2009-02-05 42 1 4 REPS 0 0 2009-02-05 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 am and read prayers. 527 Miscellaneous 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed today, Thursday, 5 February, at 10.30 am, as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed. 527 Condolences 527 527 Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented. Ordered that the order of the day be considered immediately. 527 10:01:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —Mr Speaker, unfortunately I was unable to participate in the debate in the other chamber before the message was sent back to us, so, if you do not mind, I will just take a few moments to reflect again on the service of Private Greg Sher. Allow me the opportunity to pay my respects for his sad loss and to make some observations. Many fine words have been spoken about this wonderful man, who died honourably and courageously on behalf of his country. We know that Private Sher was 30 when he was tragically killed on the evening of 4 Jan-uary this year in a rocket attack in Oruzgan province in Afghanistan. On 8 Janu-ary, I had the honour of attending a ramp ceremony in the Middle East along with the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, and the then Commander of Joint Task Force 633, Major General Michael Hindmarsh, as Greg Sher was farewelled from the Middle East by Australian troops. Earlier, a ceremony had been held in Tarin Kowt, in the biting cold of the Afghanistan winter. Australian personnel and their coalition allies stood unwavering as they farewelled Private Sher. That was also the case at the ramp ceremony which I attended in the Middle East. In a very simple yet very moving ceremony, troops from Australia, the United States and Japan formed a guard of honour for Private Sher as his casket was placed on the RAAF C17 to be carried home on his final journey. It was a simple but moving ceremony, and it showed the great respect that his comrades had for him. We have seen evidence of that respect in the contributions which have been made about him since that dreadful day on which he lost his life. You have heard about his family, the love and respect that he had from his parents, Yvonne and Felix, his two brothers, Barry and Steve, and his partner, Karen. But his broader family, the Defence family, also held him in great love and respect. And, with his death, we remember other fallen Australian soldiers, his Defence Force brothers. The tributes following this sad occasion are truly a great testament to the deep respect in which he was held by those who knew him. Air Chief Marshal Houston has described him as an experienced professional and a great team member whose ‘actions and service exemplified the spirit and values of the Australian Army’. Private Sher was described by the Chief of Army as ‘a dedicated, passionate and well-respected soldier, who made the ultimate sacrifice in serving our nation’. Private Sher has also been described by the Special Operations Commander Australia, Major General Tim McOwan, as ‘brave, loyal and determined’. In the week following Private Sher’s death and his burial ceremony here in Australia, I visited Afghanistan along with the Chief of the Defence Force and General Hindmarsh, and I had the privilege of witnessing firsthand the courage and commitment of the many deployed Australian Defence Force personnel. Furthermore, I had the great honour to meet with Private Sher’s unit and hear the personal accounts of Greg’s passion, enthusiasm and dedication to service and of the great loss that was felt by his comrades as a result of his death. It is clear that this young man, although paying the ultimate sacrifice, has left many, many fond memories and is held in the highest regard by all of those who knew him. This visit to Afghanistan reinforced for me the great challenges that our personnel are facing, the dangers that they confront on a daily and hourly basis and the professionalism and dedication to service demonstrated by all those I had the opportunity to meet. As the Minister for Defence said in his contribution, we have an absolute obligation to continue our support, to make sure that we assist as far as we possibly can with working towards a secure future for the people of Afghanistan so that those servicemen who have lost their lives serving this great nation of ours will not have done so in vain. I would like to acknowledge the loyal support of the families of deployed Australian Defence Force personnel. When you have the opportunity to go and mix and meet with Defence Force families of those who are deployed, it is quite moving to get an understanding of the anxiousness and the concern that family members have for their partners, husbands, wives, sons and daughters who may be deployed in overseas operations on behalf of our country. Private Greg Sher will be sadly missed by those who loved him here in Australia and also by his mates, particularly those with whom he served. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. 528 528 Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented. Ordered that the order of the day be considered immediately. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. 528 Committees 528 528 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Eggleston has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has been appointed a member of the committee. 528 Bills R3089 528 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 22), omit “must”, substitute “may”. (2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subsection 42C(5), add “, provided that the penalty amount may not be deducted until at least the instalment after the first instalment made following notification to the person of the no show no pay failure”. (3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 18), omit “must”, substitute “may”. (4)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 32), omit “must”, substitute “may”. (5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 35), at the end of subsection 42H(5), add “, provided that the penalty amount may not be deducted until at least the instalment after the first instalment made following notification to the person of the reconnection failure”. (6)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 10), omit “must”, substitute “may”. (7)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 22), after section 42N, insert: 42NA  Comprehensive compliance assessment          (1)    Before the Secretary determines that a person has committed a serious failure under section 42M, the Secretary must conduct a comprehensive compliance assessment in relation to the person.          (2)    The comprehensive compliance assessment must assess the following:               (a)    the reasons why the person may have committed failures under this Division;               (b)    the reasons why the person may have failed to meet other requirements under the social security law;               (c)    whether the person has any barriers to employment;               (d)    whether the person’s participation requirements are appropriate. (8)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 22), after section 42N, insert: 42NC  Determination about serious failure requirements and severe financial hardship                   If the Secretary determines that a person commits a serious failure, the Secretary must also determine that this section applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that:               (a)    the person does not have the capacity to undertake any serious failure requirement; and               (b)    serving the serious failure period would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship. (9)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 25), after “serious failure”, insert “and has determined that section 42NC applies”. (10)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 28), after the note, insert:       (1A)    The Secretary may make a determination under paragraph (1)(b) on request or on his or her own initiative. (11)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (lines 32 and 33), omit paragraph 42Q(2)(b), substitute:               (b)    if the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1)(b) on request—the day before the request was made; or               (c)    if the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1)(b) on his or her own initiative—the day before the Secretary makes the determination. (12)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 34), after the note, insert:          (3)    Section 42NC does not affect the operation of this section. (13)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 24), omit “42Q(2)(b)”, substitute “42Q(2)(c)”. (14)  Page 17 (after line 31), at the end of Part 1 of Schedule 1, add: Subdivision G—Review 42ZA  Review of impact of compliance regime          (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the impact of the amendments made by this Division to be undertaken as soon as possible after 30 June 2010.          (2)    The review must report on:               (a)    the effectiveness of the compliance regime in:                     (i)    meeting job seeking requirements;                    (ii)    reducing financial hardship;                   (iii)    reducing compliance costs for job seekers, employment services providers and the Government; and                   (iv)    using the ‘no show, no pay’ provision to increase compliance with job seeking requirements;               (b)    the impact on vulnerable job seekers including Indigenous job seekers;               (c)    the impact of the compliance regime on employment participation and long-term unemployment;               (d)    the number of complaints made with the departmental hotline, Social Security Appeals Tribunal or Ombudsman’s office in relation to the new arrangements;               (e)    the gaps between federal policy and state service provision for persons with non-vocational special needs or barriers;                (f)    the adequacy of non-vocational support services in regional areas;               (g)    the effectiveness of training for and consistency of understanding of Centrelink staff, employment providers and departmental contract managers in the new arrangements;               (h)    the adequacy of information and education provided to new and existing clients about the new system;                (i)    the adequacy of resourcing for Centrelink to implement the new arrangements and deal with related complaints;                (j)    the effectiveness and use of criteria such as hardship, vulnerability and reasonable exclusion within Comprehensive Compliance Assessments; and               (k)    any other related matter.          (3)    The review must be conducted by an independent panel, chaired by a person with expertise in social security and employment services matters.          (4)    The Minister must provide the panel with adequate resources to undertake the review.          (5)    The panel must give the Minister a written report of the review, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be made public and tabled in each House of the Parliament by 30 September 2010. 530 10:13:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I will summarise the amendments that have been agreed to by the Senate and that are now under consideration in the House. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 is a very important piece of legislation. It goes to the way in which job seekers will be dealt with under the compliance regime. The government has been concerned to ensure that the compliance arrangements for job seekers were effective but also fair. We introduced the bill last year and amendments were proposed. The bill successfully passed the House and there was debate on amendments in the Senate yesterday. There were a series of amendments and the government considered them in turn. We would like to put on the record our appreciation for the constructive way in which Senator Siewert, on behalf of the Greens, and Senator Xenophon discussed these particular matters with us. I believe that some of the amendments have improved the bill and that others were not necessary, but I did not have any particular objections. I will now turn to the amendments and go through them for the benefit of the House. Amendments that were passed by the Senate include amendments (1), (3), (4) and (6). These amendments allow Centrelink, as the final decision maker, to have discretion to apply penalties. Amendments (2) and (5) provide for the deduction of a penalty amount in the period immediately after the penalty is incurred, allowing sufficient time for Centrelink to apply penalties consistently. There was a concern that there would be difficulties administratively without these amendments, and we accepted the proposal put. Amendment (7) includes the CCA in legislation rather than in a legislative instrument, without affecting the substance of the CCA. We believe that this amendment, whilst not entirely necessary, certainly does not affect the integrity or intention of the bill that was proposed by the government, and therefore we accepted it and it is now here for us to consider. Amendments (8) to (13) go to ensuring that job seekers who are in severe financial hardship are not adversely affected by any administrative delays. I think these amendments were well considered. I think they will lead to it being less likely that an unemployed person receiving income support will find themselves adversely affected unnecessarily. We accepted the reasoning of the mover of those amendments and acceded to them. The final amendment, that was accepted, which was moved by Senator Xenophon, establishes an independent review to consider the impact of the compliance regime after 12 months. This was something that we had discussions about with Senator Xenophon and Greens Senator Siewert. Those two senators reached an agreement themselves, we accepted that there would be an independent review and the terms of reference were agreed to. I would also like to place on the record another commitment that the government undertook in discussions with Senator Xenophon, and that was to change the no show, no pay incidences within six months from a proposed six occasions to three occasions. There are a number of incidences or breaches in the no show, no pay approach that would trigger a comprehensive compliance assessment. We believe that the argument that Senator Xenophon put—that reducing the number would provide earlier intervention for those job seekers who might be most at risk—was a compelling argument. We also accept that, if there were people wilfully and persistently breaching, this undertaking by the government would allow for a more effective compliance arrangement. For that reason, we supported that change to the compliance regime proposed. That change will take place by way of legislative instrument. I thank Senator Siewert of the Greens and Senator Xenophon for the constructive discussion that we had with them in improving the operation of the bill. I also thank Senator Fielding for his support. The opposition, which of course are on the record as opposing the bill, moved some substantial amendments to it in this place before Christmas last year, and indeed we divided on them. The amendments that were proposed by the opposition yesterday were withdrawn without debate, so the opposition clearly did not want to proceed and debate the amendments that they had proposed and the amendments that they chose to divide on in this House when the matter was last before us. I think that is probably because the constructive discussions between the senators in question and the government left them with no answer. More importantly, I think the amendments that were proposed by the opposition were not really seeking to improve the workings of the compliance arrangement and indeed were not amendments that would have been acceptable to any party other than the opposition. For that reason, those substantive amendments were withdrawn without any consideration at all. These Senate amendments, as I say, are acceptable. This bill is very important for the operation of the compliance regime for the many Australians who are on income support. These arrangements will take effect upon the enactment of this bill on 1 July this year. 532 10:21:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008, which outlines the compliance regime that will operate for the new employment services which will begin on 1 July this year. The opposition wish to place on record that we believe that these amendments do improve this legislation. The most substantive of the amendments is the one that was moved by Senator Xenophon relating to an independent review of the compliance regime after 12 months. This will begin on or about 1 July 2010 and it will be a useful review to inform the parliament on how the compliance regime is working. Very importantly also, the opposition was concerned that six no show, no pay failures over a six-month period was too many and that it did leave open the possibility that someone could be slipping through the gaps and missing their obligations without any action being taken other than being docked one day’s welfare. I welcome the minister’s announcement that this will be done through legislative instrument. We believe that this goes a significant way towards improving the bill. A remaining concern that the opposition does have is the treatment of deliberately missing a job interview which is part of someone’s obligations. I accept that missing a job interview has been treated differently under different employment service regimes over the last 15 years. Now we are moving towards a system where there will be three no show, no pay failures before a comprehensive compliance assessment is triggered. That does capture when someone deliberately misses a job interview, and would be one no show, no pay failure before a comprehensive compliance assessment. Having said that, the number of job seekers who receive a penalty for deliberately missing a job interview is quite small—of the order of about 200 per month in recent times. We know from the updated economic and fiscal outlook that the outlook for jobs will deteriorate quite dramatically over the next 18 months. On the government’s own forecast the unemployment rate will reach seven per cent by June 2010. The numbers of Australians out of work will increase by 300,000 by June 2010. This increase will place enormous pressure on Centrelink, on employment service providers and on the job seekers themselves. It is very important for us as a parliament to make sure that we have a compliance regime which is effective but which also gives the strong message that it does not give up on job seekers and that it does make sure that, although the labour market will look quite bleak over the next 18 months, job seekers do remain actively looking for work and do not become discouraged. None of the other amendments passed in the Senate are objectionable—the discretion for Centrelink, the timing of the penalty amount and putting the comprehensive compliance assessment in the legislation. On reflection, the severe financial hardship provisions are a good improvement. One of the weaknesses with the existing bill was that financial case management to deal with people in financial hardship had been dispensed with. In summary, the opposition agrees that these amendments do improve the bill. Having seen these amendments, the opposition will be supporting this bill. Question agreed to. 533 Bills S706 533 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. Question agreed to. 533 Bills S704 533 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. Question agreed to. 533 Committees 533 533 533 10:28:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —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: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in Sydney, New South Wales. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, proposes to undertake a fit-out of new office accommodation at 100 Market Street in Sydney and to relocate all Sydney staff to these premises. ASIC currently occupies tenancies at 1 Martin Place, 77 Castlereagh Street and 55 Market Street. The lease for the largest tenancy at Martin Place expires in June 2010. The proposed fit-out is for 15,400 square metres over five contiguous floors at 100 Market Street. This will provide a single tenancy for all current and projected Sydney staff and will result in increased operational effectiveness. The fit-out will result in a flexible, efficient, collaborative and contemporary work environment which reflects current industry standards and accords with ASIC’s policies in relation to security of staff and information and occupational health and safety. The estimated cost of the integrated fit-out is $30.8 million plus GST, including $2.5 million for security and $4.3 million for IT and communications infrastructure. The costs will be offset by a substantial lessor contribution to fit-out negotiated as part of the new lease. Subject to parliamentary approval, the planned integrated fit-out will maximise efficiencies in cost and time and will allow the fit-out works to commence in June 2009. This will in turn allow ASIC to take occupation before the lease expires at 1 Martin Place in June 2010. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. 533 Bills R4019 533 Debate resumed from 3 December 2008, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 533 10:30:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I rise to speak on the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008. This bill seeks to amend part 3 of the Foreign Evidence Act 1994. Part 3 of the act provides for foreign material obtained as a result of a mutual assistance request to be adduced in evidence in criminal and related civil proceedings in Australian courts. This material is most important in fraud and money-laundering cases. The act applies to proceedings in states and territories as well as Commonwealth courts. However, these amendments are initially intended only to apply to Commonwealth proceedings. Provision exists for the application of the amendments to state and territory courts by regulation. Some problems have been experienced adducing foreign business records in evidence in state and territory courts. The problems arise because business records must comply with the rules of evidence of the states and territories, some of the requirements of which are technical. The amendments provide that business records obtained through mutual assistance will be presumed to be admissible unless the court is satisfied that the records are not reliable or probative or that they are privileged. In addition, there are measures to provide for testimony to be admitted where the law in the country of its origin does not require such evidence to be given on oath or affirmation or under caution, provided that there is an obligation to tell the truth. These amendments preserve the court’s discretion to refuse to admit evidence where it is in the interests of justice to do so. The use of foreign business records and other evidence is often a vital component of transnational money-laundering and fraud cases. Those cases should not be jeopardised by inconsistencies between Australian jurisdictions as to how or whether that evidence is received by a court. This bill has the support of the opposition. 534 10:32:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —I rise to support the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, which was introduced by the Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, in the last session. This bill appears at first glance to be rather technical but it is in fact a very important piece of legislation. It is important because it will enable the Taxation Office and the government to see that our taxation laws are fairly and efficiently executed and that all Australians pay their fair share of the tax burden—increasingly important in these circumstances that we face at the present time. At a time when many Australians are facing the possibility of hardship as a result of the global economic downturn, it is important that everyone has confidence in the fairness and integrity of our taxation system. Nobody likes paying taxes, but the Australian community understand why we need a taxation system and they have confidence in the way our tax system is administered. That is why Australians are among the world’s most conscientious taxpayers. Support for the taxation system will, however, rapidly erode if taxpayers become convinced that some individuals are able to dodge their responsibilities. Ordinary Australians will soon ask why they should pay their taxes when a handful of wealthy individuals are able to avoid paying theirs. This bill will make the task of ensuring fairness in our taxation system easier. It will do so by enabling the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to gain access more easily to business records and other forms of evidence from foreign countries, thus making easier and quicker the prosecution of those who have sought to avoid paying their fair share of taxation. Although this bill applies only to the Commonwealth, the Attorney expects to have discussions with his state and territory counterparts to examine the extension of its terms by way of regulation to state and territory proceedings as well. The use of evidence gained from foreign countries in Australian courts is governed by two pieces of legislation, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 and the Foreign Evidence Act 1994. These acts enable the Commonwealth Attorney-General to request certain types of information from foreign countries for use as evidence in Australian court proceedings. But, in the years since these acts were passed, certain limitations in their scope and application have become apparent, particularly in relation to taxation cases, which can be very complex and which frequently require extensive documentation. This bill seeks to remedy these deficiencies. It is particularly important that these deficiencies be remedied now, because the Taxation Office and the Australian Federal Police are currently engaged in Australia’s largest ever campaign to crack down on tax evasion, known as Operation Wickenby. This campaign began in 2004 and is still ongoing. It is targeting the minority of wealthy individuals who have sought to avoid or evade their tax responsibilities. By the end of 2008, Operation Wickenby had resulted in the launching of 23 criminal investigations involving 249 completed tax audits. As a result of these investigations, 28 people have been charged on indictable offences and more than $200 million in tax liabilities has been discovered. Nearly $150 million in unpaid tax has been collected. Operation Wickenby is part of the international campaign to stamp out tax evasion and money-laundering through the use of various bogus offshore investment schemes. One of the largest of these is based in the Channel Islands, a well-known tax haven. Recently we saw the arrest in Jersey of Mr Philip de Figueiredo, head of the Swiss tax haven firm Strachans and one of the alleged principals in the offshore tax schemes used by a number of prominent and wealthy Australians. Australian authorities want to extradite Mr de Figueiredo to face charges of tax fraud. It is important to note in passing that Operation Wickenby was begun under the previous government, presumably with the support of all the members of the Howard cabinet. It is not an ideologically motivated attack on the wealthy; it is an effort to enforce the existing tax law and to ensure that all Australians, wealthy or otherwise, pay their fair share of tax. The Commonwealth DPP has advised the government that the current provisions of the Foreign Evidence Act are inadequate for the purpose of gathering the evidence from overseas which is necessary for the successful prosecution of a number of cases arising from Operation Wickenby. Most importantly, the current act makes it difficult to gain access to foreign business records, which are frequently the central pieces of evidence in cases where tax has been evaded through the transfer of money to other countries or where money has been earned through business activity in another country. If this bill is not passed in a timely manner, there is a risk that some of these cases will be put at risk. I am sure that it is an outcome that no-one in this House would desire. To make it clear that the terms of the Foreign Evidence Act apply to foreign business records, this bill amends part 3 of the act to ensure that foreign business records may be made available to Australian authorities unless they are found by a court to be unreliable or privileged. The bill also creates a presumption that such records meet the requirements for admission as evidence to Australian courts unless evidence to the contrary is produced. In other words, where a judge, magistrate or other officer in a foreign country has certified that testimony was given in accordance with the law of that country, the responsibility for proving otherwise will rest with those wishing to challenge this rather than with the Australian authorities. This will make it much easier for Australian authorities to obtain such records and to use the evidence contained in them to prosecute individuals who have evaded their tax responsibilities. This does not mean that business records obtained from overseas will be automatically admitted as evidence in Australian courts. The courts will retain their current discretion to refuse to admit such evidence at the application of a party to the case. In fact, this bill gives the courts greater flexibility in determining the use to which such material may be put. This bill expands the scope for retaining such material, not the scope for its use as evidence in Australian courts. To reinforce this point, the bill before us removes the obligation on the Attorney-General to certify that material received from a foreign country in response to a request under the Foreign Evidence Act satisfies the requirements for testimony. This question will now be left entirely to the discretion of the courts. The court will have the power to reject such material completely or to limit the use which may be made of any given piece of evidence in the case before it. The bill says: The court may limit the use to be made of foreign material if there is a danger that a particular use of the foreign material might be unfairly prejudicial to a party to the proceeding concerned. So this bill actually increases the safeguards for defendants in such cases. The bill also addresses some other areas in which the current law has been found to be inadequate for the purposes for which it was intended. The bill makes it easier to admit as evidence testimony taken overseas by clarifying the question of whether such testimony must have been given under oath. Some countries do not require evidence to be given under oath or affirmation but instead impose an obligation to tell the truth by some other means. In some cases testimony given in a foreign country in this manner has been challenged on the grounds that it does not comply with Australian procedures for the giving of evidence, even though the testimony was given in conformity with the law of the country in which it was given. This bill provides that testimony will be admissible if it was given under an obligation to tell the truth that complied with the law of the country in which it was given. The admissibility of such evidence will still be at the discretion of the court but it will no longer be deemed to be inadmissible merely because it was not taken under oath. The bill also amends the Foreign Evidence Act to broaden the definition of ‘testimony’ so as to take into account the rapid changes in technology which have occurred since the act was passed in 1994. Where the act says ‘audio or video tape’ it will now say ‘a tape, disk or other device from which sounds or images are capable of being reproduced’. This is a sensible provision which reduces the possibility of relevant evidence being ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it was recorded on a medium which did not exist in 1994, such as a mobile phone text message or a posting on a website. Tax evasion is a serious criminal offence. Not only does it deprive the Commonwealth of revenue needed for the many vital functions carried out by the federal and state governments, such as national defence, the payment of pensions and benefits, and support to our health and education systems; it also undermines confidence in the integrity of our taxation system thus encouraging other people to also evade their tax responsibilities. We all know of countries where there is no social consensus about the payment of tax, where most people feel that it is legitimate to avoid and evade paying tax or where corruption enables people, particularly wealthy and powerful people, to avoid taxation altogether. This is the path to lawlessness and social breakdown. Everybody dislikes paying tax and that is why it is all the more remarkable that most Australians are conscientious about meeting their tax obligations. They obey the law because they know their taxes are being spent on important and necessary programs and because they have confidence that the tax system is being administered fairly and honestly. That is why cracking down on the small minority of tax evaders is so important. Campaigns like Operation Wickenby are not vendettas against the wealthy. They are a necessary part of maintaining public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the tax system. If ordinary Australians—people like the wage earners, farmers and small business operators of Eden-Monaro—whose hard work has built the prosperity we now enjoy, see wealthy lawyers, celebrities and company executives avoiding tax with impunity, they will quite reasonably ask: ‘why should I pay my tax or obey the law in other areas if the law is not being enforced against these people?’ This is all the more important as we face the current difficult economic circumstances in which many people face the possibility of losing their jobs, their investments and even their homes. At such times people are quite rightly angry when they see a handful of wealthy individuals enriching themselves by evading their tax responsibilities. That is why it is the responsibility of this parliament to see that the conscientious and diligent officers of the ATO, the AFP and the Office of the DPP do not have unnecessary obstacles put in their way as they investigate and prosecute such individuals. Where legislation is inadequate or out of date, it is our job to see that it is strengthened and brought up to date in a way which makes it easier for these agencies to do their job while, of course, safeguarding the right of defendants to argue their innocence before the courts. That is what this bill does, and I congratulate the Attorney for bringing it forward. It will also complete another vital aspect of the sound regulatory regime that exists in this country which has put us in a much better position in terms of the global financial situation. Therefore, I urge both this House and the Senate to pass this bill without delay. 537 10:44:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I rise today to speak on the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008. This bill intends to amend part 3 of the Foreign Evidence Act 1994, which is the part that relates to foreign material obtained by a request for mutual assistance to be put forward as evidence in legal proceedings in our courts here in Australia—whether in criminal or civil proceedings. It is understood that there have been problems in using such overseas information because of the need for foreign business records to comply with the rules of evidence in the states and territories. Further, this material has been even more important in money laundering and fraud cases. I will take that point up a little later. This bill will apply to Commonwealth proceedings not only in Commonwealth courts but also in the courts of the states and territories. This bill will establish the presumption of admissibility of information obtained through that mutual assistance, unless the court determines that the records are unreliable or privileged. These are the main aspects of this bill and the amendments that I wish to cover. It is true that in this globalised world this country will continue to face the threats of white-collar crime, fraud and money laundering. It is therefore important that measures such as these are progressed, and they have my full support. It is, however, appropriate to also make mention of the previous important legislation that has helped address these specific problems in recent years. These acts form the framework of legislation to fight money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Firstly, I would like to mention the very important Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988, the FTR Act, which was designed to ensure the reporting of specific transactions of $10,000 or more, the retention of specific documents and the identification and knowledge of customers. That act is, of course, administered by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, which was established under the FTR Act as Australia’s anti-money-laundering regulator and specialist financial intelligence unit. The FTR Act covered the cash dealers, including the banks, down to securities dealers and even TABs and cash carriers. The FTR Act has been supplemented by the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, which was another significant regulatory reform by the previous government. That act was initiated to help enable Australia’s financial sector to maintain international business relationships, to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorism financing by meeting the needs of law enforcement agencies for targeted information about possible criminal activity and to bring Australia into line with international standards. Moving beyond the FTR Act, the AML/CTF Act now covers the financial sector, gambling sector, bullion dealers and other professionals or businesses, now known as reporting entities. Given the increased requirements, including costs, and regulations, the act was designed to be implemented in stages, with up to 24 months being provided to achieve full implementation of the act, which has now occurred. The obligations that came with the AML/CTF Act included customer identification and verification of identity, record-keeping and establishing and maintaining the whole program. It also included ongoing customer due diligence and reporting, particularly of suspicious matters, threshold transactions and international funds transfer instructions. The AML/CTF Act imposed a risk based approach to regulation. Reporting entities are now determining the way in which they meet their obligations based on their assessment of the risk of whether providing a designated service to a customer may facilitate money laundering or terrorism financing. AUSTRAC has continued to operate under that act in its role as the nation’s financial intelligence unit. One of the great regulatory improvements imposed in the AML/CTF Act was to expand AUSTRAC’s role as the national AML/CTF regulator with supervisory, monitoring and enforcement functions over a diverse range of business sectors. With these previous acts and with this bill, the question is: what are they designed to deal with? I would now like to speak about one aspect of that—that is, combating money laundering. It is generally considered that there are three stages of money laundering. The first stage is called placement. This is where funds that are derived from illegal activities are actually moved to a more convenient place or into a different form that will arouse less suspicion from regulators. The funds can be moved into a retail economy or into a financial institution, whether it is a traditional or untraditional kind. The second stage is layering, and this is where the funds are moved in via complex financial transactions. This is done to remove clarity and obscure and hide the money and its trail. The third stage is where the money is converted into what appears to be legitimate business earnings or proceeds through normal financial transactions. The final issue I will raise is the difference between organised crime money laundering and terrorism money laundering. Some commentators have described how organised crime money laundering is circular in its operation because ultimately organised crime is about greed and using the illegal proceeds for the sole benefit of those responsible. The funds have to come back clean, for the use of those who planned the whole process. Terrorism money laundering is linear in its nature because it is designed to move funds from an origin to a destination to be utilised for terrorist activities. Working off estimated figures from 2001-02, the financial flow of funds into terrorist organisations at that time were significant and therefore capable of financing great harm to innocent people. They demonstrate the need for vigilance in the future. I will quote some of the estimated figures. It is estimated that Al-Qaeda had a cash flow of between $20 and $50 million in that financial year, Hamas had around $10 million and Hezbollah had about $50 million. These huge funds give terrorists great capacity to organise their evil and cowardly campaigns, and we should be and are committed to engage them on this level, as we should on all levels. In both the organised crime and terrorism forms of money laundering, the characteristics of these operations are clearly complex. To combat them we need careful regulation and ongoing reviews of our legislation. It is therefore right and appropriate that this bill be passed, and I support its passage. 539 10:52:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I rise to speak in support of the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, which will make it easier to conduct criminal prosecutions in this country which involve the taking and obtaining of evidence in relation to overseas activities. In particular, it will allow for a far easier prosecution of white-collar crime in Australia where that criminal activity has involved overseas activities. The bill will do this by streamlining the process by which we adduce foreign business records into evidence in a domestic proceeding. Business records are a key part of any white-collar criminal prosecution. They provide a rich source of information in a criminal prosecution and that information is often highly reliable and highly relevant. Currently, the Foreign Evidence Act is inadequate in allowing all relevant foreign business records which exist to be considered as evidence in a prosecution in an Australian court. So this bill will make it easier, principally, for that evidence to be brought before an Australian court to therefore allow for prosecution. Some very significant prosecutions and activities are currently underway, which I will come to in a moment, and this legislation will help provide the basis for all the necessary information being considered in those prosecutions. Clause 24(4) of the proposed bill provides a presumption that foreign business records can be adduced into a proceeding in Australia, unless it is found that those business records are not probative, not reliable or, for some reason, are privileged documents. That is a much wider ambit in terms of considering foreign business records in a domestic criminal prosecution than that which currently exists under the Foreign Evidence Act. The proposed bill will also make it easier to admit testimony obtained overseas, again, in a domestic proceeding. Paragraph 22(1)(aa) of the proposed bill will make it possible to admit into evidence, in a domestic proceeding, testimony which is obtained overseas, provided that it is obtained and received in circumstances where the person giving the testimony is doing so under a legal obligation to tell the truth. That may be in cases even where no formal oath is given to that person before the testimony is provided. Indeed, clause 22(3) of the proposed bill provides for a presumption that testimony obtained overseas will be able to be used in a domestic proceeding, unless there is evidence to the contrary—that is, that the testimony was provided under a legal obligation to tell the truth. These two provisions are a significant extension of the ability for a domestic court to consider evidence originating from overseas. So, concurrently with that—in a sense, as a check in relation to that—clause 24A of the proposed bill also provides a much greater discretion to the court in not accepting that evidence. It is, if you like, a check on this new, wider ability to review that evidence. It puts that discretion, obviously, in the hands of the court. So, in a sense, it creates a much greater ability to consider information deriving from overseas but puts the court in the driver’s seat as to whether or not to use its discretion to accept it. Of course, that discretion is based on whether or not the acceptance of the evidence originating from overseas would unfairly prejudice a party. A number of other minor amendments are contained in this bill which are also important in terms of allowing greater evidence originating from overseas to be considered in an Australian court. There is, for example, in the proposed bill a provision which provides that references to evidence which is a recording by audio or video means be extended to include recordings which are made by more modern means of recording. There is a clarification that the Attorney-General’s certification of foreign material is limited to what was originally intended—that is, a certification that the foreign material was obtained in response to a mutual assistance request made under the Foreign Evidence Act. That, of course, is what the act originally intended to provide in terms of the Attorney-General’s certification. The Foreign Evidence Act currently applies to Commonwealth courts, to state and territory courts, to criminal prosecutions and to related civil proceedings. That said, this amending legislation will only apply, at least initially, to Commonwealth criminal proceedings and related civil proceedings, with a view to it covering state and territory courts in the future, where those state and territories agree to or want this additional ability to obtain overseas evidence and to apply it to proceedings within their jurisdictions. Tax evasion by taking money overseas is a very big deal for this country. Indeed, in terms of its tax receipts, Australia loses billions of dollars as a result of this activity. Operation Wickenby, an operation conducted by the Australian Taxation Office, is indeed the largest tax investigation operation ever undertaken by them. It began four years ago and it is directed exactly at overseas tax evasion by Australians. It is estimated, in the next four years, to recover $5.7 billion of Australian government revenue. Indeed, in just the last few weeks there have been extradition proceedings undertaken, pursuant to Operation Wickenby. I mention Operation Wickenby in the context of this bill because Operation Wickenby needs this bill. The provisions which are currently in the Foreign Evidence Act do not provide enough of a basis for having all the information that can possibly be obtained and which is relevant to prosecutions under Operation Wickenby, so it is essential that we pass this bill so as to put the proper legislative basis in place to allow all the relevant information to be obtained so that prosecutions under Operation Wickenby, and indeed all criminal prosecutions and related civil proceedings, can consider all the relevant information available. Labor has always been concerned with white-collar crime. We have always been concerned to make sure that there is the proper legislative basis to ensure that white-collar criminals can be prosecuted. Indeed, the Foreign Evidence Act itself was initially an initiative of the Keating government back in 1994, implemented at the time by the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, and by the honourable member for Denison, the Minister for Justice at the time, Duncan Kerr. The principles then were as they are now. The Foreign Evidence Act then was put in place to facilitate and streamline the admissibility of evidence originating from overseas in domestic proceedings. Indeed, if one looks at the second reading speech for the original act, which was at that point the Foreign Evidence Bill 1993, it reads as follows: Part 4 of the bill sets out a similar scheme, adapted to meet the specific needs of the Australian Securities Commission in civil proceedings arising from the Corporations Law and the ASC law where the ASC is a litigant. The part will facilitate the admissibility of foreign evidence in such proceedings. The globalisation of capital markets in the past few years has required business regulatory agencies such as the ASC to liaise and offer assistance to each other in carrying out their regulatory functions. This will often result in requests by the ASC to foreign agencies for information, testimony and documents where the ASC is involved in civil proceedings. Sixteen years down the track, that process of globalisation has gone forward in leaps and bounds. The world that we now live in and the financial transactions which occur are far more complex now than they were then, and it would also be right to say that the activities of white-collar criminals have become increasingly canny and increasingly complex. It is essential, then, that we have a legislative regime which keeps up with this changing world. The Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 is a bill which will do just that: make sure that the Foreign Evidence Act keeps up with the world around it. 541 11:03:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The amendments in the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 facilitate the process of adducing business records held overseas as evidence in Australian courts. By changing the Foreign Evidence Act, they will assist in the prosecution of persons who, by hiding money in the world’s shadowy places, seek to defraud the Commonwealth. They will add to the federal government’s arsenal against tax evasion, money laundering and organised crime. The amendments, by changing or making more simple the receipt of foreign business records by Australian courts, will ensure that Australia’s financial intelligence network—which includes the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—can continue to vigorously pursue investigations into tax fraud both here and overseas. Under the amendments, as long as the requirements of division 3 are met, foreign material relating to business records will be admissible in Australian courts. The court would not be required to consider any other rules of evidence under Commonwealth, state or territory law in relation to that material. It is instructive to consider the nature of business records and why it is that, for many years, there have been continuing attempts to make the receipt of business records in evidence in court proceedings a more simple procedure. The explanatory memorandum for this legislation notes: Business records are generally considered an accurate and reliable form of evidence. That has certainly been the view of Australian lawyers and judges for many years, and since the middle of last century there have been reforms made to Australian rules of evidence dealing with the receipt of Australian business records in courts, all of which have been designed to get over the problem that business records might otherwise have been thought to be hearsay, to have been excluded from evidence and not to be admissible in evidence. There are often problems with using business records to establish the identity of the particular record keeper who made the record. There are often problems in establishing the precise provenance of the business records, and thus there might quite often be either a difficulty or an impossibility in having someone directly connected with the making of the business record come before the court to say that the record in question is authentic, proving the document in the way in which other documents are required to be proved in court. Recognising the usefulness of business records, there have been continual amendments to state evidence acts. Indeed, the Australian Law Reform Commission, in its very large recent review of the Commonwealth Evidence Act—which has also been adopted as a model law in New South Wales—has made some suggestions as to how the business records provisions as they appear in the Commonwealth Evidence Act should be improved. These amendments look at foreign business records, which are records of most direct relevance in pursuing the kinds of tax evasion that are occurring through the use of overseas structures, overseas banks and overseas companies and improving the offences that are being prosecuted under Australian law in Australian courts. Very often, it is seen as greatly useful to be able to bring into evidence records that are obtained from overseas sources. Perhaps most particularly, these amendments will allay any risk that the current unamended provisions of the Foreign Evidence Act will obstruct a number of current prosecutions that arise from Operation Wickenby—an operation that other speakers in this debate have mentioned—which is Australia’s largest tax fraud investigation to date. The purpose of Operation Wickenby has been to detect and dismantle the intricate evasion mechanisms used by a small number of Australian citizens to avoid tax. It has been estimated that these illicit enterprises put in excess of $300 million of Commonwealth revenue at risk. Operation Wickenby has demonstrated a commendable whole-of-government approach to the problem of tax avoidance. It has brought together the expertise of the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and the regulators at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with the enforcement powers of the Australian Crime Commission and the Federal Police. Since 2004, Operation Wickenby has had considerable success in combating tax evaders who blatantly falsify deductions, conceal their taxable income, use offshore transactions and establish companies for the benefit of other tax evaders. There has been quite a deal of publicity given to some of those prosecutions, some of which involve high-profile people and which have been well reported on. Up to June 2008, the Australian Taxation Office had issued tax assessments in the order of $71 million in tax revenue as a direct result of the Australian Crime Commission’s Wickenby investigations. Similarly, the Wickenby examination process has provided invaluable evidence from difficult witnesses for still pending prosecutions. In the year to 30 June 2008, the Australian Crime Commission conducted 203 coercive examinations and issued 182 notices to obtain intelligence and information. In December 2007, three people were charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of $6.6 million and were committed to stand trial. Nothing raises the ire of the Australian taxpayer more than the kinds of people that these amendments to the Foreign Evidence Act are aimed at. An excellent example is the very first enforcement action brought as a result of Operation Wickenby, which was against Adam Hargraves, a Gold Coast entrepreneur whose business, Phone Directories Co., had declared four years without profit. Investigations into Mr Hargraves’s financial arrangements uncovered a sophisticated evasion scheme concealing three Porsches, 10 properties and over $3 million in a Commonwealth securities account. To the hardworking taxpayers in my electorate of Isaacs, this kind of contempt for tax obligations is infuriating. Tax evaders hold the rules of our society in complete disregard. They take the benefits of our public hospitals, our schools, our roads and all the other services that our taxes make possible, but they contribute nothing. I think of tax evaders as thieves, people who steal the benefits of our community without paying for them. This parliament should do everything possible to ensure that the full armoury of powers is available to Commonwealth investigative and prosecuting agencies to ensure that tax evasion is brought to account. The focus of these amendments on the procurement of foreign business records and their use in evidence will be invaluable in combating schemes like those of Mr Hargraves, the Gold Coast entrepreneur. The businesses complicit in these frauds will generally have documentary evidence, often overseas, that is the key to successful prosecution. By way of illustration, one could look at a classic international scam loan arrangement that is outlined in the 2008 Australian Taxation Office publication Tax Havens and Tax Administration. This involves an Australian company establishing a fraudulent tax scheme offering, for example, an $80,000 tax deduction for a $20,000 cash contribution. It runs like this. First, the Australian promoter instructs an international promoter to ‘provide’ finance to the taxpayer. Second, the international promoter sets up a finance company outside Australia. Third, the offshore finance company makes a book entry purporting to finance the Australian taxpayer with a non-recourse book entry loan of $60,000, which is paid on paper, but which is not actually paid, directly to the promoter. Fourth, the Australian taxpayer pays $20,000 in cash to the promoter. Fifth, the Australian taxpayer claims a deduction from the Commonwealth of $80,000, being the book-entry $60,000 loan plus their $20,000 contribution. The last two steps outlined in the Australian Taxation Office’s publication are that the so-called loan is never paid back, and the result is that, at a 40 per cent tax rate, a tax refund of $32,000 is obtained, so that each taxpayer recoups their $20,000 investment and retains a net benefit of $12,000—at, of course, the cost of Commonwealth revenue. These arrangements are difficult to identify. With these amendments, the business records from the offshore finance company—to use the illustration given by the Australian Taxation Office—would be more readily able to be used in evidence in court proceedings, as would the records of the international promoter. It will be harder to set up sham loans like this, because the evidence of whether or not they have been paid back—the evidence that shows that they are in fact sham transactions—will be more readily available to Australian courts. This foreign evidence will be able to be collated with information from tax returns, from credit and debit cards and from international information exchanges under our relevant tax treaties so as to be able to pinpoint abusive schemes created by tax avoiders and evaders. When monitoring patterns of incoming and outgoing transactions, AUSTRAC will identify an inconsistency between a tax evader’s foreign dealings and reported tax outcomes. That is the reason we ask all persons leaving the country to indicate on their departure card if they are carrying more than $10,000 in currency. Evidence is already difficult to obtain from overseas. Companies such as the Geneva firm Strachans SA—the dealings of which were a catalyst for Operation Wickenby—are notoriously secretive. It is no coincidence that Adam Hargraves had a Visa card from the Corner Bank, a private banking institution in Lugano Banca, Switzerland. Of course, access to evidence is dependent on bilateral agreements between the Australian government and governments overseas. Operation Wickenby involves what are known as ‘mutual assistance requests’, whereby Australian law enforcement authorities seek cooperation from international counterparts to secure evidence located offshore. For example, in 2005 the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland ordered that the Australian Crime Commission be given access to Swiss documents detailing a fraudulent $90 million scheme being run out of Sydney to allegedly manufacture Scotch whiskey. It was through this mutual assistance request process that Australian authorities were able to use their international counterparts, the Swiss Magistrates Office, to procure the information necessary to recover the money defrauded from the Commonwealth. The Swiss authorities were also able to assist in the release of the documents identifying several Australian promoters of these fraudulent schemes. These amendments build on the Labor tradition of protecting the Australian taxpayer. Since Australia’s first specialist financial intelligence unit, AUSTRAC, was established under the Hawke government in 1989, Labor has built on this legacy and now introduces these amendments to guarantee the security of Australia’s revenue. I commend the bill to the House. 544 11:18:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —Anyone who practises as a lawyer or as a litigant involving business records knows the challenges of dealing with business records. Business records are in a category all their own in terms of evidence. Often opinion is expressed in those records and often you cannot identify who has drafted the business records, who has put pen to paper, who has typed on the keys to collate those business records. So there is often hearsay involved. Getting evidence adduced in terms of business records is difficult. It is difficult to know who to cross-examine. Courts are notoriously loath to allow business records to be admitted into evidence, and it frustrates litigants and lawyers incredibly. As someone who practised in civil and criminal law for many years before coming to this place, I had many cases involving foreign evidence from Asia, Africa and the United States, and getting evidence was difficult. Making sure it complied with all the technicalities of Queensland jurisdiction and Commonwealth jurisdiction was also a challenge. The main purpose of the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 is to streamline procedures so that we can adduce business records as evidence in Australian court proceedings. Initially, it is to do with criminal and civil matters involving the Commonwealth, but I would hope that the state and territory proceedings will also come within the province of this type of legislation and that agreement can be reached with the states and territories so that we have a uniform system in this country with respect to evidence. Rules and regulations under the Family Court, the Federal Court, the Federal Magistrates Service and the civil courts in Queensland—where I come from—all deal with business records, so it is important that we get this right, and the reason for that can be summed up in this way: nothing causes constituents in my area more aggravation than people not paying their way. I subscribe to the view of the father for the Minister for Trade, the former Treasurer of this country, Frank Crean, who once said words to the effect of, ‘Paying tax is the way we civilise society.’ By paying tax we pay for hospitals and care for the sick. We educate our children. We care for our aged. So the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that Australians who are trying to evade taxation are compelled to pay their way. That means the Australian taxpayers can be confident in the integrity of our taxation system. Whilst the legislation is known as the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, it is all about taxation. It is all about government revenue, and it is all about making people pay their fair share to support the Australian community. Part 3 of the Foreign Evidence Act provides a means of adducing foreign material, such as business records, in response to a mutual assistance request to a foreign country, as evidenced in Australian criminal and related civil proceedings. Currently the act requires that the business records must comply with the rules of evidence in the foreign jurisdiction and also with the very technical, evidentiary rules which vary between the states and territories of Australia. The bill before the House today ensures that those technical problems can be overcome and that the evidence can be adduced and is presumed to be admissible unless the courts are satisfied the records are not reliable and have probity or are privileged. That is a very good, flexible amendment. It will improve the transparency and efficiency of our court system and ensure that evidence can be adduced. Overcoming the requirement that the taking of foreign evidence had to be on oath or affirmation is also a good provision and means that, if someone is under a legal obligation to tell the truth, the evidence can be adduced here in Australia. So there are a number of great initiatives. Also in part 3 there is some clarification that really brings the legislation into the 21st century by changing definitions of audio and video tape to ‘a tape, disk or other device from which sounds or images are capable of being reproduced’ to recognise that we now live in a computer age with all the advances of technology, about which I am sure our children know better than we who sit in this House. The purpose of this particular legislation can be summed up by two words: Operation Wickenby. It is interesting that the Commissioner of Taxation, when he appeared before the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on 3 October 2008, said that he expected an extra $5.7 billion over the next four years in relation to that particular operation. That is what this legislation is all about: improving the prospect of the ATO obtaining further moneys to improve the integrity of our taxation system. The Howard government and this government are to be commended for the way in which they have supported the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Crime Commission, ASIC and other regulatory bodies with respect to Operation Wickenby, which commenced in 2004. As I said, its aim is to minimise tax evasion. In a submission put to the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for a hearing into tax haven banks and US tax compliance conducted by their permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on 17 July 2008, the Australian Taxation Office made some very pertinent comments and points which I will refer to. It noted that the OECD estimates that between US$5 trillion and US$7 trillion is held in tax havens or banking secrecy jurisdictions. The Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC, and Australia’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FIU, have sophisticated capabilities to track international monetary flows. In the financial year ending 30 June 2007 it is estimated that $16 billion was sent directly to tax havens from Australia and approximately $18 billion was sent directly from tax havens to Australia. Those are extraordinary sums of money. It is probably also the case that, with nearly a million Australians living overseas and with 45 per cent of people living in this country either having one parent born overseas or having been born overseas themselves, funds and assets are held offshore, often legitimately. But it is quite sad that at times people have to resort to these types of tactics to avoid their obligations to their fellow citizens. Offshore evasion is a concern internationally. There are a number of factors which mitigate the risk here in Australia: our geographical isolation, the existence of AUSTRAC, vigilance of governments of both persuasions, our lack of an inheritance tax or gift duty, the relative size of flow of funds from Australia to tax havens compared to other countries, the generally law-abiding aspects of the Australian people and the ethics and morality that we have in this country, and the message that the Australian Taxation Office has sent from Operation Wickenby and other activities. But we must always be concerned about concealment. Operation Wickenby is really a multiagency taskforce and it has engaged in a huge investigation—a $300 million tax fraud inquiry into offshore accounts. There have been dozens of people charged. A message must be sent to those people who are abusing tax havens and engaging in dodgy tax schemes and to those individuals and businesses using the cash economy in a way to avoid meeting their obligations to their fellow citizens and companies to not engage in these activities, to refrain from these types of activities, and that they will be punished severely when they engage in these types of activities. The Commissioner of Taxation has written over 3,500 letters to people in the last year asking them to disclose overseas interest. In excess of 820 disclosures have been made and $35 million or more of previously undisclosed income has been disclosed. This is a huge operation which we must support. The Foreign Evidence Act 1994 and the amendments to it in this bill are about supporting the Australian Taxation Office in its endeavours. I believe that constituents in my electorate strongly support these types of measures. They strongly expect that other Australians will pay their way and contribute to building roads, hospitals, schools, community centres and a fair and just Australia. This legislation will go a long way to ensuring that our regulatory bodies undertake the kind of investigation and prosecution which must be undertaken to maintain, in a very difficult time, the kind of lifestyle that we enjoy in this country. I am very pleased to speak on this bill and I commend it to everyone. 546 11:31:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —This is one of those items of legislation which enjoy the support of both sides of the chamber. The Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 obviously enjoys the support of the Rudd government, and it also builds on the work of the Howard-Costello government. This is an issue which is important to all Australians, and it comes to the matter of fairness in the tax system. Technology gallops along—who would have known 10 years ago that we would have the technology and various electronic methods of avoiding obligations that we have in 2009? That is why it is always important that governments look very carefully at the law and make sure that it is updated so that they are able to deliver on their obligations to the Australian people. This bill amends the Foreign Evidence Act. It seeks to make sure that Australia’s courts are given the weapons they need to guarantee that Australian taxpayers are not defrauded and, more generally, that business records from overseas are able to be used as evidence, unless the court is satisfied that the records are not reliable, probative or privileged. The Bill Digest emphasises: Testimony provisions will operate more flexibly to allow for evidence to be received where an individual is under a legal obligation to tell the truth, even though no formal oath or admonition has occurred—unless of course, there is sufficient evidence to raise doubt as to the contrary. Courts will be given greater discretion to limit the use of foreign material where there is a danger that it may be unfairly prejudicial to a party to the proceedings. Also, as in so many other items of legislation, there are additional amendments which update provisions and make consequential changes, many of which are important from the point of view of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s but do not to any great extent change aspects of the law. There is no doubt that right across the world there are criminals and people who seek to take advantage of loopholes or deficiencies in the law. That is why the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 is an important tool in updating the law to make sure that the interests of litigants and taxpayers are carefully observed. Honourable members opposite have pointed out some aspects of the genesis of this legislation. It is one of those items of legislation which ought to become law sooner rather than later. Money laundering is an issue which confronts governments and nations across the world. Because of the fact that the world is now a global village, increasingly we find that governments in one part of the world seek evidence and assistance from other governments to help bring about satisfactory legal outcomes. The concept of a mutual assistance request once might have been quite rare but it is now routine and Australian authorities and authorities overseas cooperate as much as possible, particularly in fraud and money-laundering cases. The act applies to proceedings in state and territory courts as well as to those in Commonwealth courts; however, the amendments in this bill are initially intended to only apply to Commonwealth proceedings. As is often the case, the application of the law may well be broadened by appropriate regulations tabled by the executive. The Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 is an important bill and is supported by the opposition. I commend the bill to the House. 547 11:35:00 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr DEBUS —I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Foreign Evidence Amendment Bill 2008. I particularly acknowledge the members for Farrer, Eden-Monaro, Cowan, Corio, Isaacs, Blair and Fisher. I thank the opposition for its support for the bill. The collection of foreign evidence relies on the willingness of foreign counterparts to provide assistance to Australia. The increasing globalisation of business and advances in technology mean that Australia’s efforts to fight crime depend ever increasingly on this form of foreign assistance, but our laws governing the admissibility of foreign evidence are not always flexible enough to deal with international differences in procedure. Barriers remain that can prevent the use of reliable evidence obtained from foreign countries with systems of criminal investigation and procedural law which differ from ours. That brings us to the amendments before the House. Requests for business records are one of the most common types of requests for foreign evidence made by Australia. Business record evidence is used in financial fraud and proceeds-of-crime matters—a high-profile example referred to by members being the prosecutions arising out of what we call Operation Wickenby. But business record evidence is also used in prosecutions for crimes like money laundering, drug importation and child pornography and, while business records are generally considered a reliable and accurate form of evidence, compliance with Australia’s admissibility requirements is onerous from the point of view of many other countries. These requirements are now adversely impacting on Australia’s ability to obtain reliable evidence in a timely manner, and it is therefore appropriate, and indeed necessary, that more flexible rules are introduced to apply to the admission of foreign business records in domestic proceedings. It is also vital for the administration of justice that the law retains appropriate safeguards and that judicial discretion is maintained in this area. In order to protect against the inappropriate admission of unreliable evidence, the bill provides that foreign business records may not be adduced if the court considers the records are not reliable or probative or if the records are privileged. The court also retains a broad discretion to prevent the foreign business records being adduced if justice would be better served if the foreign material were not adduced—that is to say, the discretion of the judge in any particular case is of great significance. The bill strikes an appropriate balance in retaining safeguards while ensuring that there is sufficient flexibility in the law as it will stand. I ask that the relatively technical and minor appearance of this bill not detract from an understanding of its fundamental importance as a much-needed legal reform. Indeed, the provisions of this bill are vital to the more effective operation of Australian criminal and associated civil proceedings, and I commend it to the House. Question agreed to. 548 Mr DEBUS (Macquarie —Minister for Home Affairs) 11:39:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 548 Bills R4034 548 Debate resumed from 3 December 2008, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 548 11:40:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak today on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. The main purpose of this bill is to facilitate Queensland’s entry into the telecommunications interception regime and also to remedy some significant errors in the act. It is worth noting the Attorney-General’s remarks in his second reading speech on this bill when he said: The inclusion of Queensland agencies will mean that the interception regime established by the T(IA) Act will become truly national. Queensland is currently the only jurisdiction whose law enforcement agencies do not have interception powers. We should note that it is actually not this bill itself which gives Queensland law enforcement agencies their access to interception powers; those powers need to come from the Queensland parliament. But, before the Attorney-General can declare that an agency is eligible under the T(IA) Act, the states need to have their own legislation in place to demonstrate their accountability and record-keeping requirements of Commonwealth law. For Queensland to be able to comply with these requirements, the Commonwealth must recognise in the law the existence and role of the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland. Once this is in place, Queensland can then enact its own laws relating to telephone intercepts without running into inconsistency problems between Queensland law and Com-mon-wealth law. Queensland will give the Public Interest Monitor the oversight role in the application process that is demanded by Commonwealth law and the Commonwealth must give specific reference to the Public Interest Monitor so that there can be that consistency between the two regimes. That is the main purpose of this bill and its main provisions reflect that. In the Queensland parliament, in August 2008, the Premier announced in her ministerial statement: Members may recall that there have been ongoing discussions between the state and federal governments about making phone-tapping powers available to Queensland law enforcement agencies. I am very pleased to advise the House today that the Prime Minister has written to me confirming that the Australian government will now support telecommunication interception powers for the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Kevin Rudd has accepted that these powers should be subject to the involvement of the Public Interest Monitor, an independent barrister who represents the public interest. Phone tapping (sic) is a highly effective law enforcement power, but it is also a highly intrusive one. We have always said that we would consider these powers, but we have also said that they had to come with appropriate safeguards for people’s privacy, and we make no apologies for that. I would like to emphasise the opposition’s view that we understand the need for telecommunications interceptions, but we certainly recognise that there must be strong and appropriate safeguards for people’s privacy. That is a balance that all agencies need to strike. It is important that Queensland come into what needs to be a national regime, and a loophole such as has previously existed may have allowed for interceptions that could have led to detentions and arrests for serious and organised crime not taking place because of conversations that were unable to be intercepted in Queensland. It is worth noting that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act is an act that prohibits interception of communications passing over a telecommunications system. It does not allow it. It prohibits it in a general sense, but then it provides a number of exemptions. It is under these exemptions that the ‘phone tapping’, to use the vernacular, takes place. The exemptions under the T(IA) Act include to the officers of law enforcement and security agencies under warrant, if the Attorney-General is satisfied that the telecommunications system is being used by a person engaged in, or likely to be engaged in, or reasonably suspected to be engaged in, activities or purposes that are prejudicial to security. So a warrant needs to be obtained. The involvement of the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland takes place at that stage and there is appropriate supervision of the process. The bill also makes certain technical amendments to correct and clarify the definitions of ‘certifying officer’ and ‘appropriate authorising officer’. I do not feel that I need to elaborate further on those technical amendments. In conclusion, the interception of telecommunications is an important weapon in the fight against serious and organised crime. This bill enables Queensland agencies, the Queensland Police Service and the Crime and Misconduct Commission, to use that weapon and it harmonises the regime with the oversight arrangements in use in that state. This bill has the support of the opposition. 549 11:46:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. It is interesting that the genesis of this legislation goes back to the 1980s in Queensland, to the Fitzgerald inquiry, which ran from 1987 to 1989. Subsequent to the Fitzgerald inquiry the CJC, as we call it in Queensland—the Criminal Justice Commission—was established. Then we had the Queensland Crime Commission, which was merged into one entity, which we know today as the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission. As someone who was practising in the Brisbane CBD as a lawyer, whose office was directly across the road from the Fitzgerald inquiry when it was being held and whose firm gave significant advice to people in relation to the Fitzgerald inquiry, I am quite happy to speak on this bill. The regulatory investigating bodies that were established in Queensland subsequent to the Fitzgerald inquiry continue on in different guises, but they are still there, in a uniquely Queensland experience, to look at corruption in the police force and elsewhere. In that very interesting time a great phalanx of celebrities and police officers were charged and convicted. Politicians, people involved in law firms and banks, and real estate agents came before the commission. So many people were involved in the inquiry over that three-year period. Tony Fitzgerald is to be commended for it. The recommendations of the inquiry were taken up by the National Party government, and the National Party Premier at the time is to be commended for that. Bill Gunn, then the Acting Premier of Queensland, is to be commended for the courage he showed in establishing the Fitzgerald inquiry. Tony Fitzgerald is to be commended for his hard work and integrity in the circumstances. Subsequent Labor governments and coalition governments in the 1980s, under Borbidge and Sheldon, continued the process. Queensland is very concerned about these sorts of issues, but sadly we have been left out in this particular area of interception. This legislation is a very Queensland response. It ensures that Queensland law enforcement agencies have the same telecommunications interception powers as other law enforcement agencies throughout Australia. We have a peculiar entity in Queensland, known as the Queensland Public Interest Monitor, PIM, which has a particular role in Queensland. This bill recognises the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland and introduces that particular person into the interception regime. It enables the Public Interest Monitor to make submissions to the judge or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal member considering the interception warrant application made in the circumstances by the Queensland Police Service or the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission. In those circumstances this legislation allows for those agencies to be declared interception agencies under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act but allows the Public Interest Monitor to continue the role which he currently plays in the circumstances—and there is only one Public Interest Monitor, and that is in Queensland. The Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, and her predecessor, Peter Beattie, also argued for a long time that Queensland ought to be brought into the national scheme. It is inexplicable that the Howard government refused to cooperate in this regard. I am pleased to say that the current Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has accepted the role of the Public Interest Monitor, who is an independent barrister who represents the public interest. His role is now recognised in the system. I just cannot understand why the previous government opposed it in the circumstances. The Attorney-General has introduced this legislation, which will fix up an anomaly. We are well served in Queensland by the current Public Interest Monitor, whose name is Colin Forrest. He is a barrister at the Queensland bar. He began his legal career as an associate to Justice Michael Kirby, the then President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Subsequently Colin relocated to Brisbane. He has been practising for about 17 or 18 years as a barrister in Queensland and for a couple of years before that as a solicitor. It has been my privilege to find him a tremendous adversary in court proceedings in Queensland. He is a very fine lawyer. He practises in family law, estate law and administrative law. He is a tough opponent and he is a man of real morality, ethics and integrity. He is a very good choice for the role of the Public Interest Monitor in Queensland. He actually serves as a part-time member of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. He also finds time to work as a part-time member of the Commonwealth Social Security Appeals Tribunal. And he is a wonderful lecturer and speaker at many conferences in Queensland, particularly for the Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland. So Colin is the right person for the job. He has a couple of deputies with him to perform the role and he has given very detailed reports in his role. He wrote an interesting article last year for Proctor, the solicitors’ magazine in Queensland. He said this, and I think it is right: It is probably fair to say for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, the role the Public Interest Monitor (‘the PIM’) plays in the criminal justice system is little known or understood. That is probably true, but there is an oversight, a watchfulness. He is entitled to ask questions of those people who make applications for warrants. He is entitled to stand for the public and play that monitoring role. I think someone like Colin, with intelligence and all-round knowledge of legal proceedings and law in Queensland, is just the right person for the job. He has to report six-monthly to the parliament, through the police minister. As I say, he has a couple of deputies who also serve in this role: Ms Karen Carmody, a barrister, and Mr Peter Lyons, a solicitor. It is an interesting role and I would commend people in Queensland to know what kind of role these people perform. They discharge their duties on a part-time, fee-for-service basis, and they charge the Queensland government via the Queensland Police Service budget at $300 per hour plus GST—so he told me in a conversation I had with him. But he has been frustrated for several years. In the Proctor article he said: For several years, the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments have not been able to agree on the introduction of telephone interception powers in Queensland because of the central ‘front end’ and ‘back end’ monitoring role proposed by the Queensland Government for the PIM in the process. For some years, the PIM has supported the introduction of these powers— which are the basis of the legislation currently before the House. But the Public Interest Monitor could not get the previous government to agree. The article went on: Appropriate resourcing of the PIM is likely to be the challenge. Currently, the QPS and the CMC bring around 80-100 applications per year between them for covert surveillance warrants. Estimates as to the number of telephone interception warrants that they are likely to bring are currently around 300-400 per year based on experience in other States. So it is very important that the Queensland government adequately fund the Public Interest Monitor and the deputies in these circumstances. I think it is very important that the Queensland government resource it properly so the Queensland public can be sure that civil liberties are protected and yet we are vigilant in attacking organised crime, particularly outlaw bikie gangs, who are often engaged in drug and other criminal activities. It is important that the Queensland government do this. If we are going to give the Public Interest Monitor a greater role and more things to do, the Queensland government, when it passes the legislation which is necessary in the circumstances, ought to resource the Public Interest Monitor and his deputies even further. Colin Forrest says this in his 2006-07 annual report and repeats it in the 2007-08 report: Discharge of the Public Interest Monitor’s functions requires a delicate balancing of two competing facets of public interest. The first is the public interest in ensuring that serious criminal conduct is detected, prevented and made the subject of successful prosecution by our law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities, particularly during a time of rapid technological change. The second, and no less important, is that fundamental rights of individual members of our community, such as the right to privacy, are respected and interfered with as little as possible in the process of detecting, preventing and punishing that serious criminal conduct. In addition, a commitment to the principle that independent accountability of our law enforcement agencies strengthens the fabric of our democratic society and aids the rule of law has been central to the creation of the office and the discharge of its functions. You can see why Colin Forrest is the right person for the job in Queensland. In the conclusion to his 2007-08 report he again repeats something he had written in the 2006-07 report, and I think it is worth repeating in Hansard: I said in last year’s report:- ‘Although the use of covert surveillance devices is often ineffective, due to technical, operational or other reasons, the properly targeted, careful use of the covert surveillance warrant powers can prove very effective in detecting perpetrators of serious crime in this State, particularly in connection with the production and distribution of illicit drugs. At the same time it is my view that the balancing act mentioned earlier in this report with respect to public interest considerations is being appropriately addressed. Charges and prosecutions arising from covert police investigative operations continue to increase. The QPS has complied with its obligations pursuant to the PPRA in the manner in which it maintains its records and its records contain all the information and documentation required by the PPRA. Those records are maintained and kept in secure facilities with effective procedures in place controlling access.’ Again, those words are entirely worth repeating this year. The ‘front-end’ and ‘back-end’ monitoring functions of the PIM continue to be valuable features of the criminal justice system in this state. I commend the bill before the House. It is good for Queensland and it is good for the prosecution of criminal activity in Queensland, particularly in the area of illicit drugs. I think it is about time Queensland came into the 21st century in this area. I am pleased to support the bill. 552 23:59:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —I rise to speak in support of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. The passing of this bill is well and truly overdue. It is absolutely crazy that in 2009 the Queensland state police still do not have the ability to target organised and serious crime. I heard what the previous speakers from the government side said and I know that under the previous Howard government there was grave concern expressed by members about the Public Interest Monitor. My personal view is that, if the Queensland state government really wants to push this, so be it, because I would rather have it with the Public Interest Monitor than have the ridiculous situation which we previously had where serious and organised criminals basically had a free run in Queensland. That situation finally will change. Bizarrely, Queensland was the only jurisdiction in Australia which did not have interception powers. As a former member of the Victoria Police organised crime squad, it was only when I was on the Australian Crime Commission that I actually became aware of this. I could not actually believe this was the case. The introduction of this telecommunications interception amendment bill will finally bring an end to this situation and have Queensland joining the rest of the state law enforcement agencies. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission has made recommendations several times calling on the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to work together to expedite the granting of interception powers to the Queensland police and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, most recently in September 2007. I add that I am a member of the committee, which obviously is a bipartisan committee, so all the members were trying to do the right thing by the Queensland police force. Criminal syndicates are quite adept at using technology to carry out their crimes. The Australian Crime Commission’s investigation into organised crime revealed that outlaw motorcycle gangs and illicit drug manufacturers are thriving in Queensland, with police unable to monitor their criminal activities that take place using mobile phones and emails. Queensland police are currently unable to access telecommunication interception powers for any investigation other than joint operations and Commonwealth matters. As a result, Queensland police are often reliant upon partnerships with other law enforcement agencies that can facilitate access to phone-tapping powers. Three years ago the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission released a report recommending the introduction of phone-tapping powers for Queensland. This amendment will facilitate the implementation of phone-tapping powers by accommodating the bureaucratic role that the Public Interest Monitor has in law enforcement in Queensland. The Public Interest Monitor oversees all applications for surveillance device and covert search warrants in Queensland. Queensland police can already execute surveillance warrants and place listening devices. The amendment will enable Queensland investigators to execute warrants for telephone intercepts—the missing link in Queensland police powers. RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr —And about time too, isn’t it. E0F Wood, Jason, MP Mr WOOD —I totally agree: it is about time. The Queensland government has for some time feared that without specific reference to the PIM in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act Queensland legislation would be inoperative under section 109 of the Constitution due to its inconsistency with other provisions in the act. Although a specific reference to the PIM in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act had been deemed unnecessary by the previous government, by recognising the PIM’s oversight role in application processes for an interception warrant by the Queensland law enforcement agencies the Queensland government can introduce legislation that will comply with the accountability framework established in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act without fear that legislation would be inoperative. Telecommunications interception is an essential and vital tool in law enforcement and has been used with great success in some of the most complex criminal investigations, including the tragic murders of Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller in 1988 in Victoria and locating fugitive gangland figure Tony Mokbel in 2006. It has also been used by law enforcement agencies when investigating the illicit drug and organised crime activity. In the world of organised crime and in fighting terrorism and even in relation to homicides and rapes, in nearly every serious investigation police mount, one of the greatest tools is telephone interceptions. Two-thirds of telephone intercepts are used in investigating drug-related crime. Extending phone-tapping powers to Queensland police will greatly assist the Queensland drug investigation unit and Task Force Hydra, the unit investigating outlaw motorcycle gangs, in solving serious drug-related crimes. The implementation of telecommunications interception powers in Queensland has been recommended many times by both state and federal law enforcement agencies and is long overdue. This amendment will provide consistency between all states and territories and facilitate a national approach for law enforcement agencies. One thing which greatly concerns me at the moment when it comes to law enforcement is the government’s cutbacks to the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. Where this is relevant is that a number of state-seconded police who have been working with the Australian Crime Commission in Queensland and other states have been forced to go back to their own jurisdictions. In fact, I believe the figures are up to 50 members, of whom 16 are investigators. That greatly concerns me. I mentioned how the Queensland police work with other authorities such as the Australian Federal Police. Again in Queensland we have seen 14 AFP members being offered redundancy packages. To me this seems crazy when yesterday the Prime Minister was talking about a stimulus package to create jobs and now the minister has put the AFP and the ACC in a position where they are forced to offer redundancy packages. Of great concern is what is occurring in the Sydney offices of the Australian Federal Police. Their counterterrorism investigators work on a 12-week budget cycle but, after 10 weeks, investigators are being told: ‘We have run out of money. There is no overtime in the budget. You have to stand down and go home.’ They have ongoing investigations. To me, this is crazy. But even more concerning is the intelligence areas in the Sydney offices specifically looking at counterterrorism. If a member is transferred, seconded or receives a promotion, they are not being replaced. It is really unusual for police members to actually speak publicly on this or, as in this case, speak to me. I suppose they feel comfortable because of my former role in the Victorian police force, and I thank them for that. What is greatly concerning them, especially when it comes to the area of intelligence, is that they have intelligence reports sitting in the offices of the AFP counterterrorism squad in Sydney that are just not being looked at. We have highly qualified and trained analysts who, once they leave or are transferred, are not being replaced. Information in reports is sitting in trays and not being looked at. Of course, if a report comes across a table that is regarded as a matter that quite obviously needs to be acted on immediately, they are doing that, but the great concern I have is that in the world of crime and investigations not everything is apparent. My concern is this: we may have the crazy situation of an intelligence report sitting around that anyone who picks it up will think, on the face of it, ‘This means nothing; there is nothing in this report.’ That is a great danger because you never know what little piece this report may be in a huge puzzle. You only have to go back to the September 11 attacks to see that. I can tell the House and members of the Australian public that the planning for those attacks took over four years. It took over four years for the offenders to perpetrate those attacks. What actually happened was that there were all these law enforcement agencies who had bits of information, but they never swapped those bits of information. The offenders were undertaking pilot training and the person involved in training them was greatly concerned. He reported it, so the local authorities were aware of it. There were other reports coming over from Afghanistan saying to expect some sort of reprisals. They were talking about planes et cetera. There was all this information coming in and no-one put the pieces together. When it comes to Australian law enforcement, the one great thing we have is the ALIEN and ACID databases, where high-level intelligence is regularly passed across our law enforcement agencies. If we go to what will happen in Queensland in the future, we can have state police monitoring phone conversations and information may be heard over the phones. At that time it may not be apparent how vital that information is. They may put in an information report on that which goes on to ALIEN and ACID, which are databases for law enforcement agencies. Just so members are aware, not everyone has access to them. You must have specific knowledge and authority to actually have access to the information. The only way these law enforcement agencies can work is if we ensure that any information from the Queensland police, or any other state police force, from anyone who rings up a hotline or from the Queensland, New South Wales or Victorian offices of the AFP is collected and acted upon. Finally, I want to make a point about the Australian Crime Commission. I welcome the appointment of the new director of the Australian Crime Commission, John Lawler. I think that is a great appointment and I congratulate the government on that. But, gee, what a tough task he has. Soon he is going to be doing investigations himself the way the cutbacks are going. I think the ACC are down to fewer than 15 or so actual permanent investigators employed by them. We are talking about over 600 staff down to 15 permanent ones. To my knowledge, by March all the police officers seconded from Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania are going to be taken back by their own units. When we are talking about this stimulus package, what greatly concerns me is that it has been revealed in the Australian Crime Commission hearings that serious and organised crime rips away $10 billion each year from the public, whether it be money seized from selling drugs or money laundering. It is a major issue in this country. That is $10 billion we could actually be going after to put back into the Queensland police force to assist, as we heard before, with all these warrants under this new regime of legislation. The way a telephone intercept warrant works is that someone eventually has to sit down and monitor the calls. Organised and serious crime does not work from nine to five. It works after hours. Why? Because that is the obvious time for most of these deals to be done. That is why you need to make sure the Queensland police and all the police forces around the country, including the AFP and the ACC, have the funding to make sure they have the manpower available to listen to what comes over the lines of the telephone intercepts. That is something which we need to ensure happens. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government would force the Australian Federal Police to offer redundancy packages in all areas, right across the field. I am greatly concerned with what is happening in the air marshal program. I understand that that program is one of those areas where, for security reasons, we do not want the public to know how many air marshals are out there. But what concerns me is that redundancy packages are being made available right across the board—it does not matter whether it is counterterrorism, air marshals or members of the child exploitation units. That urgently needs to be addressed. As a previous member of the Victorian police force, having worked closely with the Australian Federal Police and having dealt with members of associations of state and territory police across the country, I can say that members are greatly concerned with what is happening at the moment. I will call a spade a spade: when it comes to telephone interceptions I am on the record as saying that things need to change and that what was going on was absolutely outrageous. I stood up and said that and I was, I suppose, having a go at my own government. In opposition I will say the same things: when it comes to tackling organised and serious crime, this new government must do the right thing by the law enforcement agencies. I was taken aback by the Prime Minister’s 40-minute address when he talked about security and basically beat his chest when talking about what he was going to do. It all sounded fantastic, and it got a really good run the next day in the papers. The Prime Minister spoke about no longer having an office of homeland security. The government promised an office of homeland security in the previous election, but they have walked away from that. They said that they did so on expert advice. What has happened to the money for the office of homeland security? It has gone. They looked at other areas, including considering having a national school for counterterrorism, or something similar. Do not just consider this; actually do it. That is the important message. At the moment the Australian public would think that as nothing has happened to us, everything is fine. We see no terrorist attacks and everything seems to be going fairly well. Well, if you look at the papers from the last couple of days in Melbourne and Sydney, you will see that a number of people have just been convicted and sentenced for looking at creating terrorist attacks in Australia. They have been given tough sentences, as they should. I would like to remind the public of that. I would also like to congratulate all the police and law enforcement agencies who worked on that case. The previous government had to rush through legislation, and I congratulate Kim Beazley, who was the then opposition leader, for supporting that legislation. He knew how serious this potential incident was. The Australian public must be aware that counterterrorism and security issues are still out there. Look what happened in India not long ago. Who were the terrorists targeting? They were targeting what they call the ‘infidels’. They are people like us—people from Western societies who went to Western hotels. Remember that the people from Muslim backgrounds were pulled out and the Westerners were shot. So I just remind Australians that terrorism is still a threat in Australia and that the government cannot take this for granted. The government’s number one role is to protect Australian citizens, and I call on the government to immediately give the AFP and the Australia Crime Commission their funding back. That is the policy of the opposition, led by Malcolm Turnbull. Finally, it is about time the Queensland police got the telephone interception powers to really target serious and organised crime. 556 12:19:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I rise to speak in favour of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to facilitate access by Queensland law enforcement agencies to telecommunications interception powers. This will give Queensland law enforcement agencies access to the same investigative tools as all other police forces around the country. That access will come only when Queensland’s arrangements comply with the accountability requirements in section 35 of the federal Telecommunication (Interception and Access) Amendments Act. In upholding the law in Queensland and in helping to bring about a safer community, the Queensland police service has my full support. I acknowledge the commitment and professionalism of all our men and women in uniform. Contrary to what the previous member said about underinvestment in police services, I can say that in my seat of Dawson, the Queensland state government has in Mackay, Whitsunday and Burdekin actually increased police services, and there has been excellent Queensland state government representation by the Mackay state member, who also happens to be the primary industry minister, Tim Mulherin. Tim Mulherin has been a very strong advocate for the police service and for the role of our men and women police officers. He has been at the forefront of lobbying for and obtaining a brand new police station in early 2000. He has also lobbied successfully for an increase in police numbers within the Mackay region. I am also pleased to say, in response to the statements of the previous speaker, the member for La Trobe, that a brand new police station has been built in the northern beaches area of Mackay. This area is covered by the state member for Whitsunday, Jane Jarrat. Again, she is another advocate for the Police Service. She is passionate about protecting our community, the role and lives of individuals, their properties and their businesses. A couple of years ago, she was also successful in the establishment and building of a brand new police station in the northern beaches area of Mackay. So the Queensland government, and in particular those two local members, have served people in the seat of Dawson very well indeed. They have done an excellent job, and it is a great privilege and honour for me to put them on the Hansard record as having done that. They deserve credit and praise when it comes to supporting our men and women in the Police Service, who do a fantastic job. The Queensland Police Service is the primary law enforcement agency of the state of Queensland. It fulfils this role throughout my home state of Queensland 24 hours a day, upholding the law and providing assistance to the community when necessary, in times of emergency, disaster and crisis. On this note, I would like to refer to the events of the floodings a year ago in the Mackay region. I saw firsthand the exemplary service of the Police Service. It did a fantastic job, in coordination with our emergency services. It played a fantastic role in facilitating and mobilising as many people as possible, particularly with the effect of the floodings on 8,000 homes. I can report that only in the last couple of months have the last of the people from the 400 homes which were completely flooded out finally returned home. I would also like to put on the record that the recent rains that have come have caused a lot of psychological trauma. When we do our assessment of flood damage in these regions we often think in terms of dollar value of not only property, lost business and lost production but also possessions that need to be replaced. We do not always count the cost of psychological trauma. Recently, people in my region have become very nervous and upset that more floods might return to the region—and they have done in the regions of Ayr, the Burdekin River, particularly in Giru, and close to Home Hill. I want to send a message to the Police Service in those areas, particularly in Ayr and Townsville: ‘You do a magnificent job. We are proud of our men and women in police uniform and we will always stand by you. You have my full support.’ In the time of disaster and crisis, the Police Service is a true champion of the people. The functions of the Police Service also include: first, the preservation of peace and good order in all areas of Queensland; second, the protection of all communities in Queensland; third, the prevention of crime; fourth, the detection of offenders and the bringing of offenders to justice; and, fifth, upholding the law generally and providing policing services in an emergency. The mission of the Queensland Police Force is to serve the people of Queensland, by protecting their lives, their property and by preserving peace and safety, preventing crime and upholding the law in a manner which has regard for the public good and the rights of the individual. Its vision is that of a professional police service, dedicated to excellence and committed to working in partnership with the people of Queensland to enhance the safety and security of our community. This bill is about putting Queensland in line with other states with regard to its powers to investigate crime by introducing the Queensland Public Interest Monitor. The bill recognises the unique oversight role that the Queensland Public Interest Monitor has in relation to law enforcement matters in Queensland by introducing the Queensland Public Interest Monitor into the interception regime. The bill will enable the Queensland Public Interest Monitor to make submissions to the judge considering the interception warrant application and to ask questions of the officer applying for the warrant. Importantly, the bill will only permit the Public Interest Monitor to play a role when a Queensland state interception agency seeks a telecommunications interception warrant. Recognition of the Public Interest Monitor in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act will pave the way for Queensland to introduce state legislation that will then enable the minister to consider declaring the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission as interception agencies for the purposes of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. The bill also implements a number of minor technical amendments. Under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, an agency cannot be declared an interception agency unless the minister is satisfied that the law of the requesting state makes satisfactory provision for the declared agency to comply with specified oversight arrangements. These include record keeping, reporting and inspection obligations and the entering into an agreement by the state to pay all expenses connected with the issue of warrants to the agency. I commend the bill to the House. 558 12:29:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I take some pride in speaking on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 for a couple of different reasons. As I think most people in the House are aware, prior to coming to this place I spent a good many years representing the respective police jurisdictions across this country, and as a consequence I have had a lot to do with the men and women who serve this country well— RH4 Kerr, Duncan, MP Mr Kerr interjecting— ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr HAYES —in protecting society, as the member for Denison says. It is not an easy job. That job is ever changing and we must provide our men and women in blue with the tools that they need to be able to do the job on our behalf. That is essentially what this bill is about today. I will go to some of the aspects of it. This bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to facilitate access by the Queensland law enforcement agencies to telecommunication interception powers. This will give Queensland law enforcement agencies access to the same investigative tools as all other police forces around the country. The amendment will provide clarity and substantial detail about exactly who has the authority to issue evidentiary certificates, to listen in on telephones and voicemails, and read text messages and emails as they apply to other jurisdictions. The amendment in the bill does not create or expand powers of authorisation of persons and therefore is unlikely to have any financial impact, but it does give the Queensland police, as a law enforcement agency under that sovereign state, the ability to access telephone intercept powers. As the member for Denison will recall—we rely on his learned views—we dealt with this matter in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission back in 2007. In September 2007, in the midst of an inquiry that the ACC did into the future impacts of serious and organised crime on Australian society, one of the things that we were determined to look at was the contemporary measures available to our law enforcement agencies to combat serious and organised crime. One of the things that stood out boldly, quite frankly, in the course of that investigation conducted by the joint parliamentary committee was the fact that the Queensland police were the only policing organisation in the Commonwealth who did not have powers to access telephone intercepts. That meant that, when the Queensland police participated in serious and organised crime detection or investigation, they attempted to do those investigations and operations where they needed telephone intercept ability in partnership with the Australian Crime Commission, because—as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as the member for Denison is certainly aware—that organisation has the power of telephone intercepts and can apply it throughout the Commonwealth. Other than by entering into a partnership arrangement with the Australian Crime Commission, the Queensland police were not able to participate in what I know to be one of the most significant detection methods deployed by our law enforcement agencies across the country in addressing serious and organised crime—that is, telephone interception. The committee was made aware of the inability of the Queensland police agencies to access telephone intercept warrants. We took evidence from Detective Chief Superintendent Barnett of the Queensland Police Service, and this is what he said to the committee: The QPS, in not having telephone interception powers, is unique as a policing jurisdiction within Australia. Consequently, partnerships with policing agencies that can facilitate access to telecommunications intercept, TI, powers are often critical to QPS investigations targeting significant criminal entities and networks. Every major investigation conducted between the ACC and the QPS has utilised telephone interception as a key investigative strategy and this support will continue to be critical to the QPS investigations targeting serious and organised crime. Chief Superintendent Barnett indicated that attempts have been made in the past to facilitate the introduction of telephone intercept powers in Queensland but that these had not been successful. Because they had not been successful domestically, within the sovereign ability of that state, he was quite open in indicating the reliance of the Queensland police on acting in partnership with the Australian Crime Commission in any investigation to target serious and organised crime, because a key investigative tool for those investigations has been and is, right across the country, telephone interception. The committee, during the course of that inquiry, raised this matter with the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. The department, particularly the head of the telecommunications and surveillance branch, confirmed that agencies such as the ACC and the AFP, and agencies in every other state, had the ability to deploy these powers. As was indicated from the Commonwealth’s perspective in that respect, there is only one police force, the Queensland Police Service, that does not have interception powers. The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission also does not have interception powers. These agencies are currently working their way forward with our colleagues in the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General and with us to look at the interception powers of the Queensland police. That was the position of the Commonwealth in trying to broker an arrangement with the Queensland government to look at the development of interception powers in Queensland. It becomes significant in terms of policing if one of our law enforcement bodies does not have powers in the detection of serious organised crime. That makes a significant chink in the armour that protects the community from those who benefit from serious and organised crime. It is not for the Commonwealth to conduct all these investigations—certainly, we play a role in that and we will continue to play a role in targeting serious and organised crime—but there is a domestic responsibility for each of the states of this Commonwealth to do the same and to work as closely as they can in a collaborative arrangement. That, clearly, was not legally possible in terms of the lack of powers of telephone interception in Queensland. A consequence of this—and I may be going into a little bit too much detail about the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission and its deliberations in terms of the inquiry into the future impact of serious and organised crime on Australian society—was that the committee recommended in September 2007 in recommendation 4: … that the Commonwealth and Queensland governments collaborate to expedite the granting of telecommunications interception powers to the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission. That was the genesis of this bill coming before us today. Certainly, when that recommendation was made, the member for Denison and I were participating in the committee from an opposition perspective, but let me say it was made with the full support of all members of that committee, and I am very pleased that it is coming to fruition today. I heard Mr Jason Wood—I should remember his seat—speak a little earlier. As a former Victorian police officer, he more than aptly knows the value of having these powers of investigation detection available to domestic police services. 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Mr Wood is the member for La Trobe. ECV Hayes, Chris, MP Mr HAYES —Thank you. I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should also indicate that the member for La Trobe is currently the Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. This bill now recognises the unique oversight role that will apply in Queensland under the Queensland Public Interest Monitor and the role it has in law enforcement matters in Queensland. Introducing the Public Interest Monitor into the interception regime itself will enable the Public Interest Monitor to make submissions to a judge or the AAT member considering the interception application and to ask questions of officers who are applying for such warrants. The recognition of the Public Interest Monitor in the legislation will pave the way in Queensland for state legislation to be enabled. It will allow for the minister to declare the Queensland Police Service and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission as having the legal ability to exercise interception powers covering those agencies. The minister will be able to make a declaration once they are satisfied that the Queensland arrangements comply with the accountability requirements under section 35 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979. The bill will only permit the Public Interest Monitor to play a role when the Queensland state interception agencies—either the Queensland Police Service or the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission—are actually seeking to avail themselves of the powers of telephone intercepts using the act. It does not mean, in terms of other areas of operation in concert with either the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Crime Commission, that those powers will need to be oversighted by the Public Interest Monitor of Queensland. There are a number of technical amendments included in this bill, which, I understand, are used to clarify a number of positions, particularly in relation to references to who is authorised to initiate telephone interception—for example, I think it is in the AFP, the term ‘certifying officer’ is used in subsection 5(1) of the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Act 2008, which includes the commissioner of police and the deputy commissioner of police. The term also includes a senior executive officer of the AFP—that means he is a sworn member of the AFP—who can be also authorised in writing by the commissioner of police. I do not know about the case of the Hong Kong Bank of Australia Ltd v Australian Securities Commission directly—no doubt the member for Denison, being a Senior Counsel, would be more than aware of it—but I understand from the briefing notes that there was some legal point that turned on whether the Corporations Law could be read as providing a source of power. Not being a lawyer, I will not go to the briefing notes on that. I will let my learned friends take on those matters. What I understand from a layman’s point of view is that there is some potential risk that a court could effectively strike down the provisions that seek to confer power in an authority making an authorisation. This bill seeks to put it beyond doubt and to ensure that where power is being exercised it is legally enforceable. I believe that this provision will do only good in terms of law enforcement and, as a consequence, will do only good for those for whom law enforcement works on behalf of—that is, communities. We cannot expect our law enforcement agencies to do all the things that we require of them whilst their hands are tied behind their backs. I take the view that the various criminal entities out there, and certainly there are many, who are involved in crime for the purpose of money are in a form of business. I do not want to cast aspersions on businesspeople, but in the business of crime, as with any other business, you would be looking to where you could maximise your return on capital, where you could actually work out the threats that are posed to you or the industry that you are in, and you would adopt a line of least resistance, or at least a position where you could maximise your return on capital. If we have holes in our law enforcement detection systems that deprive us of using proper detection and investigative powers, we are inviting that sort of criminal business to be visited upon us in the areas where there is a void in those powers. This legislation, with the support of both sides of the parliament, seeks to redress that. This legislation seeks to ensure that Queensland police have the same powers of detection and investigative arrangements as apply to other law enforcement agencies throughout the country. This legislation does a lot to ensure that those men and women who put on their uniform and go out day to day to protect us have the powers that they need to ensure that those people who would do us harm have a lesser chance of getting away with it. I think this is a good piece of legislation. It is certainly a good piece of cooperation on both sides of the House in terms of, firstly, detecting the holes that exist in the law enforcement regimes and, secondly, cooperating with a view to remedy that. 561 12:48:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, because we should never take lightly the decision by law enforcement agencies to seek warrants for the interception of telecommunications. It is a very serious matter, and it is an absolutely critical aid for crime fighters. From my past experience in the Australian Federal Police, it was always my understanding that the process of obtaining warrants involved a great deal of work and that they were never handed out on mere speculative theory. This bill creates amendments that allow the inclusion of Queensland’s Public Interest Monitor into the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, which will enable Queensland law enforcement agencies to come under the T(IA) Act. I think most of us here know that Queensland has always been a unique place with unique people. In fact, from a Western Australian point of view, all the other states are unique and different from mainstream Australia. I appreciate that the history of Queensland has led certain elements and the current state government to believe in the need for the unique position of the public interest monitor to act in what appears to be an oversight role of the actions of the police. That is their decision and far be it from me to question what appears to be a lack of faith by the Queensland government in not only their judiciary but also the parliament itself. That is fine; that is always their call. What I do find interesting is that, when this bill is passed, apparently the police in Queensland will have to go first to the public interest monitor to discuss a warrant and if it is in the public interest before going to the courts to seek the warrant. I would imagine—although I could not find it stated anywhere—that the public interest monitor could then not discuss that matter with any other person. That would have to be a legislative safeguard or prescribed somewhere in order to protect the police investigation. I assume that it is there. I also understand that at the proceedings in court to seek a warrant the public interest monitor is also there to ensure that individual rights are preserved. I assume by that point that the public interest monitor can argue a point and that the presiding officer of the court will then make a decision on the matter. It may be my background in the Australian Federal Police and the military police—it is not in the law but it is related somewhat—but I believe that the rights of people are enshrined throughout acts of parliament. Those acts are created and amended by the duly elected representatives of the people, and these are safeguards. The police are responsible for enforcing those laws, and the magistrates and judges are responsible for administering the processes of those laws. It was always my view that if we as police did not have the evidence to support any sort of warrant then it would not be granted. If it was granted by a magistrate and the case was later heard by a court, the original decision to grant that warrant my be reassessed and evidence gained via that warrant could later be rejected as evidence by the court. This is the normal system, by way of a simple explanation. Of course, I often share the views of my constituents that the judgments by magistrates and judges in local court cases seem to be all too often out of touch with community expectations. Recently there was a case in Perth where two teenagers, a boy aged 15 and a girl aged 14, were told to leave a railway station because they were swearing loudly, using the f-word repeatedly. Transit guards took that action for the sake of good order and for nearby passengers. It was reported that those teenagers then swore in the same manner, showed aggression and fought with the transit guards. The magistrate at the Children’s Court, former Aboriginal Legal Service lawyer Deen Potter, then determined that using the f-word repeatedly did not necessitate the interference of the transit guards. The boy was convicted of kicking a guard in the stomach but, whilst resisting, his elbow was broken. It is my view that we need to maintain a certain set of standards in this country. Young people growing up in this country should not be exposed to examples of the acceptance of swearing as being normal or appropriate in everyday life. If a young person wants a good job and wants to progress, they need to know that there are many occasions where their prospects will be limited if they cannot express themselves without swearing. Their potential will not be recognised because of such a fault. The last thing we need is a magistrate and, in many ways, a setter of community standards saying that loud and offensive swearing is okay in a public place and that it is not offensive. I, and no doubt a majority of Australians, do not want to be subject to it. I certainly do not want my children asking me what the f-word means. As I have said repeatedly in this place, if you have a go at your children or young people for swearing, do not swear yourself at any time. Do not practise a double standard. Community leaders like that magistrate and indeed all of us should not promote low standards or, worse, the sorts of double standards epitomised as ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Swearing at police and at those authorised to protect public safety or to provide emergency health care should result in arrests. Swearing in a public place such as public transport stations should be the subject of a single warning and then exclusion from that place. These are the community standards, and I say that it is not a right to be able to swear in such places; it is in fact a responsibility of everyone not to swear in such places. Magistrate Potter has made a mistake and I hope that he has reflected on his decision. It does no individual any good when community standards are thrown away. It will not help those Aboriginal teenagers to take advantage of the opportunities provided by society if they behave in an antisocial way, refuse to comply with an appropriate request and then show aggression towards those responsible for keeping our public transport safe. The transit guards in Perth have my respect, my complete confidence and my thanks for maintaining community standards and safety. It is a pity that some community leaders do no uphold the same standards. It is unbelievable that the parents in that case have asked for an apology and compensation. They should apologise to the transit guards for being parents that have allowed their teenager to grow up with standards of offensive swearing and aggression towards public officials. That is somewhat of a digression because this matter is about Queensland and their processes. I have tried hard to find information and commentaries on the public interest monitor and the issues with Queensland joining in under the T(IA) Act. There seems to be some opposition from within Queensland to this occurring and I note that the Council for Civil Liberties seems to be against it. Of course, there are no surprises there. I also note that defence lawyers are against it. Surprise, surprise! Yet I think we can be sure that the vast majority of law-abiding Queenslanders are quite comfortable with the modern and highly professional Queensland police force being given every opportunity to quickly and effectively catch and prosecute criminals. I personally think they would be more comfortable with the same system the rest of the country uses without the public interest monitor, but again, that is not up to me or this federal parliament; that will remain a matter for the elected government of Queensland. It is not the intention of the opposition to oppose this bill. In fact, we support it. I remain concerned about the way Queensland will conduct the process of obtaining warrants but I will look forward to seeing how their inclusion will proceed. I remain confident that the Queensland police will conduct themselves in a manner that truly represents their concern for the people of Queensland and their safety. I also look forward to many successful prosecutions of those involved in the illicit drug trade, offences against children and, in fact, all crimes. I look forward to the capability provided under the T(IA) Act being applied effectively for the people of Queensland and I wish the Queensland police every success in the future. 564 12:56:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I would like to thank members for the contributions they have made in this debate on the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. At the outset I should respond to one or two comments that have been made, noting that the opposition is supporting this legislation, which the government appreciates. The member for La Trobe referred to allegations of inadequate policing at least, particularly in the area of counterterrorism. This government takes the safety and security of Australians as its primary concern. That is fundamental to the responsibility of government. I remind the honourable member that at the last budget the government provided $191 million or thereabouts to recruit 500 additional Federal Police officers. Unlike some examples that have been well aired publicly, on which I will not take up the parliament’s time now, I think it is fair to say that our police, intelligence agencies and prosecution authorities have never been working as effectively, both individually but, more importantly, collectively as they have ever been in this country. The current government has done a lot of work and the agencies have done a lot of work to ensure that that occurs. They have developed operational protocols between the respective agencies—that is, when a matter is appropriately an intelligence function, when it is appropriately a policing function and when it does move on to eventual prosecution. It is fair to say that, unlike some dramatic failures in the previous government, some successes we have seen in recent times have been a result of that cooperation. Very useful prosecution guidelines have also been developed in consultation with my department and with the agencies. Agency heads now hold regular meetings. There are regular secondments between the agencies, and there is a program for getting the intelligence and policing functions happening at street level. This was commented upon in the Clarke inquiry in respect of the Haneef matter recently. More work needs to be done in that area to get the agencies, now that they are cooperating tremendously effectively at a federal level, to enhance that cooperation with our state counterparts, but a lot of work is already underway, and it is being undertaken despite 12 years when the previous government had the opportunity of making those sorts of reforms and achieving those sorts of efficiencies. This bill is an important step in ensuring law enforcement agencies can protect the safety and security of Australians wherever they live. Currently, Queensland is the only jurisdiction whose agencies cannot seek or execute an interception warrant. Passage of this bill will clear the way for Queensland to enact legislation that satisfies the accountability obligations set out in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. By recognising a role for the public interest monitor in this act, Queensland will be able to legislate an oversight role for that body without conflicting with the Commonwealth act. The bill maintains the integrity of the interception regime by prescribing a role for the public interest monitor that recognises its importance to the oversight of police activities in Queensland while respecting the independence and integrity of decision makers, as currently set out in the act. I look forward to receiving future advice from the Queensland authorities regarding the passage of their legislation, which I understand will shortly be introduced into the Queensland parliament. I also look forward to notification that Queensland has completed the remaining statutory tasks required under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to enable me to declare Queensland law enforcement agencies to be interception agencies. I expect this process to be completed by mid-2009. At that point, the interception regime will be for the first time truly a national scheme. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 565 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 13:02:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 565 Committees 565 565 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mrs Irwin to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in place of Mr Trevor. Mr BYRNE (Holt —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) 13:04:00 —by leave—I move: That Mr Trevor be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in his place, Mrs Irwin be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. 565 Bills S705 565 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. 565 Bills R4028 565 Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 565 13:05:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —The Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 contains a range of measures intended to improve the efficiency of the federal court system. The measures include: introduction of a power to refer all or part of a proceeding in the Federal Court to a referee for report; amendment of the Federal Court of Australia Act to permit a single judge to make interlocutory orders in proceedings that would otherwise be heard by a full court; amendment of the International Arbitration Act 1974 to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court, concurrent with state and territory supreme courts, in matters arising under that act; permission for federal courts and tribunals to negotiate and execute leases on their own behalf; authorisation of court officers to take certain security measures in respect of court premises; and amendment of the Family Law Act to strengthen the enforceability of binding financial agreements—for example, prenuptial agreements. The opposition considers that these proposals have substantial merit. The power to refer issues to a referee for report is one that already exists in most state jurisdictions. It is particularly important in cases which require detailed examination of financial records or which involve complex technical issues. It has significant potential to reduce the cost and length of litigation. The power to negotiate and execute leases is a necessary component of the self-administration of courts and tribunals. That responsibility previously rested with the now defunct Department of the Arts and Administrative Services. The Attorney-General’s approval is required for purchases over $1 million. I welcome the proposal to extend the court’s jurisdiction in respect of international arbitration matters. Australia is a centre of excellence in respect of the provision of dispute resolution services and should continue to strengthen its position as the venue of choice for commercial disputes in our region. The Federal Court, with its superb reputation in commercial matters, should be able to play its full part in that process. The amendment in respect of binding financial agreements is a necessary corrective to the decision in Black v Black, which held that strict compliance with all of the technical requirements in the Family Law Act was a precondition to enforceability of the agreement. That decision was widely criticised. The amendment will provide that, provided a party has entered an agreement on the basis of an informed decision, the agreement will not be voided by a mere technicality. I note that this bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 17 February. While the opposition may wish to consider any amendments recommended by that report, the bill in its current form has our in-principle support. 566 13:09:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008. This bill makes a number of important amendments, but I will deal with two particular schedules: schedule 1 and schedule 5. Schedule 5 deals with the Black v Black amendments. I will go through the first one in a cursory way and the second one in detail. The first schedule deals with the Federal Court’s powers, and there are a number of important measures which will approve the efficiency of the operation of the Federal Court. The idea of appointing a referee to do a report is a good initiative because much of the litigation in the Federal Court is complicated. Issues like native title, trade practice, bankruptcy and other areas are very complex. In addition, the Federal Court has a wide jurisdiction in its administration of law, dealing with all manner of federal law that is passed by the Australian federal parliament. So it is important that the Federal Courts, which deal with our Australian citizenry each and every day, be as efficient, effective, flexible and transparent as possible. The idea of appointing a referee to do a report to assist the effective management of litigation is a good initiative. In fact, it is quite common to do this. The idea of even going further and having, for example, an independent valuer on property issues or an independent expert on medical issues—a single expert—has been common in civil jurisdictions in the state courts as well as in the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. So it is very common to do this sort of thing. It is a very good idea to have a referee to assist in management if we are able thereby to reduce costs, come to an agreement and reduce the time that judges actually spend in court. It is a great cost to the Australian taxpayer to have a court sitting. It is not just the litigants, but also the Australian taxpayers who have to pay lots and lots of money. Resolving commercial disputes as quickly and as efficiently as possible is a good thing for our businesses, particularly in this difficult time. Getting expert advice in the sciences and trades, in native title and in other areas is crucial to aiding a judge’s understanding. Judges are often lawyers, and lawyers like to think they are experts on everything, but they are not. And I have to confess that I am not. Many lawyers think they know everything about everything, but they do not, and the truth is that judges need help. Judges are not experts in areas of, say, medicine, trade or science. They are not experts on native title. They need assistance, and referees are important. Judges have practised in various areas—commercial and criminal—as barristers or solicitors, but they often do not have expertise in very difficult areas that involve expert knowledge of other areas of our community. But, of course, judges need to retain that discretion when they deal with these types of reports, and that discretion is crucial in terms of their legal effect. The idea of permitting single judges to make interlocutory orders in circumstances when the full court would otherwise sit is simply a sensible and cost efficient way to do things. In fact, in some courts, there are delegated registrars to do these sorts of things. It surprises me that we have not done this earlier. So this is a good and efficient way to deal with the management of our courts system, and that is what is dealt with in schedule 1. Schedule 5 deals with what I have described as the Black v Black amendments, which are to do with binding financial agreements. The decision of Black v Black caused a lot of media comment, a lot of comment by the Law Council of Australia and a lot of comment by family lawyers generally. It was an interesting decision and I will turn to it. This particular bill amends, in effect, the Black v Black decision. It deals with the validity of binding financial agreements made under part VIIIA of the Family Law Act. Those types of agreements have been in our legal system since December 2000. They are commonly known as prenuptial type agreements, but lawyers who practise in this jurisdiction call them BFAs—binding financial agreements. The average person who used to come into my law practice and ask about these sorts of things would ask me for a prenuptial agreement. But there is a problem caused by this decision, because it effectively makes the whole operation of binding financial agreements more murky and more difficult. It puts lawyers at risk in terms of law claims and it puts certainty of the resolution of property settlement and spousal maintenance matters at peril. So Black v Black is one of those decisions which the full court of the Family Court, in my view, got wrong. I think the judge in the first instance got it absolutely right. This legislation overcomes the Black v Black decision by allowing binding financial agreements to have a degree of flexibility to ensure there is confidence that if there is a technical problem in the agreement it can be overcome. The binding nature of those types of agreements is restored by this piece of amending legislation. The bill amends the Family Law Act to ensure people who have made informed decisions, got legal advice and come to an agreement before they cohabitated or before they married could then have certainty that if they separate there is a resolution as quickly and efficiently as possible. It takes out the rancour, the disputation and often a lot of the anger. So, for a lot of people, having a binding financial agreement is what they want. Having certainty is important in terms of the resolution of property settlements but also in terms of child support. People who dispute about property settlements often dispute about spousal maintenance, about where the children live, about who has contact with the children and about issues of child support. So taking the emotion out of these types of disputes as much as possible is a good thing and it is good for families who interact with the family law system in Australia and with the Child Support Agency. The family law section of the Law Council of Australia was consulted in the drafting of these amendments and they agree with what the Attorney-General is suggesting in the circumstances. I have got a bit of a confession to make: I do not much like binding financial agreements. I will tell you why. In my experience, binding financial agreements tend to result in a fair degree of injustice to the weaker financial party, often the woman. I was called upon to draft many of these agreements by some very wealthy individuals—usually males, mainly businessmen—often with millions of dollars, sometimes tens of millions of dollars, worth of assets. They wanted to protect those assets in the event that they separated from the woman they were going to live with or whom they married. Under the old property law act, de facto relationships and cohabitation agreements were the same as binding financial agreements under the Family Law Act, in effect. I was consulted on many occasions to draft these types of agreements, and I did. I drafted dozens and dozens of them over the years. I was often consulted, particularly by women, who would seek my advice as to whether they should sign these agreements. Almost invariably I advised them not to do so, because circumstances change. When someone marries another person they think that everything is going to be rosy and they do not expect to end up consulting someone like Shayne Neumann at his family law practice, I can assure you. But the truth is that we have a situation in this country where about a third of first marriages end in separation and divorce and about half of second, third and fourth marriages end in separation and divorce. We are in a position where these people who go through the unfortunate circumstances of separation and divorce confront the resolution of property and children’s issues. How do we support the children? Who looks after the children? How do we sort out the property settlement? Most people do it using part VIII of the Family Law Act. Many people, particularly high-wealth individuals, have sought the protection of binding financial agreements under part VIIIA, which was introduced into this House many years ago and passed with the consent of both sides. As I say, circumstances change in relationships. Sometimes there are three or four children of the relationship. Sometimes someone has sacrificed whatever career they have on the altar of parenthood. They have effectively ceased to work as a schoolteacher, a lawyer, an engineer or a doctor and they have taken full-time care of their children. That is their choice, and they are not to be criticised for that. Their husband has gone on, advanced in his career, and he leaves the relationship with a high-earning capacity. So he is in a high-earning capacity situation. There are a lot of assets—a lot more than they thought they would have at the end. He has brought in more at the beginning. She is left with two, three or four children to support. If provisions have already been made in a binding financial agreement that say, ‘This is how it should be resolved in the circumstances,’ it often results in an injustice to the woman, the mother of those children, because she gets less out of the property settlement than would otherwise be the case. I have yet to see too many binding financial agreements that are very generous to women in those circumstances. Sometimes they are quite generous but not often. So binding financial agreements allow people to opt out of the family law system, but the provisions under section 79 of the Family Law Act, which talk about the contribution a person makes not just of a financial and nonfinancial nature to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of matrimonial assets but as a homemaker and a parent, are effectively ignored in the circumstances of binding financial agreements. The section 75(2) factors are also ignored—age, health, entitlement to a pension, superannuation, care of children. All that is ignored with binding financial agreements. But they are here to stay, and whilst they are here to stay we have to make sure that there is clarity and certainty and precision with binding financial agreements. Black v Black left the law murky. It was the wrong decision. It has created mayhem for 18 months or two years. We have seen a lot of problems as a result of that decision. People can get out of binding financial agreements. It is not like it is the law of the Medes and the Persians that cannot be changed. You can always change them if the factors come within section 90K(1) of the Family Law Act—for example, if the agreement was obtained by fraud, if there was an intention to defeat a creditor. That is the Jodee Rich-type provision put in there by the previous government, with our support. You can also change the agreement if it is void or voidable. That is the Natasha Stott Despoja amendment. It was really quite otiose. There was no need to put that subsection in there because, if it is void or voidable, it is out anyway. You can also change the agreement if there is unconscionable conduct or if there is a material change in the circumstances relating to the care, welfare and development of a child of the marriage, but that has been interpreted quite narrowly by the courts. For example, there is judicial authority that, if somebody comes to a property settlement and later on the children go and live with the other party, and there is a weightage under section 75(2) of the Family Law Act in favour of that person, you cannot simply overturn it on the basis that the kids decided to up and move their place of residence. That provision has been interpreted quite narrowly. Significantly, under part VIIIA the court has no power to vary financial agreements, so there is no power of rectification. So an ineffective agreement must be set aside and the matter remitted under section 79 for consideration as a normal property settlement. So the stakes in these circumstances are as high as they come for people. When you consider the hundreds of thousands of people that interact with the family law system and the Child Support Agency in this country every year, and the billions of dollars that get paid in child support, you can see this is a very serious matter for the Australian population. So what happened in Black v Black? In 2006, Justice Benjamin, in the Family Court at Hobart, was asked to consider Mr Black’s application to set aside a financial agreement executed by the parties in September 2002. It was a short marriage, of 18 months, during which the parties had entered an agreement. The husband was 42 years of age and his earning capacity was affected by a back injury, for which he had received a damages claim. The wife was 41 years of age, worked part time and received a disability pension for injuries she had sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The wife had not yet received any damages for her injuries. The husband brought into the marriage approximately $200,000, which was used to purchase the former matrimonial home. When the parties separated, the total pool of assets amounted to about $347,000. When the terms of agreement were negotiated—you have to seek legal advice in relation to these sorts of matters—the husband’s solicitor signed the certificate of independent legal advice and then his client signed the certificate. The wife consulted a solicitor and they amended a clause and then signed the certificate of independent legal advice. The wife signed the agreement and gave the amended document to the husband, who took it back to his lawyer for some advice and then to have his signature to the amendment witnessed. But he was not provided with a further certificate of independent advice. At the date the agreement was signed, the wife had commenced a common-law personal injuries action. The agreement provided for an equal division of the existing property and of any funds received by the wife in future for the personal injuries claim. Unexpectedly, the wife received only $41,000 from her common-law claim, a much lower figure than anyone had anticipated—certainly lower than the husband had anticipated. Given his superior pre-marriage contribution of $200,000, if he had gone to the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court he could have expected to get a lot more than fifty-fifty. So what did he do? He argued that the agreement was flawed in a number of respects. He said that his solicitor had not recertified the documents in light of the additional advice, the certificates were not annexed to the agreement and the agreement did not contain within its body a statement of independent legal advice. This was a very technical argument at law. Justice Benjamin, to his credit, dismissed the application. He considered the legislature had made it very clear that binding financial agreements were to be set aside in only limited circumstances or where the parties had not obtained legal advice. He declined to entertain the husband’s application, and he told the husband to go away. The husband appealed the decision and it then went to the full court of the Family Court, who overturned Justice Benjamin’s decision, construing section 90G in the most strict legal sense. They made a number of comments about the stringent requirements under the legislation. The implications to practitioners in the area and to people who had signed binding financial agreements were really stark. If you neglected to include a statement of independent legal advice in the body of the agreement, the binding financial agreement had a fatal flaw in it and it could be overturned. You could get out of it that way. So all the tens of thousands of Australians that had signed binding financial agreements since 2000 were at risk if their lawyer had stuffed up or if they had just made a little technical error. It is very difficult to support the full court’s decision, when you look at good policy, certainty and precision, in the area of family law. Because they cannot rectify it, what we are doing here is allowing flexibility and amendments. I have gone through in very great detail what the decision was and what it was necessary to do in the circumstances. I will not go through what we are actually doing in detail, but we are overcoming the problems in this area by allowing flexibility and certainty. We are responding to what the Law Council of Australia asked the federal government to do in May 2008 in terms of legislative intervention to overcome the decision in Black v Black, minimise the risk to the Australian population, minimise the risk of law claims, bring certainty to the system and ensure that we have got a fair and just system and certainty in the area of family law. I commend the bill to the House. 570 13:29:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —For a number of decades after Australia federated we did not really have a federal court system other than the High Court of Australia, and a decision was made to increasingly have federal courts to look after the administration and judgements on federal matters. The Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 contains a range of measures designed to improve the efficiency of the federal court system. I am one of those who believe that maybe it was not the right decision to create a whole raft of federal courts, and that it would have been better and more efficient for state courts to do what they had done previously and exercise federal jurisdiction where this is possible, with the High Court being the final court of appeal in Australia. Having said that, I think the horse has bolted. The federal court system is well and truly entrenched and it is therefore incumbent upon elected representatives to make sure that the federal court system works as efficiently as it possibly can—and it is always a work in progress. You have a situation where laws might well be appropriate at the time they were introduced but time moves on. Time waits no man—or woman, I suppose I should say now, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke—and it is necessary to update and relook at the laws. Thus the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008, in seeking to improve the efficiency of the federal court system, includes a number of measures—one of which is the introduction of a power to refer all or part of a proceeding in the Federal Court to a referee for report. This is eminently sensible. Judges’ time is very valuable, and sometimes a referee is a person with great levels of expertise in an area. Particularly given the situation with the global economic crisis, it is important that disputes, including commercial disputes, are resolved as expeditiously as possible and this measure to permit the referral of all or part of a proceeding in the Federal Court to a referee for report is a positive step forward. It will improve efficiency and no reasonable person could object to this aspect of the bill. The bill will also amend the Federal Court of Australia Act to permit a single judge to make interlocutory orders in proceedings that would otherwise be heard by a full court. Again, this is an efficiency measure. Again, it is a streamlining measure. It is an opportunity for one judge to do what previously three or more judges were required to do and it makes very sound common sense. The bill also seeks to amend the International Arbitration Act 1974 to confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court concurrent with state and territory supreme courts in matters arising under that act. The bill also permits federal courts and tribunals to negotiate and execute leases on their own behalf—and many of us would ask why that was not possible before. The bill authorises court officers to take certain security measures in respect of court premises and the Family Law Act is also amended to strengthen the enforceability of binding financial agreements—that is, prenuptial agreements—and that matter was dealt with quite substantially by the honourable member for Blair, who spoke previously. This is one of those bills which is supported by honourable members on both sides of the House. Given the combative nature of our political system there is a perception in the Australian community that everything a government does, the opposition opposes. Yet if one did a survey of legislation passing through the parliament, overwhelmingly most of that legislation would pass with the support of both sides of politics. This legislation includes amendments to various acts and because it is difficult to get bills on the legislative timetable—and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would be aware of this—ministers and departments tend to often have omnibus bills to make huge numbers of changes to various bills, because often they have only one bite of the cherry. When they get a bill before the House and get the legislation considered by the parliament, they may as well seek to make whatever changes need to be made in the area of the law being considered. The referral of matters to a referee for report will be particularly efficient and useful in many cases, including where technical expertise is required, and the Bill’s Digest actually points out in greater depth some of the reasons for these particular changes. It does not matter, I suppose, how good a judge is. No judge can be an expert in all technical aspects of every level of human existence, and that is why the referral to a referee on many occasions can be very positive. The decision to enable single judges to make interlocutory orders will also help to manage cases. It will help to bring litigation to a speedy conclusion with a reduction in delays and, most importantly, a reduction in costs. Schedule 2 of the bill amends the International Arbitration Act to give the Federal Court concurrent jurisdiction with state and territory courts in a range of areas. Again, this legislation will make sure that the Federal Court is able to play its important role, particularly in the area of commercial litigation. There are a number of other changes, including the one that the member for Blair spent a considerable portion of his contribution outlining. The decision in Black v Black was one which, without wanting to criticise the courts, is difficult to understand and this amendment in the Federal Justice System (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 is positive and important. In these difficult economic times it is always necessary to look at the financial impact of legislation. I am advised that this proposed bill will not have any significant financial impact. Along with other members of the Liberal-National opposition, I am very pleased to support this bill. I commend the Attorney-General on introducing this legislation and I trust that it will have a speedy passage through both houses of the Australian parliament. 572 13:37:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I think we would all agree that it has been a long and interesting day. We all enjoyed the evening activities. I was indulgent, personally, and had some sleep from about 1.30. I woke up suddenly early this morning and turned on the TV to observe what was happening here. I thought it was a nightmare, but in fact it was the Treasurer speaking. That signalled my opportunity to speak on the $42 billion cash splash was gone. But let us not linger on that; we will see what the future holds. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Let’s not. Let’s refer to the bill before us at the moment. HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr SIMPKINS —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is important that we move on. This afternoon I would like to speak on Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008. Good government is about effectiveness and efficiency. The federal justice system should be able to embrace these very same responsible qualities. This bill contains a variety of proposals which are meant to increase the efficiency of our Federal Court system by resolving disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible. That is great and, obviously, as others have said, the opposition, the Liberal-National Party team, are completely in support of this bill. This bill gives powers to refer issues to a referee to report upon, which is already the case in most state jurisdictions, thus allowing the system to possibly reduce the cost and duration of court cases. It further provides flexibility and more efficient use of federal judicial resources, which in turn can enable the timely resolution of disputes for all parties concerned. Promoting efficiency reduces undue delays by normal, reasonable procedural issues. This bill also gives more power to negotiate and execute leases as required for the self-administration of courts and tribunals, as it should. On international arbitration, the amendment will specifically state that the Federal Court of Australia has concurrent jurisdiction with other state and territory courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards. It further enables the federal government to enforce a foreign award as though it was an award of the Federal Court. In respect of binding financial rate agreements, this amendment corrects the act in reference to the Black v Black decision, which has received a lot of very informed comment today, so I will go no further in that regard. Provided that a party has entered an agreement on the basis of an informed decision, that agreement will not be voided by mere technicality. Specifically, it will clarify and simplify what each spouse party is provided with before signing a financial agreement and what each party is required to have prior to signing a termination agreement. Additionally, the same will apply to de facto partners. As for security measures in respect of court premises, we need to admit that the world today is a different place to what it was even back in 2000. It is imperative that court officers are to be allowed to take certain reasonable security measures, including removal or search if necessary in the interests of security on premises, if those premises are likely to be occupied on a permanent or temporary basis in connection with the operations of the Federal Court. The bill reduces red tape and promotes common sense and efficient yet binding rules of operating the courts, which are already dealing with many different kinds of cases, as stated in the bill, from complex corporate or commercial cases to social security matters and even migration cases. I think this bill will assist in streamlining procedures and encouraging innovative approaches in order to significantly reduce both the time and cost of litigation. It is not my intention to pass comment on each of the details of this bill, but I would like to take some time to speak on the matter of courtroom and court building security, and by implication the security of magistrates and judges. Although I was never a lawyer, I did work for a period of time investigating security incidents in the court system in Perth. Also, through my time in the Australian Federal Police, I had some security duties at the then Family Court in Parramatta, Sydney. I would like to spend a few more minutes to help out—as I was asked to!—by drawing on the experiences that I had in Perth while conducting these investigations. Some may recall an incident in Perth involving the mass break-out from the Supreme Court. That was a tragic and unfortunate error which was very bad for the city of Perth and led to, I believe, nine serious inmates being out on the streets. I also had the unenvious position of helping to investigate a death in custody and several self-harm incidents by persons in custody. In all these cases, there were common features: either there was a procedure that was not up to scratch or the procedures that were there were not properly adhered to. This is a very important matter. In the state criminal system, I am afraid to say, there are some people who are not very nice; there are some society might even call evil. Nevertheless, there is a duty of care that needs to be complied with and there is also the duty to society to make sure that these people are properly secured. While there were some contributing factors of equipment failures or other problems that you would never allocate as a fault of an individual, it was certainly the case that most incidents were related to mistakes individuals made. Again, barring the intention of people to commit self-harm, and to achieve a self-harm in one case, things could have always been done a little better. In the circumstances we are talking about today, where we are talking about federal courts, you might ordinarily think that you are not likely to see a serious criminal jumping from the dock and climbing up to pass the judge or magistrate and then pushing him out of the way, as unfortunately happened on one occasion. Nevertheless, in the Federal Court system emotion is still there. People feel strongly about certain events and, while maybe escape is not one of the motives of people in these courtrooms, it would certainly be the case that there are seriously aggrieved parties that might take bad decisions that could lead them into more trouble by assaulting another party to the matter, assaulting a magistrate or even assaulting a member of the public in the vicinity. I would always advocate that, when talking about security in the court system, you must always think about two things: the hardware—the way the courtrooms and the buildings are built, and the security systems within those buildings—and the procedures as well. It is normally in the procedures and in a failure to adhere to the procedures that risks are realised and people possibly hurt. That should never be acceptable and we should always try to do better. I have wandered somewhat widely this afternoon, and I appreciate your indulgence in this matter. I would like to finish by saying that we on the opposition side fully support these amendments and we look forward to their implementation for best practice and the benefit of all involved. 574 13:47:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise also to support the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 and, with the Attorney-General now in the chamber, I can assume I will be brief. My reason for speaking is that, in an electorate like the mid-North Coast of New South Wales and in a country like Australia with the rule of law in place, one of the critical components of the delivery of public policy and the delivery of law is that fundamental human right called ‘access to justice’. These efficiency measures fundamentally allowing single judges to put in place interlocutory orders and allowing for the appointment of referees are all welcome efficiency measures in the delivery of timely justice. I do place a watching brief, however, on the difficult balancing act that comes with access to justice, and that is to make sure that this is about better judicial outcomes for members of the broader community of Australia and, in my particular case, the mid-North Coast. That is the very meaning of the word ‘efficiency’ in the title of the bill, rather than some sort of resource efficiency from government in a roundabout way denying full access to the law by saving on pennies from a government point of view. It is on the first definition of efficiency that I support this bill. It is important legislation for communities such as mine. The Federal Court does visit the mid-North Coast and there is a significant backlog at times, so anything that can improve that and provide a more timely delivery of justice is certainly welcome within my region and will hopefully deliver better outcomes for the nation. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 574 Business 574 574 13:49:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —by leave—I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent government business today continuing past 2 p.m. and being interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for Question Time. The Council of Australian Governments meeting has just concluded. The press conference between the Prime Minister, the premiers and the chief ministers began a matter of minutes ago. I have spoken to the Manager of Opposition Business and it has been agreed that this would be appropriate, given the importance of the COAG meeting. I should also note, and give notice, that after question time is commenced I will move whatever procedural resolutions are necessary to enable ministerial statements to be given after the conclusion of the matter of public importance debate. Question agreed to. 575 Bills R4028 575 Debate resumed. 575 13:51:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I would like to thank members for their contribution to the debate. The Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 contains a range of measures which demonstrate the government’s commitment to making the federal courts more flexible, minimising the costs of litigation and improving access to the justice system for all Australians. As I said when introducing this bill, court efficiency is important if we are to ensure that the cost of justice remains proportionate to the relief being sought. The measures in this bill are consistent with the government’s longstanding commitment to measures to improve access to justice. The government is taking action including addressing the cost of justice. There is a broad range of work for further reforms in this area. This includes working with the federal courts to develop enhanced case management powers and asking the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council to report on strategies to ensure greater use of appropriate alternative dispute resolution options, both as an alternative to civil proceedings and also during the proceedings with a view to resolving the issues in dispute. I note that this morning the Senate referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs a wide range of matters relating to the justice system. This unfocused, sprawling inquiry is both unnecessary and a highly dubious use of Senate time and public resources. The government has already taken action in the vast majority of proposed areas for inquiry, including consulting with all interested stakeholders, including the courts and the profession and also consumers of legal services. While the government is taking decisive action to promote access to justice and ensuring public confidence in our justice system, the Greens and the opposition appear content to embark on an inquiry into a rambling grab-bag of issues. Importantly, further to the government’s commitment to ensuring that the justice system uses public resources with maximum effectiveness to assist people to resolve their disputes, the bill gives the Federal Court greater flexibility in obtaining expert assistance, particularly in complex and technical matters. It empowers the court to refer all or part of the proceedings to an appropriately qualified person for report. We have indicated that that power will be particularly valuable in a number of areas including, for instance, in respect of native title. This procedural flexibility, combined with the referee’s specialist expertise, will allow the referee to quickly get to the core of the technical issues and reduce costs and delays for litigants, and this will enable the court to more effectively and efficiently manage large litigation. Of course, the court is not bound to accept the findings of the referee, and the legal effect of the report is a matter for the court’s discretion. The bill responds to the decision of the full court of the Family Court of Australia in Black v Black. The bill amends the Family Law Act in particular to limit the technical requirements that people need to meet to enter into prenuptial agreements, while still providing necessary protections to parties, such as the requirement to obtain legal advice. It will restore confidence in the binding nature and enforceability of financial and termination agreements under the Family Law Act. The bill gives the Federal Court concurrent jurisdiction with state and territory courts for all matters arising under the International Arbitration Act. This increases the choice of forum for litigants and puts the Federal Court in a better position to operate as a regional hub for commercial litigation by developing consistent practice across Australia. To allow the Federal Court to more effectively manage cases and avoid unnecessary delays for litigants, the bill enables a single judge of the court to make an interlocutory order in proceedings that otherwise would be required to be heard before a full bench. The bill promotes the efficient administration and management of federal courts and tribunals by removing unnecessary and out-of-date restrictions on the heads of the Family Court, Federal Court, Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Native Title Tribunal from acquiring assets in land for the purposes of the Lands Acquisition Act. That will streamline costs and procedures. It also makes it clear to Federal Court officers and also to the public the areas in which authorised officers can exercise power under the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act in the interests of court security where the Federal Court is sitting on open land or in buildings other than its usual premises. This will have particular application when the Federal Court sits on country, for instance, to hear native title matters, or where a court may move into other temporary premises. I note the member for Fisher’s view on the federal courts and take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by these courts on a wide range of matters. It is my hope that the measures in this bill will enhance the Federal Court’s status as a regional hub for dispute resolution in the Asia-Pacific region. In conclusion, the amendments in this bill reflect the government’s strong commitment to ensuring that the federal justice system is operating as effectively and as efficiently as possible and is responsive to the needs of litigants. I thank all members who have participated in the debate, and the shadow minister, who has come into the House for this conclusion, and I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 576 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 13:58:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 576 Bills R4030 576 Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 577 13:59:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I rise to speak on the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008. This bill was introduced at the same time as the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008. That bill provides for the criminalisation of cartel conduct, including penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment, and will necessitate the creation of an indictable criminal jurisdiction in the Federal Court for the trial of offences. Other Commonwealth offences are heard in the state and territory courts. The Federal Court is to be invested with this jurisdiction because of its extensive experience with civil and quasi-criminal cartel cases under the current Trade Practices Act. However, I understand that, where prosecutions involve offences under both the cartel provisions and state or territory law or other Commonwealth offences to which this bill does not apply, state or territory superior courts will be able to hear those matters without the offences being disjoined. The amendments proposed in this bill provide for the complex procedural framework required by the new jurisdiction, including the form of indictments, entry of pleas, bail, pretrial proceedings, empanelment of juries, conduct of trials, sentencing and appeals. The procedural provisions have been modelled upon existing state and territory provisions and will apply in all Federal Court trials, regardless of where the trial is being conducted. For consistency, in this area of law at least, this is preferable to applying the procedural and evidentiary provisions of the relevant state or territory. While the criminalisation of serious cartel conduct and the creation of the framework to deal with it have the opposition’s support, we have serious reservations about two aspects of this bill. The first of these concerns the accused’s right to silence. Proposed section 23CF requires an accused who takes issue with a fact, matter or circumstance disclosed in the prosecution’s case to state the basis for doing so. This may compromise an accused’s right to silence. The justification stated in the explanatory memorandum is that this will permit the court to narrow the issues to be dealt with at trial. However, efficiency is not an adequate justification for dispensing with age-old rights, especially such important human rights as the right of an accused to remain silent. Alternatives exist, using the examples from other Australian jurisdictions. A provision such as that applicable in New South Wales could be adopted, which allows such a procedure unless it will cause prejudice to the defence. Alternatively, there should be no adverse consequences flowing from the accused’s nondisclosure, which is the practice in Victoria. The second issue concerns the presumption in favour of bail, which has also existed under our law since ancient times. The proposed section 58DA provides that, if the court refuses to grant bail, the accused cannot make a subsequent application unless there has been a significant change in circumstances. This is more onerous than the provisions applying in any other Australian jurisdiction. Proposed section 58DB is also silent as to whether there is any presumption in favour of bail. In other jurisdictions there is generally a presumption in favour of bail except in specific circumstances. There is also no provision in this bill for the court to provide reasons for refusing bail. The right to silence and the presumption in favour of bail are among the individual human rights recognised and protected by our common law for centuries. For a government such as this one, which paints itself as having a human rights focus, it is curious to say the least that its first attempt at a federal criminal jurisdiction would seek to sweep away rights recognised since the Magna Carta. This bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on 4 December 2008 for inquiry and report by 20 February 2009. Submissions have been received from, among others, the Attorney-General of New South Wales, the Law Council of Australia, the Law Institute of Victoria and the Criminal Bar Association of Victoria. Some of these submissions have been highly critical of the issues I have described. The opposition will not deny this bill a second reading in this place. What we will do is await the full report and recommendations of the Senate committee, with the benefit of expert submissions, and seek in the Senate to achieve the appropriate balance in this bill. 578 14:04:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008. This bill is a cognate bill with the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It should be enacted at the same time to avoid delays in bringing criminal prosecutions for very serious cartel offences in the Federal Court. This is what the Australian population would call white-collar crime. Price fixing—engaging in anticompetitive and anti-free-market behaviour in the marketplace—by companies is simply unacceptable to the Australian community and to my community in the federal electorate of Blair. They want to know that when they go into the supermarkets the prices have not been fixed between the big players. They want to know that when they go to the petrol bowsers the big petrol companies have not got together and rigged the price. They want to know that when they go to purchase a new motor vehicle deals have not been done to prevent the best possible price being offered. The laws of supply and demand, the laws of the market, should operate to ensure that the Australian public get the best possible price for the produce, goods and services they purchase. This bill is about ensuring that those kinds of cartel behaviours are dealt with the way the Australian community expects them to be. For a long time white-collar crime was treated less onerously and punitively than blue-collar crime was. The media often portrays blue-collar crime sensationally. You only have to look at news reports, at the 6 pm news on a Sunday night, to see that it is all about blue-collar crime. But many people engaged in white-collar crime, cartel type behaviour, often seem to be punished with lesser punishments, and that rankles. It irks and irritates the Australian community that the big fish seem to get away. Having a criminal jurisdiction in federal law that deals with indictable offences—serious criminal behaviour and serious anticompetitive behaviour—is a good legislative reform and a good criminal law reform which will enable the Australian community’s faith in the criminal justice system to be reinforced. Too often they feel that the big guy gets away with it. They feel that they are powerless and that if you have got enough money you can get away with anything. Having a criminal jurisdiction in the federal law which prosecutes companies and individuals for serious cartel offences is important to the integrity of the criminal justice system and the Australian people’s faith in the criminal law in this country. It is also important because for too long we have had state and supreme courts dealing with areas like this in more costly ways. Often it costs a lot more to go to the Supreme Court of Queensland than, say, the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia or the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, because the procedures in federal law are often more streamlined and geared to early resolution. I know that in Queensland we have uniform civil procedures rules but they are more onerous than the areas of federal law. So bringing criminal law into the federal jurisdiction is the right thing in terms of cost, effectiveness and the expedition of justice. Having a uniform indictable criminal procedure across Australia is right; it is the way to go. My state of Queensland had a dingo fence—legally, in terms of the practice of law—which was eventually knocked down. The truth of the matter is that we have a system of laws in this country with state law based in the states and the complication of federal law with it. I am sure our founding fathers would have thought differently looking at Australia in the 21st century than they did in the 1890s. We are left with what we are left with, and so we have to deal with the system that we have in terms of state and federal relations and the interaction of criminal law. Criminal law, generally, is dealt with in the state systems at the magistrates court. If you go to any magistrates court or court of petty sessions around this country you will see people there on a regular basis—heaps of them—with duty solicitors and legal aid lawyers there to give advice. Most of it is real blue-collar stuff and mostly, if you have practised in the area of criminal law, you have dealt with really small stuff. It is the really complicated, difficult business records, commercial relations and corporate structures that are hard to really get into. They do not appeal to the 6 pm news on Sunday night. It is too easy to talk about someone hitting someone, someone running over someone or someone abducting someone. It is easy to do that in 30 seconds on Channel 9, Channel 7 or Channel 10. But the sorts of criminal behaviours that people have got away with for a long time should be dealt with in the federal law. If we are dealing with serious criminal behaviour and trade practices legislation it should be dealt with by the Federal Court. Giving the Federal Court indictable criminal jurisdiction is the way to go. It is consistent with our responsibilities as federal members of parliament, it is consistent with the integrity of the Federal Court system and it is the right thing to do, to have a uniform system around the country. The Federal Court is being given this jurisdiction because it has significant expertise with cartel conduct in civil jurisdiction. The state courts—supreme, district and magistrate—simply do not have the expertise. There is not the jurisprudence or the history of the body of case law and precedent that the Federal Court has. Giving the power to the state courts would not have been the sensible thing to do. Giving power to the Federal Court was the right call. Having a uniform set of procedures will remove the need for judges and officers of the Federal Court to become familiar with the very different sets of rules and procedures for every Australian state and territory. I feel fortunate that I practised law in South-East Queensland in the Brisbane-Ipswich area. It would be dreadful to be practising at Coolangatta or Tweed Heads and having to deal with across-the-border issues all the time. You have to be familiar with the different rules and regulations you face if you go across the border between Coolangatta and Tweed Heads. Getting uniform procedures in this country in terms of federal law in criminal jurisdiction is the right call for us. It is not the case that you expect a judge who practised in commercial and criminal law in Brisbane—perhaps a QC—to know what the situation is in Tasmania. Having a uniform system of rules and procedures will ensure that you do not have to familiarise yourself with the rules and procedures relating to the law in Tasmania. It is consistent with the efficient, effective and good operation of our court system. It means that judges will become very familiar with rules and regulations. If you had appeared before any federal magistrate or Family Court judge who dealt with the rules and regulations under those particular pieces of governing legislation—the Family Law Act and the Federal Magistrates Act—you would have seen that those judges and federal magistrates became very familiar with those laws, procedures and rules. I have appeared before many of them, and I know they are able to quote chapter and verse in a snap because they are used to it. But the hypothetical QC from Brisbane who is now a Federal Court judge would not necessarily know what the criminal practice and jurisdiction procedures in Tasmania are and would have to learn them. So it is important we get uniformity. The best features of the state and territory criminal law procedures have been identified by the Federal Court, by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and by the Law Council of Australia. So there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders in the circumstances. No-one can say they have not been consulted, and we have got the best possible outcome in the circumstances. The Federal Court has been given the full range of powers it needs to conduct this jurisdiction, to exercise indictable criminal jurisdiction for serious cartel offences. You can imagine what will happen in these types of cases. They will be very similar to what you would have seen if you had gone through, regrettably and unfortunately, criminal charges against you for common assault, indecent dealing or use of illicit drugs. So the procedures would be very similar. In those state jurisdictions, on serious matters that go to the Supreme Court, say, being charged with an offence such as committing murder, you go through a Magistrates Court procedure, a pretrial procedure, a committal type procedure. There is bail, there is empanelling of juries, there is conducting of trials, there is the sentencing if convicted, with sentencing reports that go to the psychological or psychiatric condition of the perpetrator. There is the victim’s response—people also can have the opportunity to say how they have been affected. And there is the opportunity for appeal. In some of the Commonwealth court buildings I have been to around the country we really have not taken enough notice of the actual layout of the building. In some of those court buildings, and I think particularly in Brisbane, South-East Queensland, where I come from, there really needs to be some thought given to the layout. I heard a previous speaker talking about his experiences as a police officer in security for the courts, which is very important. But we need to think better about how we set out our courts. If we are going to give the Federal Court jurisdiction and they are going to empanel jurors, we had better have a good, hard look at how we actually physically arrange the courts. A lot of the courts I have been into really have not got seating and accommodation and are not set up to deal with these types of matters. They are mainly dealing with civil matters, less contentious matters in terms of people’s liberty—bankruptcy, trade practices, family law—and they do not necessarily have all the seating arrangements and the security that we need for jurors. So we are going to have to think long and hard and very seriously about protecting people, and their identities as well. We have to think about accommodation for jurors. There are 12 people. There is the bailiff. Where are they going to go? What rooms are going to be provided? We have to think seriously about how we construct the physical layout of the courts, the number of rooms, the security aspects, because we are dealing with very serious matters here. We will have to spend some extra money on setting up our courts. I expect some changes. I expect there will be some discussions about how many extra dollars we will have to spend. It might be good for employment of tradesmen, I imagine, because we are going to have to make some changes. When we are dealing with these types of matters and dealing with complex anticompetitive behaviour, we are really dealing with matters that impact upon people’s lives. It is not some airy-fairy thing. When consumers go to purchase goods, they want to know that those goods are being offered at a fair price and at the best price. They want to know also, as I said before, that if people have rigged the price of those goods, if people have acted in an oligopolistic way, in an anticompetitive way, in a cartel type way, they are going to be prosecuted. They want to know they can have faith that if people do these sorts of things they will be dealt with. I want to applaud the Law Council of Australia for what they have done here. They have been a very constructive partner in law reform in this country. We have seen their input in some of the legislation that has gone through the House of Representatives today. The officers of the Federal Court and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have also played an important role in these changes as well. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions I am sure has had a big say in how this has gone ahead, and the Australian Federal Police and the office of the Privacy Commissioner too. I have heard a couple of comments made by the member for Farrer in relation to some of the changes in the legislation and how it might impact upon people and their lives. It is interesting that a representative of the previous government talked about the Magna Carta. I do not think that the previous government had a particularly good record when it came to dealing with people in adverse or difficult circumstances, particularly those who came to this country on leaky boats fleeing oppressive regimes and were put in detention in some terrible locations. I do not think on this side of the House we are to be lectured when it comes to the rights of individuals by representatives of the previous Howard government on these types of matters. I do think it is important to have efficiency in our systems and I do not think that we are looking at a significant abrogation of the right to silence. We are dealing with very serious matters. We are talking about imprisonment for 10 years. These are very serious offences and we have to treat them seriously. We have to make sure our court system is efficient. We have to make sure our prosecution services are well financed and our police are given the powers they need to stamp out this sort of behaviour. They need to have the same sort of resourcing that the Australian Taxation Office has got in Operation Wickenby. We need to resource the Australian Federal Police well and resource the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions well and we need to ensure that the court has an efficient way to go about it. I do not think that the Australian public think that if a person has been denied bail that they should then be able to turn around a second, third or fourth time and make an application for bail again. If you are engaged in these types of behaviours, you often have lots of resources. Often it is directors of very big companies that we are going to be prosecuting because they have the resources to engage in these types of behaviours. If they can afford silks, expensive lawyers, they can afford to run into court every day of the week and argue why they should get bail. A provision which says that if they have been denied bail once they can then only make an application a second time if there is a significant change in circumstance is consistent with other law practices. Material change in circumstance is the sort of thing that justifies people revisiting other cases, for example. We have dealt with family law today in this House. In family law, you can bring applications to vary certain settlements if there has been a material change in circumstance. Material change in circumstance is one of the bases for revisiting an order in relation to contact with children—what we used to call ‘custody’ many years ago. The Australian public know what that really means. They do not expect the court system to be clogged up by rich litigants able to afford high-priced lawyers to bring in applications every day of the week just because they do not like one judge who denied them bail. I think that the member for Farrer’s concerns are misconceived and that she is wrong. I think the Australian public believe in a fair go and that people should have their day in court. If someone is denied bail then they can make an application again once their circumstances change, but not every day. I think it is important that there is integrity, consistency and efficiency in our court system. People who are charged with criminal offences have the right to legal representation and their day in court. Any of us who go through these types of criminal procedures because of ourselves, our friends or our families know what impact they have on people’s lives. I do not believe the concerns of the other side are—(Time expired) 582 14:25:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —I do not intend to delay the House long with this contribution. The Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008 is the first time that any government has introduced criminal jurisdiction to the Federal Court. When I addressed the parliament in relation to the Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 just a short time ago, I outlined how for many decades in Australia we did not actually have a federal court system other than the High Court and that the state courts used to exercise federal jurisdiction. I personally believe that was a better model. But, having said that, we now have a large number of federal courts of various types, including the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008, as was indicated by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech, has been introduced at the same time as the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008. As the Attorney pointed out, the latter bill will amend the Trade Practices Act to introduce new offences for serious cartel conduct. Honourable members have spoken at length about the seriousness of cartel conduct and how the Federal Court, because of its civil experience with cartel conduct, should be the appropriate court to deal with criminal matters flowing on from that sort of behaviour. Currently the state and territory courts have that jurisdiction and I am yet to be convinced that it is an appropriate way to go to invest, for the first time ever, the Federal Court with this sort of criminal jurisdiction. The government tells us that it does not have any intention of expanding the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal Court beyond this matter, but once you accept the government’s decision you will see the bill quite logically seeks to set up all of the infrastructure to enable the Federal Court to carry out this role as a criminal court. The member for Blair talked about the need to have appropriate provisions for juries and so on. I think that, given the fact that the Federal Court is being invested with criminal jurisdiction in only one particular area, the cost of doing this certainly outweighs the benefits. There has been discussion on how judges cannot be experts on different sorts of evidentiary requirements around the country, but we have a system that works now and which I believe is not broken. If it is not broken, why seek to fix it? I may well not be in a majority with my attitude to the Federal Court of Australia Amendment (Criminal Jurisdiction) Bill 2008 but, having said that, I wanted to make the point. I would, however, like to endorse the remarks made by the member who led the debate for the opposition, the honourable member for Farrer, when she spoke about the serious impingement on human rights and civil rights in this bill. When he spoke, the member for Blair addressed us at length about how some of these defendants would be extremely wealthy, able to hire quite costly Queen’s Counsels and other senior barristers, and that somehow it was wrong to enable them to make applications for bail on more than one occasion—the way he put it was ‘day after day’. I believe that in a democratic society civil rights are so important that, whatever virtue the member for Blair may have in his argument, civil rights really are very much more important. Having said that, this is legislation which is supported by both sides of the House. I imagine that it will be carried pretty quickly by this place, given the example of the legislation last night, and I suspect by the other house as well. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 2.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. 583 Miscellaneous 583 14:30:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I rise to provide the House with an update on the Queensland flooding situation. In recent weeks and months Queenslanders have faced severe storms, tropical cyclones and extensive flooding. Today, 62 per cent of Queensland is under water and 35 shires have been declared eligible for disaster assistance. The damage bill is over $100 million and is climbing. In Ingham, the Herbert River is over 12 metres. I understand that many homes have been significantly damaged by floodwaters. A number of towns across the state are now completely isolated, and it is not over yet. The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast that more rain and another tropical cyclone are on the way. The government has been monitoring the situation closely. Last night I spoke with the Queensland Premier, who shared the devastating impact of the flooding across the state with me. The Premier informs me that Queensland’s disaster management system is now in full swing. The government is currently providing a range of assistance to Queensland and I confirm our readiness to provide additional assistance should it be required. Commonwealth financial assistance is already being provided under the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements, the NDRRA, to assist with emergency food, accommodation, essential repairs and hardship grants. This morning the Australian government’s disaster response plan, COMDISPLAN, was activated to enable our defence forces to transport aviation fuel from Townsville to Ingham to assist in supporting rescue and relief efforts. The Commonwealth stands ready to provide additional assistance to Queensland should the state government’s resources become exhausted. On behalf of all Australians I offer our thoughts and our prayers to all those Queenslanders affected today by these floods. 584 14:32:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I rise today in support of the Prime Minister’s remarks regarding the floods in North, Far North and north-west Queensland. Honourable members would be aware that Cyclone Charlotte, which crossed the coast coming in from the Gulf of Carpentaria earlier this year, was followed this last week by Cyclone Ellie, which authorities are anxiously monitoring, concerned that it may reform in the next 24 to 48 hours. These enormous downpours have resulted in rail, roads and many towns being cut off. The town of Ayr, the hometown of opposition spokesperson for Northern Australia, Senator Ian Macdonald, has today been cut off from road and rail. Earlier this week, as the rain poured, the senator remarked that volumes of water the equivalent of Sydney Harbour itself were poring over the Burdekin dam and down the Burdekin River not far from where he lives. Karumba, a fishing port in the Gulf which has become a popular tourist destination, has been isolated except for by helicopter for six weeks. We are told that this may continue for another month. Townsville has been cut off by road in all directions, and last night a freighter left Townsville for Cairns to deliver supplies. We in this House pay tribute today to the incredible dedication, diligence and bravery of our emergency services personnel. Many of these men and women will be at or near the point of exhaustion in their struggle to deal with the challenge of getting vital supplies and emergency assistance to the affected areas. Most of them are volunteers, and we extend the nation’s gratitude to them for their tireless contribution. Australians are strong and resilient people and as we know there are none stronger or more resilient than those who live in the north of our great nation. They know that nature can be fickle. As Senator Macdonald said earlier in the week, they have learnt how to live with these natural calamities; it is part of the wet season and they know how to deal with it. But the nation too pulls together behind them and supports them as they respond to these natural disasters and supports them and honours them for their heroism and for their hard work. 584 14:34:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I thank the House and would like to join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their remarks about the flooding in north Queensland. It is an extraordinary commentary on the climate of our great continent that so much of Australia is enduring incredible heat, that the rivers in the Murray and in the south are dry and that much of our country is drought declared, yet 62 per cent of Queensland is flooded. The Gulf rivers join from one to the other; there is water in abundance but it is not where people want it, when they want it. The people of those regions respond stoically to these kinds of circumstances. We have seen pictures on our televisions of people in towns like Ingham and thereabouts battling the floodwaters through their homes. I have also seen appalling pictures of the loss of livestock across the Gulf and the hardship that is being endured by many people through those regions. Our hearts are certainly with those people. I commend the Prime Minister on his announcement today of the willingness of the government to provide support wherever they can. He can be assured of the support of the whole of the parliament in those initiatives. The people in these more remote parts of Australia particularly appreciate assistance when it comes. Whilst they will fend for themselves bravely as they always do, it is important to them to also know that they have the support of the people in this parliament, the government and the people of Australia. 585 14:36:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, very briefly, I thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party for their words. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Emergency Management Australia. A number of officers remained awake around the clock, as one or two of us did last night. I would also like to thank the Australian defence forces, and acknowledge that my colleague the Minister for Defence, whose company I enjoy in this House, has been of tremendous assistance in that respect. While we have focused this day on the floods, we should also recognise the tremendous work of all governments and also all agencies in respect of the devastating bushfires that have recently confronted Victoria. Again, there is an indication, as is always the case in Australia, of cross-party support, of cross-government support, working with volunteers and very impressive professionals to assist Australians to cope with these sorts of natural disasters. 585 Ministerial Arrangements 585 14:37:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Assistant Treasurer will be absent from question time today. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. 585 14:37:00 Questions Without Notice 585 14:37:00 585 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his recent statement regarding his $42 billion spending package, where he said, ‘We all must rise to this national challenge.’ I ask the Prime Minister why he himself was not able to rise this morning to vote for it? 585 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —When it comes to leadership from the Australian Liberal Party, it seems we must turn to the Liberal leader of Western Australia alone, who, today, with every Premier in the country and the chief ministers of the two territories, agreed to a new national plan to implement this national stimulus package and, furthermore, decided to pitch in and do their bit to support this economy, families and jobs, given the global economic recession which is unfolding. I would say this to the Leader of the Opposition: that is what leadership is about. And I would draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to the following: that on votes relating to legislation, which occurred on 116 occasions during the last term of the Howard government, the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was absent on 110 occasions. 585 585 14:39:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan and the need for all Australians to work together to see Australia through the global economic recession we now confront? 585 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —What we have seen in the last 24 hours are two approaches to national leadership—one which says that we should put aside our party political differences, put aside the differences between federal and state governments and work together in the national interest. That is what has been at work since nine o’clock this morning over there at the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments—governments, federal and state, governments, Labor and Liberal, agreeing on a course of action to deal with the impact on Australia of a global economic recession, which Australians are not responsible for. That is one model of national leadership. The other model of non-leadership is what we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party, who have, instead, decided to stand to one side and simply consign all Australians to have to deal with the impact of this global economic recession on their lives, their jobs, their businesses without any protection from government. That is what those opposite have decided to do. Why have they decided to do that? Because the political interests of the Leader of the Liberal Party have been put first and the national interest has been put last. The political interests of the Leader of the Liberal Party are along these lines. He really does hope that the global economic recession—a recession which he has already hauled up the white flag on—worsens so that in a year’s time he can turn around and say, ‘Well, you couldn’t fix that.’ That is what this political opportunism is all about. It is not national leadership; it is simply an exercise in political tactics. If it were just electoral political tactics that would be one thing, but what is worse about it is that it is also internal party politics, directed at the impending challenge from the member for Higgins for the leadership of the Liberal Party. Not wishing to expose himself to an attack from the right of his party, what does the Leader of the Liberal Party do? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the stimulus package. He was not asked for a commentary on political matters outside the stimulus package. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Sturt will indeed be challenged by the events which come his way in a few months time and as to where his loyalties, to the extent that they exist, will lie. Real leadership consists of putting aside differences, in the national interest. A failure of leadership consists of putting your own personal political interests first, your own personal political survival first and that is what we have seen worked out in the 24 hours that has unfolded since the events of yesterday morning. What the governments of Australia have done today is agree on an implementation strategy for this nation-building plan for the future. What the governments of Australia have done is sit down around a table and work out a timetable for delivering stimulus to 7,500 primary schools across Australia. They have worked out a timetable for implementing a program to deliver additional funding for science wings and language laboratories in 500 secondary schools across the country. What the governments of Australia have done is sat down and worked out a timetable for implementing $6 billion worth of new outlay for 20,000 new units of social housing across the country. What the governments of Australia have done today is sit down and agree on a timetable to roll out what we will now do about black spots and about the recovery and repair of regional roads, together with additional infrastructure to be delivered to local governments across the country. That is what the governments of Australia have been doing today—sitting down, working out the best way we can advance this core challenge, dealing with the immediate impact of how we go about generating jobs in the near term and how, through that, we support the construction of infrastructure which the nation needs for the long term. That is what governments have been doing. The other thing governments have been doing today is agreeing not just on the timetable but on the machinery for doing it as well. I have confirmed the appointment of a coordinator-general for the Commonwealth, Mr Mike Mrdak from the Prime Minister’s department, a public servant who has served both sides of politics well previously in the transport portfolio. Also, there will be coordinators in each of the principal program areas which the Commonwealth is funding through this unprecedented nation-building plan. State premiers and chief ministers have agreed to appoint their own coordinators-general of works, together with separate coordinators where necessary for each of the program areas. This is the practical business of government. Furthermore, what premiers and chief ministers have agreed to work on now is: how do we best bring together the various labour market programs, training programs, education programs and other programs, including those associated with regional development, to support those who will lose their jobs as a consequence of this global economic recession? That is what leadership is about—leadership we have seen from the Liberal Premier of Western Australia; leadership we have seen from the other premiers and chief ministers; leadership which has been conspicuous in its total absence in the politically self-serving strategy embarked upon by the member for Wentworth seeking purely to save his own political hide. 587 587 14:45:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasurer’s answer yesterday where he said the coalition’s proposal to bring forward the already legislated 2009 and 2010 tax cuts would impose: … $11 billion, on a permanent basis—hence my observation earlier that they are in favour of higher deficits permanently. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, on the contrary, the additional cost of bringing forward these tax cuts is temporary, relating only to the six and 18 months the cuts are brought forward, because from 2009 and 2010 the cost of those tax cuts is already budgeted for? Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to clear up the Treasurer’s confusion? 587 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Liberal Party asks a question about confusion. When it comes to confusion, what is the current posture of those opposite about either the amount of stimulus they recommend, the type of tax cuts they recommend, the duration they might be for or the latest exercise in this, which is the recommendation in relation to the small business sector and the deferral of compulsory contributions to superannuation—depending on whether that is for two years as in your statement or unlimited as in his statement? This is an opposition in complete policy disarray. If you speak about confusion, speak to those opposite, led by the person who has just asked the question. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Poor Wayne—left to hang out to dry! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Others will be left out to dry, Member for Sturt. 587 Distinguished Visitors 587 14:47:00 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 Chile. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Buenos dias. Honourable members—Hear, hear! DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Minister for Trade really stretches the meaning of ‘amigo’. He will be quiet, please. 587 Questions Without Notice 587 587 14:48:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Treasurer. Why is it so important that the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan be implemented as soon as possible? 588 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Bass for her question. The government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan is about supporting jobs now and delivering lasting investments needed to strengthen the economy, to support jobs and to support business. Of course, the measures introduced in the House yesterday are critical and they are urgent. It is the strong preference of the tax commissioner and the chief executive of Centrelink that they pass this week. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Forty billion dollars, and we’re running to a bureaucratic timetable. It’s a joke. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —It is not a bureaucratic timetable; it is a timetable for the Australian people to support jobs. Those opposite just do not get it. They do not understand that, because of the global recession, there is an immediate need to boost demand right now. They simply do not understand that, and without these measures more Australians will be out of work. For the first time in the history of this nation, we have had a Leader of the Opposition come into this House and intentionally vote for higher unemployment. That is what they did in this House last night. This is not a time for half measures. This is a time for governments to get cracking, to roll up their sleeves and to do what needs to be done. What is the position of those opposite? This morning on radio the shadow Treasurer had this to say about the plan from the opposition. She was on with Fran Kelly this morning and, in answer to a question about what she would do, she said that what Australia should do is ‘sit and wait and see’ how the global recession pans out. Talk about putting the white flag up! Sit and wait while the developed world moves into recession? Sit and wait while growth halves in China? Sit and wait while Japan, the United States and most of continental Europe go into recession? That is the white flag of surrender, and it just shows that those opposite do not have a clue about what they are doing—or maybe they do, and that is even more damning of their actions last night. I want to quote the chief economist of the IMF, who had this to say only on 29 January: Above all, adopt clear policies and act decisively. He went on to say: Delays … in financial packages have cost … a lot already. He went on, and everyone on that side of the House should listen, to say this: Further rounds of debate … will stoke uncertainty and make things worse. That is what the chief economist of the IMF said only a couple of weeks ago, but the opposition do not take that advice seriously. They do not take the advice of the Business Council of Australia. They do not take the advice of most reputable economists. They do not take the advice of anybody who clearly understands the magnitude of the challenge facing this country, because what they are on about is pure politics. Of course, when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition, it is his ego that has come to the fore here. He is playing politics with the national interest because it is in his self-interest. That is exactly what he is doing, as the Prime Minister said before. He thinks he can score a cheap political point out of this and he is going for broke, and it is at the expense of the national interest. He has put his ego before our country. That is exactly what he has done. He has let the cat out of the bag again. This morning, on ABC radio, the Leader of the Opposition admitted that we do need to borrow to fund a collapse in revenues. Did you say that? Did you? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair. This is one of the problems when the answers start to debate the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —If you admit that it is the responsible thing to borrow to make up for a collapse in revenues, why are you opposing the measures here? It is just too much—is that the objection? Opposition members interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —So you now say it is perfectly legitimate to borrow to make up for the collapse in revenues. Let everybody note that is what the Leader of the Opposition has said: it is legitimate to do that. It takes us to the most important point that has been fudged by the opposition right through this debate, because in excess of two-thirds of future deficits are caused by a collapse in revenue. That is the whole point. What we are doing is the responsible thing—putting in place a stimulus package to make sure we can strengthen growth. That is the responsible thing to do in these circumstances. So I wonder why he is opposing what we are doing. When he thinks it is a responsible thing to do to borrow, when he thinks it is okay to have a stimulus package—just not one as large—why wouldn’t he come to the same conclusion that the Business Council of Australia, most other business representatives, most economists right around the country and the IMF have come to? I will tell you why: because he puts his ego and political interests before our country. 589 589 14:55:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation’s statement this morning that the coalition’s proposal to bring forward to January this year the already legislated tax cuts due to come into force from July 2009 and July 2010 represents a ‘discredited ideological policy mostly for higher income earners’. Given the finance minister’s statement later in the interview, ‘We are not going to allow that to occur,’ can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government is proposing to repeal the 2009 and 2010 tax cuts? 589 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The really disappointing thing about this debate is that it is like watching high school debaters struggling. There is a real economic crisis out there. It is about how we actually seek to prop up demand in this economy now, at a time when it is collapsing globally—net export incomes are going through the floor, private sector investments are contracting and small businesses are contracting—and the real debate is about how you bring forward activity now, and you are having some esoteric debate about a transcript here and a transcript there about legislated tax cuts. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is time we saw real leadership from someone on that side of the House. We have seen some this morning from the Liberal Premier of Western Australia. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, as he laughs nervously as the member for Higgins plans his dispatch, that he should focus on the national interest— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The Australian people are entitled to know if he is going to cancel the— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded? 589 589 14:58:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution plan for children and their families? 590 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I note that her electorate has 64 schools—51 primary schools, six combined schools and seven secondary schools. I note that she is someone who supports the schools in her electorate. She supports the schools in her electorate by supporting the government’s $14.7 billion plan, an historic investment in schools right around the country. This plan has been supported today by the leaders of each state and territory in this nation, including the Liberal leader of Western Australia. Despite the Liberal Party being opposed to this plan and opposed to any assistance for our schools, the Liberal leader of Western Australia has said today that he endorses this plan and that he will be working with the Rudd Labor government to deliver it. And no wonder, because endorsements for this plan are flooding in from around the nation. I refer to one endorsement from a school principal at Milton North primary school—a school principal in the federal electorate of Barker. He has written in to say that he was so ecstatic when he heard the news, he burst into tears. He said: We are ecstatic about this opportunity not only for the students and staff but also for the wider community. He goes on to say: There are many flow-on effects for the community from a project like this. There will be work for our tradespeople, creating an atmosphere of optimism about the future. A facility like this in a country town will also offer opportunities for other organisations in the town. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The school is Milton North primary school. The school motto is ‘Be the best you can’, and a facility like this will help them to be the best they can. The member for Barker of course runs out to check on the schools in his electorate that he does not support. But in this simple statement, the truth of this program is unveiled: it is an investment in the future of Australia’s children and their education, but it is also an investment today in the jobs of their parents. The Leader of the Opposition is very fond of saying— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —If I have mispronounced the name of the school, if I should have said it differently, then I apologise to the member for Barker. I am happy to make the email available to him or to have it supplied during question time, and then he can ring the principal and explain why he does not support the program. In this simple email, the principal is making the point that the Leader of the Opposition fails to understand— 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. There is no such school in my electorate. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Barker will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is answering the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As I have said, I am happy to supply the email to the member. I presume he concedes that there are schools in his electorate, and I presume he concedes that he has voted against assistance for those schools, and I presume he concedes that this is a program— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. The member for Barker will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister has not concluded her answer. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fadden will be helped out—out of the chamber. I can assure the House that I have plenty of patience, given the events of the last 24 hours, and if you want to sit here in suspended animation I am happy to do that, but I would like to get out of the place, so I think it would be best if we sit here quietly and listen to conclusions of answers. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am a bit bemused that people in this parliament who voted against a historic opportunity to invest in Australian schools and voted against jobs for Australians involved in those construction projects would be carrying on the way that they are. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Could I make this point to members of the Liberal Party who are catcalling in their contempt for Australian students and the jobs of their parents: the Leader of the Opposition is wont to wander around saying, ‘We should be looking into the eyes of children and talking to them about the future.’ I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, firstly, international studies show that world-class facilities make a difference to the quality of education. In that regard, I refer him to the study of the UK Department for Education and Skills, Building better performance, a report which indicates that school outcomes and the quality of school facilities are related. So if we want Australian kids to get a world-class education today so they can have a fair chance of getting the high-skills, high-wage jobs of tomorrow, then we need to be investing in our education system. And that is precisely what this program does. I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that, when he is talking about looking into the eyes of those children, there is nothing more important to the future of those children than their parents having a job. This program is about supporting and sustaining employment in this country with a historic $14.7 billion program. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, given that he has voted against this investment in schools and given that he has voted against the jobs that it would support, what his solution is. We know the Leader of the Opposition has no solution, but I was interested to see today that the member for Higgins—who is obviously taking every appearance he gets offered this week—made an appearance on ABC Radio and verified that the Liberal Party stands behind Work Choices. Now we do know what their solution is— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister was asked a question about the schools package and the spending package. She was not asked about Work Choices. She is now talking abut Work Choices— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister knows that she must be relevant to the question, and I suggest that she brings her answer to a conclusion. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. This historic investment is about responding to the global financial crisis, investing in world-class education and supporting jobs. Of course, the only Liberal Party solution is the member for Higgins’ solution: Work Choices—make it easier to sack people and cut their pay. That is what the Liberal Party stands for. The member for Higgins has made it perfectly clear. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to table the so-called email from which she was quoting earlier in her answer to see if it is actually genuine or not. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the Deputy Prime Minister quoting from a document? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Yes, I was, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the document confidential? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, the document has two sections. I will get the email and I am happy to table it. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a list of schools in the electorate of Barker provided by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. It shows there is no such school as Milton North. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Barker will resume his seat. Is leave granted? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, there is no need because we know where we are supporting infrastructure in all those schools and they are opposing it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member for Moncrieff have a point of order? 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —It is actually a point of clarification and to seek direction from you, Mr Speaker. I was just seeking your direction. I know that the leader of government business in the House repeatedly makes the point about spurious points of order, so I made it very clear— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —So you are taking one? 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —No. I actually made it very clear from the outset that it was a point of clarification, and I would ask for your clarification on that, Mr Speaker. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —What’s the point of order—clarification? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have not in the past asked people to come to the dispatch box to indicate whether they are objecting to leave being granted or the granting of leave. That has been a practice from time to time in this place. So the clarification, if it was required, is that that was all that happened and it was by way of taking a denial of leave. 592 592 15:10:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and I refer to his failure to answer my previous question. Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government is committed to delivering the 2009 and 2010 tax cuts? 592 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I have said on multiple occasions in this House that the government’s legislated tax cuts proceed. There is nothing remarkable about that. The debated question here is about tax cuts versus stimulus now. I draw the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s attention to comments from the chief economist of the IMF who said that tax cuts are not the most effective stimulus. He says—and he is the economist—that taxes ‘tend to have less effect in the short run than measures which increase spending’. The Business Council of Australia says: A significant body of research highlights that additional tax cuts, unless very … targeted, tend not to be the most effective measures for stimulating demand in circumstances of rising unemployment and poor confidence. Greig Gailey of the BCA says: Well our concern with tax cuts other than the offset taxes for low income earners which we absolutely support, our concern on tax cuts is that the tax cut will actually be saved when in fact we want to stimulate the economy. Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group says: The higher level income tax cuts are more likely to be saved. We are in no hurry to see those brought forward. The body of advice internationally and nationally from the credible business organisations is that, if our task is to provide stimulus here for the economy, it is to take measures such as the government is currently supporting: investing directly in infrastructure—and, together with the premiers and chief ministers, we agreed this morning on the type of infrastructure and an implementation plan—and providing support for households, about which there has been some debate in the House in the last 24 to 48 hours. As to the decision of those opposite, I seem to recall the Manager of Opposition Business said that it was unanimous within their party room—though Fran Bailey seemed to have a different view on radio this morning and various press reports seemed to indicate that various members may have had a different view. But let us just say that they resolved that this was the right course of action for them politically. What they need to answer in their own minds and in their own communities is this: what will you say to each one of those farmers who will not receive a one-off hardship payment? What will you say to each one of those families who will not be assisted with their back-to-school bonuses? What will you say to each of those families who are doing it tough and may, in fact, be suffering from the prospect of unemployment, when you, by your action, are seeking to prevent them from access to those one-off tax bonuses? What will you say to each school across the country when they come forward with each of their proposals for an assembly hall, for a new resource centre, for a new library, for a language laboratory or for a science laboratory, when each one of you is saying, ‘No, no, no; we can’t do that’? If the policy reasons advanced added up to something, maybe we could have a discussion. But if you look at every piece of serious advice from every credible economist, from every credible business organisation, from the international monetary and financial authorities themselves, there is no policy argument. There is no argument in terms of helping people who are doing it tough and schools that need the help. Do you know what this is all about? This is one man’s personal political interest and his struggle against the member for Higgins. 593 593 15:14:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 Mr BIDGOOD —My question is to the Minister for Tourism. Would the minister outline for the House the benefits of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan for the tourism industry? 593 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the member for Dawson for the question. As a member representing a key regional seat, he understands the importance of tourism to areas such as the Whitsundays, Mackay and Bowen, which featured so prominently in the film Australia. He also understands that the tourism industry is doing it tough at the moment as a result of the global financial crisis. It is interesting to note that the World Tourism Organisation has predicted that global tourism this year will decline for the first time since the Second World War. That is important because both international and domestic tourism are important to Australia. The government is about doing everything we can to try and assist the tourism industry in Australia to get through these tough times. That means we have to continue to invest in overseas markets so as to maintain a market presence. The industry understands that if we walk away it is going to be tougher to get back into the international tourism sector. It is also important that we understand that 75 per cent of the tourism industry in Australia is of a domestic nature. It is about time people on the other side understood that tourism is about competing for the discretionary dollar. I was pleased to note in the Herald Sun today an article including the member for McEwen speaking out against the opposition’s determination to bomb this package in their party room yesterday. While she might have described their opposition as political suicide, I hope that in her contribution to the party debate yesterday she was actually thinking about the national interest. The debate about the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is a debate about what is in Australia’s national interest. When you think about Australia’s national interest, you should actually think about those small business operators and the 480,000 Australians directly employed in the tourism industry in Australia. You should also remember that a lot of those people are actually employed in small businesses in rural and regional Australia. Unlike the opposition, they understand that the Nation Building and Jobs Plan builds on the 2008 Economic Security Package of the Australian government, which was about putting more dollars into the pockets of Australian consumers to maintain employment. Small business operators are concerned about cash flow, and putting dollars in the hands of consumers is about putting cash through those operators’ tills, which may assist them to take up the government’s initiative particularly aimed at small business and claim the additional 30 per cent deduction for eligible assets to assist them in this tough economic environment. For those reasons, I think it is about time the opposition joined with the tourism industry and gave the government the support it deserves for trying to do the right thing in Australia’s national interest. In that context, I refer to solid support given to the Australian government in its endeavours. I refer, for example, to a statement by Matt Hingerty, a key tourism representative known well to the member for North Sydney. Mr Hingerty said on Tuesday in response to the government’s package: ‘The timing of the cash bonuses was well positioned just ahead of the school holidays and Easter break.’ He said that because he understands that there are 121 million days of accumulated annual leave in Australia. He understands that these payments link up with the Australian government’s endeavours with key employer organisations such as ACCI to encourage Australian workers to have a holiday. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —It is about time the member for Moncrieff stopped talking down the Australian tourism industry and stopped talking about a crisis. It is also about time members on the other side of the House joined with members such as the member for Dawson, the member for Lyons, the member for Leichhardt, members on the Central Coast and members in Wollongong and Newcastle—key tourism areas—and supported this package. Perhaps the members for Wide Bay, Herbert, Kalgoorlie, Flinders and Forrest, for example, should start thinking about key tourism areas such as Noosa, Townsville, Broome, Mornington Peninsula and Margaret River and join with the member for McEwen, because she understands the importance of tourism to the Yarra Valley. If when they return to their electorates this weekend they go and put their feet under the table of a local restaurant or cafe, they should think about what Peter Doyle, the President of the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association, and John Hart, its CEO, said in a media release on Tuesday of this week: The stimulus package also contained a number of cash payments that will see their way into the hands of restaurant consumers. They went on to say: … consumers now spend nearly 10% of their household income on meals out (on average) and these additional payments, which will come just prior to the next school holidays, will be spent in restaurants and cafes. But perhaps more importantly—because this debate is about the national interest and keeping Australians in employment—they concluded with this remark: The hospitality industry is a very labour intensive industry. Spending in restaurants is a very efficient way to create or maintain employment. I leave the opposition with that thought. Back a winner—back the national interest, not the opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition. 595 Distinguished Visitors 595 15:21:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Paul Henderson. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. I suppose the Territorian equivalent of ‘Buenos dios’ would be ‘G’day’. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 595 Questions Without Notice 595 595 15:21:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. Why does the government need to increase the borrowing limit of the Commonwealth from $75 billion to $200 billion immediately? 595 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. We are increasing the borrowing limit because we have to fund the accumulated deficits over time and, if she knew anything about this process, she would know that it is not all done at once. So we are seeking to put in place an ample amount of money to cover those accumulated deficits—deficits which flow principally from the collapse in revenues imposed on this country by the rest of the world because of the global recession. There is nothing unusual about this; it is normal practice. Opposition members interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —There is nothing unusual about borrowing on financial markets and the issuance of Commonwealth government securities. Even the member for Higgins engaged in that practice. The catcalls across the chamber just demonstrate what is motivating the opposition. It is not good policy, it is naked political advantage which stands in the road of the government doing the right thing by Australia to put in place vital measures which will stimulate demand—as the Minister for Tourism was just saying—and to provide for vital investments that will support jobs and growth over time. Of course, you can contrast that with the approach of the opposition. I was referring earlier to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she said this morning on Radio National’s Breakfast program that we should wait to see how this global recession pans out and how it affects Australia. That is what she said. In the face of all this evidence, she thinks that we should just sit around on our hands and do absolutely nothing. That is the doctrine of calculated neglect. That is what it is, and it is dangerous. It is a dangerous approach that we are having from this opposition, because it adds to uncertainty. As the chief economist of the IMF said in those remarks that I quoted earlier, that is a dangerous thing to do in these circumstances. In these circumstances it is a time to be bold. In these circumstances it is not a time for half measures. In these circumstances it is a time to back the national interest and do the right thing by the country. 595 595 15:24:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 Ms JACKSON —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister outline to the House what additional funding the government has provided to improve rail, community infrastructure and create local jobs? Are there any threats to these plans? 595 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. At the COAG meeting chaired by the Prime Minister this morning, all state premiers and chief ministers agreed to sign up to the new nation-building program by 1 March—and I thank the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, who is here today, for being a part of that. They therefore will be eligible for funding under the government’s $150 million increase in road maintenance, available and intended to be spent this financial year for economic stimulus and to make our roads safer. This program, the nation-building program from 2009-13, is the biggest road and rail investment program in the history of the Commonwealth. The investment is $27 billion, with the Commonwealth contributing $22.3 billion. It means that we can get on with the job of working together—the Commonwealth and the states and territories—to build our road and our rail network and to provide jobs and economic stimulus around the nation. And we are getting on with the job. I announced, through a media release earlier today, that construction work has now commenced on the 36 kilometre southern ydney freight line. That is a $309 million project. I have been asked about how many jobs. There are 500 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs. This is a 36 kilometre dedicated freight line that will unclog the single largest bottleneck on New South Wales’s interstate rail network. Last December, as part of our nation-building package, we announced an additional $1.2 billion through the ARTC for 17 rail projects to be rolled out across the country to enhance freight movement and to create local jobs. This will see freight times along the Melbourne to Brisbane corridor reduced from 37 hours to 26 hours—a 30 per cent improvement. Our largest investment is in the Hunter—$1 billion. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —This will directly employ—since you ask for the figures—650 people in the Hunter. That is 650 people, and it is supported by the member for Hunter, supported by the member for Charlton, supported by the member for Newcastle and supported by the member for Shortland. The member for Paterson, however, votes against jobs in his local community. We are investing $125 million to replace old wood rail sleepers with new concrete rail sleepers in order to increase efficiency on the network, creating local jobs in factories and employing extra people right now as a result of our commitment in December. Those people are being employed in Geelong, in Wagga Wagga, in Grafton, in Mittagong—these are jobs for regional Australia. And we are not only doing it through road and rail; we are doing it through community infrastructure. As COAG was meeting, there was also today the inaugural meeting of the steering committee of the Australian Council of Local Government. Regardless of political colour, background and ideology, it came together with an absolute consensus: that we need to get on with the job of nation building and providing jobs in local communities. Every single one of those mayors has welcomed our $800 million community infrastructure package—the package that those opposite voted against—with those local programs being delivered around the nation. They also agreed that local government will play its part in assisting the COAG agenda that was being debated at the same time, making sure that the development applications for local schools get fast tracked and that we get those jobs on the ground in those local communities. But much of that funding, of course, is in jeopardy due to the reckless attitude of those opposite—the reckless, opportunistic attitude of those opposite, who, at the same time as they were voting against it, were lobbying me around the corridors of the house yesterday, asking for programs in their electorates to be funded. That is the hypocrisy that we see from those opposite. We will see whether they support these programs put forward by local government in those communities. Of course, they are confused. Their strategy is dazed and confused. Yesterday, the Manager of Opposition Business said this on 2UE: ‘We’re not blocking it; we’re voting against it.’ It got better. Today, on Sunrise, he said: ‘If it’s too good to be true when people receive all these handouts, it is not true. It is not real.’ Well, when the Senate passes a program of $950, they will know that it is real. I do not think the Manager of Opposition Business can ever make an interjection like that again. But it gets better, because, on radio 2UE on 5 February, he said this: ‘When somebody holds a gun to my head, you know, maybe it’s a bit silly, but I say, “Well, mate, pull the trigger.”’ I say this to the member for North Sydney: your leader has done it. Your leader has done it to everyone along the front bench and along the back bench by opposing community infrastructure, by opposing nation building, by opposing jobs in local communities. That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has done, because he is not interested in nation building; he is just interested in himself. 597 597 15:32:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. How many jobs have been created by the December $10 billion cash splash, and how many jobs will be created by the proposed March $11 billion cash splash? What will be the annual interest cost of financing the $21 billion of those handouts at current interest rates? 597 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The honourable member, I think, asked a question in three parts. One was the impact on jobs of last year’s ESS. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —No, I am coming to it; I am just getting it right. The second was the current package and the— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —No, I have got that. And the third one was the interest rates. First of all, the government’s Economic Security Strategy was announced last October. It was delivered in December. As the honourable member would know, the full employment impact of that would not be known for some time. But, as the honourable member struggled yesterday with the most recently produced retail figures for the nation, to their collective dismay and disappointment, this country outperformed practically every other country in the world in terms of retail sales at that time. Obviously there will be some form of spillover of that investment into the support packages for households into the year 2010 as well. Secondly, as the honourable member knows, the package that the government announced two days ago of some $42 billion represents, as we have said, a total employment impact in terms of supporting jobs of up to 90,000. On the breakdown of the individual components of that: I will of course provide those to the Leader of the Opposition later. I do not have them with me, but I will be happy to do so. Thirdly, he asked a question about debt. On the question of the impact of the borrowings which would flow, I am advised that the interest payments would equal something in the vicinity of an additional 0.2 per cent of GDP at the time that they begin to be paid. If there is any variation on that, I will come back to the honourable member before the end of question time. Could I also say to the honourable member who has asked the question that, as they seek, as is their democratic right—and they are members of this parliament— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I know those opposite do not wish to actually debate that which is real here, which is: how do you deal with providing the stimulus which the Australian economy needs because of the global economic crisis? We have a program put forward. It is costed. The assumptions have been backed by the Treasury, and we stand by those because they represent for us a credible strategy to see Australia through this crisis. The alternative is not just sitting on the fence, not just carping from the sidelines, but an avalanche of politically opportunistic negativity from those opposite. But here is the ultimate irony for those opposite. There they are, representing the forces of neoliberalism around the world. There they are representing the forces of unrestrained greed. There they are, representing the forces of unrestrained markets, representing the forces also represented by unprincipled merchant bankers operating with under-regulated markets—their entire ideology, which has brought this crisis about—and yet they are unprepared to lift a political finger to support this government’s efforts to deal with the consequences of that crisis. This is the ultimate irony, the ultimate hypocrisy of those opposite: the unrestrained greed, unprincipled merchant bankers, under-regulated financial markets—at the absolute core of neoliberalism—causing this crisis worldwide, and there they stand back, smugly, seeking to take political advantage of this government’s attempts to deal with the consequences of that crisis for working people. Those opposite have contested whether in fact they are really neoliberals. Remember, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has said in response to this debate on unregulated financial markets: ‘Let us simply let the market run its course.’ DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would just ask the Leader of the Labor Party to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his proper title, please. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members should be referred to by their parliamentary titles. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition has said on multiple occasions, ‘Let the market run its course.’ That is the very heart of the neoliberal agenda which has brought about this mayhem on markets worldwide, with impacts on working people, who now pay the price through the loss of jobs right across the world and in our country as well. The Leader of the Opposition reinforced that in the debate in the parliament on Tuesday when he began citing as his new authority on fiscal policy Professor Taylor from Stanford University in the United States, who is himself one of the archdeacons of neoliberalism. Remember what Professor Taylor said? He always asks himself each morning: ‘What would Milton do next?’—that is, what would Milton Friedman do next? And then you have not just these statements of ideology but also the action itself of ideology, which is to block this government’s efforts in the Senate to actually deal with the stimulus needs necessary to repair growth, growth which has been undermined by neoliberal wanton behaviour around the world which has brought this crisis about in the first place. So there you have this extraordinary contradiction—their ideology wreaking havoc on the world economy and them refusing to support any course of action to deal with the consequences of their ideology’s spectacular failure. How about, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, you just stand up one day and say, ‘Maybe this neoliberalism, maybe this market fundamentalism—maybe we just got it wrong.’ How about a word of apology about all of those investment bankers around the world who creamed it, who scored tens and hundreds of millions of dollars out of this? How about just a word of apology which said you might have got it wrong? And how about a word of action to support a government’s efforts to clean up the wreckage after you? That is the moral challenge here, a moral challenge which has been failed by the Liberal Party corporately and by the Leader of the Opposition personally. 599 599 15:39:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 Ms VAMVAKINOU —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —You’d better change that title! 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —What deregulation? It should be re-regulation! 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —Except for labour services! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The members for Indi, Dunkley and Moncrieff are warned! 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms VAMVAKINOU —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is it important for the government to seek expert advice in dealing with the global economic crisis? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Calwell will resume her seat until the House comes to order. I call the member for Calwell. 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms VAMVAKINOU —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Calwell will resume her seat. I applaud the member for Calwell for referring to a member by their parliamentary title. I call the member for Calwell. 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms VAMVAKINOU —Why is it important for the government to seek expert advice in dealing with the global economic crisis? What does the advice indicate about various options for responding to the crisis? 599 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —The government is dealing with an unprecedented economic crisis consequent upon the global economic challenge, and naturally the government has sought advice. The government has sought advice from Treasury, from the IMF and from the financial regulators, and it is paying close attention to the opinions of market economists, to industry organisations and to governments of other major developed nations. Naturally in an economic crisis, Mr Speaker, you would expect that a government would pay attention to the advice, to the opinions, of people who know something about economics. Amazingly enough, this is not a universally held view—that in an economic crisis you might ask people like economists what they think about how to deal with it. In fact, the opposition believes that that is the last thing you should do—actually talk to economists. Twice yesterday the member for North Sydney said that the last people you would talk to about dealing with an economic crisis would be economists. He said on 2BL: Economists will always go to extremes. Economists will say in downturns, ‘Spend, spend, spend.’ And then in the MPI he backed it up with: They should not be listened to in those good times, just as surely as they should not always be the bible during bad times. This is the guy who has just become the frontrunner for the member for Curtin’s job as shadow Treasurer. His view of economic advice is that, in order to be the Minister for Finance—and Deregulation—or indeed the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, the last thing you do is actually talk to economists, the last thing you do is seek advice from people who have got some expertise in that area. You wonder who in fact he would consult—maybe some faith-healers would be the idea, or numerologists or astrologers. I see him there in his office late at night with the lights off, with a ouija board out there, going: ‘Milton, Milton, are you there, Milton? Tell us what to do, Milton.’ SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Government members—He said Milton, not Wilson! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Those on my right will come to order! SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —On a point of relevance: I listened carefully to the question to the minister for deregulation from the member for Calwell, but I heard nothing in it requesting a vaudeville show. Could the minister return to some facts and figures? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has the call. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I was mentioning Milton Friedman to make the point that in fact what the member for North Sydney said yesterday was not literally accurate, not precisely correct, because there are indeed a few select economists that he and the opposition do listen to—a few people like Arthur Laffer, John Taylor and Milton Friedman. And they just happen to be the people who believe that tax cuts for wealthy people and knocking over the rights of working people in the workplace are the solution to every economic problem. It does not matter what the issue, it does not matter what the debate, the answer is always: tax cuts for the rich and knocking over the rights of working people in the workplace. It is not surprising, therefore, to hear the views of the member for North Sydney on Sunrise this morning, where he stated: Broadly based tax cuts will provide long-term incentives for people to continue to work. I wonder which people that would be. For the ordinary working people I know, their incentives to continue to work are to eat, to pay the rent and the mortgage. They do not need big tax cuts for the wealthy in order to have an incentive to work; they have to work. It is hardly surprising that the Leader of the Opposition and his troops cannot make up their minds about whether Australia is going to have a recession or not. The Leader of the Opposition says that a recession is avoidable, that it may not happen. And yet we have had within the space of a couple of days the member for Sturt, the member for Curtin, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Warringah all saying that it is a red-hot certainty that Australia is going into recession. It may well be just a coincidence, but I think all three of them are Costello supporters; I think they may all be supporters of the member for Higgins. The government in turn is interested in expert advice— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If the minister for finance is not going to be relevant, if he is not going to have anything meaningful to say, then I would ask you to sit him down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will address the question, and can I suggest that he brings his answer to a conclusion. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I will indeed, Mr Speaker. The government is acting in accordance with advice from Treasury, from the International Monetary Fund and the vast bulk of opinion both in Australia and around the world from expert economists, from industry organisations and all people with expertise in these areas. We are interested in taking action to protect and to sustain jobs and economic growth in this country, not to fight the obscure ideological and class-based battle for the rich which is the preserve of the opposition. We are facing in this country a global economic crisis that has largely been caused by investment bankers. The investment banker running the Liberal Party is so arrogant that he thinks he can run Australia from opposition in the middle of that crisis. 601 601 15:47:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what are you and your Minister for Foreign Affairs doing to secure the return to Australia of Old Bar resident Mr Keith Mortimer, who is one of five grey nomad senior Australians who went on an hour-long fun but ill-conceived joy-flight from Thursday Island, Australia to Mopah airport, Papua, Indonesia, and because of this seniors moment they have now been unfairly sentenced to two years in an Indonesian jail for visa confusions, much to the distress of family, friends and the relevant local communities? Prime Minister, surely sense can prevail and surely we can return these Australians soon. 601 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question and the fact that he legitimately raises the interests of his constituents here. In terms of our dealings with the Indonesian government, we of course will exercise every effort on that. But to further update the member on actions taken by the government to date, with the indulgence of the House, I would ask the Foreign Minister to add to that. 601 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to add to his remarks and I thank the member for his interest and his concern. The five Australians generally now known as the Merauke Five arrived in Merauke, part of Indonesia, allegedly without visas or appropriate travel and aviation authority. As a consequence of that they were detained by Indonesian authorities. Effectively from the moment of their detention, Australian consular officials from Indonesia were there and rendered consular assistance. After appropriate investigation by Indonesian authorities, they were charged and subsequently tried and convicted of offences which I have referred to generally. They were sentenced and that sentence has been the subject of an indication by them that they are proposing to appeal. Australian officials have ensured that they have had access to legal advice, and my most recent advice is that that appeal process is in the course of being prepared and will be lodged in the near future. They received an opportunity to apply for bail but decided, in conjunction with the advice of their lawyers, not to apply for bail, on the basis that any time they served in detention following their sentence in the first instance would be held in account for any sentence they were subject to in appeal. I make this point, which is often not understood. When an Australian citizen, an Australian national, comes into contact with the legal system of another country, there is a limit to what Australia can do. That is not to say that Australia cannot or does not do anything. There is simply a limit to what we can do when one of our citizens in another country has to go through their legal processes. And the reverse of course applies. If a national of another country falls within the processes of our criminal legal jurisdiction, they are subject to it. On more than one occasion an Australian government has indicated to a foreign national that it would be inappropriate for the government of the day to seek to interfere in the legal processes of our own country. The same rule applies in respect of the legal processes of another country. We have made the point to the Indonesian authorities through our officials in Indonesia that we are very concerned about their welfare, very concerned and interested in the outcome of the legal processes. On the basis of personal conversations with our ambassador and consultations with our consular officials, I am satisfied that everything that we can do in a consular sense, everything that we can do in terms of expressing our concerns to the Indonesians authorities, has been and continues to be done. In the meantime we await the outcome of the Indonesian judicial and legal processes. 602 602 15:51:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How will the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan benefit rural and regional Australian economies? 602 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —When I stood here a year ago the first time I answered a question and mentioned that I came to this portfolio with very little background knowledge, it never occurred to me at the time that the leadership of the National Party came to this parliament with even less. As we conclude this week in parliament, the member for Ballarat will be able to go back to Ballarat and, when asked by any of the more than 200 farmers who will be in receipt of the farmers’ hardship payment what she has done, she will be able to tell them that she has defended it for them. In the same way, she will be able to explain to them that hardship and drought have an impact not just directly on farmers but on entire towns and that projects such as the upgrade of schools have an extraordinary impact not just on the students and teachers themselves but on employment opportunities for construction workers, the transport industry and subcontractors. All of that feeds into local retail as well. The leadership of the National and Liberal parties have put the people who sit behind them in this chamber in the most extraordinary position this weekend. While members like the member for Ballarat will be able to go back to their electorates and answer questions very easily about how they have defended and tried to help their constituents, when the member for Barker is asked, ‘Which schools are you going to support an upgrade of?’, he will already have the list of every school he is trying to prevent from having an upgrade. When people opposite on the backbench go back to their electorates and are asked in good faith by their constituents whether or not they are eligible for any of the bonus payments, they are going to have to say, ‘Oh, no, the leadership of the Liberal and National parties is trying to prevent you getting any of those bonus payments.’ When people ask whether or not they are going to be eligible for the farmers’ hardship payment, while the member for New England will be able to say to more than 350 farming families that he has defended it for them, the people sitting in the back rows on the other side of the chamber are going to have to say, ‘Oh, no, we are trying to stop you from getting any of that money.’ I deliberately blame the people who sit on the front row of those seats opposite because there are people who sit behind them who actually have understood for some time the importance of a package like this. I quote with great authority—and I was impressed to hear the words—back to 23 October last year the member for Gippsland because he said: Investing in regional infrastructure will help local communities to withstand the worst of the global financial crisis and I encourage the government to act quickly in this regard. I table that press release. The people who sit in the front row opposite have sitting behind them people who actually understand and are now going to be forced into the humiliating position all weekend—it might only last two days but it will be a very long weekend—of explaining why they are not supporting a plan that they know is in the national interest. 603 603 15:55:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 24 January that his new fifty-fifty $4 billion partnership, the Australian Business Investment Partnership, known as ‘Ruddbank’, has the capacity to borrow a further $30 billion for expansion into the commercial property sector. Prime Minister, is it prudent to have these special purpose vehicles borrowing more money in addition to the $200 billion the government has already sought and yet not fully disclosing it as more Commonwealth government debt? Prime Minister, how much debt are you piling on to the next generation of Australians? 603 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The member for North Sydney, the Manager of Opposition Business, has asked me a question about the Australian Business Investment Partnership. This investment partnership was put together with the cooperation of the major banks and the support of the property sector across the country for one very good reason. It is not just the employment intensity within that sector, some 150,000 people; it goes to what happens to the value of property assets across this nation if there is a retreat from this nation of foreign bank syndication of current Australian bank loans to that sector. The consequence for the whole economy of a collapse in asset values in this sector would be catastrophic. The quantum of the refinancing due in 2009 across the Australian economy—and there are varying estimates of this—is somewhere in the range of $50 billion to $75 billion. The question arises: what is the proportion of that represented by existing bank syndication from abroad which could be withdrawn, as you see evidence around the world of that happening? The answer to that flows into the category of some tens of billions of dollars. Therefore, you have two courses of action. The Liberal Party is saying let the free market rip— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To assist the Prime Minister, yesterday the Prime Minister asked for $200 billion. I referred to a fifty-fifty partnership which has the capacity to borrow $30 billion. What is the status of the additional debt in these special purpose vehicles? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I will return to what I was saying before, because the honourable member raises an important question: why have we embarked on this course of action and what are the consequences that flow from it and the consequences that would flow from not doing it? If you have a withdrawal of foreign bank syndication, what would happen therefore is that there would be a further factor fuelling the collapse of asset prices in this country. If that occurred—and all serious economists and economic writers are concerned about this—the flow-on effect to the general economy would be huge. That is why, based on the advice we received, this was the most prudent course of action. I say to the honourable member that when the joint vehicle, the Australian Business Investment Partnership, is activated, of course it will involve the Commonwealth in the acquisition of assets. Therefore, assets will appear on the Commonwealth government’s overall ledger. That is a key point that he should bear in mind. The further point I make is this: as the Liberal Party embarks upon what is plainly its political strategy, which is about deficit and debt, those opposite think that they are onto a real political winner. Their political strategy is clear for all to see. They do not care about the consequences on the property sector in Australia, they do not care about the consequences for families who are struggling with the impact of the financial crisis— HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr Simpkins interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cowan is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —and they do not care about the collapse in construction, which we seek to deal with through the construction program that will come off the back of the primary schools investment program. They do not care about any of that, because they are driven by a political strategy that is all about deficit and debt. Those opposite need to reflect on this in a moment of intellectual honesty, which is getting harder and harder for them to do. Firstly, as the Treasurer indicated, there has been a $125 billion collapse in government revenues. Given that that has occurred and that it is a global phenomenon, I ask those opposite if they would borrow to fill that gap? If you say you would not borrow to fill that gap, there are two courses of action available to you: to cut government expenditure by that equivalent amount—that is, $125 billion—or to increase taxes by an equivalent amount. Which is it—you can borrow it, you can increase taxes or you can cut expenditure? Those opposite refuse to provide an honest intellectual answer. If you are going to balance your budget, every government in the world has those three options in these economic circumstances. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister seeks compliance from the opposition in all things and I am very happy to provide him here with the answer that he has so earnestly sought. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —This is quite critical to where we are going. The first huge impact in terms of the borrowing requirements of the Commonwealth was the collapse in Commonwealth government revenues—$125 billion. We have said how that has occurred; we have detailed the tax categories. That is happening right across the world. Is Mr Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, going to say that he would not borrow for that? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —I would be delighted to answer the Prime Minister’s question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will address the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would be very keen to see an unequivocal statement in writing from the Leader of the Opposition as to whether he would do that or not. That goes to the core of the intellectual fraudulence of the substantive case that they are arguing. Secondly, what further addition is there to government borrowing? Further additions occur as a result of having an increase in social security payments, which are a consequence of people becoming unemployed. That also affects the forward estimates and therefore that becomes a second area of unanticipated expenditure. Then you come to the third area. The third area goes to the quantum of the stimulus. We have said upfront what the quantum of our stimulus is. We have said that it is $42 billion. That is what we regard as being necessary to support the economy now. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I hear again the avalanche of intellectual honesty coming from those opposite! How much stimulus do they support? One moment they say that it is about $15 billion, then at a different moment they say it might be $20 billion. I looked at the member for Aston’s statement earlier today where he talked about $20 billion plus, because that is Treasury’s estimate of the cost of the proposal that he has put forward. His proposal is for small business not to pay the superannuation guarantee levy for two years. That would therefore be met by the taxpayer. Therefore, when you put all of their costed stimulus packages together— 83Q Schultz, Alby, MP Mr Schultz interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hume will withdraw that remark. 83Q Schultz, Alby, MP Mr Schultz —Mr Speaker, I withdraw. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring the Prime Minister back to the question; how many of these special purpose vehicles are going to be set up; where are they being set up; and how much debt— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister knows the question and will address the question. On this occasion I suggest that he bring his answer to a conclusion. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The question asked by the Manager of Opposition Business goes to the question of debt. What I have sought to do in going through this in some detail is to expose the intellectual fraudulence of their argument. There are three components here: (1) will they borrow in order to meet the collapse in Commonwealth government revenue—that is, a $125 billion collapse, most recently added to by the quantum of $75 billion; (2) there are other unanticipated expenses which arise from social security payments; and (3) there is the quantum of the stimulus package. Those opposite call for a stimulus of about $20 billion, more depending on whether you listen to the member for Aston or not. We say $42 billion. What is the difference in the overall quantum? It is something in the order of $20 billion. What I would like to see is some intellectually honest accounting from those opposite about what they would support by way of borrowing or otherwise. Instead, they have embarked upon a political strategy. I conclude my remarks with those that I began question time with today—that is, this is all directed by the leader of the Liberal Party against his uncertainty about the member for Higgins. It is politics pure and simple. 605 605 16:06:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 Mr CHEESEMAN —My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Status of Women. Will the minister inform the House how the new spending on social housing will support jobs and local communities? 605 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms PLIBERSEK —I want to thank the member for Corangamite for his question. He is a very keen and hardworking local member. The government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan includes an historic investment in social housing—$6.4 billion to build 20,000 new homes for needy Australians, including pensioners, homeless Australians and low-income families. There is also money to repair 2,500 homes. We know yesterday that the HIA suggested that this package would support 35,000 jobs in the construction industry in towns, suburbs, cities and regional areas. The construction sector is one of the largest employers in this country. It accounts for about nine per cent of all jobs, which is almost one million workers. If these measures pass, work can start almost immediately, building and repairing homes right across Australia. States and territories have repair and maintenance backlogs. They can call tradespeople in to start that work straightaway. But there are also whole new projects ready to go. The land is set aside, the plans are drawn up, approvals have been given. It is all systems go. What they have been waiting on is funding. If this funding flows then we know that local builders, plumbers, tilers, electricians and carpenters can be employed. These people are facing less work otherwise and some of them are facing no work. I have asked my state colleagues to tell me the sorts of proposals that they will be putting forward in our first tranche of building. The Victorian Minister for Housing, for example, has given me a few proposals that he would like to bring forward. I know that the member for Corangamite and the member for Corio will be very interested to know that it is proposed to build 89 homes in their area of Geelong. I know that the member for Ballarat will be very happy to know that 45 homes are to be built in Ballarat and Horsham. It would be very good to see the member for Mallee supporting this initiative to support those jobs in his local area. The members for Indi and Murray might be interested to know that tradies in their electorates could be employed to build 51 new homes in their areas. That includes a 10-unit development for aged pensioners in Wodonga. Would you like to see that built? Would you like 10 units for aged pensioners in Wodonga? Each of these projects will support vital jobs in regional areas, keep tradespeople employed, keep apprentices busy and keep money in local communities. The government has a plan to support jobs to build our nation for the future. It is a shame to see the Leader of the Opposition playing a political game when jobs are at stake, when small businesses and contractors are already doing it very tough. I am very sorry to see members opposite voting against construction jobs in their electorates, voting against work that will keep builders busy through these tough times—2009 will be a very tough year for the construction sector, anyway. And what the opposition wants to do is make that year even tougher. 606 606 16:09:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the government’s plans for a Commonwealth debt of $200 billion and ask him, in his capacity as chairman of the Australian Loan Council, how much additional debt will state governments need over the next four years? 606 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the shadow Treasurer for her question. It is the case that Australian state governments do borrow on financial markets and, most particularly and most importantly, they borrow to finance critical economic infrastructure. They have been doing that for some time because it builds the nation, it creates jobs and it expands our productive capacity. So the states are borrowing. I could not give you the figure that they have out there at the moment, or what the total amount of state government borrowings is, but they do that and they do it with the approval of the Australian Loan Council. If the member wants to know what the total amount of state government borrowings stands at today, I could not give her that final figure, but I would be more than happy to supply it to her after question time. I am quite happy to supply that. But I would make a more general point about debt, and this is very important because— FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb —This is unbelievable! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —What is? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has the call. The interjectors will stop interjecting. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The state governments borrow different amounts at different periods of time. That is what they do. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked; the Treasurer is responding. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I would like to make this point, because those opposite have now admitted that they would borrow to make up for the gap in government revenues which has been caused by the global financial crisis. We are going to borrow to do that. Governments in the past have borrowed to do that. The federal government has a AAA credit rating. We have a very sound balance sheet, and net debt in this country is very low by international standards. It is very low, and that is a good thing, and it is one of the things that gives us the capacity to respond to the global financial crisis. Net debt, as the shadow Treasurer would see in the papers that we have published this week, is expected to be about five per cent of GDP at the end of the forward estimates. That compares to 45 per cent across the OECD. So we have a strong balance sheet, a strong capacity to borrow to support jobs and economic growth in this country, and that is the responsible thing to do. The states do the same, and they did the same under your government, the Howard government. They borrowed for critical economic infrastructure. It was ticked off by the Loan Council, just as it is ticked off by this government. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the Treasurer has confirmed that the Commonwealth will be borrowing in excess of $200 billion and he has said during his answer that he would come back with the answer to the question of how much the state governments will borrow over the next four years, I ask that he provide that information before the end of question time today. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no provision for the chair or anybody to demand that. The point has been made. 607 607 16:13:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr PRICE —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on problems for schools and communities, which will be addressed by the Building the Education Revolution initiative, and any obstacles to resolving those problems? 607 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Chifley for his question and acknowledge his advocacy and support of the 38 primary schools, nine combined primary-secondary schools, 18 secondary schools and one special school in his electorate, all of which will benefit from our Building the Education Revolution program, which is there to benefit every school in this country. This program, of course, is supported by the people who care about education, particularly the Australian Primary Principals Association, which said: The education package provides much needed support for our building industry but more importantly it is a long term investment for Australia’s young children. I table that press release. Of course, it got strong support from the Australian Special Education Principals Association, who have talked about how it is ‘a shot in the arm for special schools around the nation who have been struggling to provide quality learning environments for students with disabilities’. They go on to talk about the problems of teaching those students in temporary, fabricated, non-purpose-built classrooms that are up to 30 years old. I table that press release. In view of this endorsement from the education community, what we know at the end of this sitting week, as parliament draws to a close, is that members of parliament on this side of the House will be able to go back to their local communities saying that they have a Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Members on that side of the House will go back saying that they have no plan. Members on this side of the House will go back to their local communities saying that they are united in their determination to work with Australians as they face this global financial crisis. Members on that side of the House will go back deeply divided, as the cracks in their position already show, with members like the member for McEwen and the member for Menzies not endorsing the foolish strategy being pursued by the Leader of the Opposition. Importantly, members on this side of the House will be able to go back to their communities saying that they are pursuing the national interest, whereas members on that side of the House will go back trying to defend their rank political interest. Members on this side of the House will go back to their local schools able to talk to them about new investments, meaning new jobs, in their local communities. It really does amaze me what members on that side of the House are going to say to those local schools. To give you some indication of the kinds of twists and turns members on that side of the House are going to have to engage in, I have, of course, received correspondence from members on that side of the House about the circumstances of their local schools—schools they now say should not get a cent from the Building the Education Revolution program. I refer to correspondence from the member for McEwen, who said, ‘Healesville High School is in desperate need of better facilities,’ and I table that correspondence. What is she going to say? I am the minister with a program that you voted against that could assist Healesville High— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Exactly! I have the correspondence of the member for Parkes, who wrote to me about the circumstances of Gulgong High School. He wrote: I am writing on behalf of Gulgong High School, who are in great need of further capital and maintenance works to school facilities. I table that correspondence. What is he going to say to that local school? On the same day he wrote to me again, saying that he was writing on behalf of Moree Secondary College Student Representative Council, who had great concerns over the terrible state of a number of student facilities at the college’s Carol Avenue campus. I table that correspondence. What is he going to say to that local community? Then I refer to correspondence I received from the member for La Trobe, who raised with me the circumstances of Sassafras Primary School. He wrote: Minister, I have very strong concerns about the need for funding for upgrades to Sassafras Primary School. What is he going to say to that local school? I table that correspondence. On the question of the school communities of the member for Barker, which was raised in this parliament earlier today, I table for the House the list of 104 schools in the Barker electorate that are eligible to benefit from the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program of the government, a program he is opposed to. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Where’s Milton North? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am coming to that. I table for the benefit of the House the list of 127 schools in his electorate that would be eligible to benefit from our national school pride program, a program he is opposed to. I table for the benefit of members in the House the list of 19 secondary schools in his electorate who would be eligible for our 21st century science and language centres program, a program he is opposed to. Finally, for the benefit of members in the House, I table an email. I am going to apologise: it has been the sort of week where the name ‘Milton’ has been on the brain. But, yes, this is a piece of correspondence from the headmaster of the school at Millicent; undoubtedly the Leader of the Opposition would like it renamed ‘Milton’. But, because of the Rudd Labor government, this is a school eligible for our Building the Education Revolution program, and I would be interested to see what the member for Barker has to say to them when he gets home, seeing how excited they are about this program. I table this piece of correspondence. Members of the Liberal Party are opposed to building an education revolution, they are opposed to local jobs, they are acting in their rank political interest, and now they are going to have days and days back at home trying to explain that to their local community members. It is going to be an interesting sight to see. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 609 Personal Explanations 609 16:21:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr PEARCE —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member may continue. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr PEARCE —During question time, the Prime Minister said that he had read a statement from me in which I had said that a particular policy of the coalition would cost $20 billion. I have not issued any such statement that indicates any costing of anything of the like, and I would ask the Prime Minister to be intellectually honest. 609 Auditor-General's Reports 609 609 16:21:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Performance Audit report No. 20 of 2008-09 entitled Approval of funding for public works. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 609 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 16:22:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 609 Business 609 16:22:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —On indulgence, it being Thursday afternoon, for the benefit of members who have travel plans, it is intended now, as I advised the House earlier, that we will reverse the normal order and have the full matter of public importance debate, which will go for one hour. We will then have a ministerial statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and a response of equal time from the shadow minister or their representative. The House will then adjourn. There is an understanding that during this period there will not be any divisions or quorums called. I thank all the members of the House for their cooperation. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Happy to be of service. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I think both sides will be very keen. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am very pleased at this break-out of love and understanding and all those good things. 610 Matters of Public Importance 610 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Calare proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The adverse effects of high levels of Government debt on regional Australia. 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— 610 16:24:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —Last night, this House passed a bill, which will now go to the Senate, which not only contains provisions for the government to spend $42 billion but also allows them to go into debt of up to $200 billion. That is $9½ thousand dollars—nearly $10,000—for every man, woman and child in Australia. It will be our children and their children who will have to pay that back. With regard to the $42 billion, this is not job creating. Anybody who has been reading what informed economists—rather than political commentators—are saying, will realise that. If you want to create opportunities, if you want to get a bang for your buck, you could look at what the new President of America, Mr Obama, and the Democrats are putting up. They are getting somewhere between a dollar-for-dollar return and 1.7. By the Treasury’s own figures, we are looking at something like a 30c return for every dollar of that $42 billion. If you want return in terms of jobs, it needs to be spent on infrastructure—not of a social nature but of an ongoing nature—like transport. It needs to be spent on what will help productivity, what will help employers know that they will get a faster delivery and fewer impediments in their productive cycle. That is what we need to do. Rather than putting money into a stimulus package, a social package, we need to put money into productivity, into creating jobs, into knowing that what we are doing is ongoing—in other words, that it will produce. At a time like this, when we are looking at not just a few months but a long period of tough economic times, we need to produce taxes and GST in the future, because it will have to be paid back. The last time the Labor Party took these sorts of steps, we ended up owing $96 billion. That took 10 years—a full decade—of very hard and very good economic management to pay off. Just imagine if, during that decade of hard, tough growth that it took to pay off that $96 billion, we did not have to pay the interest on it let alone repay the capital. The interest alone paid on the $96 billion would have built a new four-lane highway over the Blue Mountains, joining the eastern seaboard with western New South Wales. It would have put a dual highway across the entire length of the Pacific Highway, built the inland railway link between Melbourne and Brisbane, fixed our ports, blacktopped thousands of kilometres of road, provided new classrooms and amenities for schools and built new hospitals in regional Australia. Instead, the coalition had to make incredibly hard political and economic decisions to pay back not just the interest but the capital as well. Regional Australia is still scarred by the last Labor ‘recession we had to have’. I had friends who were paying 23 and 24 per cent interest rates in small business and agriculture. I guess we had a debt burden that resulted in government investment in job-creating infrastructure being curtailed. A $200 billion debt, which by the Treasurer’s own admission we are going to go to or exceed, will have an effect on everything. It is going to have an enormous effect because not only will the debt have to be paid back but the government, when we get through this very tough economic time, will have to pay the interest. It is going to have to repay the money. While the effect on interest rates of government getting into debt to this extent will not necessarily push them up in the immediate sense—in a recession we would normally expect to have low interest rates—when the corner is turned and productivity and growth start to increase again, having $200 billion of government debt putting government in competition with farmers, small business, homeowners and home builders is going to have an incredible effect. When we look back to the pressures last time that interest rates went through the roof, government competition had an enormous effect. Farmers in small business in regional Australia do know about debt; they understand it; they deal with it. It is an industry which, because it is so capital intensive, is also very debt intensive. It is a well-known fact. A few years ago, 80 per cent of most of the debt in regional or rural Australia also produced about 80 per cent of the production. It is a strange thing, but I guess if you owe money you have got a good impetus to produce. Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr JOHN COBB —An article in today’s Financial Review sums up an awful lot of what is involved in this $42 billion proposal. It says: The Rudd government’s stimulus package provides little bang for the buck. I believe the Financial Review is right when it states: Of more concern is the heavy weighting of the infrastructure spending towards social infrastructure such as school buildings and public housing, which has low and distant returns, and the negligible investment in higher-yielding economic infrastructure. As I said before, instead of a 1.7 return we are looking at a 30c return on a dollar. You do not have to be that smart to know that to come out of a recession as quickly as possible, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Without doubt, regional Australia took the brunt of the high unemployment during the last Labor credit card binge. We know about unemployment and we know about the pain it causes. We need an economic stimulus that provides job-creating infrastructure not just now but also into the future. When the member for Gippsland made his remarks, he was certainly talking about infrastructure. He was talking about job-creating infrastructure. He was talking about roads. He was talking about things that have an ongoing ability to stimulate and keep regional Australia positive about jobs. As I said before, what is going on with the Rudd government’s $42 billion package is that it has a very low return, because it is investing in those things which do not have ongoing returns in terms of jobs, in terms of tax and in terms of GST—which might help get the Treasurer’s mates off the hook in the future. If we have to go into debt to provide an economic stimulus, it should go towards building infrastructure that helps business to be more productive so that they can employ people and so that employers can keep people on and put more people on. We already have additional cost burdens in regional Australia because of the tyranny of distance and the need to compete. Obviously, because the options are fewer, we need the stimulus more than most places do. The options are far fewer in regional Australia. A headline in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday sums up, without doubt, many of the feelings of people in regional Australia: ‘Thanks for the help, but it could be better spent.’ The article quotes a Mirrool farmer, Buster Fairman: ‘I think [Prime Minister Kevin Rudd] should sit on some of this money until times get really tough… The financial crisis has only just begun.’ The article continues: Mr Fairman, 56, will be putting his $950 aside for a rainy day. Quite obviously, that is what has already happened with the $8.5 billion. No more than 20 per cent of that has been spent. People are not silly. The Prime Minister walked around the whole of December saying, ‘Spend, spend, spend,’ and then he walked around the whole of January telling everybody how terrible things are. Let us remember that all of this is exacerbated in regional Australia. People are not silly. Of course they put it in their pockets. Some spending went up, but less than 20 per cent of that $8.5 billion was spent. People are not stupid. Yes, they do want infrastructure spending, but they want it on things which are going to be ongoing and produce jobs, not just on things which have an end period and which are way out in the future in terms of return to the nation. In regional Australia we have real health issues. In New South Wales in particular, we have health issues that you would not know about. I take my hat off to the Minister for Health and Ageing for acknowledging in question time today the state of health in western New South Wales. On Tuesday evening I related an incident about just how bad and how biased things are in New South Wales west of the Blue Mountains. Going into debt to the tune of $2 billion, and just getting warmed up with $42 billion is going to leave regional Australia in the most awful position as far as ongoing money in the future for health and for education. In the hard years we went through from 1996 on, paying back that $10 billion, it was a long time before we could put serious money into roads, health and education in regional Australia, because of what we were left with last time. Last year the government used the excuse of the inflation genie being out of the bottle to cut billions of dollars out of services and infrastructure in regional Australia. In fact, I well remember that the very first act of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation was to slash $640 million out of services and programs around Australia, and guess where three-quarters of that came from? It did not come from Wollongong or Newcastle; it came from regional Australia. It was not Sydney or Melbourne that lost that. This should be about jobs. In my electorate of Calare, we have lost well over a thousand jobs in the last four months. There is nothing in the mining industry. There is nothing in this package which is going to help reinstate those people or find alternative employment for them. In fact, most of them were on over $50,000 so they would probably not even be eligible for the $950, because I think that was as of the end of June last year, on the last financial year’s return. So they are not going to do terribly well out of that. If the government were to just take a look at what is going on around the place, instead of stripping all the water out of the Murray-Darling Basin and making things even worse, they could put money into some infrastructure which would help efficiencies, help production, help the diversity of the irrigation industry and pay that money back in the future—which it would—and there would be jobs to go with it. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was scathing a minute ago because, as I said earlier, the member for Gippsland said that we wanted infrastructure. We do want infrastructure, but we want to spend on infrastructure which is going to do things. Out of $42 billion there is a bit for the investment allowance, but people are not going to invest all that much in the current situation. They are going to go on about the $860 million that they are putting into various forms and classes. Well, $500 million of that—half a billion—is going to councils, once again to be spent on social infrastructure which does not have those ongoings. This is about keeping people in a job here and now and over the next few years while we get through this crisis. It staggers me every time I hear the Treasurer get up and say that we just do not get the point. We do get the point. Regional Australia has been there before. We were there before when we had to deal with the $96 billion and, like the rest of Australia, we had to deal with what it took for those who were in government in 1996 to pay it back. We had to wait before we could get a few programs to get some seed money into regional Australia to get going again. If it took that long—a decade—to pay back $96 billion, what is going to happen when they get up over, in the Treasurer’s words, $200 billion, especially if we happen to still have a government who do not give a damn about that part of Australia? As I said, we have been there before with 23 and 24 per cent interest rates, no money for roads and no money for health or schools in regional Australia. All that money was going towards paying the cost of federal and state government debts at the time instead of putting a highway through the Blue Mountains, instead of putting roads out— (Time expired) 613 16:39:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —Every now and then when you read out part of a document, you wonder, ‘Should I table it? Should I give them access to the rest of it?’ I thought I would do the right thing and table it. I have listened carefully to the comments that have just been made by the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry where he has wanted to characterise what the member for Gippsland really meant when he uttered those prophetic words in his media release, saying: Investing in regional infrastructure will help local communities to withstand the worst of the global financial crisis and I encourage the government to act quickly in this regard. The shadow minister was effectively claiming that I had misrepresented those remarks because he said that what the government was offering, essentially—and I do not think I am mischaracterising it here—was short-term infrastructure projects, and what the member for Gippsland was really talking about was long-term infrastructure, like roads. So I had probably better read a little more of that media release. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray —Please do. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —It is the one with this heading, which will help to explain to the member for Calare his concept about the long-term infrastructure and road projects that the member for Gippsland was really talking about. The media release begins like this: ‘Chester calls for netball courts funding’. In terms of the long-term infrastructure that the shadow minister was just talking about, I give a few suggestions. First of all, I suggest that the member for Gippsland understands that projects themselves generate construction jobs and you get a whole lot of knock-on areas in the economy. For those members opposite, it is something that seems to be better understood by their backbench than by their frontbench. I would also be dearly concerned about the member for Calare’s possible occupational health and safety concerns if he sees a netball court in the future as a road. Beyond that, I make the suggestion that a document is tabled so that you can have a look at it rather than try to guess what the member for Gippsland really meant. I think he really meant what he said. It is available on the public record—and these are projects which do not meet the characterisation at all of what the shadow minister kept asserting. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb —Look at the big picture, mate. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —There is an interesting concept with respect to what the shadow minister just interjected, about looking at the big picture. He should understand, with the portfolio that he has, that part of understanding the big picture in a country as diverse as ours is making sure that you tend to the local picture in every part of the nation. We have a whole group of local members of parliament on this side of the House who understand how to do that in their own areas and who understand the importance in their own areas of making sure that, because a primary school is a local project for a relatively small number of people, it is still part of the big picture. When you are talking about investing in every school—it does not matter whether it is a primary school or a high school, a government school or a non-government school, in the private system or in the Catholic system—all throughout the country, you get the big-picture benefit. You get the benefits in education because of the upgraded facilities. You get the benefits in the actual process of building those facilities—the benefits in terms of what happens for local contractors and the construction industry and the challenges that they are currently facing in the context of the global financial crisis. You get extra benefits because those contractors do not just receive the money and leave the town; the money gets spent in the area. This generates real economic activity at a time when all the advice that is coming to the government says that we need to make sure that we are generating economic activity and that we should be doing this not just in major cities but also in every school throughout the nation and looking at those black spot programs and saying, ‘Now is the time to make the investment and start fixing those’, and to actually go to the situation of the level crossings. Members opposite would understand the frustration over years of delay on doing something about level crossings and the impact that that has. Once again, you have the impact on the jobs and the workers involved in doing the job and you have the spin-off industries with them then spending the money that they have earned in the local area, and you have the long-term infrastructure improvement of local roads. All that is part of the big picture. The Leader of the Nationals made the complaint that not every farmer will receive the $950. That is true—it is not every farmer, but it is pretty close to 21,000 of the most needy. We are making sure that they get some extra money. In terms of the business expenses that they have on their farms it is certainly a modest amount of money, but the impact that it could then have on local towns is deeply significant. The shadow minister for agriculture knows that the towns where there are the most people on EC payments are the towns where not just farmers are suffering but also every contractor and every shopkeeper is suffering. People having that extra EC money helped to generate economic activity in areas that needed it desperately, before we had ever heard of the economic crisis. Those areas desperately needed help, economic activity and assistance long before the world went into recession. Our plan provides some more money to help generate long-term economic activity, and the money will not disappear from the economy the first time it is spent. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb —People would much rather hear that EC is going to be continued. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —I have to pause at that. There is a deeply irresponsible fear campaign that the shadow minister has been involved in time and time again when people’s EC comes up for assessment by the National Rural Advisory Council. We are talking about people who have the greatest mental health problems and the highest suicide rates in the nation, and you decide to run a fear campaign when you know full well that we are running the assessments with the same panel under the same rules. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb —Tell them it’s going to be rolled over. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —Communities are doing it tougher than they were when they were last given EC, so logically you can tell where that is going to end up. You know full well that there is a process that I am following—the same process that was in place under the previous government. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Calare is warned! DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —If the member for Calare feels proud of scaring farming families, of raising fear amongst some of the most vulnerable people in this country, then be it on his head. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb —You’ve already scared the hell out of them! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Calare has been warned. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —Be it on your head if that is what you want to do. I have given the guarantee time and time again that EC will be granted under the same rules. There is nothing more irresponsible than running a fear campaign amongst people who are already so desperately vulnerable in so many ways. The projects that are part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan are designed to make sure that we can help to generate economic activity and support jobs at a time where comparable nations are in recession. We are in a global recession, and if you were going to be anywhere in the world you would want to be here. We want to make sure that as a government we act decisively and early to make sure that we continue to generate economic activity with long-term and lasting benefits. On this side of the House we support the $950 payments going to singles. For so long we as a parliament have made sure that we have provided assistance for families, but how many times have singles missed out, even though they have been suffering and have tremendous bills to deal with? For the first time in a long time there are bonus payments for them. On this side of the House we support the farmer’s hardship bonus, which members opposite are trying to block. We support those bonuses because we understand the situation that the globe is in. Years ago there was a Supertramp album cover that was all doom and gloom except for a little bit of colour where someone was wearing sunglasses and sitting on a banana lounge. The album was called Crisis? What Crisis? That is the world that the opposition are living in if the comments from the shadow minister are any guide. It is as if they think the global economic crisis does not demand immediate decisive action. It is as if they have no idea how our economy interacts with the economies throughout the rest of the world. It is as if they do not understand that drought is but one of the challenges that farmers are facing. It is as if they have no idea about world commodity prices and what has happened over the last year with fertiliser and chemical prices. We know how responsive our economy is to what happens in the rest of the world. While the rest of the world is in such extraordinary hardship and recession, members opposite say, ‘Sit back, relax and take your time. But this government is going to make sure that we act decisively. Our Nation Building and Jobs Plan covers different policy areas and will be felt right throughout the nation. The measures include free ceiling insulation for around 2.7 million Australian homes; building or upgrading a building in every one of Australia’s 9,540 schools; building more than 20,000 new social and defence homes; $950 one-off cash payments to eligible families, single workers, students, drought affected farmers and others; a temporary business investment tax break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets; and significantly increasing funding for local community infrastructure and local road projects. When members opposite go back to their electorates this weekend, to each and every constituent who asks, ‘Am I eligible?’ they not only will have to explain whether or not they would be eligible under the government scheme but also will have to say, ‘You’d be eligible under what is proposed but we are trying to stop it.’ Make sure that you explain to the farmers in your electorates who are on EC—midway through trying to scare the hell out of them, as you seem to want to do—why you do not believe in a $950 payment for their family. Tell them why, in your judgement as the shadow minister for agriculture and representative of the National Party, you do not think they are worthy of that $950 payment. Go and visit your schools tomorrow. Ask them first what sort of infrastructure project they would like, and then explain to them that you are trying to stop them from getting it. Explain that to the local contractors who would have got the work. Explain it to the construction workers who would have had an economic opportunity. Explain it to the subbies who would have been able to get a job. Explain why you are opposed to it to the people in retail who would have benefited from there being a higher level of economic activity in the town. If the members opposite do that this weekend, we will see if they are still as irresponsible when they come back next week. The people of Australia understand. The people of Australia are able to watch the news and understand what is happening in the rest of the world. They want to make sure that there is strong and decisive action so that we are not exposed to the full level of pain that the rest of the world is having. They want to make sure that we have a plan that generates immediate economic activity and, beyond that, makes sure that we have the long-term infrastructure for which people have been waiting for such a long time—such things as improvement of black spots on roads, dealing with level crossings and upgrading schools. These are things that members of the Labor Party are proud to have always believed in and are proud to be able to now deliver on. We are proud that we are able to be seen as members of the Labor Party. We are proud that we are able to look at our constituents in good faith, that we can see people in genuine need and be able to say that we are on their side, notwithstanding that we sit in this chamber and face people who want to take benefits away. 616 16:53:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I welcome the opportunity to speak on this MPI and I certainly wish to note the passion of my colleague the member for Calare in supporting regional communities, because he is all too aware of what the impact of debt is on regional communities. The member for Calare is all too aware of the impact of high levels of debt on farming operations and knows that, just as high levels of debt have adverse effects on businesses—and on farming operations in particular—they also restrict the ability of governments to deliver services to the people of Australia. We had Kevin Rudd during the 2007 election campaign— DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr Burke —Call him the Prime Minister! 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —We had the Prime Minister during the 2007 election campaign pretending to be some sort of fiscal conservative. He appeared in this rather glossy ad in front of the skyline of Brisbane and he said to the people of Australia, ‘People of Australia, I am a fiscal conservative. I am against debt. I am against living beyond our means.’ And what do we see when the Prime Minister has been elected to government? We see he has morphed from a fiscal conservative into the advocate of one of the greatest debt binges since Federation. We had Whitlam, with his good friends Mr Khemlani and Rex Connor. We had the Keating era, with massive debt handed on to a coalition government that had to clean up the mess. But compared to what has gone before, the debt binge that we are embarking upon in this year of 2009—when the objective should be the creation of jobs, jobs, jobs—makes the efforts of Keating, Hawke, Khemlani, Connor and Whitlam look like small change. In the year when the objective should be jobs, jobs, jobs, we have a $42 billion stimulus package that is going to turn, in the first year of its operation, a $22 billion surplus into a $22½ billion deficit. It is going to deliver a $70 billion deficit over the forward estimates—all of this from a fiscal conservative! If you believe that, you can believe anything. As I highlighted earlier, the real problem is the impact of debt on reducing the ability of the government to deliver services into the future. The real problem is the impact of debt on the young people in regional and rural Australia whose employment opportunities are nowhere near as strong as they are for those in the cities. In regional and rural Australia we lack the numbers of large employers and big businesses that can provide very strong employment prospects. In regional Australia we are very dependent upon small business. The impact of high government debt on the small business sector is huge. We saw it under Whitlam, we have seen it under Hawke and Keating, and we are going to see it again under this alleged fiscal conservative. There has been quite a bit of disquiet about this new package. I think that the members opposite believed that the people of Australia were going to rain rose petals at their feet and thank them for all the money that was going to rain down upon them. But in fact the reaction has been quite different. The people of Australia realise the impact of debt. The people of Australia realise it is not the Prime Minister and it is not the Treasurer who will be paying back that money; it is the taxpayers of Australia. Yesterday, legislation was introduced and passed that is going to increase the borrowing capability of this government to $200 billion—that is Hawke-Keating by more than two to one. In the House today, it was absolutely stunning that the Treasurer, when asked, could not say what the debt obligations of the states were going to be. Just a day after seeking authority from this parliament to raise the debt levels to $200 billion, he could not say what the states were going to be borrowing. The Treasurer of this land knew what the Commonwealth obligation would be, but he did not know what those apparently irrelevant states were going to borrow. That is astounding. That is incompetence. That is negligent, because it is the taxpayers of those states and territories and the taxpayers of the Commonwealth who have to repay that debt, and our Treasurer was oblivious to the financial position that this country is in. It was interesting to look at some of the editorial comments in the Financial Review today in relation to that package. I would just like to read a couple of sections. The Financial Review editorial starts: Labor, which opposed virtually every major reform of the Howard government in opposition, is in uproar at the Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s plan to oppose the $42 billion stimulus package. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday accused “those free-market fundamentalists”— those evil free marketers who created wealth over 30 years and who created growth in this country— … in the coalition of “cheap politics” for not instantly saluting his plan, and for good measure insinuated they were somehow responsible for the global financial crisis. But it is Mr Rudd who is playing politics with his transparent attempt to fit his stimulus package into a political ploy to railroad the opposition into passing a massive set of appropriation bills in 48 hours. Quite rightly we should be challenging this package. It is our job to place this package under great scrutiny. As time goes on and as the unintended consequences become more obvious to the Australian people and they think about the debt which they are having forced upon them, they will be quite rightly delighted, I would say, that the opposition has stood up for the them against the cheap politics of the Labor Party—dressed up as some alleged attempt to build jobs. When we look at the productivity of this package, the Prime Minister asks us to believe him—to take it on trust—that this is the most efficient and most effective way to create jobs, that it is the most efficient and most effective way to ensure that the economy rebuts, if you like, the impact of the global financial downturn. The editorial goes on and makes some interesting observations about the relative weightings of investment in social infrastructure. It talks about the fact that the weighting in spending towards social infrastructure, which has low and distant returns, and the negligible investment in higher yielding economic infrastructure would actually cause a lower multiplier effect on economic activity than the stimulus package proposed by Obama. So we have a package that appears less effective, according to the Financial Review, than the package being put forward by President Obama in the United States, yet we have the Prime Minister telling us that this is the package that is going to deliver the goods and that this is the only set of measures that is going to deliver for the people of Australia. It is quite clearly absurd. Michael Knox, an analyst from ABN AMRO, made some interesting observations and calculations in relation to this package. He said: In 2008-09 we are spending 1.7 per cent of GDP in stimulus to get an increase in GDP of 0.5 per cent. That means we are spending $1 in stimulus to only get 30c of GDP. This is a multiplier of just 0.3, very low by international comparisons. We have been asked by the Prime Minister to take this on trust, and we see from this analysis by ABN AMRO that the multiplier effect is only 0.3. It is less than what would be expected internationally. How does that provide for the needs of the people of Australia to have jobs created— 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb —I don’t think the agriculture minister got that. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —That is right—and growth underpinned, particularly in regional areas, because regional areas are already hard hit by rising unemployment? The member for Calare chronicled the loss of jobs in his electorate. Some 1,000 jobs in mining have gone in the last few months. I know that in the electorate of Cowper, which I represent, across all the small labour market areas unemployment is rising in the order of about one-half of one per cent to, in some cases, 0.7 per cent and, in the Nambucca Valley, 0.9 per cent. Those latest figures in relation to small labour market areas were only for the September quarter. That predated the December quarter, when we know unemployment accelerated. Quite clearly, in the current quarter, unemployment is only going to continue to rise at a far more rapid rate. The needs of regional and rural Australia are urgent. We do not want to see suboptimal expenditure of government funds, as is the case with this stimulus package. The opposition have opposed this package for precisely that fact. We believe the money could be better spent. We believe this current debt binge is only going to put a burden on the people of Australia into the future, and it is about time that the members opposite woke up to that and brought some sense into the package that they are putting forward. 619 17:03:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —What a lazy way for those opposite to finish the week. Having started the week in a lazy fashion, last night, when an important debate was taking place in this House, they slept and their leader slept. Their leader did not get out of bed— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Your leader slept! 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr GRAY —and did not come in here to debate the very debt issues that you now claim to be important. Why do you claim that they are important? It is not for any reason of principle but purely for your own low-rent political expediency. You know—because the story has been well chronicled by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—the way in which the National Party today spends its time in fearmongering and trying the best it can to spread fear amongst farmers and regional communities that our government does not have the interests of regional Australia at heart. I was hoping for a real debate here this afternoon. I was hoping for a debate about jobs, about the global financial crisis, about education, about infrastructure and about economic activity. But you do not get that. What you get from a clapped out, tired National Party—tired in the first week of sittings—is a pathetic attempt to disguise politics as principle. That is not even a sad reflection on those opposite. It is just the truth—and you know that to be the truth. You know that if members opposite really believed in this motion they would have been in here last night and this morning to vote. You know that the National Party was the most underrepresented party in the parliament. While we worked, members of the National Party slept. When it came to voting on the very important matters that are allegedly the subject of the debate today, members of the National Party and their leader were simply in bed. Let us face the facts. You do not really have a problem with debt. Your own performance as a government, your own performance with Regional Partnerships, was criticised in a three-volume, 1,200-page National Audit Office review, which pointed to the absolute collapse and failure of good governance and good administration and decent public policy. You know that the interests of the National Party are not the interests of good governance and good public administration. What we are debating today is the plan which the government has for nation building and job protection. And what is that plan? It is about school facilities upgrades for 9,540 schools. It is about insulation for 2.7 million homes. It is about cash payments to families of $950. It is about the construction of 20,000 social houses, public houses—like the ones that I and my friend the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government grew up in—that, in almost every speech last night from members opposite, were criticised as being a waste of money. We know the view that those opposite have of renters. We know because that view has been published time and time again over the last 15 years, and we know that the previous Howard government did not put one cent into public housing. We know it did not have a minister for housing. We know that, under the last government, the public housing stock of our nation declined, and we know that homelessness increased. We know the lack of care and the lack of concern. The announcements this week by the government also go to the creation of specific tax breaks. They boost local community infrastructure. The package is about support for jobs. It is about decisive action. It is also about aligning monetary policy with fiscal policy, something which those opposite never considered in their entire period of government. To have the Reserve Bank of Australia pushing down interest rates while monetary policy is boosting our economy is exactly the balance advised by the IMF and by insightful economists, and it is the advice taken by the Rudd government. It has not been at any time the policy matrix pursued by those opposite. In fact, as you know and we know, fiscal policy and monetary policy for the bulk of your time in government worked in opposite directions. You spent like drunken sailors and you pushed up interest rates in order to compensate, forcing hardworking families to have higher mortgages to pay for the profligacy of your government. It was a disgrace, and the people of Australia quite properly treated your government with the lack of regard that your government treated Australian families. You say in your matter of public importance that the issue is about debt. It is not really about debt. It should be about caring for families, in cities and in regions. It is actually about putting the interests of the National Party first. That is interesting because members opposite in the National Party do not do that themselves. In your own lives, in your own work in this place, you do not put the interests of the National Party first. The great leaders of the National Party of the past would never have put a matter of public importance before this parliament in the way in which you have. McEwen would not have. Doug Anthony would not have. Charles Blunt would not have. John Anderson would not have. You know Tim Fischer would not have. Ian Sinclair would have. Mark Vaile—he would not have. Year on year we have seen the National Party decline, at its own hands. In 1996 there were 18 members of the National Party in this place. By 1998 there were 16 members of the National Party in this place. By 2001 there were 13 members of the National Party in this place. By 2004 there were 12 members of the National Party in this place. By 2007 there were 10. Currently we have nine, when they are not asleep, when they bother to turn up in this chamber and represent the interests of the families and communities who voted for them. It tells you something about the people of rural and regional Australia—they were onto something when they decided the National Party was not for them. Barnaby Joyce knows that. Let us look at the National Party leaders: Mark Vaile gone, seat lost; Tim Fischer gone, seat lost; Ian Sinclair gone, seat now lost; Doug Anthony gone, seat now lost—at your own hands. Your ability to whittle away your own party, your own base, is why you come into this place at a late hour on a Thursday afternoon and practise what you preach, which is merely fearmongering and the invention of stories about how our government behaves to communities. Worse still, there are occasions when I think you actually believe it. We have had a package already, in 2008, which was designed to get our economy through the difficult fourth quarter of 2008. We had a bank guarantee that has held our banking system in good stead. We have had engagement with the G20, with the IMF and with global institutions. While we work, if those opposite are not asleep, they spend their time undermining public confidence. They spend their time trying to crush business confidence. They try to destroy our national confidence. For what? For pure political advantage. Let me explain why this matter of public importance is so weak and so pathetic. It is because people—kids, families, workers, farmers—in regional Australia are actually doing it hard. Let us talk about the real impact of the global financial crisis on jobs in regional Australia. In Western Australia in the last quarter, in Kununurra, Argyle Diamonds shed 300 jobs; at Koolan Island, Mount Gibson Iron shed 190 jobs; and at Leonard Shelf, in zinc and lead, Xstrata shed 300 jobs. At Spinifex Ridge—these places are all through the Kimberley and the Pilbara—at Moly Mines, 70 jobs were lost. At a tantalum mine, 200 jobs were lost. At Telfer goldmine, a Newcrest operation, 400 jobs were lost. At FMG’s Cloud Break iron ore mine, 180 jobs were lost. At Mount Keith nickel mine, 300 jobs were lost. At Waterloo nickel mine, 150 jobs were lost. At Golden Grove zinc-copper mine, 70 jobs were lost. I am only at the central west of Western Australia. The impact of the global financial crisis on regional Australia and on mining communities is immense, and it is likely only to get worse. That is why our government has acted early and acted with decisive intent and with a precise set of policies to respond in a way that will help families, help our regional committees and help Australia. (Time expired) 621 17:13:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be getting any gloom or doom from me. Nor will you be getting any fear tactics. Nor do I think the member for Calare was on about fear tactics. I think what he was on about was getting certainty for EC and country areas so that farmers do not have to wait, year on year, to know whether they are going to receive assistance. There is a lot of concern in country areas, after a prolonged drought and floods, about the fragility of primary industry. If you really want to help them—as the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia said—and have a trickle-down effect to contractors and small businesses and the like, then certainly you will get some resonance from a $950 grant. But let me make an even better suggestion. If you really are concerned about the continuation of country people, why not give a two percentage point subsidy on farm debt, say, with a three-year ceiling? Then you would have money flowing in. You would have money flowing from the farmers to the contractors and to the small businesses—not just in one splash but on an ongoing basis—and you would give farmers the capacity to support those contractors and small businesses. When it comes to the upgrade of schools, I beg you not to give the money to QBuild or state works departments, because it will never get done in the time and it will be twice the price. Feed it out to the principals and the P&Cs, as we did in the Investing in Our Schools Program—which people on the government side freely admit was a very good program. Get the money to where it needs to go. That way, the money will go to contractors, painters and so on in country towns, not the ones QBuild will bring out from Brisbane or the works department will bring from Sydney or Melbourne. We have got to stimulate. That, by the way, is the subject of today’s MPI: it is all about stimulating business and stimulating economic energy in country areas. When it comes to road funding, do the same as we did before. Give it in a Roads to Recovery type program where you let the councils make the decisions about where the money goes. You will always get a bigger bang for the government buck. I cite two councils in my former electorate area of Eidsvold and Parry, two of the smallest shires in Queensland at the time and two of the most efficient with their roadworks. That is another thing you could look at. We talk about level crossings and, having done a report on level crossings for this parliament in 2004, I support the principle very strongly. In one sense $150 million is a lot of money and in another sense it is not, because it will only cover 200 boom-gate type level crossings and I am sure most of those will go to the capital cities or the larger provincials and their environs. If you want to help create a trickle-down effect in country areas, bearing in mind that there are 9,400 level crossings in Australia, and if you really want to help to get some of those level crossings, put lights on some in country areas. You do not need boom gates but certainly put on lights. On a country road where there are only a few trains a week, put a hundred metres of bitumen and rumble strips either side, because you will not have electricity there to provide either lights or boom gates. Do an integrated thing that trickles down into country areas and provides employment and the like. My problem with the splashes of cash in all the recent programs is this: I am sure they work, I am sure the $1,400 and the $2,100 payments were welcome, but infinitely better for pensioners would have been a $500 grant and a $30 increase in their pension. Over the first year that would have been better than $1,400. Going to the $950 package, let me take those receiving Austudy as one example from the whole list of people getting it. Don’t you think parents in country areas trying to get their kids to school would rather have $30 a week for the whole course than a $950 splash once? Let us get fair dinkum. I will finish on another one. If we are really interested in opening up inland Australia, creating employment and generating economic energy, we should put in the inland rail. We on both sides of this parliament talk about it; we have been talking about it for 10 years. With $42 billion at hand, wouldn’t you think that three-quarters of a billion or a billion put into that inland rail would generate jobs galore and confidence galore? (Time expired) 622 17:18:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I take heart from the member for Hinkler, a man whom I respect a great deal and also a man with some good ideas. The member for Hinkler has regional Australia at his heart and always has had, and so do I and so do many on this side of the House. I take heart from the member for Hinkler because to this point I have been very worried. The member for Hinkler clearly supports our package and would make a great contribution by offering a number of projects for regional and rural Australia. You clearly support it and I am amazed that you did not vote with us last night. You know that this package is clearly designed to help rural and regional Australia, as it is to help urban Australia. What worried me first and foremost before I heard you is this. We have got a problem, we have got a challenge and we have got to do something about it. This package is designed to do that. The other worry I have is that, apart from the member for Hinkler, those on the other side are not going to do anything about supporting this package for rural and regional Australia as well as urban Australia. Today I was pleased to hear through the COAG communique the unanimous support for this package from all states of Australia—including the Western Australian Liberal Premier—and also the representative of the Local Government Association of Australia. They clearly endorse our package. With this package goes a series of programs and outlays that we developed and have put into place since the budget of last year. The member for Hinkler talked about a rail project. I do not know the details of that but I am sure that if it has merit then it will see its way into Infrastructure Australia. We have a mechanism and a process for that to happen, not just for urban Australia but for rural and regional Australia. I can tell the member for Hinkler—and he knows I come from a rural and regional area myself—that my community of Braddon sees hope in this package and sees the good intention of it. This package is designed to try and support and sustain jobs—not to lose them but to support and sustain them. It is part and parcel of a much wider program that began when we got into government. You only have to look at the programs, initiatives and commitments we made before the election that were in our budget of last year. They will roll out over the next three years, along with what we did in October and December and what we are doing here. They are part and parcel of a much broader program. It is about jobs; it is about supporting communities. This silly talk that we are ideologically driven to put this country into debt is silly and those opposite know it, and the Australian people are sick to death of the stupidity of these arguments. This package may not be the bee’s knees. There may be issues with it. No doubt the member for Hinkler, in his wisdom, will be able to assist with the projects for his region. He is going to benefit from this as well. He is a political representative, after all, and we expect him to do his part in promoting this and not oppose it. I say to him: do your bit for this, warts and all. Its intention is to work for both jobs and communities. We heard the shadow minister speak about infrastructure in schools as if it did not mean anything. Infrastructure is needed in our schools; we know that. In some states it is in appalling condition. Also, this package will generate jobs. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, our frontbench and the rest of this side have said, ‘We are interested in this program more than anything’—and this goes for the COAG communique—‘because we want to localise this.’ It is all about local jobs and local people and supporting local infrastructure and local families. Just as it is in Braddon it will be in Hinkler, Cowper and other places in this nation. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 623 Ministerial Statements 623 623 17:23:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —by leave—Over recent weeks and months, the Australian government has consistently stated that its strong view remains that Sri Lanka’s conflict cannot be resolved through military means alone. Australia notes that the Sri Lankan government continues to report battlefield gains, further to the recent capture of Kilinochchi and Elephant Pass. Australia recognises that this is a significant development in Sri Lanka’s decades-long conflict. Australia considers a political solution to be essential for long-term peace in a country which has suffered so long from bitter conflict. Members on both sides of the House have expressed to me their support for a resolution of the conflict in Sri Lanka and their support for Australia’s approach to this difficult and complex issue. Australia remains gravely concerned at the worsening humanitarian situation in the north of Sri Lanka. Australia has been actively involved in international efforts to assist those adversely affected by the conflict in Sri Lanka. We are especially concerned by reports of civilian casualties, the continued vulnerability of civilians caught in the conflict and the difficulty of delivering aid and humanitarian assistance. Earlier today I announced that Australia will contribute $5 million in additional humanitarian assistance to those affected in the north of Sri Lanka. This is in addition to the $4 million in food aid Australia recently announced for Sri Lanka through the World Food Program. This new assistance will help ensure that civilians caught up in the conflict have access to basic goods such as medical supplies, shelter, water and sanitation. Australia will deliver this assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, and Australian and international non-government organisations. I informed the Sri Lankan High Commissioner of this in a meeting this morning, during which I reiterated Australia’s views on the situation in Sri Lanka. Australia calls on all those involved in the fighting to make protecting civilians an absolute priority: All parties must respect ‘safe areas’ nominated by the Sri Lankan government and not fire into or out of these zones or in the vicinity of the PTK hospital or any other medical facility; All parties must ensure medical evacuations are facilitated and life-saving humanitarian aid is delivered frequently and safely; All parties must ensure that civilians can leave the conflict zone safely. Australia calls on the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to declare a temporary no-fire period to allow for the evacuation of civilians. Australia calls on the LTTE to allow civilians caught in the conflict zone to leave. The government also calls on the Sri Lankan community in Australia to add its weight to this call to help ensure that civilian life is protected. Australia welcomes the call of the so-called Tokyo Co-Chairs—Norway, Japan, the United States and the European Union—for the LTTE to discuss with the government of Sri Lanka how to end hostilities, including: the laying down of arms; the renunciation of violence; acceptance of the government of Sri Lanka’s offer of amnesty; and participating as a political party in a process to achieve a just and lasting political solution. Last night, I spoke to the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, about a range of matters, including our shared concern about the situation in Sri Lanka. I told Foreign Secretary Miliband that Australia also welcomed his joint statement with Secretary of State Clinton of the United States in support of the Tokyo Co-Chairs. Like its international partners, Australia encourages the Sri Lankan government to take steps to ensure the civilian population has confidence in the government’s commitment to their protection. The Australian government takes this opportunity to thank the Sri Lankan government for its assistance in helping to ensure that an Australian UN official, who had been trapped with UN staff in the conflict zone in northern Sri Lanka, is now safely away from the fighting. We reiterate our call for a political solution to this conflict. The long-term security and prosperity of Sri Lanka will only be achieved through a political solution that meets the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Goldstein to speak for 4½ minutes. Leave granted. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Robb speaking for a period not exceeding 4½ minutes. Question agreed to. 625 17:28:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —I rise in response to the ministerial statement on the ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. In my previous role as shadow minister for foreign affairs for the coalition I became acutely aware of this ongoing conflict taking place in Sri Lanka, a civil conflict which has been raging since July 1983 following the most destructive explosion of communal rioting in the history of that island nation—a period in Sri Lanka’s history commonly referred to as ‘Black July’. This conflict has taken the lives of over 70,000 people and displaced some 400,000 people, who are now living in refugee camps. The coalition welcomes any well-targeted measures that extend humanitarian assistance to those innocent victims of this conflict and helps facilitate both parties following the path of a sustainable peace agreement. Under former Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer, the previous government provided more than $30 million between 2005 and 2007 to experienced and reputable multilateral organisations to provide humanitarian relief across a range of areas to those affected civilians in Sri Lanka. We also welcome multilateral actions such as the statement by the so-called Tokyo Co-Chairs—Norway, Japan, United States and the European Union—urging the Tamil Tigers to discuss with the government of Sri Lanka ways to end the hostilities, including the laying down of arms and the renunciation of violence and to assist those desperate civilians caught up in the conflict and unable to leave the area. The coalition strongly urges the Tamil Tigers to free civilians currently trapped within the conflict. The lessons of history confirm that a political solution is the only effective way to end the violence, resolve the conflict and provide a durable peace in Sri Lanka. The coalition joins the Australian government in calling for peaceful resolution to this conflict as soon as possible for the sake of all the citizens of Sri Lanka. 625 17:31:00 House adjourned at 5.31 pm 2009-02-05 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 10.30 am. 626 Constituency Statements 626 626 10:30:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I rise to speak this morning about an important member of our community in my seat of Mackellar, one Judy Dubois. Judy is a person who has a history of involvement in community groups and of giving of herself selflessly, but she is also a vital member of the Liberal Party. Judy is the epitome of the sort of people we love to have within our membership—people who are vitally involved in the community and who also serve in a political party and, therefore, bring knowledge of what is happening among our people to the attention of the local member and the party as a whole. Judy volunteered 34 years ago as an instructor for the learn-to-swim program at Narrabeen pool and she has only just retired after 34 years of service. This is a community based organisation that provides free swimming lessons for children, which are so vital on our northern beaches where we have such vast, beautiful beaches as well as pools. The appalling tragedies that have been reported of children who have drowned because they were unable to swim just make the work that Judy did over those 34 years all the more important. Judy also spent 10 years working for Meals on Wheels, visiting people who either had disabilities or were aged and unable to leave their home as much as they would have liked. Judy is a warm person who came in and was part of their lives. Judy is also someone who carried the Olympic torch as one of the volunteers and I am proud to have hanging in my office a wonderful photograph of her holding it high as she was recognised for her involvement in the community. For the past 30 years Judy has served as branch secretary of the North Narrabeen-Elanora Heights branch, but she has now been elected the vice-president, which is a good and just reward, I think, as 30 years of her being the secretary meant that that branch was always well run with good agendas, orderly meetings and good records. Judy has also been a strong campaigner. She has been the manager of the prepolling booths. She has been involved in all of my campaigns since the by-election and every election since, as she is for our state members as well. Judy is a valued member of our community. She is someone who has the great affection of many people within the community. Judy is also a member of the Motor Neurone Disease Association of New South Wales and understands what a dreadful disease that is. Judy is someone who, I would like to put on the record, has given of herself and is loved by many. (Time expired) 626 626 10:33:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I rise this morning to talk about a recent visit to my electorate by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. I was fortunate to be involved in a visit with the minister to a small town south of Hobart—called Franklin, strangely enough. We were there to announce the Egg Islands reserve as part of Australia’s National Reserve System. We were privileged to be able to go in a small rowboat—an old wooden boat built in the Franklin area. The Franklin area in my electorate is renowned for its wooden-boat-building skills and the museum down there. We got to row out to have a look at the Egg Islands reserve that we are announcing. It was quite special. These islands are very low-lying islands. They have some of Australia’s unique flora and fauna on them. As I said, they were announced as part of the National Reserve System. The Australian government provided $200,000 to help establish this Egg Islands reserve—it is a national reserve—together with the Tasmanian Land Conservancy, which is a not-for-profit organisation that raises funds and donations to purchase land to have it reserved for its natural values so that future generations can appreciate its beauty. It really was interesting to see the cooperation between the local community, the Australian government and this not-for-profit organisation in working together to get these islands protected. This is 125 hectares of bushland that we have now protected forever. There is a whole range of birds, mammals and reptiles—including short-beaked echidnas and pademelons—on this newly created reserve. But it also has international and national significance as a wetland habitat that accommodates the endangered black gum forest. The islands are just spectacular. I am really passionate about protecting these islands and I was really pleased that we were part of that announcement. It really is about conserving and protecting this unique environment. The Rudd government plans to increase Australia’s National Reserve System by 25 per cent to 125 million hectares by 2013, and we have dedicated $180 million to the Caring for Our Country program to assist with this. This means that we will continue preserving environmentally important sites around Australia so that our children and the generations to come can enjoy the sights and sounds. I was a bit concerned when I arrived to go to these Egg Islands as the locals call them the snake islands. Needless to say, I did not get out of the boat, and nor did the minister. But it was fantastic to see them. I would like to also put on record my appreciation for what the Tasmanian Land Conservancy is doing. It is a large organisation and it is doing some fantastic work. (Time expired) 627 627 10:36:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —I am not exaggerating when I say that my office has been fielding complaints about telecommunications services and infrastructure—or, more precisely, the lack of services and infrastructure—for weeks on end. Every day, serious complaints about phone lines dropping out, services being disconnected without reason, lengthy breakdowns in email services and a failure to have existing accounts switched over to new providers have flooded in. Telstra, Optus—all the major telecommunications players—need to stop clowning around with their customers. I am not criticising employees working at the coalface—the techs et cetera. I save my comments for those further up the organisational chain of command in those companies. Telstra has been by far the most common target of complaint. Let me quote from one constituent who outlined his problems in a recent letter to the editor: On January 12 I rang Telstra about the sudden increase in my broadband bill, and after about three hours on the phone, that little problem was sorted out … Lo and behold, some bright spark decided to disconnect my phone line on the same day … for the next nine days, I spent over 30 hours talking to people and still not getting the problem fixed. Just this week my office was informed of a situation where for two months a customer had been without a phone because Optus failed to ‘port across’—that is the expression—a number to Telstra. The gentleman who rang for help simply wanted to change providers—to go from Optus to Telstra—and made his original request at the beginning of December. For two months he waited with no home phone and operated a home business from his mobile phone. It was not until he contacted my office in January that things started to happen for him and I am hopeful that the problem will now be resolved. If it is not, I will be making a ‘please explain’ request to Telstra on his behalf. It is galling enough when a home phone or internet service fails, but even worse when your business depends on it. Without exaggerating, there are local businesses in my electorate which have lost thousands of dollars worth of potential business because their phone lines have not been working. Small business is copping it tough right now and, if service providers cannot get their act together for both business and residential customers, things are only going to get worse. In these tough times, that sort of conduct is inexcusable. 628 628 10:39:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —Today I would like to talk about the Rudd government’s National Rainwater and Greywater Initiative. This is a $250 million program that delivers on our election commitment to deliver rebates for water tanks. My electorate of Deakin stands to benefit substantially from this program. Many constituents contact me about water-saving programs and it is certainly good news that we can deliver this through a Commonwealth program in support of the existing state rebate programs. Rebates are provided to the owner of the dwelling under this initiative for the purchase and installation of a new rainwater tank, which is connected for internal re-use of the water for the toilet and/or the laundry. Alternatively, rebates are paid for the purchase and installation of a permanently plumbed-in greywater treatment system. In both situations the installation must be done by a licensed plumber to attract the rebate. For rainwater tanks from 3,999 litres to 2,000 litres there is a $400 rebate, and for those over 4,000 litres there is a $500 rebate. These rebates are available for tanks or systems purchased after 30 January 2009 and are not subject to means testing. The good news is that these rebates apply on top of the Victorian state government’s rebate for water tanks. The state government rebate can be up to $1,000 for a tank of 5,000 litres or greater. When added to the Commonwealth rebate, a total of $1,500 can be claimed as a rebate from the two levels of government. For example, a typical 5,000-litre polyethylene tank can be purchased and delivered in Deakin for under $1,500. Added to this cost is around $1,500 for installation, which includes piping and a basic pump unit. This is a total of under $3,000 for a 5,000-litre tank system. When the $1,500 worth of rebates is factored in, the total cost of the rainwater tank and its installation drops to under $1,500. Whilst many community facilities and schools in Deakin have rainwater collection tanks, the take-up rate for households is much lower. Figures show that rainwater tanks are currently used by only a small percentage of urban Australian households—an average of less than 10 per cent for capital cities other than Adelaide. In Melbourne in January this year, the recorded rainfall was only 0.8 millimetres and a heatwave of record temperatures was recorded over many days. As unpleasant as extremes of weather such as this can be, there is a side effect—that is, an increased interest in the installation of home rainwater tanks. With greater rebates available, there has been no better time to invest in a rainwater tank system. I commend this initiative and urge the householders of Deakin and the rest of Australia to seriously consider doing their bit to save water and reduce their annual water bills. 629 629 10:42:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I, too, rise to speak on the issue of water, following on from the member for Deakin. However, I speak of the greatest environmental disaster our country faces, which is in my electorate, the Lower Lakes, at the end of Murray-Darling Basin system. This week we acknowledge the contribution of Peter Howson, who was the first environment minister from this side of politics back in 1971. The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Higgins spoke eloquently in the House of Representatives about his contribution. It reminds us of the importance of that portfolio. I think we on this side of parliament have a proud record in that regard. The original focus on the environment was by Theodore Roosevelt, a former United States President, who came from our side of politics as well. Two years ago, the Leader of the Opposition and the then Prime Minister announced a groundbreaking plan for the Murray-Darling Basin system. Unfortunately, since that time nothing really genuine has happened. Now the Lower Lakes in my electorate is an absolute disaster. Yesterday, there was a report released which stated that by April just near Clayton on the Lower Lakes in my electorate you will be able to walk across the Goolwa Channel. That is quite an extraordinary thing. I urge all members to have a look at this report. If they do, they will see how large a mass of land that actually is and how little water there is in that system. The state government tells us that as the water recedes acid sulphate soil is developing. I have no reason to question their science. Their scientists seem quite convinced by this. When we have windy, hot days we get dust storms in Goolwa, Clayton and other places. These dust storms are whipping up this acid sulphate soil, which is having significant health effects on my constituents in that area. I am very concerned about this issue. I have written to the state health minister. I am hoping he will hold a full inquiry into this. Quite a lot of my constituents are contacting my office with concerns about their health and wellbeing. There is some evidence that this is having an effect. This highlights the urgent need for some action and some genuine leadership on this issue. We are far beyond the point of talking. We need some action on this issue. We need some water in the system. We need the lakes to be fixed. Rather than talk about it, I urge the government to start to take some action. The dust storms are another side effect of a bigger problem. We have to do something in the short term. We are far beyond talking about this anymore. 629 629 10:45:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —An early learning and childcare centre will be built in Port Melbourne, the second of the two childcare centres promised by the government at the election. Victoria and the City of Port Phillip are experiencing a once-in-a-generation baby boom, with 1,287 babies born in the City of Port Phillip in 2007—a 28 per cent increase in births over the previous five-year period. During the 2007 election campaign, Labor promised to establish up to 260 early learning and childcare centres to address unmet demand around the country. We are fulfilling that promise. Port Melbourne is lucky to be nominated as one of the 38 priority sites in the first round of funding. A $4 million centre will be built in Liardet Street. There will be long day care places and access to maternal and child health services. This joint government initiative demonstrates the positive outcomes that governments can achieve when they work together. Funding for the centre has been provided by the Australian government, $1.6 million; the Victoria government, $1.2 million; and the Port Phillip council, $1.7 million. It is wonderful. But now many in Melbourne Ports are rightfully worried about the fate of the two ABC Learning Centres in South Melbourne and East St Kilda. Despite having an occupancy rate of 75 per cent, due to the mismanagement of ABC Learning they are both considered by those people who have looked at them to be unviable. A report in Australian this week gives an account of the scandalous way in which the nation’s now defunct largest childcare provider ran its business. The article says that many of the 241 ABC Learning Centres classified as unviable have rents that are far too high. One centre on the outskirts of Brisbane catering for 150 children was paying $700,000 a year in rent. One of the bidders for the Brisbane centre said that some of the rents are nonsensical. Some of them have 100 per cent occupancy but they are not running at profit. About 80 of the 241 failing ABC centres are owned by the Australian Education Trust, which is in turn owned by Austock—a company in which ABC founder Eddy Groves has a four per cent stake. The chairman of Austock is Bill Bessemer, a founder director of ABC Learning. ABC Learning paid Austock a total of $48.3 million in commissions, corporate services and management fees between ABC’s float in 2001 and 2006. ABC Learning, Mr Groves and Austock have a lot to answer for. Their mismanagement and, I dare say, greed are likely to leave thousands of children in my electorate and in other electorates without care. I call on the liquidator to make these centres with large occupancies viable. All members, whether they are in opposition or in government, should put pressure on the liquidator and the owners to do this—lower the rents so these failing centres can continue to exist and provide child care to children right across the country. 630 630 10:48:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I raised in my contribution to the debate on the stimulus package unintended consequences of that package. I questioned whether the package was an optimal solution. I certainly questioned the fact that we had to take the Prime Minister on trust that the package being put forward by this government was in fact optimal. The Prime Minister has form on unintended consequences because of policies that have not been properly thought through. Last night in my contribution, I brought to the attention of the House one such unintended consequence in relation to the sale of second-hand trucks. I would like to expand on that this morning in this chamber. A business in my electorate, Mid Coast Trucks, a substantial employer in the town of Macksville, where unemployment is high and where jobs are highly valued, is being adversely affected by a poorly thought through policy. The fact is that if you purchase a new truck you will be eligible for the tax rebate under the stimulus package. If you purchase a second-hand truck you will not be eligible. We questioned the Treasurer’s office on this. We asked for clarification. Is this true? Are second-hand trucks not going to be the subject of the rebate? They said that is correct. They felt that more jobs would be created if the rebate went to new trucks. But nothing is further from the truth. For a start, many new trucks are imported. In the case of the sale of second-hand trucks they are, in many cases, substantially reconditioned. That reconditioning can include work on the engine, work on the chassis, new windscreens and new tyres. A lot of work goes into the reconditioning of a second-hand truck, and that work could be done locally in the community by local tradesmen. In the case of the purchase of a new truck, which is just shipped in from overseas and virtually sent straight to the purchaser of that truck, there is little local input going into it. Here we have a consequence where there is a tax break at a cost of $2.7 billion to the taxpayer—that is, a 30 per cent rebate available for the purchase of a new truck, which is imported and which supports workers in Japan or another overseas country. When it comes to a local worker in the town of Macksville whose job is dependent on reconditioned trucks, purchasers of trucks are being encouraged through this tax break to move from the purchase of a used truck with a high local labour content to perhaps a new truck, which is fully imported with very little local labour content. This just highlights the fact that this package has not been fully thought through. We have a $2.7 billion cost to revenue—a cost to revenue that is actually potentially detracting from local jobs and detracting from the ability of young people to get an apprenticeship in the field of truck repair and maintenance, and it is quite clearly of concern. 631 631 10:51:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr BYRNE —On Australia Day this year, on a magnificent summer’s day, I had the honour on behalf of the Holt electorate to celebrate and publicly recognise unsung heroes in our community by presenting the Holt Australia Day awards to over 20 special people and organisations. It is a great Australian quality that many individuals in this great country give their time and effort in a typically understated way to help improve the lives of others. They ask for no recognition for their work. In fact, they are often embarrassed when their contributions are recognised, but I feel that they should be recognised because they are great role models for our young people and because of the hope that they offer to many. So I take this opportunity—and I hope that I do not run out of time—to mention the special individuals and organisations that were honoured at the Holt Australia Day Community Spirit Awards. On behalf of all of us here in this federal parliament, I want to thank them for their selfless service and contribution to our community. This year’s recipients were: Anne Atkin of Painting with Parkinson’s; Robina Bell of the Warren Opportunity Shop; Les Boyes of Neighbourhood Renewal; Brenda Chessum of the Warren Opportunity Shop; Judaline Fonseca of Helping Hands of St Joseph; Gamini Fonseka of the Springvale Neighbourhood House; Chou Gai for his wonderful efforts in working with the Sudanese community; Michele Halsall of the Hampton Park Community Renewal Committee and Southern Cross Kids Camp; Allison Harvey of the Warren Opportunity Shop; Lady Uppity Crust, a wonderful community-minded local resident renowned for her quick smile and keen dress sense; Patrick Merrett, an outstanding member of the Doveton and Hallam country fire authority brigades for nearly half a century; Wendy Murphy, Secretary of the Hampton Park Networking Group; Anton Nadarajah for his longstanding work with the Migrant Resource Centre; Brian Neave of the Warren Opportunity Shop; Brett Owen, our local police youth resource officer—a young man building vital bridges with many young people in our region; Sankara Subramanian and Kumararuban Vairananthan of the Victorian Tamil Cultural Association and the Sri Lankan Elders Welfare Association; Michael Tucker, who risked life and limb to rescue two young children from a burning house in Cranbourne West; Michael Kaisner and Justin Gray, winners of the Ambulance Community Hero awards who, in separate heroic efforts, saved the life of an injured motorist and an electrocuted electrician; Marisa Walters of the Casey and District Multiple Birth Association; Henni Watts of the Salvation Army; the Berwick and District Woodworkers Club; and, last but not least and a fellow Endeavour Hills resident, Juan Carlos Loyola, a man who has worked with kids with special needs for well over 15 years and who has helped those young people play soccer and, in some cases, represent their country. All of those people that I have mentioned here today in this place, through the threads of their many stories of their contribution to the community, sum up to me—and I am sure to other members—what it means to be Australian. 632 632 10:54:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I want to bring to the House’s attention today the circumstances of a courageous young woman who this morning is lying in a Sydney hospital bed wondering whether this time next year she will still be alive. That hospital bed has been her home now for almost 12 months. Thirty-six-year-old Pauline Talty has had a difficult life to say the least. She was stricken with cancer as a two-year-old. Unfortunately, the radiation therapy that saved her life then permanently damaged her bowel. In her 20s she battled and survived cervical cancer. Despite all of these setbacks, Pauline fought to live as normal a life as possible, studying at university and working in several careers. She married and bought a home—just normal, everyday aspirations but perhaps remarkable achievements given all that this young woman has been through. Now Pauline Talty is fighting again. Four years ago her bowel collapsed and her health steadily deteriorated, and certainly has deteriorated since. Today medical experts all seem to agree on one thing—that is, she needs a small bowel transplant. In October last year Pauline Talty applied under the Medical Treatment Overseas Program for funding to be sent to a specialist bowel transplant unit at Pittsburgh in the United States. In January the Department of Health and Ageing informed her that she did not qualify for MTOP assistance, failing to meet one of four criteria which states that: … an effective alternative treatment must not be available in Australia in time to benefit the patient. The department’s position is that Austin Hospital in Melbourne can provide that alternative. Austin is of course a renowned medical institution, but it is my understanding that the Austin has never carried out a small bowel transplant. Three senior medical specialists—Dr David Storey of the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Professor Ross Smith of the Royal North Shore Hospital and Dr Michael Crawford as Surgical Director of the National Liver Transplant Unit—have all supported Pauline’s application to travel to Pittsburgh for treatment. All declare that they do not believe that the Austin Hospital can successfully treat her, yet the department of health has now asked her to travel to Melbourne to again be assessed by staff at the Austin Hospital. I am not a medical expert, but I have taken advice from medical experts and, in addition to that, I can only rely on what specialist surgeons who are treating Pauline say—those who know her medical condition best. It is clear that their opinion is that they see in Pauline a compelling case. I have written to the minister for health asking for her department to break through the bureaucratic red tape that is surrounding this particular arrangement and to arrive at a decision, and to do it expeditiously. The government needs to reverse its decision. If the minister for health is not able to haul her department into line, then the Prime Minister needs to become involved. Time is clearly of the essence for this young woman. All Australians should get behind Pauline Talty’s case. 633 633 10:57:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —On 19 January, I assisted one of the drivers for Charleston Meals on Wheels to deliver meals. Over the years I have been out with a number of Meals on Wheels organisations within the Shortland electorate. All members in this House recognise the fine work that Meals on Wheels do and know that the contact they have with the people they deliver meals to is more than just the fact that they provide nutritional food to those people who receive the meals; rather, it is quite often the only contact that those people have with the outside world. Charlestown Meals on Wheels is an outstanding organisation and I must say that it is a showpiece as far as Meals on Wheels organisations are concerned. It has had a long history of obtaining support from the community and it delivers meals to Adamstown, Adamstown Heights, Kotara, Valentine, Windale, Charlestown, Dudley, Whitebridge, Garden Suburb, Kahibah and Gateshead areas. The coordinator is Cynthia Moore and the administration officer is Alana Ditroi. I assisted the Meals on Wheels run that goes to Kahibah and the driver whom I accompanied was Kevin Wilson. I thank him very much for allowing me to assist him on that day. I very much appreciated the fact that I could go and meet people who received the meals in order to understand some of the issues that are so important to them. Charlestown Meals on Wheels delivers approximately 250 meals every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The number of volunteers varies enormously between 60 and 90 people a day. Sixty people are needed to deliver the meals on any one day to all of the areas that I just mentioned. There is also a crew that works in the kitchen. They are a really good team who all work together. I have been to a number of functions that Charlestown Meals on Wheels have run and I know the dedication of all of those volunteers who are involved with that organisation. I congratulate each and every one of them and thank Charlestown Meals on Wheels for allowing me to deliver meals on 19 January. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded. 633 Bills R4021 633 Debate resumed from 3 December 2008, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. 633 11:01:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I would like to begin my remarks on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 with a couple of general comments about the importance of the aviation sector. The aviation industry has a long and proud history in this country and has played a vital role in the development of our nation. The efforts of aviation pioneers like Charles Kingsford-Smith, Bert Hinkler and Reverend John Flynn, through his work with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, did a great deal to bring Australians closer to the world beyond our shores and to provide much-needed services, especially in regional Australia. Some of these great pioneers have been commemorated in the names of electorates of members of parliament. It recognises something of our proud aviation history. Today I would like particularly to pay tribute to one of our remarkable aviation pioneers, Nancy Bird Walton, who passed away last month. Nancy was an extraordinary woman, an extraordinary pilot, an adventurer, a businesswoman and a humanitarian, and the nation is certainly the poorer for her passing. In her autobiography she writes that when she was 17 she had saved up £200 and told her father that she wanted to start flying lessons at Mascot. He disapproved very strongly, saying that he could not afford to waste money keeping a crippled daughter and that her mother would be very upset if she were to be injured. Nancy Bird Walton wrote: ‘Because I was one of six children I thought my parents could well afford to take the risk with one.’ Despite continuing arguments she held firm to her decision and, of course, she was taught by the legendary Charles Kingsford-Smith and created her own legend in becoming the youngest woman to gain a pilots licence and the first woman to have a commercial pilots licence. She obtained that commercial pilots licence essentially to set up a flying medical service. She was a pilot for the Royal Far West Children’s Health Scheme for a number of years and certainly brought health care to people in the outback where otherwise it would not have been provided. She was successful in air races, trained other women pilots and was involved in charity work. It was fitting that in 1997 she was named an Australian National Treasure. She was a champion for Australian aviation and particularly for Qantas. She had very strong views on most issues and gave no quarter. She forcefully put those views whenever the opportunity arose. She regarded it as unthinkable that any Australian government would allow competition to Qantas—she had a great love of Qantas—and in particular held the view that there should be no competition for Qantas on international routes such as across the Pacific. As a new transport minister I attended her 90th birthday party at Sydney airport. During a long and riveting speech she declared that there had never been a decent aviation minister in the history of Australia. I told her that I thought that was a pretty harsh judgment since I had been in the job for only two months. With all due respect to me and my successors as transport minister, I think she died with the same view. I was delighted to be present when Qantas named its first A380 aircraft in her honour and to fly with her on its naming flight. She was rightly very proud of the honour that Qantas had bestowed upon her and said publicly that when she learned of Qantas’s decision she was determined to stay alive long enough for this naming ceremony to occur. It is entirely appropriate that her name should adorn the biggest passenger aircraft flying the Australian flag. Nancy Bird Walton founded the Australian Women Pilots Association in 1950 and was its president and patroness for decades. She took great pride in seeing the success and acceptance of women in aviation. Indeed, her biography is as much a chronicle of the history of the success of women in aviation as anything else. She was very proud of the achievements of women and the acceptance of women right through the full range of aviation careers, which takes me back to the title that she chose for her autobiography: My God, It’s a Woman. Those were the words of a well-known Queensland grazier, Charlie Russell, who made that exclamation when he discovered that the pilot who had been chartered to rescue him from floodwaters on a marooned property was, in fact, a female. Indeed it was a woman, a remarkable woman, a great Australian. The aviation sector is the less for losing this wonderful woman, who was really a pioneer for women in aviation in Australia. I wrote to John Walton, Nancy’s son, at the time of her funeral. He wrote back to me and said: … so many of the public in the streets, that stood and applauded and waved… we are a wonderful country, that love so much, that there are people like this, I think there is just no way to thank them all, possibly in a statement from you, in your situation you can use this. So I take this opportunity today to acknowledge Nancy Bird Walton, her contribution to aviation and her family, who stood beside her and knew her as quite a remarkable woman. I mentioned that I was at her 90th birthday party. I am told, although I cannot verify it, that after the party she spent the rest of the night at the nightclubs of Sydney. She was quite a remarkable woman. She gave me this copy of her autobiography when she came to my electorate to open a show. The early parts of her career were spent barnstorming around little country towns. Even though she was a city girl, she was very familiar with life in the most remote parts of Australia. Since the early years of these aviation pioneers first flying beyond our shores, aviation has come to play an increasingly important role in bringing the world to Australia and bringing Australia to the world. Being an island, Australia is uniquely dependent upon aviation to maintain our transport links to the outside world. A century ago, the only way to arrive in Australia was by boat. How things have changed. In 2007-08 Australian airports saw international passenger traffic of over 23 million people. This represents a gain of five per cent over the previous years. A significant proportion of these passengers are international tourists. The over 5.6 million short-term international visitors represented a valuable contribution to the overall economy through the tourism sector. Additionally, the air cargo industry plays an important role in the economy. In 2007-08 international air freight traffic totalled over 780,000 tonnes. Both inbound and outbound air traffic have shown increases in recent years. Overall, aviation contributed over $6.3 billion to the Australian economy in 2007 and employed nearly 50,000 people directly. A significant proportion of that was in the regions. With the challenging economic times confronting us, the aviation industry will find it difficult over the years ahead. In fact, it is one of the first to feel the impact of a downturn internationally. We can expect to see, and we are already noticing, a downturn in the arrivals of passengers, therefore reductions in flights and, inevitably, loss of employment in the industry. Ours is a big country with such long distances to cover and so few people that aviation fills a critical gap in places where road or rail transport is not available or the distances are too great. It would be impossible for this parliament to function as effectively as it does in this age without aviation—without the capacity of members to fly quickly and conveniently in and out of Canberra or wherever else we may need to be. The aviation sector also makes a significant contribution to other industries, particularly in rural and regional areas. The tyranny of distance poses very significant and very real challenges that are not faced by those who live in the cities. Often the only way to get in and out of a country town or to make contact with the rest of the world or to travel for medical purposes is through the use of aviation. There are three million passenger movements and millions of shipments made by the air cargo industry in and out of the bush. Aside from its role in supporting economic development in the regions, the aviation sector also plays an important role in delivering essential services in remote areas—services like the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which is a vital public good ensuring that communities most in need of medical services are not forgotten. In this day and age when country hospitals have been downgraded or closed to such an extent, we find that the most important facility in even the quite large regional hospitals is the helipad to fly people who are really sick to the nearest larger hospital or capital city. Aviation plays a vital role there. The RFDS performed nearly 36,000 aeromedical evacuations, attended to over 260,000 patients and flew over 23 million kilometres in the year to June 2008. Other aeromedical services like NRMA’s CareFlight, Angel Flight and others provide vital access to critical medical services for people, especially those in remote areas. So a robust aviation sector is vital to overcome the isolation felt in regional areas and to ensure a good quality of life in the bush. Many regional communities are dependent upon air services to help their local economies and to relieve the pressures that geographic isolation can bring. Unfortunately, the aviation sector, particularly in regional areas, is now facing many challenges and that has become especially evident over recent weeks. Some communities have experienced a total loss of air services. Recently MacAir, a major supplier of services in regional Queensland, went into voluntary receivership, stranding passengers in particularly western Queensland and the Gulf of Carpentaria. Similarly, Rex Aviation recently announced that it would terminate smaller routes linking Dubbo to Bourke, Cobar, Coonamble, Lightning Ridge and Walgett and also the Mudgee to Sydney run, citing spiralling costs and ever-increasing regulatory requirements and also the government’s decision to terminate the en route navigation subsidy scheme. As a result, the short flight from Dubbo and Lightning Ridge is now a four-hour drive. If road links were cut into a town, you could be assured that governments—state, federal and local—would take action to make sure they were kept open. For some isolated communities, air links are just as critical. In some states, such as Queensland, the state government does provide some subsidies to enable air services to be provided in remote communities. The federal government provides some support to enable mail services to go to remote areas, such as the Gulf of Carpentaria and Aboriginal communities. These services simply could not operate without that kind of support. Other state governments do nothing at all. There is no support to provide air services to these remote communities. I think it ought to be seen as an essential community service that there is some kind of basic capacity for people to travel from little remote towns to their cities for medical, education or other purposes. So I appeal to the federal government and to the state governments to do what they can to make sure that the little country towns of Australia—which are sometimes 400, 500, 600, 1,000 or 2,000 kilometres from their capital cities—have some way of connecting promptly and efficiently with the rest of the world at a reasonable cost. It is important for us to ensure that the aviation sector can continue to contribute to the economic base of regional communities and reduce the isolation that those people face. Since coming to office, the new government has imposed higher costs and cost burdens on the aviation sector and those who use its services. In his first budget, the Treasurer increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47 and at first went so far as to apply this tax hike retrospectively to tickets that had already been sold. That is an extra cost to airlines, travel agents, tourism operators and the flying public, and it hits the aviation industry at a time when it is already struggling with rising costs and an uncertain environment. Now there is the looming threat of a strike by air traffic controllers. I certainly hope that nobody in this House wants to see the disruption and chaos that that sort of industrial action brings. The union that controls the workers in the air traffic control system is currently conducting a ballot on industrial action. It is demanding huge pay increases. Everybody knows that they have a responsible position and we expect them to be well paid and for their conditions to be reasonable, but some of the demands that are being made are way beyond what can be tolerated even in good economic times. They are certainly beyond the capacity of the sector to bear during difficult circumstances. Yet air traffic controllers are threatening to disrupt the aviation industry, perhaps as soon as a week or two away. I would be happy to support any initiative by the minister if he has a sensible plan to avert the potential crisis facing the Australian aviation sector if it is essentially grounded as a result of this industrial action. In particular I urge him not to forget the plight of regional communities that depend so heavily upon the sector when he seeks to resolve the situation. If the Flying Doctor and other essential services are not able to access the capital cities, that will place a serious burden on the health services of the nation but it will also disrupt our economy. The government is spending billions of dollars in stimulus packages, but I can tell you that a nationwide air strike would be a serious deflation to our economy and would reduce its capacity to sustain itself or to recover. I appeal therefore to the workers in that sector to behave reasonably and for everybody involved to negotiate on a reasonable package. We need to ensure that there are no unnecessary interruptions to aviation services. It is incumbent upon all of us also to ensure that the regulatory regime under which the sector operates is as effective and efficient as possible. There are things that can be done to make the industry work well. Sometimes it is difficult to make judgments about how much additional regulation needs to be imposed to ensure the safety and security of passengers who are using the system. One of the great attributes of Australian aviation is its safety record, particularly in the commercial passenger fleet. We want to ensure that continues because that is why people have confidence when flying around Australia. So it is absolutely essential that we maintain and hold on to that enviable safety and security record. It will be a difficult judgment as to how much extra cost is imposed to pick up that last element of additional safety. No-one wants to compromise on safety. It is impossible to mount an argument in favour of any kinds of compromises on safety issues, but on the other hand we also have to keep our aviation system economically sustainable. Sometimes if you impose additional costs, it leads to shortcuts elsewhere and that compromises safety in different places. So we need to manage the safety regime in Australia vigorously, we need to be certain that our operators have a culture of safety, but we also need to work cooperatively with them to achieve this vision that Australian aviation will operate without incident day in, day out, year after year, so that passengers are able to reach their destination safely and on time. With these kinds of general views in mind, I am more than happy to lend the support of the opposition to the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. It contains a number of initiatives and the opposition is happy to support them all. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the coalition in government undertook major new initiatives to improve aviation security in Australia. The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 involved the aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required them to develop and comply with a transport security program. This legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. Additionally, the coalition introduced the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 which required incidents related to transport safety to be reported and laid out a framework for the lodging of reports and the investigation of transport safety incidents. Over the years, a wide array of actions by the previous government expanded the aviation security apparatus in Australia. Since September 2001 at least $1.2 billion has been spent to enhance aviation security. We expanded the screening of passengers and checked baggage to ensure consistent security screening treatment of all passengers and baggage carried on jet aircraft departing from anywhere in Australia. Additional funding was provided to improve security in the air cargo industry. The coalition also created the Air Security Officer Program in December 2001, which placed so-called ‘sky marshals’ on selected domestic and international flights. There is growing concern that the new government is winding back the sky marshals program. When I asked about this in February last year, Labor refused to provide any assurances that funding for this program would be maintained. Indeed, one government minister has been quoted as saying that the number of sky marshals is to be cut by one-third. The sky marshals program is a valuable program and it is worth fully supporting. I call on the government to stop playing fast and loose with the lives of the flying public to save a few dollars in the name of economies. The reality is that this is a program about which not great details are known. I respect the fact that its capacity to work effectively is enhanced because passengers do not actually know for certain whether or not a sky marshal is on their plane. But any measures that the government is taking to reduce this program and to cut the number of operators I would view with grave alarm. I call on the government to make a public commitment to this program and to guarantee that there has been no winding back and that there will be no winding back of the number of sky marshals supporting the Australian aviation sector. Australian skies are undoubtedly much safer than they have ever been. This bill will continue the work that was started by those on this side of the House to ensure that we have a secure aviation sector in the years ahead. Amending the Aviation Transport Security Act to expand the range of information that the government department is able to collect is a reasonable next step in ensuring that aviation security is as effective and efficient as possible for all parties. In addition to monitoring compliance with the act, the department will be able to gather information that would enable them to make more informed decisions on security matters. As the challenges facing aviation security change, it is important that our response adapts and that we have the database and the information necessary to make informed decisions. Ensuring that the measures taken to ensure the safety of Australian skies are as effective as possible and do not impose undue costs on industry players is of paramount importance. Those on this side of the House are happy to do what we can to facilitate this course. The key to these new powers, however, will be the scope of the information to be collected. The government has given an assurance that it will consult effectively with aviation industry participants before the supporting regulations are in fact promulgated. I want to assure the industry participants that we will also be subjecting these regulations to intense scrutiny to ensure that they are fair and reasonable. The amendment permitting the secretary to the department to delegate his authority is also a sensible step towards ensuring that the government is able to respond to emergencies in a timely fashion. Thankfully Australia has had a relatively peaceful record when it comes to aviation security. This is due in no small part to the vigilance of those charged with ensuring a secure environment in the skies and the actions of past governments from both sides of politics over the years. Still, it would be imprudent to discount the possibility of an emergency situation arising in the future. If such an emergency were to occur, the demands on the secretary would be immense and, in a rapidly developing situation, action may be required without delay. Current legislation allows the secretary to delegate his authority under the act to another officer within the department. This legislation would enable the secretary to delegate his authority to an officer in another department with national security responsibilities. Of course such a delegation would not be taken lightly. The secretary would still retain overall authority under the proposed legislation and could set restrictions on the delegation or withdraw it when the emergency passed. These amendments would ensure that if Australian skies faced a prolonged emergency, whether it were a preplanned situation or not, our aviation security apparatus would not be left in a position where decisions vital to the national economy and security could not be made. The amendments allowing the copying of cockpit voice recorder information for testing and maintenance purposes are another move that will receive bipartisan support. This proposal is the result of a recommendation from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into the tragic Lockhart River air crash in 2005. The cockpit voice recorder on that crashed aircraft was found to be faulty. As a result, no audio recovered from the recorder could be confirmed as having been recorded during the accident flight. The bill will clear up any doubt that the copying of cockpit voice recorder information for maintenance is permissible and enable these kinds of faults to be discovered and dealt with more easily. It is quite an interesting case study. Everyone believes it is important that the privacy of personal information on the cockpit voice recorders should be respected. But I think it was always taking the intent of the legislation too far to suggest that that meant it could not be copied for maintenance and other such purposes. It seems as though that excuse was being used and this legislation will ensure that that will not happen in the future. Finally, the changes proposed to the reporting of aviation incidents and the penalties associated with the failure to report such incidents is another idea that we will support. Allowing the executive director of transport safety investigation to require further information after receiving a report on an immediately reportable matter or a routine reportable matter will ensure that the accident and incident database contains accurate and sufficient information on each IRM and RRM. The penalty for failing to report an IRM will be raised to 12 months imprisonment and as a result will bypass the statute of limitations and mean there is no limit to when a prosecution can be instigated. Currently under the Crimes Act prosecutions must occur within one year. It can take many years for unreported incidents to be discovered and as a result these breaches cannot be prosecuted. Additionally under the proposed legislation, failing to provide a full written report of an IRM or an RRM will attract a penalty of six months imprisonment and prosecution could begin at any time within six years of the offence. In the case of the Lockhart River air crash in 2005, the failure to report RRMs was not discovered until many years after the alleged commission of the offences. Failing to report IRMs and RRMs can be indicative of a culture that gives safety a low priority and it is important to deter such a culture. Increasing penalties for failing to report or provide full details regarding aviation incidents will maintain this deterrence. Since 11 September 2001, aviation security in Australia has gone through drastic changes in a short time. These changes were necessary in order to secure Australian skies. Given Australia’s record in aviation security, we may conclude that the changes we made have been effective. I do appreciate that the legitimate demands of aviation security have at times imposed cost and inconvenience on both the industry and the flying public. We appreciate the understanding and cooperation that there has been. The legislation will build on the strong foundations left by the previous government and enables us to maintain a solid aviation security apparatus in an efficient and effective way. 640 11:30:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —It gives me great pleasure to rise in this place to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. I would like to make a few comments in support of the government’s bill as it has direct relevance to the residents in the electorate that I represent, the electorate of Hindmarsh, in Adelaide. Within the electorate of Hindmarsh we have Adelaide Airport, which operates multiple perpendicular runways. The airport caters largely for the larger passenger jets, but it does service smaller passenger and transport courier aircraft. Some distance away in the seat of Makin—it borders Makin and Port Adelaide—is Parafield Airport, which I would say has the bulk of the light aircraft traffic and training in Adelaide. Both of these airports receive small- to medium-sized aircraft that necessarily approach over built-up suburban Adelaide. In the case of Adelaide Airport, aircraft fly over the suburbs of West Beach, Brooklyn Park, Glenelg North, Lockleys, West Richmond, Richmond, Cowandilla, Mile End, Henley Beach and Torrensville—and that is just to name a few. So you can see that Adelaide Airport and anything to do with aviation have a direct effect not only on the aircraft that fly in the skies but also on the residents who live below the air routes. As I said, it is not only the crew of and passengers on the aircraft who are the intended beneficiaries of this bill. It is potentially those who live and work under the flight path—families, schools, businesses, aged-care facility residents and the general community who populate the suburbs which I mentioned and many other similarly exposed suburbs. Approximately 25,000 people reside around the Adelaide Airport. It is in a built-up residential area, apart from a small stretch over West Beach on the western side. So you can see that it is a very populated area. Any tragedy that occurred in the sky would have an enormous effect on those residents below. The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 has safety as its main focus. It aims to improve the safety of all concerned and of all stakeholders in a number of very different scenarios. I would like to concentrate on the ordinary day-by-day safety element that could potentially affect any of us any month of the year as passengers or as people who live in close proximity to a flight path. I would like to do this by focusing on the tragic incident that has been used as a prime example by the speaker before me of why legislative change is required. It is an incident that has been described within the media as one of Australia’s worst air traffic disasters: the crash at Lockhart River. On 7 May 2005 a Metro aircraft containing two pilots and 13 passengers was flying a regular public transport service from Bamaga to Cairns, Queensland, with an intermediate stop at Lockhart River. Approaching Lockhart River aerodrome, the aircraft proceeded to fly—almost certainly still in an airworthy condition—into the Iron Range National Park, where it impacted a heavily timbered ridge. The aircraft was destroyed by both the impact and the subsequent intense fuel-fed fire. All 13 passengers were killed. Neither of the crew members survived. The coroner investigating the crash released his findings on 17 August 2007—in excess of two years after the event. The coroner was critical of pilot performance and the company’s safety management systems and training practices. CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, was included in the coroner’s deliberations, given its supervisory role with small operators and such companies’ practices. It goes without saying that all of us continue to encourage CASA in the fulfilment of its critical supervisory and safety role. I understand that it became apparent that the company itself, or its parent company, had failed to meet its obligations in reporting 25 safety incidents. It may seem that the company was creating evidence of itself being a risk or an unacceptably high risk for the safety of passengers and its staff, and yet, unreported, the risk was unable to be identified and mitigated by the authorities. Where a company fails to meet its obligations, there must be appropriate and sufficient recourse for authorities. Without consequence, one can expect compliance to decrease. After the event and after investigations, there was speculation as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions would become involved and lay charges for noncompliance within its aviation responsibilities. This ended up being a moot point. The current 12-month statute of limitation on prosecutions limited potential DPP action. Whereas prosecution by the DPP may have been a formality, none was possible. The federal minister stated his opinion that the 12-month statute of limitation is far too short a time to conduct proper investigations and have the option of pursuing further action. The then Premier of Queensland would have agreed with him. I am sure that all of us in this place also agree that the statute of limitation needs to be increased from 12 months to give CASA, the Executive Director of Transport Safety Investigation and any responsible party including the DPP sufficient powers to request safety information, sufficient time to investigate events and sufficient time to prosecute those who put the safety of members of their own workforce, the public and customers at such high risk. I am sure all of us support this. I would fully expect the industry itself to support this amendment, be it passenger carriers or freight transport couriers. It seems that within my electorate and perhaps elsewhere those interested in freight issues are somewhat at odds with the minister for transport and certainly me. Recently articles appeared in the media from different industry groups of aviation transport calling for the airport curfew in Adelaide to be dropped. There seems to be a campaign by the industry to convince itself that airport curfews are going to be watered down and ultimately made useless or unworkable. A constituent phoned my office saying that the freight company he works for and employees have stated quite categorically that the Adelaide Airport curfew will be scrapped. This is the rumour that is going around in the industry as a result of the industry’s plan to carry cargo on large passenger jets and presumably a subsequent campaign to focus on invented inconsistencies in curfew arrangements. As I said, I fully expect the freight industry to support the bill currently before the House, but I really regret its lack of support for the Adelaide Airport curfew. I regret the disregard for the public who sleep under or in close proximity to Adelaide Airport’s flight path. I have been a resident of Mile End under the flight path all my life. Where I live, and in those other suburbs that I named, you can stand on the roof of your house and tickle the bellies of the planes as they go over. We know the pilots not by their names but by their faces because we look up and we can see them, and we wave to them. That is how close they are. When you have an airport smack-bang near the CBD in a populated residential area, I think that is the price that you pay. The price that airports, transport companies, couriers and aircraft carriers pay is that they have a curfew. You need to have a good balance between the residents and business. While I expect that we and the industry agree on matters of aviation safety and the need for this bill to pass, we clearly disagree on matters of public interest—the public’s highly reasonable expectation of being able to sleep at night. This is not something that I take lightly, so I decided to write to the minister to clarify what the position is. I will quote from the minister, who wrote to me last year after this rumour began. In his letter to me the minister stated: I believe the current curfew arrangements at Adelaide Airport are working well and I will continue to oppose any changes to the current arrangements. That message has brought considerable confidence to residents with homes under Adelaide Airport’s flight path. Let me say here and now that there are no moves to water down the Adelaide Airport curfew. The minister opposes it and so do I. Things are in the process of changing, though, in and around the aviation industry. Last year’s aviation white paper advances the concept of consultative committees with expertise useful in assisting the minister’s assessment of airports and draft master plans and consultative committees made up of airports and stakeholders, incorporating members of the community, carriers, state government departments and the airport itself—similar to the consultative committees in operation in Sydney and Adelaide. Both Sydney and Adelaide airports have had consultative committees in operations for years, and they have proven to offer great potential for frank communication and even collaborative effort. The Adelaide experience has been a forum for people to voice their concerns and ask questions of the department, Airservices Australia and managerial units within the airport leaseholder itself. Such advances are to be encouraged wherever possible, as are those advances in the bill currently before the House. I encourage all members to support this bill. 642 11:41:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —As we are debating the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, I thought it would be opportune, given the events of yesterday and last night, to give some idea of what $42 billion means in aviation terms. In aviation terms, $42 billion could have funded the entire A380 program twice over. We could have gone from the initial design phase right through to the first flight of an aircraft for half the amount of money contained in the package put up last night. Having said that, this bill relates specifically to aviation security. As is said, the price of security is eternal vigilance. We are all familiar with that saying, although its origins are subject to dispute. However, this message has stood the test of time, and it is on that basis that I commend this bill, which builds on the work that we did when in government to make Australia a safer and more secure country. Central to this amendment bill is the extension of the authority to delegate powers from the Secretary to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to senior officials in his office and to heads of other agencies, who, in turn, may delegate to senior subordinates. I applaud this measure, which should ensure that Australia is never caught short of responsible decision makers to deal with any crisis in our skies. Key among these powers is the authority to order a plane to land at a specific airport with the objective of determining whether the aircraft remains under civil control or in fact has been hijacked. There should be none among us today who cannot recall with chilling clarity the events of September 11 2001. Indeed, the fear of terrorists looms large over all air travellers. We have been fortunate in Australia not to fall victim to such cowardly attacks. Whether this has been by chance, by effective security measures or by a combination of both, we certainly cannot ever afford to become complacent. Several recent court cases have demonstrated that there are still some in our midst who would wish us harm and, given the opportunity, no doubt would like to mimic the savagery of the loathsome September 11 murderers. We should hold our security forces in the highest regard for their success in safeguarding Australia, but we must also accept that there will always be elements in our society who, like wild dogs, will seek to turn on us for reasons comprehended only by their diseased minds. Our government under John Howard made great strides in establishing systems and procedures to boost aviation security in Australia, and it is heartening to see the current government adopting so many of our initiatives. I trust that it will not stop at such protective measures and will instead step up the fight against the enemies of Australian democracy, whether within or outside our borders. The al-Qaeda breeding grounds of Pakistan and Afghanistan are still churning out militants, and the West’s military action there needs to be stepped up in the absence of a strong-willed regime in Kabul. Tension still simmers in the Middle East, and we would be derelict in our duties if we assumed that the relative calm in Iraq is necessarily here to stay. And, of course, there is always potential for home-grown malcontents to launch strikes against Australia, with aviation always being a prime target. While we must keep in mind the rights and freedoms of our citizens, it is essential that we never give an inch to our enemies and that we prepare for all possible scenarios. This bill is a step in ensuring that state of readiness is in place. The bill also raises sensible measures to protect air passengers in other ways. State access to anonymous security-screening information from airlines for the purposes of planning and assessment is perfectly sensible. The key word here is ‘anonymous’. Security measures taken by airlines, both at airports and in the sky, are intended to protect us all. In fact, if we think the measures that we have in place in Australia are somewhat inconvenient, I am certainly reminded of a flight that I took with El Al to Israel and the security-screening procedures that they had in place. They have obviously learned from bitter experience just how vulnerable air transport can be. Certainly, I remember sitting there waiting for the security screening when one lady was called by one of the security people, who was pulling on the rubber gloves. That is the extent to which El Al goes in terms of security screening. I am not advocating that we go to that extent in Australia, but it is indicative of when circumstances are such that that level of security is necessary. That certainly does provide that security, particularly when one looks at the record of El Al since the events of the 1970s which necessitated those very stringent security procedures. Basically, they have had no incidents since then. As I have said, certainly the screening can be inconvenient, but most accept that this price is worth paying for some peace of mind. We would not be so accommodating if such measures were used to collate data about individuals for use by government. I trust the airlines also see that this is in the best interests of all concerned. Similarly, the measure in this bill to allow the copying of recordings and the examination of cockpit voice recorders, primarily to ensure they are functioning effectively, makes complete sense. Indeed, the current practice is that the cockpit voice recorder has to be removed from the aircraft, taken to another facility, tested to see if it is working and then put back in the aircraft. This clearly is inefficient when it would be very easy simply to record the cockpit voice recorder to see whether the recording is, in fact, working. One wonders why the issue of recording of the cockpit voice recorder should even be an issue. When pilots and other crew are on duty, we would hope that they are concentrating on the job at hand rather than worrying about conversations that they might have had that might embarrass them later on. Bus drivers and taxi drivers are subject to public scrutiny in the execution of their duties. There is no reason pilots should be treated differently, and perhaps every reason they should not. After all, we place our lives in their hands. Indeed, having worked in the air traffic control system in the early 1980s, I know that certainly everything that was said on air was recorded. The last point about placing our lives in pilots’ hands gets to the very point of this bill—that by its very nature the aviation sector assumes great responsibility and so must accept a high degree of accountability. As with terrorism, Australia has never had a major jet disaster. Again, this could be due to luck, good safety procedures, maintenance and training or a combination of these factors. The latter seems most likely. It is in the interests of all parties, not least the travelling public, that this fine record continue. The bill makes provision for penalties for airlines and airline staff who fail to provide information, particularly regarding accidents or other safety incidents—and quite rightly so. When Australians step onto a plane, as tens of millions do every year, they deserve to know that it has not been damaged, that it has been properly maintained and that the airline and regulatory authorities are confident it is safe to fly. In fact, the provision of jail terms for those who fail to provide such information would almost seem too light. The restriction on charges being brought within 12 months for lesser offences appears too short given the stated admission by the government that it can take years for evidence of failure to comply with regulations to emerge. The standard of six years to bring charges which would apply to more serious offences attracting jail terms of more than six months seems far more appropriate for all such breaches. None of this is intended to malign airlines, pilots or any other employees involved in the maintenance or operation of aircraft. They, and particularly pilots, enjoy a position of great respect in our society. As with other positions commanding respect, they also enjoy our trust. There is no harm in returning the favour to the society which holds them in such esteem by operating transparently, if only to assuage the fears that are held about air travel. Cooperation with regulatory authorities in this regard will also allow greater preparedness to deal with safety issues in the future and help maintain that fine safety record. In the 2006-07 financial year there were 67.4 million air passengers in Australia—22.1 million on international flights and 45.3 million on domestic routes including regional connections. These numbers are forecast to continue, particularly given the appearance of an increasing number of budget carriers and despite the financial crisis. Last October set a new monthly record, with more than two million international passengers—up 1.3 per cent from the same month the previous year. It should also be noted that in the same period there was a decline in passenger loads, with planes flying with an average of 76.9 per cent load factor from 79.5 per cent in October 2007. This has been attributed to the increasing number of airlines operating in Australia, leading to stiff competition and increased pressure on profit margins. In 2006-07 there were more than a million passenger flights in Australia, more than 130,000 of them on international routes. As the skies become more crowded in our vast country it is inevitable there will be aviation safety and security issues. This bill will help minimise such incidents and maintain a system designed to address problems and prevent their recurrence when they do occur. It is a step in the right direction and we must all remain vigilant for the sake of ourselves and our fellow citizens. 645 11:54:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I rise to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. The bill, if passed, will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. The aviation industry is utterly critical to our nation and our nation’s economy. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records that the air and space industry in Australia employs 50,000 people. The value of the air and space industry to our country annually is $6.3 billion. If you include aviation support in that, you can probably double those numbers; indeed, Qantas alone employs 37,000 Australians. Of course, jobs are very important at any point in time but, given the issues that we are dealing with at the moment and have been discussing in this parliament over the last few days, there is a certain national urgency about jobs and making sure that we who are involved in public policy have a focus on them. In my electorate of Corio we have Avalon Airport, which is rapidly becoming the second gateway to Melbourne and the greater Port Phillip Bay area. The passenger traffic at Avalon Airport has built up to almost a million passengers in a year. There are well over 1,000 people currently employed at Avalon. Jetstar flies there as one of its two Melbourne destinations. It is home to a significant amount of Qantas maintenance work. Next month, Airshows Downunder, the single biggest air show in Australia and one of the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere, will be occurring at Avalon Airport. This will be an event that is attended by Australians in their hundreds of thousands. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place about the aspiration of Avalon Airport to become an international airport. With its new general manager, Justin Giddings, a lot of work is being done with the department of transport to ensure that all the regulatory hurdles are overcome so that Avalon Airport, in the not-too-distant future, can be an airport that deals with international traffic as well. The growth of Avalon Airport perhaps represents the greatest potential for jobs growth in the Geelong region. Certainly, in a broader context of Geelong being a transport and logistics hub, not only for Victoria but nationally, with that all occurring around the northern side of Geelong where Avalon is located, the strategic importance for the Geelong economy and for Geelong employment is absolutely paramount. I think you can say more generally that airports in cities and particularly in regional communities are job centres. They are places of economic activity. Ensuring that they are supported and protected by legislative framework is a very important job that we in this place must do. Core to airports being economic centres and job centres—and therefore core to Avalon being those—is public confidence in aviation. The bedrock of that is a fundamental belief by the public that it is safe to fly. Indeed, the tremendous expansion of the aviation industry over the 20th century has been founded on a fundamental premise that it is safe to fly. That is why the bills before the House are so important. They go to the very issue of security and safety in aviation, which is the bedrock of an industry that is providing so much employment and economic activity in our nation at a time when we need every bit of that that we can possibly find. These bills provide additional safety and security measures for our aviation system in four ways. The first measure is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act to increase the amount of aviation security information that can be collected by the secretary to the department of transport. Currently, the definition of aviation security information in the Aviation Transport Security Act is quite narrow, which means that the kind of information that can be collected by the secretary to the department of transport is correspondingly narrow. It is defined as being security compliance information—that is, information relevant to a person or a body complying with the Aviation Transport Security Act. But there is quite a lot of information out there which may not be directly relevant to a strict compliance with the act but which may be very relevant to security and safety within the aviation industry. It is that kind of information which this amendment will allow to be collected by the secretary of the department of transport. An often quoted example of that is statistics around the screening of baggage or passengers. The second measure contained in this bill is an amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act in relation to widening the delegation of functions and responsibilities held by the secretary of the department of transport under the Aviation Transport Security Act. Currently, those functions and responsibilities can be delegated within the department of transport. But in an emergency there may be cause for the powers that are normally exercised by the secretary of the department of transport to be exercised by someone else. An example which is often quoted in relation to this is the power to direct a plane to land. In an emergency situation, it is utterly essential that there is somebody on deck who has the legal authority to exercise that power and carry out those responsibilities. In a circumstance where the secretary to the department of transport finds himself or herself unable to exercise those functions and responsibilities and there is no-one within the department of transport who would be in a position to exercise those functions and responsibilities, then a situation may arise where an emergency occurs and there is actually nobody who is in a position to exercise the powers that need to be exercised. To deal with that contingency, this measure will widen the pool of people who can receive a delegation from the secretary to the department of transport in relation to those functions and responsibilities. That pool is widened to secretaries to other departments that are involved in national security and, indeed, other agencies with heads of like standing to the secretary to a department. That in effect widens the pool of potential delegates in an emergency situation so that if there is an emergency and there are a number of people, for one reason or another, not in a position to exercise those powers, a person can ultimately be found who can exercise the powers under the act—an important contingency to be provided through this amendment to the act. The third measure is an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act in relation to information contained on cockpit voice recorders. Information contained on cockpit voice recorders is strictly confidential. It is appropriate that it be strictly confidential. The people who are engaging in the conversations which form the recordings on cockpit voice recorders need to be able to have whatever conversations they have to have in the complete knowledge that they are acting in a confidential environment. Cockpit voice recorders, like every other piece of equipment, need to be tested and maintained. That obviously means that information may need to be copied or to the person who is doing the testing and the maintenance. This amendment to the Civil Aviation Act provides for an exception to that confidentiality rule within the act to allow for the proper and regular maintenance and testing of cockpit voice recorders. That may seem like a very detailed and small issue, but in May 2005, after the very tragic air accident that occurred at Lockhart River, with the resultant deaths of 15 people, the cockpit voice recorder that was recovered from that plane in fact had no usable data. This added to the tragedy of that event because it meant the investigation into what occurred was necessarily limited by the absence of that information. So, as detailed and specific as this provision may appear, it is indeed very important. The final measure contained in this bill is an amendment to the Transport Safety Investigation Act. Firstly, the amendment to this act will stiffen the reporting requirements on accidents and incidents and will also increase the ability of the executive director of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to gather more information around incidents and accidents, which in turn is important to enable the proper research and analysis of those incidents and accidents. This measure will also seek to stiffen the penalty regime for failing to report incidents and accidents and failing to provide information being sought by the executive director of the ATSB. Currently there is a statute of limitations contained in the act for prosecutions by the ATSB for failure to provide information. In some cases that statute of limitations is as short as 12 months. There may well be circumstances where it would be impossible to properly carry out a prosecution within that period of time and so prosecutions are not occurring. This amendment will provide that for serious offences—that is, offences which carry a custodial term of more than six months—there will be no statute of limitations, as indeed there is not in other criminal prosecutions, and for smaller offences there will be a statute of limitations of six years. Each of these measures seeks to improve the safety and security of our aviation industry. Our aviation industry, as I said, is very critical to our economy. In a nation which Geoffrey Blainey once described as being characterised by the tyranny of distance, aviation is fundamental to the way Australia works. It is fundamental to our way of life. Everybody in this chamber and in this parliament absolutely understands that by virtue of the number of hours that we spend on planes. The aviation industry has, in fact, gone a very long way to overcoming the tyranny of distance which characterised Australia in the past. It is very important to our economy. It is very important to our jobs base. At the heart of our aviation industry is safety. There needs to be public confidence in the industry and people need to know that they can get to where they are going safely. At the heart of this bill is making the security and safety regime of our industry more robust. For that reason I support the bill. 648 12:06:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, introduced during the last week of parliamentary sittings in December 2008. I have every confidence that Australian aviation safety and security are and should be of the utmost priority for both sides of government and should always be the subject of continual review to implement industry improvements. This was certainly brought fairly and squarely into focus for us all following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The coalition took action to improve aviation security in Australia to protect Australian and international travellers and our Australian skies. The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 involved aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required the development of and compliance with a transport security program. This legislation also strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. Additionally, the coalition introduced the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which required incidents related to transport safety to be reported. It also laid out a framework for the lodging of reports on the investigation of transport safety incidents. As the challenges facing aviation security change, it is important that our response adjusts to this change. Since September 11, aviation security in Australia, by absolute necessity, has gone through drastic changes in a very short time. These changes were necessary in order to manage the terrorist threat and ensure air travel safety, with $1.2 billion spent to improve security, which, of course, included sky marshals. Given Australia’s record in aviation security, we may conclude that the changes we made have been effective because of the diligence and vigilance of those charged with ensuring this secure environment in the skies. Because we cannot take this security for granted, I ask the government to support continued aviation security, including sky marshals. With this bill the government has identified four amendments that aim to further strengthen aviation transport security and safety by amending the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. I note that part 2 of schedule 1, relating to the proposed amendment to allow copying and disclosure of aircraft cockpit voice recorder information for maintenance purposes, and part 3, relating to the amendment to the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to change penalties for offences and allow the gathering of information, are proposed to commence on 1 July 2009. The proposed amendment widens the scope of information that can be requested by the secretary to the department under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, allowing the secretary the power to collect other information which currently falls outside the scope of that definition and not limiting the kinds of information that may be prescribed by regulation to be collected. Such information would include the screening of passengers, baggage, cargo or airport zones. This will provide greater transparency in the effectiveness and efficiency of screening and security procedures as the challenges to aviation security change and the sophistication of the threat changes as well. However, by adding the words ‘and aviation security information’ after the words ‘security compliance information’ it certainly broadens the scope of information able to be collected and disclosed. It would not only be information relating to the screening statistics of passengers and baggage, clearance activities and different security zones but it could also encompass the collection and disclosure of personal information on airline passengers. As the broader collection of information may well allow for personal information and individuals to be reported, I strongly believe the regulation must contain the same set of privacy principles set out in the Privacy Act 1988, which all Commonwealth agencies as well as private industry must comply with when collecting personal information from or about individuals. As stated in the bill, the government intends that the department will consult widely on the scope of aviation security information that may be collected and disclosed before the regulations are finalised. This consultation needs to be thorough and deal with the issue I have raised. However, as regulations are not subject to full parliamentary debate, I will be very interested in the results of the consultative process. Part 2 of the bill proposes amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to allow for the copying and disclosure of aircraft cockpit voice recorder information for the purpose of testing its functioning and reliability. And, as the previous member said, we know that is why that is so important. This bill will clear any doubt that the copying of cockpit voice recorder information for maintenance is permissible and enable those kinds of faults to be discovered and dealt with more easily. These amendments were first proposed when the coalition was in government and we certainly support them now. I believe this is a logical amendment, as the current confidentiality requirements could be interpreted as making it unlawful to copy or disclose cockpit voice recorder information for legitimate maintenance purposes and will continue to ensure the availability of voice recorder information in the future for accident investigations. This amendment can only enhance the safety of regular public transport aircraft. As stated in the government’s national aviation policy green paper on page 23: The aviation industry is a key driver of broader economic prosperity and a strategic approach … is required to secure the industry’s future and promote the best interests of the travelling public and businesses that rely on the aviation sector. Declining regional populations was identified as a key challenge facing the aviation industry. I note that in an article in the Australian on 30 January the Regional Aviation Association of Australia was quoted as saying: The RAAA is unhappy that the green paper was ‘virtually silent’ about a strategy for regional Australia. RAAA chief executive, Paul Tyrrell, is quoted as saying: There was a ‘fair bit of passion’ among RAAA members about increasing growth from the regional ports to the main cities and re-establishing routes between regional centres. ‘If we look on aviation the same as education, health and telecommunications, these are the services that build regional Australia,’ he said. ‘We’d like the government, state and federal but federal particularly, to see aviation as one of those essential services.’ The article also said: The RAAA also believes the Government should look more closely at areas such as research and development as well as aircraft and component manufacturing in regional areas. I would support this view, given the growth and opportunity for aviation in my electorate of Forrest. With the population growth in the south-west of Western Australia, the anticipated increase in demand for air travel to service our fly-in, fly-out workers, tourism and the plans to attract more short, long stay and potentially international visitors and tourists to the region, as well as physically connecting the localities of Bunbury, Collie, Busselton, Augusta, Nannup, Margaret River and Manjimup with Perth and potentially in the future with interstate or overseas airports, has been a strategy that the relevant shire and city councils have been working on. There are many private charter aircraft and aviation enthusiasts operating within the region. Of course any expansion of aviation legislation and improvement to security and safety will only benefit the forward planning that shires or the Bunbury City Council have in place for the development of their own regional airports, aerodromes and airstrips. Currently, checked baggage and passenger screening is only required for jet aircraft but not for turboprop driven aircraft providing regular public transport services. Requirements for hardened cockpit doors only apply to 30-seat and above aircraft used for regular public transport and not to cargo aircraft. Security at regional airports and local airstrips has expanded over recent years to implement parking restrictions on aprons, tie-down areas and yoke yards. However, funding for the development, expansion and construction of regional airport infrastructure in my electorate of Forrest cannot go ahead without assistance from the Australian government as well as state and local governments, in much the same way as the Australian and state governments collaboratively assist with funding for regional roads, rail and ports. Future increased security measures at expanded regional airports in Forrest will require government funding as the costs would be spread over a lower regional passenger base compared with Perth and other city airports. The Australian government’s confirmation to continue with flexible support for local governments through untied financial assistance grants and through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program is required for the upgrading and expansion of airports in the south-west. Investment from federal, state and local governments will ensure a coordinated approach to improving airport safety, and I anticipate that this will extend to regional airports and not just remote airstrips. The WA government has its own Regional Airports Development Scheme that has played a significant role in helping develop airport infrastructure in regional Western Australia. WA was the first state to provide funding for airport infrastructure in regional areas and it works in partnership with airport owners to meet access needs and contributes to regional economic growth. Following the 2007-08 funding round allocation, the program has injected approximately $12.3 million to approximately 137 projects since 2001 including recipients in my electorate in Busselton and Manjimup. In addition to this, the funds spent on projects in regional airports in Forrest under the Regional Airports Development Scheme amounted to over $7 million. Augusta, the City of Bunbury, Busselton, Manjimup, Collie, Margaret River and Nannup all received funding. It is estimated that the average number of aircraft using the Busselton Regional Airport on a daily basis is between seven and 10 aircraft, resulting in between 15 and 20 daily aircraft movements—often charter flights for fly-in, fly-out mining operational staff but also tourism flights. Currently the shires of Busselton and Augusta-Margaret River, in association with the department of tourism, are conducting a feasibility study on the possible benefits of establishing a regular passenger service to the south-west cape region. The population of the Shire of Busselton increased by over 7,000 people from 17,419 in 1996 to 25,000 in 2006—an increase of 43 per cent. Over the same period the state population grew by 15 per cent. That highlights the rapid population growth the Shire of Busselton has experienced over the past decade. Its urban growth strategy has prepared a growth plan to cater for an additional 11,000 to 12,000 people over the next 15 to 20 years. Therefore the need to consider expanding airport operations and services is a relatively urgent one for the area, and all matters of security; safety; noise abatement; airport services such as hangers, refuelling, firefighting, air traffic control; as well as bird hazards, access roads, water and power supply, sewerage and terminal facilities are diligently being investigated and plans developed to expand airport facilities to cater for that expected growth. Margaret River, the wine region that I am sure members all know about, has terminal facilities of a transfer station available to the essential Flying Doctor service patients only. There is no aircraft refuelling service and no air traffic control. The Shire of Augusta-Margaret River put together its aerodrome plan in June 2007 to develop the airport infrastructure in preparation for increased demand for regular public transport and charter services driven by population and business growth. The Bunbury City Council has also undertaken an analysis study on its airport to ascertain best use of the current location with upgrades to expand its infrastructure for future growth and in fact investigated the possibility of relocating the airport to an alternative site. I applaud the foresight of the shires and city councils in Forrest in recognising the need to upgrade infrastructure to cater for the demands that future growth in the region will bring. My other concern with the government’s green paper in relation to domestic aviation and the carbon pollution reduction scheme is that the government intends to achieve set targets through this economy-wide scheme for capping and trading emissions to be implemented in 2010. The aviation sector will be included with the whole-of-government approach to climate change. With the expanding capacity at regional airports, this may make it harder for new competition to enter the industry to establish regular public transport domestic air services if the scheme is being capped and the cost and availability of permits are beyond the reach of these new, emerging regional airport operations. Other amendments proposed in this bill will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to enable the secretary of the department to delegate his authority under the Aviation Transport Security Act to other agencies. The secretary would still retain overall authority and could set restrictions on the kinds of actions the delegate could take or withdraw the delegation, as the situation warranted. This change will ensure that the government could act in preplanned or prolonged situations where time is critical and resources are limited, or the secretary is unavailable. Finally, the bill amends the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to strengthen the powers of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to require further information after a report on an aviation incident, to increase penalties and to allow the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to prosecute for failure to report an aviation incident up to six years after the commission of the offence. This would replace the current 12-month limit on prosecutions, as it can sometimes take years for such an offence to be discovered. This legislation will build on the existing legislation, enabling us to maintain solid aviation security in an efficient and effective way. Overall, the legislation seeks to strengthen the security regime created by the coalition to make Australia’s skies safer. I support the bill, but I assure the House and the aviation industry that I will scrutinise the supporting regulations. 652 12:23:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I rise to speak on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. With the time limited today I will not talk at length about the amendments and what they mean, but I want to bring to the attention of this chamber a significant event that happened in the electorate of Forde in 1937. It was one of the very earliest aviation crashes or disasters and is better known as the Stinson crash, which gained worldwide notoriety because of the actions that led up to that crash. This happened just prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, so aviation as an industry and Australia’s role in aviation were more limited than what they became as part of our war effort. The Stinson crash was well known for a range of reasons. Certainly it was a significant air crash and there was the fact that it just went missing. The coronial inquiry and the inquest raised a number of points, and I am going to read the final outcome of that coronial inquiry and the suggestions that came out of that particular document—points not unlike, in a modern form, some of the discussion we have had today about the amendments to try to improve not only security but also safety measures in terms of airline travel, aircraft and the aviation industry generally. In those days the Stinson aircraft was on a regular air route between Brisbane and Sydney, and of course it was fairly expensive to travel at that time. The coroner’s outcome talks about the modern form of travel, given that the airline industry globally was probably only around 30 years old. At that time major advances had occurred in terms of the comfort and design of the aircraft. In terms of safety, the aviation industry has always been very safe, especially because of incidences like this that occurred in 1937. The story is that the plane disappeared somewhere between Brisbane and Sydney, and eyewitnesses on the ground during a rain event—a storm—heard the plane, as they did on many occasions. In fact, they used to almost set their watches by the sound of the aircraft coming over. These days we hear aircraft or see aircraft and it does not take much of our attention, but in 1937 something like an aircraft flying over was quite an event. For the farmers in the Beaudesert district towards the border ranges, in that rural part of my electorate, it became a regular event. On this particular day the plane engines were heard in one locality but certainly not further south and it was believed that this crash had occurred somewhere in the McPherson—the border—Ranges. If members know the story, for about nine days there was no knowledge of what had happened to this aircraft. However, one man thought he knew—that is, Bernard O’Reilly from the now famous O’Reilly’s guesthouse on Green Mountain. The O’Reilly family were an Irish migrant family of dairy farmers farming the area—and one has to wonder why anyone would farm on top of a mountain with all of the difficulties that that would pose. Today, the famous O’Reilly’s guesthouse is a place that people regularly attend. Being a good mountaineer, Bernard O’Reilly believed that he knew what had happened to the Stinson and went off in search of it. From the top of one mountain he looked across into the valley and saw a small burnt-out patch and realised that that was probably where the aircraft was located. As I said, it was a world event; it made world news. Of course, everyone converged on the area, with Beaudesert set up as the site from where they would go to find out what had happened to the aircraft. Ultimately, Bernard O’Reilly climbed up to the crash site and came across the only two survivors out of the seven on board. They informed him that a fellow called James Westray had gone seeking help. He was a mountaineer from Scotland who decided to very cleverly travel down to the bottom of the valley and along the river. However, he had not come out the other side so Bernard O’Reilly went looking for Westray and found him dead on the side of the river. He had had a fall, broken his ankle and must have had other internal injuries. It was a sad tragedy which resulted in a better understanding of the need for more safety controls in aircraft. It was a major catalyst, in fact, in getting proper radio control within aircraft. In closing, I want to very briefly read from the coroner’s final report: The inquest is closed. The Coroners Act does not empower me to make any findings. I think, however, that this inquest, the importance of which is emphasised by the serious loss of life which created the need for holding it, can scarcely be allowed to end on such a formal decision. Without, I hope, exceeding the bounds of my coronial limitations, I express the opinion that the evidence which has been given in open court—if studied by the authorities closely concerned with ensuring the safety of aerial passenger traffic and by the public, or perhaps, to be exact, by that section of it interested in such means of modern transport—will be found to furnish material from which it should be possible to draw sound and base conclusions pointing to the pressing need for improved methods of ground organisation, centralised control and supervision at the aerodrome of pilots and their duties, the supply of up-to-minute weather reports on air routes, the establishment of reporting stations and the utilisation to the fullest extent of radio aids. Tragic fatalities should not be awaited to provide generating reasons for the institution of improvements to the safeguard of human life. Incidentally, it is just that I should mention that evidence tendered in summary of the achievement of the company which carries on the service in which the crash occurred indicates that, under existing flying conditions, it has a very good, comforting record. That is signed on 16 April 1937 by the coroner. That is a very interesting document, and the evidence that was collected through that inquiry is largely why today we have safety measures in place and why we as a government are now making amendments to ensure that we continually look after the aviation industry. Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. 653 Adjournment Mr MELHAM (Banks) 12:30:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 653 653 12:31:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —Last year in September, 19-year-old Emily Nye from the Shoalhaven participated in the National Student Leadership Forum. I would like to read a condensed version of her comments onto the record, as only she can best describe her own feelings that the forum generated. This is what she wrote: Leading up to the Forum I was excited but scared at the same time. Walking into a room of 300 strangers was the most daunting situation I’ve ever experienced. As an aside, I have to say that Emily is an amateur entertainer, so the occasion must have been exceptionally daunting. She continued: Over the next 4 days I knew I would make some friends but at this moment I was completely out of my comfort zone. I have never been inside Parliament House before and it was an incredible building, although we did arrive at 2pm and didn’t leave until 10.30 pm, so it was an extremely long day. After going through security twice, where you weren’t allowed to take in any electrical devices, watches, water bottles and other ridiculous items, we went into Question Time and to be completely honest, it was like watching a group of children. I remember thinking, ‘these are the people looking after this country’? This seemed to be the general opinion of everyone in my group. It was a very surreal experience, sitting above, looking down at the Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament and actually knowing they were only metres away. We had an introduction with the organizers of the Forum and then we had a meet and greet with the Opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull. Over the very first day we had many meet and greets with other Members of Parliament. I found listening to all the different Parliamentarians one on one, that my attitude toward them changed very quickly. They were just ordinary people and nothing like the people you see in Question Time or on the news. We had dinner in the Great Hall and my group was a little late in attending. One of the members in my group actually worked for one of the Members of the Labor Party, therefore he had access to areas others didn’t, so we took a detour by the Prime Minister’s office, more like a wing, on our way to dinner. Over dinner we were addressed by Mr David Moffatt, the CEO of Telstra and enjoyed a performance from the Australian of the Year, Mr Lee Kernaghan, who incidentally broke his G-string whilst playing his guitar. I appreciate the double entendre here. She continued: Back at the hotel it was a struggle to find my room but I eventually did after getting lost down many corridors. The next day we took the bus to the Australian War Memorial where we listened to an inspirational speech about servant leadership, standing around the reflective pool. We then made our way back to Parliament House to attend political seminars. At the political seminars, you would listen to a politician speaking of their experiences and challenges they’ve overcome to be where they are today. We then attended a meet and greet with the Prime Minister before having small group time over lunch. Following sport in the afternoon another small group time after dinner at 8.30 which ran until the early hours of the morning. Over this small group time we all got to know each other and I truly believe this was the most honest any of us had ever been. Being complete strangers, I would never have thought that everyone would open up and discuss their ideas for the future, their issues and problems they’ve had in the past and insecurities they were facing. It was amazing to sit and listen to everyone’s stories and learn that everyone had the same insecurities and ideas as I did. Getting to know everyone on this personal level really bonded the group and I can truly say that I left Canberra with 8 best friends who I completely trusted and cherished. Saturday we had community seminars covering a wide range of topics such as racism, community spirit and youths at risk just to name a few. We then had a community service project in Queanbeyan. My group had a gardening activity at a private home where we had fun feeding the chickens and getting our faces painted by the 3 little girls living there. That night we had a Bollywood Dinner Dance which was a fantastic night out. We got to learn Bollywood dancing and have competitions. It was also a great time to sit down and discuss what we had learnt over the last 3 days. I remember getting back to the Hotel and I was crying on the phone to mum because I really didn’t want to come home. Sunday morning arrived and everyone in my group was quiet during breakfast. I kept looking around at everyone and I was getting really emotional knowing that I would have to say goodbye to my new family. We went outside for the final Small Group time and relived the last 3 days we had together. We finally had to say goodbye and I just couldn’t stop crying, which then led to my Group leader crying as well. I said goodbye to everyone, got numbers, emails etc. We also received a Yearbook so we can keep in touch with everyone and I think we were all very thankful to Facebook where we can catch up on a regular basis. I had the most amazing time in Canberra and I am so thankful to have been invited and chosen to attend the National Student Leadership Forum 2008. Although daunting at the time, being pushed out of my comfort zone was the most extraordinary thing for me to experience and I’ll always cherish the time spent at the Forum, even though it meant me crying the entire way home over the following 2 days. 655 655 12:35:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —Bush For Life is one of the programs run by Trees For Life, a non-profit community organisation that works to protect, maintain and renew the native vegetation of South Australia. Bush For Life concentrates on weed management, with a philosophy of minimum disturbance, biodiversity and ongoing commitment. Bush For Life is apolitical; in spite of the name, there are no links to recently disappointed American Republicans. Instead, they work together with landowners and councils, selecting sites with high conservation value for ongoing care. An important aspect of this is to prioritise the areas with the least weed infestation, as this prevents further spread and encourages lasting renewal. Volunteers then receive training in bush regeneration techniques, plant identification and bush management, as well as the continuing support and advice of regional coordinators and staff. One of my constituents, Kevin McCormack, invited me to visit the Bush For Life site that he works on. Together with fellow site volunteers Michael Vaughan and Graham Greaves and Bush For Life manager Mark Ellis, we braved the 40 degree plus heat to view the thankfully roadside site. It was a good education. Whilst in a cultivated garden, weeds are merely a source of sore backs; in the bush they are a deadly threat to a delicate ecology. At this Bush For Life site, the volunteers’ three main adversaries are boneseed, bridle creeper and blackberry—all introduced species that have been identified as weeds of national significance. Like a ‘most wanted’ list for criminals, the weeds of national significance are 20 weeds in Australia judged to pose the greatest threat due to the damage they inflict, dangerous potential and aggressive spread. Boneseed, for example, has a competitive edge, with its ability to regenerate quickly after fire and clearances, as well as having a shallow root system that absorbs the moisture from light showers before more deep-rooted plants have a chance. Apparently named for the colour of their prolific seeds, their hard shell and indigestibility make their name equally apt and ensure wide dispersal. The bridal creeper’s climbing vegetation smothers the natives above ground, whilst its thick mat of tubers strangle their root systems below. Blackberries use fruit to bribe the fauna into spreading their seed, whilst also reproducing from their canes and roots. Any trip through the Adelaide Hills can show you the success of their multilayered reproductive technique and the impenetrable thickets that result. All these weeds steal the native plants’ space, nutrients and water—vital for their existence. As introduced species they take nature by surprise, with no natural predators to contain their spread and ensure biodiversity and balance. As our native bush plants are driven from the land, so too are our native insects, birds and animals that rely on them for their own survival.  For 15 years, Kevin and his fellow volunteers have worked on their site, and the difference to the adjoining bushland is evident, even to an untrained eye such as mine. Nature is amazingly resilient, but it needs a chance to breathe. The Bush For Life program gives it just that. The native plants the volunteers try to introduce to the site generally refuse to thrive. Instead, the land followed its own initiative, with golden wattle in particular returning in large numbers. However, without ongoing maintenance, in five years our national floral symbol will once again have been trampled beneath the aggressive march of introduced species. Continuity is vital. In South Australia, we have just endured a record-breaking heatwave and face the prospect of climate change bringing hotter and hotter temperatures with less and less rainfall. We are suffering through a drought that has seen our rivers turned into algae infested swamps and our soil turned barren. Our environment is under serious threat. As Kevin told me, the work he does through Bush For Life helps him cope with the sense of tragedy, fear and powerlessness that climate change can engender. Taking positive action through a well-organised community program such as Bush For Life helps the environment while also empowering the individual and strengthening the community. With the training and support of the program, volunteers not only gain knowledge and appreciation of the extraordinary and beautiful native environment in which we live but through their action and commitment also give us and our bushland hope for the future. Bush For Life currently manages over 300 sites in South Australia, with more than 4,000 hectares getting dedicated assistance from nearly 700 volunteers. It is a community program that does South Australia proud and deserves our support. 656 656 12:40:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —Every January or December since 1988 in my electorate of Swan the Burswood Dome has hosted the Hopman Cup international tennis tournament. The cup is Western Australia’s premier tennis event and serves as an important warm-up fixture prior to the Australian Open. I was fortunate enough to attend a couple of matches this year and I acknowledge the great work done by the tournament staff. I met with Paul McNamee and had a very informative discussion with him. I know that the work done by Annette Livesay is second to none, and her expertise in the event organisation is well known in Perth. The support of all the sponsors, including Eventscorp, is vital for the continuation of this unique event. The tournament has a unique format of being a knockout mixed doubles event over the best of three rubbers. Over time, this enterprising innovation has been rewarded with the participation of 21 of the No. 1 world players. Roger Federer and Martina Hingis, two legends of the game, won the 2000 tournament for Switzerland. Most members in this room would have at some point watched the competition on TV, courtesy of the first-class and very professional coverage provided by the ABC national broadcaster. Unfortunately, it has recently come to my attention that the ABC is considering ending its coverage of the tournament when its contract expires this year. I fear this would mark the beginning of the end for the Hopman Cup. Fifteen years of ABC coverage has helped ensure strong national and international exposure and a focus on Perth. Exposure is important in a number of respects. Firstly, good exposure can help attract a good attendance. The people of my electorate have been strong supporters of this tournament over the years. This year, attendance at the dome was 72,171—an increase on last year’s figure. Secondly, good exposure is a component in attracting the highest-quality players. The 21 No. 1 world players hosted since 1988 is a testament to that. Thirdly, good exposure leads to international legitimacy. Each successful year helps the event to cement its position on the international tennis calendar. However, potentially the most destructive result of reducing exposure would be the possible variation and/or renegotiation of sponsorship contracts. Contracts with the Hopman Cup require a minimum of 25 hours of free-to-air television coverage to be valid. Currently, the ABC broadcasts 42 hours. If ABC coverage ended, contracts would have to be varied and the lack of exposure to a national audience would surely mean a dramatic fall in sponsorship for the Hopman Cup. A decline in sponsorship revenue would reduce the ability of the tournament to attract the best players. The ABC pulling out of the cup would be disastrous for WA tennis. It would likely see further centralisation of international tennis on the east coast. This must not be allowed to happen. I understand the key motivation for the ABC to concentrate more on women’s and regional sport. I point out that the feedback I have received from regional Australia about the Hopman Cup coverage has been extremely positive. People as far away as Far North Queensland have commented on how much they enjoy the broadcast. It is interesting to note also that the ABC threatened to withdraw its coverage of the Women’s National Basketball League last year, but a furore from the community erupted and it changed its mind. Hopefully, this will happen with the Hopman Cup as well. It is also important to remember that tennis is one of the biggest women’s participation sports in Australia and that half the competitors at the Hopman Cup are women. I have written to the ABC director of sport asking the ABC to consider its review of the contract for next season. If anything, the ABC should perhaps be considering extending its coverage to the legendary night sessions. A comment on the ABC websites states: My husband and I look forward to this each year and am disappointed that ABC Free to Air do not have the complete coverage. We will miss tonights match and every night as we do not have pay tv and cannot afford. Please ABC free to air, can you please get the night matches as well. Perth is a fantastic city that deserves to host important events. The Hopman Cup organisers deal with the players, coaches, officials, VIPs, the army of volunteers and other staff with consummate professionalism. I hope the ABC will recognise that, acknowledge the local and international support for the cup and continue to provide its fantastic coverage in the years to come. The local community supports this event through all the children who are ball boys and ball girls who come from the various tennis clubs all around the district of Perth to support the Hopman Cup. So I will fight and continue to fight to save this important event in my electorate of Swan. 657 657 12:45:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 0 Mr SULLIVAN —Can I say to the member for Swan that I would like to support him in his call for the continued television coverage of the Hopman Cup. It is an excellent tournament and a wonderful format in which to give some prominence to women in the game, although they are achieving that of their own volition more latterly. Particularly, we could mention the wonderful result for Jelena Dokic in the Australian hardcourt championships recently. I rise today to express my absolute astonishment at the fact that the members of the opposition in this place are seeking to block the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. The media comment that I have been able to see in the short time that I have had to review the media this morning seems to be suggesting that the media thinks this is a courageous act by the opposition in the Sir Humphrey mould. People contacting my office are overwhelmingly supporting it—but not, I should say, 100 per cent. There are some people who have contacted my office thinking that we have gone a step too far, but overwhelmingly, they are supporting it. Just a moment ago I received an email from somebody wanting to find out the details of the tax breaks for capital purchases for business. He obviously wants to take advantage of that to help his business. I thought I would have a look to see what this package provides for the people of Longman, the electorate that I represent here. In this package, 13,638 children will receive the back-to-school bonus. That is about $12.9 million, which will be paid in the week commencing 11 March. The single-income family bonus for those on family tax benefit part B will go to 12,879 people—another $12.2 million. That is $25.1 million going to people in my electorate who have a propensity to spend it in the week beginning 11 March. That has to do great things for the retail businesses in my electorate. The point of this household stimulus package is to put money into circulation now and, by giving it to people who are most likely to spend it, it will circulate more than just the once. On top of that, 4,139 people will be eligible for the training and learning bonus—another $4 million. The largest percentage of taxpayers in my electorate will receive the maximum of the tax bonus for working Australians. There will be $25-plus million in March and easily that much more between April and August cascading through. This is good for businesses in my electorate and it is good for jobs in my electorate, as people would understand if they had taken a moment to actually look at the retail figures for December that were released yesterday. The infrastructure stimulus of $23 billion makes up the greatest part of this package—not the money that goes into the pockets of people. In my electorate there are 40 schools: 26 primary, four combined primary and secondary schools and 10 secondary schools. All of these schools will receive money out of this package—money that they need to give our kids the best opportunity to receive a decent 21st century education or for those niggly refurbishments that need to be done. Public housing will receive $6.6 billion. My electorate is one where there is a long waiting list for public housing. This will help our people. There is additional money for the community infrastructure fund. I know that our mayor is in this building today. In round 1 of that program, my council submitted an application for $6 million as part of a $10 million project to build an equestrian centre. There is funding for boom gates at rail crossings and black spot programs. By not producing the money for these, we are putting the lives of Australian motorists at risk. I think the opposition ought to have another think about what it is doing in relation to this program. 658 658 12:50:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I rise to condemn the Rudd Labor government for failing to properly manage Australia through the global financial difficulties that have the potential to beggar the robust Australian economy and certainly to indebt generations to come. We have, of course, had a long record—it is almost a pattern of behaviour—of Labor governments putting the country into debt, and coalitions, or Liberal governments, bringing us out of debt. But it can take 10 years. It did the last time, with the $96 billion we inherited from Keating and Hawke. It looks like, with the new open cheque of $200 billion potentially, it is going to take the next coalition government even longer to bring the country back into order. Sadly, that will be at a huge price to the capacity of the country to invest in infrastructure, important services, to help those most needy and to stop the continued emergence of two different Australias: those in rural and regional Australia and those in the cities. In particular, on behalf of rural Australia I want to express my extreme disappointment—I guess my disgust, too—at the attention given to the rural sector in this just-announced so-called Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Let me remind members that in this plan we were told that there would be a farmers hardship bonus. Some 21,500 would be eligible for this farmers hardship bonus of about $950. Only those on exceptional circumstances would be eligible to receive this amount. That is only 14 per cent of Australia’s farmers. Across the nation we have other farmers in distress due to not only drought but also flood. Some are coming through extraordinary times with low prices and high input costs so that it is very hard to make ends meet, but only 14 per cent of Australian farmers will be eligible for the farmers hardship bonus. Meanwhile the same package gives an un-means-tested thousand-dollar grant to anyone who wants to have insulation in their ceiling. How can you equate those two measures in terms of justice, equity or just plain decency? The 86 per cent of farmers across Australia who have equally serious problems in terms of the global economic impact—in particular, it has affected producers of beef, dairy, wine, fruit et cetera—are not eligible for the farmers hardship bonus. I guess they can take some consolation in getting a thousand dollars worth of insulation! I can assure you that it will not be a compensation for them. All it does is rub salt into their wounds as once again they are overlooked. Primary producers are just that: they are employers; they are producers. They go out into the export markets of the world and compete against subsidised product. They have world-best product in so many cases. We have just heard how the European Union—and, soon to follow, the United States—is throwing subsidies back into the global dairy markets, which will make the recovery for our dairy industry even harder. I want to put on record the problems of the export dairying sector, in particular those who produce market milk. They employ across the board a significant proportion of the 40,000 people in the dairy sector. At the farm gate they have something like $11.5 billion annual value. This is the wholesale value of their product. They are now being offered prices below the cost of production, particularly in northern Victoria. They are a sector of the rural economy that has had drought for 10 years. We have just had a talk from Fonterra, one of the major manufacturers from northern Victoria—though this is also occurring in other parts of Australia such as Tasmania and Western Australia—which has acknowledged that the prices it is offering in northern Victoria are below the cost of production. It cannot see how even its best producers will be able to survive with that. Is there a mention of dairy farming or the dairy industry in this so-called stimulus package? Of course there is not a word. Dairy farmers are supposed to line up—some 14 per cent of them—for the farmers hardship bonus of $900-odd. That would not pay their fodder bills for a week. This package from the Rudd Labor government is an insult. It reinforces a notion that the rural and regional sections of Australia are out of sight and out of mind—that because Labor does not represent them in this place it does not have to care. Thank heavens we have the coalition—in particular, the Liberal and National Party representatives, including my friend here—who will continue to fight for the rights of rural and regional Australians. They just have to look at what is in this package to see that, with only 14 per cent being addressed, there is a real problem. (Time expired) 660 660 12:55:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise today to speak about Jack Pompei OAM—a man who touched many lives and helped shape our local community. Jack was born in Italy and came to Australia with his family at a very young age. They settled in Mordialloc in the 1920s and Jack never left the town until his death on 30 December last year. I feel it is important to talk about Jack today in this place for two reasons: to recognise his hard work in making our area a better place and to discuss why it is important that the campaign to rename Mordialloc Bridge in his honour is successful. It would surprise no-one who knew Jack that hundreds of people lined the streets of Mordialloc to farewell him. Jack was best known for building boats, many of which still sail the waters of Port Phillip Bay. His creations are dotted all around the globe. Boating must be in the Pompei blood, because Jack’s father was a sailor and fisherman and taught both Jack and his brother Joe how to build boats. Jack and Joe became famous locally for their boats. The Pompei Boat Shed, located on Mordialloc Creek, is a local landmark. The landing on the creek near the boatshed had already been named ‘Pompei’s Landing’ before he passed away—an honour I know he was very proud of. Another honour Jack received was the Medal of the Order of Australia back in 1987 for his phenomenal work in marine search and rescue in Port Phillip Bay. It is estimated that he rescued more than 600 people over the years; some believe it was more than 1,000. Regardless of the number, it was a remarkable effort to head out into the bay, day or night, no matter what the weather, and pick up distressed people who had fallen foul of the sea. Jack was a local activist to whom the phrase ‘the personal is political’ could well be applied. He was a determined defender of Mordialloc Creek, harassing the state government to fix up the dying creek and constantly meeting with the Environment Protection Authority and local politicians to do more for one of Mordialloc’s defining features. Jack once said, ‘Take the creek out of Mordialloc and there would be nothing here.’ I was lucky enough to meet with Jack last year, at his boatshed where he explained to me what needed to be done to improve Mordialloc Creek and how it could be done. It was a privilege to spend time with him, and I came away with a more resolute belief that a lot more needs to be done in restoring Mordialloc Creek. The Kingston City Council and state authorities are looking at a proposal to do just that: to restore Mordialloc Creek. I am sorry that Jack will not be with us to share in the effort—one that I hope the whole community will be a part of—that will improve what, in a sense, has become a degraded environment. I am sure that Jack’s family has been touched by the outpouring of support following his passing, but I doubt that they would be surprised by the amount of it. It was no surprise to see the local police stopping traffic on the Nepean Highway at the time of his funeral, and it was no surprise to see the many hundreds of people who turned out for the funeral. Jack used to be called ‘Mr Mordialloc’, and I can think of no better honour for Jack than that the newly renovated Mordialloc Bridge be renamed ‘Pompei’s Bridge’. The City of Kingston and state parliamentarians Janice Munt, the member for Mordialloc, and Jenny Lindell, the member for Carrum, support this idea. I sincerely hope that the state Minister for Roads and Ports, the Hon. Tim Pallas, to whom I have written, can make this happen. Many words of condolence and appreciation have been said about Jack Pompei over the past month, and it has been moving to see our local community remember someone special—someone who was one of their own. I would like to join them. Our community thanks you, Jack, and may you rest in peace. Question agreed to. 661 12:59:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 pm 662 Questions in Writing 662 662 176 662 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 0 Mrs Vale asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 25 June 2008: Does the Government intend to secure the current School of Military Engineering site for an intermodal terminal development at Moorebank; if so, does it guarantee: (a) a full and transparent public consultation process; (b) that a full Environmental Impact Study will be undertaken; and (c) to establish an appropriate local authority that local residents can contact to have their concerns addressed. 662 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government has announced a commitment of $300 million towards the development of an intermodal terminal at the Moorebank site. Proper planning and environmental processes will be undertaken. 662 662 355 662 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 13 October 2008: In respect of her response to question No.119 (Hansard, 26 August 2008, page 6259) concerning reinstatement of Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) in some Northern Territory communities: given CDEP income cannot currently be quarantined, how does the Government propose to ensure that people in the communities where CDEP will be reinstated will continue to spend at least 50 per sent of their Government-provided income on the necessities of life. 662 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The government is committed to strengthening community safety and improving the protection of children and has introduced income management in the Northern Territory to ensure payments intended to benefit children are used exactly for that purpose. Income management only applies to certain welfare and family payments, as specified under Part 3B of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Payments from Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) are not relevant payments under Part 3B, so under current legislation, income management does not apply to CDEP wages. However, under the proposed CDEP program reform model, new CDEP participants from 1 July 2009 would access CDEP while on income support, and would therefore be subject to income management where appropriate. Participants on CDEP at 30 June 2009 would continue to receive CDEP wages, subject to CDEP continuing and to participants remaining eligible for the program and not having a break from CDEP for more that two consecutive weeks after 1 July 2009. CDEP wages would continue to be available until 30 June 2011 with participants being transitioned off CDEP wages over the three months after that date. As currently proposed, CDEP would only be offered in remote regions—that is in areas where there is not an established economy. Participants in areas where CDEP would cease would be transitioned to income support, subject to eligibility, and so would receive intensive assistance through the new Employment Services to help them to get and keep jobs. 663 663 356 663 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 13 October 2008: Has the Government yet established protocols with any State or Territory covering the transfer of school attendance data to Centrelink for the purpose of suspending welfare payments to parents whose children do not attend school. Has the Government sought advice on whether the transfer of such data would breach privacy law. What is the Government’s timeframe for the establishment of these protocols. Will Centrelink be required to advise schools of pupils whose parents receive welfare payments so that their attendance records can be provided. How will Centrelink approach determining whether school age children of existing welfare recipients are enrolled. How many parents does the Government estimate could lose welfare payments as a result of the antitruancy initiative. 663 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In preparation for implementation of the Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure, the Government is currently negotiating protocols with representatives from the Northern Territory and Western Australian trial jurisdictions for the provision of information to Centrelink in relation to those children who are failing to attend school and whose parents are failing to take reasonable steps to ensure their children are attending school. The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 provides that a state or territory or a non-government school authority or any other person who is responsible for the operation of one or more schools may give the Commonwealth information about the enrolment/non-enrolment or attendance/non-attendance of children at school. Under the relevant section of the legislation, information about schooling can be provided despite any law (whether written or unwritten) in force in a state or territory. Negotiations are currently underway with trial jurisdictions to establish bilateral agreements for implementation of the measure from the beginning of the 2009 school year. Centrelink will not be providing wholesale data to schools about parents who are in receipt of income support. Where they perceive it to be appropriate, schools or education authorities will liaise with Centrelink on specific children who are not attending school to the satisfaction of the school or education authority and whose parent(s) are not taking reasonable steps to ensure their children attend school. Centrelink will advise whether the parent receives income support and is therefore subject to the measure. Under the measure, parents receiving a variety of Commonwealth income support payments who live in a trial location and have children of compulsory school age will be contacted by Centrelink and required to provide enrolment information. This information can be provided by phone, in person or by completing a form. Those parents who fail to provide enrolment information to Centrelink without a reasonable excuse will be required to engage with Centrelink and will be offered social worker assistance. The measure provides for the temporary withholding of a parent’s income support payment if the parent has failed to meet their requirements; despite repeated attempts by Centrelink and education authorities to assist the parent and in the absence of any reasonable excuse or special circumstance. Once parents meet their requirements within a 13 week period, their payments will be restored with full back pay. It is only after a minimum of 13 weeks of suspended payments that a parent may have their payments cancelled, and thus “lose payments”. The measure provides for multiple contacts by Centrelink staff and Centrelink social workers with parents to offer them support; with the aim of enabling parents to meet their requirements and thereby avoid any suspension of payments. It is expected that very few parents will have their payment cancelled. 664 664 363 664 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 20 October 2008: Further to her answer to question No. 213 (Hansard, 13 October 2008, page 121) concerning the Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure: (a) what are current school attendance rates at the eight locations where the program will be trialled; (b) what will constitute ‘regular’ attendance for the purposes of this program; and (c) will these schools be required to inform Centrelink if a child is not attending regularly. 664 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure is being trialled in six sites in the Northern Territory (NT) – Katherine, Katherine Town Camps, Wadeye, Hermannsburg, Wallace Rockhole and the Tiwi Islands – an area in Cannington, Western Australia (WA) and one other metropolitan location yet to be announced. Attendance rates for government schools are available on the NT and WA Departments of Education and Training websites. Attendance data for non-government schools is not publicly available. The tables below provide 2008 attendance information about government schools in the NT and WA trial locations: NT School Area Attendance Rate - % Ntaria Hermannsburg 69 Wallace Rockhole Wallace Rockhole 71 Milikapiti Tiwi Islands 76 Pularumpi Tiwi Islands 80 Casuarina St Primary Katherine 91 Katherine High Katherine 83 Katherine South Primary Katherine 88 MacFarlane Primary Katherine 74 Clyde Fenton Primary Katherine 80   WA School Suburb Attendance Rate - % Beckenham Primary School Beckenham 93 Cannington Community Education Support Centre Cannington 87 Cannington Community College Cannington 92 Sevenoaks Senior College Cannington 77 Gibbs Street Primary East Cannington 94 East Kenwick Primary Kenwick 92 Kenwick School Kenwick 89 Queens Park Primary Queens Park 89 Wattle Grove Primary Wattle Grove 94 Wilson Primary Wilson 93   The monitoring of attendance falls under the responsibility of state/territory education authorities. Under the measure, state/territory education authorities can ask Centrelink for assistance where the education authority believes that a child is failing to attend school to the satisfaction of that state or territory as required by the law of that state or territory. Under existing arrangements, education authorities are responsible for monitoring children’s attendance at school. Where an attendance issue is identified, it is anticipated that the education authority will draw on existing practices to attempt to resolve the issue. If the attempts to resolve the issue are unsuccessful, the education authority could consider whether a referral to Centrelink under the measure would be helpful. 665 665 367 665 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 20 October 2008: Is he aware of concern among relatives or associates of persons suffering from serious drug addiction, that the full cash payments scheduled to be made on 8 December 2008 under the Government’s Family Payments Program could lead to drug overdose of eligible recipients with drug addictions. 665 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Economic Security Strategy (ESS) Payment announced by the Government on 14 October 2008 provided $3.9 billion in support payments to low and middle income families. In order to ensure that payments were made before Christmas in most cases, eligible families received their payments in line with existing payment arrangements. In all, around 3.9 million Australian children benefited from the $1,000 ESS payment. A further $4.8 billion was paid to Australia’s 4 million pensioners, carers and seniors providing them with immediate financial help in the lead up to comprehensive reform of the pension system. The Government helps to support and strengthen families through the provision of early intervention services to enhance family relationships, assist in problem solving, prevent family breakdown and resolve conflict around separation, provide support to families of drug users and reduce family violence, particularly in indigenous communities. The Government is committed to protecting the health and safety of children and that is why those customers in our communities who are subject to income management have their ESS payment income managed at 100%. This is consistent with current arrangements for lump sum payments under income management. People will be able to discuss with Centrelink as to how they want to allocate the funding towards meeting priority needs and other non-prohibited expenditures. Income management of these payments will help prevent a sudden flow of cash towards prohibited items such as alcohol, drugs, tobacco, gambling and pornography. 666 666 370 666 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 November 2008: Will he confirm that on 24 September 2008 Iraq’s Parliament approved the Provincial Election Law allowing elections to occur in 2009, but dropped a key clause (Article 50) that guaranteed a specific number of seats for minorities on provincial councils. Will he confirm that Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, has called on the country’s legislature to reinstate Article 50 because he believes it provides a strong indication that Iraq is a nation ready to protect the political rights of minorities, as founded in Iraq’s Constitution. Will he confirm that thousands of Iraqi Christians participated in demonstrations demanding the return of Article 50. Will he confirm that President Jalal Talabani (a Kurd) and Vice Presidents Tareq al-Hashemi (A Sunni Arab) and Adel Abdul-Mahdi (a Shia Arab) have appealed to the Iraq Parliament to reinstate guaranteed minority seats on provincial councils. Will he confirm that Iraq Parliament’s decision to drop Article 50 was followed by a dozen murders of Christians in Mosul, resulting in thousands of Christians fleeing the city. Will he confirm that leaflets were distributed in several predominantly Christian neighbourhoods of Mosul, threatening families to either convert to Islam, pay the jizyah, leave the city or face death. What is the Australian Government’s position on the re-instatement of Article 50. Is he aware that the Assyrian Christian population of Iraq fell from 1.3 million in 1990, to 800,000 in 2003, and is estimated at only 400,000 in 2008. What action is the Australian Government taking to help protect the lives and rights of minorities in Iraq. 666 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, recommended on 2 October 2008, that twelve seats be guaranteed for minority groups in Iraqi provincial elections. The Government of Iraq recently announced it would guarantee six seats in provincial governments for Christian and other minorities. There have been media reports that Iraqi Christians have demonstrated. The Government of Iraq announced on 8 November that it would guarantee six seats in provincial governments for Christian and other minorities, in the provinces of Baghdad, Ninewa and Basra, which would be contested in the provincial elections to be held on 31 January 2009. The Australian Government is aware of media reports of violence towards Christian groups in Mosul, but is not aware of information linking attacks against minorities to the removal of Article 50. The Australian Government does not have information on this. Electoral arrangements in Iraq are a matter for the democratically elected Government of Iraq to determine. Australia continues to urge the Iraqi Government to do all it can to protect the human rights of all Iraqis. I raised Australia’s concerns about the protection of human rights of minority groups, including Christians, in Iraq when I met Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, in Baghdad on 10 June 2008. The Government continues to monitor developments in human rights in Iraq and has instructed the Australian Embassy in Baghdad to take all appropriate opportunities to raise our concerns about violence against minorities. As part of ongoing efforts, on 18 November 2008 the Australian Ambassador called on the Minister of Human Rights, Wydan Mikha’il Salim, to express Australia’s concerns regarding the security of Iraq’s minority groups. There are no definitive, reliable figures on the size of the Christian population in Iraq. Assyrian Christians in Iraq have suffered significantly over recent years, including through major displacement from their homes, as have other minority communities in Iraq. The Australian Government remains concerned about violence in Iraq and persecution of minority groups. The Iraqi Constitution describes rights and protections for Iraq’s minorities. Despite this, extremist groups in Iraq have continued attacks on minorities. As I said in response to question seven, Australia continues to urge the Iraqi Government to do all it can to protect the human rights of all Iraqis. I raised Australia’s concerns about the protection of human rights of minority groups, including Christians, in Iraq when I met Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, in Baghdad on 10 June 2008. The Government continues to monitor developments in human rights in Iraq and has instructed the Australian Embassy in Baghdad to take all appropriate opportunities to raise our concerns about violence against minorities. As part of ongoing efforts, on 18 November 2008 the Australian Ambassador called on the Minister of Human Rights, Wydan Mikha’il Salim, to express Australia’s concerns regarding the security of Iraq’s minority groups. The Australian Government remains committed to supporting Iraqis in need, including minorities. On 19 December 2008 I announced the Australian Government would provide $1 million to assist Christian and other minority groups in Ninewa Province, Northern Iraq, who had been the victims of recent outbreaks of sectarian violence. That assistance will be provided through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Medical Corps (IMC). It will fund emergency provisions, medical support, reconstruction efforts and the tracking of families who have fled into neighbouring countries. This funding brings the total humanitarian assistance provided by the Australian Government to Ninewa Province to $3 million. Australia is already providing $2 million through the IMC to assist Iraqis in Ninewa Province who have suffered from violence. This funding is going towards emergency medical training, women’s centres and mental health services for primary school age children. The Government is providing an additional $10 million to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s Displaced Persons Program to assist Iraqis in neighbouring and transit countries. This funding will assist international organisations and NGOs to maintain protection space (i.e. access to asylum, humanitarian assistance and protection) and enable Iraqis outside Iraq to settle with security and dignity pending long term resolution. This is part of Australia’s overall assistance program to Iraq, worth $165 million over the next three years. Australia is also assisting Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) through its immigration program. The Government has increased the size of the 2008-2009 Humanitarian Program by 500 places, specifically for Iraqis. Iraqis are likely to be the single largest national group of entrants under the Humanitarian Program during 2008-09. 667 667 379 667 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 November 2008: Has the Government considered the potential impact of the Christmas bonus payments for pensioners (made as part of the Government’s $10 billion fiscal package) on remote indigenous communities; if so, on what date did she first receive specific advice on this issue, and what was the advice. Has the Government considered making these payments in instalments in places such as Cape York and the Kimberley, as will be done in the Northern Territory under existing rules. Why has the Government decided to pay these bonuses as lump sums when the Baby Bonus is now paid in instalments. 668 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government considered the impact of the Economic Security Strategy payments on remote indigenous communities. In communities where income management was in place payments were managed through that process. That is, 100% of the lump sum was income managed. Income management covered both income support and family payments for those who met the relevant eligibility criteria. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs worked at a state and local level to ensure service providers and government agencies working in communities were aware of the payments and made arrangements appropriate to that community. The Government has managed the Economic Security Strategy payments through income management rather than instalment. People eligible for the Economic Security Strategy payments that were subject to income management in the Northern Territory, and the Cape York and the Western Australia Child Protection initiative, at the time of payment, have had their Economic Security Strategy payments income managed. People who were income managed negotiated with Centrelink as to how they wanted to allocate the funding towards meeting priority needs and other non-prohibited expenditures. The purpose of the Economic Security Strategy is to boost the Australian economy. The Government made a decision to achieve this through targeted lump sum payments. 668 668 390 668 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 12 November 2008: Does the Governor-General: (a) remain on the standard distribution list for all written assessments by the Office of National Assessments; and (b) receive assessments or briefings from any other Australian intelligence and security agencies; if so, which agencies. 668 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr Rudd —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Governor‑General is included in the regular distribution of Office of National Assessments reports; and I have agreed to the Governor-General being briefed by the other Australian intelligence and security agencies, as were her predecessors, so that, in appropriate circumstances, she may receive relevant material necessary for her to discharge her official responsibilities. 668 668 391 668 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr Melham asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 12 November 2008: For: (a) 2006-07; and (b) 2007-08, how many meetings of the Federal Executive Council were presided over by (i) the Governor-General, (ii) an Administrator of the Commonwealth, and (iii) the Vice-President of the Executive Council. For 2006-07 and from: (a) 1 June to 2 December 2007; and (b) 3 December to 30 June 2008, how many meetings of the Federal Executive Council were attended by the (i) Prime Minister, (ii) Deputy Prime Minister, (iii) Leader of the Government in the Senate, and (iv) Vice-President of the Executive Council. 669 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr Rudd —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 2006-07                         24 2 0 2007-08 25 2 1 2006-07 1 1 0 0 1 June 2007 to 2 December 2007 0 0 0 0 3 December 2007 to 30 June 2008 1 2 0 3 669 669 397 669 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 Mr Forrest asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 13 November 2008: Does he believe that the decision by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to refuse a residency application to a physician in Horsham on the basis that his youngest son has Downs Syndrome is consistent with Australia’s international anti-discrimination obligations on the grounds of disability; if so, why. Given the shortage of physicians in rural areas, will he commit to doing all he can to have this decision overturned so that citizens of the Horsham region are not denied the services of this physician; if so, how; if not, why not. 670 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr Rudd —I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator the Hon Chris Evans, received a request to intervene in the case of Dr Bernhard Moeller and his family on 26 November 2008. In response to this request, Senator Evans granted permanent visas to Dr Moeller and his family. As above. 670 670 406 670 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 Dr Jensen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water, in writing, on 24 November 2008: What are the four sources of global temperature records. What temperature trend and absolute difference do they provide for the period: December 1998 to the present; and December 2001 to the present. Which of the four: uses (i) satellites, and (ii) land thermometers; and are affected by the urban heat island effect. What are the drawbacks of using land thermometers. What are the advantages of using satellites. What were temperature projections for the period: December 1998 to the present; and December 2001 to the present, in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s third and fourth assessment reports (TAR and AR4, respectively). 670 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The Minister for Climate Change and Water has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: A number of organisations produce records of global average surface temperatures. The most prominent data sets are HadCRUT3, produced by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre in the UK Meteorological Office; NASA-GISS, produced by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and NOAA-NCDC, produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Centre (USA). Temperature estimates of layers of the atmosphere are also produced by several organisations. These include the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperature estimates produced by Remote Sensing Systems with support from NASA and the University of Alabama, USA. Weather balloon-based temperature analyses are produced by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre in the UK Meteorological Office as well as by NOAA-NCDC. (2)   These primary records show sustained warming trends from the surface to the lower layer of the atmosphere (troposphere) with cooling above. In two of the data sets of global average surface temperatures, HadCRUT3 and NASA-GISS, the linear trend over the interval 1998-2008 is one of warming. Absolute differences between the temperatures in the specific years 1998 and 2008 for the HadCRUT3 and NASA-GISS data sets are -0.202 and ‑0.150 oC, respectively. The NOAA-NCDC data set has not yet been updated to include 2008, but the interval 1998-2007 displays a warming trend. The absolute difference between temperatures in the specific years 1998 and 2007 is -0.027 oC. For the NASA-GISS data set, the linear trend for the period 2001-2008 is one of warming, whereas HadCRUT3 shows cooling over this period. Absolute differences between 2001 and 2008 for the HadCRUT3 and NASA-GISS data sets are -0.087 and 0.000 oC, respectively. The NOAA-NCDC data set displays a warming trend for the period 2001-2007. The absolute difference between temperatures in 2001 and 2007 is +0.056 oC. The variation in trends is primarily due to the differences in spatial averaging techniques used to calculate the global average temperature. Trends seen in global surface temperature over short periods, such as from 1998 to the present, are not good indicators of longer term climate change. At short time scales, trends are strongly affected by year-to-year variability and by the start and end of times chosen. In 1998 and 2002, the Earth’s temperature was exceptionally hot because of El Niño events, and a La Niña event caused colder temperatures in 2000 and 2007. It is more robust to analyse data over many decades and climate scientists often use an 11-year moving average to remove short term variability from the record so that long term trends can be observed. (3)   (a)   (i)        HadCRUT3, NOAA-NCDC and NASA-GISS all use land thermometer measurements. Sea surface temperature measurements are made on ships and buoys. (ii)           There are versions of these data sets that also incorporate satellite measurements, but the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report avoided using these data sets, since there is not a long history of satellite measurements, ie no measurements prior to 1979. (b)   Urban heat island effects are real but localised, and have not biased large scale trends in the global surface temperature. The effect of urbanisation on the land-based temperature record is neglible because the local effects are avoided or accounted for in the data sets used. Over the oceans there is clearly no urban heat island effect. Hence, the potential for urban heat islands to affect global surface temperature estimates is very limited. (4)   Advantages of using land thermometers: thermometers measure temperature directly; and there is a long history (around 150 years) of reliable thermometer measurements, which can be compared to detect long term trends. Disadvantages of using land thermometers: some measurements in large cities must be adjusted to correct for urban heat island effects; and there is limited data available from thermometers in the polar regions. Advantages of using satellites: satellites can provide temperature information for the ocean surface, which may supplement data from thermometers on ships and buoys; satellites also provide information about changes in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere; and satellites provide almost global information rapidly. Disadvantages of using satellites: Satellites record data on radiation, which is an indirect measure of temperature; Disparities remain among different tropospheric (lower atmosphere) temperature trends estimated from satellites since 1979, and are still likely to contain residual errors, although estimates have been substantially improved through adjustments for issues such as changing satellites and orbits; and The vertical resolution of historical satellite data is poor, meaning that it is not possible to fully isolate cooling of the stratosphere from warming in the troposphere. The temperature projections in the third and fourth assessment reports of the IPCC are, by their nature, multi-decadal projections in which the effects of internal climate variability on the decadal timescale are averaged out. It is therefore not meaningful to infer ‘projections’ over short time periods, such as December 1998 to the present or December 2001 to the present, from the published IPCC material. 672 672 433 672 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 27 November 2008: In respect of overseas students: (a) how many are currently in Australia; (b) what is the breakdown by (i) nationality; (ii) course; and (iii) state; (c) how many overseas student deaths have been reported since November 2007; and (d) what was the cause of these deaths. 672 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: As at 30 September 2008, there are 363 560 persons on student visas, including student dependants, in Australia. Table 1 provides the breakdown of the number of overseas students in Australia as at 30 September 2008 by nationality. Table 1. Citizenship Distribution of Overseas Students (as at 30 September 2008) Citizenship Number of student visa holders Percentage of the total China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 78 317 21.5 India 70 532 19.4 Korea, Republic of (South) 23 301 6.4 Malaysia 17 267 4.7 Nepal 13 488 3.7 Indonesia 12 673 3.5 Thailand 12 624 3.5 Vietnam 11 006 3.0 Hong Kong (SAR of China) 9 841 2.7 Japan 7 515 2.1 Brazil 7 230 2.0 Sri Lanka 7 144 2.0 Singapore 6 766 1.9 Saudi Arabia 6 407 1.8 United States of America 5 142 1.4 Bangladesh 5 101 1.4 Taiwan 5 016 1.4 Colombia 4 338 1.2 Others 59 852 16.5 Total 363 560 100   Table 2 provides the breakdown of the number of overseas students by education sectors. Table 2: Distribution of overseas students across various education sectors (as at 30 September 2008) Education sector Number Percentage of the total AusAID 4 755 1.3 Defence 432 0.1 ELICOS 17 616 4.8 Schools 27 308 7.5 Secondary – Exchange 1 408 0.4 Vocational Education & Training (VET) 88 691 24.4 Higher Education 202 735 55.8 Postgraduate Research 10 808 3.0 Non-award 9 781 2.7 Other/Not stated 26 0.01 Total 363 560   Table 3 provides the breakdown of the number of overseas students by state. These figures are based on the state of intended residence data as entered on the Incoming Passenger Card by the visa holder upon arrival to Australia. Table 3: Distribution of overseas students across various states & territories (as at 30 September 2008) State/Territory Number of student visa holders Percentage of the total NSW 124 621 34.3 Victoria 109 205 30.0 Queensland 48 115 13.2 South Australia 18 073 5.0 Western Australia 24 283 6.7 Tasmania 2 949 0.8 Northern Territory 589 0.2 Australian Capital Territory 5 686 1.6 Not stated 30 139 8.3 Total 363 560 100   Departmental records indicate that from 1 November 2007 to 30 November 2008, a total of 62 student visa holders were reported as deceased to the Department. This includes 11 student visa holders who died while they were outside Australia. Information on the cause of death is not required by DIAC when recording the death of a visa holder. Consequently, very few deceased student visa holders had the cause of their death recorded. Table 4 provides a summary, where this is known, of the causes of deaths of overseas students since 1 November 2007. Table 4. Causes of deaths of student visa holders (November 2007 to November 2008) Cause Onshore Offshore Total Accident 14 4 18 Illness 3 0 3 Suicide 0 1 1 Unknown 34 6 40 TOTAL 51 11 62 Note: As there can be a significant time lag between the occurrence of the event and the submission of the official advice on death (eg a coronial report), these figures are subject to revision. 674 674 520 674 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the $8.1 million being provided to national sporting organisations up until June 2010, as announced in November 2008: (a) which national sporting organisations will receive this funding; and (b) how much will they receive in the (i) 2008-09, and (ii) 2009-10, financial years. 674 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms Kate Ellis — The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The national sporting organisations listed at Table A and the national sporting organisations for persons with a disability listed at Table B will be allocated Australian Sports Commission funding in 2009-10 which in part will be sourced from the additional funding announced in November 2008. Table A shows the indicative high performance sport grant to be allocated to each national sporting organisation for 2009-10. The Board of the Australian Sports Commission has yet to consider other funding programs for these organisations, and thus their complete grant allocations for 2009-10 have yet to be determined. The Board of the Australian Sports Commission is yet to consider funding allocations for national sporting organisations for persons with a disability for 2009-10. Table A National Sporting Organisation Name 2009/10 Indicative High Performance Grant Archery Australia $354,800 Athletics Australia $3,579,600 Australian Baseball Federation $1,347,000 Australian Canoeing Incorporated $1,620,000 Australian Fencing Federation $35,400 Australian Football League $0 Australian Ice Racing $83,000 Australian International Shooting $1,349,800 Australian Karate Federation $3,000 Australian Lacrosse Association $0 Australian Paralympic Committee * $3,320,000 Australian Rugby League $0 Australian Rugby Union $0 Australian University Sport * $30,000 Australian Volleyball Federation $1,286,000 Australian Water Polo Inc $1,675,000 Australian Waterski & Wakeboard Federation $151,000 Australian Weightlifting Federation $362,600 Australian Wrestling Union $50,000 Badminton Australia $185,000 Basketball Australia $2,530,600 Bicycle Motocross Australia $458,500 Bocce Federation of Australia $26,000 Bowls Australia $417,200 Boxing Australia $141,000 Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Ltd (CAMS) $304,200 Cricket Australia $0 Cycling Australia $3,403,000 Diving Australia $761,800 Equestrian Federation of Australia $1,439,000 Football Federation Australia * $1,331,600 Golf Australia $478,400 Gymnastics Australia $1,174,000 Hockey Australia $3,703,200 Indoor Sports Australia Ltd (Indoor Cricket) $61,000 Judo Federation of Australia $467,800 Motorcycling Australia $382,600 Netball Australia * $897,100 Orienteering Australia $86,000 Polocrosse Association of Australia $61,000 Pony Club Australia $30,000 Rowing Australia $3,746,600 Skate Australia $0 Ski & Snowboard Australia $767,600 Softball Australia $1,439,200 Squash Australia $437,600 Surf Life Saving Australia $355,400 Surfing Australia $423,400 Swimming Australia $4,265,000 Table Tennis Australia $103,800 Tennis Australia $0 Tenpin Bowling Australia $80,000 Touch Football Australia $120,000 Triathlon Australia $878,600 Yachting Australia $2,730,600 * The amount shown does not include Special Purpose Grants provided to the sports noted - Australian Paralympic Committee $5,450,000; Australian University Sport $2,500,000; Football Federation $4,000,000; Netball Australia $400,000. Table B National Sporting Organisation for Persons with a Disability Australian Recreation Association for People with Intellectual Disabilities (AUSRAPID) Australian Athletes with a Disability Australian Blind Sports Federation Transplant Australia Special Olympics Australia Riding for the Disabled Association of Australia Deaf Sports Australia Disabled Wintersport Australia   676 676 521 676 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the Australian Sports Commission and Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) funding of National Sporting Organisations (NSO), for the (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06, (c) 2006-07, (d) 2007-08, (e) 2008-09, (f) 2009-10, (g) 2010-11, (h) 2011-12, (i) 2012-13, financial years— What is the allocation of funding for (i) the AIS, (ii) High Performance, (iii) Sport Development, and (iv) other targeted programs for each National Sporting Organisation. What is the total sum of funding for each NSO. 676 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms Kate Ellis —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: See Australian Sports Commission (ASC) Annual Reports for 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 http://www.ausport.gov.au/about/publications/corporate_documents) for funding figures to NSOs in respect of (i) the AIS, (ii) High Performance, (iii) Sport Development, and (iv) other targeted programs within the areas of national talent identification and development, Indigenous sport, women in sport, disability sport, officiating, coaching, women in sport and other special initiatives. Attachment A outlines NSO 2008-09 indicative funding. Attachment B outlines NSO 2009-10 indicative funding for AIS and High Performance only. At its meeting held on 13 November 2008, the ASC Board confirmed indicative AIS allocations and NSO high performance grant amounts for 2009-10 will be continued at 2008-09 levels. The ASC Board is yet to make a decision on other funding programs for 2009-10. The ASC Board is yet to approve NSO and national sporting organisation for the disabled funding for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. See ASC Annual Reports for 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and Attachment A and B for total sum of funding allocated to each NSO through the ASC for the period 2004-05 to 2009-10. Attachment A Sport 08/09 AIS 08/09 HP 08/09 SD 08/09 Other 08/09 TOTAL Archery 665,000 354,800 27,200 0 1,047,000 Athletics 1,321,740 3,714,600 146,400 585,000 5,767,740 Australian football 194,000 0 216,000 75,000 485,000 Badminton 0 185,000 27,000 210,000 422,000 Baseball 0 1,347,000 146,000 0 1,493,000 Basketball 1,450,000 2,530,600 216,400 142,000 4,339,000 BMX 0 491,000 100,000 0 591,000 Bocce 0 26,000 25,000 0 51,000 Bowls 0 452,200 146,800 30,000 629,000 Boxing 632,620 141,000 54,000 445,000 1,272,620 Calisthenics 0 0 0 0 0 Canoeing 867,526 1,680,000 108,000 380,000 3,035,526 Cricket 483,371 0 216,000 93,000 792,371 Croquet 0 0 0 0 0 Cycling 1,310,793 3,483,000 110,000 440,000 5,343,793 Diving 623,332 801,800 27,200 200,000 1,652,332 Dragon boat 0 0 0 0 0 Equestrian 0 1,479,000 87,000 0 1,566,000 Fencing 0 35,400 26,600 0 62,000 Football 1,326,090 5,331,600 216,000 72,000 6,945,690 Golf 378,326 478,400 151,600 130,000 1,138,326 Gymnastics 1,050,000 1,204,000 216,000 35,000 2,505,000 Handball 0 0 0 0 0 Hockey 1,183,098 3,803,200 161,800 210,000 5,358,098 Ice Hockey 0 0 0 0 0 Ice Racing 0 83,000 0 0 83,000 Ice Skating 0 0 0 0 0 Indoor Cricket 0 61,000 150,000 0 211,000 Judo 0 487,800 16,200 200,000 704,000 Karate 0 3,000 83,000 0 86,000 Lacrosse 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Modern pentathlon 0 0 0 0 0 Motor Sports 0 304,200 64,800 0 369,000 Motorcycling 0 382,600 64,400 0 447,000 Netball 682,770 1,317,100 279,900 85,000 2,364,770 Orienteering 0 86,000 0 0 86,000 Parachuting 0 0 0 0 0 Polocrosse 0 61,000 60,000 4,600 125,600 Pony clubs 0 30,000 25,000 0 55,000 Powerlifting 0 0 0 0 0 Roller Sports 0 0 186,000 0 186,000 Rowing 1,778,885 3,746,600 89,400 350,000 5,964,885 Rugby League 194,000 630,000 216,000 50,000 1,090,000 Rugby Union 194,000 0 216,000 59,000 469,000 Sailing 793,994 2,815,600 146,400 10,000 3,765,994 Shooting 0 1,389,800 76,200 125,000 1,591,000 Skiing 0 867,600 16,400 0 884,000 Softball 386,628 1,439,200 161,800 52,900 2,040,528 Squash 423,655 437,600 118,400 0 979,655 Surf Lifesaving 0 355,400 161,600 40,000 557,000 Surfing 0 423,400 86,600 25,000 535,000 Swimming 1,400,000 4,375,000 216,000 162,500 6,153,500 Synchronised Swimming 0 0 0 0 0 Table Tennis 0 118,800 48,200 0 167,000 Taekwondo 0 0 0 0 0 Tenpin Bowling 0 80,000 150,000 5,000 235,000 Tennis 501,490 0 216,000 42,500 759,990 Touch Football 0 120,000 200,000 50,000 370,000 Triathlon 485,792 898,600 96,400 209,730 1,690,522 University Sports 0 2,530,000 0 250,000 2,780,000 Volleyball 1,103,965 1,311,000 64,000 222,000 2,700,965 Water polo 475,300 1,720,000 61,000 10,000 2,266,300 Water Skiing 0 151,000 0 10,000 161,000 Weightlifting 0 362,600 21,400 0 384,000 Wrestling 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 Paralympics 0 5,450,000 0 0 5,450,000   Attachment B Sport 09/10 AIS 09/10 HP 09/10 TOTAL Archery 665,000 354,800 1,019,800 Athletics 1,321,740 3,714,600 5,036,340 Australian football 194,000 0 194,000 Badminton 0 185,000 185,000 Baseball 0 1,347,000 1,347,000 Basketball 1,450,000 2,530,600 3,980,600 BMX 0 491,000 491,000 Bocce 0 26,000 26,000 Bowls 0 452,200 452,200 Boxing 632,620 141,000 773,620 Calisthenics 0 0 0 Canoeing 867,526 1,680,000 2,547,526 Cricket 483,371 0 483,371 Croquet 0 0 0 Cycling 1,310,793 3,483,000 4,793,793 Diving 623,332 801,800 1,425,132 Dragon boat 0 0 0 Equestrian 0 1,479,000 1,479,000 Fencing 0 35,400 35,400 Football 1,326,090 5,331,600 6,657,690 Golf 378,326 478,400 856,726 Gymnastics 1,050,000 1,204,000 2,254,000 Handball 0 0 0 Hockey 1,183,098 3,803,200 4,986,298 Ice Hockey 0 0 0 Ice Racing 0 83,000 83,000 Ice Skating 0 0 0 Indoor Cricket 0 61,000 61,000 Judo 0 487,800 487,800 Karate 0 3,000 3,000 Lacrosse 0 0 0 Modern pentathlon 0 0 0 Motor Sports 0 304,200 304,200 Motorcycling 0 382,600 382,600 Netball 682,770 1,317,100 1,999,870 Orienteering 0 86,000 86,000 Parachuting 0 0 0 Polocrosse 0 61,000 61,000 Pony clubs 0 30,000 30,000 Powerlifting 0 0 0 Roller Sports 0 0 0 Rowing 1,778,885 3,746,600 5,525,485 Rugby League 194,000 630,000 824,000 Rugby Union 194,000 0 194,000 Sailing 793,994 2,815,600 3,609,594 Shooting 0 1,389,800 1,389,800 Skiing 0 867,600 867,600 Softball 386,628 1,439,200 1,825,828 Squash 423,655 437,600 861,255 Surf Lifesaving 0 355,400 355,400 Surfing 0 423,400 423,400 Swimming 1,400,000 4,375,000 5,775,000 Synchronised Swimming 0 0 0 Table Tennis 0 118,800 118,800 Taekwondo 0 0 0 Tenpin Bowling 0 80,000 80,000 Tennis 501,490 0 501,490 Touch Football 0 120,000 120,000 Triathlon 485,792 898,600 1,384,392 University Sports 0 2,530,000 2,530,000 Volleyball 1,103,965 1,311,000 2,414,965 Water polo 475,300 1,720,000 2,195,300 Water Skiing 0 151,000 151,000 Weightlifting 0 362,600 362,600 Wrestling 0 50,000 50,000 Paralympics 0 5,450,000 5,450,000 679 679 535 679 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the Government’s announcement on 29 August 2008 that it will contribute funding to the: (a) Burnie United Football and Sporting Club; (b) West Park indoor sporting facility; and (c) relocation of the Burnie Bowls Club to Les Clark Oval— Under which (i) Portfolio Budget item does this funding appear, and (ii) program was this funding made available. Has this funding been included in the Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook; if so where. How many applications were received for project funding under this program. What criteria were used to assess these projects. Who is the individual contact person for each project. With whom were the negotiations conducted. What are the names of the board Members of each club or sporting facility. 679 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms Kate Ellis —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: This funding is being made available from Appropriation Bill No. 3 - Outcome 15 (Variations table - Table 2.15.2). (ii)This funding was not made available from a program. No. However it was listed in the Department of Health and Ageing Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2008-09. See answer to question 1(ii). Funding for the Burnie City Council was originally approved by the former Government in the context of the 2004 election but these funds were rephased due to delays in the Council’s implementation of the project. The Burnie City Council has nominated their Director, Community and Economic Development as the project manager for these projects. Negotiations for funding Agreements are being conducted with the Burnie City Council. The Department of Health and Ageing is negotiating funding agreements in respect of each of these projects with the Burnie City Council. 680 680 536 680 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 3 December 2008: In respect of the Active After-school Communities program— How many primary schools are eligible for this program. How many Outside School Hours Care services are eligible for this program. What is the capacity of this program for schools in 2009. What is the capacity of this program for Outside School Hours Care Services in 2009. What was the funding for this program in the (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06, (c) 2006-07, (d) 2007-08, financial years? What is the funding for this program for the (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, (c) 2010-11, and (d) 2011-12, financial years. 680 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms Kate Ellis —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Active After-school Communities program is offered to all Australian primary schools. The Active After-school Communities program is offered to all Child Care Benefit-approved Out of School Hours Care Services. The program funding for 2009 enables the support of 3,250 sites, including both schools and Out of School Hours Care Services. The program funding for 2009 enables the support of 3,250 sites, including both schools and Out of School Hours Care Services. The appropriations for the Active After-school Communities program are as follows: 2004-05, $11,336,000. 2005-06, $26,216,000. 2006-07, $34,234,000. 2007-08, $39,081,000. The Active After-school Communities program is currently funded to December 2010. As with any funding program, future funding will determined through normal budget considerations. The appropriations by financial year are as follows: 2008-09, $41,763,000. 2009-10, $41,763,000. 2010-11, $20,531,000. 2011-12, to be determined. 681 681 546 681 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 Mr Katter asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 4 December 2008: (1) Is she aware (a) that the tertiary participation rate of persons aged 17-22 years in metropolitan electorates is nearly double that of those in rural electorates; and (b) of the economic challenges that bring about this disparity.(2) As part of her ‘education revolution’, what extra incentives will be offered to help ease the economic burden and reduce the consequent disadvantage for country based students.(3) Would she consider implementing a ‘Tertiary Access Allowance’ as financial assistance to rural and remote students who must live away from home, to enable them to access tertiary education; if so, could it involve, on proof of initial enrolment, an annual non means tested allowance of $6000 a year(indexed to Consumer Price Index) that would not jeopardise their eligibility for existing support payments (i.e. Youth Allowance and ABSTUDY) for the duration of their full time course. 681 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. However I am uncertain of Mr Katter’s source. There is a strong relationship between rural or regional location and participation in higher education, as shown in Table 1. The relationship for vocational education and training is less marked. Table 1: Participation of 15-24 Year Olds in Non-school Education by Remoteness Areas*, Australia, 2006 Mainland State Capital Major Urban District Large Provincial City District Small Provincial City District Inner Provincial Area Outer Provincial Area Remote Area Very Remote Area Australia Higher Education Males 27.3% 24.5% 21.5% 16.4% 17.3% 11.7% 8.8% 8.5% 25.6% Females 33.5% 31.9% 33.2% 29.1% 27.6% 22.9% 18.6% 18.0% 32.6% VET Males 29.2% 28.4% 26.8% 26.0% 26.2% 22.7% 22.9% 19.4% 28.1% Females 20.5% 20.7% 20.6% 20.4% 18.1% 17.2% 17.0% 17.0% 20.1% Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing, 2006. *Due to methodological issues there may be differences between this data and total State and Australia data reported by the ABS Yes. Economic factors are but some of the influences on higher education participation, and do not operate the same way in all locations. As important are local business and industry, family and student aspirations, job opportunities and lifestyle choices. (2)   Several Australian Government programs are in place that assist rural and regional students. These include Youth Allowance and Austudy, deferred payment arrangements for tuition costs through the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) and funding for Commonwealth Scholarships. The doubling of Commonwealth Scholarships from 44,000 to 88,000 by 2012, is directly focused on helping disadvantaged students, including those living in regional and remote areas, in better accessing higher education. (3)   I will not comment on specific proposals at this stage. Income support for students has been identified as a key issue in the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education. The report from the Review was released recently by the Australian Government on 17 December 2008. The Australian Government will consider the findings of the Review and respond in due course. 682 682 553 682 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 Mrs Markus asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the Partner Service Pensions: how many recipients will lose their entitlements after 1 July 2009; how many of these are former partners of Vietnam Veterans; and what is the expected saving for this loss of entitlement. 682 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number will depend on those separated partners who are assessed as illness separated or meet the special domestic circumstances criteria. The number is estimated to be in the order of 475-500. Approximately 340-365 are former partners of Vietnam Veterans. Net savings of $28 million over four years are expected.