a result, higher prices. How do higher prices, due to reduced productivity, improve the lot of first home buyers? It is easy to talk the talk on concern for first home buyers, but you have to walk the walk. Certainly the opposition does not do that. How is that going to help aspiring homeowners? If you want to see the kind of behaviour on the part of the unions that the abolition of the ABCC will unleash, you need look no further than the ABCC website and some of the recent press releases. I will quote some from this year alone. The press release of 23 February, under the headline ‘CFMEU prosecuted over alleged coercion at Hamilton mine site’, states: The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner ... has instituted proceedings against the CFMEU and three of its delegates over allegations of coercion at ... Roche Mining ... near Hamilton in Victoria. The 26 March press release entitled ‘CFMEU ordered to pay $9,000 in penalties for misleading workers’ states: The Federal Court ... in Brisbane ordered the CFMEU and the CFMEU Queensland to pay penalties of $6,000 and $3,000 respectively for making false and misleading statements to three employees at a Gold Coast spray paint shop about their obligation to join the union. Again on 26 March—clearly a bad day for the union—the press release entitled ‘CFMEU ordered to take out newspaper ad as part of court penalty’ states: On top of $23,250 in penalties, the CFMEU was today ordered to take out full page advertisements in the Illawarra Mercury newspaper to correct misleading statements it made to workers about their obligation to join a union. …     …         … Federal Court Justice Graham also instructed the union to destroy the CFMEU Code of Conduct for Union Delegates. The Code instructs delegates to ensure that all workers on site are financial members of the relevant union. Oh dear—$32,250 plus the cost of newspaper ads on one day alone could have gone into the coffers of the Labor Party, for instance, to finance their campaign against the government. It is just another day for the CFMEU. I have a different union this time. On 10 May the press release entitled ‘CEPU admits coercion at Bass Link site’—they are great corporate citizens—states: The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and one of its organisers have been ordered to pay penalties of $15,400 for unlawful conduct involving the exclusion from a building site of four apprentices. Back to the CFMEU again. The press release of 4 July entitled ‘Court imposes penalty on CFMEU for attempting to force painters to join the union’ states: The Federal Court in Sydney today ordered the CFMEU and a delegate to pay penalties of $10,000 and $2,000 respectively for attempting to force a painting contractor to make its painters join the union. My final example is 13 July, the most recent example: ‘CFMEU engaged in secondary boycott—Federal Court.’ Today, in the Federal Court at Sydney, Justice Gyles found the CFMEU and three officials guilty of secondary boycott offences. We will wait for a further instalment on that. It went on to say: As part of his decision, Justice Gyles said: ‘There could not be a clearer case than this of interference with contractual relations ...’ Yet Labor believes that somehow by 2010 none of this is going to occur; that all of a sudden the unions are going to see the warmth and light of some form of cooperation with community expectations and that this sort of behaviour will end. It will not. It will be to the detriment of the Australian community. It will be to the detriment of people who use the services of the building industry. It will be to the detriment in particular of first homebuyers struggling to get into the home market. I commend this bill to the House. It further extends the government’s efforts in relation to ensuring that we have an effective system within this country. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. 146 12:21:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 0 Mr MELHAM —At the outset I should declare that I am a director of the Committee to Defend Trade Union Rights trust and that has been recorded on the register of members’ interests. I find myself on my feet in this chamber once again to participate in debate on the building and construction industry. One could be forgiven for thinking that this government is obsessed. The bill before the House today is to extend the application of the Australian Government Building and Construction Industry Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme to cover situations where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity. An existing subsection in the legislation prohibits the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority from entering into a contract for building work with an unaccredited person. It does not extend to building work indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency. It also does not require an accredited person to carry out the actual building work. The proposed paragraphs 35(4)(b) and 35(4)(c) remedy this situation. The bill also ensures that appropriate accreditation has occurred and it will streamline the process of appointing federal safety officers. Labor intends to support this bill because it relates to occupational health and safety matters and we should support the bill. It is designed to allow the government to use its influence as a client and as the provider of capital to improve the construction industry’s occupational health and safety. There cannot be—and nor should there be—any objection to that objective. The building and construction industry is hazardous by its very nature and good management practices will assist in minimising deaths of, and injuries to, workers in the industry. Only last year the CFMEU opened a wall of remembrance in memory of all workers killed and injured at work. Each year many building and construction workers are injured at work and sadly some die. This parliament has previously dealt with the results of lack of occupational health and safety when it passed the James Hardie (Investigations and Proceedings) Bill 2004, which flowed from the need to ensure that companies took responsibility for workers’ occupational health and safety. In this case, legislation was required to ensure a proper investigation of the causes, if any, between illness and the workplace. That was the right thing to do and subsequently we have seen the results of that legislation. I have here a list of the workers whose names appear on the CFMEU wall of remembrance. These are the building and construction workers who have been killed since 1988 in New South Wales and sadly the number comes to 121. The list of those injured was too long to be included on any one memorial. I seek leave of the Main Committee to incorporate in Hansard the list of all the victims. I have shown a copy to a member of the government. 10000 Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AM Somlyay)—Leave is granted on condition that the document complies with the Speaker’s guidelines for incorporation. The document read as follows— CFMEU WALL OF REMEMBRANCE 12 Railway Street Lidcombe You are welcome to visit any time Monday to Friday 7.00am - 5.00pm WORKPLACE ACCIDENT VICTIMS HONOURED (listed in surname alphabetical order) Date of Incident First Name Surname Age Wall Panel No. (from left) Cause of Death 16-Feb-07 Tony ABOU-TAKKA 59 7 Fall from height 22-Jan-99 Douglas ANDERSON 34 3 Electrocuted 04-Aug-92 Jason ANDERSON 15 1 Vehicle accident 10-Feb-00 Morrie ATTARD 46 4 Crushed by vehicle 09-Mar-99 Richard AULD 48 3 Crushed by vehicle 11-Jan-98 Agim BAJRAMI 35 2 Nail gun 05-Jul-05 Luke BANDROWSKI 23 7 Unknown 05-Mar-03 Geoffrey BATES 51 6 Fall from height 03-Feb-01 Mark BEAVIS 26 4 Hit by rail bridge 22-Feb-90 Scott BENNETT 22 1 Electrocuted 22-Oct-02 Anton BEYTELL 37 5 Construction collapse 30-May-97 Glenn BIDDLE 39 2 Explosion 14-Mar-01 Rodney BILLS 53 4 Crushed by steel pipes 27-Jan-99 Predrag BOJANIC 57 3 Hit by train 26-Feb-03 Michael BOLAND 32 6 Electrocuted 14-Feb-96 Martin BOND 22 1 Hit by moving object 08-Feb-05 Brendan BROWN 43 7 Panel collapse 17-Dec-04 Andrew BUCHANAN 28 6 Fall from height 08-Jan-03 Marcel BUDWEE 22 6 Electrocuted 12-Nov-99 William CARROLL 34 4 Electrocuted 29-Apr-97 Sid CHALLITA 46 2 Electrocuted 17-Mar-04 Kow CHYE 63 6 Fall from height 05-Jun-02 Murray COLEMAN 62 5 Crushed by vehicle 15-Jan-03 Robert COWDEROY 24 6 Electrocuted 25-May-01 Peter CRUICKSHANK 20 5 Electrocuted 15-Feb-03 Trevor CUTHELL 30 6 Hit by excavator 21-Feb-89 Samuel DAHLEN 22 1 Electrocuted 13-Mar-03 Luke DAWSON 21 6 Electrocuted 18-Jul-90 Simeon DIMEDIO 21 1 Collapse of objects 03-Jul-95 Luke DONNELLY 18 1 Electrocuted 18-Aug-98 Darren EASTER 31 3 Hit by train 15-Oct-03 Joel EXNER 16 6 Fall from height 12-Jan-91 George FIDLER 20 1 Slides and cave-ins 23-May-98 Rodney FOX 38 2 Hit by train 03-Jun-05 Mark GALLACE 25 7 Crushed by machinery 11-Mar-02 James GOWANS 20 5 Hit by concrete boom pump 15-Nov-00 Robert GREAVES 34 4 Electrocuted 27-Oct-99 Lawrie GRECH 37 4 Electrocuted 06-Oct-90 Phillip GUASCOINE 23 1 Falling object 14-Jun-01 Ross HARIS 31 5 Chemical exposure 15-May-01 John HASSARATI 65 4 Crushed by vehicle 23-May-01 Cain HAYWARD 26 5 Hit by machinery 20-May-00 John HERIS 57 4 Fall from height 15-Oct-98 Andrew HILEY 32 3 Hit by train 07-Oct-95 Adam HILLIER 18 1 Moving object 26-May-97 Robert HOGAN 46 2 Crushed 30-Jul-99 Wayne HOOK 43 4 Hit by train 07-Aug-00 David HOPPER 39 4 Fall from height 27-Nov-02 Michael HOURIGAN 64 6 Crushed by vehicle 05-Jan-06 Paul HUGHES 41 7 Fall from height 27-Jan-05 Paul HUNT 51 6 Electrocuted 04-Sep-06 Matthew INGELMO 36 7 Fall from height 03-Jul-02 Geoffrey JARDINE 62 5 Crushed by excavator 07-Mar-04 Darrin KEELER 38 7 Unknown 06-Jun-01 Ronald LANSLEY 50 5 Crushed by vehicle 27-Sep-02 David LAUKAITIS 20 5 Electrocuted 25-Feb-02 Peter LAWTON 41 5 Electrocuted 19-Apr-00 Chun LIN 26 4 Crushed by truck 21-Aug-01 Peter LOCKWOOD 53 5 Fall from height 24-Sep-98 John MAHON 48 3 Fall from height 09-Oct-98 Bozo MARCELJA 59 3 Explosion 08-Sep-92 David MAWSON 19 1 Electrocuted 01-Feb-00 Dean MCGOLDRICK 17 4 Fall from height 10-Aug-01 Robert MCGRATH 44 5 Crushed by vehicle 22-Oct-02 Craig MCLEOD 34 5 Construction collapse 24-Aug-99 Barry MCPAUL 57 4 Fall from height 01-Apr-98 Andrew MILLER 32 2 Crushed by vehicle 18-Dec-90 Ben MILLER 18 1 Electrocuted 23-Oct-89 Thomas NASH 21 1 Electrocuted 02-Nov-98 James NATHAN 28 3 Crushed by machinery 26-Feb-99 Michael NAYLOR 29 3 Electrocuted 31-Mar-99 Brett O 'BRIEN 24 4 Electrocuted 26-Jul-88 Daryl OLDFIELD 23 1 Hit by moving object 20-Dec-99 Bo ORKLIN 57 4 Fall from height 02-Mar-99 Paul OSBORNE 48 3 Electrocuted 13-Nov-97 Guiseppe PAINO 62 2 Crushed by crane load 15-Jan-05 Michael PALMER 46 6 Hit by crane 24-Mar-97 Pietro PANEBIANCO 62 2 Hit by vehicle 24-Sep-98 Tom PASCOE 48 3 Crushed by objects 05-Aug-97 Darrin PERRY 31 2 Crushed by vehicle 03-Mar-98 Ljubisa PETROVIC 54 2 Crushed 30-May-88 Noviac PETROVIC 23 1 Electrocuted 03-Sep-99 Mark POI 51 7 Fall from height 10-Apr-99 Drago POLAK 52 4 Fall from height 11-May-04 Raghavengra RAMAKRISHNA 27 6 Crushed 30-Nov-99 Malcolm RAMSDEN 43 4 Electrocuted 04-Sep-04 Anthony RANDALL 63 6 Crushed 15-Dec-06 Aaron RANKMORE 21 7 Fall from height 18-Aug-98 Trevor RATCLIFFE 50 3 Hit by train 19-Sep-02 Greg REES 33 5 Demolition collapse 24-Oct-88 Bob ROMER 43 7 Crushed 29-May-98 Mark ROUTLEDGE 26 2 Electrocuted 18-Aug-01 Haralambos SAGIOTIS 62 5 Crushed by machinery 13-Feb-99 John SAID 39 3 Crushed by vehicle 20-Aug-97 Robert SALTER 54 2 Crushed by vehicle 13-Aug-01 Ray SCHMIDT 45 5 Crushed by falling tree 15-Feb-05 Joseph SCULLINO 36 7 Electrocuted 15-Dec-97 Gavin SHEARER 19 2 Electrocuted 29-Jul-04 Ronald SHORES 43 6 Crushed in tunnel collapse 12-Mar-97 Mark SILLITOE 28 1 Electrocuted 06-Apr-98 Michael SIMPSON 59 2 Hit by excavator 19-Mar-98 Jesse SMITHERS 25 2 Electrocuted 31-Mar-94 Selwyn SUBRITZKY - WANO 18 1 Fall from height 20-Nov-03 Jamie SULLIVAN 25 6 Crane accident 10-Feb-04 Ron TABAK 47 6 Fall from height 17-May-88 Wallace TERORE 40 7 Crushed by demolition collapse 23-Sep-98 Tony TOUMA 35 3 Electrocuted 29-Aug-97 George TSEGANIS 21 2 Crushed by vehicle 15-Dec-97 Matthew TWOMEY 20 2 Wall collapse 10-Mar-99 Paul URQHART 53 3 Crushed by vehicle 13-Oct-98 Rene VAN BOKHOVEN 20 3 Hit by falling material 24-Oct-04 Glen VIEGAS 28 6 Electrocuted 10-Apr-92 Timothy WARREN 24 1 Electrocuted 29-Mar-07 Robert WATSON 50 7 Wall collapse 21-Nov-01 Joseph WEHBE 40 5 Wall collapse 30-Jun-01 Lola WELCH 70 5 Pedestrian hit by truck 15-Dec-97 Darragh WHELAN 25 2 Wall collapse 30-Aug-89 Robert WILSON 23 1 Fall from height 06-Oct-98 Mitchell WOODERSON 45 3 Electrocuted 03-Sep-98 James ZARONIAS 43 3 Wall collapse 21-Jul-99 Sam ZIADE 52 4 Fall from height 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —It strikes one to read through the list and see the types of accidents and the ages of the victims. The causes of death range from electrocution, to being crushed by a vehicle, through to falling from a height. The youngest is Joel Exner, who died on 15 October 2003. He was only 16. Another victim was Glen Viegas, who was only 28 when he was electrocuted on 24 October 2004. Glen’s wife, Andreia, spoke at the dedication of the wall last year. I believe her words are important for us to hear again today as we debate this legislation. She said: I don’t want Glen’s death to be just a statistic. I don’t want our family’s suffering to mean nothing. I want his death to be a wake-up call to all employers, workers, governments and the whole of Australia. That is why I am so proud to be able to take part in the opening of the CFMEU Wall of Remembrance. This wall is not just about listing the names of people killed at work; it is about making sure their deaths were not in vain and forgotten. This wall is a reminder to every worker, employer or politician that sees it that workplace safety must be a priority, and we need to stop these needless deaths occurring. The message of this wall is that every Australian worker deserves a safe workplace and no worker’s life should ever be put at risk. Fifteen to 20 per cent of all workplace injuries happen on building sites. This does not take into account the lost time due to accidents which, apart from the human costs, bring the cost to industry to millions of dollars. That is why I do not have a lot of time for the ranting and raving of members like the member for Cowper when he attacks the CFMEU. I am not saying that all unions are lily white or pure, and I think that those unions that cross the boundary should pull their heads in. But I tell you what: the CFMEU has a very proud history and they have been at the forefront of occupational health and safety trying to save lives and injuries. The 121 people now incorporated in the Hansard have been killed since 1988 in New South Wales alone. What are we on about in this place? That is why you need unions in the workplace—because bosses cannot be trusted. In the building and construction industry, and in a lot of other industries, they put profit before everything else. That is why we as a parliament have an obligation to regulate a safe workplace. Neither side should have untrammelled power. But the government’s ideology at the moment is trying to force unions out of the workplace. In relation to occupational health and safety, the results will be calamitous because the statistics of death and injury will continue at unacceptable levels. I think the ideologues on the other side need to pull their heads in, because health and safety affects our community. Many of the injuries that result mean that people cannot come back into the workplace and it is taxpayers’ dollars that have to be used to nurse those families into the future and provide a safety net for them. So there is a dollar cost attached to this. That is not the only reason one should be involved, but I cringe when I hear the ranting and raving against unions as if they are all powerful and all evil and need to be stamped out. It is not true. Many employers have a cooperative relationship with the union movement. Indeed, in New South Wales when we hosted the Olympics, it was the CFMEU and the way they conducted themselves that ensured that those facilities were built on time and on budget. Our international reputation was enhanced as a result of the union movement’s positive approach to the developments that took place at Homebush. It could not have been done without a cooperative trade union movement. The situation is that construction is, by its very nature, hazardous. But these hazards can be reduced by effective management. I note the time and so I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed. Leave granted. 151 Adjournment 009CW Corcoran, Ann, MP Ms Corcoran —Order! It being 12.30 pm, I propose the question: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 151 151 12:30:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —I wish to raise yet again the appalling state of broadband provision within Australia. In particular, I want to highlight two cases within the electorate of Scullin. I remind members that Scullin is an outer northern suburbs electorate of Melbourne. In fact, the areas that I will talk about are some 18½ kilometres from the GPO; it would take only about 40 minutes to drive out there from the GPO. These suburbs are not out in rural and remote Australia; they are very much a part of the metropolitan heartland of the second biggest city in Australia. Here we confront the problem of not having seen a response from the present government showing that it understands our problem with the provision of broadband in this country. In fact, taking the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts on her word, she mistakenly believes that the services provided in metropolitan Melbourne are adequate. I would say that for people in a new estate such as Botanica Park, which is just above the Northern Ring Road—as I have said, it is less than 20 kilometres from the Melbourne GPO—civilisation, as we know it in metropolitan Melbourne, goes on for a further eight kilometres. Over many years I have tried to get an understanding from providers like Telstra that they need to be much more savvy in the way in which they have put in place access to broadband. I remind the House that we are talking about slow forms of access to broadband; we are not talking about great speeds. However, constituents like my constituent Angelina Luppino, who cannot get access to ADSL broadband, has been told that she should go out, lobby some of her neighbours and get at least 25 signatures and Telstra will then consider perhaps putting in another RIM or the like. What is really required is a plan such as the Labor Party proposes: to have cable to the node to enable high-speed broadband. That is what people like Angelina Luppino and her student son are looking for. I received an email recently from Mr Craig Lewellyn from Lynch Avenue in the College Views estate, which is located just below the Northern Ring Road. He knows what he is talking about because he actually works in the industry. He has moved into a new area—an infill development in the northern suburbs of Melbourne—and has been told that he cannot get ADSL connection. BigPond have suggested that he get a wireless broadband connection but, as has been highlighted in the many debates on this subject, that is at a price of around $150 per month, not including start-up costs. So why is it that people—such as the two I have mentioned—who move into and live in infill developments in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, are being told that they will be denied the same type of ADSL broadband access had by people in neighbouring streets but older estates? Just to illustrate the point, I seek leave to have this map incorporated in Hansard. I know that asking for this map to be incorporated is outside of the guidelines and it probably cannot be achieved, but I am willing to attempt it on this occasion. If I fail in that, I seek leave for the map to be tabled as a document. Leave granted. The document read as follows— HH4 Jenkins, Harry, MP Mr JENKINS —This map shows the position of these two streets, just above and below the Northern Ring Road. What we really do need to make Australia competitive is to make sure that the next delivery vehicle of broadband is a cable network that is accessible by the maximum number of Australians. Unfortunately, the ‘fraudband’ wireless WiMAX solution that the government has offered is not going to work. It is not going to work on the technicalities. It is especially not going to work in rural areas, where there are going to be matters of topography to tackle. It is not going to work and it will not bring any comfort to constituents like mine, such as Mr Llewellyn and Mrs Luppino, who live in metropolitan Melbourne and cannot even get access to what I call steam train broadband. (Time expired) 154 154 12:35:00 Elson, Kay, MP 6K6 Forde LP 1 0 Mrs ELSON —I rise in this House today to call on state and territory governments around the country to do more to protect our police officers. The murder of Constable Brett Irwin quite recently in Brisbane, while he was on duty, should act as a catalyst for change because it is a clear indication of the ongoing dangers our police officers face. To Mr Irwin’s family, I extend the condolences of everyone in this parliament. My husband, David, served as a police officer for many years, and I know Mr Irwin’s family are living through every police family’s worst nightmare. The story might have disappeared from the newspapers, but the Irwin family are still living with it every day. When Brett Irwin was killed, he was out answering a call for help. Our police officers do this every hour of every day of every week. They serve their communities in so many important ways and are literally on the front line on a daily basis. It used to be the case that the public, and especially young people, knew that police were off limits, that you did not dare even speak out of turn to a police officer, let alone strike or target them. Sadly, that is not the case these days. Last year, 123 people in Queensland were sent to prison for assaulting a police officer, another 72 received wholly suspended jail sentences and 15 were placed on intensive correction orders. Despite the fact that the Queensland government legislated last year to make spitting, biting and throwing bodily fluids at police officers a serious assault, with a maximum sentence of seven years, most of these offenders received sentences of between six months and three years. It is clearly not enough to send the hands-off message. While someone is being jailed every three days for attacking a police officer, as the Queensland Minister for Police and Corrective Services proudly said in a media release, the fact is that that means that a serving officer is being seriously attacked every three days while doing his job. It is even more frequent when you take into account those who did not get sent to prison for that offence. I believe mandatory sentencing is necessary to send clear messages that we will not tolerate attacks on our police officers. The Police Union stated recently that over 400 police officers have left the police force over the past 12 months. All this is experience lost—and it costs a lot of money to train a policeman. It does not send a very positive message to anyone considering joining the police force. We have to get this message through; otherwise, the situation will get seriously worse rather than better and there will be a shortage of policemen and women protecting our community. It will mean big problems in the way we manage law and order in our community in the future. This Sunday is the Queensland Police Union Pride in Policing Day. More than 2,000 police officers are expected to march for better pay and work conditions and more severe penalties for violence against them. They are standing for mandatory sentencing. They would also like the supply of a helicopter, which seems quite reasonable. They will be led by Constable Grant Sampson, who suffered serious head injuries when he was hit on the head by a bottle as he gave first aid to a man attacked by gatecrashers at a party in June, next to my electorate. What sort of person hits someone who is giving aid to someone else? This displays blatant disregard for the uniform and shows that the police need tougher and mandatory sentencing. The public have to know that when they make a decision to strike a police officer there will be consequences—no ifs and no buts. There will be no judge making a discretionary decision to let them off because they were drunk or have had a hard life. An attack on a police officer needs to have serious consequences. I know that most attacks on officers are a spur of the moment thing, but if people know in the back of their minds that there are serious consequences, I do believe they will think twice. We owe it to our officers to let them know that when they go out there in the community to maintain law and order and to protect and serve their fellow citizens, they themselves will be protected by as stringent laws as possible. I ask all state and territory governments around the country to introduce mandatory sentencing for this most serious of crimes. If we do not protect our police officers then we are allowing lawlessness to drop to even lower levels. Our police officers deserve our protection. We cannot legislate for every situation they face, but let us get serious and introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for those thugs who attack them. Let us bring back the belief that it is ‘hands off’ our police force. 155 155 12:40:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I want to talk today about an issue that is becoming increasingly critical in my electorate—that is, aged care and the lack of beds within our homes and hostels for the aged. This week I received a telephone call from an expert source within the Rockhampton region aged-care sector. This person is deeply concerned at the increasing number of aged people waiting to get a place in an aged-care facility. The source reported that the Rockhampton Base Hospital has a number of elderly people in its rehabilitation unit waiting for an aged-care place. The term that was used was ‘crisis point’. Apparently, there has been a great influx of patients into the Rockhampton Base Hospital over the past six months and the situation has become critical. These patients can remain in these units for only 35 days, after which they must be either placed with an aged-care provider or sent home. The problem with this is that these patients cannot go home for a number of reasons. Typically, they cannot go home as they do not have anyone to care for them there. In one particular case recently, the individual’s carer had passed away, leaving the individual with no-one to care for them and no alternative but to go into aged care. There are well over 11,000 people in my electorate aged 70 years and over. While many of these may currently be cared for by family, there will come a time when most of those not already placed in aged-care facilities will need to access them. It is imperative that there are adequate facilities to ensure that these people are not left out in the cold when they most need our assistance. In a meeting that I had with aged-care providers earlier this year, it was made abundantly clear that there is a shortage of all types of beds, as well as extended aged care at home and community aged-care packages in our region. Providers told me of numerous people waiting in hospital beds for aged-care places, with one person even having spent three months languishing in a hospital bed due to the unavailability of aged-care places. A quick phone call to a couple of local aged-care providers today determined that all had waiting lists, ranging from 12 at Bethesda, 40 at Shalom and a whopping 84 at Eventide. A number of providers commented on the number of individuals waiting for places in hospital beds that could be better used for acute care cases. Providers also spoke generally of the huge unmet demand in the area, with one provider stating that there was a 30 per cent deficit in beds in the local region. In June, Labor announced a plan to create up to 2,000 transition-care beds for older Australians who are currently waiting in hospital beds for an aged-care place. Our plan included an investment of $158 million for these beds and a further $300 million of zero interest loans to aged-care providers to make available up to 2,500 permanent residential aged-care beds. We are committed to getting our elderly people out of hospital and into appropriate aged-care places. This not only ensures that these individuals are receiving the care that they need and deserve but makes the hospital beds available for the use of the general public, as they were designed. Labor is out there listening to the needs of ordinary Australians, while the government plays catch-up on this and so many other issues. We know that, in the last 11 years, the current federal government has turned a net surplus of 3,217 aged-care beds into a national shortfall of 2,735, as at December 2006. The Productivity Commission’s Report on government services indicates that waiting times for entry into residential aged care have increased over the period from 2000 to 2006. Today, more than 28 per cent of people who have been assessed as requiring a bed wait three months or more to move into residential care, compared with 15 per cent in 2000. In August 2006 there were about 2,300 older Australians in public hospitals who should have been in residential aged care, as recommended by an aged-care assessment team. The current shortfall of aged-care beds is 2,735. If this shortfall were addressed, there would be beds for all those older Australians left, inappropriately, in a hospital bed. While older Australians are well cared for in hospital, acute care facilities are not equipped to provide the social interactions and personal environment that contribute to their quality of life. It is an absolute outrage that individuals cannot be allocated an aged-care place because there are none available. These people require care that they cannot receive at home and are in need of assistance immediately. I call on the government to act now on this matter and allow the aged people of Central Queensland the opportunity to receive quality care in an aged-care facility. 156 156 12:45:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —I rise to talk about an issue that I think is increasingly the No. 1 concern of people in my electorate of Stirling. That is the issue of crime and, specifically, the lack of availability of resources for the police to respond to crime. I am very pleased to announce that during the break in July the Prime Minister came to Stirling and announced that the Commonwealth would allocate $85,000 from the National Community Crime Prevention Program to help fight crime in my electorate, most particularly in the suburb of Nollamara and at the local Nollamara shopping centre. The Prime Minister took time out in July to talk to people there: the shop owners, staff and local residents. Together, we were able to make this very important announcement. The Be Seen at Nollamara Shopping Centre Closed Circuit Television Project will help revitalise the precinct, attract new businesses and create a safe and pleasant shopping environment, especially for young families and seniors. The government will provide a grant of $85,000 to the City of Stirling for the project, and this will install up to 10 modern digital CCTV cameras, control equipment and advisory signage at the centre. I, along with many local residents, was shocked in March this year when a 37-year-old man who was using an ATM at the shopping centre was brutally attacked with a pickaxe. The attack was totally unprovoked; he did not know the attackers. He was just standing there withdrawing some money. Obviously that attack resulted in very serious injury for that person. The result was that it dramatically increased fear of crime in that area and it increased people’s fear about going to, using and shopping at that centre. I visited the Nollamara shop owners on a number of occasions and I was disturbed to learn that most of the premises there had been burgled, some on repeated occasions, and there was a definite antisocial element at the centre. I was told by staff, particularly younger women staff members, that they were very nervous about walking to their cars after dark. Sadly, every shop owner in that centre had a story about crime, vandalism or threats of violence. They also raised with me issues of the chronic rubbish dumping that was adding an unsightly element to the centre. Tackling this problem was extremely important to me and I knew that something had to be done. Hundreds of people in Nollamara and the surrounding areas signed a crime petition that I instigated, which has subsequently been tabled in the Western Australian state parliament, saying that they were angry and fed up about feeling unsafe in their homes, unsafe in their streets and unsafe at their local shopping centre. We needed to do something for the community, and I joined with the City of Stirling in fighting for this crime prevention funding. In turn, we were supported by the local shop owners, local residents in Nollamara, the local action group—the Nollamara-Westminster Action Group—and by the local RSL. Of course, we were strongly supported by the local police. Once again, I place on record my thanks to these people for their tremendous efforts in lobbying to get this funding. I want to specifically single out for thanks the Harris family, who own the local IGA—Independent Grocers Alliance—store at the Nollamara centre. They worked very hard on this project. They have also offered to use their supermarket to house the monitors for this CCTV system, which had been a headache for the City of Stirling planners. When the Harris family volunteered to house those monitors, it solved a very real problem for the City of Stirling in this project. The total cost of the CCTV project is $121,000. With the Commonwealth providing $85,000, the City of Stirling is picking up the extra funds. I congratulate the City of Stirling on the way it has lobbied and run this project. The system will assist police in responding to antisocial behaviour and incidents of crime as well as help in investigating crime, including providing evidence for criminal proceedings. Under the National Community Crime Prevention Program, the Stirling area has already been granted $680,000 for important projects, including $44,000 for another CCTV project at the Carine Skate Park and $410,000 to run the Real Connections project, which deals with young people at risk of offending within the suburb of Mirrabooka. As the local federal member of parliament, I have had enough of crime and hoons in my streets. I congratulate the federal government on providing this funding to address— (Time expired) 158 158 12:50:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP 0 0 Mr BYRNE —Today I would like to speak about an important conference that I had the honour of addressing yesterday. It was the Lone Fathers Association conference organised by Barry Williams, President of the Lone Fathers Association of Australia. There were many people present from many sections of the community who came together to discuss one of the major issues of our time. Before I do, let me pay tribute to Barry, who has been involved as an advocate for separated and divorced fathers for 37 years. Barry, who started very much as a lone voice in the wilderness, has fought and continues to fight for balance and equity in family law courts in the areas of child support and access for non-custodial parents, who are predominantly fathers. This has not been an easy quest but it is one that he has fought diligently and passionately, and I think the conference yesterday bears testament to the fruits of his labours. In doing so, it again proves the adage of the effect of the power of advocacy, often against the odds, often feeling like a voice in the wilderness. But it is the advocacy of a powerful idea—and like all powerful ideas it has been subjected to intense trials and tribulations, and at times despair—whose time conference members believed had come. The lone fathers conference dealt with a vital issue which profoundly affects our community and our community’s future—that is, the effect of separation and divorce on our children and the consequences of this on our community. This conference has its foundation, in my mind, in the statement Barry made at the lone fathers conference in June 2005, where he said: This conference over the next couple of days will be dealing with matters that are as dear to our hearts as anything in our lives. It will be about our children and our relationship with them. He goes on further: I ask the following question. Is Australia heading towards a fatherless society, whether we want that type of society, and if we don’t what can we do about it? I think we all know the terrible cost of fatherlessness to our community. In economic terms, it has been estimated by Dr Bruce Robinson to be in the order of about $13 billion, but as we know this is only a figure. It does not reflect the profound consequences of fatherlessness on families and on our sons and daughters. In my view, the cost to our nation’s future of children who are denied both parents manifests itself in youth suicide rates; high school dropout rates; drug and alcohol abuse; behavioural difficulties; self-esteem issues; lack of trust in relationships; lack of role modelling in relationships, particularly for those children who are subject to a high-conflict environment between parents. These children are the meat in the sandwich, so to speak, who, I am told by psychiatrists and psychologists who work in this area, often believe they are the cause of the conflict. Often that has very devastating effects for the psyche of the children. There was a profound sentiment expressed by the lone fathers at the conference about the consequences for them and their children of separation and how they felt discriminated against by the Family Law Act and the Family Court. Whilst they acknowledged that progress has been made, they are demanding more—for example, enshrinement in law and practice of equal parenting time and rights, not just shared parental responsibility, because they feel this has not been executed in practice, notwithstanding the intent in the law. For the dads at the conference, they felt that if they were separated from their children by the law with limited access, how could they be the fathers they wanted to be and needed to be for their children? How do they feel and cope when they have been separated by a law which many separated fathers feel is wrong and see its wrongfulness in the effect it has on their children—that was a consistent point raised by fathers at the conference. How does our community feel about what many people perceive to be unjust in the areas of separation and child support? Do they feel like Martin Luther King—and this was a sentiment that was expressed—when he quoted St Augustine when commenting on racial segregation that an unjust law is no law at all? I was particularly touched by Barry’s mention of his own difficult circumstances in his national president’s report where he details how he was a victim—an innocent victim of the system. In his words: I was the victim of the system that stopped me spending time with my Dad when I was a kid, and my dad from spending time with me. I know how all of those kids feel. My dad’s in heaven, the system owes me. The best compensation would be to see it not happen to other kids. Barry has posed further questions about changes to family law but he sees this conference as being a very important turning point. I wish Barry well for the future because there can be few more important tasks for the health and the wellbeing of our entire community than a father’s deep and ongoing involvement with his children. 159 159 12:55:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Assistant Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —Friday, 27 July was a very sad day for communities across Queensland. It was the day that the guillotine fell on councils across the state, echoed by the shameful guillotined debate on the amalgamation legislation in the state parliament today. The Redcliffe City Council and the Redcliffe community in my electorate will be badly affected by Queensland Labor’s undemocratic, unfair and unnecessary council amalgamations. On 27 July Peter Beattie and Andrew Fraser dismissed the history and identity of Redcliffe with a plan to amalgamate Redcliffe City Council with the Pine Rivers and Caboolture shires. There is nothing ‘super’ for Redcliffe residents about the plan to create a super-sized council. Redcliffe’s voice will be drowned out. Redcliffe is widely known as Queensland’s first European settlement. Matthew Flinders first visited the area in 1799 and some 25 years later Redcliffe was home to the first penal colony, which was subsequently moved to the banks of the Brisbane River in 1825. But Redcliffe’s rich history and identity mean nothing to the state Labor government in Queensland. Redcliffe councillors, I might add, are completely demoralised by the forced amalgamations as the minutes of their 30 July general meeting reveal. I would urge members to take a look. Councillor Rae Frawley said that the heart had been torn out of her and the community. Councillor James Houghton said that the government had ‘lost the plot’. But the most revealing observation came from Councillor Peter Houston. Councillor Houston suggested that the council would be shut down in payback for their support of the federal government workplace reforms when he said it was due to:  ... the fact that this Council has aligned itself with WorkChoices in accord with the advices of the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) in respect of being determined as a constitutional corporation, which was against the opinion of the AWU. The role of Mr Bill Ludwig, National President of the Australian Workers Union, in the process was questioned, given his appointment to the State Transition Committee and given that the new council area would be the third largest in Queensland. Councillor Houston further suggested that the only ones deriving benefits from such a huge population base would be the political parties, which would give them more power. Might I add, that means the AWU. Labor is using the rushed local council reform as an excuse for a power grab, plain and simple. It is a power grab for Labor and for the unions and it is not at all about protecting local communities. I ask the premier to come clean on Bill Ludwig’s role and Bill Ludwig overseeing the local government reform and he should admit that it is really about consolidating union power. The people of Redcliffe see through this power grab. That is why 22,000 Redcliffe residents signed the petition and it was delivered to state parliament yesterday by Councillor Sutherland. This power grab is symbolic of a power-drunk premier, a man arrogant enough to think that he can rule for 100 years. Labor is struggling—he said it yesterday—to manage the economy. It is struggling to deliver on water, roads and healthcare. State Labor is completely failing the needs of all Queenslanders. Nevertheless, it was absolute sheer arrogance to believe that it can evaluate service delivery standards, financial performance and determine the viability of councils. If Labor were serious about reform they would look at reforming their own performance. You might recall that Premier Peter Beattie once enthusiastically explained that he would make fixing the health system an absolute priority. In February last year he even went on to say that he would stake his job on improving the health system. I’m hoping— and these are Premier Beattie’s words— that we will have a significant turn of the corner by the end of the year and, and if not, I shall fall on my sword and accept responsibility and that’s exactly what will happen. What has happened since then? It has been abysmal. The State of our public hospitals report for 2007 is sober reading. It shows that the level of patient service in the emergency departments is alarming. It is rated sixth in the country for the percentage of patients that are treated within a clinical time. But even worse, in my own area recently a well-renowned heart-lung specialist, Professor John Dunning, resigned from Prince Charles Hospital in Brisbane. He resigned because he was not getting enough funding from the Beattie government to run the heart-lung centre. He was not getting funding to train young doctors and to do the much-needed research. Ratepayers in Redcliffe will be suffering and they will be suffering throughout Queensland as a result of these amalgamations. All these amalgamations will do is increase council rates and reduce services for local residents. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 160 13:01:00 Main Committee adjourned at 1.01 pm 161 Questions in Writing 161 161 5645 161 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 March 2007: How many enlisted and civilian Department of Defence staff attended the 2007 Avalon International Air Show. In respect of those staff identified in Part (1), (a) what was the duration of their stay;(b) what was the cost of attendance for each staff member in respect of (i) accommodation, (ii) transport, (iii) conference fees and (iv) living allowance and (c) what was the total cost to his department of staff attendance at the 2007 Avalon International Air Show. What was the total sum of his department’s contribution to the 2007 Avalon International Air Show. 161 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Approximately 505 ADF personnel attended the Air Show. Information on the number of Defence civilians attending the Air Show is not held centrally and therefore I do not intend to authorise the expenditure of the considerable resources required to obtain this information. , (b) and (c) Travel costs, event attendance and cost acquittal are managed and approved at unit level across Defence. The requested information is not held centrally and therefore I do not intend to authorise the expenditure of the considerable resources required to obtain this information. The net additional cost for Defence support to the Avalon International Air Show was around $660,000. 161 161 5658 161 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 29 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 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. exceed 7 per day. On which dates did the number of take-offs and landings of international passenger aircraft at Sydney Airport between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. exceed 7 per day and, for each date identified, what was the total number of (a) take-offs and (b) landings between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. 161 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: nformation from Airservices Australia indicates that there were no occasions in the years 2000 to 2006 inclusive that take-offs and landings of international passenger aircraft exceeded 7 per day between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. Not applicable. 161 161 5665 161 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 Mrs Irwin asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 7 May 2007: Will the Australian plan to form a global fund to fight illegal logging and forest destruction include initiatives to reduce the clearing of tropical forests for the purpose of growing biofuels such as palm and soy for biodiesel and sugar for ethanol production. Is the Government aware that the greatest threat to forests in South East Asia is clearing for palm oil plantations. Is the Government aware of studies by the Dutch consultancy Delft Hydraulics, which show that every tonne of palm oil results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or ten times the quantity produced by petroleum. Will the Government’s initiatives include requests to the governments of the UK and the US to suspend tax rebates and targets for biofuel use. 162 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The government’s Global Initiative on Forests and Climate currently does not include initiatives to reduce the clearing of tropical forests for biofuel feedstock production. Yes, the government recognises that clearing for palm oil plantations is a threat to the forests of South East Asia. Yes, the government is aware of the studies by Delft Hydraulics. No. 162 162 5668 162 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 0 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 8 May 2007: What is the most recent information from his department on the (a) quantity, (b) price and (c) destination of forest products exported from states and territories in the Asia Pacific region. 162 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ABARE publishes data in the Australian Forest and Wood Products Statistics publication relating to Australia’s imports and exports of forest products within the Asia Pacific region. 162 162 5673 162 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 8 May 2007: What provisions exist within Centrelink to cater for the special needs of clients with minor or severe disabilities. Are there any Centrelink officers who specialise in working with disabled clients; if so, (a) in what way(s) are they specialised, (b) what training have they received, and (c) how many such officers operate in (i) South Australia and (ii) the federal electorate of Hindmarsh. 162 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: To facilitate equitable access of people with disabilities to payments and services, Centrelink has in place a range of policies and targeted servicing arrangements that cater for the special needs of these customers. These include, but are not limited to, providing: - people with disabilities with safe and equitable access to and within Centrelink premises that meets all Australian standards in relation to physical access; - flexible nominee arrangements enabling family members or other nominated person(s) to act on behalf of people with disabilities when dealing with Centrelink; - information to people with disabilities in alternative formats, including audio tapes and discs, large font printed material and radio; - sign language interpreters for deaf and hearing impaired customers; - free TTY services to enable deaf or hearing or speech impaired customers to contact Centrelink; and - assistance to complete Centrelink forms. More detailed information about these and other services is available on Centrelink’s website at www.centrelink.gov.au under publications. The two major publications containing this information are: - “Centrelink Information – A Guide to Payments and Services”; and - “Are you ill, injured or do you have a disability”. Yes. The main groups of officers who provide assistance to people with disabilities are Senior Customer Service Advisers, Social Workers and Allied Health Professionals employed as Job Capacity Assessors. People with disabilities also have access to other specialist officers – more information about these is available on Centrelink’s website. Senior Customer Service Advisers, formerly known as Centrelink Disability Officers, specialise in assisting customers with disabilities by providing information on medical eligibility for disability-related payments and linking them to services in their local area. They can also assist people with disabilities to participate in the labour market. Social Workers work in Customer Service Centres and Call Centres across Australia. They can help with some of the difficult situations experienced by people with disabilities and their carers. They can discuss customers’ situations and identify assistance options available to customers. Centrelink also employs a range of Allied Health Professionals who work as Job Capacity Assessors. These assessors conduct Job Capacity Assessments of customers with an illness or disability. These assessments may be used to refer customers to the most appropriate form of employment assistance and/or community support agencies. Centrelink has ongoing Disability Awareness Training for its Senior Customer Service Advisers. This training focuses on providing an awareness of different disabilities and the impact they have on customers. Knowledge of the impact of disabilities is part of Social Work curriculum at schools of social work at universities across Australia. Centrelink Social Workers have access to a comprehensive online library containing topics specifically related to working with people with disabilities. In addition, Centrelink Social Workers have professional responsibility to maintain their knowledge on all aspects of social work, including working with people with disabilities. They continuously improve this knowledge through professional development activities and working with the disability sector. All Allied Health Professionals employed as Centrelink Job Capacity Assessors, including Centrelink Psychologists, undergo intensive induction training and are required to maintain their professional skills by attending conferences, specific skills training workshops and participating in other professional development as required by their relevant Professional Body and/or State Registration Board. In Area South Australia there are: - 25 Senior Customer Service Advisers (this is an average level for this year); - 44 Social Workers; and - 51 Allied Health Professionals. 164 164 5679 164 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007: With the exception of industry programs, what programs are currently funded and administrated by the Defence Materiel Organisation. 164 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Defence Materiel Organisation is funded for, and administers, one Outcome and three Output Groups, which are detailed at page 241 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2007-08. Further information can be provided by the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation. 1 1 5680 1 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007: Are all public reviews requested by Government published on the departmental section of the Department of Defence website; if not, why not. 1 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: All significant reviews requested by the Government and approved for public release are published on the Department of Defence website. 164 164 5684 164 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007: In respect of the statement made on page 22 of the 2006-07 Defence Portfolio Budget Statement that “the Government has agreed to bring forward $625.0m of Defence Capability Plan Funding from beyond the forward estimates, including $153.9m into 2006-07. This is a result of improvements in project management performance of the Defence Materiel Organisation”; how does this reconcile with Table 1.1 on page 5 of that publication, which indicates that expenses of $337 million will be brought forward in 2012-13 and $343m in 2013-14, to a total of $680 million. What specific improvements in the project management performance of the Defence Materiel Organisation have generated the savings referred to in Part (1) and, for each improvement identified, what sum will be saved (a) for each year of the forward estimates period and (b) during the period of the current Defence Capability Plan. 164 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The variation between the figures on page 22 and Table 1.1 on page five is due to a different price basis being used. The figures in Table 1.1 are in out-turned dollars and the figures referred to on page five are in constant dollars. The text quoted in part (1) of this question refers to reprogramming of the Defence Capability Plan, not to savings. 165 165 5695 165 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 8 May 2007: In 2006, how many (a) Higher Education Contribution Scheme and (b) full-fee-paying places were filled at each higher education institution (a) in total and (b) at each campus. 165 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: Higher Education providers were required to submit final data for 2006 through the Higher Education Student Collection by 31 March 2007. The information is being collated, verified and prepared for publication. The information requested will be available when the data are finalised. This is expected to be in August 2007. 1 1 5696 1 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 8 May 2007: In respect of the inaugural United Nations Road Safety Week, which took place from 23 April to 29 April 2007, (a) what was the Government’s involvement in the event, (b) what costs were associated with the Government’s involvement and (c) does the Government plan to recognise the event beyond its specified dates. 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: The Government co-sponsored a delegate to attend the World Youth Assembly for Road Safety, held in Geneva from 23 to 24 April 2007, as part of the first United Nations Global Road Safety Week. The delegation of eight young representatives from across Australia was headed by Ms Sian Parker from the Tasmanian Road Safety Task Force. Ms Parker was selected to head the group from nominations provided by state and territory road authorities and was sponsored by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Tasmanian Government. At the Assembly, young people from more than 100 countries adopted the Youth Declaration for Road Safety.         Mr Joe Motha of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) attended the World Youth Assembly as an observer, as well as the Second Global Road Safety Stakeholders’ Forum in Geneva on 25 April and the First European Road Safety Day in Brussels on 27 April. The total travel cost associated with the Government’s involvement was $14,828. The ATSB is continuing to liaise with the group of eight delegates and the Australian Automobile Association to develop a plan to carry forward the Youth Declaration for Road Safety.         The Australian delegates will be invited to participate in a national conference about road safety and young people, to be convened by the Australasian College of Road Safety in August this year, and co-sponsored by the ATSB. 1 1 5697 1 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 May 2007: In respect of his department’s long-term lease for the operation of Avalon Airport: when did the lease commence; with whom was the lease agreement made, what is the period of the lease; what sum did the Government receive for the lease; under what conditions does the lease operate; which legislative framework governs aviation and non-aviation development approvals at Avalon Airport; and has the Government considered transferring the lease for the operation of Avalon Airport to the Department of Transport and Regional Services, and including development approvals for the site under the provisions of the Airports Act 1996; if not, why not. 1 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: February 1997. Avalon Airport Geelong Pty Ltd. Fifty years with a further option of 49 years. The annual base rent for Avalon Airport commenced at $150,000 in 1997. The rent is adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and is now also subject to GST. There is scope for additional payments resulting from revenue growth at the airport. An amount is payable by the lessee each financial year for the gross revenue it receives in excess of the agreed base revenue, with the latter indexed annually to the CPI. The amount payable by the lessee is ten per cent of the difference between the base, as adjusted, and gross revenue. Avalon Airport operates under the extensive conditions set out in the lease document that was prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor, and under applicable laws. The lease at Avalon Airport is framed to reflect the operation of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. Development approvals at the airport must comply with the lease conditions and any State laws which may be applicable under the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. Unlike many other airports which have been leased by the Government to private sector operators, the Avalon Airport is not subject to the Airports Act 1996. The Department of Transport and Regional Services administers airports subject to the Airports Act 1996, but Defence wishes to retain ownership and control of Avalon Airport as it may be of strategic interest. 166 166 5712 166 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 8 May 2007: What is the percentage of eligible (a) 17 and (b) 18 year-olds who are not currently on the Commonwealth electoral roll. What is the estimated number of eligible 18 to 25 year-olds who are not on the Commonwealth electoral roll and is there any significant discrepancy between this figure and the comparable figures for State/ and Territory electoral rolls. For the enrolment period following the issuing of writs for each Federal election since 1996, how many people enrolled to vote. For the enrolment period following the issuing of writs for the 2004 Federal election, how may electors aged 18-25 enrolled to vote. What action is the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) taking to ensure that the highest possible number of eligible voters is enrolled prior to the next Federal election. Following the introduction of additional identification and other requirements to the AEC’s electoral enrolment form, what action is being taken to ensure that otherwise eligible indigenous Australians, particularly in rural areas where they may not meet the identification requirements of sections A and B of the form and who would likely have limited access to ‘authorised persons’ or neighbours, are given assistance to enrol. What assistance is being given to non-Indigenous and otherwise eligible voters in rural Australia to enrol, following the introduction of the additional identification requirements and the difficulties in meeting the requirements of the form. What assistance is being given to ensure that otherwise eligible voters with little or no English skills, particularly recent migrants who are otherwise eligible to vote, who may not know their neighbours or be related to qualified Australian electors under section C of the enrolment form, are able to enrol. 167 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the honourable Member’s question is as follows: The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has provided the following information: The AEC estimates that at 31 March 2007 the percentages are: 77 per cent. 35 per cent. 410,000 estimated as at 31 March 2007. There is no significant discrepancy between this figure and that for the State/Territory rolls because under the joint roll arrangements the rolls are essentially the same. The number of people who enrolled or changed their enrolment details during the period from the issue of the writ to the close of rolls for the 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2004 Federal Elections is 428 694, 351 913, 369 966, and 408 770 respectively. 136 023. The AEC is undertaking a number of activities to encourage eligible electors to enrol or update their enrolment details before the next federal election is called, including: - continuing its ongoing Continuous Roll Update programs, including a major national fieldwork program from March into June 2007 specifically targeting about 1.8 million people whom the AEC believes have moved but not updated their enrolment. - continuing enrolment drives at citizenship ceremonies, including the arrangement of providing pre-filled enrolment forms and following up new citizens who have not enrolled at citizenship ceremonies. - implementing a comprehensive communication strategy involving a mixture of advertising, public relations, and Internet and print products to inform the community about the changes to electoral law and to promote enrolment. There is a strong focus on young people, and major activities included: the Rock Enrol promotion from December 2006 to February 2007 which involved an on-air triple j and internet competition, and signage and roving enrolment teams at the five Big Day Out Concerts; O-Week enrolment promotions at university and other tertiary campuses throughout Australia during orientation weeks in February and March 2007; a national press advertising and media campaign conducted to advise all eligible electors of the 16 April 2007 commencement of the new proof of identity requirements for enrolment; a major national enrolment advertising campaign from 27 May 2007 that will run initially for 6 weeks. The campaign includes television (free to air and pay television), cinema, newspapers (metropolitan, regional and rural), radio (including Radio for the Print Handicapped), out door and on-line advertising. The campaign involves three consecutive stages of advertisements, starting with the overarching theme of “Your vote is a valuable thing”. The first stage, which runs for two weeks, highlights the value of voting while serving as a reminder that the federal election will occur this year. The second stage advertisement, which will run for the following two weeks, publicises that “the rules have changed” for close of rolls deadlines and encourages people who are not enrolled or enrolled for their current address to grab an enrolment form today. The third stage advertisement highlights that not enrolling now might mean missing out on voting at the federal election, and this will run for the last two weeks. A further advertisement is targeted at people who have moved and not yet updated their enrolment address, this will run over both the second and third stages. The campaign will be tailored and translated for culturally and linguistically diverse audiences and Indigenous audiences. The press advertising will be translated into 20 languages and radio advertising into 26 languages as well as 11 Indigenous languages. Another round of the advertising campaign is planned for later in the year but this is dependent on the timing of the federal election; an SMS trial for requesting enrolment forms will begin on 10 June running for six weeks and will be promoted through the enrolment advertising campaign print advertising. from 28 May to 1 June 2007, a national Enrol to Vote Week was undertaken focussing on enrolling 17 and 18 year old students, with over 1750 secondary schools and colleges registered to participate; and a national birthday card program involving sending birthday cards to year 12 students (17 and 18 year olds) with an enrolment form, based on a successful Victorian Electoral Commission initiative, is being developed in conjunction with other State and Territory electoral authorities. This commenced roll out on 27 June 2007; and the Community Education and Information Officer (CEIO) field program will commence in July and expects to visit around 600 Indigenous communities in remote areas to encourage enrolment and deliver electoral education. Whilst the AEC is doing what it can to encourage eligible electors to enrol or to update their enrolment before the federal election, ultimately the responsibility for this lies with the individual. to (8) The Proof of Identity (POI) requirements for enrolment commenced on 16 April 2007. Between 16 April 2007 and 31 May 2007 the AEC processed 299,263 POI enrolment forms. Of these: - 90.2 per cent of people provided a driver’s licence number (five provided a passport number) (Part A evidence); - 9.2 per cent showed another of the acceptable POI documents to an authorised witness (Part B); and - 0.8 per cent had two people who know them witness their enrolment form (Part C). To date, the AEC has not received any reports of problems with people meeting the POI requirements for enrolment, and the level of enrolment forms received in the month after the introduction of POI was commensurate with that received in the month prior to its introduction. At this time it is too early to suggest that the AEC needs to put in place additional assistance for particular groups of people beyond its normal programs but the AEC will continue to monitor the situation carefully and respond as appropriate. 168 168 5714 168 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 7 May 2007: What urgent action is the Government planning in response to the 2007 Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When will the Government release an overall energy plan to enable Australia to achieve the CSIRO’s recommended emissions reduction target of 60 per cent by 2050. Will the Government increase mandatory renewable energy targets. 168 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr Howard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Since 1996 the Government has committed $2.8 billion to address climate change. This includes measures to reduce emissions such as: the $500 million Low Emission Technology Demonstration Fund; over $600 million to support the renewable energy industry; and international partnerships focused on practical action including the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and the Australia-China Clean Coal Initiative. The Australian Government also acknowledges the need to prepare Australia for the impacts of climate change as outlined by the IPCC. For example the government recently announced it will spend $170 million dollars on adaptation research, through the Australia Centre for Climate Change Adaptation and a new CSIRO Climate Change Adaptation Flagship. The CSIRO have advised me that they have not made any recommendations on appropriate emission reduction targets for Australia. No. 169 169 5719 169 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in writing, on 9 May 2007: Do carbon dioxide emissions that are released into the atmosphere absorb solar heat from the sun, contributing to climate change and global warming; if not, why not. Has he read an open letter on the economic impact of climate change in Australia, written by the business economists Mr Paul Brennan, Mr Richard Gibbs, Mr Alex Erskine, Mr Geoff Weir and Mr Saul Eslake and published in the Australian Financial Review on 2 May 2007; if not, why not. In respect of that part of the letter that states “on balance, we believe the risk that climate change will result in substantial long term damage to the Australian economy makes it imperative that government takes urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”, will the Government commission a Stern-type review into the impact of climate change on Australia’s economic prosperity and potential mitigation strategies; if not, why not. 169 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources 1 Mr Turnbull —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, light from the sun, also known as solar radiation, can be absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO), but only after it has first reflected off the earth’s surface. This is because reflection causes the wavelength of light to become longer, and longwave radiation (unlike shortwave radiation) is filtered by CO molecules in the air. In effect, this means that a fraction of the sun’s energy is trapped by the CO in the atmosphere. Over time, the trapped energy causes the earth’s climate to become gradually warmer. This is what is commonly referred to as ‘global warming’. I am aware of the open letter from Mr Paul Brennan, Mr Richard Gibbs, Mr Alex Erskine, Mr Geoff Weir and Mr Saul Eslake published in the Australian Financial Review on 2 May 2007. The Government has undertaken a great deal of analysis on the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gases and on the impacts of climate change. Numerous reports on impacts and adaptation are available on the Australian Greenhouse Office website and economic studies have been completed by ABARE and others. The Stern report attempts to weigh the costs of climate change impacts against the costs of reducing emissions on a global scale. Determining costs of impacts and costs of emissions reductions at the country or regional level is much more complex. There is considerable uncertainty around costs of the technologies that will be needed to reduce emissions and this uncertainty becomes greater against long time horizons like out to 2050. Setting a long term goal for reducing emissions and implementing an emissions trading scheme will be one of the most important economic decisions Australia makes in the next decade. The Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, announced on 3 June 2007 that Australia will move towards a domestic emissions trading system no later than 2012, and that the Government will set, in 2008, a long-term aspirational goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This target will be set after economic modelling has been undertaken, and following a very careful assessment of the impacts any target will have on Australia’s economy and Australian families. 1 1 5722 1 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 May 2007: How many Australian Defence Force personnel have been posted to Iraq (a) twice, (b) three times, or (c) four times and what was the job specialty of each service person identified in each category. 1 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: See the response to Question W35 from the Additional Estimates hearing of February 2007 conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. 170 170 5723 170 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr Windsor asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 May 2007: Can he confirm: Whether depleted uranium munitions have ever been used on Australian soil; and If such munitions will be used in Australia during the joint Australian-United States Talisman Saber 2007 military exercise. Will he legislate to ban the future use of depleted uranium weapons in and around Australia. Will he provide a full explanation of the scope and intention of the Memorandum of Understanding between the governments of Australia and the US regarding the use of live depleted uranium munitions. Are the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding likely to permit actions injurious to the future health and well being of Australians; if so, will he move to abrogate those terms. 170 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I can confirm that: No depleted uranium munitions have ever been used on Australian soil; and No such munitions will be used during Exercise Talisman Sabre 2007. There is no intention to legislate against future use of depleted uranium because its use is prevented by existing Government policies. and (4) There is no such MOU in existence, nor is there any proposal for an MOU to be developed on the use of depleted uranium in Australia. 1 1 5725 1 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 10 May 2007: For the financial year (a) 2002-03, (b) 2003-04, (c) 2004-05 and (d) 2005-06, (i) what sum did his department and its agencies spend on consultancies, (ii) what was the cost of each consultancy and (iii) to whom was each consultancy contract awarded. What is the estimated sum that will be spent by his department and its agencies on consultancies in the financial year 2006-07. 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: Department of Transport and Regional Services , (ii) and (iii) The Department of Transport and Regional Services’ 2005-06 Annual Report details total expenditure on consultancies. Details of consultancies valued at $10,000 or more are available on the department’s website at: 2002-03: www.dotars.gov.au/department/annual_report/2002_2003/P6-1.aspx 2003-04: http://www.dotars.gov.au/department/annual_report/2003_2004/pdf/DOTARS_AR04_Supplement.pdf 2004-05: www.dotars.gov.au/department/annual_report/2004_2005/pdf/12_AR05_Supplement-consultancies.pdf 2005-06: www.dotars.gov.au/department/annual_report/2005_2006/pdf/11_DOTARS_AR06_Supplement_Consultancies.pdf Detailed information on actual expenditure will be compiled for publication in the Department’s 2006-07 Annual Report. The National Capital Authority The National Capital Authority’s Annual Reports detail total expenditure on consultancies. Details of consultancies valued at $10,000 or more for 2004-05 and 2005-06 are available on the Authority’s website at: http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/corporate/publications/annual_reports/ Information on actual expenditure for 2006-07 will be compiled for publication in its 2006-07 Annual Report. Australian Maritime Safety Authority , (ii) and (iii) The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) expenditure on consultants for 2003-2004 to 2005-2006 is detailed in the table below. AMSA’s records for 2002-2003 are not readily accessible and to extract the information would require an inappropriate allocation of Departmental resources. 2003-2004 2004-2005 Consultancy Expenditure ($) Consultancy Expenditure ($) Acumen Alliance 3,179 Aeronautical Engineers Australia 46,368 Aeronautical Engineers Aust 7,671 AMC Search Ltd 12,000 Asia-Pacific Applied Science Assocs 20,108 Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd 8,000 Bentleys MRI Canberra P/L 24,139 Aust Marine Oil Spill Centre P/L 9,545 CSIRO 8,250 Aust Maritime College 22,000 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 8,332 Bligh Voller Nield 720 Dysaran Consulting 363 Compucat Research P/L 20,788 Edu.Au P/L 4,504 David Adams Ocean Racing 500 Egan National Valuers 660 Davidson Wilson-Solutions P/L 1,440 Innovative Process Group P/L 13,198 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 15,909 Intelligent Futures P/L 11,000 Det Norske Veritas 119,000 Leeder Consulting 22,352 Dimension Data Australia P/L 63,810 Maunsell Aust P/L 143,922 Ernst & Young 107,185 Maxim Chartered Accountants 34,868 GHD Pty Ltd 333,680 Mercer Human Resource Consulting 2,747 HSA Systems P/L 5,028 Pivot Maritime International P/L 38,385 Leeder Consulting 44,656 PriceWaterhouseCoopers 403,709 Maunsell Australia P/L 3,184 Sinclair Business Training 3,525 Maxim Chartered Accountants 495 Sinclair Knight Merz 23,601 Mike Garnett Strategic HR 2,000 Pitt & Sherry Holdings P/L 2,672 Pivot Maritime International 4,546 PriceWaterhouseCoopers 94,368 Rider Hunt Canberra P/L 1,093 TFG International P/L 11,189 Thompson Clarke Shipping 69,902 University of Canberra 7,308 University of Technology Syd 5,909 Volante 13,160 Walter Turnbull Financial Planning 3,480 TOTAL $774,513 TOTAL $1,029,935 2005-2006 Consultancy Expenditure ($) Aeronautical Engineers Aust 45,867 Asia-Pacific Applied Science Assocs 4,680 Aust Maritime College 22,000 Australian Valuation Office 16,887 Australian Valuation Partners 2,800 Bligh Voller Nield 8,560 BlueField Consulting 179,905 Business Aspect P/L 13,804 C2C Consulting P/L 3,636 Combe Pearson Reynolds 370 Commvault Systems (Aust) P/L 9,846 Compucat Research P/L 6,094 EMC Technologies P/L 50,477 Ernst & Young 27,300 GHD P/L 352,548 Global Learning 5,430 GWA Consultants Australia P/L 450 Haylock Maritime P/L 1,980 Health Services Australia Ltd 38,250 Hewlett Packard Australia Ltd 12,280 Leeder Consulting 4,610 Lloyd’s Register Rail Ltd 4,499 Minter Ellison 30,400 Norton White 8,720 NSW Dept of Commerce 2,120 PriceWaterhouseCoopers 24,018 Sinclair Knight Merz 12,323 TFG International P/L 2,975 Thompson Clarke Shipping 23,117 TriSigma P/L 33,542 Uni of Canberra 5,677 Uni of South Australia 110,211 Uni of Technology Sydy 4,546 Walter Brooke and Associates P/L 21,900 TOTAL $1,091,821 Airservices Australia , (ii), (iii) and (2) Airservices’ current accounting practices do not differentiate between expenditure on contracts and consultants, nor between managerial, operational or capital works expenditure within those two categories. To manually process financial records to answer this question would require an inappropriate diversion of resources. Civil Aviation Safety Authority , (ii) and (iii) The Civil Aviation Safety Authority expenditure on consultants for 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 is detailed in the tables below. 2002-03 2003-04 Consultancy Expenditure ($) Consultancy Expenditure ($) Australian Electoral Commission 3,160 I & J Anderson Nominees Pty Ltd 8,570 Corrs Schneider Pty Ltd 2,900 Interaction Consulting Group 10,835 Enelle Consulting Pty Ltd 12,000 Jancris Pty Ltd T/As Pinpoint Solutions 39,718 Han-Bry Pty Ltd 12,200 KPMG 143,500 Interaction Consulting Group 129,301 Flojon Consulting 1,363 Jancris Pty Ltd T/As Pinpoint Solutions 45,820 Rudds Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd 1,780 KPMG 12,000 Townes Chappell Mudgway Pty Ltd 600 Mercer Human Resource Consulting 86,750 University of South Australia 100,000 Nicki Kenvyn 20,000 Urbis JHD Pty Ltd 1,000 Pro-Safety Consultants Pty Ltd 27,180 Australian Government Actuary 6,500 R B Scott 360 Acumen Alliance Pty Ltd 55,422 TOTAL $407,093 TOTAL $313,866 2004-05 Consultancy Expenditure ($) Dascem Holdings Pty Ltd 4,750 DSI Consulting 23,800 Enelle Consulting Pty Ltd 7,500 Jancris Pty Ltd T/As Pinpoint Solutions 86,662 Property Concept and Management 19,600 Workplace Research Associates Pty Ltd 29,773 Davidson Wilson Solutions Pty Ltd 6,010 Graham A Brown & Associates 5,368 Acurmen Alliance Pty Ltd 231,977 Inthink Pty Ltd 44,466 Interiors Australia Pty Ltd 3,520 TOTAL $463,426 2005-06 Consultancy Expenditure ($) Accenture Australia Holdings 14,849 Australian Valuation Office 15,181 Bruce Malcolm Davis 10,175 Dalmahoy Graham Consulting 4,174 Davidson Trahaire Corpsych Pty Ltd 5,681 Dr Robert Liddell 4,225 Effective People 113,876 EP SRC Solutions Pty Ltd 30,402 Han-Bry Pty Ltd 27,600 I & J Anderson Nominees Pty Ltd 8,012 KPMG 1,280 Largnagreena Management Pty Ltd 1,200 Pat Farrelly & Associates Pty Ltd 22,119 R Lee & S Burdekin Pty Ltd 2,000 R Huntley & Associates Pty Ltd 104,421 St John Of God Corp Health Services 12,966 Stecol Consulting Pty Ltd 1,450 Stratsec.Net Pty Ltd 4,800 Aeronautical Design Service 18,000 Allen Consulting Group 86,080 Total Decision support Pty Ltd 54,600 Walter Turnbull Pty Ltd 275,486 Sabdent Pty Ltd 18,991 Acumen Alliance Pty Ltd 243,232 D M Coles Pty Ltd 6,750 Lambert Rehbein Pty Ltd 69,289 Forensair 2,727 Sparke Helmore 11,517 Australian Public Service Commission 1,490 Colliers International Consultancy 10,000 TOTAL $1,182,573 174 174 5727 174 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 Mr Kerr asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 10 May 2007: Why was no action taken by the Government in respect of breaches of the foreign ownership laws applying to Qantas. 175 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 Qantas Sale Act 1992 requires Qantas, in its Articles of Association, to include and enforce measures to ‘impose restrictions on the issue and ownership of shares’ to foreign persons or airlines. Qantas has provisions in its Constitution to give effect to these requirements. Qantas has advised the Government and the market that it actively monitors its level of foreign ownership and considers that the level of foreign ownership in the company complies with the regulatory requirement of 49 per cent foreign shareholding. The Government is continuing to work with Qantas to ensure its systems for monitoring foreign ownership meet the requirements of the Qantas Sale Act. 175 175 5731 175 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 10 May 2007: Further to the Minister’s reply to Part (3) of question No. 5387 that “internal SBS programming decision are the responsibility of the SBS Board and Executive”, can the Minister advise Whether the Minister, any agencies or any other person, can formally investigate alleged breaches of the SBS Charter that are said to arise from programming decisions and Whether the Minister or a government agency could formally seek the compliance of the SBS Board and Executive with the terms of the SBS Charter if they are found to have been breached because of programming decisions; if so , how, if not, why not. 175 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: Section 10 of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 sets out the duties of the Board, which include developing codes of practice relating to programming matters; notifying the Codes to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA); and publicising the SBS’s policies on the handling of complaints. The SBS Codes of Practice set the benchmark for SBS programming. They set out the principles and policies followed by SBS in fulfilling its Charter obligations to provide multicultural and multilingual programming to all Australians. Sections 150 to 153 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 set out the independent complaints process to which the SBS is subject. As with all other broadcasters, SBS must have had an opportunity to respond to programming complaints, prior to a complaint being referred to ACMA. Complaints about the SBS referred to the ACMA must relate to the SBS Codes of Practice. If ACMA is satisfied that the complaint is justified, it may recommend that the SBS take action to comply with the relevant code of practice or take such other action as it considers appropriate, including broadcasting an apology. The SBS has 30 days to take the action that ACMA recommends. If it does not do so, ACMA may give the Minister a written report on the matter which must be presented to Parliament within seven sitting days. See answer to (a). 176 176 5732 176 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 10 May 2007: Further to the Minister’s reply to Part (2) of question No. 5388 that the Government “has no power to direct the SBS in relation to programming matters”, can the Minister advise whether programming decisions that are in breach of SBS Charter requirements to provide “multilingual and multicultural radio and television services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and in doing so, reflect Australia’s multicultural society” may be made by the SBS Board and Executive. What action may be taken against the SBS Board or Executive if it is found to have made programming decisions that are inconsistent with the terms of the SBS Charter. Can the SBS Board or Executive be compelled to realign programming decisions with the requirements of the SBS Charter; if so, how; if not, why not. 176 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: It is the responsibility of the SBS Board under Section 9 of the Special Broadcasting Services Act 1991 (the SBS Act) to ensure SBS performs its functions ‘in a proper, efficient and economical manner and with the maximum benefit to the people of Australia’. Section 10 requires, the Board ensure SBS has well developed programming policies and complaints handling processes which are extensively publicised. Complaints about the SBS referred to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) must relate to the SBS Codes of Practice. If ACMA is satisfied that the complaint is justified, it may recommend that the SBS take action to comply with the relevant code of practice or take such other action as it considers appropriate, including broadcasting an apology. The SBS has 30 days to take the action that ACMA recommends. If it does not do so, ACMA may give the Minister a written report on the matter which must be presented to Parliament within seven sitting days. See answers to (1) and (2) above. 176 176 5733 176 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 10 May 2007: Further to the Minister’s reply to Part (2) of question No. 5389, will the Minister explain why the Government will not amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to allow proceedings to be brought in a court to enforce the SBS Charter. 176 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: The SBS operates as an independent public service broadcaster with significant commercial interests and activities and with a Board with governance arrangements that are broadly consistent with the Board Template as outlined in the Uhrig Review. The broad strategic direction for the SBS is set by its Charter which is contained in s6 of the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act). The Board has been delegated responsibility for performance. Under Section 9 of the SBS Act the Board is required to ensure SBS performs its functions ‘in a proper, efficient and economical manner and with the maximum benefit to the people of Australia’. The Government does not believe it is appropriate to amend the SBS Act as suggested by the Member for Lowe. As is standard for Commonwealth Statutory Authorities such as the SBS, the SBS is subject to a range of accountability and governance measures to monitor its performance and compliance with the terms of its legislation and Charter. These measures include the preparation of Corporate Plans, Annual Reports, Budget Statements, and appearances before Parliamentary Committees such as Legislative Estimates Committees. 177 177 5736 177 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 Mr Bowen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 21 May 2007: How many suburbs across Australia have had their postcodes changed since 2000. For each suburb identified in Part (1), (a) what is its name, (b) on what date was the postcode changed and (c) what was the reason for the change. 177 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, based on advice from Australia Post: 243 and (b) The attached extract from Australia Post’s PCODE database lists the suburbs that have undergone postcode changes from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2007 and the dates the changes were entered into the database. Australia Post has advised that while these dates may not be the actual dates the changes came into effect, they are indicative of when the changes occurred. (c) The PCODE database does not normally include the reason for a change of postcode. Australia Post has advised that changes generally occur for the following reasons: as a result of the Rural Roadside Numbering project (this is a state government initiative undertaken by local councils to ensure all properties are numbered in accordance with national standards); as a result of the realignment of locality boundaries by state and territory government land administration agencies; to accommodate areas with large population growth; to provide specific postcodes for post office box suites; and changed mail circulation arrangements. Attachment A POSTCODE CHANGES 1 JANUARY 2000 to 31 MAY 2007 State/Postcode Locality/Suburb Date Northern Territory 0840 DUNDEE BEACH 12/07/2000 0840 DUNDEE DOWNS 12/07/2000 0838 BERRY SPRINGS 17/09/2002 0841 DARWIN RIVER 17/09/2002 New South Wales 2541 BANGALEE 03/04/2000 2446 FRAZERS CREEK 17/05/2000 2142 HOLROYD 21/06/2000 2650 COLLINGULLIE 13/07/2000 2464 MICALO ISLAND 21/11/2000 1515 WEST CHATSWOOD 15/03/2001 2617 UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA 25/01/2002 2250 MOONEY MOONEY CREEK 06/05/2002 2535 BUNDEWALLAH 02/07/2002 2620 TINDERRY 27/08/2002 2462 DIGGERS CAMP 18/10/2002 2382 WILLALA 08/07/2003 2650 MAXWELL 11/11/2003 2876 NELUNGALOO 26/05/2004 2172 VOYAGER POINT 29/06/2004 2174 EDMONDSON PARK 29/06/2004 2178 CECIL PARK 11/07/2004 2179 AUSTRAL 12/07/2004 2555 BADGERYS CREEK 13/07/2004 2556 BRINGELLY 14/07/2004 2557 CATHERINE FIELD 15/07/2004 2794 HOVELLS CREEK 19/10/2004 2622 MERRICUMBENE 18/02/2005 2622 MURRENGENBURG 18/02/2005 2665 QUANDARY 04/07/2005 2387 BULYEROI 25/07/2005 2550 GREENDALE 08/09/2005 2480 BOAT HARBOUR 20/09/2005 2551 NUNGATTA 28/09/2005 2671 NORTH YALGOGRIN 21/03/2006 2550 STONY CREEK 28/03/2006 2460 ALICE 07/04/2006 2454 BIELSDOWN HILLS 04/05/2006 2454 BUFFER CREEK 04/05/2006 2454 MARX HILL 04/05/2006 Victoria 3352 MOUNT EGERTON 14/06/2000 3204 PATTERSON 26/06/2000 8006 ABECKETT STREET 13/07/2000 8009 FLINDERS LANE 13/07/2000 3941 ST ANDREWS BEACH 03/08/2000 3821 ROKEBY 04/08/2000 3564 SIMMIE 14/08/2000 3318 LANGKOOP 14/09/2000 3072 REGENT WEST 06/11/2000 3250 ELLIMINYT 28/12/2000 3551 PILCHERS BRIDGE 28/12/2000 3393 WILKUR 23/01/2001 3463 SHELBOURNE 31/01/2001 3145 DARLING SOUTH 13/02/2001 3249 POMBORNEIT EAST 13/02/2001 3300 BYADUK NORTH 13/02/2001 3292 NELSON 13/02/2001 3525 GRANITE FLAT 13/02/2001 3537 CANARY ISLAND 13/02/2001 3463 WOODSTOCK WEST 13/02/2001 3579 MEERING WEST 13/02/2001 3960 GUNYAH 13/02/2001 3518 FIERY FLAT 30/04/2001 3673 LURG 30/04/2001 3678 TARRAWINGEE 01/05/2001 3294 VICTORIA POINT 03/05/2001 3312 MUNTHAM 03/05/2001 3352 SULKY 04/05/2001 3364 CABBAGE TREE 04/05/2001 3195 PARKDALE 07/05/2001 3685 NORONG CENTRAL 06/07/2001 3103 BALWYN EAST 27/07/2001 3956 WALKERVILLE SOUTH 15/08/2001 3915 TUERONG 19/09/2001 3350 LAKE WENDOUREE 19/10/2001 3691 BONEGILLA 07/01/2002 3012 BROOKLYN 22/02/2002 3123 AUBURN 06/06/2002 3036 KEILOR NORTH 02/07/2002 3352 BARKSTEAD 18/06/2003 3352 LAMPLOUGH 07/11/2003 3352 LANGI KAL KAL 07/11/2003 3384 FRENCHMANS 07/11/2003 3469 GLENLOFTY 07/11/2003 3469 GLENPATRICK 07/11/2003 3478 TANWOOD 07/11/2003 3478 WARRENMANG 07/11/2003 3585 SPEEWA 11/11/2003 3478 PERCYDALE 12/11/2003 3413 NEUARPURR 16/03/2004 3418 LAWLOIT 10/05/2004 3678 WHITLANDS 23/06/2004 3579 BAEL BAEL 02/08/2004 3682 LILLIPUT 02/08/2004 3579 APPIN 03/08/2004 3568 GANNAWARRA 04/08/2004 3568 MINCHA WEST 04/08/2004 3579 MYSTIC PARK 04/08/2004 3579 SANDHILL LAKE 04/08/2004 3468 MOUNT LONARCH 30/08/2004 3414 TARRANYURK 11/10/2004 3468 AMPHITHEATRE 23/11/2004 3691 BARNAWARTHA NORTH 04/02/2005 3685 CARLYLE 21/03/2005 3231 BIG HILL 22/03/2005 3315 MUNTHAM 20/05/2005 3620 KYABRAM SOUTH 22/06/2005 3335 PLUMPTON 05/10/2005 3401 LONGERENONG 12/10/2005 3401 WAIL 12/10/2005 3401 WARTOOK 12/10/2005 3832 NAYOOK 08/02/2006 3832 NEERIM NORTH 08/02/2006 3544 ULTIMA EAST 27/03/2006 3579 BEAUCHAMP 27/03/2006 3335 PLUMPTON 31/03/2006 3480 JEFFCOTT NORTH 23/08/2006 3646 WAGGARANDALL 15/01/2007 3658 SUGARLOAF CREEK 20/04/2007 3844 CARRAJUNG SOUTH 03/05/2007 Queensland 4570 MALARGA 11/02/2000 4620 GIGOOMGAN 11/02/2000 4570 KIA ORA 15/05/2000 4705 MOUNT GARDINER 21/06/2000 4852 CARMOO 27/06/2000 4355 GROOMSVILLE 29/06/2000 4311 CHURCHABLE 05/07/2000 4608 CHARLESTOWN 25/07/2000 4387 CANNING CREEK 02/08/2000 4385 LIMEVALE 03/08/2000 4353 HADEN 18/09/2000 4363 SOUTHBROOK 18/09/2000 4364 BROOKSTEAD 18/09/2000 4365 LEYBURN 18/09/2000 4406 JIMBOUR 18/09/2000 4406 MACALISTER 18/09/2000 4355 DJUAN 15/02/2001 4710 EMU PARK 27/02/2001 4710 ZILZIE 27/02/2001 4712 DUARINGA 27/02/2001 4713 WOORABINDA 27/02/2001 4723 CAPELLA 27/02/2001 4728 JERICHO 27/02/2001 4305 LIMESTONE RIDGES 23/03/2001 4746 MAY DOWNS 27/06/2001 4650 DUNMORA 02/07/2001 4362 DEUCHAR 10/04/2002 4362 MOUNT MARSHALL 10/04/2002 4401 ACLAND 28/05/2002 4018 TAIGUM 14/06/2002 4740 HALIDAY BAY 05/09/2002 4659 BEELBI CREEK 05/06/2003 4887 HERBERTON 12/09/2003 4888 EVELYN 12/09/2003 4888 KABAN 12/09/2003 4888 RAVENSHOE 12/09/2003 4888 TUMOULIN 12/09/2003 4887 IRVINEBANK 16/09/2003 4877 PORT DOUGLAS 08/03/2004 4884 YUNGABURRA 08/03/2004 4895 COOKTOWN 08/03/2004 4881 KURANDA 09/03/2004 4227 REEDY CREEK 30/03/2004 4510 TOORBUL 31/03/2004 4512 BRACALBA 31/03/2004 4506 MOORINA 09/06/2004 4877 CRAIGLIE 14/09/2004 4877 KILLALOE 14/09/2004 4877 MOWBRAY 14/09/2004 4877 OAK BEACH 14/09/2004 4895 BLOOMFIELD 14/09/2004 4895 HOPE VALE 14/09/2004 4895 ROSSVILLE 14/09/2004 4895 WUJAL WUJAL 14/09/2004 4695 AMBROSE 24/09/2004 4881 KOAH 23/12/2004 4873 LOW ISLES 24/12/2004 4422 COOMRITH 07/06/2005 4422 WESTMAR 07/06/2005 4895 AYTON 10/06/2005 4895 ENDEAVOUR FALLS 10/06/2005 4895 HELENVALE 10/06/2005 4895 STARCKE 10/06/2005 4306 MONSILDALE 27/09/2005 4405 BROADWATER 16/01/2006 4605 MANYUNG 01/03/2007 4352 VALE VIEW 14/05/2007 4358 RAMSAY 14/05/2007 South Australia 5267 WIRREGA 12/10/2000 5311 MALPAS 06/11/2000 5333 TAPLAN 04/06/2001 5422 YATINA 12/10/2000 5431 BLACK ROCK 12/10/2000 5432 MOOCKRA 12/10/2000 5570 CLINTON CENTRE 08/08/2001 5572 PORT ARTHUR 13/02/2001 5570 PORT CLINTON 02/10/2001 5641 PANITYA 30/05/2001 5642 HAMBIDGE 13/02/2001 Western Australia 6532 CAPE BURNEY 03/03/2000 6532 GREENOUGH 03/03/2000 6375 KURRENKUTTEN 23/05/2001 6282 YALLINGUP SIDING 19/08/2003 6286 REDGATE 19/08/2003 6390 WURAMING 27/11/2003 6308 SPRINGS 27/11/2003 6390 LOWER HOTHAM 27/11/2003 6390 MARRADONG 27/11/2003 6390 UPPER MURRAY 27/11/2003 6751 CHICHESTER 05/07/2004 6751 WITTENOOM 05/07/2004 6180 LAKELANDS 01/03/2007 6180 PARKLANDS 01/03/2007 6181 STAKE HILL 01/03/2007 6209 FURNISSDALE 01/03/2007 6211 BOUVARD 01/03/2007 6211 CLIFTON 01/03/2007 6211 DAWESVILLE 01/03/2007 6211 HERRON 01/03/2007 Tasmania 7116 CASTLE FORBES BAY 09/06/2000 7116 CAIRNS BAY 09/06/2000 7216 ANSONS BAY 09/06/2000 7321 CHASM CREEK 09/06/2000 7325 HENRIETTA 19/07/2000 7325 OONAH 19/07/2000 7054 NIERINNA 14/08/2000 7109 PETCHEYS BAY 14/08/2000 7163 FLOWERPOT 30/11/2000 7260 CUCKOO 15/03/2001 7260 FORESTER 15/03/2001 7260 JETSONVILLE 15/03/2001 7260 KAMONA 15/03/2001 7260 LISLE 15/03/2001 7260 NABOWLA 15/03/2001 7260 SPRINGFIELD 15/03/2001 7260 TONGANAH 15/03/2001 7260 TULENDEENA 15/03/2001 7263 LEGERWOOD 15/03/2001 7260 LIETINNA 01/05/2001 7030 INTERLAKEN 07/01/2002 7007 TOLMANS HILL 26/03/2002 7310 MOINA 02/06/2003 1 1 5742 1 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 21 May 2007: Under what criteria did the Australian Federal Police (AFP) clear Sheik Hilaly of allegations that money raised by the Lebanese community for victims of the South Lebanon conflict was directed to Hezbollah and its supporters. Did the AFP interview (a) the Secretary or Treasurer of the Lebanese Muslim Association, which organised the fund-raising of $70,000 or (b) other Lebanese community associations that contributed to the fund-raising, to ascertain the purpose to which the funds would be put. Was Sheik Hilaly interviewed on 30 April 2007 about the alleged diversion of donated funds to Hezbollah. Can he confirm that Sheik Hilaly received a letter from the AFP only a week after the interview that cleared him of all allegations and advised that there was no cause for concern about the disbursement of the funds. Did the investigation into Sheik Hilaly’s links with Hezbollah take four weeks. Did Sheik Hilaly use part of the $70,000 raised by the Lebanese community for victims of the South Lebanon conflict to make a donation to Mr Bilal Shaabaan. When questioned publicly about the allegations that he had diverted funds to Hezbollah, did Sheik Hilaly respond by asking: “What is $10,000 to Hezbollah, it is only a quarter the cost of a rocket”. Did Sheik Hilaly subsequently say that the $10,000 would be used to build, or rebuild, an antenna for a Tawheed radio station in South Beirut “for broadcasting into the south of Lebanon”. 1 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The AFP conducted enquiries into the allegations against Sheikh Al Hilali to determine if a criminal investigation was warranted. At the conclusion of these enquiries the AFP did not identify any evidence to support an investigation of Sheikh Al Hilali or others for terrorist financing offences. The specific avenues of enquiries undertaken by AFP in making this assessment are of an operational nature and it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment, except to indicate the AFP undertook enquiries in both Australia and Lebanon. Yes. The AFP formally advised Sheikh Al Hilali in writing of the outcome of it’s assessment on 8 May 2007. AFP enquiries in this matter took four weeks, at the conclusion of which, it was determined an investigation was not warranted. The specific avenues of enquiries undertaken by the AFP in making this assessment are of an operational nature and it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment. I make no comment on the details of public statements made by Sheikh Al Hilali. I make no comment on the details of public statements made by Sheikh Al Hilali. 183 183 5743 183 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 21 May 2007: On a recent visit to Lebanon, did Sheik Hilaly and Mr Yiyha Safi, another Imam of Lakemba Mosque, meet with Mr Bilal Shaabaan. Did Sheik Hilaly admit that he gave, or directed to be given, $10,000 to Mr Bilal Shaabaan. Is he aware of any link between Mr Bilal Shaabaan and Sheik Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah. Is he aware of claims that the Tahweed radio network broadcasts propaganda for Hezbollah. Is Hezbollah classified by the Australian Government as a terrorist organisation. 183 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The AFP cannot confirm this event. The specific details provided by Sheik Al Hilali to the AFP in relation to this matter are of an operational nature and it would be inappropriate for me to make further comment. I am aware that Mr Bilal Shaabaan and Sheik Nasrallah are linked by their mutual participation in the Lebanese political system. I am not able to comment on the content of broadcasts from the Tahweed radio network in Lebanon. The Australian Government has a process for listing terrorist organisations under the   Criminal Code Act 1995. Separately, Australia fulfils its international obligations to comply with the UN Security Council Resolutions to freeze terrorist assets through a Consolidated List made under the Charter of the United Nationals (Terrorism and Dealing with Assets) Regulations 2002. Hizballah’s External Security Organisation (ESO) has been listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 since June 2003. Hizballah’s ESO was most recently re-listed as a terrorist organisation by the Criminal Code Amendment Regulations (No. 9) 2007 with effect from 25 May 2007. On 21 December 2001 Hizballah was specified as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945 and the Charter of the United Nations (Terrorism and Dealing with Assets) Regulations 2002. 184 184 5744 184 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 21 May 2007: Is he aware that benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), caused by an enlarged prostate gland, may result in men straining or being unable to pass urine; if not, why not. Will he explain why Flomaxtra, intended for use by men with an enlarged prostate gland, is not currently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Does the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) assess the listing of pharmaceutical products on the basis of overall benefit and a high cost-effectiveness ratio; if not, why not. Is he aware of other forms of medication that are more cost-effective than Flomaxtra at specifically treating BPH; if so, what are the full details. Will he act to ensure BPH sufferers have timely and affordable access to the drugs that are most effective at treating their condition; if so, how; if not, why not. 184 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Items are included in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) - an independent, expert advisory body whose members include medical practitioners, health scientists, other health professionals and a consumer representative. The PBAC has not yet received a submission which demonstrates that FLOMAXTRA is clinically effective, safe and cost-effective (compared with other treatments) in the treatment for conditions associated with an enlarged prostate. Therefore, the Committee is not in a position to recommend that it be made available through the PBS. In assessing an application to list a drug on the PBS, the PBAC is required to take into account the medical condition/s for which the product has been approved for use in Australia as well as its clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness (value for money) and clinical role compared with other treatments. Although there are no drugs listed on the PBS with the same indications as FLOMAXTRA, there are other drugs listed for the treatment of urinary complaints. Doctors are in the best position to advise patients of the suitability of these products, or other non-pharmaceutical interventions, for the treatment of this condition. Neither the Government nor the PBAC is able to compel a manufacturer to apply for the PBS listing of a particular product to treat a particular condition. Decisions on these matters involve commercial and other considerations that can only be made by the manufacturer involved. Were FLOMAXTRA, or any other drug, to be recommended by the PBAC for listing on the PBS for use in conditions associated with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia, then listing would proceed in accordance with the usual post-PBAC processes. 185 185 5746 185 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 21 May 2007: For each year since the implementation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, on how many occasions did the number of aircraft movement slots that were allocated in a regulated hour exceed 80. 185 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: I am advised that the Slot Manager’s records indicate that only once, in February 2001, did the number of aircraft movement slots allocated in a regulated hour exceed 80. This allocation did not result in a breach of the maximum movement limit for that particular regulated hour as actual movements were less than 80. 1 1 5747 1 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 21 May 2007: Can he confirm that the functions of Slot Manager under the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 are to develop, administer and amend the Sydney Airport Slot Management Scheme; if not, why not. Do Slot Managers (a) receive applications for slots, (b) assess applications against priorities set out in the Slot Management Scheme and (c) allocate aircraft movement slots at Sydney Airport; if not, why not. Is the Slot Manager a proprietary company registered in New South Wales; if so, (a) who holds shares in the Slot Manager proprietary company and (b) in what proportion are those shares held; 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. Yes. Yes. Yes. The Slot Manager, Airport Co-ordination Australia Pty Ltd, is a proprietary company registered in New South Wales. As at 24 May 2007, the issued shares of the company were held by the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (10%), Qantas Airways Limited (41%), Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd (35%) and the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (14%). 185 185 5748 185 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 Mr Tanner asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 22 May 2007: Does the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) purchase any drugs directly or indirectly from Parexel; if so, what sum did it pay to that company in 2005-06. Are there any ethical guidelines governing drug purchases by the PBS; if so, what are the details. 186 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is a subsidy program and does not purchase any drugs directly or indirectly. Parexel International is not a manufacturer of pharmaceuticals and has no products listed on the PBS. The PBS does not purchase drugs and only subsidises listed drugs after they have been registered for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. 186 186 5750 186 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 22 May 2007: Why are individuals with a chronic illness, who are not in receipt of Centrelink benefits, but who are dependent on certain prescription pharmaceutical products, not granted concessions for their prescriptions. Does the Government propose to address this situation; if so, how; if not, why not. 186 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Commonwealth Government makes available a very wide range of necessary prescription medicines for the Australian community through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The PBS has provided Australians with cost-effective, necessary medicinal products for more than 50 years. It has been the policy of all governments since 1990 that patients be required to pay a co-payment prescription charge toward the cost of all subsidised PBS drugs. Many of the drugs included on the PBS cost a great deal more than the amount paid by consumers, with the government subsidising the cost above the level of the patient co-payment. General patients pay up to $30.70 for each prescription, and concessional patients pay up to $4.90. In addition, safety net arrangements further assist in limiting the cost of medicines for those patients and families who require a large number of PBS prescriptions. In 2007, the safety net threshold for concession cardholders is $274.40, while the general patient threshold is $1059.00. After reaching the safety net threshold, general patients pay $4.90 for further PBS prescriptions, and concessional patients pay nothing for any further PBS prescriptions for the remainder of that calendar year. A medical expenses tax offset is also available for people who have out-of-pocket medical expenses over a specified limit in an income year. Net medical expenses are the total medical expenses that have been paid less any refunds that have been received, or could be received, from Medicare or a private health fund. For the 2006-07 income years, the tax offset is 20 percent of the net medical expenses over the $1,500 threshold amount. There is no upper limit to the amount a person can claim except that it can only reduce the total tax liability to zero. Further information on the medical expenses tax offset may be accessed from the Australian Taxation Office. The Commonwealth Government is committed to providing affordable access to PBS medicines for all Australians. The policy of patient co-payments for PBS medicines is part of an overall strategy to contain costs and secure the sustainability of the Scheme. This will ensure the availability of the latest medicines for conditions such as cancer, diabetes, arthritis and other serious and chronic conditions. 187 187 5761 187 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 22 May 2007: Further to the Minister’s reply to question No. 5652 that “there is insufficient digital take-up to meet the current switchover date of 31 December 2008 in metropolitan areas”, what is the Minister’s response to those submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts’ inquiry into the uptake of digital television which suggest that the lack of diversity in digital TV programming is a contributing factor to the insufficient uptake. Why will the Minister not issue a fourth free-to-air digital TV licence to encourage digital TV take-up in Australia. 187 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: The Government responded to issues raised during the inquiry in its 2006 media reform package introducing a range of measures to drive digital uptake. These measures include: Developing a Digital Action Plan to drive the take-up of digital television services and help consumers make the transition from analogue services to the new digital environment; Opening up two reserved digital channels for new digital services such as mobile television or new in home services; Permitting commercial free-to-air television stations to broadcast one standard definition multichannel from 2009, and allow full multichannelling no later than the time of digital switchover; Permitting a high definition multichannel from 2007 by removing the simulcast requirement on high definition television programming; and Removing the “genre” restrictions on the types of programming which can be shown on ABC and SBS multichannels. On 13 July 2006 the Government announced, in the context of its media reform package, that: “The Government will not allocate new commercial television licences within broadcasting services band (BSB) spectrum between the end of the moratorium on new licences on 31 December 2006 and digital switchover. The allocation of new licences will be reviewed in accordance with the Digital Action Plan prior to the end of the simulcast period.” 187 187 5769 187 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 Ms Bird asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 May 2007: On what date will applications open for the provision of the three additional Medicare-eligible magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units announced in the Budget Measures 2007-08 (page 238). Can he state the eligibility criteria for the provision of the three additional Medicare-eligible MRI units; if not, why not. 187 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The process for determining where the three additional Medicare-eligible MRI units will be located is being considered. Eligibility criteria for the provision of the three additional Medicare-eligible MRI units are being considered. 188 188 5770 188 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 24 May 2007: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is investigating some 20 Zimbabweans studying at Australian universities, who are allegedly linked to members of President Mugabe’s regime, to determine whether the students have breached travel and financial sanctions; if so, has the Minister discussed with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade the progress and findings of the investigation. Can the Minister confirm that one student under investigation was involved with Zimbabwe’s youth militia, which has been accused of abductions, torture and murder. How many Zimbabwean students are currently studying in Australia How many of the 20 Zimbabwean students currently under investigation are believed to be the children of Zimbabwean government ministers or officials. Has the Government attempted to determine whether the Zimbabwean students’ university fees are funded from Zimbabwean Government reserves; if not, why not. 188 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australian travel and financial sanctions are targeted at those who have been directly responsible for the Mugabe regime’s human rights abuses and for its gross economic mismanagement. It would be inappropriate to comment on the existence of any investigations into potential sanctions breaches. I am aware that a number of allegations have been made against a visa holder in relation to membership in Zimbabwe’s National Youth Service. I am unable to confirm these allegations. This question should be directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I am aware of lists being circulated in Australia alleging that children of Zimbabwe regime members are in Australia. It would be inappropriate to comment further. Australian financial sanctions prohibit transactions involving the transfer of funds or payments to, by the order of, or on behalf of listed persons. It would be inappropriate to comment further. 188 188 5771 188 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 24 May 2007: Has he read the report The China Balance Sheet in 2007 and Beyond by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Is he aware that the report referred to in Part (1) quotes Mr Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, as saying that “China is overtly exporting unemployment to other countries and apparently sees its currency undervaluation as an off-budget export and job subsidy that has avoided effective international sanction”; if so, can he confirm the accuracy of this statement. Can he confirm that China’s current account surplus was approximately $US 250 billion in 2006, or some nine per cent of its GDP, and that its foreign exchange reserves stand at more than $US 1 trillion. Has the Treasury examined the Peterson Institute’s estimate that China’s currency would need to rise by some 35 per cent against the US dollar in order to have any significant impact on the US trade balance; if so, what are the details. Has the Treasury examined the effect of the undervaluation of the Chinese currency on (a) the balance of trade, (b) imports and/or (c) exports; if so, what are the details. What would be the effect be of (a) a slight revaluation of the Chinese Yuan and (b) a 35 per cent revaluation of the Chinese currency on (a) the balance of trade, (b) imports and/or (c) exports. 189 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: According to the World Bank’s China Quarterly Update of May 2007, China’s current account surplus was US$250 billion in 2006 (or 9.5 per cent of its GDP), and its foreign exchange reserves stood at US$1066 billion at the end of 2006. The report can be found at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/CHINAEXTN/Resources/318949-1121421890573/china_05_07.pdf. Treasury has examined the issues relating to the Chinese currency. Please refer to: ‘The Chinese currency: how undervalued and how much does it matter?’, Economic Roundup Spring 2005, which can be found at: http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1042/HTML/docshell.asp?URL=08_RMBundervaluation.asp. 189 189 5773 189 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 Mr Hayes asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 24 May 2007: What significant aid, or major aid programs, has he, or the Government, announced since March 1996. In respect of each program identified in Part (1), what is (a) the amount of aid to be provided and (b) the proposed expenditure plan. In respect of any aid program identified in Part (1) for which no spending plan was provided at the time of announcement, what are the details that became available after the initial announcement. 189 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) This information is available publicly in all Annual Reports for AusAID, Portfolio Budget Statements and Ministerial Statements to Parliament on Australia’s Aid Program published since 1996. Not applicable. 189 189 5775 189 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 Mr Hayes asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 24 May 2007: In August 2001, did he, or the Government, in conjunction with World Bank President Wolfowitz, announce a large joint Australia-World Bank program to support the Virtual Colombo Plan; if so, did the Government commit $1 billion to the program; if not, what sum did the Government commit. In respect of the Government’s commitment to the Virtual Colombo Plan, (a) what are the details of the program, (b) what sum was spent, (c) have the expenditure and program outcomes been accounted for and (d) has the program been evaluated. 189 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. In August 2001 I, (Mr Downer) in conjunction with then World Bank President Wolfensohn, announced a joint Australia-World Bank program to support the Virtual Colombo Plan (VCP). The Australian Government committed $200 million over five years. The VCP was a five year joint aid initiative between the Australian Government and the World Bank promoting Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for development. The VCP aimed to address the ‘digital divide’ between rich and developing nations, and in doing so promote opportunities for people in developing countries to access education, information and knowledge.         To ensure that ICTs were utilised as tools to achieve clear development outcomes in line with program strategies, most VCP-related activities were undertaken as part of country and regionally funded programs. There were almost 200 development activities funded from 2001 to 2006 that contained ICT related expenditure.         There were 601 Australian Development Scholarships granted in ICT-related fields to build the skill base and ICT capacity amongst Australia’s regional partners. 201 Australian Youth Ambassadors for Development volunteered in ICT roles to build local knowledge and assist in skill transfers within the region. Total Australian government expenditure for the VCP was $230 million. All expenditure has been accounted for. The VCP has made significant achievements in addressing the digital divide, including strengthening education, training decision makers, providing information infrastructure and knowledge tools and ensuring that ICTs were effectively utilised within Australia’s aid program. No. 190 190 5776 190 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 Mr Hayes asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 24 May 2007: Following the Asian Boxing Day tsunami of December 2004, did he, or the Government, announce a program of approximately $A 1 billion, to be provided through a mixture of loans and grants, to support Indonesia; if so, (a) what progress has been made with the implementation of this package, (b) will he provide copies of all reports that have been produced that document the spending and the outcomes of the program and (c) will he indicate which of the reports are publicly available. 190 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 5 January 2005, the Prime Minister of Australia announced a $1 billion package of assistance for reconstruction and development activities for Indonesia to be delivered under the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development (AIPRD). All of the $1 billion has now been committed to reconstruction and development initiatives across Indonesia. Through the tsunami reconstruction program, Australia has committed a total of $250 million to Aceh, made up of $70 million in immediate humanitarian and emergency assistance and over $180 million through AIPRD. Australian assistance to Aceh has been delivered in five main sectors – health, education, infrastructure, livelihoods and governance. Outcomes to date include: The reconstruction of Banda Aceh’s port and the emergency ward of Aceh’s main hospital; The reconstruction or rehabilitation of 71 classrooms for more than 2,800 students; Re-establishing land boundaries to facilitate the rebuilding of homes for 88,000 families; Helping to build over 1,250 temporary shelters and restore water, sanitation and other essential services to over 4,000 people; and Training over 2,000 village leaders to facilitate their communities’ engagement in planning and implementing the reconstruction of housing and restoration of essential services. Some key AIPRD initiatives that benefit all of Indonesia are: The selection of 600 Indonesians who are taking up postgraduate scholarships at Australian universities; Commitment of $30 million to assist communities re-establish basic services including schools and community infrastructure after the May 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake; A program of exchanges, attachments and technical assistance through the Government Partnerships Fund that to date has brought together over 900 officials from the Governments of Australia and Indonesia. The $500 million loans component of AIPRD is allocated to vital infrastructure programs in education and transport: The Basic Education Program – which will build or expand around 2,000 junior secondary schools across Indonesia – has commenced, and the first 380 schools should be ready for the start of the Indonesian school year in July 2007. Planning for the Eastern Indonesia National Roads Improvement Program has commenced. This program will improve about 1,500 kilometres of roads and 4.5 kilometres of bridging in Eastern Indonesia. and (c) The following reports have been produced by the Australian Government to publicly and specifically report the spending and outcomes of the program: Indonesia Update – Year in Review 2006 Achievements of the AIPRD in Aceh and Nias, December 2006 Australia-Indonesia Partnership – Report to the Joint Commission 2006 AIPRD Partnership Framework, 2006 Australia’s Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami: Report for the Period Ending 30 June 2005 Australia’s Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami: Report for the Period Ending 30 November 2005 Australia’s Response to the Indian Ocean Disaster: 26 December 2004 – 15 April 2005              Copies of these reports have been provided to the Hon Member’s office. 191 191 5783 191 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 24 May 2007: Can he confirm that the Government has conducted, is currently conducting or will be conducting, a ‘smart traveller’ campaign costing $7.5 million; if so, (a) what advertising medium or media have been, or will be, used, (b) what is the commencement date of the campaign and (c) what is the completion date of the campaign; if not, why not. Are other agencies or departments within his portfolio currently conducting, or planning to conduct within the next 6 months, other advertising campaigns; if so, what are the full details of each advertising campaign and which agency or department is undertaking it. For each advertising campaign identified in Part (2), (a) what advertising medium or media have been, or will be, used, (b) what is, or will be, the commencement date of each campaign, (c) what is, or will be, the completion date of each campaign and (d) what is the total estimated cost of each campaign. 191 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In the 2006-07 budget, the Government announced funding of $13.1m over 4 years for the second phase of the Smartraveller campaign. The media advertising budget for the initial 15 months of the campaign is $7.5 m. The Smartraveller campaign uses television, print and internet advertisements. The commencement date for the Smartraveller campaign was 22 April 2007. The completion date for the Smartraveller campaign is 2009-10. DFAT’s APEC Task Force has commissioned an advertising campaign for the APEC STAR V conference in Sydney from 27 to 28 June 2007. DFAT’s Graduate Recruitment program has commissioned an advertising campaign for the 2008 Graduate Recruitment program. ACIAR - No AusAID - No APEC STAR V Conference Print and electronic media The advertising program commenced in March 2007 The advertising program will end just prior to the conference beginning The estimated cost of the advertising program is $25,000. Graduate Trainee Recruitment Print and electronic media The advertising program will commence in September 2007 The advertising program will conclude in December 2007 The estimated cost of the advertising program is $25, 862. 192 192 5790 192 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 24 May 2007: Can the Minister advise what sum of taxpayer’s money was spent informing the people of Australia of the consequences of changes to Australia’s media ownership laws, particularly as they relate to the diversity of media ownership in Australia, following the proclamation of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006; if not, why not. 192 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: No taxpayer funds were spent informing the Australian public of the reforms to Australia’s media laws which were implemented by the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006. 192 192 5793 192 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 28 May 2007: Further to the Minister’s reply to Part (4) of question No. 3874 (Hansard, 21 March 2007, page 210) that “there is no Customs recorded footage available from the cameras in the baggage make-up area, nor is there any record available to confirm the cameras were recording at the times in question”, will he explain (a) why there is no Customs recorded footage available and (b) why there is no record available to confirm whether cameras were recording at the times in question; if not, why not. Since March 2005, has Customs kept recorded footage for all cameras that operate in the baggage make-up area at Sydney Airport; if not, why not; if so, does that footage identify any behaviour or action which is, or could be, in breach of airport security or protocols and what are those full details. Since March 2005, has Customs kept records that would confirm whether or not cameras in the baggage make-up areas at Sydney Airport have been recording at all times; if not, why not; if so, for each camera located in the baggage make-up area, on which days was it not recording and why. 192 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Refer to answer to Question on Notice 3836 Part (4). There is nothing further to add. (b) Customs retains a record of CCTV footage used for operational purposes. It does not routinely record which cameras are recorded and which are not. There were no recordings made at the time and no footage was captured and no CCTV footage was retained for operational purposes. Although all cameras are capable of being recorded, should that be required to cover Customs operational requirements, not all cameras continuously record. CCTV data recorded by Customs is held for a limited time and is then routinely destroyed in line with normal operating procedures. Providing details about CCTV footage recorded on the public record could potentially harm Customs’ operational effectiveness. Providing details on the public record about which CCTV cameras have been recording and when could potentially harm Customs’ operational effectiveness. 193 193 5794 193 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 28 May 2007 Has any Customs recorded footage from cameras in the baggage make-up area at Sydney Airport ever been destroyed; if so, was footage recorded during the period October 2004 to March 2005 destroyed and if so (a) why and (b) by whom. Has any Customs record that would confirm whether or not cameras in the baggage make-up areas at Sydney Airport have been recording at all times been destroyed; if so, have records for the period October 2004 to March 2005 been destroyed and if so (a) why and (b) by whom. 193 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: CCTV data recorded by Customs is held for a limited time and is then routinely destroyed in line with normal operating procedures. No. 193 193 5795 193 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 28 May 2007: Will the Government conduct a new survey into the levels of uninsured gap fees paid by private hospital services patients to private doctors; if so, when; if not, why not. Will full disclosure of uninsured gap fees charged by private doctors be made compulsory; if so, when; if not, why not. 193 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: A new survey will be conducted in July this year. The results of the July 2007 survey will provide further information to inform the Government in its consideration of options to improve the rate of informed financial consent, including options to require disclosure of gaps. 193 193 5796 193 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms George asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 May 2007: For each financial year from 2000-01 to 2005-06, in the electoral division of Throsby: what was the full-time equivalent number of general practitioners (GPs) what was the GP-to-population ratio. What was the GP-to-population ratio in 2005-06 for: Australia. New South Wales. the electoral division of Throsby. Which part(s) of the electoral division of Throsby is/are now classified as a District of Workforce Shortage. What practical measures are being undertaken to fill existing GP shortages in the Shellharbour Statistical Local Area. 194 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Federal electorate level data on the GP to population ration is not used for the determination of district of workforce shortage status and as such is not part of the range of data used by the Department on a routine basis. The GP to population ratio is determined at the Statistical Local Area (SLA) level and updated every quarter. The GP (full time equivalent - FTE) to population ratio for Australia in 2005-06 was 1,393. (b) The GP (FTE) to population ratio for New South Wales in 2005/06 was 1355. (c) Federal electorate level data on the GP to population ratio is not used for the determination of district of workforce shortage status and as such is not part of the range of data used by the Department on a routine basis. The electoral division of Throsby comprises two Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) – Wollongong (C) and Shellharbour (C). The Wollongong (C) SLA is also shared with the electoral division of Cunningham. The SLA of Shellharbour (C) is currently classified as a district of workforce shortage. The Commonwealth Government has a number of strategies in place to ensure that in the future, the constituents of Throsby will have access to adequate medical services. These include greatly increased numbers of medical school places at universities and the introduction of bonded medical school places schemes whereby graduating doctors commit to work in districts of workforce shortage, for up to six years. Current workforce programs include: MedicarePlus for Other Medical Practitioners (MOMPs) Program The MOMPs Program provides access to the A1 Medicare rebate for services provided in Areas of Workforce Shortage (AOWS) by eligible pre-1996 non-vocationally registered medical practitioners. As the Statistical Local Area (SLA) of Shellharbour (C) is considered to be an AOWS, eligible medical practitioners in this area, including in Albion Park, Shellharbour and Tongarra are able to access this program. The After Hours OMPs (AHOMPs) Program The AHOMPs Program provides access to the A1 Medicare rebate for after hours general practice services, provided through an accredited general practice or an accredited Medical Deputising Service (MDS) by eligible non-vocationally recognised medical practitioners. As eligibility for the AHOMPs Program is not determined by geographical location, eligible medical practitioners providing after hours services through an accredited MDS or accredited general practice in the SLA of Shellharbour (C) are eligible for this Program. Medicare provider number restrictions The Commonwealth Government has been effective in attracting and retaining more doctors in rural and remote and metropolitan areas through the Medicare provider number restrictions, which relate to overseas trained doctors. Under these restrictions, overseas trained doctors (OTDs) are required to work in designated ‘areas of workforce shortage’ for up to 10 years. Practices in the electorate of Throsby are eligible for the engagement of OTDs. 195 195 5799 195 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 Ms Hall asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 May 2007: What is the full-time equivalent ratio of general practitioners to population in (a) the electoral division of Shortland, (b) Australia, (c) New South Wales and (d) the postcode area (i) 2306, (ii) 2290, (iii) 2280, (iv) 2281, (v) 2282, (vi) 2259, (vii) 2263 and (viii) 2262. 195 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Federal electorate level data on the GP to population ratio is not used for the determination of district of workforce shortage status and as such is not part of the range of data used by the Department on a routine basis. The relevant GP to population ratio data level for the determination of district of workforce shortage is usually at the statistical local area (SLA) level, or on occasions, aggregates of SLAs. SLAs are not a subordinate unit of electorates and therefore any extrapolation will be imprecise. Likewise, the GP to population ratio for individual postcodes cannot be extrapolated as an SLA can encompass more than one postcode. The Department does not routinely release nor utilise the GP to population ratio at the State/Territory level. However, the national GP to population ratio is currently in the vicinity of 1:1,350. 195 195 5800 195 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 Ms Hall asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 May 2007: What are the bulk-billing figures for (a) the electoral division of Shortland, (b) Australia, (c) New South Wales and (d) the postcode area (i) 2306, (ii) 2290, (iii) 2280, (iv) 2281, (v) 2282, (vi) 2259, (vii) 2263 and (viii) 2262. 195 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Statistics for bulk billing by electorate can be found on the Department’s website at www.health.gov.au/electoratereports. to (c) Medicare – Percentage of Non-referred (GP) Attendances Bulk Billed 2004, 2005 and 2006 (year of processing). (Excludes practice nurse items) Region Year Percentage of services bulk billed Shortland 2004 57.2% 2005 68.1% 2006 73.8% New South Wales 2004 78.1% 2005 80.8% 2006 82.4% Australia 2004 70.9% 2005 74.7% 2006 76.6% The smallest geographical area for which the Department routinely produces statistics is the Commonwealth Electoral Division. In your question, you requested statistics for numerous postcodes that are wholly or partially contained within the electorate of Shortland. —————————— Notes to the Statistics Medicare bulk billing data is based on year of processing by Medicare Australia (formerly the Health Insurance Commission) and may not be the same as the year in which the patient received the service. These statistics relate to non-referred (general practitioner) attendances that were rendered on a fee-for-service basis for which benefits were processed by Medicare Australia. Excluded are details of non-referred GP attendances to public patients in hospital, to Department of Veterans’ Affairs patients and some compensation cases. Electorate level data should be considered as estimates only. Allocations of services are based on the reported postal address postcodes of patients. Therefore some data will not accurately reflect the address of where the patient actually resides. Where a postcode overlapped electoral boundaries, the statistics were allocated to electorate using a concordance file derived from Population Census data. This can result in some data being erroneously allocated to an adjoining electorate. Data have also been excluded if postcodes were not present on the concordance file. Postcode data recorded using a post office box or private mailbag are excluded from electorate reporting in the cases where they cannot be accurately allocated. The statistics for New South Wales and Australia above have been aggregated from postcode data, not from electorates. It is important to note that some people would receive assistance from services outside this electorate, and similarly services located in this electorate may provide assistance to people living in other electorates. 196 196 5801 196 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 29 May 2007: In respect of eating disorders and related conditions, for the financial year (a) 2001-02, (b) 2002-03, (c) 2003-04, (d) 2004-05 and 2005-06: (i) what was the total cost to Medicare of rebates paid to patients receiving treatment for such disorders; (ii) what was the total cost to the Government of Medicare safety net payments for out-of-pocket expenses paid by patients receiving treatment for such disorders; (iii) what was the total cost to private health insurance funds of treatment for such disorders; (iv) what was the total cost to the Government of private health insurance rebates paid to patients receiving treatment for such disorders; (v) what was the total sum of Commonwealth Government funding used exclusively for research, prevention and treatment; (vi) what was the estimated number of working days lost; and (vii) what is the estimate of the effect on national productivity. What is the burden of disease for eating disorders and related conditions in Australia, measured by: (a) incidence in the population stratified by age; (b) prevalence in the population stratified by age; (c) premature mortality stratified by age; (d) total disability adjusted life years incurred stratified by age; and (e) total quality-adjusted life years lost stratified by age; What data are routinely captured by the Department of Health and Ageing in respect of eating disorders and related conditions in Australia, and are these data publicly available; if not, why not. 196 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: It is not possible to provide an estimate of the total cost to Medicare of rebates paid to patients receiving treatment for eating disorders and related conditions. Medicare Australia does not keep data on this matter. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the total cost to the Government of Medicare safety net payments for out-of-pocket expenses paid by patients receiving treatment for eating disorders and related conditions. Medicare Australia does not keep data on this matter. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the total cost to private health insurance funds of treatment for eating disorders and related conditions. The key source of information on benefits paid by private health insurers are the quarterly statistics collected by Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC). Information concerning eating disorders is not included in this statistical collection. Consistent with the response to (iii), it is not possible to estimate the total cost to the Government of private health insurance rebates paid to patients receiving treatments for such disorders. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Commonwealth Government’s main health and medical research funding body, provides research support through a variety of mechanisms, including support for individual research projects, broad programs of research and people support schemes. During the period 2000 to 2007 the Commonwealth Government, through the NHMRC, awarded $2.84 million for research investigating eating disorders. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the number of working days lost in relation to eating disorders. Data is not kept in relation to this matter. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the effect on national productivity. Data is not kept in relation to this matter. See Attachment A. The data routinely captured by the Health and Ageing Portfolio are as follows: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Data from a wide range of sources, such as disease registers (e.g. ABS 2003 Causes of death dataset and 2001 National Diabetes Register), health service utilisation data (e.g. National Hospital Morbidity Database), population health surveys (e.g. ABS 1995 and 2001 National Health Surveys) and a range of epidemiological studies were used to estimate the various measures presented in the report: The burden of disease and injury in Australia, 2003 which was released on 25 May 2007. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and The University of Sydney Data are collected routinely from General Practitioners including data on eating disorders. These are published annually in the report General Practice Activity in Australia. The latest publication is General Practice Activity in Australia 2005-06. The Department of Health and Ageing The Department collects data from all states and territories regarding hospital admissions. These data do not include patients presenting to emergency or outpatient departments. Both the AIHW and the Department group hospital data records to Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) for analysis and reporting purposes. The only DRG that relates specifically to eating disorders is U66Z Eating and obsessive-compulsive disorders. The AIHW makes this information available to the public through its annual publication Australian hospital statistics, and also through data cubes on its web site at www.aihw.gov.au . The Department of Health and Ageing uses hospital data for internal briefings and the annual publications The state of our public hospitals and The national hospital cost data collection. ———————— Attachment A Burden of Disease for Eating Disorders and Related Conditions in Australia Source: The burden of disease and injury in Australia, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Published 25 May 2007 Eating Disorders Total Males Females Persons Males Females 14 15-24 25-64 65-74 75+ 0-14 15-24 25-64 65-74 75+ (a) Incidence in population stratified by age Anorexia nervosa   1,448   182   1,266   49   105   27   -   -   202   1,064   -   -   - Bulimia nervosa   2,723   -   2,723   -   -   -   -   -   349   2,285   88   -   - (b) Prevalence in the population stratified by age Anorexia nervosa   11,601   1,496   10,105   103   625   766   2   1   416   5,534   4,137   13   4 Bulimia nervosa   11,863   -   11,863   -   -   -   -   -   628   7,854   3,381   -   - (c) Premature mortality stratified by age (years of life lost - YLL) Eating disorders   141   9   132   -   -   -   -   9   -   3   110   -   19 Anorexia nervosa   98   -   98   -   -   -   -   -   -   2   91   -   5 Bulimia nervosa   1   -   1   -   -   -   -   -   -   1   -   -   - Other eating disorders   41   9   33   -   -   -   -   9   -   -   19   -   14 (d) Disability adjusted life years incurred stratified by age (years lived with disability - YLD) Eating Disorders   5,921   367   5,555   103   211   52   -   -   828   4,636   90   -   - Anorexia nervosa   2,835   367   2,468   103   211   52   -   -   407   2,061   -   -   - Bulimia nervosa   3,087   -   3,087   -   -   -   -   -   421   2,575   90   -   - Other eating disorders   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   -   - (e)* Total Disability-adjusted life years lost (DALYs) {YLL + YLD} Eating Disorders   6,062   375   5,687   103   211   52   -   9   828   4,639   200   -   19 Anorexia nervosa   2,933   367   2,567   103   211   52   -   -   407   2,063   91   -   5 Bulimia nervosa   3,087   -   3,087   -   -   -   -   -   421   2,576   90   -   - Other eating disorders   41   9   33   -   -   -   -   9   -   -   19   -   14 * it is believed (e) should read total disability-adjusted life years lost rather than total quality-adjusted life years lost 198 198 5812 198 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 29 May 2007: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total water usage, in litres, by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio. Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the Minister’s department instigated to reduce water usage. 198 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources The Department is unable to provide figures for water usage. The Department currently leases its premises and water usage is not a separate expense. Geoscience Australia: The water consumption figures for Geoscience Australia for each financial year since 1 July 2000 is as follows: Year Litres 2000-01 24,297,000 2001-02 28,975,000 2002-03 26,621,000 2003-04 13,001,000 2004-05 14,157,000 2005-06 16,885,000 2006-07 10,459,000* *2006-07 figures are only available till March 2007 as water usage is charged on a quarterly basis and figures for the second quarter of the year have not been received as yet. Ionospheric Prediction Services (IPS): The water consumption figures for IPS for each financial year since 1 July 2000 is as follows: Year Litres 2000-01 1,188,000 2001-02 1,430,000 2002-03 1,255,000 2003-04 1,372,000 2004-05 1,348,000 2005-06 1,106,000 2006-07 1,977,000 National Measurement Institute (NMI): NMI joined the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources in 2004 and can only provide figures from that year forward. Year Pymble North Ryde* Cottesloe** 2004-05 13,359,000 269,000 2,685,000 2005-06 14,197,000 256,000 3,516,000 2006-07 16,652,000 N/A N/A * These premises were vacated 1 May 2006. ** These premises were vacated 30 June 2006. NMI have three other locations in Australia but is unable to provide figures for water usage. NMI leases these premises and water usage is not a separate expense. Tourism Australia: Tourism Australia have two locations in Australia but is unable to provide figures for water usage. Tourism Australia leases these premises and water usage is not a separate expense. IP Australia: IP Australia is unable to provide figures for water usage. IP Australia leases its premises and water usage is not a separate expense. National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA): NOPSA is unable to provide figures for water usage. NOPSA leases its premises and water usage is not a separate expense. The Department has the following measures in place in Industry House to reduce water usage: rainwater collection tanks and use of rainwater for toilets and irrigation; waterless urinals; Sensor taps on hand basins; rated fittings such as dual flush toilets and water efficient shower heads; and scaping designed to increase infiltration of rainwater and reduce runoff. ————————— Attachment A HANSARD EXTRACT – 13 JUNE 2007 Industry, Tourism and Resources: Electricity and Water (Question No. 5219) Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 6 December 2006: (1) For each financial year since 1 July 2004, what sum has the Minister’s department spent on (a) electricity and (b) water. (2) Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the department instigated to reduce electricity and water usage. Mr Ian Macfarlane—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) (a) Electricity The Department of Industry Tourism and Resources has spent the following amounts on electricity: 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 (to 31 March 2007) $316,777 $344,919 $256,076 (b) Water The Department leases all its premises and the building owners pay for water usage. The Department has therefore not spent anything on water usage. (2) Measures to Reduce Electricity and Water Usage The Department has recently relocated its central office operations into a purpose designed office building in Canberra. Industry House incorporates a wide range of measures to reduce electricity and water usage. The measures include: Electricity - Building Management Systems to monitor and control lighting, power, mechanical services and lifts. - Solar hot water. - T5 light fittings with electronic ballasts and tri-phosphor tubes to reduce power consumption and allow the lights to dim. - Perimeter lighting that dims in strong sunlight. - Ultra-sonic motion detectors to control lighting in meeting rooms. - Provision of highly energy efficient frictionless chillers for supply of cool air. - Above ground car-parking is naturally ventilated - significantly reducing the need for mechanical extraction. - Rationalisation of equipment (large centralised energy efficient photocopiers, printers, refrigerators). - Thermal conductivity of the façade minimised, including thermal insulation in the spandrel panels. - Double glazed windows with reflective surfaces and low-E film to reduce glare and heat gain/loss. - Suspended slabs and perimeter walls are insulated. - Swirl diffusers and low screens increase air-circulation efficiency. - Smaller airconditioning zones allow finer and more efficient control of air temperature and supply. - Close to public transport, facilities provided for cyclists and walkers. - Heat extracted from the Server Room provides heating in the lobby all hours. - Power factor correction equipment improves efficient use of power and avoids possible penalties imposed by the supply authority for poor power factor. Water - Rainwater collection tank and use of rainwater for WCs and irrigation. - Water-free urinals. - Sensor taps on hand basins eliminate water wastage (and are more hygienic). - AAA rated fittings (such as dual flush toilets and water efficient shower heads) have lower water usage. - Landscaping designed to increase infiltration of rainwater and reduce runoff. 1 1 5815 1 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 29 May 2007: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total water usage, in litres, by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio. Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the Minister’s department instigated to reduce water usage. 1 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: Water consumption figures are not available for most Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) office buildings as the majority of premises are leased. In leased premises, water used is paid for by the building owner and charged to FaCSIA as part of the building outgoings. Consumption details are not collected from landlords by FaCSIA. FaCSIA does not keep a consolidated list of water usage figures for its staff housing portfolio. I consider that the preparation of answers to this question would involve a significant diversion of resources and in the circumstances I do not consider that the additional work can be justified. The measures instigated by the department to reduce water usage since 2001 are outlined in the Department’s Sustainability Reports for 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. These reports can be accessed at: http://www.facsia.gov.au/triplebottomline/2005/glance/index.html. Water reduction measures include the installation of waterless urinals in one large FaCSIA site, installation of dual flush toilet systems in new fitouts where possible, turning off water features, reducing the watering of landscaping and the implementation of staff awareness initiatives aimed at reducing water consumption. 201 201 5816 201 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 29 May 2007: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total water usage, in litres, by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio. Since 1 July 2000, what measures has the Minister’s department instigated to reduce water usage. 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: The Department of Education, Science and Training Water consumption figures are not available for DEST. This is because most premises occupied by DEST are leased and the cost of water used is paid for by the building owner in the first instance and then re-charged, either in part or in full, as part of the building outgoings. In addition, most buildings only have a single water meter which records usage by all tenants as well as the base building systems such as air-conditioning. Many of the buildings we occupy are shared with other tenants and we are not able to determine what proportion of overall usage is attributable to DEST. Questacon Water usage records prior to 2003/04 are unable to be accessed as they relate to the period when Questacon was located within the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Portfolio. Current water metering arrangements indicate water usage for both Questacon and the National Capital Authority (NCA) jointly and are therefore not reflective of Questacon usage. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Financial Year Total water usage (litres) 2000/01 Not available 2001/02 2,187,600 * 2002/03 2,187,600 2003/04 2,699,900 2004/05 1,951,400 2005/06 2,509,700 2006/07 (as at 22/6/07) 2,967,500 * readings start from 16/3/01 2,037,100L and show a consumption of 2,129,500L up to 30/6/01 for the 3.5 months. High consumption possibly due to extra water used during construction The Australian Research Council (ARC) The ARC is unable to obtain figures on its water usage. During the period 1 July 2000 to September 2005, the ARC leased premises from Geoscience Australia at the Geoscience Australia Building, corner Jerrrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston, ACT. The ARC’s water usage costs were included in the Lease Arrangements and the water usage was not monitored by individual tenants. From September 2005, the ARC has occupied premises at 8 Brindabella Circuit, Brindabella Business Park, Canberra Airport. The ARC’s water usage costs for these premises are included in the Lease Agreement between the ARC and the Capital Airport Group (CAG). The building has multiple tenants and CAG does not monitor water usage by individual tenants. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) Financial Year Total water usage (litres) 2000/01 229,299,000 2001/02 234,137,000 2002/03 252,521,000 2003/04 211,155,000 2004/05 210,666,000 2005/063 229,943,000 2006/071,2,3 244,363,000 Notes: 1 The 2006/07 figure does not include June 2007 consumption. 2 The predicted water consumption for 2006/07 will be approx. 270000kl 3 The increase in consumption in 2005/06 and 2006/07 is due to the commissioning and operation of the OPAL reactor The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) Financial Year Total water usage (litres) 2000/01 Not available 2001/02 43,960,000 2002/03 43,791,000 2003/04 38,339,000 2004/05 44,685,000 2005/06 32,782,000 2006/07 (as at 05/07) 29,030,000 The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) CSIRO has only reported on environmental performance indicators such as water consumption since 2002. Financial Year Total water usage (litres) 2002/03 1,170,235 2003/04 1,220,111 2004/05 939,718 2005/06 842,058 2006/07 Not available * * Please note that data for 2006/07 is not expected to be available until August 2007. DEST actively engages with building owners to promote water and other conservation measures. DEST currently has leases in four buildings that have implemented waterless urinals, and a fifth building is currently adopting water saving measures that include low-flow shower heads, tap flow dispersers and waterless urinals. In August 2006 DEST wrote to all its building owners and managers to encourage them to implement water conservation measures such as waterless urinals, low-flow shower heads and tap flow dispersers. 203 203 5825 203 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, in writing, on 29 May 2007: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of outsourcing information technology services for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio. 203 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:                                                   Financial Year Department of Finance and Administration ARIA1 Australian Electoral Commission ComSuper Commonwealth Grants Commission Future Fund Management Agency 2 2000-01 $18,877,000 NIL $7,483,430 NIL NIL N/A 2001-02 $17,232,000 NIL $8,762,036 NIL NIL N/A 2002-03 $17,735,000 NIL $12,452,893 NIL $10,000 N/A 2003-04 $14,402,000 NIL $7,593,852 NIL NIL N/A 2004-05 $9,878,000 NIL $8,581,549 NIL NIL N/A 2005-06 $7,330,000 NIL $8,452,447 NIL $40,840 $39,340 2006-073 $5,808,000 NIL $7,366,132 NIL $50,000 $416,198 1 ARIA was previously known as CSS/PSS until 1 July 2006. ARIA runs its IT systems internally from their Sydney office. All their software, hardware and server equipment is purchased and maintained by their internal staff. 2 The Future Fund Management Agency was established as an agency on 3 April 2006. 3 Year to date (up to and inclusive of 7 June 2007). 204 204 5845 to 5863 204 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked all Ministers, in writing, on 30 May 2007: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost to each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio of information and communications technology (ICT) products and services. 204 Nairn, Gary, MP OK6 Eden-Monaro LP Special Minister of State 1 Mr Nairn —The answer to the Honourable Member’s question on behalf of all Ministers is as follows: The cost to each department and agency for ICT products and services for the period that the question covers is not readily available. Providing the relevant information would involve retrieving details of thousands of financial transactions, which would constitute an unreasonable diversion of resources. 204 204 5874 204 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 0 Ms Burke asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 30 May 2007: For each financial year since July 2005: What was the total cost to the Minister's Department and Agencies of            engaging employment agencies; and Which employment agencies were engaged. 204 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Total payments made to employment agencies by the Department and Agencies for each financial year since 1 July 2005 are as follows: 2005-06, $2,455,257 2006-07, $1,977,912 (as at 30 May 2007) A list of employment agencies used by the Department and Agencies is provided in Attachment A. 11 Recruitment Pty Ltd 11 Recruitment (WA) Pty Ltd Acumen Alliance Adecco Australia Pty Ltd Allstaff Australia Alliance Ambit Group Pty Ltd Ambit Recruitment Aquent Aust Competition & Consumer Comm Australian Public Service Commission Benchmark Big Island Corporation Pty Ltd Candle Australia Ltd Careers Unlimited CCS  Strategic Management Design Emergency EBR Enterprise Builder Pty Ltd Effective People P/L Frontier Group Australia Pty Ltd Fusion Global Gemteq Gippsland Area Consultative Committee Green & Green Group Greg Ryan & Associates Hays Accountancy Personnel Hayes Personnel Hays Personnel Services Hays Specialist Recruitment Hudson Hudson Global Resources (Aust) I-People Indigo Pacific Pty. Ltd Informed Sources P/L Jocellin Jansen Julia Ross Personnel Justin Poyser & Associates Kowalski Recruitment P/L Manpower Services (Aust) P/L Neilson Research Executives Omega Personnel One Test Options Consulting Patriot Alliance Paxus People (NSW) Peoplebank People Bank Premium Professional Careers Australia Pty Ltd Qirx Pty Ltd Quadrate Solutions Quay Appointments Recruitment Management Company Rickard Stanhope Robert Half Ross Human Directions Searson Buck Pty Ltd Select Select Appointments Select Australasia Pty Ltd Small & Assoc Pty Ltd Smalls Recruitment Canberra Smalls Recruitment Sydney SOS Recruitment Staff & Executive Resources Staffing & Office Solutions Status Recruitment Talent 2 TAPS Telstra (VIC) The Green & Green Group P/L The One Umbrella TMP/Hudson Global Resources TMS Asia Pacific TPA Division Of Select Australia TPARC Business Trust Verossity Pty Ltd Watermark Wizard Information Services Wizard Personnel & Office Services P/L Zenith Management Services Zeridan Pty Ltd 206 206 5883 206 Andren, Peter, MP KL6 Calare IND 0 Mr Andren asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 30 May 2007: In respect of Medicare Benefits Schedule item number (a) 10975 (services for a dental condition exacerbating a chronic and complex condition that is being managed by a medical practitioner under an EPC plan), (b) 10976 (services for a dental condition exacerbating a chronic and complex condition that is being managed by a medical practitioner under an EPC plan) and (c) 10977 (services for a dental condition exacerbating a chronic and complex condition that is being managed by a medical practitioner under an EPC plan), what was the allocated expenditure and actual expenditure for the (i) financial year 2004-05; (ii) financial year 2005-06 and (iii) financial year 2006-07 to date. 206 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr Abbott —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) dental items 10975, 10976 and 10977 are part of the Medicare Allied Health Care Initiative introduced in July 2004. Total funding for the Medicare Allied Health Care Initiative was $162.6 million over four years. The components of the initiative were not separately costed, and there was no allocation of funding for individual MBS items. Total budgeted funding for the allied health care items (combined) is shown below. 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Total $41.1m $39.4m $40.6m $41.3m $162.6m # # Total does not add up due to rounding. Total spending on these items has been: 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 (to 31 May 2007) Total (to 31 May 2007) $11.5m $25.1m $39.9m $76.5m Actual expenditure on the MBS dental items 10975, 10976, 10977 is shown in the following table. MBS item 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 (to 31 May 2007) Total (to 31 May 2007) 10975 $104,074 $187,257 $226,983 $518,314 10976 $197,139 $411,393 $505,395 $1,113,927 10977 $3,449 $84,995 $38,951 $127,395 Total $304,662 $683,645 $771,329 $1,759,636 207 207 5886 207 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 31 May 2007: In respect of the installation of ‘checked bag screening’ facilities at the airport of (a) Avalon, (b) Hervey Bay, (c) Newman, (d) Ayers Rock, (e) Kalgoorlie, (f) Norfolk Island, (g) Ballina, (h) Karratha, (i) Paraburdoo, (j) Broome, (k) Kununurra, (l) Port Hedland, (m) Christmas Island, (n) Launceston, (o) Proserpine, (p) Cocos Island, (q) Learmonth, (r) Rockhampton, (s) Coffs Harbour, (t) Mackay, (u) Townsville, (v) Gove, (w) Maroochydore, (x) Williamtown, (y) Hamilton Island and (z) Mount Isa: (i) what sum of Commonwealth funding will be paid; (ii) under what criteria was the airport selected to receive a financial contribution; (iii) what is the name of the report on the ‘checked bag screening study’ for regional airports; (iv) who commissioned the report; (v) who contributed to the report; (vi) when will a declassified version of the report be made publicly available; (vii) are airport owners, or airline companies, expected to make a financial contribution to the installation of checked bag screening equipment, if so what sum; (viii) under what criteria are airport owners, or airline companies, required to make a financial contribution; (ix) does the Commonwealth’s financial contribution cover alterations to the airport terminal building; (x) by what date is the first financial contribution expected to be made; (xi) by what date is the entire payment expected to be made; (xii) what technologies and models of screening equipment will be used; (xiii) what guidelines have been issued to determine the type of screening equipment to be installed; (xiv) what companies will manufacture the screening equipment; and (xv) will the screening equipment be used on all checked baggage on commercial flights; if not why not. Which airports, other than those identified in Part (1), are being considered for similar checked-bag upgrades. In respect of each airport identified in Part (2), what public consultation or inquiry, if any, will be undertaken prior to the upgrade. 208 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: A total of $15.4 million has been provided for this initiative. All airports receiving regular passenger jet flights that are not defined as designated airports under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 are covered by this initiative. This decision was made by the Government, acting on the advice of its agencies. See response to question 1 (ii). See response to question 1 (ii). See response to question 1 (ii). Airport owners will be responsible for implementing checked baggage screening. The Government is offering financial assistance with capital purchase and installation of equipment in implementing this measure in line with the budget announcement. The costs to implement domestic checked baggage screening will vary from airport to airport. See response to question 1 (vi). No. This matter is yet to be determined. While funding totalling $15.4 million has been provided for the 2007-08 and 2008‑09 financial years, the timetable for expenditure is yet to be determined. The Government’s decision is that explosive trace detection equipment is to be operational by 1 December 2007. X‑Ray equipment, which must be operational by 1 December 2008, must be Explosive Detection System capable. The equipment must be capable of meeting the Government’s decision outlined in the response to question 1 (xi). There are a range of companies that are capable of supplying the equipment. The decision does not mandate specific equipment suppliers. The screening equipment will be used in accordance with the Notice issued to screening authorities on the Methods, Techniques & Equipment to be used for screening. The current decision is limited to the 26 airports named in the Budget announcement. Not applicable (see question 2). 208 208 5892 208 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 31 May 2007: Has the Australian Government sought advice as to whether the International Criminal Court can be seized of jurisdiction to investigate human rights abuses against Aung San Suu Kyi; if so, what is that advice. 208 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Consistent with the long-standing practice of successive Governments, we do not comment on legal advice we may or may not have provided to the Government unless the Government decides in a particular case to do so. 209 209 5899 209 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP 0 Ms Macklin asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 31 May 2007: In respect of the operation of the new child support formula, does the formula take account of a non-resident parent’s care of a foster child when determining the level of child support payable; if so, how is the care accounted for; if not, what action is the Government taking to better support the foster carers who also have child support obligations and will the Government be introducing any further amendments to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 to alter the new child support formula to take account of this care. 209 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: Where a foster carer has a child support liability for another child they do not have the foster child recognised as a relevant dependant child in their assessment. Foster children are State Wards covered under state/territory care and protection systems. Formal foster carers, including grandparents and relative carers, are usually paid an allowance and supplementary payments by the relevant authority. These payments are not subject to income tax or income testing provisions. The Australian Government makes a substantial contribution to the wellbeing of all Australian families, including foster, relative and kinship families. Assistance includes the provision of Family Tax Benefit and Child Care Benefit, and providing all children in foster care with access to the Foster Child Health Care Card and access to the Transition to Independent Living Allowance. In addition, a foster carer who pays child support for another child has this amount deducted from the family income used to calculate their Family Assistance payments. All eligible carers are able to access applicable benefits and payments regardless of whether their care is on a formal or informal basis, providing they have ongoing, full-time, day-to-day care and responsibility for the child or young person. 209 209 5905 209 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 Ms Owens asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 31 May 2007: Has he read an article entitled “ANZ to end paper trail with online loan plan”, which appeared in The Australian on 15 May 2007. Is he aware of that part of the article that states “about 900 [of ANZ’s] back-office mortgage jobs would be sent to Bangalore in India”. Are Australian financial institutions required to disclose to customers that, in the course of their banking activities, their personal information—including financial information—may be accessed by persons overseas; if not ,why not. What protections exist to prevent the misuse of the personal and financial information of Australians by persons overseas working directly, or indirectly, for Australian financial institutions. 209 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am aware of the article. I understand that the article states that a “small proportion of about 900 back-office mortgage jobs would be sent to Bangalore in India”. There is no specific requirement for Australian financial institutions to disclose to customers that their personal information may be accessed by persons overseas. Such a requirement has not been considered necessary given the broader regulation in this area. Protections currently exist under the Privacy Act 1998, which is designed to ensure that an organisation in Australia does not avoid its privacy obligations simply by moving personal information offshore. National Privacy Principle 9 – transborder data flows – only permits the transfer of personal information to someone who is in a foreign country in limited circumstances. The transfer can only occur where the organisation reasonably believes that the recipient of the information is subject to a law, binding scheme or contract that effectively imposes principles substantially similar to the National Privacy Principles. There are other circumstances in which the transfer may be permitted, including where the individual consents to the transfer, or in the event that the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the individual and the organisation. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has prudential standards that contain requirements relating to security and confidentially of information in any offshoring agreement, and has released a prudential practice guide on offshore outsourcing for banks (PPG 231 – Outsourcing), building societies and credit unions which is consistent with the National Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988. The guide states that the security and confidentially of information in any offshoring agreement should typically include contractual provisions in relation to data that would be of the same standard as those of a domestic service provider and comply with requirements under Australian legislation and regulations, and that an agreement ensures that all information forwarded to the offshore service provider remain the property of the regulated institution. Further to this, banks have a general duty of confidentiality which is confirmed in the Australian Bankers’ Association’s (ABA) Code of Banking Practice. 210 210 5906 210 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 12 June 2007: Is he taking action to ensure that Australia follows the lead of the United States in imposing sanctions against Sudanese companies and/or individuals implicated in what is widely considered to be a genocide in the Darfur region of that country; if not, why not. Why has the Government not taken action earlier in the form of sanctions against the Sudanese regime. With the benefit of the time elapsed since the imposition of sanctions by the United States, would the Government consider imposing wider sanctions against individuals and companies linked to the widely reported genocide; if not, why not. 210 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Australia has strongly supported and implemented UN Security Council sanctions in relation to Sudan and Darfur. These include an arms embargo and a ban on the provision of military technical assistance, advice and training, as well as travel bans and financial sanctions on individuals designated by the UN Security Council as having impeded the peace process, constituting a threat to stability in Darfur and the region, or having committed violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities (Resolution 1591 of March 2005). The Government has implemented sanctions in relation to Sudan and Darfur in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council has imposed and Australia has implemented sanctions against individuals designated by the Security Council as having impeded the peace process, constituting a threat to stability in Darfur and the region, or having committed violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities. The Government would support further sanctions deemed necessary by the UN Security Council. 211 211 5907 211 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 12 June 2007: Is he aware of (a) reports that Iraqi police stood by whilst a 17-year-old girl was attacked and stoned to death for having a relationship with a Sunni Muslim boy, (b) public statements made by the Police Chief of Dhi Qar Province in Iraq that he could not trust one third of his men because they were linked to illegal militias and (c) reports that Iraqi Police Commandos in Baghdad who work with Coalition forces have been infiltrated by illegal militias and that some commandos have been linked to mass kidnappings and sectarian murders; if so, can he confirm that procedures have been introduced to assess applications from Iraqi police officers before they are deemed eligible to receive training from the Australian military. 211 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. and (c) Police recruitment is a matter for the relevant Iraqi authorities. The Pentagon report Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq June 2007 states that Prime Minister Maliki has publicly committed to giving the Iraqi Security Force commanders the authority to execute operations against all criminals, terrorists and illegally armed groups, and to prohibit militia from controlling local security, regardless of ethno-sectarian affiliation. 211 211 5908 211 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 12 June 2007: Is he aware of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report of May 2007, which states that Iran is operating 1,312 centrifuges and could be operating as many as 3,000 within a month; if so, can he verify that this would provide sufficient uranium to produce a bomb. Can he confirm that, at the current rate at which the Iranians are adding capacity, they are expected to have 8,000 centrifuges by December 2007 and that this is enough to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium for several bombs each year. Is the Government aware that the IAEA report also notes that, “Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures” demanded by IAEA Has the Government made any attempts to discuss, with the United Nations and the United States, the fact that Iran has for nine months been in material breach of a binding resolution requiring it to suspend its enrichment programs; if not, why not. 211 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am aware of the IAEA’s 23 May 2007 report and its conclusion that at Iran’s Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz “on 13 May 2007, eight 164-machine cascades [of centrifuges] were operating simultaneously and were being fed with UF6 [uranium hexafluoride]; two other similar cascades had been vacuum tested and three more were under construction.” The technical ability to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon is dependent on a variety of factors including the ability to operate large cascades of centrifuges continuously, the reliability of the centrifuge cascades when operational, the availability of requisite spare parts and centrifuge components, and the quality of the UF6 used. I note unconfirmed media reports that IAEA Director-General ElBaradei has advised unnamed diplomats that Iran will have installed 8,000 centrifuges by December 2007. On the question of whether this would be enough to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium for several bombs each year, see the answer to (1) above. Yes. Australia has raised its concerns that Iran has failed to suspend its enrichment-related activities as required by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions in bilateral discussions with all five permanent members of the UNSC. In its statement delivered to the First Committee of the UN General Assembly in October 2006, Australia supported the UNSC engagement on Iran’s nuclear program. Australia has also raised its concerns about Iran’s enrichment activities at the quarterly meetings of the IAEA Board of Governors, of which Australia is a member. 212 212 5909 212 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 Mr Kerr asked the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 12 June 2007: Is he aware of strong, bipartisan Tasmanian support for the Ceren family (Nestor Vladimir Rodriguez Quijada, Lindsay Vanessa Ceren De Torres, Sofia Vanessa Torres Ceren, Katherine Elena Torres Ceren, Jeshua Vlidimir Rodriguez Ceren and Joseph Rodriguez Ceren) being permitted to remain in Australia. What is the reason for the delay in processing the family’s application for a humanitarian visa. Why, pending a substantive decision on decisions subject to a long delay, has he thus far declined to grant family members of working age bridging visas with work rights. 212 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am aware of community support for the Ceren family to remain in Australia. The family’s application for a protection visa was refused by the departmental decision maker and that decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal because they were found not to be owed Australia’s protection. The family have requested that I consider exercising my public interest power under section 417 of the Migration Act 1958. I have asked that the family undergo health and character checks before I will consider intervening in their case. My Department has provided the family with the necessary documentation to enable them to undertake the necessary health and character checks. The family have not yet finalised those checks. On 17 April 2007, the Department’s Hobart office provided Mr Rodriguez Quijada with an application form to enable him to apply for permission to work. As at 22 June 2007, an application had not been received by the Department. 212 212 6009 212 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 12 June 2007: Further to his response to questions No. 5528, 5529 and 5535 (Hansard, 22 May 2007, pages 72-73) concerning Counter-Terrorism First Response Airports, (a) did his department’s review of the Wheeler Report result in any additional airports being classified as Counter-Terrorism First Response Airports and (b) why has his department, in association with the Australian Federal Police, not undertaken a risk assessment of Avalon Airport as a Counter-Terrorism First Response Airport since the release of the Wheeler Report. 212 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. In 2004, the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the Australian Federal Police conducted a security risk assessment of Avalon Airport. Based on this risk assessment a determination was made that a CTFR presence was not required. 213 213 6011 213 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 13 June 2007: What (a) former and (b) current provisions has the Government used to facilitate Australian residents’ interaction with foreign countries’ administrative authorities, including those in possession of, or responsible for, the issuing of official documentation required by the Australian Government or its agencies for any purpose. Have staff of the Government or its agencies been positioned in Greece, either wholly or partly for the purpose of assisting Australian residents’ interaction with Greek administrative authorities; if so, (a) when, (b) with formal responsibility to which agency or agencies and (c) with what specific responsibilities; if not, why not. Will the Government co-ordinate the Australian social security system and the requirements it places upon pension applicants/beneficiaries with the administrative system, service agencies and practices of any foreign country in which those systems, service agencies and practices are not comparable to those of Australia; if so, how. 213 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr Brough —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: This question should be asked of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The bilateral social security agreement with Greece was signed on 23 May 2007. The agreement will take effect following the completion of all necessary treaty and legislative processes in both countries and once all necessary administrative arrangements have been finalised. At this stage this is expected to occur some time in 2008. The placement of staff in Greece to assist customers with claims and enquiries is one of a range of options that Centrelink will consider. This question should be asked of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 213 213 6012 213 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 13 June 2007: In respect of the (a) Extended Aged Care at Home package, (b) Home and Community Care package, (c) High Care Package, (d) Low Care Package: how many are allocated within South Australia; how many are allocated within the electoral division of Hindmarsh; who, or which organisations, within South Australia and the electoral division of Hindmarsh, are currently in receipt of the package; how long have organisations and individuals in South Australia and the electoral division of Hindmarsh that are on a waiting list been waiting for access to the package; and can the government guarantee that organisations and individuals in South Australia and the electoral division of Hindmarsh that are on a waiting list will receive the package in the near future. 213 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 Mr Pyne —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) packages As at 31 December 2006, there were 286 EACH packages allocated in South Australia. The planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions, not by electorate. The electoral division of Hindmarsh falls within the Metropolitan South and Metropolitan West Aged Care Planning Regions. There were 59 EACH packages allocated in Metropolitan South and 51 EACH packages allocated in Metropolitan West Aged Care Planning Regions. Information on those organisations which are approved to provide EACH packages is provided at Attachment A. and (v) The Government does not keep waiting lists of individuals or organisations awaiting access to aged care services and so is unable to provide this information. Home and Community Care (HACC) to (v) There are no Home and Community Care ‘packages’ allocated as such by the Australian Government. The Australian Government provides 60 percent of HACC Program funding and maintains a broad strategic policy role. The South Australian Department for Families and Communities Planning manages the HACC Program in South Australia. High Care Package There is no type of care defined as ‘High Care Package’ under the Aged Care Act 1997. There is, however, high care community care which comprises Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) and EACH (Dementia). Information about EACH is answered in part (a) above. The following answer is in respect of EACH (Dementia).                         (i)    As at 31 December 2006, there were 116 EACH (Dementia) packages allocated in South Australia. (ii)   The planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions, not by electorate. The electoral division of Hindmarsh falls within the Metropolitan South and Metropolitan West Aged Care Planning Regions. As at 31 December 2006, there were 20 EACH (Dementia) packages allocated in Metropolitan South and 10 EACH (Dementia) packages allocated in Metropolitan West Aged Care Planning Regions. (iii)  Information on those organisations which are approved to provide EACH (Dementia) care is provided at Attachment B. (iv)  and (v) The Government does not keep data on waiting lists of individuals or organisations awaiting access to aged care services and so is unable to provide this information. Low Care Package There is no type of care defined as ‘Low Care Package’ under the Aged Care Act 1997. There are, however, Community Aged Care Packages (CACPs). The following answer is in respect of CACPs.                         (i)   As at 31 December 2006, there were 3,292 CACPs allocated in South Australia. (ii)   The planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions, not by electorate. The electoral division of Hindmarsh falls within the Metropolitan South and Metropolitan West Aged Care Planning Regions. There were 770 CACPs allocated in Metropolitan South and 555 Community Aged Care Packages allocated in Metropolitan West Aged Care Planning Regions. (iii)  Information on those organisations which are approved to provide CACPs is provided at Attachment C. (iv)  and (v) The Government does not keep data on waiting lists of individuals or organisations awaiting access to aged care services and so is unable to provide this information. Attachment A List of Extended Aged Care at Home Places in South Australia at 31 December 2006 Service Name Approved Provider Places In Home Care EACH Program Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 35 Alexandrina Extended Aged Care At Home Southern Cross Care (SA) Inc 20 Community Care Program Masonic Homes Inc 18 Adelaide Senior Citizens Village Inc - EACHP Italian Benevolent Foundation SA Inc 5 Mid North Community Care Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 18 Home Based Services - EACHP Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 14 HCS Extended Home Care Service, Far North Lovell HCS Pty Ltd 5 In Home Care Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 13 Southern Cross Care EACH Packages, North Southern Cross Care (SA) Inc 10 Boandik Lodge EACH Boandik Lodge Inc 10 Eldercare Extended Care Packages Eldercare Inc 5 North East Community Programs Resthaven Inc 15 Rural extended care Barossa Village Inc 5 Northern Extended Care at Home Program (NECAHP) Anglicare SA Inc 10 Convelascenza Domicale Prolongat The Society Of St Hilarion Inc 5 Whyalla Home Support Program (EACH) Whyalla Aged Care Inc 5 Murray Bridge Community Services Resthaven Inc 12 St Louis Extended Aged Care at Home St Louis Nursing Home Pty Ltd 6 Multicultural Home Support Programme Extended Care Uniting Care Wesley Adelaide Incorporated 4 RDNS Extended Aged Care at Home Packages Royal District Nursing Service of SA Incorporated 18 ECH - Cities of Mitcham & Marion EACH ECH Inc 10 ECH - Charles Sturt and West Torrens EACH Program ECH Inc 14 ECH - Victor Harbour, Port Elliot & Goolwa EACH ECH Inc 4 new service -Metropolitan South Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 10 new service -Metropolitan South Churches Of Christ Life Care Inc 5 new service -Metropolitan South City of Holdfast Bay 5 new service -Metropolitan South ECH Inc 5 Attachment B List of Extended Aged Care at Home (Dementia) Places in South Australia at 31 December 2006 Service Name Approved Provider Places In Home Care EACH Program Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 15 Mid North Community Care EACHP (Dementia Specific) Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 5 St Louis Extended Aged Care at Home St Louis Nursing Home Pty Ltd 5 RDNS Extended Aged Care at Home - Dementia Packages Royal District Nursing Service of SA Incorporated 5 Rural Extended Care Barossa Village Inc 7 Eldercare Extended Care Packages - Yorke Peninsula Eldercare Inc 7 ECH - Charles Sturt and West Torrens EACH Program ECH Inc 5 ECH - Victor Harbour, Port Elliot & Goolwa ECH Inc 9 new service - Metro South Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 5 new service - Metro East Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 12 new service - metropolitan South City of Holdfast Bay 5 new service - metro East ECH Inc 8 new service - metro North Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 10 new service - metro East Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 8 new service - Port Augusta/Flinders & Far North Lovell HCS Pty Ltd 5 new service - Whyalla Whyalla Aged Care Inc 5 Attachment C Community Aged Care Places in South Australia at 31 December 2006 Service Name Approved Provider Places ACH Group CACPs Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 129 ACH In Home Care - Murray Bridge Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 15 ACH Options 2 -North East Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 8 Adelaide Hills Community Aged Care Packages - Mt BARKER ( NB 10 in Stirling Metro East) Mt Barker District Soldiers Memorial Hospital 53 Adelaide Hills Community Aged Care Packages - Stirling (NB 30 in Hills, Mallee Sthn) Mt Barker District Soldiers Memorial Hospital 10 Alabri Community Aged Care Services Alabricare (SA) Pty Ltd 30 Aldinga Community Care Program Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 40 Alwyndor Care Packages City of Holdfast Bay 61 Barossa Valley Community Aged Care Packages Barossa Village Inc 54 Boandik CACP Service Boandik Lodge Inc 76 Caring - Aboriginal Care Packages Italian Benevolent Foundation SA Inc 20 Central Western Care at Home Anglicare SA Inc 70 CHAP Community Care Program Country Home Advocacy Project Inc 91 Clinical Care Professionals Clincare Pty Ltd 15 Community Aged Care Program - Inner North Western UnitingCare Wesley Bowden Incorporated 25 Community Aged Care Program - Western Metropolitan UnitingCare Wesley Bowden Incorporated 32 Community Care - East Masonic Homes Inc 40 Community Care Packages South Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 65 Convent of Mercy of Adelaide Inc Community Care Package Service Convent of Mercy Adelaide Inc 15 Coober Pedy Aged Care Packages Coober Pedy Hospital Incorporated 20 ECH Community Care Program Charles Sturt ECH Inc 101 ECH Community Care Program Mitcham ECH Inc 77 ECH Community Care Program Walkerville ECH Inc 24 Elanora - SYP Home for the Aged Elanora - SYP Homes Inc 4 Eyre Regional Health Serv Inc (includes 9 HSL) Eyre Regional Health Service Inc 59 Greek Community Care Packages Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc 45 HCS - Flinders & Northern Lovell HCS Pty Ltd 56 HCS - Home Care Services Lovell HCS Pty Ltd 57 HCS - Home Care Services South Lovell HCS Pty Ltd 25 Helping Hand- Northern Community Care Program Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 50 Home Based Services Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 39 Home Support Services UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide Incorporated 42 In-Home Care Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 40 Italian Village Community Support Program Italian Benevolent Foundation SA Inc 121 Lovell HCS - Port Augusta Lovell HCS Pty Ltd 15 Lutheran Homes Care Packages Lutheran Homes Inc 30 Masonic Homes Inc Community Care Program Masonic Homes Inc 35 Masonic Homes Inc Community Services Masonic Homes Inc 27 Mid North Community Care Packages Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 80 Minda Community Aged Care Services Minda Incorporated 29 Multicultural Home Support Programme UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide Incorporated 16 Multicultural Home Support for Coatian Ukrainian and Belarusian Communities Croatian, Ukrainian and Belarusian Aged Care Association of SA Inc 20 Multicultural Home Support for Croatian Ukrainian and Belarusian Communities UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide Incorporated 34 Multicultural Home Support Programme UnitingCare Wesley Adelaide Incorporated 60 Murray Bridge Care Packages Resthaven Inc 43 Murray Mallee Community Aged Care Packages Murray Mallee Aged Care Group Inc 65 Narungga Elder Care Program Yorke Peninsula Health Service Inc 27 new service - community care north Masonic Homes Inc 20 new service - Metropolitan North Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 20 new service - Metropolitan North Helping Hand Aged Care Inc 25 new service - Victor Harbour ECH Inc 13 Northern Living at Home Program Anglicare SA Inc 125 Polish Federation Community Care Packages Federation of Polish Organisations in SA Inc 25 Renmark & Paringa District Hospital Community Aged Care Packages Renmark Paringa District Hospital Inc 30 Resthaven - Naracoorte Community Services Resthaven Inc 20 Resthaven Community Aged Care Packages Resthaven Inc 37 Resthaven Eastern Community Aged Care Packages Resthaven Inc 20 Resthaven Inc - Charles Sturt CCPs Resthaven Inc 65 Resthaven Inc Housing Linked Care Package Resthaven Inc 10 Resthaven Marion Community Aged Care Packages Resthaven Inc 60 Resthaven Onkaparinga CACP Resthaven Inc 75 Reynella Lodge CACP’s Churches Of Christ Life Care Inc 55 Riverland Community Aged Care Program Riverland Health Authority Inc 45 South East Regional Health Service South East Regional Health Service Inc 32 Southern Cross Care CACPs (Marion) Southern Cross Care (SA) Inc 30 Southern Cross Care CACPs (Southern Fleurieu) Southern Cross Care (SA) Inc 15 Southern Cross Community Aged Care Program Southern Cross Care (SA) Inc 115 Southern Living at Home Program Anglicare SA Inc 67 St Louis CCP Burnside/East Torrens St Louis Nursing Home Pty Ltd 27 St Louis Community Care Packages St Louis Nursing Home Pty Ltd 37 Tenison Woods Community Care Packages Congregation of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart South Australia Inc 15 Thuiszorg SA(Dutch Speaking Home Care) Netherlands Australian Aged Service Association Inc 35 Warrina Homes Warrina Homes Inc 5 Wesley House Community Aged Care Packages UnitingCare Wesley Port Adelaide Incorporated 24 West Torrens Community Aged Care Program City Of West Torrens 30 West Torrens Community Care Aged Care & Housing Group Inc 80 Western Region Nunga Community Care UnitingCare Wesley Port Adelaide Incorporated 15 Whyalla Home Support Program Whyalla Aged Care Inc 30 218 218 6015 218 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 13 June 2007: In respect of the announcement of 8 May 2006 that funds would be allocated in the 2007-08 Budget to allow Customs to procure a dedicated vessel to be based at Ashmore Islands to ensure better protection against illegal foreign fishing: what type of vessel will be procured; what are the dimensions of the vessel; what is the top speed of the vessel; what is the vessel’s crew capacity; which agency/ies will comprise the crew and, if applicable, what is the breakdown of crew by agency; where will the vessel be berthed; with whom has a contract been made for the provision of the vessel; what is the length of the contract; what is the annual cost of the contract; and what are the annual operating costs of the vessel (i) for fuel, (ii) for maintenance, (iii) for operating costs and (iv) in total. 218 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP Attorney-General 1 Mr Ruddock —The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Ashmore Islands Customs Vessel (AICV) will be a chartered vessel with full crew and logistic re-supply included in the charter arrangements. The AICV will operate as a command centre for Customs and Environment officers involved in maritime enforcement patrols, environmental management and marine science activities. In response to question (e) the Commonwealth crew will consist of six Customs officers, with capacity required for up to another four Commonwealth officers that may be drawn from any stakeholder agency – including the Department of Environment and Water Resources and Australian Fisheries Management Authority. In response to question (h), it is anticipated that the length of the contract will be four years from the date of commencement. The Ashmore Islands Vessel procurement is still subject to a tendering process and specific answers to the honourable member’s questions (a) - (d), (f), (g), (i) and (j) cannot be supplied at this time. 1 1 6019 1 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 13 June 2007: From 1 January 2005 to 12 June 2007, did the Minister have any discussions or other communications with Australian Meat Holdings and/or Dinmore abattoir regarding the transport of their products to the Port of Brisbane or elsewhere; if so, what was the content of those discussions or communications. Did Australian Meat Holdings and/or Dinmore abattoir make any representations regarding the construction of the Goodna Bypass and its implications for the transport of their products to the Port of Brisbane or elsewhere; if so, what was the nature of any representations made. 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: I attended a luncheon in May 2006 with a number of major beef processors including Australian Meat Holdings. The informal discussion centred around inadequacies in rail lines operated by Queensland and NSW State Labor Governments. The Terms of Reference for the Ipswich Motorway Alternative Northern Corridor Study required “Consultation to be undertaken with key stakeholders including elected representatives, Government Agencies, service providers and land owners to identify issues and management options for input into the selection of the preferred feasible alignment”. The independent consulting firm appointed to conduct the study, Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, undertook this consultation. I am advised that, as Australian Meat Holdings were considered to be a major stakeholder, a meeting between Maunsell and Australian Meat Holdings took place. I am further advised that at this meeting, Australian Meat Holdings discussed issues relating to the design of the road in relation to their property and the management of any construction impacts on their operations. 219 219 6021 219 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 13 June 2007: Further to his response to question No. 5694 regarding the review of the administrative arrangements for tourist shopping in Australia: (a) when will the current consultation on the review with the State and Territory Governments conclude; (b) to date, which States or Territories have provided a response to the consultation process; and (c) what has been the response from each State and Territory Government that has responded to the consultation process. 219 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The consultation process is continuing and no date for its conclusion has been set. As part of the consultation process with State and Territory Governments, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Dutton MP, wrote to State and Territory Treasurers in January this year, seeking their agreement to the necessary changes in the GST legislation. I understand that the Assistant Treasurer is yet to receive a response from all States and Territories to these letters. Once all responses have been received the Government will be in a position to consider its response. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on these matters while the consultation process is continuing. 220 220 6022 220 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 Mr Ripoll asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 13 June 2007: Has any research been conducted into the ability of unsuccessful applicants for the Government’s Commercial Ready grant to obtain funding from other sources; if so, what were the results. Will he outline (a) how successful Commercial Ready grant recipients have been in attracting subsequent private funding, (b) the mechanisms in place to ensure that private sector investment is not crowded out by Commercial Ready grants and (c) the Government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s concern that the Commercial Ready selection process favours commercially viable projects that would be able to source funding elsewhere. Why is the application and consultation processes for public sector ‘spin-offs’ under Commercial Ready Plus to be streamlined. Will the application and consultation processes for private sector initiatives under Commercial Ready also be streamlined; if not, why not. What are the benefits to the Commercial Ready scheme of the $25 million reduction in funding for the 2006-07 financial year outlined at section 29 of the Portfolio Budget Statement. What mechanisms exist to ensure that projects undertaken by Commercial Ready grants recipients are not abandoned should they be unable to utilise the funding, and does the Government provide extra financial or advisory support for recipients in this position. What proportion of Commercial Ready grants are used by successful applicants for proof of concept activities. 220 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Anecdotal advice from firms is that the application process assists them to identify the cash flow required for the research, and to confirm the role that research has in supporting the company’s business strategy. Anecdotal advice from other providers of financial resources, such as venture capitalists, is that undertaking the application process improves the due diligence of companies and hence their capacity to source other funds. Information about how successful Commercial Ready grant recipients have been in attracting subsequent private funding has not been collected. One of the merit criteria for Commercial Ready is the need for funding. In addressing that criterion, the applicant needs to address the reasons why the project would not proceed satisfactorily without a grant. If the applicant’s financial position shows that the applicant has sufficient resources (including investment funds) to fund the whole project without grant support, the applicant is not funded. My Department’s response to the Productivity Commission’s concern about Commercial Ready was: “Commercial Ready provides benefits to the economy by supporting projects of Australian SMEs which have the potential to successfully bring their product to the market but which also must demonstrate the need for funding to satisfactorily progress their project. As such it aims to support additional activity. Commercial Ready assessment screens out projects that would proceed in the absence of public support. It only provides matching grants where this can successfully market products of national benefit.” To address feedback from industry, the application process for small grants of $50,000 to $250,000 under Commercial Ready Plus will be faster and simpler than under Commercial Ready. Applicants under Commercial Ready Plus, including small and medium sized enterprises and spinoffs from universities and public sector research organisations, will benefit from a more streamlined application and assessment process. The intention of the Commercial Ready Plus program (an element of the Commercial Ready program) is to provide both public sector research organisation spin-offs and private companies with streamlined access to smaller grants of $50,000 to $250,000 by providing companies with faster and simpler access. The application, assessment and contract management processes for Commercial Ready are regularly re-examined for potential improvements and streamlining, and appropriate changes will continue to be made to the program. Government recognises that innovation projects can be unpredictable in terms of the actual timing of activities as they are highly dependent on the outcome of research at different stages. Extensions of time to complete activities are often required by companies and this results in funding commitments being moved into later financial years. In light of these delays, an estimated $25 million of Commercial Ready funding was identified as not expected to be required in 2007/08. Commercial Ready grantees have the opportunity for ongoing contact with their AusIndustry Customer Service Manager and are required to report on project expenditure and activities each quarter. To date, 4% of projects have been identified as solely for proof of concept and a further 57% have been identified as involving proof of concept activities as well as other activities. 221 221 6041 221 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 Ms Kate Ellis asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 18 June 2007: Does the Government record the level of noise generated by interstate freight trains; if so, (a) what is the legal level of noise permitted in residential areas and (b) does the level of noise generated by interstate trains at Forestville, South Australia, exceed the limit. Has there been an increase in interstate freight trains on the Forestville section of track since the completion of the Adelaide-Darwin railway. Will the Government consider providing noise insulation to residents along the Forestville section of the railway track in a manner similar to the Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. 221 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (b) The Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), a company owned by the Australian Government responsible for the management of the interstate rail track network, has been monitoring “wheel squeal” noise at Heathfield since 2005. This is on the same track as Forestville. Noise regulation and the setting of “acceptable” noise levels are the responsibility of the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority. Train movements on the Melbourne-Adelaide corridor have increased from 3,676 in 2004 to 4,319 in 2006. However, this is as a result of natural growth in the transport task and should not be attributed to the opening of the Adelaide-Darwin railway. Residential development along the rail corridor was approved through the South Australian planning system when issues such as rail noise from the existing rail line were considered. The ARTC and all train operators are individually licensed by the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority and are required to have an Environmental Improvement Program to address “wheel squeal”. Planning issues, including the need for any noise abatement programs, would be a matter for the South Australian Government. 222 222 6044 222 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 18 June 2007: Can he confirm that (a) an applicant must be 75 years of age, or older, to be eligible for a five-year passport and (b) that citizens are eligible to receive an aged pension from 65 years of age; if so, (i) why there is a discrepancy between these two benchmarks and (ii) what is the methodology used to determine age eligibility categories for passports. 222 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes Eligibility for an aged pension is a matter for the Minister for Human Services. In relation to passport applications, the term “senior” is used by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to refer to Australians who are 75 years or over. The term is not associated with the varying definitions used by other organisations in Australia. The decision to offer a five-year passport to Australians aged 75 years and over was in response to considerable feedback from people in that particular age group. The decision recognises the needs of a group of Australians who wish to undertake limited travel overseas at this time of their life. 222 222 6059 222 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 Mr Hayes asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 20 June 2007: How many residents of the electoral division of (a) Werriwa and (b) Macarthur have applied for a grant under the LPG Vehicle Scheme for (i) a new vehicle fitted with an LPG unit or (ii) an LPG conversion and, for each category, how many applications have been successful. How many residents of the postcode area (a) 2167, (b) 2168, (c) 2170, (d) 2171, (e) 2174, (f) 2178, (g) 2179, (h) 2555, (i) 2557, (j) 2558, (k) 2559, (l) 2560, (m) 2563, (n) 2564, (o) 2565, (p) 2566, (q) 2567, (r) 2568, (s) 2570, (t) 2745, (u) 2752 and (v) 2232 have applied for a grant under the LPG Vehicle Scheme for (i) a new vehicle fitted with an LPG unit or (ii) an LPG conversion and, for each category, how many of applications have been successful. 222 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information requested is not available. Centrelink can only provide postcode data for successful LPG Vehicle Scheme applications.  Postcode data overlaps a number of adjoining electorates. Postcode data has been provided in response to Question 2. A report on the total number of residents who have applied for a grant under the LPG Vehicle Scheme by postcode is not available. Centrelink can only provide postcode data for successful applications. The following table shows the residents of the requested postcode areas who have successfully applied for a grant under the LPG Vehicle Scheme for (i) a new vehicle fitted with an LPG unit; and (ii) an LPG conversion.  The postcodes requested do not include postcode 2556 which is a postcode in the electorate of Macarthur.  It has been included for completeness: Postcode New Vehicle fitted with an LPG Unit LPG Conversion 2167 1 20 2168 0 58 2170 1 171 2171 0 49 2174 0 0 2178 0 4 2179 0 6 2555 0 2 2556 0 8 2557 0 10 2558 0 25 2559 0 3 2560 0 115 2563 0 2 2564 0 31 2565 1 16 2566 0 55 2567 2 51 2568 0 3 2570 1 70 2745 3 43 2752 0 9 2232 1 30 TOTAL 10 781 223 223 6064 223 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 Ms Owens asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 20 June 2007: In respect of the (a) Extended Aged Care at Home Package, (b) Home and Community Care Package, (c) High Care Package and (d) Low Care Package: how many are allocated within (a) New South Wales, (b) the electoral division of Parramatta and (c) the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146, (viii) 2147, (ix) 2148, (x) 2150, (xi) 2151, (xii) 2152 and (xiii) 2153; who, or which organisations, within (a) New South Wales, (b) the electoral division of Parramatta and (c) the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146 (viii) 2147, (ix) 2148, (x) 2150, (xi) 2151, (xii) 2152 and (xiii) 2153 are currently in receipt of the package; how long have organisations and individuals in (a) New South Wales, (b) the electoral division of Parramatta and (c) the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146 (viii) 2147, (ix) 2148, (x) 2150, (xi) 2151, (xii) 2152 and (xiii) 2153, who are on a waiting list, been waiting for access to the package; and can the Government guarantee that organisations and individuals in (a) New South Wales, (b) the electoral division of Parramatta and (c) the postcode area (i) 2115, (ii) 2116, (iii) 2117, (iv) 2118, (v) 2142, (vi) 2145, (vii) 2146 (viii) 2147, (ix) 2148, (x) 2150, (xi) 2151, (xii) 2152 and (xiii) 2153, who are on the waiting list, will receive the package in the near future. 223 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 Mr Pyne —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In respect of (a) Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) packages, at 31 December 2006: There were 1,077 EACH packages (not including EACH Dementia packages dealt with separately below) allocated in New South Wales. (b) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by electorate. Accordingly, information on care packages is provided for the Western Sydney aged care planning region that encompasses the electorate division of Parramatta. There were 80 EACH packages (not including EACH Dementia packages dealt with separately below) allocated in Western Sydney aged care planning region. (c) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by postcode. Information on those organisations which are approved to provide EACH packages in New South Wales is provided in Attachment A. (b) Information on those organisations which are approved to provide EACH packages in Western Sydney is provided in Attachment B. (c) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by postcode. and (4) The Australian Government does not keep waiting lists of individuals or organisations awaiting access to aged care services and so is unable to provide this information. In respect of (b) Home and Community Care (HACC): to (4) There are no Home and Community Care ‘packages’ allocated as such by the Australian Government. The Australian Government provides 60 percent of Home and Community Care Program funding to states and territories and maintains a broad strategic policy role. The New South Wales Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care manages the HACC Program in NSW. In respect of (c) High Care Packages, at 31 December 2006: It is assumed that ‘High Care Package’ refers to high level community care which comprises Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH) and EACH Dementia. Information about EACH is answered in part (a) above. The following answer is in respect of EACH Dementia. There were 450 EACH Dementia packages allocated in New South Wales. (b) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by electorate. Accordingly, information on care packages is provided for Western Sydney aged care planning region that encompass the electorate division of Parramatta. There were 41 EACH Dementia packages allocated in Western Sydney aged care planning region. (c) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by postcode. Information on those organisations which are approved to provide EACH Dementia packages in New South Wales is provided in Attachment C. (b) Information on those organisations which are approved to provide EACH Dementia packages in Western Sydney is provided in Attachment D. (c) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by postcode. and (4) The Australian Government does not keep waiting lists of individuals or organisations awaiting access to aged care services and so is unable to provide this information. In respect of (d) Low Care Packages, at 31 December 2006: It is assumed that ‘Low Care Package’ refers to Community Aged Care Packages. The following answer is in respect of Community Aged Care Packages. (1)   (a) There were 12,583 Community Aged Care packages allocated in New South Wales. (b) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by electorate. Accordingly, information on care packages is provided for Western Sydney aged care planning region that encompass the electorate division of Parramatta. There were 914 Community Aged Care packages allocated in Western Sydney aged care planning region. (c) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by postcode. (2)   (a) Information on those organisations which are approved to provide Community Aged Care packages in New South Wales is provided in Attachment E. (b) Information on those organisations which are approved to provide Community Aged Care packages in Western Sydney is provided in Attachment F. (c) Planning and allocation of aged care places is based on Aged Care Planning Regions. There is no planning or monitoring of aged care places by postcode. (3)   and (4) The Australian Government does not keep waiting lists of individuals or organisations awaiting access to aged care services and so is unable to provide this information. Attachment A List of NSW EACH (excluding EACH Dementia) Services as at December 2006 Service Provider Count ARV Northern Sydney EACH Anglican Retirement Villages 20 ARV South East Sydney EACH Anglican Retirement Villages 6 Anglican Care Wyong EACH The Trustees of Church Property for the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle 15 Australian Unity Community Care Central Coast Australian Unity Retirement Living Services (NSW) Pty Ltd 1 Australian Unity Community Care Northern Sydney Australian Unity Retirement Living Services (NSW) Pty Ltd 6 Australian Unity Community Care South West Sydney Australian Unity Retirement Living Services (NSW) Pty Ltd 1 Baptist Community Care Services EACH Program Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 28 Blue Care - Kingscliff Gardens Community Care Service - EACH The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) 10 Bodington Community Care (EACH) Catholic Healthcare Limited 10 Bundaleer Care Services EACH Program Bundaleer Care Services Ltd 10 Carrington Community Care EACH Carrington Centennial Care Limited 15 Catholic Community Care (Coffs Harbour) - EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 10 Catholic Community Care (Dubbo) Catholic Healthcare Limited 20 Centacare Catholic Community Services Rosary Village EACH The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 8 Clarence Valley Council - EACH Service Clarence Valley Council 16 Coffs Harbour Nursing Service Pty Ltd Coffs Harbour Nursing Service Pty Limited 10 Community Care - Hunter Region The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 58 EACH - New England H N McLean Memorial Retirement Village Pty Ltd 29 Ex-Services Community Care EACH Ex-Services Community Care Pty Ltd 10 Far North Coast Connect - EACH Service Care Connect Ltd 8 Hammond Care Illawarra EACH Program The Hammond Care Group 30 Hammond Central Coast EACH Program The Hammond Care Group 20 Hammond Community Care - South East Sydney EACH The Hammond Care Group 24 Hammond Community Care - Hunter The Hammond Care Group 10 Health Care at Home Tamworth Pty Ltd EACH Health Care At Home Tamworth Pty Ltd 6 Home Flexi Care - Hunter EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 5 Home Flexi Care - Mid North Coast (Lower) Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 25 Home Flexi Care - Murrumbidgee EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care Niola - EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care North West Sydney EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 15 Home Flexi Care North West Sydney EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 25 Home Flexi Care Northern Beaches - EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care Sutherland EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 15 Hunter Community Care - Flexible Care Hunter Integrated Care Incorporated 10 INS EACH Package - Illawarra C Rafin & Co Pty Ltd 15 INS EACH Packages - Southern Highlands C Rafin & Co Pty Ltd 12 IRT - Illawarra Community Services - EACHPs Illawarra Retirement Trust 30 IRT - Shoalhaven Community Services EACHPs Illawarra Retirement Trust 18 Jewish Care Home Support EACH Jewish Care 5 Kincare - Western Sydney EACH Kincare Community Services Ltd 10 Lucan Care EACH Packages The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 30 Lutheran Aged Care EACH Lutheran Aged Care Albury Inc 20 MCC - Young Community Care Program Mercy Care Centre Young 5 Mercy Arms Community Care Catholic Healthcare Limited 30 Mercy Arms Communty Care Inner West EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 5 Mercy Community Care - Lower North Shore EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 5 Mercy Community Care Hornsby/Ku-ring-gai Catholic Healthcare Limited 15 Merimbula Home Nursing Service Merimbula Home Nursing Service Pty Ltd 18 Mid North Coast Community Options EACH Program Mid North Coast Community Care Options Inc 15 Multicultural Community Care Services Cabramatta Community Centre Inc 30 Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Inc - Innovative Indigenous Care Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Inc 10 Narrama Multi Service Aboriginal EACH Narrama Multi Services Aboriginal Corporation 10 Novacare EACH Novacare Incorporated 12 Our Lady of Consolation EACH Program Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 25 Spiritus Sydney The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane 15 St Carthages Cathedral Parish - Community Care EACH Program The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore 10 St Catherine’s Aged Care Facility Catholic Healthcare Limited 15 St Lukes Community Care EACH St Luke’s Care 20 Sue Mann’s Community Care EACH Sarmace Pty Ltd 30 Sydney Region - EACH Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 Sydney Region EACH Program - Inner West The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 5 The Forrest Centre EACH (Wagga Wagga) The Mary Potter Nursing Home and The Ethel Forrest Day Care Centre Pty Ltd 15 The Hammond Care Group EACH Program The Hammond Care Group 60 UnitingCare Ageing - North Coast Region - Caroona Community Services The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 6 UnitingCare Ageing - North Coast Region - Port Macquarie EACH The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 5 UnitingCare Ageing - North Coast Region Nambucca EACH The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 5 UnitingCare Ageing Nepean Community Services The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 5 UnitingCare Ageing Westmead Community Services The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 UnitingCare Community Care - Miraga EACH The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 5 Wesley Home Care - EACH The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 15 Total 1077 Attachment B List of Western Sydney EACH (excluding EACH Dementia) Services as at December 2006 Service Provider Count Home Flexi Care North West Sydney EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 25 Kincare - Western Sydney EACH Kincare Community Services Ltd 10 Our Lady of Consolation EACH Program Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 25 UnitingCare Ageing Westmead Community Services The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 Total 80 Attachment C List of New South Wales EACH Dementia Services as at December 2006 Service Provider Count ARV Northern Sydney Dementia EACH Anglican Retirement Villages 20 ARV South East Sydney Dementia EACH Anglican Retirement Villages 6 Anglican Care Wyong Dementia EACH The Trustees of Church Property for the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle 5 Bodington Community Care - Dementia EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 5 Carrington Community Care EACH Dementia Carrington Centennial Care Limited 9 Catholic Community Care - Mid North Coast Dementia EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 5 Catholic Community Care - Orana Dementia EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 6 Centacare Catholic Community Services Rosary Village EACH Dementia The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 8 Clarence Valley Council - Dementia EACH Service Clarence Valley Council 13 Dementia EACH - New England H N McLean Memorial Retirement Village Pty Ltd 19 Hammond Care Illawarra Dementia EACH Program The Hammond Care Group 20 Hammond Central Coast Dementia EACH Program The Hammond Care Group 15 Hammond Community Care - South East Sydney - Dementia EACH The Hammond Care Group 30 Hammond Community Care - South West Sydney - Dementia EACH The Hammond Care Group 23 Hammond Community Care EACH Dementia Central West The Hammond Care Group 9 Hammond Community Care EACH Dementia Hunter The Hammond Care Group 12 Home Flexi Care - Hunter EACH Dementia Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 8 Home Flexi Care Far North Coast EACH Dementia Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care Marsfield - EACH Dementia Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care Mid North Coast EACH Dementia Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care Mid State - EACH Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Hunter Community Care - In Home Dementia Care Hunter Integrated Care Incorporated 12 IRT - Illawarra Community Services - Dementia EACHPs Illawarra Retirement Trust 9 Lucan Care Dementia EACH Packages The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 15 MCC Community Aged Care Packages EACH Dementia Mercy Care Centre Young 2 MCC Community Aged Care Packages EACH Dementia Mercy Care Centre Young 4 Mercy Arms Community Care Inner West EACH Dementia Catholic Healthcare Limited 5 Mercy Community Care - Hornsby Ku-ring-gai EACH Dementia Catholic Healthcare Limited 10 Mercy Community Care - Lower North Shore Dementia EACH Catholic Healthcare Limited 6 Merimbula Home Nursing Service - Dementia EACH Merimbula Home Nursing Service Pty Ltd 12 Novacare EACH Dementia Novacare Incorporated 10 Our Lady of Consolation Dementia EACH Program Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 23 St Lukes Community Care Dementia EACH St Luke’s Care 15 Stanhope - Mid North Coast EACH Stanhope Healthcare Services Pty Ltd 10 Sue Mann’s Community Care EACH Dementia Sarmace Pty Ltd 8 Sydney Region EACH Dementia Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 5 The Benevolent Society EACH Dementia Inner West The Benevolent Society 5 Uniting Community Care Riverina (Wagga Wagga) The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 11 UnitingCare Ageing Nepean Community Services - Dementia The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 10 UnitingCare Ageing Westmead Community Services - Dementia The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 18 Wesley Home Care EACH Dementia Program Brookvale The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 7 Total 450 Attachment D List of Western Sydney EACH Dementia Services as at December 2006 Service Provider Count Our Lady of Consolation Dementia EACH Program Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 23 UnitingCare Ageing Westmead Community Services - Dementia The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 18 Total 41 Attachment E List of New South Wales CACP Services as at December 2006 Service Provider Count ANHF CACPs - South East Sydney Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited 10 ANHF CACPs - South West Sydney Australian Nursing Home Foundation Limited 20 ARV Botany CACPs Anglican Retirement Villages 20 ARV CACP Forestville Anglican Retirement Villages 95 ARV CACP Hornsby / Kuring-Gai Anglican Retirement Villages 76 ARV Dapto CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 35 ARV Eastern Suburbs CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 48 ARV Eurobodalla Anglican Retirement Villages 21 ARV Hungarian CACPs Anglican Retirement Villages 20 ARV Public Housing CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 25 ARV Randwick CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 55 ARV Sutherland CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 20 ARV Western Sydney CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 30 Abel Tasman Village Community Care Packages The Abel Tasman Village Association Ltd 15 Abel Tasman Village Community Care Packages The Abel Tasman Village Association Ltd 10 Abel Tasman Village Community Care Packages The Abel Tasman Village Association Ltd 6 Abel Tasman Village Community Care Packages The Abel Tasman Village Association Ltd 6 Abel Tasman Village Community Care Packages The Abel Tasman Village Association Ltd 21 Ada Caring Connections CACPs Rylstone Kandos Aged and Disabled Association Inc 12 Alan Walker Village CACP Service The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 Allawah Hostel And Community Aged Care Packages Coolamon Shire Council 9 Anglican Care CACP The Trustees of Church Property for the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle 101 Anglican Care CACPs -Taree The Storm Retirement Village 29 Anglican Care CACPs -Wyong The Trustees of Church Property for the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle 60 Anglican Retirement Village Rockdale, Hurstville Kogarah CACPs Anglican Retirement Villages 85 Anglican Retirement Villages Bowral and District CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 30 Anglican Retirement Villages CACP’s Shoalhaven Anglican Retirement Villages 40 Australian Chinese Community Association Housing Linked Packages Australian Chinese Community Association of NSW Inc 6 Australian Chinese Community Association South East Sydney CACPs Australian Chinese Community Association of NSW Inc 25 Australian Chinese Community Association Western Sydney CACPs Australian Chinese Community Association of NSW Inc 43 Australian Unity Community Care Central Coast Australian Unity Retirement Living Services (NSW) Pty Ltd 19 Australian Unity Community Care Northern Sydney Australian Unity Retirement Living Services (NSW) Pty Ltd 22 Australian Unity Community Care South West Sydney Australian Unity Retirement Living Services (NSW) Pty Ltd 4 Awabakal Community Aged Care Packages Awabakal Newcastle Aboriginal Co-Operative Ltd 70 Bankstown Home Based Services Bankstown City Aged Care Ltd 112 Bathurst CACPs Southern Cross Community Healthcare Pty Ltd 44 Baulkham Hills CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 62 Baycare - Bay & Basin Community Care Service Bay & Basin Community Resources Inc 20 Bega & District Nursing Home CACPS Bega & District Nursing Home Ltd 39 Bellorana Community Care Bellorana Limited 30 Benedictine Abbey Community Care Packages The Trustees of the Benedictine Abbey Jamberoo 4 Benhome CACPs Maitland Benevolent Society Inc 20 Berriquin Nursing Home Berriquin Nursing Home Foundation Ltd 15 Bimbimbie Village CACP Anglicare Canberra and Goulburn 25 Biripi Community Aged Care Packages Biripi Aboriginal Corporation Medical Service 24 Blacktown Migrant Resource Centre CACPs Blacktown Migrant Resource Centre Incorporated 100 Bland Shire Community Care Bland Shire Council 6 Blue Care Tweed Coast Community Care Services The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) 65 Blue Mountains CACP Service Anglican Retirement Villages 40 Blue Mountains CACPs Southern Cross Community Healthcare Pty Ltd 28 Bodington Community Care Catholic Healthcare Limited 63 Booroongen Djugun Community Care Service Booroongen Djugun Aboriginal Corporation 35 Bundaleer CACP- Wauchope Bundaleer Care Services Ltd 37 Bungree Aboriginal Association Inc. Bungree Aboriginal Association Incorporated 25 Burwood/Strathfield/Concord CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 95 CACP - Central West - Orange Orange Community Resource Organisation Inc 8 CASS CCPS Chinese Australian Services Society Cooperative Ltd 27 CASS CCPS Chinese Australian Services Society Cooperative Ltd 24 CASS CCPS Chinese Australian Services Society Cooperative Ltd 26 CAVOD Jewish Care 5 CAVOD Jewish Care 56 Calare CACP Homecare Service of New South Wales 12 Calvary Community Care Cessnock Calvary Retirement Community Cessnock Limited 25 Canowindra Tweed Byron Aged & Disabled Aboriginal Corporation Canowindra Tweed-Byron Aged and Disabled Aboriginal Corporation 6 Canterbury Multicultural Aged And Disability Support Service Canterbury Multicultural Aged and Disability Support Service Inc 60 Canterbury Multicultural Aged And Disability Support Service Canterbury Multicultural Aged and Disability Support Service Inc 10 Care Connect - CACP Nepean Care Connect Ltd 15 Care Connect - CACP Western Sydney Care Connect Ltd 30 Carrathool Shire Aged Care Services Carrathool Shire Council 8 Carrington Retirement Village Carrington Centennial Trust 105 Catholic Care Lake Macquarie CACPs The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 50 Catholic Care of the Aged CACPs The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore 105 Catholic Community Care (Coffs Harbour) Catholic Healthcare Limited 15 Catholic Community Care - Orana CACPs Catholic Healthcare Limited 10 Catholic Community Care - Riverina Catholic Healthcare Limited 10 Ccps Baulkham Hills Southern Cross Community Healthcare Pty Ltd 20 Centacare Catholic Community Services The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 3 Centacare Catholic Community Services The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 175 Centacare Catholic Community Services The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 6 Centacare Community Aged Care Packages (Housing Linked) The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wollongong 40 Centacare Community Aged Care Packages (NESB) The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wollongong 85 Central Coast Easycare Trophos Pty Limited 30 Central West CACP Homecare Service of New South Wales 17 Chesalon Care At Home - Nepean Sydney Anglican Home Mission Society Council 30 Chesalon Care at Home Sydney Anglican Home Mission Society Council 54 Clarence Valley Council - CACP Service Clarence Valley Council 96 Co.As.It. - Community Care Packages Program CO.AS.IT. - Italian Association of Assistance 60 Co.As.It. - Community Care Packages Program CO.AS.IT. - Italian Association of Assistance 15 Co.As.It. - Community Care Packages Program CO.AS.IT. - Italian Association of Assistance 27 Co.As.It. - Community Care Packages Program CO.AS.IT. - Italian Association of Assistance 50 Co.As.It. - Community Care Packages Program CO.AS.IT. - Italian Association of Assistance 48 Community Aged Care Packages - Salamander Bay Village The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 50 Community Interlink Goulburn Valley Health 30 Community Options Illawarra Community Options Illawarra Incorporated 10 Community Private Home Care Community Private Home Care Pty Ltd 20 Complete Care Aged Services Peninsula Community Centre Incorporated 80 Cooee Lodge Retirement Village Management Committee Gilgandra Shire Council 9 Cooinda Community Care Cooinda Coonabarabran Ltd 5 Crowley Retirement Village - CACP Service Ballina The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore 83 Cypress View Lodge, Apartments & CACPS Coleambally Aged Persons Accommodation Association Incorporated 6 Denman Community Aged Care Denman and District Retirement Centre Association 5 Diocese Of Maitland Catholic Care Of The Aged - CACP Service Newcastle The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 70 Dungog Shire Community Care Service Dungog & District Neighbourcare Incorporated 20 Dyirri-Bang-Gu Aboriginal Aged Care Service Wiradjuri Balaans Incorporated 20 Edina Retirement Centres Community Care Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 76 Elderly Australian Chinese Homes Co-Op Ltd Elderly Australian Chinese Homes NSW Co-Operative Ltd 23 Elderly Australian Chinese Homes Co-Op Ltd Elderly Australian Chinese Homes NSW Co-Operative Ltd 12 Ex-Services Community Care Ex-Services Community Care Pty Ltd 5 Far North Coast Care Connect Community Aged Care Care Connect Ltd 20 Far West CACP Project Homecare Service of New South Wales 23 Far West CACP Service (Broken Hill City Council) Broken Hill City Council 27 Feros Care CACPS Feros Care Limited 45 Frank M Jeffree CACP Service Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution of NSW Nominees Ltd 20 Frank Vickery Village CACP (Upa) The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 Gilgai Aboriginal Centre Inc Gilgai Aboriginal Centre Inc 30 Gloucester Community Aged Care Packages The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 20 Goodooga Health Service Greater Western Area Health Service 12 Greater Hume Aged Services Greater Hume Shire Council 20 Greek Welfare Centre CACP Service Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust 10 Greek Welfare Centre CACP Service Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust 5 Greek Welfare Centre CACP Service Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust 45 Greek Welfare Centre CACP Service Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust 20 Greenhills Lodge - CACP Service Tweed LGA United Protestant Association of NSW Limited 108 Griffith Nursing Service Tajatal Pty Ltd 5 Gunnedah Shire Council CACP Service Gunnedah Shire Council 29 Gunnedah Shire Council CCP Service Gunnedah Shire Council 30 Gwen Warmington Lodge CACP Service Yass Valley Council 10 H.N. McLean Memorial Ccps H N McLean Memorial Retirement Village 46 Hammond Care Group - West Lakes Care The Hammond Care Group 43 Hammond Community Care - Central Coast The Hammond Care Group 101 Hammond Community Care - Central Coast The Hammond Care Group 32 Hammond Community Care - Central West The Hammond Care Group 10 Hammond Community Care - Hornsby Ku-Ring-Gai The Hammond Care Group 30 Hammond Community Care - Illawarra The Hammond Care Group 85 Hammond Community Care - SW Sydney The Hammond Care Group 83 Hammond Community Care - South East Sydney The Hammond Care Group 10 Harbison Memorial Retirement Village Ccps Harbison Memorial Retirement Village 20 Hawkesbury CACP Program Anglican Retirement Villages 30 Help At Home - Canterbury The Benevolent Society 60 Help At Home - North Shore The Benevolent Society 45 Help At Home - Riverwood The Benevolent Society 34 Help At Home - St George The Benevolent Society 87 Help At Home - Warringah/Pittwater The Benevolent Society 65 Help At Home Multicultural CACPs The Benevolent Society 60 Help at Home - Nepean The Benevolent Society 55 Home Flexi Care - Central Coast Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 120 Home Flexi Care - Central West Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 45 Home Flexi Care - Central West Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 5 Home Flexi Care - Hunter Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 38 Home Flexi Care - Marsfield Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 137 Home Flexi Care - Mid North Coast Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 96 Home Flexi Care - Mid State Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 43 Home Flexi Care - Murrumbidgee CACP Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 33 Home Flexi Care Far North Coast CACPs Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 10 Home Flexi Care North West Sydney Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 5 Home Flexi Care North West Sydney Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 50 Home Flexi Care North West Sydney Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 50 Home Flexi Care Riverina Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 45 Home Flexi Care Shoalhaven Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 35 Home Flexi Care South West Sydney Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 20 Home Flexi Care Southern Highlands Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 20 Home Flexi Care Southern Highlands Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 25 Home Flexi Care Sutherland Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 36 Hornsby Ku-Ring-Gai Community Care Hornsby Ku-Ring-Gai Care Association 20 Hunter Community Care Hunter Integrated Care Incorporated 88 IRT - Eurobodalla Community Services- CACPs Illawarra Retirement Trust 75 IRT - Illawarra Community Services - CACPs Illawarra Retirement Trust 102 IRT - Illawarra Community Services - CACPs-HL Illawarra Retirement Trust 30 IRT - Shoalhaven Community Services - CACPs - HL Illawarra Retirement Trust 10 IRT - Shoalhaven Community Services- CACPs Illawarra Retirement Trust 30 IRT - South East Sydney Community Services Illawarra Retirement Trust 55 IRT - South West Sydney Community Service Illawarra Retirement Trust 15 Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation 20 Illawarra In Home Support The Council of the Municipality of Kiama 110 Illawarra South Ccps Homecare Service of New South Wales 20 Ilumba Gardens CACP Service Frank Whiddon Nominees Pty Ltd 4 Inasmuch Caring Centre CACPs Inasmuch Community Inc 30 Jack Towney Aboriginal Hostel - CACPs Jack Towney Hostel Aboriginal Corporation 10 Jali Local Aboriginal Land Council - CACP’s Jali Local Aboriginal Land Council (Administrator appointed) 35 John Paul Village The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 20 Kanandah Retirement Ltd Kanandah Retirement Ltd 20 Kennett Home CCP Sydney South United Protestant Association of NSW Limited 10 Kincare Kincare Community Services Ltd 20 Kincare - Western Sydney Community Service Kincare Community Services Ltd 15 Kincare Pty Ltd Kincare Community Services Ltd 40 Lake Macquarie CACPs The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 35 Latvian Aged Care - Laima Sydney Latvian Society Ltd 3 Latvian Aged Care - Laima Sydney Latvian Society Ltd 18 Latvian Aged Care - Laima Sydney Latvian Society Ltd 4 Liverpool CACP Program Sydney South West Area Health Service 80 Lower Hunter Masonic Aged Care Community Aged Care Packages Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution of NSW Nominees Ltd 55 Lutheran CACP Lutheran Aged Care Albury Inc 75 MacKillop Community Care Sisters of St Joseph Aged Care Services (NSW) 85 MacKillop Community Care-Central Coast Sisters of St Joseph Aged Care Services (NSW) 73 Macarthur Multicultural Community Aged Care Packages Macarthur Diversity Services Inc 40 Macleay Community Care Service Council of the Shire of Kempsey 35 Macquarie Community Aged Care Packages R.S.L. (QLD) War Veterans’ Homes Limited 45 Maitland Community Aged Care Packages The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 100 Marianella Nursing Home Pty Ltd Marianella Nursing Home Limited 15 Mercy Arms Community Care CACP General Marrickville/Leichhardt Catholic Healthcare Limited 97 Mercy Arms Community Care CACP General South Sydney/City of Sydney Catholic Healthcare Limited 58 Mercy Arms Community Care CACP Homeless South Sydney/City of Sydney Catholic Healthcare Limited 25 Mercy Arms Community Care CACP Housing Linked South Sydney/City of Sydney Catholic Healthcare Limited 79 Mercy Care Centre (MCC) Young CCP Mercy Care Centre Young 17 Mercy Care Centre (MCC) Young CCP Mercy Care Centre Young 28 Mercy Community Care CACP Hornsby/Kuringai Catholic Healthcare Limited 127 Mercy Community Care CACP Lower North Shore Catholic Healthcare Limited 120 Mercy Community Care Housing Linked Service Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Singleton) 30 Mercy Community Care Packages Trustees of the Sisters of Mercy (Singleton) 49 Merimbula Home Nursing Service - CACP Merimbula Home Nursing Service Pty Ltd 15 Mid North Coast Area Health Service CACPs North Coast Area Health Service 20 Mid North Coast Community Care The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 65 Mid North Coast Community Care Options Mid North Coast Community Care Options Inc 126 Midjum Cottage House With No Steps 3 Mullauna Village CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 41 Multicultural Community Care Services Cabramatta Community Centre Inc 133 Multicultural Home Care Packages Sydney Multicultural Community Services Incorporated 10 Multicultural Home Care Packages Sydney Multicultural Community Services Incorporated 65 Multipurpose Allira Gathering Association Inc Multipurpose Allira Gathering Association Inc 30 Murravale Aged Care Facility CACP Murrurundi Retirement Homes Association Inc 5 Murray Vale CACPs United Protestant Association of NSW Limited 25 Murrumbidgee Ethnic Dementia Care Homecare Service of New South Wales 10 Myrtles Aged Care Foundation Our Lady of the Myrtles Aged Care Foundation Ltd 30 Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Aboriginal CCPS Nambucca Valley Community Services Council Inc 35 Narrama Multi Services Aboriginal Corporation Narrama Multi Services Aboriginal Corporation 35 Narrandera Wiradjuri Elders Group CACPs Narrandera Wiradjuri Elders Group 5 Nepean Area Multicultural CACPs Anglican Retirement Villages 35 Newcastle Aged Care CACPs Novacare Incorporated 50 Newcastle CACPs The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 15 Newcastle CACPs - Housing/Homeless The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 22 Ngangana Aboriginal CACPs Central West Homecare Service of New South Wales 6 Ngangana Aboriginal CACPs Dareton Homecare Service of New South Wales 25 Ngangana Aboriginal CACPs Lachlan Homecare Service of New South Wales 15 Ngunnawal Community Aged Packages 10 Northern Beaches Community Care Packages Community Care (Northern Beaches) Inc 100 Northern Community Care Glen Innes Severn Council 60 Northern Inland Masonic Retirement CACPs Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution of NSW Nominees Ltd 25 Northern Settlement Services CACP Northern Settlement Services Limited 42 Northern Sydney Region Community Care - Chinese The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 22 Northern Sydney Region Community Care - Hornsby The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 75 Northern Sydney Region Community Care - Italian The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 10 Northern Sydney Region Community Care - Warringah The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 55 Nowra CACPs The Churches of Christ Property Trust 45 Orana CACP Homecare Service of New South Wales 4 Our Lady Of The Myrtles Aged And Community Care Service Our Lady of the Myrtles Aged Care Foundation Ltd 20 Our Lady of Consolation Community Care Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 37 Our Lady of Consolation Housing Linked Packages Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 38 Parramatta CACP’s Southern Cross Community Healthcare Pty Ltd 20 Penrith CACP Program Anglican Retirement Villages 50 Polish Welfare And Information Bureau Inc Polish Welfare and Information Bureau in NSW Inc 10 Polish Welfare And Information Bureau Inc Polish Welfare and Information Bureau in NSW Inc 8 Polish Welfare And Information Bureau Inc Polish Welfare and Information Bureau in NSW Inc 23 Polish Welfare And Information Bureau Inc Polish Welfare and Information Bureau in NSW Inc 12 Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust 55 Presbyterian Homes For Aged Persons, Stockton “Wescott” Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust 20 RSL Veterans CACP Service RSL LifeCare Limited 30 Riverina / Murray Area Branch - Homecare Service Of NSW Homecare Service of New South Wales 6 Services For Seniors - Coffs Harbour The Churches of Christ Property Trust 50 Services For Seniors - Holroyd and Parramatta The Churches of Christ Property Trust 50 Services For Seniors - Tweed Heads CACP The Churches of Christ Property Trust 25 Shoalhaven Aboriginal Aged & Disability Care Services Illaroo Co-operative Aboriginal Corporation 45 Snowy River Home Living Support Snowy River Shire Council 18 Southern Cross Community Care - Blacktown Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 20 Southern Cross Community Care - Botany Randwick Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 30 Southern Cross Community Care - Casino Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 20 Southern Cross Community Care - Holroyd Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 20 Southern Cross Community Care - Murray River Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 24 Southern Cross Community Care - Parkes Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 16 Southern Highlands Homecare CACPs Homecare Service of New South Wales 4 Southern Highlands Remain at Home C Rafin & Co Pty Ltd 10 Southern New England Aboriginal CACP Council of the Shire of Uralla 20 St Andrew’s Retirement Village CACP Service The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 75 St Basil’s Community Care St Basil’s Homes 29 St Basil’s Community Care St Basil’s Homes 6 St Basil’s Homes Community Care St Basil’s Homes 23 St Basil’s Homes Community Care St Basil’s Homes 15 St Carthages Cathedral Parish - Community Care Italian CACP Program The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore 20 St Carthages Cathedral Parish Community Care CACP Program The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore 55 St Catherine’s Community Care Packages Catholic Healthcare Limited 40 St George MRC CACP’s St George Migrant Resource Centre Inc 97 St Hedwig CACP Service St Hedwig Village 7 St Hedwig CACP Service St Hedwig Village 3 St Hedwig CACP Service St Hedwig Village 8 St Hedwig CACP Service St Hedwig Village 10 St Joseph’s CACP Service St Joseph’s Village Limited 35 St Lukes Community Care St Luke’s Care 158 Stanhope - Nepean CACP Stanhope Healthcare Services Pty Ltd 15 Sue Mann’s Community Care Sarmace Pty Ltd 75 Tablelands Community Options Council of the Shire of Uralla 20 Tablelands Community Options (Mainstream) Council of the Shire of Uralla 47 The Forrest Centre CACP (Tumut) The Mary Potter Nursing Home and The Ethel Forrest Day Care Centre Pty Ltd 19 The Forrest Centre CACP (Wagga Wagga) The Mary Potter Nursing Home and The Ethel Forrest Day Care Centre Pty Ltd 42 The Hammond Care Group - CCP Dementia Program The Hammond Care Group 65 The Haven Community Aged Care The Haven Community Incorporated 12 Thomas Holt Village CACPs Thomas Holt Villages 10 Tripoli And Mena CACPs Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Mena Districts 11 Tripoli And Mena CACPs Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Mena Districts 5 Tripoli And Mena CACPs Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Mena Districts 14 Tripoli And Mena CACPs Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Mena Districts 5 Trustees Of The Roman Catholic Church For The Diocese Of Maitland - CACP Service The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle 40 Tuggerah Lakes Community Centre ADSSI Limited 75 Twofold Aboriginal Corporation Twofold Aboriginal Corporation 10 UPA Dubbo CACPs United Protestant Association of NSW Limited 25 UPA North Sydney Community Care Packages United Protestant Association of NSW Limited 19 UPA Orange & Molong CACPs United Protestant Association of NSW Limited 20 Unanderra Community Aged Care Packages The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 Uniting Care - Shoalhaven The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 25 Uniting Care- Caroona The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 47 Uniting Church In Australia - Nareen Gardens The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 120 Uniting Church In Australia Property Trust (NSW) Singleton The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Ageing - North Coast Region - Port Macquarie The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 30 UnitingCare Ageing - North Coast Region - Yamba The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 UnitingCare Ageing - North Coast Region Nambucca Heads CACPs The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Ageing - Sydney Region - Homeless The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 25 UnitingCare Ageing - Sydney Region - Housing Linked The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 50 UnitingCare Ageing - Sydney Region - Inner West The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Ageing - Sydney Region - NESB The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Ageing Macarthur Community Care The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 30 UnitingCare Ageing Nepean Community Services The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 15 UnitingCare Ageing Sydney North Region Community Care - Manly The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Ageing Sydney North Region Community Care - Mosman The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Ageing Sydney North Region Community Care - Pittwater The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 UnitingCare Community Care - Miraga CACP The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 47 UnitingCare Community Care - Orange ATSI The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 7 UnitingCare Community Care - Orange CACP The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 67 UnitingCare Community Care - Wagga Wagga The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 25 Wangary - Homecare Service Of NSW - South West Region Homecare Service of New South Wales 35 Warrigal Community Care - Goulburn Warrigal Care 30 Warrigal Community Care - Illawarra Warrigal Care 20 Warrigal Community Care - Queanbeyan Warrigal Care 40 Wenonah Community Care Gulgong Hostel Association Inc 12 Wesley Holroyd CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 Wesley Home Care CACPs Sutherland The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 67 Wesley Home Care South The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 6 Wesley Mission Homeless CACPS The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 Wesley Parramatta CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 82 Western Plains CACP Homecare Service of New South Wales 25 Wingecarribee Community Aged Care Packages Illawarra Nursing Service Health Care Group 30 Wiradjuri Community Aged Care Packages Homecare Service of New South Wales 23 Wollongong Community Care At Home Sydney Anglican Home Mission Society Council 25 Wyanga Aboriginal Aged Care Program Wyanga Aboriginal Aged Care Program Incorporated 50 Yallambee Lodge Ccps Cooma-Monaro Shire Council 20 Yeoval Community Care Yeoval Community Hospital Co-Operative Ltd 6 Total 12583 Attachment F List of Western Sydney CACP Services as at December 2006 Service Provider Count ARV Western Sydney CACP Anglican Retirement Villages 30 Abel Tasman Village Community Care Packages The Abel Tasman Village Association Ltd 21 Alan Walker Village CACP Service The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 20 Australian Chinese Community Association Western Sydney CACPs Australian Chinese Community Association of NSW Inc 43 Baulkham Hills CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 62 Blacktown Migrant Resource Centre CACPs Blacktown Migrant Resource Centre Incorporated 100 Care Connect - CACP Western Sydney Care Connect Ltd 30 Ccps Baulkham Hills Southern Cross Community Healthcare Pty Ltd 20 Centacare Catholic Community Services The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney 6 Co.As.It. - Community Care Packages Program CO.AS.IT. - Italian Association of Assistance 48 Gilgai Aboriginal Centre Inc Gilgai Aboriginal Centre Inc 30 Greek Welfare Centre CACP Service Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia Consolidated Trust 20 Home Flexi Care North West Sydney Baptist Community Services - NSW & ACT 50 Kincare Kincare Community Services Ltd 20 Latvian Aged Care - Laima Sydney Latvian Society Ltd 4 Mullauna Village CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 41 Our Lady of Consolation Community Care Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 37 Our Lady of Consolation Housing Linked Packages Our Lady of Consolation Aged Care Services Ltd 38 Parramatta CACP’s Southern Cross Community Healthcare Pty Ltd 20 Polish Welfare And Information Bureau Inc Polish Welfare and Information Bureau in NSW Inc 12 Services For Seniors - Holroyd and Parramatta The Churches of Christ Property Trust 50 Southern Cross Community Care - Blacktown Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 20 Southern Cross Community Care - Holroyd Southern Cross Care (NSW & ACT) Inc 20 St Hedwig CACP Service St Hedwig Village 10 St Joseph’s CACP Service St Joseph’s Village Limited 35 Tripoli And Mena CACPs Fraternal Society of Tripoli and Mena Districts 5 Wesley Holroyd CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 40 Wesley Parramatta CACP Program The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (NSW) 82 Total 914 241 241 6070 241 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 Mr Crean asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 21 June 2007: In respect of the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a $700,000 Commonwealth Government grant for a new aquatic centre in Lithgow: was the funding provided through the Regional Partnerships program; if not, under which Commonwealth program was the project funded. what is the purpose of the grant. which Minister, or Ministers, approved the grant. when and by whom was the funding announced. which organisation is to receive the funding. have matched funds been provided; if so, what sum and by which organisation. is a funding agreement in place; if so, (i) will he provide a copy, (ii) by whom was it signed and (iii) when. will he provide a copy of the project’s delivery milestones, including a timetable of when they are to be met and the payments to be made; if not, why not. has any grant money been provided to the proponent to date; if not, when will the first payment be made. what is the total cost of the project. does the construction of the aquatic centre have the approval of the Bathurst Regional Council. has the Bathurst Regional Council confirmed that it will also contribute funds to the project, and was the Central Western NSW Area Consultative Committee consulted before the grant was announced; if so, what did it recommend. 241 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: Funding was not provided through the Regional Partnerships program. The project was funded through the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio. , (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) These questions should be put to the Minister representing the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. 241 241 6071 241 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP 0 Mr Crean asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 21 June 2007: In respect of the recent announcement by the Member for Macquarie of a $200,000 Commonwealth Government grant to the Bathurst Rugby Club premises in Hereford Street, Bathurst: was the funding provided through the Regional Partnerships program; if not, under which Commonwealth program was the project funded. what is the purpose of the grant. which Minister, or Ministers, approved the grant. which organisation is to receive the funding. have matched funds been provided; if so, what sum and by which organisation. is a funding agreement in place; if so, (i) will he provide a copy, (ii) by whom was No. 181—21 June 2007 5299 it signed and (iii) when. will he provide a copy of the project’s delivery milestones, including a timetable of when they are to be met and the payments to be made; if not, why not. has any of the grant money been provided to the proponent to date; if so, what sum and which project milestones has the proponent met; if not, when will the first payment be made; (i) what is the total cost of the project. is the Bathurst Regional Council a partner in the project, and was the Central Western NSW Area Consultative Committee consulted before the grant was announced; if so, what did it recommend. 242 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: Funding was not provided through the Regional Partnerships program. The project was funded through the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio. , (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) These questions should be put to the Minister representing the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. 242 242 6078 242 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 21 June 2007: Is he aware of the recent escalation of hostilities in Sri Lanka, associated with the stalled peace process brokered by the Norwegian Government. Will the Government urge all stakeholders to restart the peace process without further delay and to re-negotiate a peace settlement that safeguards the interests of all Sri Lankans; if so, how; if not, why not. 242 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. I am concerned by the trend towards increasing violence in Sri Lanka. As I have done for some time, I continue to call, including in public statements, on all parties to the conflict in Sri Lanka to resume peace talks without delay to seek a solution which addresses the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. 242 242 6079 242 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 21 June 2007: Will the Government make representations to UN Human Rights Council members, calling for an Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights field operation that is mandated to undertake monitoring, protection and capacity-building activities in Sri Lanka; if so, when; if not, why not. 242 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) already has ongoing involvement in Sri Lanka. Should the Honourable Member require further details on its engagement, these are accessible at the following internet address: http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/lk/index.htm My department will continue to monitor the efforts, and effectiveness, of OHCHR in Sri Lanka, and to support its activities there, as appropriate. Australia has publicly stated its concerns about the situation in Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council, including at its September 2006 and March 2007 sessions. The Australian Government will continue to take appropriate opportunities in international forums to support action where we judge that it can produce effective outcomes. 243 243 6080 243 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 21 June 2007: In respect of the recent escalation of hostilities in Sri Lanka, is the Government providing funding to civil society organisations in Sri Lanka, particularly those committed to civilian protection, monitoring and peaceful advocacy initiatives; if so, what are the full details; if not, why not. 243 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. In Sri Lanka, under the Australian Community Rehabilitation Program (ACRP), the Australian aid program contributes to projects proposed by UN agencies and International Non-Governmental Organizations and implemented by local Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations. The Direct Assistance Program (DAP) can also be used to support Civil Society Organisations directly. Attached are details of local NGOs and Civil Society Organizations implementing projects in Sri Lanka funded by AusAID, including activities and programmes committed to: Civilian protection (includes organizations especially working with women and children in conflict zones); Monitoring; and Advocacy for peace and peace-building initiatives. Attachment B Civil Society Organisations funded through the Australian Community Rehabilitation Programme (ACRP) mechanism: Name of Partner Activity Approximate value and funding period (1) ASIA FOUNDATION : Local Economic Governance Project (Island wide) Peace Related Centre for Mediation and Mediation Training (CMMT) Ragama Training on negotiation and mediation skills for the multi-ethnic business chambers and local governments in the Eastern Province; equips private sector leaders and local government authorities with basic skills for dispute resolution and conflict mitigation $23,775 (inclusive of logistics) 3 Months - completed Local Government (Municipal and Urban Councils), Chambers of Commerce and Trade Associations (no direct funding but managed & implemented by the Asia Foundation) 15 Localities in 4 provinces Public-Private Dialogues (PPDs) and establishing of working groups to identify constraints to economic growth and investment in specific localities and to plan corrective measures (these are multi-ethnic and multi-religious and help to build bridges and trust between communities). $71,326 (inclusive of logistics) 2 years (the PPDs and subsequent working groups have been a core activity since the inception of the project) (2) INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION FOR MIGRATION – Community Rehabilitation Programme (Conflict Areas) NESED (North East Social and Economic Developers) Training provider - Contracted for organizing the New Year Festival (2007) exchange activities for children and youth in Trincomalee – activity is part of IOM larger peace building initiative. $5,547 Feb – April 07 PCA (Peace and Community Action) Training provider - Contracted for conducting workshops on conflict resolution skills in Mannar, Vavuniya and Trincomalee districts. $15,496 March 06 – On-going (3) FLICT – Facilitating Local Initiatives for Conflict Transformation (Island wide) 2005/06-2007/08 Hanguranketha Rural Support Program Improving peoples participation in good governance in local authorities – Central Province. $25,671 18 months X Group Developing a new social dialogue for radical democracy, peace and social justice - Western and North West Provinces. $16,268 24 months Voice of Youth Facilitate networking of youth organizations in Sri Lanka through a web-based approach to promote unity for development – Island-wide. $8,407 12 months Arunalu Peoples Development Foundation Promoting co-existence among youth – Southern Province. $17,935 11 months Centre for Study of Human Rights Capacity-building for frontline security personal at checkpoints to incorporate human rights and public relations – Island-wide. $17,926 6 months Social Economic and Educational Development Association SEEDA Enhancing inter-community relationships among different ethnic groups- Batticlore (East). $14,384 12 months Voluntary Organization for Vulnerable Community Development VOVCOD Strengthening youth peace brigades – Trincomalee (East). $40,051 12 months Peaceful-Environment-Equal-Rights-Lasting-Solutions PEARLS Building intra and inter community relationships for peaceful co-existence – Puttlam (North West). $30,411 24 months Eastern Province Women’s Dev. Volunteer Org Strengthening conflict transformation skills among people – Trincomalee (East). $14,690 24 months Social Development and Research Strengthening community ties and responsible citizenships in conflict areas – Trincomalee (East). $40,516 23 months Ruwan Rekha Inter religious harmony by strengthening senior citizens and youth involvement – Colombo. $32,743 18 months Saranihar News reporting through a multi-ethnic professional media group – Colombo. $45,602 12 months Sri Lanka Centre for Development Facilitation SLCDF Capacity-building of local CSOs for conflict transformation interventions – Sothern and Eastern provinces. $1,13,264 18 months Foundation for Community Transformation FCT Developing a bills of rights for Tamils of Recent Indian Origin - Central, Sabaragamuwa and Uva provinces. $25,438 18 months Organization for Rehabilitation of Handicapped ORHAN National peace-building through persons with special needs - Northern and Eastern provinces. $42,728 23 months Business for Peace Alliance Building peace through collaborative business initiatives – Island-wide. $101,215 6 months Comment (FLICT) - All FLICT activities were funded for a two-year period from 2005/06 to 2007/08. At present 15 of the above 16 organizations are civil society / non-governmental organizations. Business for Peace Alliance (BPA) is a private sector initiative and works as an intermediary organization that has a network of regional chambers of commerce. All working on advocacy at different levels for peace and conflict transformation. (5) INTERNATIONAL ALERT – Business for Peace (Island-wide) Business for Peace Alliance (BPA) Regional (district) level network of 22 business chambers country-wide, promoting ethnic harmony and peace-making at regional level (contributing to the larger national peace advocacy initiative). $75,996 March 07-Feb 08 Hambantota Youth Business Trust (HYBT) Service fund managed by rural district-based business chamber benefiting local marginalised youth sector. (The main cause for the JVP insurrection in the 80s and 90s was the lack of employment opportunities and economic prospects for the youth in the South). Addressing these issues is part of the conflict prevention strategy and contributes to overall peace-building. $21,862 April 07-Mar 08 Centre for Poverty Analysis (CEPA) National non-governmental think-tank researching socially depressed sectors that contribute to larger social crisis and thereby influence the ethnic conflict in a variety of ways. Overall peace-building and conflict transformation agenda. $6,571 Oct 06 – Sept 07 Social Policy Analysis and Research Centre (SPARC) Faculty of Arts- University of Colombo University-based think-tank collaborating in programme to develop national Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Peace-building, discourse, enhance conflict-sensitive CSR skills resources and contribute to CSR standard-setting in Private Sector. $14,935 Feb 07-Jan 08 Planned transfers in 07-08 Young Asia Television (YATV) Private sector - youth exclusion dialogue and media campaign. $23,717 Various District Chamber of Commerce Piloting CSR and peace-building activities in the Districts. $23,717 (6) MERCY CORPS: Eastern Community Rehabilitation Programme Peace-building and conflict sensitive community mobilization Socio Economic Development Organization of Trincomalee Integrated Community Mobilization – conflict-sensitive community mobilisation, capacity-building and conflict management (Trincomalee). $2,734 Activity completed 05/06 funding Sewa Lanka Foundation Community Mobilization Project – conflict-sensitive community mobilisation, capacity building and conflict management (Ampara District). $10,268 Activity Completed 05/06 funding PALM Foundation Humanitarian Assistance to IDPs in Kantale. $26,927 Activity completed 06/07 funding SEDOT (Socio Economic Development Organization of Trincomalee) Humanitarian Assistance to IDPs in Tampalagaman and Trincomalee. $5,101 Activity completed 06/07 funding Palm Foundation Ampara Conflict-sensitive community mobilisation, capacity building and conflict management. $32,572 On going 06/07 funding UNICEF Protection – Humanitarian action to support and protect woman and children FORUT Children’s clubs and Psycho-social (Recreational Supplies) for IDP children. $3,586 May-July 07 Non Violent Peace Force Strengthening community participation in child protection North and East (Supplies). $53,863 Jan-April 07 Child Vision Trainers on Psych-social Support to civilians effected by armed conflict – Anuradhapura. $21,893 Jan-April 07 Child Vision Psycho-social Support – Puttalam. $4,687 Feb-April 07 Human Rights Commission Awareness of Police on Child Rights – Vavuniya. $2,609 Feb-April 07 Rural Development Foundation Child Rights and protection –Puttalam. $25,423 April-June 07 Institute of Rural Social Development Child Rights and protection –Anuradhapura.  $1,593 March-May 07 Non Violent Peace Force Strengthening community participation in child protection – North and East. $64,667 Feb-April 07 SHADE Psycho-social Support –Vavuniya. $14,065 April- June 07 Red Cross society Awareness on Sexual & Gender based Violence $13,953 April-June 07 NGO Consortium Vavuniya Coordination of Psychosocial Forum Vavuniya. $2,523 May-July 07 Save the children in Sri Lanka Community Reintegration and Protection of Children affected by armed conflict. $198,435 May-July 07 Non Violent Peace Force Community participation in child protection. $67,154 May-July 07 Common Humanitarian Action Plan (CHAP Activities) Centre for Performing Arts Drama and theatre activities among communities (peace building/ Psychosocial) - Jaffna $6,276 Jan- Apr 2007 Centre for Performing Arts Beyond play in IDP Locations (Psycho-social/peace-building) $3,203 Jun-Aug 2007 OXFAM GB - Social and Economic Development Program for the Plantation Community The Power Foundation Community Mobilization and leadership development, Human rights and Advocacy, Peace support and conflict reduction, Income Generation and Infrastructure, Health, Environment, -Gender and development, HIV/AIDS Awareness. AusAID funds were provided for this activity in June 2007. Levels of funding to these organizations have not yet been determined. UvaWorkers Development Foundation (UWDF) Peace-building and conflict reduction, Community mobilization leadership development, Advocacy and Human rights, Economic and Infrastructure development. Women’s Development Centre Women’s empowerment and Conflict Reduction. Social welfare Mandram Human rights and advocacy, Income generation, Gender and development,-Peace building and conflict reduction. Oxfam Australia – Community Mobilization and Peacebuilding Jaathin Athara Sahayogitha Sanwardana Kamituwa (JSSK) The organisation works with families and villages in the border areas by focusing on institutional strengthening of the central committees, sub-committees and the “Maha saba” in each village. Promotes gender equality, supports women’s empowerment and reduces domestic violence. JSSK takes the necessary steps to prevent frequent violations of human rights and community rights, including access to basic services rightfully provided by the local government authorities. $35,987  July 06-June 07 Rural United Foundation – Deniyaya (RUFD Working with Tamil and Sinhala communities in the estate areas in the district of Matara. This project aims at bring these two communities, Tamil and Sinhala, together to form a strong organisation that would question injustices, raise awareness on rights issues and mobilise the communities to meet their basic needs and livelihood enhancement. $26,381 July 06-June 07 Foundation for Rural Empowerment in Digamadulla (FRED) The organisation builds on the work done in previous years by expanding and strengthening small groups and community organisation; raising awareness on ethnic reconciliation, human rights, women’s empowerment, drug abuse and exploitation etc and addressing gender concerns through gender sensitive development processes and activities.  $34,092  July 06 - June 07 Non violent Peace force – Sri Lanka (NPSL) The focus on the work of NPSL is to engage with Sri Lankan activists, communities and networks in order to encourage and support their initiatives to improve the level of civilian security and respect for Human Rights. The agency works with families affected by violence and focuses on building on their knowledge and courage to seek justice. (Batticaloa District in the East)  $158,330 July 06 – June 07 C. Camp - Community marketing Program Brings together both Tamil and Sinhala partners from across the country, and their members, into a network for goods exchange that will benefit both the poor producer and poor consumer through eliminating much of the profits normally captured by the middleman. It also contributes to peace-building across communities by fostering inter-ethnic interaction. $7,076 July 06 –June 07 Funded under The Direct Assistance Program (DAP) 2006-2007 Foundation for Goodness Construction of an accommodation centre - This is part of a larger project which focuses on bringing youth from across Sri Lanka together through Sport. This centre will be used to accommodate youth sports teams from across the country. It aims to build a grass-roots level constituency for peace through constructive interaction among disadvantaged youth particularly from the conflict affected North-east. $10,300 248 248 6089 248 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 0 Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 21 June 2007: In respect of the decision to allocate funds to fit out purpose-built office, operational and training facilities for the Australian Federal Police at airports, for each financial year from 2007-08 to 2010-11, which airports will receive funding and, for each airport identified, (a) what sum will be allocated each financial year, (b) what specific facilities will be provided and (c) what is the breakdown of proposed expenditure by facilities provided. 249 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 Transport and Regional Services portfolio will not be contributing any resources to this project. The allocation of funding for operational and training facilities for the Australian Federal Police at airports is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Customs, the Hon. Senator David Johnston.