2009-05-12 42 1 5 REPS 0 0 2009-05-12 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers. 3445 Business 3445 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 12:01:00 —by leave—I move: That government business have priority prior to 2 p.m. for this sitting. Question agreed to. 3445 Bills R4113 3445 Bill and explanatory memorandum—by leave—presented by Ms Roxon. Bill read a first time. 3445 3445 12:02:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2] amends the National Health Act 1953 to provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to submissions for the listing, or amendment to a listing, of medicines, vaccines and other products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the National Immunisation Program (NIP). These amendments ensure that applicants, mostly pharmaceutical companies, may be charged fees when they seek services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the exercise of a power by the minister under section 9B of the act relevant to the designation of a vaccine on the National Immunisation Program or, under a provision in part VII relating to listings or a change to listings for a medicine or other product on the PBS. The bill has been subject to considerable review by the Senate Community Affairs Committee, which has held two inquiries into the proposed cost recovery measure. Evidence was heard from stakeholders who have a genuine interest in the sustainability and future of the PBS. The result of both inquiries was that the committee recommended that the bill proceed in its current form. The committee’s first report was issued on 22 August 2008. The inquiry reported on the likely impact of PBS cost recovery measures on access to medicines, its impact on the pharmaceutical industry, new products and innovation and the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. After careful scrutiny of the evidence presented, the committee recommended that the bill proceed. However, in spite of this committee recommendation the Senate failed to allow further debate on the bill and negatived the government’s motion to allow the bill to be read a second time. In a move to allay concerns voiced over the practical operation of PBS cost recovery, the government moved to refer the draft PBS cost recovery regulations to the committee for a second inquiry, this time into the regulations. The draft regulations were considered to ensure that small population patient groups and patients needing access to low-volume medicines would not be disadvantaged by the introduction of PBS cost recovery.  This was an extraordinary step as it has not been practice for draft regulations to be presented for scrutiny at this stage in the parliamentary process by government. In its second report on 2 October 2008, the committee considered that concerns over ensuring necessary PBS access for small population patient groups and continued availability of low-volume medicines have been adequately addressed in the draft regulations and again recommended the bill proceed. After due consideration of the committee’s findings and stakeholder input to the committee, and in light of the Senate’s failure to pass the bill, the government has decided to re-present the bill to this House for reconsideration. The failure of the Senate to allow this bill to progress—including the somewhat ironic opposition to the measure by the coalition, who never withdrew their own PBS cost recovery measure when in government nor told anyone that they had changed their minds—has meant that the government has forgone all revenue expected in 2008-09, around $9.4 million. The government is giving those opposite an opportunity to reconsider their hypocrisy on this measure and their economic irresponsibility, to avoid a similar fate for the anticipated $14 million in annual revenue this measure will raise.  The bill provides for a commencement date of 1 July 2008. The government has no intention of introducing the cost recovery regime to allow for the retrospective collection of fees.   It will be the regulations made under the power provided in the bill which will specify the actual date from which cost recovery fees will commence. No fees can be imposed until the regulations are made by the Governor-General. The regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.  I understand and appreciate that delays in passage of the bill have led to uncertainty in the industry and disrupted ongoing discussions between my department and industry stakeholders. Following passage of the bill, and the clear message to the industry that cost recovery will be coming into operation, I will announce the commencement date after there has been meaningful dialogue with the industry about implementation issues.  In the Senate, those that sit on the cross-benches have been constructive in their thinking on this bill.  Issues were raised in evidence during both Senate inquiries, such as the potential impact of fees upon access to PBS listed products for small patient population groups, as mentioned before, such as medicines for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and for people needing palliative or paediatric care medicines. The government will ensure that the introduction of cost recovery will not alter the access to or processes around PBS listings for drugs, vaccines or other medicinal products for these groups. In the model put forward by the government, the independence of the PBAC is guaranteed. The Senate inquiry found, and the government affirms, that the expertise, integrity and sense of propriety that PBAC members bring to their task will not be compromised as a result of the government’s approach to cost recovery. The PBAC will continue to provide expert advice on medicines, independent of government and industry. The arrangements for funding the PBAC directly through the budget will continue and the PBAC will have no role in setting fees and will take no part in discussions with companies over fees. Opponents may argue that the time is not right for this measure, with the global financial crisis and worldwide pharmaceutical industry restructuring. The government notes that the Australian pharmaceutical industry has been characterised by significant domestic merger and acquisition activity in recent years, and the sector remains relatively healthy. No doubt, this is in part due to the financial certainty of PBS subsidy payments to the companies. The committee inquiry heard evidence that the proposed cost recovery fees, fees that will recover around $14 million a year from industry, would impose an undue financial burden on industry. This is an industry that the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research cites as having had an annual turnover of over $20 billion in 2007-08, and which spends the annual equivalent of over $64 million in Australia alone on so-called ‘educational events’ for doctors and pharmacists. Pharmaceutical companies receive much by way of benefits from the Australian taxpayer, once their products are listed on the PBS. It is not unreasonable that they contribute toward maintaining the architecture of the PBS. Achieving a product listing on the PBS provides a high level of commercial certainty to a company in relation to that product’s sales. As a continuation of consultation on this measure, I will ask my department to meet with stakeholders again to refresh them on the details of this bill and its associated regulations. The government has also asked the department to liaise with industry before finalising an implementation date, as I have already mentioned. I will announce that date as soon as practicable to allow industry time to prepare. Given that this was a measure of the previous Liberal government in the first place, it is reasonable for us to ask why they continue to oppose it. Is this just another example of opposition for opposition’s sake, or is it just the opposition choosing to once again support big business over the interests of the Australian people? I will leave the honourable member opposite to answer those questions. What is certain is that this is more evidence of economic irresponsibility from the opposition. In the midst of the worst global economic conditions since the 1930s, the coalition has already happily thrown away yet another $10 million. If the legislation is not passed in the Senate, over $51.4 million in revenue over four years will be lost—or, more accurately, left in the deep pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. Debate (on motion by Mr Dutton) adjourned. 3447 Tariff Proposals 3447 3447 12:12:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I think it is going to be a long morning, with another six items to be introduced. I move: Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2009; and Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2009. The excise and customs tariff proposals I have just tabled, which are now being circulated to honourable members, contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The proposals place before the parliament changes to both acts to increase the rate of excise and customs duty applying to other excisable beverages not exceeding 10 per cent by volume of alcohol to $69.16 per litre of alcohol content, with effect on and from 14 May 2009. This is the same rate that currently applies to full-strength spirits. The tariff proposals form part of the government’s plan for the alcopops measure that the Treasurer and I announced on 15 April last year and we recommitted to the steps that we intend to take in the House, today and in the future, again in April this year. The government is committed to the original alcopops measure to raise the rate of duty on these products as announced on 26 April 2008. These tariff proposals will ensure that revenue continues to be collected for all spirits at the same rate, whether they are consumed as alcopops or full-strength spirits. In the absence of these proposals the rate of duty on alcopops, and therefore their price, would fall significantly, from $69 per litre of alcohol content to almost $41. The lower price would be expected to reverse the decline in consumption of these drinks. The government remains concerned at the growth in consumption since the tax changes were introduced in 2000, as well as their appeal to young and under-age drinkers and the role they play in encouraging binge drinking. The impact of the government’s alcopops measures is seen in the 35 per cent fall in the consumption of alcopops and a fall in total spirits consumption between May 2008 and March 2009 compared to the same period in previous years. The measure is working and the fact that the distillers and their dancing marionettes in the Liberal Party are so agitated is really a good indicator of this. Distillers are pulling the strings from just outside the chamber and no doubt the member for Dickson will flail around in mock outrage at this measure. As part of our response to the Senate’s negativing of the increase in duty on alcopops on 18 March 2009, we are about to introduce bills to validate the collection of duties from 27 April 2008 to 13 May 2009. In that second reading speech, of course, I will outline the government’s approach to tackling binge drinking head-on to again remind the House of steps that have already been taken. The alcopops measure is not a stand-alone measure and never was. It is part of a suite of policy interventions backed by data and backed by the experts. As recently as Sunday, over 50 scientists and health experts signed a letter to the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia applauding the government’s decision to reintroduce the alcopops measure, to validate the revenues collected to date. In fact, I hope we can trust that the opposition will stay true to its word to support that validation legislation in this place and in the other place. Here is the rub for the Liberal Party: if the effect of the measure is good enough to support up until now, it should be good enough to support into the future. These proposals will start that ball rolling by ensuring the measure does not cease and that revenue will continue to be collected into the future. We will, of course, at a later point have a debate in this House about that ongoing measure. The government will reintroduce the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 later in this sitting to confirm the measure. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated. Debate (on motion by Mr Dutton) adjourned. 3448 Bills R4108 3448 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon. Bill read a first time. 3448 3448 12:17:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I thank the Speaker and the opposition for their indulgence with so many separate pieces of legislation. The logistics have been a challenge for everybody. I thank those involved. I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The bill I am introducing today, known as the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009, will ensure that all duties of excise demanded or collected before 14 May 2009 because of Excise Tariff Proposal (No.1) 2008 are taken to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. This bill will ensure that revenue collected under the alcopops measure will not be returned as a windfall gain to alcopop producers. It will be retained by the government to assist in the implementation of our programs to address binge drinking. A complementary bill, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009, will also be introduced so that all excise equivalent customs duties demanded or collected under the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008 are also taken to be lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. It may help the chamber and the member opposite that I intend to speak to both of those in a cognate way and only speak in terms of the technical requirements for Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. These two bills will ensure equivalent treatment for domestically manufactured and imported alcopops. So let us be clear: these two bills stop the alcopops revenue collected thus far from going directly back to the coffers of the alcopops distillers. In addition, the government will take two further actions. Firstly—this has just been done in the House—the government will introduce further excise and customs tariff proposals, with effect from 14 May 2009, to ensure that revenue is collected for all spirits at the same rate whether they are consumed as alcopops or full-strength spirits, for the next 12 months. In other words, we are making sure that this alcopops measure does not cease today, even if and when the validation bills pass this House and hopefully the other place. Secondly, the government will in this session of parliament reintroduce those same bills rejected by the Senate earlier this year to legislate the higher rate for alcopops, and in doing so ensure the new rate continues into the future. That is, it is our intention to lock in a higher excise for alcopops into the future. For the benefit of the House, it is worth recapping how we arrived at this point. Following Gazette notices on 26 April 2008, I tabled earlier tariff proposals on 13 May 2008 to increase the rate of duty applying to these products. These tariff proposals allowed the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to collect the higher rate of duty on alcopops from 27 April 2008. However, on 18 March 2009, the Senate chose not to support the bills that would have locked in a higher rate of duty for alcopops. Under the laws relating to tariff proposals, the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Customs and Border Protection Service have continued to collect the higher rate of duty on alcopops that has applied since 27 April 2008. This statutory protection expires at midnight on Wednesday night this week. Once the statutory protection expires, the additional revenue raised from the higher duty rate on alcopops would need to be refunded to alcopops producers or importers. With the Senate voting down the government’s attempts to confirm in legislation the increase in the rate applying to alcopops, the introduction and passage of these validation bills is considered by the government to be a necessary measure to protect the collection of duties permitted by the tariff proposals. Let me say it again in plain English for the benefit of members opposite: these bills are to stop the revenue collected so far from going directly back to the distillers. Since the announcement of the original alcopops measure on 26 April 2008, the government has collected now nearly $424 million in revenue. That would be a $424 million jackpot for the distillers if this bill is not passed today. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that cannot happen and to pursuing this initiative into the future. Our commitment to acting to tackle binge drinking has not wavered and has not diminished. Soon after coming to office the Rudd government recognised that binge drinking was increasingly becoming a significant health and social issue. Unfortunately, barely a day goes by without horrible stories of the ill effects of binge drinking in Australia being in our media. One only needs to visit a hospital emergency department on a Saturday night to see the direct, ugly reality of binge drinking. Let’s not forget a few facts in this debate. The industry itself admits that sales of alcopops grew 250 per cent since 2000 when the Liberal government opened an alcopops loophole by reducing the tariff so that it was lower than other spirits. Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of young female drinkers aged 15 to 17—under-age drinkers—who consumed alcopops at their last drinking occasion increased from 14 per cent to a massive 62 per cent. For females drinking at risky and high levels in 2004, 78 per cent drank alcopops on their last drinking occasion. That figure has increased threefold since the year 2000. In any given week, approximately one in 10 12- to 17-year-olds are binge drinking or drinking at risky levels. Almost 20,000 girls aged between 12 and 15 drink daily or weekly. These are pretty devastating figures. In some jurisdictions the number of young women aged 18 to 24 being admitted to hospital because of alcohol has doubled in those eight years. In a year, more than three-quarters of a million Australians are physically abused by the people under the influence of alcohol. We know that the social cost of alcohol misuse in Australia was estimated to be about $15 billion in 2004-05. Health experts and police from across Australia agree that action needs to be taken. They know that achieving cultural change does not happen overnight and that interventions need to take many forms and be on many fronts. This is a long-term issue and it will require sustained long-term action. Experts agree that to effectively tackle binge drinking we need to have a multipronged and prolonged strategy, and so the government has decided to act—something the previous government never took much interest in. In the first steps, in March 2008 the Prime Minister and I announced the National Binge Drinking Strategy. This involved investing $53.5 million to address binge drinking amongst young people. Elements of the package include investing $14.4 million in community level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking, particularly in sporting organisations. Six major sporting codes have now signed up to a code of conduct. We committed $19.1 million to intervene earlier to assist young people and to ensure that they assume personal responsibility for their binge drinking. We provided $20 million for advertising that confronts young people with the costs and consequences of binge drinking via the gritty and hard-hitting ‘Don’t turn a night out into a nightmare’ campaign. By tackling the issues on many fronts, we aim to make inroads into behaviour, particularly amongst young Australians. This strategy remains in place and has been made stronger by additional government intervention. We believe that the Liberal Party’s alcopops tax break has played a special role in drinking culture, especially amongst young women. Alcopops are brazenly targeted at young people and under-age drinkers. By using bright colours and sweet flavours, alcopops can very effectively fool young people about how much they are drinking and disguise the taste of alcohol. Effectively, alcopops are alcohol-laced lolly water targeted at young people and at young women in particular who might otherwise not drink as much, or at all, if the taste of alcohol were more obvious as it would be unpleasant to their palates. They are basically designed to undermine any notion of responsible drinking and increasingly, unfortunately, their advertising campaigns are making this clear. I have heard of alcopops being referred to as cocktails on training wheels. So, following on from the Binge Drinking Strategy, the government introduced a measure to close this alcopops loophole by again equalising the alcopops tariff with other spirits. And it worked. The amount of alcopops being drunk has plummeted. The measure has seen a 35 per cent fall in excise and equivalent customs duty clearances of alcopops between May last year and March this year when compared to the same period over the previous year. Now the distillers and the Liberal Party argue that the decline in consumption of alcopops has been offset by substitution to full-strength spirits. It has not. While there has been some substitution to full-strength spirits—partly driven by the marketing strategies of the alcopops sellers—overall, there has been a fall in the total spirits excise and equivalent customs duty clearances of around eight per cent. That is a big drop in consumption. The Liberals’ and the distillers’ arguments simply do not stand up to the facts. The measure has worked. There has been an eight per cent decline in total spirits, excise and equivalent customs duty clearances. The distillers and the Liberal Party opposite simply cannot argue otherwise. The distillers are driven purely by making a buck from selling a drink, not by some new-found concern for our children’s health. Their bottom line, quite literally, is to sell more product. Only someone who came down in the last shower or who has ulterior motives would argue otherwise. The reality is that on average young people, who are very sensitive to price, are consuming less alcopops and less spirits, which while resulting in a social good is simply bad for their profits. There have been a range of other self-serving reports and surveys commissioned in desperation by the distillers, but the fact of the matter is this: fewer alcopops in particular and spirits in general are being consumed as a result of this measure, and the distillers will go to any lengths to stop this. We do not want the Liberal Party to assist them in this work. I referred earlier to the need for a comprehensive package of measures. More action is in the pipeline and I would like to briefly outline some of these now. At COAG last year the Rudd government announced the single largest investment ever made by an Australian government in preventative health, to support a range of programs and interventions to reduce the impact of chronic illness on the community—$872 million worth. Part of this will be directed towards reducing the ill effects of alcohol abuse along with the harm caused by tobacco, obesity and other chronic illnesses. All of this is new money and it is partly supported by revenue from closing the alcopops loophole. Importantly, the government has established the Preventative Health Task Force being chaired by Professor Rob Moodie. This task force’s priority areas are alcohol, tobacco and obesity, and its report is due in the coming months. I know that the task force’s report will have strong recommendations based on evidence on further action to reduce the effects of binge drinking, and I look forward very much to receiving those recommendations. So the point I have demonstrated is that this is not a stand-alone answer to binge drinking, we have never pretended it was and it was never intended to be, as the Liberals have so disingenuously claimed. The alcopops measure is just one part—an important part—of the government’s comprehensive approach to tackling binge drinking. It is not the first initiative we have taken, and it will not be the last. We will continue to engage in a conversation with the Australian community on how best to address the scourge of binge drinking. Now is the time to act. Now is also the time for the Liberal Party to show their hand—and to choose a side. Full details of the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I hope that the Liberal Party, true to its word, will support this validation bill. It will ensure that over $400 million does not go directly back to the pockets of the distillers. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Dutton) adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to be resumed at a later hour this day. 3452 Bills R4107 3452 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon. Bill read a first time. 3452 3452 12:32:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. As I indicated, I have spoken on the substantive matters in moving the second reading of the previous bill. I simply confirm for the House that the Customs Tariff Validation Bill I am now introducing will ensure that all excise equivalent customs duties demanded or collected before 14 May 2009 because of Customs Tariff Proposal (No.1) 2008 are taken to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. This bill is cognate with amendments contained in the Excise Tariff Validation Bill and ensures equivalent treatment for domestically manufactured and imported alcopops. Validation of the collection of excise equivalent customs duties, before 14 May 2009, under the government’s alcopop measures will mean that importers of these products will not receive a windfall gain and that the government will continue to deliver its current programs tackling binge drinking. Full details of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009 are contained in the joint explanatory memorandum for the customs and excise tariff validation bills. Debate (on motion by Mr Dutton) adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to be resumed at a later hour this day. 3453 Bills R4108 Cognate bill: 3453 Bills R4107 3453 Debate resumed. 3453 12:33:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I rise to talk on these cognate bills: the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. By way of background, we come to this debate today because around the time of the May budget of last year the government announced that it was going to put in place a 70 per cent tax hike on one particular category of alcoholic drinks. The government refers to those drinks as alcopops but they are otherwise known as RTDs, premixed drinks or ready-to-drink drinks that people commonly see in bottle shops and in hotels and clubs around the country. The vast consumption of these drinks is done by responsible consenting adults. At the margins, of course, there are people who drink to excess and there are people who binge drink. That is a serious issue for this country. We provided the government the opportunity in the last sitting period, some seven or eight weeks ago, to validate the tax which had been collected over the preceding 12 months. We made that offer because we did not want to see the revenues collected returned to the alcohol industry. We did not do it because we agreed with the government’s tax imposition. We did not do it because we were changing our position; in fact, our position on this issue has been consistent—in stark contrast to that of the government, from day one. Our position has been consistent in that we have said to the government, from the time that this announcement was made 12 months ago right up until this morning when we were making public comments, that this bill was never about addressing the real issue of binge drinking. This bill has always been about a tax grab by a desperate government. This bill has always been about an agenda from the Treasury as opposed to the agenda of the Department of Health and Ageing. The Department of Health and Ageing realises, of course, that this bill and this measure by the government merely encourage consumers of alcohol—in particular, young people—to move from one product to another. In actual fact, despite there having been two Senate inquiries on this very issue over the course of the last 12 months, nobody—not the Minister for Health and Ageing, this government or this department—has been able to produce any evidence that this has curbed binge drinking. The minister refers to a drop in sales of some 30 to 35 per cent of these RTD products, but she is very careful not to make the point that this has curbed binge drinking, because all she is saying, by suggesting that the drop-off has taken place in the consumption of this particular product that has had a tax spike, is that people have moved from that product to another product. I ask parents right around the country: over the course of the last 12 months since the Rudd government made this announcement, has there been less consumption of alcohol by teenagers in your household? Has there been a drop-off in the number of teenagers or people presenting to emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights with alcohol related injuries or conditions? The answer is no. The government has not been able to provide one shred of evidence that this measure has gone any way towards curbing the issue of binge drinking. I have made it very clear as part of this debate—and certainly, in all of the public comment that we have made and the private discussions that we have had, we have been consistent—that this government, this country, needs to do more in relation to binge drinking. We will support reasonable, sensible measures that go to curbing binge drinking. We will support the government in measures that it puts forward which break the culture in this country of binge drinking. We are like most parents, most responsible Australians, around the country who say that responsible, consenting adults who consume alcohol should do so reasonably and responsibly. We support that, but at the same time we need to make sure that wherever we can we break that culture of binge drinking because it does have serious ramifications. If this were a measure which went even part of the way to doing that, we would provide bipartisan support to the government. But clearly this has always been about a grab for tax. This is a government so far now into debt that it will take at least a generation to repay the Labor government debt. This is what happens every time a Labor government is elected in this country. We have seen it at a state level right around the country. During the boom times of the last 10 years, Labor governments have been racking up billions of dollars of debt. In my own state of Queensland, the Labor Party has racked up $74 billion of debt over the course of the last 11 years at a time when the previous federal government—the coalition government—was able to repay Labor’s $96 billion worth of debt, put $60 billion into the Future Fund and leave this government with a surplus of $22 billion only 16 months ago. This is a government which has turned that $22 billion in the bank into a $60 billion or $70 billion overdraft fully drawn. Anybody in business would understand thoroughly that this government cannot manage money. In a state of desperation, this government went out with this so-called health measure to try to raise what they described at the time as about $1.6 billion. A number of figures have been bandied around by the government. The minister before used the figure of $424 million that had been collected from this tax hike over the last 12 months, so we can agree on that figure for the time being. Nonetheless, these are considerable revenues. What really called the bluff of the minister was when the minister embarrassingly had to front up to a media interview—to a doorstop—with the Treasurer. It is funny that the minister should mention the term ‘dancing marionette’ because really that is what she had written all over her when she was standing there in the shadow of the Treasurer at that joint press conference. Humiliating it must have been for this minister, because this minister knew from the start that this was never a health measure. So poorly handled was this measure by the health minister that she was sent out not to front the media by herself, such was the incompetence, but with the guidance of the chief puppeteer, the Treasurer. The Treasurer stood there, took questions, made comments and essentially belled the cat in relation to what this was always about. The health minister had to stand there embarrassingly and listen to the Treasurer’s own words. The Treasurer spoke about this being unfinished business from the last budget: … Budget measure from last year remains unpassed. …         …         … Bear this in mind: we are in the middle of a global recession. It’s vital in these circumstances that the Government has the capacity to pass its program, and we are determined to pass our program. What he is talking about is this tax grab, the reliance on this revenue, not as a measure to address binge drinking but merely as a measure to try and patch up a black hole. What is important to remember in this debate is that when we came to the last sitting period the government put forward the bill, it went to the Senate and the Independent senator sensibly joined with the coalition to oppose the measure. We did that not lightly but for all the reasons that I have just outlined. In light of the government’s stance, we offered the government the opportunity to validate the tax that had been collected already. The government made the announcement originally that its proposal was to increase the tax and collect it at a higher rate. The government, as many people who have followed this debate would know, then had a 12-month window in which to validate by legislating the collection of that tax. Of course, we are right up against the 12-month mark today and that is why, embarrassingly, this minister has had to come in and interrupt the business of the House on budget day to ram this through. That is the situation that this minister finds herself in. At the time of the last sittings, we offered the government the opportunity to validate the collection of the tax. We were scolded at that time by the minister because she did not believe that the opposition’s position was valid in offering the opportunity to validate the tax which had been collected. It was quite a remarkable stance then, and I thought at the time that it really was something that the minister may regret. Here today the minister is offering up the same legislation that we were proposing seven or eight weeks ago—to validate the money which had been collected already, as I said before, not because we were of a mind that this was a good health measure, or indeed that it was good tax policy, but because it was our wish that the money did not go back to the alcohol industry. Our aim from here—the government now having moved on as part of this debate and having secured this revenue—is that the government as it goes forward allocates some of this money to breaking that culture that we spoke about before. We in this country need to have sensible measures, similar to those we put in place that broke the culture of people failing to wear seatbelts in motor vehicles, that over a generation essentially broke the habit for many of drink driving and that addressed some very serious health threats to this country, such as AIDS, over the last decade or two. These are the sorts of programs that this government needs to put in place to break the drinking culture. People who go out on a Friday or Saturday night to their local hotel or to a party, and parents with teenage children or young adults who go to parties, need to be reassured that they can mix in those social environments without being threatened by somebody who is under the influence of alcohol and/or illicit drugs. That is, of course, part of what is at the core of this debate as well, and we have seen next to nothing from this government on that. There is a real threat in this country when teenagers use illicit drugs. Much of the footage the government now relies on and much of the footage that people see on their TV sets on a Friday or Saturday night is of young people in emergency departments, at licensed venues, in the street and in the gutter in some circumstances. They are in a terrible state. To the untrained eye, many people would say that this is solely a consequence of inappropriate consumption of alcohol, but in many cases—indeed, in most cases—this behaviour has arisen because of not just the consumption of alcohol but also the taking of illicit drugs. That also brings about much of the violence that we see. The minister will refer to an announcement that she made in recent weeks, but this government has dropped the ball on illicit drugs. They have always taken a softer stance on drugs, and that was underscored by the fact that it took this minister almost 16 months to put forward a proposal to address some very real concerns that exist in our community. I make that point because it really is an indication of how this portfolio is being managed under this government. Health is an issue that was promised priority at the last election. This government promised to fix public hospitals by mid-2009. That was the promise the Prime Minister made. Those words appeared on the Prime Minister’s website because those were the words he spoke in the November 2007 election, but since that time they have changed from ‘fixing public hospitals’ to ‘improving public hospitals’. Since that time, in a recent press interview the minister watered down the language even further. I ask Australians listening to this debate today who are worried about the state of health in this country: have public hospitals in your local community improved over the last 16 months? Have outcomes for patients in this country improved since the election of the Rudd government? At the last election the Prime Minister promised that he would fix public hospitals, and there are only six weeks left before that deadline runs out. I believe that this government will make a major announcement in relation to health in the budget tonight—and all of us have some theories about what the budget will contain. The government has performed poorly on health over the last 16 months not just with public hospitals but on a range of issues. Minister Roxon, who is sitting opposite me, has been involved in a number of bungles. There was one in the last 24 hours which has the potential to cost Australian taxpayers millions of dollars. This portfolio has been handled poorly. They have failed to meet any of the objectives that they put in place. That is why the media machine tonight will be working overtime to announce a big package on health that will try to deflect some of the criticism that they will rightly cop over the coming months in relation to their failings in health policy. We have engaged with a number of stakeholders in the debate that is currently before the House. It is true to say that there are a number of people who strongly support this measure and a number who strongly oppose this measure. Many people within the health community, in evidence given to the Senate inquiry and in our other contact with them, have indicated that they are supportive of the government’s measure. The minister is happy to trot out those lines on whatever occasion gives her an opportunity to do so. The government fails to acknowledge as part of that debate that many of the same proponents would prefer to see a 70 per cent tax hike across all alcohol products—and, no doubt, increases well beyond that for some of them would be ideal as well. That is not what the government has proposed; that is not what is on the table. The evidence over the last 12 months shows there has been a displacement effect. People have clearly moved from consuming premixed drinks to mixing their own drinks. For the first time in 15 years, over the last 12 months there has been an increase in the consumption of heavy beer. Young males who previously consumed Bundy and cola or some other premixed bourbon drink, for argument’s sake, have gone to either mixing their own drinks—and the sales of bottled spirits have gone through the roof over the last 12 months—which in many cases means they are consuming more alcohol, or consuming heavy beer. There is no other element to this debate that has been present over the last 12 months which would have driven a change in that behaviour. If we look at the consumption pattern for young women over the last 12 months, we see that many have moved from consuming premixed drinks to mixing their own spirits or—and this should cause all in this debate some concern—having a third person at a party mix their drinks for them. In many cases that person is unknown to them. It takes away the peace of mind that some parents had in knowing that their young adult was taking premixed bottled drinks that would be opened by them at the time of consumption. That has raised serious concerns about the implications of this poorly thought out policy. These are all things that we need to take into consideration as part of this debate. If it had not just been a tax spike on one product, if the government had proposed some other reasonable measure, then there would have been occasion for just and reasonable debate. But the reality is that, with the way in which the government has approached this debate—so ill thought out has it been—they have not been able to provide one shred of evidence. Despite all of the resources of the Department of Health and Ageing, the state health bureaucracies, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury, they have not been able to produce any evidence that this has curbed binge drinking in this country over the last 12 months. That is the reason that they must stand condemned. They must stand condemned for this policy and for their option to put in place a measure which was otherwise going to return over $400 million to the alcohol industry. This government was ideologically prepared to be stuck in a position where they were going to give back $400 million to the industry. In closing, that is the reason that at the time of this debate in the last parliament we offered up this same opportunity that the government is offering up today—to validate the collection of those taxes. That is an opportunity which the minister scoffed at at the time but now, embarrassingly, has had to agree to and to put on the table to make sure that there was not a loss to revenue. It says a lot about the way in which this government handles debates. It really goes to what the core of the Rudd government is all about, and that is all spin. They have teams of people, in this building and outside, working on media lines. Ministers in this government have to run press releases by the Prime Minister’s office. We are in one of the strongest democracies in the world. We have some very intelligent people—not without exception—who sit on the front bench of the Labor Party. Not all of them—I accept that. Nonetheless, these are mature people who have to run their comments through the Prime Minister’s office, such is his management of every word they say. It is remarkable, but it is not surprising, given the track record of the Minister for Health and Ageing in this portfolio over the last 16 months, that they would want to micromanage every word that came out of that office. It is completely understandable. It is part of the reason that the Treasurer was out there pulling the strings up and down and why the minister was having to cringe at the second microphone. This has been an embarrassing and humiliating defeat for the government. We will continue to prosecute the argument. We will continue to fight for good policy that will affect the difficulties and terrible outcomes of binge drinking. But we will not stand by and be silent whilst this government puts forward a proposal which is deeply flawed. By its own admission, the government could not provide any evidence that it has gone in any way to address the outcomes they stated at the start of this debate. We support the bill on that basis and we do not want to see this money go back to the alcohol industry, but we will continue to fight for better health outcomes for all Australians. 3458 12:56:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —I rise to speak in support of these cognate bills: the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. It is unfortunate that the member for Dickson felt the need to stoop to the level of personally attacking the Minister for Health and Ageing, but I am not surprised that they would do anything to avoid having a genuine debate on the alcopops legislation. That is why we are here today putting these validation bills through. The member for Dickson has talked about how this government should be embarrassed by the fact that it has had to put this validation legislation up today. The true embarrassment has to come from the opposition and the position that they chose to take in the Senate, opposing these increases on alcopops. They have had to go back and justify their position to the general community, who are very supportive of these particular bills going through both the House and the Senate. They are now in a position of having to validate the revenue collected while at the same time still saying that they stand by the distilling industry and oppose any form of increase in taxes on these alcopops. These bills will provide for the validation of all duties demanded or collected as a result of the Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008 and the Customs Tariff Proposal (No.1) 2008, tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 May 2008. This is so they are taken to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. The bills also provide for the validation of all duties demanded or collected before 14 May 2009, as a result of the Commonwealth Government Special Notices Gazette No. S87 and No. S88, published on 26 April 2008, so that such duties are taken to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. The bills cover a period of collection of revenue from 27 April 2008 to 13 May 2009, inclusive. Since coming into power, this government has asserted from day one its absolute commitment to the health sector and to investing in preventative health measures. That includes closing the tax loophole on alcopops. But we have said since the beginning that the measures in relation to alcopops are only part of the solution, albeit a very important part. The Rudd government is serious about tackling binge drinking. We have already committed $14.4 million in community level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking in partnership with sporting and community organisations. We have committed $19.1 million to intervene earlier to assist young people and ensure that they assume personal responsibility. We have committed to a $20 million advertising campaign, ‘Don’t turn a night out into a nightmare’, confronting youth with the consequences of binge drinking. And, as we heard from the minister for health earlier, we committed $872 million in funding to preventative health, announced at the Council of Australian Governments in November 2008, which will include new initiatives to tackle binge drinking. That is why it is important that these customs and excise validation bills pass through the parliament and the revenue that has been collected to date does not simply become a windfall gain to the alcopop producers. It is important that we retain this revenue to assist in the implementation of our programs to address binge drinking. Of course, binge drinking is still a problem and, despite the Senate taking the position it did in March to oppose the increase in taxation on alcopops, the fact is that it is a problem we must all face. We heard the minister for health today citing statistics on alcohol consumption. In any given week approximately one in 10 12- to 17-year-olds are binge drinking or drinking at risky levels. High levels of alcohol consumption are leading to alarming levels of hospitalisation. The number of young women aged 18 to 24 being admitted to hospitals because of alcohol has doubled in the last eight years. Binge drinking leads to violence. Last year, more than three-quarters of a million Australians were physically abused by persons under the influence of alcohol. Not only does binge drinking hurt Australian society; it hurts the economy as well. According to the most recent estimates of the social cost of alcohol misuse in Australia, the bill is around $15 billion every year. Further, one in five Australians drink at short-term high-risk levels at least once a month. This equates to more than 42 million occasions of binge drinking in Australia each year. A recent survey of Australians showed that 84 per cent of people are concerned about the impact of alcohol on the community and that they consider intoxication to be unacceptable. Alcohol consumption accounts for 3.2 per cent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia, affecting 4.9 per cent of males and 1.6 per cent of females. The annual tangible net cost to the Australian community from harmful drinking is estimated to be almost $11 billion. Much of this cost is borne outside the health system. One of the major tangible costs is lost productivity in the workplace, which is $3.5 billion. An estimated 689,000 Australians attend work under the influence of alcohol each year. Costs outside the health system include the costs of road accidents, $2.2 billion; the costs of crime, $1.6 billion; and lost productivity in the home, $1.5 billion. It is also estimated that alcohol is responsible for insurance costs totalling $14 million a year. The negative impacts of harmful consumption of alcohol by individuals on those around them are felt regularly by many Australians. Thirteen per cent of Australians report being put in fear by a person under the influence of alcohol, and 25.4 per cent report being subjected to alcohol related verbal abuse. Unfortunately, in my state of Queensland in the past couple of weeks we saw another young man losing his life because of alcohol and a crime allegedly committed by a young person, who has been charged. These are the sorts of incidents we have to face up to and start dealing with. Thirteen per cent of Australian children aged two years or below are exposed to an adult who is a regular binge drinker. It has been estimated that 31 per cent of parents involved in substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect experience significant problems with alcohol abuse. We heard today from the member for Dickson that, as a consequence of the increase in alcopops taxation, there was an increase in consumption of full spirits. An example given was that the sale of bourbon has gone through the roof. But I did not hear any statistics or figures; we just have these broad, sweeping statements that consumption of full spirits such as bourbon has gone through the roof. The figures put forward by this government are real figures that we cannot ignore any longer. Why are alcopops a problem? The ready-to-drink spirits industry itself reports that sales have increased by over 250 per cent since the loophole was created by the Howard government. That is why this initiative was taken by the Rudd Labor government over 12 months ago—because this loophole needed to be closed. Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of female drinkers aged 15 to 17 reporting that they had consumed ready-to-drink spirits at their last drinking occasion increased from 14 per cent to 62 per cent. These are the issues we have to address. I know that the member for Mayo will be speaking shortly on these bills, and both of us spoke recently on the proposed legislation rejected by the Senate. I believe the member for Mayo said, ‘Drinking has been going on for a long time,’ and certainly since he was young. That is correct: binge drinking is not a new problem, but the reality is that the statistics show that, since this loophole was created around RTDs, the problem has been exacerbated. We have a responsibility as a government to address that loophole. That is exactly what this government sought to do over 12 months ago. In addition, as the minister for health stated, alcopops do disguise the taste of alcohol with sweet flavours. This is not merely a case of trying to target one area specifically. We have heard the member for Dickson argue, not just on this occasion but on many occasions in this debate, that we are trying to target one part of an industry as opposed to dealing with the whole issue. But it is an industry that has chosen to deliberately go out and create a product that is attractive to young people, that disguises the taste of alcohol with sweet flavours. It exposes young and inexperienced drinkers to a higher than normal risk because those young drinkers are more likely to make false judgments about the product that they are consuming. I have already stated the increase between 2000 and 2004 for female drinkers. In addition, between 1999 and 2005, the proportion of teenage girls aged 12 to 17 who chose RTDs as their preferred drink rose from 23 per cent to 48 per cent. So, despite the legislation that was introduced by the Rudd government last year, and despite the ongoing opposition by those who sit opposite, the fact is that these statistics show that the alcopops measure has achieved significant results. The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that, between April 2008 and January 2009, Australians drank 124 million fewer standard drinks for all alcohol types, according to ACNielsen. Industry figures show alcopop sales have fallen by 310 million standard drinks. A recent study in the Medical Journal of Australia also argued that the measure was working effectively. ATO figures show that, for the period May 2008 to March 2009, total spirits clearances decreased by eight per cent compared to the same period in 2007 to 2008—compared to solid growth in the previous three years—and that alcopop clearances declined by 35 per cent. These are real figures. These are clear evidence that the action the government took over 12 months ago is action that is getting results. We have stated time and time again that this is only one measure, but an important measure. We are yet to hear any of those on the other side make reference to these particular statistics. They talk about the surveys conducted by the distilling industry which we all see but which I believe are yet to actually ask people, especially young people: are they drinking less alcohol? Are they drinking fewer alcopops? They are yet to ask that direct question. There are many questions that they ask people, but they are yet to ask that direct question. We keep hearing that the alcopops increase has not resulted in any significant change but, as I argued last time I spoke on this bill, the reality is: why is this industry complaining so loudly if, in fact, the increase is not having any effect? They are still selling as much alcohol as they ever have. In fact, they are selling more, because they are selling full spirits now—large bottles of full spirits are being sold instead of alcopops. So why is this industry so concerned? Why is this industry fighting so hard to ensure that these initiatives of the Rudd Labor government do not go through if they are not having any effect? Their argument just does not stand up. Neither does the argument put by the opposition. I continue to support the Rudd Labor government’s initiatives to see an increase in the alcopops tax. I fully support not only the validation bills that are now before this House but the tariff proposals that were proposed by the Minister for Health and Ageing today—the Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2009 and the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2009. I know that the youth workers, the community organisations, the church groups and individuals across my electorate are supportive of this initiative of the Rudd Labor government. They have continued to talk to me about the commitment of this government since I spoke on the previous bills back in February of this year. My youth workers continue to tell me of the struggles that they face—going out and trying to educate young people about binge drinking and about the risks of alcopops. We did hear the member for Dickson talk about illicit drugs and say that this government is not doing anything about illicit drugs. Once again, we are hearing from those opposite the proposition that seems to be that we can only focus on one thing at a time, so, if we are dealing with alcopops, we cannot be dealing with illicit drugs. The reality is that this government is committed to a range of measures. We are not just dealing with alcopops. We are not just dealing with binge drinking. We are dealing with illicit drugs and dealing with a whole lot of problems that our young people and our community as a whole are facing out there. These are commitments that this government has shown from day one—that it showed with its previous budget last year including its commitment to the states for funding not just in health but especially in preventative health. I will continue to work with my local youth organisations to get that education message out. But it is not just up to them. It is not just up to the young people. It is not just up to the parents. It is not just up to the government—or the opposition for that matter. The distillery industry has got to take responsibility for its actions, the way it promotes these products and the products it keeps creating to try to get around these laws. It is quite an appalling state that this industry goes out of its way to create ‘malternatives’, as they are called, to try to get around the law. I will end on this note. Last time, in February, when I spoke on the bill, I spoke about the comment from those on the other side about the distillery industry wanting to have genuine debate with members of the government on this issue. I was quite appalled that, in fact, what they were doing, instead of having genuine debate with members of the government, was having stunts and gimmicks such as dropping alcohol around to various members’ offices. I can report that the day after I spoke on that bill in February, those bottles were collected from my office. So I will say thank you to the industry and their representative for that, because those four bottles have finally been collected. But this industry needs to take responsibility. This government certainly takes seriously its responsibility by making sure that we are doing everything possible to tackle binge drinking. One of those important initiatives is to ensure that alcopops are not an attractive drinking product for our young people. That is why I fully support these cognate bills before the House. 3461 13:15:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I also rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009, which have been rushed into this parliament today—on budget day. And that is what this bill is about, of course. It is a revenue raiser to fill the black hole created by the reckless spending of the Rudd government. The member for Petrie has just mounted a long argument for prohibition. She has just gone through step after step about why alcohol is causing so many social ills. She is right about some of those social ills. There are issues that some people have with alcohol. It does cause violence. It is responsible for domestic disputes on occasion. It is responsible for criminal behaviour on occasion. But the member for Petrie argued in her speech that prohibition could prevent those issues occurring. She has not argued about a tax increase on one alcohol product. That is what this bill is about. This bill is about the seemingly unrelenting attack on the distillers industry by the minister, the member for Petrie and those on the other side. Most of the speech from the member for Petrie was dedicated to the distillers industry, when this is actually about a tax on a certain product. So I find the speech from the member for Petrie slightly misleading. She says that we do not address the statistics she talked about; the statistics she has talked about are related to alcohol use in general. The impact of violent behaviour is about alcohol use in general; it is not about alcopops particularly. The problem with this tax increase is its displacement effect. It is as simple as that. Today the Australian reported comments from some Sydney university students—a young lady in Sydney, Shona Curvers, and her friends. The article said: Nineteen-year-old arts-science student Clare Barnes said the alcopops tax was ineffective and tended to steer young people towards bottled spirits. “The tax on alcopops is encouraging teens to buy bottles of vodka and so on,” … That is the very point the member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health, and the opposition have been making now for months: that this is not a health measure. This is not a genuine health measure about addressing what is a genuine problem in our community. And it is not just a problem with younger people; it is a problem that is throughout all demographics and all age groups in our community—and I think the Minister for Health and Ageing would agree with that. The excessive use of alcohol causes many issues throughout age groups in our community. In fact, the ABS National Health Survey, which gained coverage today, found that risky drinking was at its highest level amongst middle-aged women—those aged between 45 and 64. That is from the ABS National Health Survey, which is a very credible survey. And, of course, it is true. Of course there are issues with the excessive consumption of alcohol by some people and the effects it has on them. Binge drinking is a very genuine issue, and we should be moving measures in this place which address people’s attitudes to that. We are fully supportive of that on this side of the House. What we are not supportive of is using this as a cover for revenue raising. If the government were serious about it, the money they would raise would go into education programs. It would go into assistance for people who are at risk from alcohol abuse—whether that is from binge drinking once a week or from regular alcohol abuse. We know this is a revenue raiser to fill the black hole created by the reckless spending of the Rudd government, because, when they announced the re-introduction of this bill, it was the Treasurer, not the minister for health, who did so. They stumped up here in Canberra as part of the budget preparation—which we have all seen before—and the Treasurer came out of ERC with the minister and went into the blue room. He stood there and announced a health policy. Now, why would a Treasurer announce a health policy? Because it is a tax policy. It is a revenue raiser to fill the black hole created by the reckless spending of the Rudd government. We will see that black hole tonight, when they deliver the biggest deficit in the country’s history and, in doing so, put the biggest debt in this country’s history onto our children—the ones we are apparently trying to protect with this legislation. So it is a tax raiser to fill a black hole because of their reckless spending, but it does not address the serious issues of alcohol abuse by young people. It does not actually address the biggest issue that faces young people, which is illicit drugs. That is clearly the biggest issue that faces young people. The Courier-Mail did a very interesting series of articles—and I am sure the minister saw those pieces—I think it was five days in a row, about a month ago, on illicit drugs and their availability, particularly party drugs, at night spots in Brisbane. It was very telling. It was extraordinarily concerning. The average price, as I understand it, of ecstasy in Australia is now $15 per tablet. Four or five years ago it was $55 per tablet. As most members, most people in the galleries and those listening would know, $15 would get you probably two beers at a nightclub. To buy something for $15—when you do not know where it has been made, how it has been manufactured, what is in it or what its effect is likely to be—is an extraordinarily concerning thing. We do not see any policies from this government addressing the illicit drug trade or issues that are affecting young people. The member for Petrie said they can do more than one thing at a time. Of course they can—we understand that; there are a lot of bureaucrats in the department of health. But we are not seeing that. We are not seeing what that tough-on-drugs approach is from this government. Of course, the previous government had an approach that was very tough on drugs, which was about addressing the No. 1 health issue for young people in our community. This tax approach to the alcohol industry is about filling a black hole. We do not see much of an approach to the illicit drugs issue because you cannot tax an illicit drug. You cannot find a revenue stream from illicit drug taking. So we see a serious addressing of this binge-drinking crisis, this war on binge drinking, whatever superlative you would like to use to describe it, but you do not see any serious attempt to address the illicit drug industry in Australia. I congratulate the Courier-Mail on what they did with their survey. It brought to public attention a huge issue facing young Australians. I go back to what the young lady said in the Australian this morning—that what this policy has actually done in putting on this 70 per cent tax increase, this $351 million tax hike, to fill a black hole because of the reckless spending by those on the other side is to push people back to vodka, to bourbon, to serious spirits, which are much more dangerous. Miss Barnes said in the Australian this morning, ‘A litre bottle of vodka is more likely to kill you than a four-pack of alcopops.’ I think that would be right. So we see an extraordinarily concerning policy position from this government—that they are using a health policy dressed up as a concern about binge drinking to raise significant revenues to fill a black hole. We stand here again on an issue that could have been sorted out three months ago. As I understand it, Senator Cormann offered this minister three opportunities in the Senate to validate the excise that had been collected and she refused. But then the Treasurer stepped in, took it to the blue room and announced the reintroduction of this policy. That is why we know it is a tax policy and not a health policy. We on this side of the House are extraordinarily concerned about binge drinking. We think there should be a serious policy approach and that the money raised should be directed to education and to assistance for young people who are abusing alcohol. In fact, there should be a serious approach to binge drinking—or excessive alcohol abuse—throughout the community. That is our concern. We are concerned about this minister not being able to manage her portfolio. I do not want to get into personal attacks. The member for Petrie seems to be concerned that any suggestion that the minister may not be managing her portfolio properly would be a personal attack, so I would not dare to do so, but we are very concerned about the management of this portfolio. We think the Prime Minister might be, too, and we suspect that in the upcoming reshuffle there might be some action in this portfolio, but we will wait and see after tonight’s budget. In summing up, the opposition stands deeply opposed to a tax grab in the guise of a health policy. It is not designed to assist in solving excessive abuse of alcohol, which is a major issue in our community. It does not address the biggest issue facing young Australians, which is the illicit drug trade. Australia is the biggest consumer of ecstasy in the world, according to recent studies, and that is an extraordinarily concerning statistic. We should do something about it. We should be putting resources into this very major issue facing young Australians. I am sure the minister would agree with that, but this policy does not do so, because it is a tax grab. I think it is high time that the minister admitted that is what this is about, and then we would have more agreement on this side of the House. If she were able to recognise that this was a revenue raiser and not a health policy, I think we would see a bit more truthful debate. 3464 13:26:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —in reply—I thank the members who contributed to this debate on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and cognate bill: the member for Dickson, the member for Petrie and the member for Mayo. We do welcome assurances from the member for Dickson that these two validation bills will be supported. I am not entirely sure, on the basis of the contribution from the member for Mayo, whether he is supporting that position or not. It seems that the main thing he would like us to do is to legalise ecstasy so we could tax it. It seemed a strange sort of contribution to the debate, but I do acknowledge that both he and the member for Dickson are raising a legitimate concern about illicit drug use. This bill does not deal with those issues— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The point of order must be on relevance to the bill. If the member is seeking to address something else, there are other forms of the House. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —The Minister for Health and Ageing knows I did not say that. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Mayo may resume his seat. There is no point of order. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I point out, although it is not relevant to the debate before us—it is relevant to the very lengthy contributions from previous members—that the government has in recent weeks relaunched a very targeted advertising campaign which was initially run by the previous government. It has been updated because of some changed circumstances. The campaign cost $17.4 million and, of course, there are many hundreds of millions of dollars more for drug treatment programs and a range of interventions in this area. We stand ready and prepared to talk about these issues and to take action on these issues. We remain just as committed as the previous government was to tackling this very real problem. But let us not pretend that this bill will be able to deal with illegal substances. It is a bill that deals with the tax and excise rates for products which are legal but which nevertheless can cause enormous harm in this country. It seems that those opposite simply cannot accept that a tax measure can have a health impact. That is the fundamental difference between us. We are using the tax system to deliver a health impact which we believe benefits the community. I am very pleased that, as a result of the Liberal Party’s position today in the House and we hope in the Senate, $424 million will not be returned to the pockets of the distillers. It will mean that the money will be available to be used in funding important health initiatives. Of course, there is still a key difference between the government and the Liberal Party on the ongoing issue of this tax rate into the future. That will be a debate for another time. However, I would emphasise that the government remains as committed as it always has to pursuing this into the future. We understand that it will be dealt with by the House and by the other place separately, but I commend this legislation to the House and thank members again for their contribution to the debate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3465 Ms ROXON (Gellibrand —Minister for Health and Ageing) 13:29:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3465 Bills R4107 3465 Debate resumed. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 3465 Ms ROXON (Gellibrand —Minister for Health and Ageing) 13:30:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3465 Bills R4093 3465 Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 3465 13:30:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —The purpose of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 is to amend the Native Title Act 1993 to implement institutional reform to give the Federal Court of Australia a central role in managing native title claims. Notably, schedule 1 of the bill will allow the court to determine who should mediate a particular native title claim. The Native Title Tribunal was established in 1993. It is administered by the Attorney-General’s Department and performs the following important functions. The tribunal applies the registration test to native title claimant applications; mediates native title claims under the direction of the Federal Court of Australia; provides notification of native title applications and Indigenous land use agreements; maintains the Register of Native Title Claims, the National Native Title Register and the Register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements; makes arbitrary  decisions about some future act matters; and negotiates other sorts of agreements such as Indigenous land use agreements. The history of determination of native title and compensation claims is complicated. The original scheme provided that all claims be made to the Native Title Tribunal. If the terms could be agreed, the tribunal would make a determination in accordance with the agreement, which, once registered, took effect as though it were an order of the court. If terms could not be agreed, the registrar of the tribunal would lodge an application in the Federal Court. However, in Fourmile v Selpam in 1998, this scheme was held to be invalid because it was alleged to vest judicial power in a non-judicial body. The act was amended in 1998 to provide that every current claimant application became a proceeding in the Federal Court and every new application was to be made to the court. As a general rule, the court referred each application to the tribunal for mediation in accordance with parameters set by the court. The act was further amended in 2007 to expand the tribunal’s powers and functions in relation to mediation, to clarify that the court could not mediate while an application was before the tribunal. The government complains that the existing regime—and its previous iterations—has resulted in the expenditure of millions of dollars in litigation and the creation of a backlog of claims that may take 30 years to clear. The proposed amendments will provide that both the court and the tribunal may mediate and will also provide that another ‘appropriate person or body’ may mediate. Management and oversight of the process will be the responsibility of the Federal Court. The intention is for ‘broader, more flexible and quicker negotiated settlements of native title claims’. The settlements may be broader because the court will be empowered to make consent orders on matters beyond native title. Other proposals include provisions for the court to rely upon an agreed statement of facts in making a consent determination where the parties include a native title claim group and the main government party, while objections may be taken to the agreed statement by other parties within strict time limits; for there to be a simplified application process for recognition of native title representative bodies; and for processes for extension, variation and reduction of areas to be amalgamated into one variation process. Representative bodies may apply for extensions of time to make submissions on variations. The proposals are also intended to work with recent amendments to other legislation—in particular, amendments to the Evidence Act relating to hearsay and opinion evidence on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander laws and customs, and amendments to the Federal Court of Australia Act to allow the court to refer questions to an expert for inquiry and report. The coalition supports this bill in principle. However, we foreshadow potential Senate amendments pending the report of the Senate committee. 3466 13:35:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —Since the 1992 decision of the High Court in the Mabo case, it has been understood that the common law of Australia recognises a form of native title. The Native Title Act, passed in 1993, accepts the High Court’s conclusion from the case of Mabo and Queensland No. 2, from which I quote: The common law of Australia recognises a form of native title which, in the cases where it has not been extinguished, reflects the entitlement of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia, in accordance with their laws or customs, to their traditional lands. The Mabo decision and the Native Title Act passed in 1993 marked a fundamental shift in the place of Indigenous people in our nation. The shift was a long time coming, the decision of the High Court was a long time coming and the legislation was something that the nation had waited a long time for, but they offered hope of full recognition of and status for Indigenous people. Sixteen years on, that hope has not been fully realised. I do not want to recite the tortuous history of reviews, inquiries and amendments to the native title legislation but to record the fact that, 16 years on, there remain more than 450 unresolved native title claims, according to the last published report of the Native Title Tribunal. On present estimates it may take another 30 years to resolve the native title claims lodged to this time. Millions of dollars and countless hours of the time and effort of claimants, of lawyers, of judges and of tribunals have been spent in attempts to resolve native title claims. I make that comment with the greatest of respect to all those who have devoted their efforts and their time to this endeavour. Perhaps most sadly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander claimants have died before their claims could be resolved, and I fear that more such claimants will die before their claims can be resolved. This Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 contains amendments to the Native Title Act which are aimed at speeding up the claims process. This aim reflects Labor’s commitment to Indigenous people and is completely consistent with the explicit intention of the Native Title Act to recognise, support and protect native title. This aim is also consistent with the government’s recent confirmation of Australia’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, articles 25 to 32 of which provide for rights to maintain traditional connections to land. Improving the Native Title Act gives better effect to those rights as well. I want to note two key aspects of this bill, those being the provisions dealing with the role of the Federal Court in mediation processes and the provisions applying new procedures in the Evidence Act to evidence given by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—specifically, proposed new section 214. The proposed new mediation processes arise from a review conducted by Mr Graham Hiley QC and Dr Ken Levy in March 2006. The two reviewers disagreed on whether the National Native Title Tribunal or the Federal Court should have ultimate control of native title dispute resolution processes, and made separate recommendations in their March 2006 report. The former government elected to implement Dr Levy’s recommendation to give exclusive control of mediation to the National Native Title Tribunal, with increased powers. This recommendation and the 2007 amendments which were based on that recommendation were widely criticised at the time. There were many submissions to an inquiry that was conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and some of those submissions—probably a majority of them—noted that the mediation record of the National Native Title Tribunal was a poor one. Indeed, the report of Mr Hiley and Dr Levy noted that, as at January 2006, some 76 per cent of mediations in the National Native Title Tribunal had been going for more than three years and that just under 48 per cent had been going for more than five years, which might suggest that part of the problem up to that time was the way in which mediations were being conducted by the National Native Title Tribunal. Labor senators pointed out at the time that the proposed expansion of the tribunal’s powers would conflate the National Native Title Tribunal’s role as a mediator with determinative quasi-judicial functions. The Federal Court offered some comments as well at the time that the Howard government’s proposals would create a confusion of the mediation role of the National Native Title Tribunal with other functions and might also involve in an unconstitutional manner the impermissible intrusion of executive power into the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The Federal Court also pointed out at the time, in 2007, that giving the National Native Title Tribunal greater directive powers was actually likely to generate additional delay and additional costs because National Native Title Tribunal directions would be subject to judicial review and would, of course, only be enforceable through processes in the Federal Court. It needs to be said that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner was also critical of the powers proposed by the former government to be conferred on the Native Title Tribunal, and one could add to that the voice of the National Farmers Federation, who said, and I quote from their submission at the time, ‘History shows that the Native Title Tribunal does not have a good track record in resolving mediation issues.’ One would think that, faced with that barrage of criticism for the proposals that it was considering, the former government might have thought again and perhaps reconsidered the kind of approach it was proposing to take, which was contrary to very direct recommendations made by Mr Graham Hiley QC, someone with arguably more experience than any other legal practitioner in Australia. I recall that Mr Graham Hiley QC was involved in the very first land claims made under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of the Commonwealth, the claims under which commenced in 1977. Not only was Graham Hiley QC involved in very many of the claims made under the Northern Territory land rights act but he has continued to be involved in claims made under the Native Title Act throughout Australia ever since. Notwithstanding the criticism and notwithstanding the very clear recommendations made by Mr Hiley, the Howard government ploughed on with its amendments. This government’s assessment of the procedures introduced is that they have not worked. Indeed, they have not worked to create an effective native title mediation process. This bill effectively adopts Mr Hiley’s recommendations from the 2006 review he participated in which give the Federal Court the central role in managing all native title claims. Graham Hiley QC showed considerable wisdom in the comments he made in his 2006 report. He said: Just as other superior courts must have complete control over their own processes, I consider it essential that the Federal Court have complete control over all native title claims which have been brought before it (under the NTA), from the time of their commencement to the point of their ultimate determination. He went on to say: The court is in the best position to case manage matters effectively … I agree with the comments made by Graham Hiley QC. This bill will ensure that the full authority of the Federal Court can be brought to bear on the resolution of native title claims. The Native Title Tribunal will still have a role to play but the primary responsibility will rest with the court. The proposed changes to procedure have been welcomed by native title practitioners, by the Law Council of Australia, by the Northern Territory government, by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and by others. All of the submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which I understand is to report today, stressed the importance of continuing to focus on the end result of achieving prompt and just resolution of the several hundred outstanding claims. The other matter in this bill I want to note is the proposed new section 214, which will allow provisions of the Commonwealth Evidence Act to apply to native title claims. Changes made last year under the Evidence Amendment Act 2008 will apply generally in federal courts to evidence given by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Particularly in the context of native title claims, those procedures will make it easier for a court to receive evidence about Indigenous traditional laws and customs. I can speak from some experience to say that the application of standard rules of evidence, particularly rules against hearsay, even in the modified form in which they appear in the Commonwealth Evidence Act, has been difficult when evidence is being taken from Indigenous people. It is appropriate that a discretion be given to the court to manage the appropriate means of receipt of such evidence. It is equally appropriate that, as is proposed in this bill, it be possible for claims that have already been commenced and are already in process under the Native Title Act to take advantage of those new procedures in the Commonwealth Evidence Act, as they are conducted through the Federal Court. I have not spoken about all of the reforms proposed by this legislation, but the reforms in the bill could be seen as relatively modest. I say that because much larger reforms have been proposed in recent years, including proposals made last year by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Robert French. The changes that Justice French discussed included creating presumptions of connection and continuity of connection which would shift the burden of proof to those seeking to disprove connection to land. Another suggestion of the Chief Justice was to allow a state and an applicant for native title to agree to disregard extinguishment of title. These suggestions are worthy of consideration, as are others made by the Human Rights Commission in its submission to the most recent inquiry on this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I am confident that the Labor government will monitor the effect of the reforms made by this bill and will continue to examine the operation of the native title process. Sixteen years after the enactment of the Native Title Act, it has to be said that our nation has not realised the high hopes of that time. We must continue to strive towards the aim of recognition of native title, which is a beginning of reconciliation, not the end result. If further reforms are necessary, I am confident Labor will undertake them. I commend the bill to the House. 3469 13:50:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I pick up on the words of the previous speaker in his conclusion regarding recommendations to the various committees which have led to the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 before the House, particularly on the question of rebuttal and presumption of continuity. I agree wholeheartedly with him that this issue requires further consideration, so much so that I foreshadow an amendment, which I imagine will be dealt with in the consideration in detail stage. It will pick up on the issues raised by bodies such as the National Native Title Tribunal and various legal authorities, and by Tom Calma and others. It is an excellent recommendation worthy of consideration by government. Surely, after three years of review and consideration of the state of play in regard to native title claims in Australia, and given how slow and inefficient the process is at present, I hope that this opportunity to consider such a worthy matter is not missed. The first three words I used in this chamber were words from the local Indigenous community on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. ‘Jum-mada-gai’ means ‘Come, you are welcome,’ and it was an invitation to all members of this chamber to visit the mid-North coast of New South Wales and to work with me on the full range of issues that we confront, whether they be unemployment which is comparatively higher than the rest of Australia, poverty levels which are comparatively higher than the rest of Australia, income levels which are comparatively lower than the rest of Australia or education levels which are comparatively lower than the rest of Australia. Many of those touch very much the significant Indigenous population who I represent on the mid-North Coast and who are quite often forgotten in the stereotypical images that come from this place and others when consideration is given to Indigenous communities. There is a significant and vibrant coastal Indigenous population that is trying to walk together for a common future with the Crown and the sovereign nation that we now live in. I also watched the apology from this chamber. It was before I arrived here and it was a significant moment for Australia. It was, in the words that I have previously mentioned, an example of walking together and hopefully walking together for a common future rather than a 220-year history of Crown or sovereign authority and division. It was a significant and symbolic step in, hopefully, uniting, working together and walking together to achieve some common good and some common outcomes. It is now over 12 months since that apology and we are now down to some of the detailed work of putting the meat on the bones—for want of a better expression—of delivering on some of those symbolic gestures of over 12 months ago with the apology. I hope it is from that that we have the genesis of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 before the House today. The bill itself is to there break what is a very slow native title claims process to date. It is common knowledge that the existing system of resolving native title claims is too slow and therefore not effective. I think, going back to the words I have just said, it is one thing to have access to the law; it is another thing to have access to justice. Whilst the native title system that has been built up certainly provides access to the law, it is questionable, as of today, whether it is a process that is just in delivering the reconciliation outcomes that I would hope everyone in this chamber is looking for. Some of the facts and figures are startling and of concern. From 1997 to 2006, there were some 600 determinations remaining to be made, with only 81 determinations having been made. This is at a cost of $900 million to the taxpayer over that nine-year period. This is a cost of $11.1 million per determination. I think that is a slight on all of us. There are still some 500 or so native title claimant applications currently on the go, and therefore the amendments seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the native title claims resolution process. Part of it is, importantly, giving the Federal Court of Australia a more central role overseeing the native title mediation process. Bluntly, it will be able to oversee the operations of the Native Title Tribunal. It is hoped that by doing so the Federal Court of Australia will be able to assist the Native Title Tribunal with its excessive workload and thereby increase cost and time efficiencies and lead to more just outcomes. I turn to some background. The Attorney-General commissioned a review of the claims resolution process in the native title system in 2005. As has previously been mentioned, Graham Hiley QC and Dr Ken Levy responded to the terms of reference in 2006 with the Native Title Claims Resolution Review. Dr Levy’s recommendation for institutional reform was implemented. He recommended: … that a matter should always be ‘mediated’ in whole by a single body, and that different parts … should not be referred to different bodies (at the one time). Therefore, the National Native Title Tribunal remained the sole body for mediating the claim process. Graham Hiley QC’s preference was to ‘provide the Federal Court with greater flexibility in relation to alternative dispute resolution’. This option would remove the mandatory requirement in section 86B that the Federal Court refer claims to the National Native Title Tribunal for mediation and would thus enable the Federal Court to determine who undertakes mediation and other alternative dispute resolution functions in relation to claims and when such mediation or other ADR functions are undertaken—in other words, therefore, the possibility that not one single body mediates on just one matter. From a public policy point of view, this is to encourage negotiations rather than litigation, which, again, is something that I hope this chamber and this place generally would support. It is in tune with the act preamble that suggests exactly that, and precedent cases also suggest that. The Wongatha case says that it is appropriate for the court, once again, to draw to the party’s attention the desirability that mediation be fully explored. The famous Yorta Yorta case also makes the point: The time and expense expended in the preparation and presentation of a large part of the evidence has proved to be unproductive, a circumstance which calls into question the suitability of the processes of adversary litigation for the purpose of determining matters relating to native title. I will summarise, before talking about the foreshadowed amendment. The bill itself and the amendments included in it are minor. There is no major restructuring of the legislation itself. The question is: will they make dramatic changes to time and efficiency of native title determinations? That is an open question. Until we see fully what the Federal Court of Australia’s role and resources will be in delivering its new role, in my view it probably will not change those time and efficiency questions dramatically but is hopefully pushing the legislation down that path. As far as some of the public responses in regard to this legislation and the review process over the last three years go, the response of the National Native Title Tribunal president, Mr Graeme Neate, to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs deserves some airtime whilst everyone is here. He is quoted as saying: The tribunal supports a flexible native title system that encourages more negotiated settlement of native title claims. This is, I think, an important point. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 3471 Condolences 3471 3471 14:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House of the deaths of John Lindsay Armitage, a former member of this House, and George Conrad Hannan, a former senator. John Armitage died on 13 April 2009. He represented the division of Mitchell from 1961 to 1963, and the division of Chifley from 1969 to 1983. George Hannan died on 1 May 2009. He represented the state of Victoria from 1956 to 1965 and from 1970 to 1974. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. 3472 Ministerial Arrangements 3472 14:01:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will also be absent from question time today. The Minister for Housing and the Status of Women will answer questions on her behalf. 3472 Condolences 3472 3472 14:02:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I move: That the House record its deep regret and sorrow at the death, on 19 March 2009, of Sergeant Brett Till, killed while on combat operations in southern Afghanistan, and place on record its appreciation of his service to the country, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Sergeant Brett Till was an immensely courageous Australian soldier. He was doing one of the toughest jobs in one of the toughest environments anyone could imagine. Sergeant Till’s job often required him to undertake his tasks under threat of attack from the enemy. As an explosive ordnance disposal technician—a bomb disposal expert—one of his tasks was to defuse improvised explosive devices in order to prevent the loss of the lives of other soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. Australian troops face many dangers in Afghanistan. Few are more deadly or harder to predict than the dangers from roadside bombs or other improvised explosive devices. It was in the course of defusing a device that Sergeant Till was killed on 19 March this year. He demonstrated through his skill and commitment all the values that make the Australian soldier great: courage, initiative, teamwork and, most importantly, looking after your mates. Sergeant Brett Till was a soldier who throughout his military career had risen to all the challenges that had come his way. He had earned the privilege of commanding one of the Special Operations Task Group’s mobility and survivability teams in Afghanistan. Sergeant Till, ‘Tilly’ to his mates, was a man deeply respected by other soldiers, a man who led from the front and by the example of his conduct. His commanding officers have no doubt that his work, including the work that he was doing on the day that he died, saved the lives of many of his fellow soldiers. As the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said, ‘Sergeant Till’s selfless act to protect his mates and innocent civilians is a mark of the character of the man.’ Those who have spoken personally of Sergeant Till have spoken of a loving husband and a loving father of two young children. His wife, Bree-Anna, said, ‘His smile would crack the frowns off a hundred faces.’ His parents-in-law, Kerrie and Peter Barclay, have spoken of their fondest memories of him ‘wearing his khakis, brushing and plaiting his daughter’s hair and getting his son ready for school before going to work doing what he was proud to do’. The members of the Australian Defence Force serving in Afghanistan are in the front line of the battle against terrorism, a battle for the safety and security of Afghanistan and for the safety and security of all members of the international community, including Australia. Since 2000, over 100 Australians have been killed in major terrorist attacks, the perpetrators of which were largely trained in Afghanistan and the border region with Pakistan. In Afghanistan our troops are confronting an enemy that seeks to make that nation once again a safe haven for terrorists. As President Obama said last Wednesday while standing alongside President Karzai of Afghanistan in Washington, this is a vital mission to disrupt, to dismantle and to defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. As the President warned, the road ahead will be difficult. There will be more violence and more setbacks. But Australia recognises, like the United States, that we have a stake in the future of Afghanistan. Our security is shared, as we have learnt from terrorist attacks in New York, in Bali, in London, in Madrid and in other places throughout the world. The work of every Australian soldier, every member of the international forces and every Afghan soldier in that nation is therefore important work for us all. Sergeant Till is the 10th Australian soldier to lose his life in Afghanistan. We will remain forever grateful for Sergeant Till’s sacrifice and the sacrifice of those who have fallen before him. On behalf of the parliament, the government and the people of Australia, I offer my heartfelt condolences and prayers to the family and friends of Sergeant Brett Till and in particular to Sergeant Till’s wife, Bree-Anna; to his children, Jacob and Taleah; to his mother, Susan, and her husband, Leigh; and to his father, Noel, and his wife, Cathy. 3473 14:06:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —I second the motion and rise on behalf of the opposition to join with the Prime Minister in expressing our condolences over the loss of one of our nation’s finest, Sergeant Brett Till. Sergeant Till died while attempting to clear a safe path for his mates and for innocent civilians in southern Afghanistan. He gave his life while protecting the lives of others, and his courage and self-sacrifice will be remembered forever. Sergeant Till, an explosive ordnance disposal technician, was noted by the Chief of the Defence Force as an expert in his field and a highly regarded member of the Army’s Incident Response Regiment. The select group Sergeant Till belonged to, commonly called EOD techs, those courageous men and women from the corps of engineers and ordnance, are among the bravest of the brave. They patrol straight into danger zones to clear the way of mines, roadside bombs and other suspicious objects. They expose themselves not only to the risks of a mined road or the explosive device itself but also to enemy fire bearing down on them while they undertake their dangerous task. They are hand-picked by the Army for their calm and skilled hands and their disciplined minds. They are part of a dedicated, selfless and courageous group that say, ‘Keep your head down; let me clear the way.’ Sergeant Till lived by this motto and he will never be forgotten for his heroism and for his sacrifice. At a ceremony before Sergeant Till’s body was returned to Australia, the Commanding Officer of the Special Operations Task Group said: “Without question, Brett’s work on the day he died saved the lives of his mates.” “He was a man who, with his team, would deliberately place himself directly between dangerous and unstable high explosive devices and the soldiers of SOTG— the Special Operations Task Group— on a daily basis, in order to ensure that they could carry out their important mission to make this country a safer place. Today, the prayers and thoughts of all Australians are with Sergeant Till’s family, especially Bree-Anna and his children, Jacob and Taleah, and all of his mates. Tragically, Sergeant Till was the 10th fatality in Australia’s Afghanistan campaign. It is a terrible toll for the nation to bear. It represents an incalculable sacrifice by 10 soldiers and their families and loved ones. The nation mourns their loss but we forever remember and honour their sacrifice. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As a mark of respect I invite honourable members to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 3474 Miscellaneous 3474 3474 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 14:11:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day in relation to the death of Sergeant Brett Till be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 3474 14:11:00 Questions Without Notice 3474 14:11:00 3474 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister of his election campaign speech in November 2007: … I am saying loud and clear that this sort of reckless spending must stop. Given the Prime Minister has spent an additional $70 billion since last year’s budget, despite declining revenues, and that tonight his Treasurer will announce a record $58 billion deficit, I ask the Prime Minister: when will Australians stop paying the price for his failure to end Labor’s reckless spending? 3474 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I note that in the question which has just been asked by the Leader of the Opposition he makes no reference to the fact that this is a global economic recession and that the consequence, therefore, is that every responsible government in the world is seeking to respond to this global economic recession by taking action to reduce the impact on jobs within their economies and on small businesses and other businesses within their economies. That is this government’s strategy; it is the responsible course of action. I would also draw the honourable member’s attention to the following. In terms of the impact of the measures taken by the government, I would draw his attention to the 1½ million Australians who, for example, work in retail and the impact of the government’s measures on retail sales in Australia—4.5 per cent higher than they were in November 2008. Contrast that with the following: a 2.5 per cent fall in the United States, a 3.1 per cent fall in Japan, a 2.2 per cent fall in Germany, a 1.7 per cent fall in New Zealand and a 3.1 per cent fall in Canada. And that is a direct consequence of government intervention in the economy. Secondly, if we go to the whole question of building approvals and what is going on out there in the housing construction sector, the government has also taken action by trebling the first home owners grant, the first home owners boost. Those opposite always remain silent at this point because they do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha on this one, because the first home owners boost has been singularly successful in supporting activity in the housing sector. I draw the honourable member’s attention to this fact—that total building approvals rose for the second consecutive month in March, by 3.5 per cent. The increase in house approvals, up 3.4 per cent in March, is the highest monthly rise since March 2007. I would ask the honourable member to contrast that with what is happening with the housing sector in other economies also simultaneously affected by the global economic recession. Furthermore, let us look at the impact of these interventions on the most recent survey of business confidence. The NAB business survey confirmed that the stimulus that we have delivered so far through this series of measures by the government is stabilising business confidence. Business confidence was broadly unchanged in April. I quote from the survey: ‘The results of the April survey represent the most encouraging set of numbers for some time.’ What do these various pieces of data indicate? They indicate the impact of measures taken by this government to cushion this economy from the worst effect of the global economic recession. Those opposite have one strategy, which is to do absolutely nothing—to sit on their hands and let the forces of unfettered markets rip and tear their way through working Australians, working families, right across Australia. Those opposite like to engage in their boutique debate about these matters. But any responsible government in any place in the world will now be acting to reduce the impact of this recession on working families and communities everywhere. These are difficult choices. These are hard times. This is the worst global economic recession since the Great Depression three-quarters of a century ago. We have a strategy for the future. Those opposite have an excuse. 3475 3475 14:15:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister further update the House on the impact of the global recession on Australia and the government’s response? 3475 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question, because it goes to the global dimensions of what we are confronting at the moment. For those opposite who are interested in facts, as opposed to fiction or political opportunity, here is one for you: 32 out of the 33 most advanced economies in the world have been forecast by the IMF to contract this year. Secondly, eight out of 10 of Australia’s top trading partners are in recession now. This means, for this country, higher unemployment, and higher unemployment in practically every other economy around the world. Take the United States alone, where they have lost some 5½ million jobs since the beginning of 2008. That is what is happening in the world. What is this government’s strategy? It is to support jobs, small business and apprentices today by investing in the nation-building infrastructure our country needs for tomorrow. That is our strategy. What have we done in terms of practical effect? In financial markets in Australia we have acted to provide guarantees for the deposits of each and every Australian in their banks, their building societies and their credit unions, in order to underpin confidence in our financial markets. Secondly, we have reinforced those interventions by the work we have done collaboratively through the G20 to assist in stabilising global financial markets. This government has also invested directly in infrastructure measures. Some 70 per cent of this government’s economic stimulus in nation-building infrastructure has been invested precisely in those assets which our country needs to build productivity and economic growth in the future—supporting jobs, supporting apprentices, supporting small businesses across our country. This is nation building for recovery: investing in urban rail; investing in roads; investing in ports; investing in the largest school modernisation program our country has ever seen, to boost productivity; investing in a national broadband network; and investing in skills. We are currently investing in one of the largest expansions in the skills base that this country has ever seen, including investment in some 711,000 new apprenticeships, TAFE places and VET places. Through this we are also implementing much-needed reform because, during this difficult time of economic downturn, for every person under the age of 25 we have a very simple principle: we expect under-25s in this period to be either earning or learning. And we are providing the training places across the nation to turn that principle into reality. Because of the global recession there has been something in excess of a $200 billion collapse in government tax revenues, which means that the government has lost the equivalent of one dollar in every five in tax revenue to the Commonwealth. Two-thirds of this government’s temporary deficit is made up from the collapse in taxes caused by the global recession—a temporary deficit supported by the $180 billion debt and deficit plan embraced by the Leader of the Opposition, the Liberals’ debt and deficit plan. Two-thirds of this government’s temporary deficit is made up from the collapse in tax revenues—one dollar in five— DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Tangney! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —brought about by the global recession. The bulk of the remaining one-third in the government’s temporary deficit is through the investment in the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. This is the question that makes those opposite always squirm when asked to answer: if they are not borrowing against the collapse in tax revenue then which portfolios of government—not ‘which programs’—would they cut? Because $200 billion, the equivalent across the forward estimates of something like $50 billion a year, is about equivalent— DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Tangney is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —to what we spend at present on the entire health and hospitals budget. So, Leader of the Opposition, if you are going to stand here and pontificate and say that you are not going to borrow to offset against a collapse in tax revenue, name the portfolio, not the program, you are going to abolish. It is either the entire hospitals funding from the Commonwealth to the states, 2½ Defence budgets or more than the entire education spend and a whole lot on top. These are the decisions that we confront in the period ahead. Those opposite always resile from positive news. Did you notice how they disappeared last week when there was, for the month that has just passed, some positive news when it came to unemployment? The Leader of the Opposition disappeared into the abyss; he was not to be seen. The member for North Sydney— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was actually in Western Sydney at a Salvation Army launch— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Is the Prime Minister saying that the Salvation Army— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat! The Prime Minister has the call and he will be heard in silence. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is using up any goodwill. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It appears that the Leader of the Opposition— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the Prime Minister table that part of the speech he has been reading from— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The member has been here long enough to know the proper procedures. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The opposition—the Liberals—hate it every time there is positive news on the economy because they find that it does not suit their political agenda. It might be consistent with where we want to see the national economy go and where every right-thinking person in the country wants to see our economy go, but it does not suit their political agenda. So when the unemployment data came out last week the Leader of the Opposition was nowhere to be seen, but suddenly ‘Hockey Joe’ appeared and reluctantly took the microphone. There was positive news also in terms of retail sales, which I referred to before, and housing finance commitments are up. The ABS reported today that the number of owner-occupied housing finance commitments rose by a solid 4.9 per cent in March. That is ABS data that is out today. The number of owner-occupied loans is three per cent higher than it was a year ago. This is the first time that there has been positive through-the-year growth since January 2008. First home buyer activity continued to grow with the proportion of owner-occupied loans for first home buyers increasing to 27.3 per cent, the highest since records began. To quote Westpac, households are responding ‘to extremely low interest rates and generous incentives for first home buyers’. UBS economist Scott Haslem said:  Overall, today’s housing lending data is unequivocally strong. Similarly, a report again today from the business confidence survey stated that the situation remained unchanged in April. These elements go towards underpinning one core proposition: a government committed to reducing the impact of the global recession on Australia. If you take a concerted series of measures it will have an effect. Our overall strategy is plain: we are going to continue to support jobs, apprenticeships and small businesses in this economy by investing in the nation-building infrastructure we need for the future. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister has now been speaking for over seven minutes. You have spoken yourself about the need for short answers. How can you expect the opposition to maintain its decorum in the face of this extraordinary performance on the part of the Prime Minister on budget day? It is time to get on with the next question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. An opposition member—It is just naturally occurring wind. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is an expectation, no matter what provocation might be perceived, that people behave properly. I do not think the Manager of Opposition Business is actually helped by interventions after his point of order. There are no points of order about length of questions. I am on the public record with comments about that, but I do not wish to pursue them today. The Prime Minister has the call and he should be heard in silence. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Our strategy is clear, and that is to support jobs, apprenticeships and small businesses today by investing in the nation-building infrastructure our country needs for tomorrow. That is what we are doing and, in every state of our great nation that I have visited in the last six or seven weeks, during which we have not been in this place, the response on the ground has been from communities saying: ‘We are glad to see school construction being commenced here. We are glad to see this local government project commencing there. We are even glad to see a sports project commencing in the electorate of Wentworth.’ The local member, it seems, having voted against funding for infrastructure projects, then has the gall to show up and say ‘me too’ in support of that particular project. Wherever you go across the country people are saying: ‘At least we have a government in there having a go, supporting local projects, making a difference on the ground, supporting skills in their communities and supporting the construction of new homes, as opposed to an opposition that pretends it has an alternative strategy when in fact its alternative strategy is politics, politics and politics.’ 3478 3478 14:27:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the fact that in the past governments have, as part of their budget papers, included a separate document setting out how the government has met its election commitments. I am holding here an example from 2002. I ask the Prime Minister, given his great interest in having a go, is he going to have a go tonight and publish a separate document which shows the election commitments that have been shredded? 3478 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —There is one particular pre-election commitment I am particularly attached to which says: ‘There will never, ever, ever be a GST.’ That is what those opposite pinned their pre-1996 election commitments on, together with a whole list of others in the period since then. The Leader of the Opposition frankly is grasping at straws when he contemplates his own history and that of his own party on this extraordinary fact. Look at the breaches of commitment undertaken by those opposite on something as core as: ‘Are you going to have Work Choices or not? Are you going to have a consumption tax or not?’ These are the fundamental breaches in which you engaged and for which you stand condemned. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about his election commitments before November 2007. If he obviously has none he wishes to keep he should make that clear and sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 3478 3478 14:29:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 Mr ADAMS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of supporting jobs in the local areas across Australia hardest hit by the global recession? 3478 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Lyons for his question, because I have spent time in most other states of the country, including Tasmania, in recent weeks addressing local jobs forums. I have been in Perth, Adelaide, the suburbs of Melbourne and south-western Sydney for the last part of last week and I was in Wollongong yesterday. I must admit that I did not notice that the Leader of the Opposition was in that part of Western Sydney where I was last week, but I take his word for it that he was there—presumably having been recently issued with a visa to visit Western Sydney and given a Gregory’s in terms of how to get there! On the question of local jobs and their impact across the economy, the government is embracing a strategy which is based on global action through the G20— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —I withdraw my remark. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning is warned. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah is warned. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point is that the Prime Minister continues to mislead the House about where the Leader of the Opposition was last week and it is— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I am not an arbiter of what is said. There are other mechanisms of this place, as the member well knows, which he could advise the Leader of the Opposition to use. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah will leave the chamber for one hour. I hate to think that he thinks it is a reward! The member for Warringah then left the chamber. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —As I have gone from one local jobs forum to another, talking to local communities, I have found that what they are concerned about overall is: will government assist local communities which have the highest peaks in unemployment occurring as a consequence of the global recession? They are interested in what we can do to make a difference within local communities. They are interested in what will be delivered in those local communities from our $800 million community infrastructure fund—a series of projects recently announced by the ministers for infrastructure and small business. Those communities were interested to know what we can do to make a difference locally. What we have done in each of those communities is to conduct a forum—with representatives of local business, the local community and charitable sectors, and representatives of local government—with one objective in mind, which is: how can we make a difference to bring down the unemployment rate in those individual localities? This will be a difficult and practical challenge on the ground. But those opposite will simply carp, criticise and be negative, as has been their custom over the last six months, opposing everything and proposing nothing. We, instead, are rolling up our sleeves and getting out there in local communities to try and make a difference. That is why we have established a local jobs fund. That is why we have the Minister for Employment Participation out there, with priority employment coordinators in each of these communities, working through one proposal after another. What will work in south-western Sydney by way of local government projects to provide additional jobs and training opportunities and apprenticeships for those in those communities? How does that differ from those in north-western Tasmania? What do we need to do in the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide? What can we do in order to make a material difference on the ground? That is what this government’s compact with local communities is about—trying to make a difference and anchoring off the back of what we are doing by way of our national economic stimulus strategy to make a further difference on the ground. And when I have been out in those communities the response from people on the ground about the impact of the government’s skill modernisation program has been extraordinarily positive. I ran into a builder in south-western Sydney last week who is out there tendering for a range of projects with the Catholic diocese, I think, of the Central Coast. Whether he succeeds or not will be up to the tendering processes but he is confident in what is going on out there. He is putting on an additional two apprentices. He is out there investing in a bobcat to take advantage of the temporary investment allowance which this government has introduced off the back of the recommendations from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He is out there also making use of that by investing in various motor vehicles he needs to run his own small business. And, as I spoke to his staff—about 10 of them—that morning, they also indicated to me that two of them had recently gone out and bought their first homes using the trebling of the first home owners boost. Uncomfortable as it may be, these are the activities happening on the ground and in communities right across Australia for one reason: the government has decided to act, and act decisively—and to do so in a responsible way, per medium of temporary deficit and temporary borrowing, in order to make a difference in the economy, as every economy and every responsible government in the world is doing. Those opposite have embraced a $180 billion debt and deficit strategy. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said recently on Meet the Press; but at the same time he pretends that in fact he is not going to head in that direction. Our strategy is clear: global action through the G20; national action to stabilise our financial markets; national action to invest in short-term, medium-term and long-term infrastructure and stimulus; as well as acting on the ground with each community through a local jobs fund to make a difference. That is a positive strategy for the future. I would commend it to those opposite and that they come along. I saw the member for Macarthur at one of our forums recently in south-western Sydney. Well, good on him! He is out there at least contributing to the discussion about what we can do, practically, on the ground. All those opposite should get out of negative mode and get into positive mode about what we can do for the country. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —What was the response to that invocation? Another howl of negativity. The expectation of the nation is that this parliament will rise to the occasion and actually make a difference on the ground for communities who are being hit between the eyes by a global economic recession for which they are not responsible. This government has a clear-cut strategy: we are going to support jobs, apprenticeships, small businesses and traineeships by investing in the infrastructure we need for tomorrow by taking these actions today. That is our approach. That is the right strategy for Australia. I encourage those opposite to abandon their carping negativity and get with the project for the nation. 3480 3480 14:37:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to many of his answers already today where he has blamed the global financial crisis for his debt and budget deficit. I remind the Prime Minister of his statement to Landline on 4 March 2008 where he said: As Prime Minister, I take responsibility for the Australian economy, the good news and the bad news. Does the Prime Minister still take responsibility for the bad news in the Australian economy? 3481 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The Leader of the National Party will be aware that from this dispatch box in the past I have said precisely that. I take responsibility for the future direction of this economy. I am responsible for the good news. I am responsible for the bad news. I take responsibility for the lot. That is what leadership is about, as opposed to the poor substitute we see opposite. 3481 3481 14:38:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will she outline to the House reaction to the government’s $14.7 billion Building the Education Revolution? 3481 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 know she is working closely with local school principals in her electorate on delivering Building the Education Revolution. It is my pleasure to be able to report to the House that our $14.7 billion program to build the education revolution is rolling and supporting schools right around the nation. This is urgent fiscal stimulus to support jobs right around the nation. It is supporting jobs today while we build the infrastructure of the future. There is nothing more important to the future of this nation, to its economic future and to future jobs than the quality of education. FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb —School halls! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I can see that the member for Goldstein is yelling out in a sarcastic tone that, apparently, to him, school halls are not important at all. I suggest that he walk down to one of his local schools and find out. To date, the Building the Education Revolution program has funded over 10,500 infrastructure projects in 6,491 schools, valued at over $3.7 billion. Under round 1 of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, which I announced last week, it is funding construction and works in 1,499 Australian schools that were successful in having 2,010 projects approved, totalling $2.83 billion. Under round 1 of our National School Pride Program, 5,995 Australian schools were successful in having 8,663 projects approved, totalling $828 million. This is a historic injection of funds in supporting jobs today and in supporting the education infrastructure of tomorrow. Of course, it has been well received by people who care about education right around the country. I quote from a letter to me from Tim Richards, the Headmaster of the Scots School in Bathurst, represented in this place by the member for Macquarie: Work started today on replacing the old worn out asbestos roof on a classroom block. This will benefit our school community greatly as there has been some concern about this roof for a number of years. I also quote the principal of St Augustine’s Primary School in Rivervale in Western Australia, in the federal electorate of Swan. He wrote to me about the National School Pride Program and said: … a refreshed classroom environment and upgrading of facilities in the outdoor areas of the school can only benefit students and their learning. On behalf of St Augustine’s School Board, all students and their families, I wish to thank all involved in this initiative. There is no question it will stimulate jobs throughout Australia and in our local communities. I quote from Kaye Lewis, a state school principal in the electorate of New England—probably known to the member there, who I am sure would know all of his principals. Kaye was quoted in the Northern Daily Leader as saying: It’s just terrific —the community has been waiting 20 years for a school hall and we couldn’t raise the money. In the past we had to call off events because of wet weather. I draw the attention of the House to the words of Royce Fairbrother, from Fairbrother Constructions in Tasmania, in the federal electorate of Braddon. He said in the Burnie Advocate: I think they— the tenders— are very welcome and very timely particularly in the north and north west. This will be of great benefit to the building industry. This is a measure about supporting jobs today and the educational infrastructure of tomorrow. Members of the government and Independent members of this parliament are working with school principals and those who care about education to deliver Building the Education Revolution. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, when it comes to the opposition benches, there is no limit to opportunism. After having come into this parliament and voted against Building the Education Revolution, and after having made deriding remarks about the importance of education spending and spending on education capital, I have received 11 letters from members of the opposition asking for money for their local schools. There is no limit to opportunism. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Why shouldn’t we get our share? 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I have received letters from members opposite, including the member for Sturt who is calling out now, asking about their involvement. The member for Sturt is yelling out, ‘Why shouldn’t we get our share?’ I can assure him that schools in his electorate will benefit despite his opposition to the program. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Despite the fact that he did not want the schools in his electorate to get a dollar, they will benefit through this program. The Labor government, the Rudd government, is delivering for all schools. It is members like the member for Sturt who do not want schools in his own electorate or anywhere around the country to benefit from this $14.7 billion initiative. And, of course, apart from the correspondents wanting money from a package they did not vote for, members of the opposition have shown their opportunism by writing to me with various demands about being involved in ceremonies to celebrate these new developments. I assure members of the opposition that I hope they are there answering the question to school communities of why they voted against and why they do not want their local schools to benefit from these programs. I hope they look into the eyes of the local tradespeople who built those construction facilities and say to them, ‘I didn’t want you to have a job either.’ 3482 Distinguished Visitors 3482 14:44:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Whilst all people attending in the galleries, especially if they behave, are most welcome, I indicate to the House that today we have two former ministers in the gallery: Con Sciacca, a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs; and Larry Anthony, a former Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I am not sure whether the generation gap of their portfolios is really what is occurring now they are in their retirement, but I warmly welcome them on behalf of the House. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 3482 14:45:00 Questions Without Notice 3482 3483 14:45:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 Mr SECKER —My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the Minister for Education explain how it is an efficient use of taxpayers’ money to provide national school pride grants of $125,000 each to the Smithfield Plains and Gepps Cross primary schools when both of these schools are slated for demolition? Minister for Education, won’t the projects that this money funds be a lot more temporary than the so-called temporary deficit to be announced later today? 3483 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 his question—of course, a member who is opposed to this expenditure on schools in his community. If the member chooses to check the guidelines of the program he is opposed to, because of course he is opposed to this money going to schools in his community and in South Australia generally, he will find that it is not the federal government that makes decisions about when schools close. Those decisions are made by school systems—made by state school systems, made by the Catholic school system and made by independent schools. We have said to schools around the country that we want to work with them and benefit them. We have also said to our state and territory colleagues and to the block grant authorities in the Catholic and independent school sectors that we want to see this money spent on schools that are going to be there in the future, and we are working with those block grant authorities and state and territory governments on precisely that question. If the member had at any point chosen to look at the material on the website, he would have been aware of that. He could have answered his own question. But, of course, he wanted to come into this parliament and try and cast a slur on this program, because he knows, like every member of the opposition, that school communities around the nation want this expenditure, that tradespeople around the nation want this work. Each and every day of the adjournment from this parliament they have been there, twisting and turning in their own electorates, unable to explain to school principals— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 98, which limits the matters which might be put to a minister by way of question, which include administration but not obfuscation. This question could be simply answered to the benefit of all by the simple act of saying— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. The question was in order. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will remember to ask the member for O’Connor to appear with me at literacy week functions, given his well-thumbed standing orders! I think that is an example to all of us. But my simple point is this: the member opposite has been asked by the tactics committee to try and cast a slur over this program, because members of the opposition—and I can see it written on the faces of the marginal seat members there—cannot explain in their local communities why the opposition is opposed to this measure to modernise schools and is opposed to this measure to support jobs. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to swing around and look into the eyes of the marginal seat members on his back bench, he will see it written all over their faces. 3483 3483 14:49:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on the rollout of the major infrastructure projects funded and accelerated under the government’s economic stimulus package? 3484 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Indeed, 70 per cent of the Rudd government’s economic stimulus package was about infrastructure—infrastructure which is about putting people to work today to build the infrastructure that Australia will need tomorrow. Rail is just one example. There are 17 rail projects fast-tracked, with $1.2 billion of funding going to the Australian Rail Track Corporation, supplemented by $400 million of the ARTC’s own money, which has led to major employment around the country, and nowhere less than in the Hunter. A $1 billion upgrade of the Hunter freight rail network is supporting some 650 jobs. So 650 people will be put to work as a result of this program. We announced it last December in the nation-building stimulus package and already I can report that the $11 million Bylong passing loop has been completed. It was announced in December, people were put to work in the months since and it has now been opened. It is open for business, increasing the productivity of the nation. There are jobs now, infrastructure for the future. But it is not just in the Hunter, of course. The upgrade of the line between Maroona and the South Australian border is underway. There is a $45 million upgrade of the line in Victoria between Albury and Seymour underway. These two projects alone created 240 jobs—jobs today, infrastructure for the future. All up, we are investing more in rail in 18 months than those opposite did in 12 long years. Our extra investment in rail is having flow-on benefits. There are 200 people employed at factories making concrete sleepers in Geelong, in Victoria; in Grafton, Wagga Wagga and Mittagong, in New South Wales; and in Beamer, in Western Australia. These are jobs in regional Australia as a direct consequence of the government’s nation-building and economic stimulus plans—jobs now, infrastructure for the future. Also in roads, 14 road projects have been accelerated as a result of the economic stimulus packages. Work is underway right now. The Brighton bypass in Tasmania is under construction. It is the largest ever transport infrastructure project in Tasmania’s history, with 380 construction jobs. In South Australia there is the Northern Expressway. It is South Australia’s largest ever transport infrastructure project, with 350 construction jobs. Work is underway. The Western Ring Road in Melbourne is under construction, with up to 350 construction jobs. There are boom gates for rail crossings. There is a safety proposal targeting 282 high-risk level crossings. We did it as part of the $42 billion plan that we supported and those opposite opposed. Eight of them are completed already. The package was passed by us. Jobs on the ground have been created as a result of this government’s plan. Contrast that with the opportunism opposite. We saw opportunism on display yet again in the last question from the opposition, which tried to attack the government’s economic stimulus plans. The seat of Barker benefited yesterday from the $5 million contributed through the Community Infrastructure Program announced by my colleague the parliamentary secretary and member for Maribyrnong. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. That project had already been started months ago, so the announcement— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Barker will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —An absolutely extraordinary position was put on the record by the member for Barker—that is, he is opposed to the $5 million injection which will build a library for Mount Gambier, build a new town centre for Mount Gambier and reconstruct the centre of the important regional community in his electorate. He voted against it and he is still against it. The mayor of that community is very supportive. He is not a Labor mayor but the state Liberal candidate for the area. He put in for the project. We supported it because we supported projects right across the country, regardless of the political affiliation of the councils putting forward those projects. The federal member has shown just how isolated he is from his own community, just as he is isolated on the schools program. But the chickens will come home to roost when we come to the next election, because they will be on the record as opposing all these nation-building and job-creating programs in their electorates. 3485 3485 14:56:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 Mr SLIPPER —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise of November 2007, where he said, ‘There will be no change to the superannuation laws one jot, one tittle.’ Will the Prime Minister now admit that there will be changes to Australia’s superannuation laws because all Australians are paying the price for the government’s reckless spending? 3485 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Fisher for his question. I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact, as I did earlier in question time today, that the government has suffered a $200 billion-plus revenue write-down. I would draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that that is an amount equivalent to some $50 billion a year out to the forward estimates, which is an amount equivalent to, for example, abolishing all Commonwealth payments to the states for hospitals and health. Those opposite may seek to pretend that they could stop a revenue write-down. Is that the proposition from those opposite? I do not hear it. If you have suddenly copped the single biggest revenue write-down in this country’s financial history, you are required to embrace a series of tough measures for the future in order to ensure that our budget in the long term is financially sustainable. That is what we are doing. It involves hard decisions. These decisions will be dealt with in detail by the Treasurer in the budget this evening. 3485 3485 14:58:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. Will the minister inform the House about the impact of the government’s investment in the construction of new social housing? 3485 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 Canberra, who is a phenomenally well-respected and well-connected local member. The government took early and decisive action to respond to the global financial crisis and to support jobs in the Australian economy. Housing and construction, of course, are major employers, accounting for almost one million jobs around the country. That is why they featured so strongly in both the first and the second stimulus packages. In the first stimulus package, we had the phenomenally successful first home owner boost, which was very opportunistically initially bagged by the opposition and then supported by the opposition. First it was not going to make a difference and then it was not big enough. In the second stimulus package, we committed to $6.4 billion of new spending in social housing. Of that, $400 million has been set aside for repairs and maintenance of public and community housing right across Australia. With that money we will repair around 47,000 homes around the country, with around 10,000 of those homes having major repairs done. Those 10,000 homes have or would have become uninhabitable without this work. At last count we had completed work on over 1,000 dwellings—that is, 1,336 dwellings have had repairs completed. I am also very pleased to announce that in the first stage of new building, where we have set aside $692 million, work has begun on 159 homes, with many more projects due to start in May. That means—and I have seen with my own eyes—slabs laid, brickwork started, plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, builders and carpenters onsite and cement laying. This work is happening right around Australia, as we speak. Two weeks ago I was fortunate enough to visit the first home in Canberra to have had a complete renovation, in Narrabundah, in the member’s own seat. This 52-year-old house was vacant and in very poor condition. Without the funding to refurbish this house, it would have been lost to public housing stock. The work on the house was completed in just 16 days by a local company that employed 19 tradespeople onsite to do the work. The renovation included a kitchen refurbishment, a bathroom refurbishment, a laundry refurbishment, internal and external painting, floor coverings and general repairs. The company had six full-time employees and is planning to put on four more full-time employees because of the work that they are doing through this nation-building economic stimulus package. They are also employing another new apprentice. They are putting a new apprentice on because of the extra work that they are getting through the social housing spending. That is a great jobs outcome for Canberra. It is also a great social outcome because the man moving into this house was formerly homeless. He had been living rough on the streets. By moving into this modest home he has got a small second bedroom and he can actually have his kids come and stay with him. He has been separated from his kids for a long time because he has been living rough on the streets. Now he is able to re-establish that connection with his family. So we have got the great jobs outcome and the great social outcome. Nearly 70 per cent of the nation-building economic stimulus plan is in infrastructure and those construction projects are now underway. In the social housing area that means jobs for tradies and apprentices. It means jobs for plumbers and electricians and carpenters and bricklayers. It also means great social outcomes. 3486 3486 15:02:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP 0 Mr ANDREWS —I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise of August 2007 when he said: Interviewer—Are you going to take off the rebate for private health funds, which currently the government supports— That is the 30 per cent we are talking about. Rudd—Absolutely not. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the government intends to roll back the private health insurance rebate, because all Australians are paying the price for the government’s reckless spending? 3486 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —In terms of commitments to the Australian people, as the minister responsible for Work Choices in the past, I am sure that he is completely comfortable with the commitment which his party took to the election in 2004 when Work Choices was mysteriously missing from the public vocabulary of the then government as it sought re-election—and the consequences of that are known to all. I also refer to statements which were made by Tony Abbott some time ago, I think in the lead-up to the 2004 election, on medical matters and related things. There was the MedicarePlus safety net, a cast-iron commitment—the rest of that is history. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance. The Prime Minister is making no attempt at all to be relevant to the question, which was about his commitments before November 2007 and which he is flagrantly disregarding. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. First, before I go to that point of order: the Prime Minister will refer to members by their titles even if he is quoting a document. I will listen carefully. The question went to the election commitments and I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister’s response. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said in my answer to the earlier question, the government has suffered a $200 billion-plus revenue write-down. Those opposite may wish to take out a magic wand and wave that away. This government will take responsible decisions to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of budget discipline. That is why tough decisions have to be made. Furthermore, I would say to those opposite that if they were faintly committed to the prospect of long-term pension reform they would need to embrace one clear concept: how is that sustainable into the future as well? If you are going to look after those people who need the greatest support from the community, the most vulnerable including single age pensioners, if you are going to embrace long-term reform to provide proper certainty and proper support for such people in the future, you have got to maintain long-term financial sustainability as well. This government does not shirk from making tough decisions in the budget, which the Treasurer will announce tonight. We are doing so in the context of a global economic recession, a $200 billion write-down of government revenue, the single largest revenue write-down in this country’s financial history. That is what we are wrestling with. Those opposite are content with one thing: playing opposition politics day in and day out. 3487 3487 15:05:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 Mr MURPHY —My question is to the hardworking Minister for Trade. Will the minister advise the House of the outcomes of his recent visit to China and any implications for Australia’s trade performance and economic recovery? 3487 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr CREAN —I do thank the honourable member for Lowe and I congratulate him for the continued interest that he takes in the importance of trade to Australia’s future. I have just returned from China, my fifth visit in the space of 18 months. The Chinese economy is the fastest-growing economy in the world. It will be that for this year, next year and, I suspect, the year after that. China’s recovery is well underway, partly due to an $800 billion stimulus package which is focused on both infrastructure and consumption. This not just is important for our resources sector, as important as that is, but also provides exciting new opportunities for our economy in the areas of green building activity, automotive, agribusiness, financial services and education services. There is now a growing view amongst analysts that China’s growth will exceed the forecasts. And if anyone wants any evidence of this, in the first quarter of this year compared with last year, China’s car sales were up six per cent and retail sales were up 16 per cent—that is on the consumption side—and fixed asset investment was, overall, up 29 per cent and infrastructure was up 100 per cent. This is truly a powerhouse economy reactivating itself. In the midst of this global recession, Australian exports to China increased 48 per cent in the 12 months to March. China helped propel our second highest trade surplus, $2.5 billion according to the figures released last week, now the eighth in a row, despite the global financial crisis. This surplus represents a remarkable achievement in the midst of the global recession and one with which few other economies can compare. For that, China has been a major contributor. Our approach in terms of developing the opportunities further is a two-track approach. One is, of course, to try to conclude the free trade agreement at the national level and, secondly, to go to regional parts of China, all of them diverse and all of them growing at different rates, to develop relationships on a region-by-region basis in terms of commercial activities. I believe also that, if this is done properly, the second track can energise and put upward pressure on the first track. That is the positive opportunity that we have to exploit. What we do not want is the reckless opportunism that has been demonstrated by the other side of this chamber. Quite frankly, China is the place to be. Australia has to get a greater part of the action and we have to tap into the economic growth prospects because this means increased economic growth, increased jobs and increased exports. Our relationship with China and its interdependency is fundamental to our economic future. We have to build on it, we have to strengthen it, we have to deepen it, but we should never fear it. 3488 3488 15:10:00 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 0 Mr GEORGIOU —I address my question to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise of August 2007: A Rudd Labor Government will seek to take financial control of Australia’s 750 public hospitals if State and Territory Governments have not begun implementing an agreed National Health Reform Plan by mid-2009. Will the Prime Minister now admit that the government does not intend to honour its election commitment and that all Australians will pay the price for the government’s failure in public health? 3488 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Kooyong for his question. He is a member in this place whom I have great respect for. However, I say to the member for Kooyong that the question he has just put is actually constructed on a false premise. Firstly, the undertaking I gave the Australian people, as those opposite will be familiar with, was as follows: if there was not substantial and serious commitment to health reform and hospitals reform on the part of the states and territories, the government would then proceed to seek a reference from the Australian people with a view to taking over hospitals from the states and territories. Secondly, since the election, as the honourable member will know full well, we have commissioned the Bennett commission of inquiry— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Oh! Those opposite say ‘inquiries’. Did I hear of inquiries launched recently in the matter of climate change—one inquiry, two inquiries, three inquiries; I think we are up to six now, aren’t we? Yes, six inquiries. Any inquiry will suit those opposite rather than take a position on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It just folds one into the other in this pathetic excuse for leadership, which is waiting for the member for Higgins to move down from the back bench to the front or for the member for North Sydney or, I understand, perhaps for the member for Bradfield’s replacement in Bradfield, who is about to make his way into this chamber. It will be an interesting four-ringed circus once that occurs. Arthur Sinodinos is apparently on his way to Canberra. The commitment we gave to the Australian people was that we would commission, through a National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, an investigation as to the best model for reform for the future. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. That is not the Prime Minister’s quote. I know he is selective in the way he uses media but his words were that he would ‘fix public hospitals by mid-2009 or he would seek a mandate for financial control to take— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question was in order and the Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I apologise to the member for Dickson for not including him in the list of leadership candidates for the Liberal Party. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will answer the question. I think we will just deal with it like this: the Prime Minister should refer to the question in his answer and leave other matters alone. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I have a fresh point of order: the Prime Minister’s hair— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —We will now formally review the member for Dickson’s candidature in the leadership contest for those opposite. The commitment we made was to establish the Bennett commission of inquiry, which is a Health and Hospitals Reform Commission inquiry. It has a wide mandate. It is due to report to the government, I believe, around midyear. It will contain a range of options for the government to consider. We will be responding to those as well. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Before the member for Sturt interjects about inquiries and investigations, I would reflect on the appalling substitute for policy action which constitutes the approach of those opposite to climate change right now—refusing to take a position on climate change. The member for Flinders pretends to have a position; the member for Goldstein has the reverse position. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It is pretty clear that a question about his election commitments in health cannot stray into climate change. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will return to the question. The Prime Minister will ignore the interjections, and the member for Sturt will cease interjecting. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The government’s commissioning of Ms Bennett to conclude this inquiry will have its end point when it reports around midyear. It will examine a range of options for the future of our health and hospital system. Those opposite would also be familiar with this, having themselves sucked out $1 billion in federal investment into the public hospital systems of Australia. The government, through the last Council of Australian Governments meeting, returned that investment into the hospital system and agreed on a wide-ranging set of health and hospital reforms with the states and territories. That is practical action for the future. We will consider the Bennett commission of inquiry’s report when it is deliberated on and concluded, and we will take what necessary action there is for the future. That is a proper course of action on the part of the government, as opposed to those opposite, who saw hospitals as one single opportunity in the past: a political opportunity simply to kick the states at every single pass and to make themselves look like the big, responsible people in Canberra—disinterested in what was happening in the states, disinterested in the crowding in our emergency departments and disinterested in the lengthening lists of procedures which were necessary in hospitals for people who had a range of complaints and medical conditions. Instead, we have engaged in practical cooperative arrangements with the states. We will act on the Bennett commission’s report when it is properly submitted to government. 3490 3490 15:16:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Minister for Employment Participation. Will the minister inform the House of measures to assist workers retrenched through no fault of their own as a result of the global recession? How will these measures be supported by investment in skills of the Australian workforce and the introduction of the new Job Services Australia on 1 July? 3490 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I thank the member for Banks for his question. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt is on a warning. I can only assume that he wants a reward. But I will give him a reward of one day. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I had the good fortune to attend a number of jobs forums in Sydney’s west. The member for Banks is one of a number of members on this side who know how difficult things will get in their communities with regard to jobs. I do appreciate him being there and talking to me about what we can do at a local level to assist those communities in the area of employment and training. This government understands that job losses can be very devastating for workers and their families. We understand that it is a difficult thing to confront and overcome in many instances. I say to you, Mr Speaker, to the chamber and to the community via this chamber that this government will continue to do whatever it can to assist workers. On 24 February the Prime Minister announced a $300 million initiative package to help retrenched workers by providing immediate and personalised access to services for those workers in need. That followed the $145 million initiative, the out-of-a-trade apprenticeship initiative, that will provide opportunities and incentives for employers and group training companies to employ apprentices that find themselves out of work or laid off by employers in very difficult times. There is also a further package of assistance for those young people who want to get into apprenticeships but need pre-apprenticeship training and support. That is a $30 million initiative that has been put forward by the government so that we can provide support for those young people. In his earlier answer to a question, the Prime Minister remarked that this government will, of course, implement a $650 million Jobs Fund. That is available to local communities across Australia to provide opportunities for them to create jobs, to build on skills and to develop the sustainable social infrastructure needed for those communities. Already we are hearing some magnificent ideas from small businesses, not-for-profit organisations and others about how we can assist those local communities to do well in what are, of course, very difficult economic times. The new Jobs Services Australia will commence on 1 July this year. These services are indeed— TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the minister is there he might like to explain why it is a good idea for one in every two job seekers— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is not in any way a point of order. The member for Boothby will resume his seat. The member for Boothby is warned. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I am still, of course, waiting for one question from the member for Boothby in this entire parliamentary term. One day you may get to ask a question, and I am waiting for it. In answer to the question from the member for Banks, we are not only providing new services as the result of extensive and broad consultations with employment providers, employers, not-for-profit organisations, training providers and others; we are also ensuring that those services are more effective in assisting workers to link up to training and training providers and to ensure that there is an integrated approach. For example, when a job seeker needs services in this country, that job seeker can go through one door and access the services that he or she needs, rather than go through four or five separate doors. This integration, this one-stop approach, will be more effective for those job seekers, and for employers in this country who are looking for skills now and when the economy recovers. We know these services are a reflection of the consultations and we know that they will commence from 1 July. They will be working in tandem with the massive training agenda of this government. There are 711,000 training places that will be rolled out by this government. Ninety thousand have already been rolled out and undertaken by people across the country; 319,000 of these are dedicated to out-of-work Australians, many of whom have lost work through no fault of their own. We need to ensure they are given every opportunity to equip themselves with the skills that are needed now and, of course, which will be needed when the economy recovers. We will continue to respond as we have done with the nation-building infrastructure initiatives and with these packages to provide support for out-of-work Australians, ensuring that they have the opportunity to either find work as quickly as possible or find the training that will equip them with skills so they can fill existing vacancies or future vacancies when the economy recovers. 3491 3491 15:22:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism and relates to calls for an independent scientific study into potential impacts of mining on the massive groundwater resources of the Namoi Valley at the headwaters of the Murray-Darling system. Minister, given that the Commonwealth has taken a lead role in the Murray-Darling water debate, does the minister believe that the Commonwealth should play a greater role in the mining development debate where water resources could be threatened? Would the minister agree with evidence given to a Senate inquiry into the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, where on 9 December 2008 Ms Melanie Stutsel, Director of Environmental and Social Policy for the Minerals Council of Australia, said: We— the Minerals Council of Australia— therefore consider that a more appropriate role for the Commonwealth would be in strategic bioregional planning, pre-emptive of development pressure and across larger time frames. Individual projects would then be approved by states and territories, which would have responsibility to ensure that the project fits within the remit of the bioregional plan. Minister, given that the people of the Namoi Valley and in particular the Liverpool Plains, where this water issue is of great concern, would agree with the Minerals Council on that particular issue, don’t you think it is time that we moved to have a process where these sorts of problems can be rectified in a better way than the state based process that we have now? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before calling the minister, I remind the member for New England that in future his Kennedyesque length of questioning should be tempered. 3492 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the member for New England for that long and detailed question. In doing so, I understand that he appreciates the significance of the mining and resource sector in Australia. I know how hard we as a government have worked in recent times not only on our government economic stimulus packages but also on bringing in key private sector projects in Australia such as the Gorgon and Browse LNG projects, because those projects create key opportunities for private sector investment in Australia of major significance to all of Australia. In that context, I am more than willing to sit down with the member to consider the serious issues that he has raised this afternoon. In doing so, I will also appropriately consult with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts because some of the issues potentially go to the operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I simply say, from the Australian government’s point of view, that we are absolutely committed to the development of the resources and energy sector in Australia but in a sense that guarantees appropriate attention to serious environmental considerations. I thank the member for raising this very serious issue in the parliament for our consideration. 3492 3492 15:25:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 Mr BIDGOOD —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What action is the government taking in relation to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program? 3492 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Dawson for his question. This is a very serious development in an important prevention program, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. As people in the House would be aware, this is a program that was commenced by the previous government. It was expanded upon and further invested in by our government. Fifty-year-olds, 55-year-olds and 65-year-olds are sent screening tests. My department has identified a problem with the kits that have been sent to nearly half a million people since 1 December last year. There is a problem with the kit that has been supplied under contract to the department—and I would like to thank those alert officers in the department who noticed a very worrying changing trend which caused them to further investigate if there had been any changes to the production of this kit. Of the 475,000 people who have received kits since 1 December, 108,000 have undertaken a test. It turns out that there is some risk that some of those who have undertaken the test will not have been given an accurate response. My department, with the assistance of Medicare Australia, is writing to every person who has received a kit. We will have to not only recall those kits but send new ones. I hasten to add that, for anyone who has had a positive test, it will be accurate. Therefore, they need to get immediate assistance and treatment as they would have been advised. If you have had a negative response, unfortunately that may not be accurate and a test will need to be undertaken again. It is a very serious development. The department is in urgent discussions with suppliers and manufacturers of the kits. Obviously the government will do all it can to ensure that taxpayers’ interests are protected. However, our first and foremost consideration will be to ensure that people are able to undertake a proper test that is assured of being accurate. The public confidence in this test, which has already successfully saved millions of lives, is vital, and I would ask for the support of all members of this House in making this information available to anyone who might inquire at their office. There is a number to contact the department, and we will make sure that people receive direct notification within the course of, hopefully, the next week. I am advised that the outer time frame will be two weeks and then the new kits will be able to be provided to people immediately when tests that are of an appropriate quality can be obtained. I thank the House. I think everyone would agree that this is an important measure. It is important that we encourage people to undergo these tests and it is important for them to be reassured that, by the good work of our officers, the problem has been identified relatively early and we will be able to do all we can to rectify it quickly. 3493 3493 15:29:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. I refer the minister to his order to the New South Wales government to cease selective and sustainable logging in the New South Wales central Murray at the cost of 1,000 jobs. Given that the superb parrot is not listed as critically endangered or even endangered but 1,000 jobs in my electorate of Farrer are, will the minister now reverse this extraordinary decision and save these jobs? 3493 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for her question. I made a statement on this matter yesterday, which the member would have seen. It is particularly important for me to confirm to the House that no stop-work order has been issued by the department. The reports that are going around about the closing down of forestry activities are not accurate. Like everybody in this House, I am very keen to see a good outcome for both local jobs and the environment. I have spoken to Minister Macdonald from the state government on this matter. I have asked officials to intensify their negotiations to get this issue resolved. The fact is, and those opposite would know this, that there is national environment legislation that potentially applies to some of these activities. It is called the EPBC Act. It was your legislation and we supported it. I can only presume that it ought to be complied with. We take jobs very seriously on this side of the House—very seriously. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and others have been standing here at the dispatch box today pointing out with crystal clarity that this government recognises how important employment is. I am very mindful of the need for officials to negotiate an outcome that ensures that employment issues and environment issues are properly and appropriately considered. Let me make one final point on this: all the opposition seem to be able to do is pick things out of the air and run a negative line on them. In doing that, they have a negative narrative running through public debate. On this side of the House, we have a commitment to employment, a commitment to jobs and a commitment to ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between environmental protection and local jobs. We will work to that end. 3494 3494 15:32:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Would the minister provide the House with an update on Anzac Day activities and the government’s initiative to develop an interpretative trail on the Western Front? 3494 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr GRIFFIN —I thank the member for Robertson for her question and I acknowledge her interest in this matter and the interest of all members of the House in ensuring that we properly commemorate the loss of more than 102,000 lives over the last century in conflicts right back through to World War I and even before that. Reports we have from across the nation with respect to Anzac Day commemorations on this occasion are that we reached record numbers in many places. It is fair to say that some of the inclement weather conditions produced a situation in which that was difficult. Internationally, ceremonies occurred as usual at Gallipoli, where the Minister for Foreign Affairs represented the government. The crowd was down a degree, but that was expected due to the impact of the global financial crisis. But it was still a significant crowd and a crowd which augurs well for the lead-up to the centenary. Commemorations occurred at places like Sandakan and Hellfire Pass. I had the privilege of representing the government at Villers-Bretonneux at the second dawn service there, which followed on from the 90th anniversary last year. Again, the crowd was down slightly, but all concerned were very pleased that the numbers held up well. There was certainly evidence of increased interest from the local French and also from people coming across from the UK. It certainly augurs well for the future growth in the significance of that particular service. I also had the privilege while I was in France to make an announcement with respect to this government’s proposal around the question of an interpretative trail, an opportunity to properly educate not only Australians who travel to France but also the British and European community about the amazing efforts of the 1st AIF in the war that was supposed to end all wars. There are a number of locations which relate to this particular proposal. The intention is to try and ensure that if anyone travels there they will have the chance to see what Australians did at various points in time and at the Front, such as in the tragedies of 1916 and 1917 but also in the triumphs that occurred at places like Hamel, Villers-Bretonneux and Mont St Quentin outside Peronne. The locations have been selected in consultation with the local French communities. There are opportunities that we think are available with respect to building on what is already occurring in some locations. We are trying to work with the local French communities to see how we can build a proper commemoration to the work of our diggers so long ago. These locations include Fromelles, where the worst 24 hours in Australian military history occurred, with over 5,500 casualties. The recent discovery of a mass grave at Pheasant Wood provides us with an opportunity to work with the local community to provide a proper interpretation and commemorative location for what occurred on that terrible day. Then there is Pozieres, about which CEW Bean wrote ‘a ridge more densely sown with Australian sacrifice than any other spot on earth’—some 23,000 casualties on roughly a mile of front. Then there is Villers-Bretonneux, a location proposed by the previous government. There is an intention to continue with that proposal in conjunction with the local school. That has the support of the French community of the local area. We believe that there can be a significant interpretative capacity there in line with what was intended in the major proposal that was considered for near the memorial. One that will be particularly interesting if it is able to be done will be at Mont St Quentin just outside Peronne. Many Australians are not aware of the significance of the Battle of Mont St Quentin. It was described by Brigadier General Grogan VC as ‘perhaps the greatest individual feat of the war—the successful counter-attack by night across unknown and difficult ground, at a few hours notice, by the Australian soldiers’. To anyone who manages to get to Peronne, I urge them to view that location. We are currently in negotiations through the historical museum there with a number of local interests to see what we can do. We have had good indications of support at the local, regional and national level from the French government in terms of their willingness to come to the party around the question of management and also financing with respect to these proposals. We retain a good deal of flexibility, but the intention is to make sure that, in the lead-up to the centenary of the Great War, those Australians who make what is a significant pilgrimage and also those from other countries who go to view that carnage that occurred so long ago see what the Australians did as part of an horrific and tragic—but, in the end, triumphant—effort by those forces who fought. 3495 3495 15:38:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the government guarantee that no parent or family will be worse off as a result of its proposed maternity leave payments and changes to family tax benefits, the baby bonus, the Medicare safety net and the private health insurance rebate? 3495 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I would say to the honourable member for Indi what I have said to other honourable members who have asked questions in the parliament today, and that is that the government is dealing with the reality of a more than $200 billion reduction in its revenues. Firstly, I would draw the attention of honourable members opposite to this fact: when those opposite were in government, in the lead-up to the last election, the last period they were in office, off the back of the mining boom they had something like a $334 billion revenue windfall. In our first year or so in office we are looking at a $200 billion plus revenue reduction. That is the reality we are contending with; that is the reality you lolled around in. We are going to take hard, tough, necessary decisions to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of our budget. Secondly, we are going to do what we can to support jobs, apprenticeships and small businesses in this virtually unprecedented global economic recession and get on with the business of proper government. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I simply say to the member for Sturt that he can go to the dispatch box to raise a point of order, not to intimidate. 3495 3495 15:39:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 Ms KING —My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney update the House on progress made to establish a national emergency warning system in the event of a major emergency or natural disaster? 3495 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the honourable member and commend her, and indeed other members in areas affected by the recent Victorian fires, for the quality of their representation. The Commonwealth of course is doing its bit to support the reconstruction and working very closely with the Victorian government. On behalf of the government, could I make special mention and commendation of the work of the Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction, Bill Shorten, who is doing an outstanding job on behalf of the government in that respect. The government is also doing its part in endeavouring to minimise the prospect of these events occurring again—a point made by a number of members speaking in this House. In that respect, the week before last there was a very significant development, and that was the agreement by the Council of Australian Governments to develop a national warning system. The Commonwealth agreed to fund the development to the tune of $15 million. It is a program that will be developed and implemented by the states. It will indeed be a significant development. It will have the capability of sending voice messages to landlines and text messages to mobile phones, and that will be a significant thing. It must be recognised that there are currently limitations in the system. Currently, landlines are obviously at fixed addresses. In terms of mobile phones, they will only, with present technologies, be capable of going to billing addresses, which of course may not be where the person holding the phone is located. To further advance those technologies, the Commonwealth and the states agreed to jointly undertake additional research to develop that capability of having geographic or location specific messages. The Commonwealth has agreed to not only fund that but also provide access to the Integrated Public Number Database by providing $11.3 million for those projects. I heard an interjection which I did not take but which was valid, and that was that these measures are not foolproof. There will be areas where there are blackouts and power shortages breaking off phone connections, so these must be seen as an adjunct to other systems of warning. If power is on, obviously there will be warnings provided by television and radio, but sirens, doorknocking and other mechanisms are also being canvassed in the royal commission. This is a very significant development. I really do commend the leadership of the state premiers. They rose above a lot of bureaucratic bickering that had crossed governments for a number of years. They really showed leadership. Finally, I commend and congratulate the Prime Minister on this very significant achievement in the area of disaster management. 3496 3496 15:43:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is to the Prime Minister. Following the recent disaster recovery payments made to residents of Queensland affected by flooding, why has the Prime Minister not acted decisively to provide similar cash payments to victims of recent flooding on the New South Wales North Coast? Has the Prime Minister broken his promise to the Australian people that he will govern for all Australians? 3496 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Cowper for his question. On the matter that he raises concerning flooding in northern New South Wales, the government is universal in its approach to providing proper assistance when all the criteria have been met. On the matter which the honourable member has raised, I will examine it further and I will come back to him in due course. 3496 3496 15:43:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Sport and Minister for Youth. Will the minister update the House on the impacts of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan on Australian sport? 3497 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms KATE ELLIS —I thank the member for Solomon and acknowledge his deep commitment to both jobs and sport. As the parliament would be well aware by now, this government committed $800 million to the biggest ever one-off investment in community infrastructure as part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government again very articulately pointed out today, we know that this plan is delivering for local communities—it is building local infrastructure and it is supporting local jobs. The good news is that that is not all; there is more that this plan is doing. It is encouraging Australians of all ages to be fit, to be healthy and to be active. I am very pleased to be able to inform the House today that, in addition to delivering much needed support for our economy, this program has provided a historic and a massive injection into Australian community sport. This program has provided almost $300 million for upgrading, redeveloping and building new sports facilities and infrastructure in communities right around Australia, and we on this side of the House know that that is worthy. We know that investment in sporting infrastructure is important in removing a barrier to participation in sport and rec. We want to be a strong supporter of the Australian sports system, all the way from grassroots community sports up to elite sports and the podiums. So across a range of sports right across Australia there will be improved community clubs, enhanced facilities and new infrastructure while supporting Australian jobs. Last week I had the opportunity to see firsthand the impact of some of these projects. I note that I was with the member for Page when we announced $3.4 million to build a brand new aquatic centre in Evans Head. In meeting with some of the local residents—local residents who, I must say, have campaigned for years and years for this project—I noted their delight in knowing that this project would become a reality. I would like to share the comments of just one of the local constituents of the member for Page, Mrs Shirley Dawson. She pulled me aside and said to me: ‘I would like you to thank the government for this funding. We know that it is important for the community. But also I like to go swimming, and this means that long into my old age when I can no longer drive I will be able to swim my laps and make sure that I stay active.’ This is just one example of how this program is also benefiting health and benefiting the preventative health agenda. I also had the opportunity, along with the member for Wakefield and the Mayor of Salisbury, to announce funding of over $4.4 million for the north-west sector sports ground development. I would like to share with the House the comments of some of the local councillors, who said that at the moment they are quite literally turning away hundreds of young members of the community who want to play soccer but are unable to because of inadequate facilities. This means that these kids can be active and can take part in using the sporting facilities, which we all know is very important. So, while those opposite may choose opportunistically to try and jump into photo ops now despite the fact that they stood in this parliament and voted against these local community initiatives, we know that this program is a massive boost for Australia’s grassroots sporting facilities and it is also a great thing for our economy, a great thing for our local communities and a great thing for community sport. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 3498 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 3498 3498 15:48:00 Ms GILLARD,MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I seek to add to the answer I gave to the question from the member for Barker. The member for Barker raised with me the National School Pride Program money provided to Smithfield Plains High School and to Gepps Cross. I can inform the member that the money is being spent on equipment and refurbishments that will be transferred to the new school sites. We have an agreement with the South Australian government to that effect. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I can see that the member for Barker thinks it is funny, but I doubt that the school communities that are benefiting from this expenditure think it is funny that he comes into this House and makes incorrect claims about the work at the schools. I trust that the member for Barker will have the simple decency to write a letter of apology to the principals of each of the schools. And I trust that every member of the opposition that has howled and catcalled during these answers has the decency to co-sign the letter. While they are at it, the Leader of the Opposition might want to apologise to all of Australia for being opposed to this expenditure to support schools and support jobs. 3498 3498 15:45:00 Mr ALBANESE,MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was also asked a question about jobs and the economic stimulus package. I table an article from the Border Watch newspaper website entitled ‘$5 million boost to library and community centre’, which quotes the Mayor of Mount Gambier, Steve Perryman, saying: This significant Federal Government Grant is a substantial contribution toward the realisation of the overall 2015 Vision for the Future and is gratefully acknowledged by Council and the community. That was the Liberal candidate for the state election, Mr Perryman. I also table a list of the 134 projects which local government are receiving in the electorate of Barker, made up of a total of $4.65 million for community projects in Barker, clearly opposed by the member for Barker but supported by the community in Barker. 3498 Personal Explanations 3498 15:50:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Yes, grievously. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said in question time that last Thursday I was ‘hiding’ and ‘in an abyss’. In fact, I was at the Parramatta Leagues Club, in the company of hundreds of other Australians, where I spoke at and supported the official launch of the Greater Western Sydney Red Shield Doorknock appeal of the Salvation Army, whose officers work selflessly to lift so many Australians out of an abyss of despair, poverty, abuse and addiction. Mr Speaker, if I may add, the doorknock appeal on 23 and 24 May deserves all of our support. 3499 15:51:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —Yes, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —A week ago the Townsville Bulletin reported on the study trip that I undertook during the autumn break. The Townsville Bulletin said that the estimated cost of my trip was $100,000. Everybody knows that there is no entitlement for $100,000. The actual cost was about $15,500. 3499 15:52:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Yes, Mr Speaker, most grievously, by the Minister for Health and Ageing. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —During the summing up of the alcopops debate, the Minister for Health and Ageing suggested that in my remarks I indicated that I stood for legalising the drug ecstasy. I have no such position. I am firmly against illicit drugs, unlike the minister for health and those on the other side. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I ask that that comment be withdrawn. Opposition members—You cannot ask that. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Yes I can. Withdraw it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat and the Leader of the House will resume his seat. The real difficulty is that, in making his personal explanation, the last phrase of the explanation was debating the point and was outside of a personal explanation. On those occasions in the past where a comment was outside of the processes of the parliament I have invited members to withdraw their comment on that basis, and I ask the member for Mayo to withdraw on that basis. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The only basis on which you may ask for words to be withdrawn is that they are unparliamentary. The member for Mayo did not make an unparliamentary statement. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —One of the useful definitions of ‘unparliamentary’ that the member for O’Connor raises with me from time to time is ‘the type of remark that is probably going to lead to disorderly behaviour within the chamber’. The member for Canning has suffered because of the way in which I have ruled in this manner. He said something which I may have allowed him if he had said it in a debate, but I asked him to withdraw it because he made the comment by interjection. I am just saying that the member for Mayo went on to debate the question after making what was a very proper personal explanation. I am simply asking him to withdraw it. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, further to my point of order, the minister who made the statement about the member who has just made his personal explanation made a similar statement, and I think it would be only reasonable that if you insist on the member for Mayo withdrawing you should also insist that the minister for health do likewise. That would be equitable. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am satisfied that the proper procedure was used by the member for Mayo up until the last few words and I am seeking withdrawal by the member for Mayo. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Mayo. 3500 15:55:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —Yes, most grievously, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —In question time today the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government intimated that I was opposed to the funding in Mount Gambier. Government members—You said it. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —No, I did not. My point was that the government is claiming that this is part of their infrastructure upgrades but, in actual fact, the decision was made months ago by the Mount Gambier council. The building was started months ago; therefore, there is no way that the $5 million announced yesterday— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has explained where he has been misrepresented. He will resume his seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will withdraw. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 3500 Auditor-General's Reports 3500 3500 15:56:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER ——I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of 2008-09 entitled No. 27—Performance audit: management of the M113 armoured personnel carrier upgrade project—Department of Defence; No. 28—Performance audit: quality and integrity of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs income support records—Department of Veterans’ Affairs; No. 29—Performance audit: delivery of projects on the AusLink National Network—Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; No. 30—Performance audit: management of the Australian government’s action plan to eradicate trafficking in persons—Attorney-General’s Department; Department of Immigration and Citizenship; Australian Federal Police; Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and No. 31—Performance audit: Army Reserve forces—Department of Defence. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 3500 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:57:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Department of Finance and Deregulation—Campaign advertising by Australian Government departments and agencies—Half yearly report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2008. Productivity Commission—Reports—No. 46—Government drought support, 27 February 2009. No. 47—Paid parental leave: Support for parents with newborn children, 28 February 2009. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 3501 Ministerial Statements 3501 3501 15:58:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Mr Speaker, I wish to update the House about the grave humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka. As members would recall, I delivered a ministerial statement on Sri Lanka on 5 February. At that time, I said that the long-term security and prosperity of Sri Lanka would only be achieved through a political solution or settlement that met the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. For Sri Lanka to achieve a lasting settlement and an enduring peace, political reform and rapprochement between all parties and communities is clearly required. That remains Australia’s view and the basis of Australia’s policy on Sri Lanka. It is a view I have continued to relay to the Sri Lankan government, including when I spoke to Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama on 30 April. I also relayed to him our profound concern at the worsening humanitarian situation in the north of Sri Lanka. The safety and protection of civilians must be the absolute priority for all sides fighting in northern Sri Lanka. Tragically, many civilians have been killed and further loss of life is inevitable unless both sides cease hostilities to allow civilians to leave the conflict zone. It is essential that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) allow civilians to leave the conflict zone. There can be no doubt that the military advance of the Sri Lankan government has been rapid. Having at one stage reportedly controlled about a third of Sri Lanka’s territory, the LTTE leadership is now confined to a small strip of land less than five square kilometers. It is clear that a military victory by the Sri Lankan government is imminent, irrevocably changing the situation on the ground after decades of conflict. All of us in the House and in the Australian community must recognise the qualitatively changed situation in Sri Lanka. Recognising these new circumstances and motivated by our concern for the safety and welfare of civilians, Australia supports the call of the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon for a humanitarian pause in fighting. In my 30 April conversation with Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Bogollagama, I welcomed the Sri Lankan government’s announcement that combat operations using heavy calibre weapons, aerial weapons and combat aircraft which could cause civilian casualties would cease. Noting that then as now there were reports of such operations continuing, I told him that it was vital that these commitments were implemented in full. Mr Bogollagama reassured me this commitment was being met. I note with deep concern, however, that fighting is continuing in this area and I am aware of reports over the weekend of many civilian deaths as a result of shelling within the conflict zone. Further offensive action will inevitably cause further civilian suffering. As the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, John Holmes, has said, there are now ‘twin’ emergencies in northern Sri Lanka. The first emergency involves tens of thousands of civilians still trapped in the conflict zone. These people need safety from the fighting. We can be certain that they desperately need food and medical assistance. Their plight deteriorates with each passing day. The second emergency is the situation of those who have recently escaped the conflict zone. Nearly 200,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) are living in camps in northern Sri Lanka. The United Nations has the full support of the Australian government as it works with the Sri Lankan authorities to address the worsening humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka. Australia commends the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, international and Australian NGOs and the Sri Lankan government for their efforts in meeting the critical needs of civilians in the camps. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has repeated his call for UN humanitarian teams to gain access to the conflict zone to assess the full extent of the civilians’ situation in the area. Australia strongly supports this call. There is no justification for refusing to allow the United Nations and key humanitarian aid agencies full access to affected areas. Australia also urges the Sri Lankan government to ensure as a matter of urgency that the process of evacuation from the conflict zone is open to monitoring by the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other UN officials. Such access would underline the Sri Lankan government’s commitment to the protection of its civilians and build confidence in its management of this difficult situation. With the growing crisis, the Australian government has responded to assist affected civilians in Sri Lanka. I announced last week that, following an urgent United Nations appeal for emergency international assistance, Australia would provide a further $10 million in humanitarian assistance to meet the needs of civilians adversely affected by the conflict, particularly those in displaced people’s camps or those near the conflict zone. The additional funds will be provided through United Nations agencies, including UNICEF and the World Food Program, as well as Australian NGOs. Australian assistance will provide water, sanitation, shelter, food and health care to civilians in need. Australia’s total contribution to assist the victims of the conflict in Sri Lanka since December 2008 now stands at $23.5 million. Australia also welcomes the commitment and efforts of its international partners. Recent international missions to Sri Lanka have included that of United Kingdom Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. I have spoken to both ministers about their visit and I support their call overnight for the UN Security Council to address the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. Mr Miliband’s account of his visit to Sri Lanka, along with reports from others, reveals that there remains much human suffering among the civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Reports of abuses from within the conflict zone include accounts of civilians forced by the LTTE to stay in its territory, of forced recruitment of children and adults by the LTTE, of deaths and injuries from bombs and artillery, and of families desperately seeking news of their loved ones. There are also reports of anxieties among Tamil civilians about their future in government-held areas. Australia continues to condemn the terrorist tactics of the LTTE. Australia urges the LTTE to allow civilians caught in the conflict zone to leave, to end its practice of forced recruitment and to renounce terrorism. Australia continues to urge the LTTE to lay down its arms. We again condemn the LTTE’s targeting of civilians in or departing the conflict zone and the completely unacceptable use of civilians as human shields. The government further urges the Sri Lankan community in Australia to add its weight to help ensure that civilian life is protected in the north of Sri Lanka. Many members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community in Australia have written to me concerning loved ones in Sri Lanka. They have recounted stories of their own, often tragic, personal and family experiences. Many others have conveyed their concerns about the humanitarian crisis, including through peaceful demonstrations, letters and dialogue with members and senators on all sides. I have also heard from leaders of Australia’s religious communities, most recently from the Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Pat Power. They have let me know their distress at the grave humanitarian situation of civilians in this conflict. The Australian government shares fully these concerns. We will continue to convey them forcefully to the Sri Lankan government. There is no military solution to Sri Lanka’s civil conflict. Australia, a longstanding friend of Sri Lanka, urges its government to ensure its civilians have confidence in the government’s commitment to their protection. As my French and United Kingdom foreign ministerial colleagues have made clear, in the Sri Lankan government’s moment of military victory it must show the humanity and self-interest to win the peace. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak for nine minutes. Leave granted. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That so much of the standing of the sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 9 minutes. Question agreed to. 3503 16:07:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The coalition supports the efforts announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to help civilians caught up in the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka’s north. We welcome the minister’s announcement last Friday, 8 May of a further $10 million in humanitarian assistance to meet the critical needs of civilians affected terribly by this conflict, particularly those in displaced people’s camps or those near the conflict zone. The minister has responded to the launch on 4 May of an urgent United Nations appeal for emergency international assistance. The United Nations estimates that 6,500 civilians have been killed this year and tens of thousands of civilians have fled their homes. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE—the Tamil Tigers, the separatist militant organisation that has fought for an independent homeland for Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority since 1983—have been pushed back by government forces into a tiny pocket of territory. It is estimated that, over the 26 years of this conflict between the government and the LTTE, more than 70,000 people have been killed and over 400,000 people have been displaced from their homes. The United Nations continues to plead for access to the conflict zone so that people can be evacuated and the sick and wounded be attended to. But, with an estimated 50,000 civilians still trapped in this zone just three square kilometres in size, over last weekend the situation has become dire. According to the United Nations spokesman in Colombo, Gordon Weiss, more than 100 children were among a large number of Tamil civilians killed in a weekend. A doctor inside the zone reportedly estimated that up to 1,400 people may have been killed in two days of air and artillery attacks. Colombo has denied using artillery or aircraft and has accused the LTTE of using mortars to fire on civilians for propaganda purposes. There is little opportunity to verify these claims or casualty figures, particularly because independent journalists are denied access to the conflict zone. While the government describes the conflict zone as a government designated safe area, the United Nations has described the situation inside that area or zone as a bloodbath. Sri Lanka has objected to the remark and intends to formally complain. However, a statement issued today by the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, reiterated that he is: … appalled at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Sri Lanka over the weekend. Thousands of Sri Lankans have already died in the past several months due to the conflict, and more still remain in grave danger. He went on to say he was: … deeply concerned by the continued use of heavy weapons in this situation. The reckless disrespect shown by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for the safety of civilians has led to thousands of people remaining trapped in the area. The Secretary-General called once again in the strongest terms possible for both sides to adhere to their obligations under international humanitarian law and has demanded that the LTTE allow the estimated 50,000 civilians remaining in the conflict zone to leave immediately. He urged the government to bring the conflict to an end without further bloodshed. The government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE have blamed each other for causing the deaths through each side’s artillery bombardments. The world is watching events in Sri Lanka closely and is greatly disturbed at the further violations of international law. Mr Ian Kelly, United States State Department spokesman, said overnight that the United States was deeply concerned at the unacceptably high level of civilian casualties. He confirmed that the United States has repeatedly urged the Tamil Tigers to lay down its arms and allow the civilians to leave the safe zone. He went on to say: The government of Sri Lanka should abide by its April 27th statement that combat operations have concluded and security forces should end the use of heavy weapons which of course could cause civilian casualties. Back in March, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton expressed to the Sri Lankan government the United States deep concern over the deteriorating conditions and increasing loss of life. Secretary Clinton said: … a durable and lasting peace will only be achieved through a political solution that addresses the legitimate aspirations of all of Sri Lanka’s communities Secretary Clinton called on the Sri Lankan government to put forward a proposal to engage Tamils who do not espouse violence or terrorism and to develop power-sharing arrangements to achieve a lasting peace and reconciliation. We join with the government of Australia in strongly supporting this stance of the United States. We note that United Kingdom Foreign Secretary David Miliband has also demanded an end to the killing. Mr Miliband has called on the United Nations Security Council to take up this crisis and for all levels of the United Nations to hold discussions on the conditions facing Sri Lankan civilians trapped by the conflict. The coalition notes the efforts made by the two representatives of two Security Council member countries to resolve the crisis—the United Kingdom and France. It is with regret that the international community notes that the visit to Sri Lanka on 29 April of Mr Miliband with French Foreign Minister Kouchner did not result pacifying the situation. While we welcome the Australian government’s humanitarian assistance to date to help alleviate suffering in northern Sri Lanka, we also join with the government in its view that Sri Lanka’s conflict cannot be resolved through military means alone. We consider a political solution to be essential for long-term peace in this long-suffering nation. The coalition will welcome further announcements of assistance by the government to the thousands of people who remain trapped in the conflict zone. We join international calls for both sides to cease hostilities and allow innocent civilians to leave harm’s way. The coalition believes that there should be a ceasefire to enable urgent humanitarian assistance to reach civilians trapped in the conflict zone and for civilians to safely leave the conflict area. We call for greater access for international humanitarian agencies to the Sri Lankan government temporary camps in order to treat the sick, monitor the activities of both sides of the conflict and to evacuate innocent civilians. The coalition is saddened to hear of reports today that a shell has killed a local staff member of Caritas Australia who was working in one of the troubled regions in Sri Lanka’s north. Caritas Australia’s CEO, Jack de Groot, said that the tragic death adds to the growing number of innocent victims caught in the brutal conflict. Without an urgent ceasefire, many more innocent lives will be lost. We consider that the Australian government should raise with the International Monetary Fund the possibility of linking progress on these urgent humanitarian issues to the requests of the Sri Lankan government for a US$1.9 billion loan. Sri Lanka is a country with a rich cultural history and a great natural beauty. It was once described by explorer Marco Polo as ‘one of the finest islands’. It has been the subject of a great body of art and literature and its beauty captured gloriously in a long poem by a Mrs Dent written in 1886: Here, the proud ocean basks beneath his rays, As pearl-entangled fringe the golden sands Caress with murmurs soft, while fitful plays The diamond spray, whose jewelled and glitt’ring bands Encircle thee, Queen of the Indian Sea. Ceylon! what land can e’er compare with thee? The whole world urges Sri Lanka to again ensure that its citizens can live peacefully on this island of great beauty and serenity. Its citizens deserve no less. 3505 Matters of Public Importance 3505 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Boothby proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to create, protect and support jobs. 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— 3505 16:16:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —It has been an extraordinary 12 months since the last budget. We have seen four separate phases in the government’s approach to the economy. It was only 12 months ago that the budget was very much part of the war on inflation. The Treasurer was beating his chest about how big a surplus he was going to produce, and the government’s No. 1 priority was to fight inflation. Then we had a second phase, where the government promised to create jobs. In February the Prime Minister slid away from that promise and made it only that they would create, protect or support jobs. Tonight, 12 months since the last budget, we are now about to enter a new phase in which the government will say that it is a great achievement that they have kept unemployment to only one million. That is a massive failure on the part of the government, which will now have the jobs of one million Australians hanging on their record. The government will now be presiding over the largest budget deficit in modern Australian history, the largest government debt in modern Australian history and the largest number of unemployed Australians ever. This is a government which has a great communications strategy but a very poor economic strategy, and spin will only get you so far. The problem of jobs, the problem of unemployment, is not one that has snuck up on the government. The DEEWR leading indicator of employment has been falling for 17 consecutive months, but this government was very slow to acknowledge the problem over the horizon with jobs and the problem approaching with unemployment. The record will show that the opposition were warning the government on jobs for the last 12 months, well before any government member acknowledged the problem—back in the day when the government was talking about fighting inflation and the size of the budget surplus. Much will be made tonight of the government’s assertion that without the cash splashes of $22 billion over the last four or five months we would see an unemployment rate of 10 per cent and an extra 200,000 Australians unemployed. Just to put that in perspective, let us say there has never been a Treasury forecast that unemployment was going to be 10 per cent. The forecasts of unemployment over the last 12 months have had a life span of about two months. In other words, two months after being published it is generally very obvious that these forecasts have had to be revised—and revised upwards. The government has always been slow to acknowledge that the job situation and the unemployment situation were deteriorating much faster than their official forecasts acknowledged. When we go back to November last year, the UEFO predicted that unemployment would hit 5.75 per cent by June this year. This increase was forecast despite a $10.4 billion stimulus package that the government claimed would create 75,000 jobs. Where are those jobs? Where are those jobs that you promised to create last October, last November and last December? Where are they? We are still waiting for them. The 75,000 jobs are yet to eventuate, and the government has now gone for another spendathon of $42 billion, including more cash payments. Regrettably, once again the jobs promised have failed to appear. After $22 billion of cash payments, there has not been a single new job created since October last year. That is $22 billion, every one of them borrowed, which will take a generation to pay back, and not a single job has been created. The latest labour force figures show no jobs created since October last year. Only 11,400 jobs have been created since September last year. After the failure of their two cash splashes, the government decided to lower the bar, to lower expectations and to tell us, ‘Well, actually, we have done pretty well because we have kept unemployment to only one million Australians.’ That is a massive failure on the part of any Australian government. Last year we were told they were fighting inflation and creating jobs. Then they were supporting jobs. Now the achievement of the Rudd government is that they have kept unemployment to only one million Australians. That is an absolute disgrace. As we have already heard, the government spent $22 billion on cash payments—every cent borrowed—to smooth the national accounts and to try to avoid two quarters of negative growth. The government will say that all of this is the global recession. They will also say that the budget position is somehow John Howard’s fault. They would have us believe that the Prime Minister is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But there are several areas where the government have made things worse and not better. The government will not say tonight how their workplace relations regime, their award modernisation and their tender for employment services have impacted on jobs. Let us look at some of the areas where direct decisions of the government have made things worse and not better. We have already had the revelation that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, a minister in the Rudd government, has put the emotional health of the superb parrot ahead of 1,000 rural jobs—causing temporary closures in some mills. But the gold medal performance of this government has been in the area of employment services. This minister, the Minister for Employment Participation, has compounded his mistakes. He has piled mistake on blunder. Australia had 10 years experience of contracting out employment services. Through successive contracts, the Job Network had been bedded down. Unemployment fell from 7.7 per cent in May 1998 to below five per cent in 2006 and until this year. Rather than continue with an employment services model which reduced unemployment—and which worked—the Labor government made a decision to have a big-bang change in employment services at the worst possible time. Tendering out 100 per cent of employment services has not been done since 2000. The last time it was done, there were nine months when employment services were not running at 100 per cent efficiency. Faced with advice that the government were required to tender out 100 per cent of employment services, they made successive blunders which compounded this problem for job seekers. First, they designed an employment services model for good times. They designed a model for high employment growth, for high job creation and for low unemployment. It was a model based on the assumption that the vast majority of job seekers would find a job themselves, with few incentives for employment service providers to help them into work. Under Labor’s original model, only 12.8 per cent of the employment services stream funding was available for 61 per cent of the job seekers classified as stream 1. Their original model was unsustainable in a climate of rising unemployment and fewer job placements. It is a much more marginal model. In their budget last year they proposed spending $300 million less on employment services. That was at a time when they anticipated having 75,000 more job seekers on the unemployment roll. There was a complete lack of early intervention for the vast majority of job seekers, especially for school leavers and those who were job ready. Second, they compounded this problem. In designing a tender they completely disregarded past performance in placing job seekers into a job. Under the most recent contract, the star ratings measured performance. In past tenders, proven performance helped determine business share. Yet Labor have emasculated the star rating and have not yet replaced it. That is why their tender has been such a debacle; that is why proven performers have not got work. They designed a tender without giving a very strong weighting to past performance. These two blunders have resulted in the startling revelation that, as unemployment is set to take off, almost one in two job seekers will have to change their caseworkers and employment service providers over the next year—that is, 38 per cent of job seekers will be required to change their caseworker and employment service provider on 1 July and another nine per cent will change during the transition period. In total, 47 per cent of job seekers will be forced to move to a new provider. New providers will have no access to paper case files of job seekers. Job seekers will be starting from scratch with a caseworker who has no knowledge of their history, abilities or limitations. This is a clear example—in fact it is the most striking example—of where the government’s own policies have made things worse. On top of this, the Labor government are actively destroying jobs. The Job Services Australia tender alone has resulted in more job losses than there were with Pacific Brands, with the government failing still to concede exactly how many employment services caseworkers and support staff will be out of a job come 30 June. But do not take my word for it. Frank Quinlan, the Executive Director of Catholic Social Services, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April 2009, asked: How can it be in the interests of either unemployed Australians or the sector to be shutting down services and opening new ones in the midst of the greatest employment crisis in a decade? Glenn Milne in the Australian just this week said: Rudd should have seen this coming, and more particularly, so should his Employment Minister, Julia Gillard. Instead they appear to have been sleepwalking towards the problem. There also was another minister who apparently wasn’t reading his briefs: Brendan O’Connor, who’s responsible for employment participation. If it wasn’t imposed on him from above he stands accused of designing policy based on an economic situation he knew to be completely inappropriate to the times. We all know that this has been an unmitigated disaster for the government. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! The member for Sturt is under warning from question time. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr SOUTHCOTT —The only person who is in complete denial here is the Minister for Employment Participation. He has been very slow to act. He has compounded problem on problem. He came up with a model designed for the boom times at a time when unemployment is rising. He designed a tender which took no account of proven performance in placing job seekers into a job. He has now crafted a system where he believes it will be a good thing for almost one in two job seekers to be changing their caseworkers and their providers at a time when unemployment is rising at a rate that we have not seen since the early 1990s. Just to put it in perspective, the Job Network had been running for 10 years before this minister got his hands on it. It had been bedded down. We had gone from a system of the Commonwealth Employment Service to a privatised contracted system. It had been bedded down and it was working. It was reducing unemployment and it was putting people into jobs. This minister has decided that it would be a good idea to have big-bang change with massive disruption to job seekers at a time when we will see one million Australians out of work by this time next year. (Time expired) 3508 16:32:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —The comments made by the member for Boothby in relation to the employment services are entirely and utterly wrong. I say to the chamber and those that are here that from the beginning, since the election, the government have been concerned about ensuring that we have effective employment services linking employment services to training so that we provide opportunities for Australians who are out of work. What we do know about the previous government is that they relied of course almost entirely upon the mining boom to ensure success in the economy and least of all on success or alleged success with the Job Network system. I will happily say now that they made efforts in the earlier terms to bring about some reforms. Whether I liked them or not, some reformist zeal seemed to exist early on when the former government were in their first term or two. But in the last number of parliamentary terms the previous government gave up on reform altogether. They hoped that the mining boom that was providing enormous cash flows into the coffers of Treasury could paper over the cracks of policy deficiency and of the implementation of those policies. We saw a Job Network system that was broken. It was fragmented and not providing the support that out-of-work Australians required. That is why there is a stark statistic, that even in the best of times and even with the mining boom at its height we did not see a decline in the very long-term unemployed amongst the unemployment figures. We saw a failure by the previous government to listen to the sector that said there were not sufficient employment services for people, there were not personalised services for particular job seekers, and there was not sufficient training for those people. It failed to listen to the sector, to employment providers, to employers, to not-for-profit organisations and to others that said we needed to make sure that those services were linked to training in areas of skilled need so that employers could fill existing vacancies. We knew that was a major problem because everybody, other than the previous government, told us so. So we set about fundamentally reforming the services to make sure that we provided the best possible service for each and every Australian out of work who wanted to find work. That is what we sought to do. We will have in this country from 1 July employment services, entitled Job Services Australia, to provide better access to services than is the case under the Job Network system. For example, there will be 2,000 sites across the country, more than 200 more sites under Job Services Australia than under the Job Network system. Because the approach is an integrated one, we will ensure that those job seekers who walk through those doors to be assisted can access services in one place—not wait, not have to be pushed from pillar to post, from one provider to another—to get work experience, job search techniques and other forms of assistance. We have integrated the services and, in doing that, we have linked up those services to the massive training agenda of this government. This government is spending $2 billion on the Productivity Places Program, which will allow for the rollout of 711,000 jobs. Of those training places, 309,000 will be dedicated to those job seekers. What we do know—and the previous speaker in this debate failed to mention it—is that the previous government did nothing to assist job seekers in the area of training. If you want to look at the concerns that were raised through the consultations we had, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you will find that the biggest concern that employers had was to do with training. VECCI described training under the previous government’s system as Mickey Mouse courses. In 15 minutes, apart from the most oblique reference, the previous speaker did not mention the global recession once. Sure, I understand that there is a bit of politicking going on across the table and they do not want to talk about a whole range of things, but how could anybody expect to be treated seriously when he can go on for 15 minutes talking about employment and about the issues confronting workers and employers in this country and not mention the global recession once? It is the biggest elephant that has been in any room for a very long time and he failed to mention it. I will go back to some of the other issues he raised with respect to Job Services in a moment, but I think we should go back to what this government have done since October last year to protect the interests of Australian workers and indeed the Australian economy. We have acted to stabilise Australian financial markets, including providing a government guarantee to depositors in Australian banks, building societies and credit unions to maintain confidence at home that we have seen shattered abroad, with the result that our major four banks remain, as we all know, among the strongest in the world. Second, last October we took early action to provide stimulus in the form of the $10.4 billion economic stimulus package, which is providing support for carers, pensioners, veterans and families doing it tough. That provided not only support for those people who were struggling but also much needed stimulus for our economy, including the retail sector. If you were to compare the retail sector figures in this country with figures from comparable economies you would see that as a result of that stimulus package there has been a significant benefit that has supported jobs. Indeed, only this month we have seen improvements in retail figures. There was a slight dip last month but again an improvement. Why? Because the government is acting quickly to provide support to the economy. Beyond the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy the government early this year initiated the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan to provide the support that our economy and the workers and employers in this country need. First there is support for farmers, students, parents and others who need to be given support during this time. But the bulk of the money is for ensuring that we have nation building infrastructure across the country in areas such as education. There is also free ceiling insulation to 2.7 million Australian homes. We are also building social housing, which provides much needed support for people on the margins who are doing it tough—the 100,000 homeless in this country. At the same time, that is providing tradies and other workers in this country with the capacity to find and keep work at a time when private capital has been contracting. The government continues to make decisions to provide the support necessary for workers and employers to ensure that this economy continues to fight its way through one of the most difficult times in economic terms for three generations. We will continue to make those decisions in responding to the global recession. In relation to the area of employment, we have made some other decisions. The honourable member raised the issue of Job Services Australia. I have to entirely refute his assertion that it is not for these times. The model for Job Services Australia has to be for beyond one year or two years; it has to be a set of services that is flexible enough to provide for the requirements of out-of-work Australians in expansions and contractions. We wanted to make sure that Job Services Australia would do well in good and in difficult times. For that reason, we have a demand driven system. For those opposite who may not understand, that means that, if there are more people in need of support because they find themselves out of work through no fault of their own, they will have that support provided to them. Of course, as a result of the global recession we have ensured that we have made announcements that are consistent with Job Services Australia and that provide temporary support over the next two years. I name a number of them. Firstly, as I said in question time today, there is $300 million for retrenched workers over the next two years that will provide immediate and personalised support for those workers so that they can find a job as quickly as possible or they can be placed into a training area so that they can acquire the skills they will need when the economy recovers. That is the first thing we have done, and we made it very clear that we were most concerned about those workers that will lose their jobs. Secondly, we have provided support and incentives to employers and to group training companies to employ apprentices. There is nothing worse than seeing an apprentice who may be halfway through his or her apprenticeship lose that trade because an employer finds it almost impossible for economic reasons to hold onto them. We have a $145 million out-of-trade apprenticeship program which will allow for employers and group training companies to provide support for the employer to employ that apprentice, and with a built-in incentive to allow that apprentice to stay until the end of their apprenticeship. That is an important measure that supports apprentices at this time. Further to that, we are aware that there are young people who are not necessarily quite prepared for apprenticeships. That is why we have announced $30 million to provide pre-apprenticeship training to make sure that they are ready to go into a comprehensive trade course. These are some of the things we continue to do to support workers whether they be apprentices, trainees or people who have lost their jobs in recent times. I also want to touch on the $650 million Jobs Fund. I have been visiting local communities with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and others throughout the last month. We meet with and talk to small businesses, not-for-profit organisations, training organisations and others who want to make sure that they can find work and create jobs for people in the community. What we have set out to do with this jobs fund is to ensure that local communities that are struggling, particularly those where there is a rapid rise in unemployment or a relatively high level of unemployment, can be assisted through this Jobs Fund. That Jobs Fund will be opened for first-round applications on 18 April, closing on 22 May. We will be asking community groups to be putting forward their ideas because, while we have a national approach to these issues, we also want to have a local approach. We want to get the best ideas that will create work, build schools or build social infrastructure—or preferably all three—as we go forward. I say to the honourable member opposite that I do not accept for one moment his assertion that Jobs Services Australia is not for these times. Indeed, it was built to ensure it is for the good times and the difficult times. It is clear, from subsequent announcements made as a result of the global recession, that we can build on what is needed over a temporary period. That is consistent with Job Services Australia and that was clear as a result of the $300 million announcement. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —That is the problem, you doofus! 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I understand that the member for Boothby is somewhat frustrated—he wants to interject now. He has not had an opportunity for the entire parliamentary term to ask me a question. That is something you have to deal with with your tactics group, Andrew. I cannot help you there. I am glad you got an MPI. I am sure it was because it was budget day that you got the MPI, but it is good to see you are at least getting up at MPIs. I would ask you to ask me a question in question time so we can actually seriously consider this matter when everyone is listening to you, Andrew, because in the end— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—You will refer to the member by his seat. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —The member for Boothby—I am sorry. This is, however, a very serious issue. In the end, it is about whether, in fact, Job Network was effective or not. I would suggest the mining boom papered over the cracks at Job Network. We have listened to the sector. We have listened to employers and employment providers and we have sought to change Job Network to ensure the services are more effective and there are more sites available for job seekers linked up to training that will be required now—and, indeed, required in the future when the economy recovers. I do not think this opposition is serious, and that is why the honourable member does not even get a question in question time to talk to me about this particular matter. (Time expired) 3512 16:47:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance, because we have a government in this country that is hostage to the 24-hour news cycle. We have a government that is hostage to the 10-second sound bite and its media spin doctors. We will see handed down in this chamber tonight what the Australian people will know as a traditional Labor budget on steroids. It is going to be a budget that will usher in the era of big deficits. It will be a budget that will usher in the high level of unemployment that we are expecting in the months ahead. It is a budget that will burden the Australian people with massive debt and burden their children with massive debt. Only 18 months ago, when this government came to office, this country was a prosperous country. In that short time, in that 18 months, we have seen prosperity shift to negative growth. After only 18 months, Treasurer Swan has converted a $23 billion surplus into a deficit. After only 18 months in office, strong employment growth was replaced by job losses. University graduates, only 18 months ago, had a choice of careers. They were hopeful; they were optimistic. Now, you ask university graduates and they wonder where a job will come from. This is Kevin Rudd’s Australia—an Australia that is moving from hope to despair; an Australia that is at the whim of media spin doctors; an Australia that has been governed by spin doctors rather than on the basis of good policy. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in the 2007 election campaign, promised Australians a dream and he is delivering a nightmare. What we see is a government that is actually making the situation worse. When the government came to power at a time when the world economy was already showing signs of slowing, what did it do? It egged the Reserve Bank on to push up interest rates. Rather than being responsible, the government took the political decision to try to trash the legacy of the Howard government—to try to trash the good work that was done by the previous coalition government in building a strong Australia—purely for political purposes, at a time when it knew, or ought to have known, that the economy would slow. The government actually made the situation worse—egging on the Reserve Bank. Their own DEEWR leading indicator of employment was already trending down, yet they were egging the Reserve Bank on to push up interest rates. How do increased interest rates improve the prospect for jobs? How does increasing interest rates support a better employment outcome? These are questions for which the opposition will hold this government accountable. We have seen a situation where a government has pursued political expediency over good policy. We have seen a multibillion dollar cash splash, more targeted at the PM’s approval ratings than the national interest. We saw Mr Popularity driving up his approval ratings by giving money away. We have seen a strategy dependent on throwing money at boom gates and at Pink Batts to protect Australia from recession—a strategy which is proving to be a spectacular failure. There will always be a place for government stimulus. From time to time, during economic cycles, stimulus is required. But it is the quality of that stimulus—the quality of that spending—that determines whether the nation will get a real return on the funds that it invests. Supporting jobs in China through throwing money at people to pay for imports is hardly going to protect Australian jobs. Racking up massive debt is not going to protect Australian jobs. Most Australians are now starting to question the Rudd government’s spendathon. Most people are starting to now question: is it worth it to receive a $900 cheque in the mail, only to have that replaced by a $900 interest burden per person in the years ahead? People are really waking up to this government, and they are concerned. They are very, very concerned. The policies of this government—the policies that this government has set in train—are going to create outcomes that will ultimately destroy jobs, not create or support jobs. After all, it is the private sector that will be employers, both large and small. It will be the private sector that will be the real drivers of job outcomes in this economy in the years ahead. So why is this government working on a plan—hatching a very clever plan—to make it more difficult for employers to employ people? This government is introducing a vigorous new competitor into the finance markets. The Australian government is going to go out into the finance markets and compete with small business and large business for scarce financial resources. We already have evidence of small businesses having difficulty refinancing their programs and loans. How can small businesses expand? How can they even maintain their current employment numbers if they do not have access to working capital to allow their businesses to thrive? Treasurer Swan and Prime Minister Rudd are out there actively competing with them for those resources. We also know that money is like any other commodity: it is at the whim of supply and demand. When the demand for funds is massively increased by this government’s reckless spending, only one thing can happen to the price of money. It has to go up. We are going to have small business paying more for its finance, if it can get it, large business paying more for its finance and the government in there actively competing against the private sector for those scarce resources. It is a formula for disaster in the long term. The other question that this government has to answer is: how can consumers maintain their spending if they will have to pay the higher taxes that will be needed to service this government’s debt? Consumption must fall if disposable income falls; disposable income must fall if taxes rise; and taxes must rise if this debt is going to be repaid. What is worrying people is this notion of a temporary deficit. The Australian people are not silly. Treasurer Swan went waltzing around the country suggesting that there may be a temporary deficit at some stage. He was not guaranteeing that the budget would remain in surplus. Despite the claims during the 2007 election campaign that Kevin Rudd was a fiscal conservative, the Treasurer belatedly acknowledged that there may be need for a temporary deficit. But—shock, horror!—what have the people of Australia recently found out? The temporary deficit may be in the order of six years. To the people of Australia it sounds a very permanent deficit—a very concerning factor. Spending will be reduced as consumers are forced to pay higher taxes and as businesses and homeowners are forced to pay interest rates as a result of having to compete with this government in the finance markets. It is an absolutely outrageous situation that the recovery will actually be made longer and more painful by this government rather than alleviated. The cash splash and this government’s failure to control its own expenditure will ultimately make the recession longer and more painful. An interesting little poll was taken on Sky News today. It indicated that 71 per cent of respondents believe that this government has lost control of the nation’s finances—after only 18 months. We saw Whitlam in full flight in the seventies, we saw Keating and Hawke in full flight in the eighties and nineties and now we have Kevin Rudd in full flight on the debt binge in the 21st century. Seventy-one per cent of respondents to the poll felt that the government has lost control of its finances. Businesses know that financing is going to become more difficult. The Dunn and Bradstreet business expectations survey in the March quarter showed that 28 per cent of firms were expecting to cut staff and 14 per cent of firms said they were planning to cut investment. That is not to mention the government making things more difficult through award modernisation. One of my constituents wrote to me and said: ‘All in all, as the result of the so-called modern award, I am considering whether I will continue to operate my business in 2010’—a business which operated for 29 years. It is considering closing down as a result of this government’s award modernisation. The Deputy Prime Minister claimed that no business would be worse off and no employee would be worse off—an Orwellian concept in itself—but here we have a business in operation in my electorate for 29 years considering closure as a result of this government’s policy. We have a government that is making the situation worse. We have a government that is actively putting in place policy— (Time expired) 3514 16:57:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —The nonsense of this matter of public importance was revealed in the Treasury modelling that was published in the newspapers today. That modelling showed that, were it not for the government’s actions—if the government had not acted to stimulate the economy—200,000 more Australians would be unemployed at the peak of this recession than would otherwise be the case. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —How many will be unemployed? HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —That is 200,000 Australians, more than all the workers in my electorate; more than all the workers in the electorate of Moncrieff. That is effectively two Olympic stadiums full of people who would have been unemployed if we had adopted the approach of the opposition, which is to do nothing, stand on the sidelines and let the market take its course. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —That’s not our approach! HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —We will see on Thursday night if you have an approach that resembles anything like a policy of doing something about jobs, because every time we offer up an approach it is either criticised from the sidelines or fundamentally opposed. All of the evidence that comes in, whether it is the unemployment data that came in last week, the retail figures for March that came in last week or the housing data for March that came in last week, is clear. The work that this government has undertaken to stimulate the economy is having an effect to protect and support jobs. There are 1½ million people in the retail industry in Australia, such as the people who work at Centro in Bankstown or Bass Hill Plaza in my electorate—people who have jobs because we have stimulated the economy, putting money in people’s pockets that is being spent at shopping centres and supermarkets around the country. If you want any proof of the effect that that stimulus is having on the economy to protect and support jobs, compare the data for retail figures in Australia to the rest of the world. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —To Zimbabwe? HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —Let’s compare it to America, where they have lost 5.7 million jobs over the last 12 months. People who worked in retail in America 12 months ago do not have a job today because retail figures in America are down. If you look at the retail figures for the United States since November—since Lehman Brothers collapsed—you will see that they have fallen by 2.5 per cent. In Japan they have fallen by 3.1 per cent. That is why people are losing their jobs in the United States and Japan. All of this money which supports the retail industry supports all of the associated businesses, such as the trucking industry and everybody that is associated with the retail industry. These are people who have jobs today who would not have had jobs if we had not taken this effort and had the energy and the wit to stimulate the economy. It is not just the retail industry, though: have a look at the housing figures that came out today. You do not hear much criticism from the opposition about the increase to the first home owners grant. They were critical at the start, but now they have become great supporters of it. And why wouldn’t they support it? People that they represent have a first home, have bought back into the great Australian dream, because of that boost to the first home owners grant. The $21,000 that enables somebody to get into the housing market with a brand new home at places like Ropes Crossing in the member for Lindsay’s electorate is creating jobs from laying the slab through to putting tiles on the roof and every job in between, whether the tiler, the builder, the glazier who puts the windows in the sills, the person who lays the tiles or the person who cleans the site at the end of the day. The multiplier effect of all of those jobs is substantial. The data from March says this: loans for construction are up 13.9 per cent and loans for new dwellings are up 8.8 per cent. That is just the month of March. That is already supporting jobs for all of those tradesmen, all those people on the tools, who I have just mentioned. What does it mean? It means real jobs. The evidence is in. The evidence is on our side; the opposition are on the other. That is why you suddenly hear them go about a little bit quiet on the other side. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Give us a debt update. HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr CLARE —I will give you an update from the Housing Industry Association. You should not talk about debt, mate, after Sky TV last week. You should be very quiet on debt at the moment. The Housing Industry Association is not a friend of the Labor Party. They are an organisation that is not a signed up member of the Labor Party. The HIA chief economist, Harley Dale, had this to say just today: ‘The consequences of this policy’—that is, our stimulus package of 12 October—‘have been more construction activity’—tick—‘more jobs’—tick—‘and more demand in manufacturing and retail sectors in the first half of 2009 than would otherwise have been the case.’ The substance of this MPI is that the government, through all its activities, has made things worse. That is what the previous speaker said: everything that the government has done has made things worse. I will tell you what: if there was anyone out there making that case other than the opposition you might take them seriously. But whether it is economists or industry representatives, all of the evidence, argument and experts are on one side and the opposition are on the other. If you ask the opposition why they took this approach, why they decided to oppose the stimulus package and why they opposed the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and who advised them to do that, you will hear deafening silence. No-one advised them to do that. They made the decision all on their own for political mischief’s sake. It is all about politics. If we wait here and listen carefully after asking whether anyone gave them the advice that they should oppose the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—after asking who was the economist or erudite person who told them that it was a good idea to oppose stimulus to the economy at a time of global recession—it sounds like there is nobody there. The only people there are the Crosby Textors of this world, who say, ‘Paint the Labor Party as the party that is miring people in debt and, if that doesn’t work, accuse them of throwing people overboard.’ That is their approach. This government’s approach is pretty different. It is about creating, supporting and generating jobs in local communities, particularly the ones that need it, whether that is through stimulating the economy by stimulating the retail industry, stimulating the economy by stimulating the housing industry or stimulating the economy by creating jobs at the 9,750 schools across the country. There is a construction site in every school, big or small, across the country in every town, whether a big town like Sydney or a small town like Deniliquin. There are construction jobs everywhere. That is what the education revolution is all about. I cannot help quoting the AMP chief economist, who only recently said, ‘In other words, the recession would’ve been a lot deeper if it weren’t for the stimulus.’ Isn’t that interesting? Tony Abbott was on Lateline the other night and he conceded that the stimulus was working. He conceded that it was having the desired effect; it was stimulating the economy. But then he said, ‘But if you stimulate the economy, you’ll make the recession deeper and worse.’ I thought I had better have a look at this. Surely by stimulating the economy—by creating jobs—you cannot be making a recession deeper or a recession worse. And according to the AMP chief economist, that is a nonsense argument. The Liberal Party’s approach to this is: ‘It doesn’t matter how many jobs people lose; don’t worry about the social impact or the human cost. Don’t worry about that. Try and minimise the amount that you spend and let people lose their jobs as a consequence.’ But the less you stimulate the economy, the more jobs that will be lost, the less tax that will come in and the more you have to pay in unemployment benefits. The longer the recession, the deeper the cost and the more social casualties there will be as a consequence. And that is what the economists say. Where is the evidence from them and where is the evidence from anybody that supports their arguments? Again, there is deafening silence. This is a government which is doing things nationally and on the ground. In my local community, like in every other community around the country, money is being injected to create community infrastructure and that is creating jobs on the ground, whether it is arts centres or car parks—such as another car park in the electorate of Lindsay. There are projects all throughout the country that are creating construction jobs and other jobs across the country. I was with the Prime Minister in the electorate of Blaxland—my electorate—just last week. In fact, it was the first time a Prime Minister had been to Blaxland in 13½ years. The only time the former government ever came to Blaxland in the past was to rip jobs out of it. They ripped 650 jobs out of it by shutting the tax office; they ripped 150 jobs out of it when they shut the immigration office. But this Prime Minister came to Blaxland to help build, create and generate jobs, along with the minister. They are working with people like Bill Kelty and Lindsay Fox—people who have a history of creating jobs and supporting employment in this country—to come up with local solutions to local problems. That is what the budget will be about tonight: creating and generating jobs. This is not the Liberal Party’s approach with all its human cost, which is all about ripping money out of the economy. (Time expired) 3517 17:07:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance today because it goes to the failure of the Rudd Labor government to create, protect and support jobs. As Phil Coorey pointed out in the Sydney Morning Herald today: TODAY’S federal budget will forecast a record deficit of $58 billion for next financial year while also claiming that the Government’s stimulus packages will save 200,000 people from losing their jobs. Sounds good, but here’s the rub: With the two stimulus packages worth a combined $52 billion, the average cost of each job saved— wait for it— will be $260,000. So, on their own figures, to do anything about these jobs will cost $260,000 per job. As I have said a number of times in this place, the Labor Party walk around this country pretending that they are the friend of the worker. They would have you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they are the party for the workers. Well, they might have been in the past, when real people like Mick Young did wash their hands in Solvol, but in this place today they are all academics, ex-staffers and ex union officials who do not have grassroots working backgrounds. They are the people that are in this place today and they use workers rather than treat workers as their real friends. The fact of the matter is that, if the Labor Party were true to workers, they would make sure workers had a job. But their record on this is abysmal. Every time the Labor Party get into government, both at a federal and a state level, what happens? Unemployment goes up. We know that in the Keating years unemployment went to nearly 11 per cent. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Almost a million people. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —Almost a million people were without a job in the Keating years. It took a coalition government to do something about it. When the previous government, the Howard government, came to power in March 1996, the unemployment level was 8.2 per cent. Gradually, as the Howard government’s policies worked, the unemployment level came down. Who would have thought that, with an eight per cent level, we used to fantasise about having a ‘five’ as that figure. We then got excited because we were actually going to put more people in jobs and create a four per cent unemployment level. During the Howard years, the golden years of government in this country, the unemployment level came down to 4.2 per cent—that is what it was when we left office. It had almost halved. Two million jobs were created in that time. In the less than half a term of this government, they have suddenly reversed that trend and a million people are going to be out of work. Their own forecasts and the forecasts of all reliable commentators in this country say that, by the end of this year, almost a million people are going to be out of work. So much for doing the right thing by the workers! The best thing you can do for a worker is to give them a job. If you really want to represent the workers of this country, make sure they have a job, they are meaningfully employed. That is how they can get a mortgage, they can pay for their own, they do not have to be welfare dependent and they can have self-esteem—unlike the 50,000 people who lost their jobs last month and the 50,000 who lost their jobs the month before that. A rogue figure came out last month of an increase in employment by 20,000. Nobody believes that figure. Even the Prime Minister said the other day that that figure is a rogue figure. Next month, after this budget, expect the unemployment figure to blow out. In the previous budget, in May last year, they forecast an extra hundred-odd thousand people to be out of work—they actually budgeted for that. Now they are budgeting for a million people to be out of work. So much for being the friend of the workers! They said their initial stimulus package would create 75,000 new jobs. Since October last year, not one new job has been created. That is the track record of this government—they are actually putting people out of work, putting them onto the dole queue. Tonight’s budget is going to confirm that. Yesterday in the Age Michael Costa said: … the Prime Minister and his Treasurer don’t know what they’re— (Time expired) 3518 17:12:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I am very proud to get up and speak about this government’s record in creating, protecting and supporting jobs. I have to deal with the rather bizarre allegation by the member for Boothby that the Labor Party has never thought about jobs or workers but suddenly, after 100 years of campaigning on jobs, has to be reminded by the member for Boothby that jobs are important—it never occurred to us! I think he has forgotten very recent history. I ran in the seat of Robertson, now the most marginal seat in Australia. The minister who lost his seat there, with a massive swing, lost on the basis of a campaign and policy position of, ‘We want to be able to sack people more easily.’ They did not run on a campaign of, ‘We want to protect jobs;’ they ran on a campaign of, ‘We want to sack workers more easily and we don’t want to have to put up with any fairness test when we do it.’ That is why it is rather ludicrous for the opposition to come here and say that this Labor government does not care about jobs. Obviously, jobs are the most important thing we deal with. They have not been the most important thing for a week, a month or a year—they have been the most important thing for this government and the Labor Party for 100 years. It is quite ridiculous to be lectured by this particular shadow minister. Last week at Umina Beach in my electorate of Robertson, I had the pleasure of announcing the Rudd Labor government’s commitment of more than $3 million to help Gosford City Council build a $4.3 million regional recreation precinct. This commitment was part of the government’s $800 million Community Infrastructure Program, part of the largest one-off investment in infrastructure in Australia’s history. The construction of this vital piece of community infrastructure will address a real need, and that is a good thing. It is great to see that we will have a better playground, better fields and better cricket pitches. All this is important, but what is most important is that this $3 million commitment will provide additional jobs in my local area. You might remember the Mayor of Gosford. He is a Liberal Party stalwart; maybe even you know about him. He was a candidate for the Liberal Party in the last New South Wales election. He said of the Peninsula Recreation Precinct that it will ‘boost the Central Coast in many ways’. He went on to say: ‘This investment … is a supreme opportunity to support local jobs during the current financial climate’. Here we have it stated quite categorically by someone who probably is not a big wheel in the federal Liberal Party, who is not represented in this parliament, but who is smart enough and cares enough about his community to know that the federal government’s initiatives are doing things that are about protecting jobs and saving jobs—and that is a good thing. He is not carping about the fact that they did not think of it first; he is interested in what is happening for his community and in the jobs that are being saved. And it is not just happening in the peninsula; it is not just happening in my seat. There are examples of this multiplied all around Australia. In virtually every local government in Australia the words of the Liberal Mayor of Gosford are being repeated. They are not just being repeated by Labor members. They are not just being repeated by Labor parliamentarians or party members. They are being reported by community leaders and people all around Australia. They are thrilled that this government is making job creation and protection a major priority. In addition to these infrastructure measures the government has introduced far-reaching and broadly based economic stimulus packages. It was not just this week; the government has been thinking about this for a very long time. We had the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy in 2008. Did the opposition say, ‘Great! Isn’t it wonderful that this government is doing something about stimulating the economy? Isn’t it great this government is supporting 75,000 jobs’—as this stimulus package did? No. What the opposition said was, ‘We don’t support it; we don’t like it.’ Then we had the Nation Building and Jobs Plan— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The discussion is now concluded. 3519 Bills R4016 3519 Message received from the Senate returning the Fair Work Bill 2008 and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments disagreed to by the House. 3519 Bills R4047 3519 Bills R4036 3519 Bills R4037 3519 Bills R4063 3519 Bills R4064 3519 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 3520 Bills R4018 3520 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. 3520 Bills R4068 3520 Bills R4021 3520 Bills R4047 3520 Bills R4036 3520 Bills R4037 3520 Bills R4063 3520 Bills R4064 3520 Bills R4062 3520 Bills R4048 3520 Bills R4031 3520 Bills R4052 3520 Bills R4051 3520 Bills R4002 3520 Bills R4026 3520 Bills R4029 3520 Bills R4054 3520 Bills R4053 3520 Bills R4016 3520 Messages from the Governor-General/Administrator reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 3520 Bills R4082 3520 Bills R4078 3520 Bills R4088 3520 Bills R4089 3520 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 17:20:00 —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I inform all honourable members that the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax, concurs with this motion. Question agreed to. 3520 Committees 3520 3520 17:20:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I ask leave of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office for 2009-10 and on the committee’s decision on the appointment of the independent auditor. I also seek leave to present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —The Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act requires that our committee consider draft estimates for the Audit Office, with the chair making a statement to the House on budget day on whether in our opinion the Auditor-General has been given sufficient funding to carry out his duties. In support of this process the Auditor-General is empowered under his act to disclose his budget proposals to the committee, which we then consider and use to make representation to government as necessary. This process reflects both the committee’s status as the parliament’s audit committee and the Auditor-General’s status as an independent officer of the parliament. In my statement on budget day last year I reported that the committee had significant reservations about the Auditor-General’s budget for 2008-09, which saw the Audit Office suffer a 3.25 per cent reduction in base funding in addition to having to absorb significant new responsibilities. In response to its decreased budget the Audit Office reduced its target number of performance audits from 51 in 2007-08 to 45 in 2008-09 and its target number of public sector better practice guides from four in 2007-08 to three in 2008-09. In my speech last year I noted that the parliament was not well served by this and that the Audit Office could not consistently deliver the outcomes expected of it by the parliament, the Australian community and its agency clients on its existing funding base. The committee met with the Auditor-General in March this year to review the Audit Office’s budget proposals for the coming financial year. Following that meeting the committee wrote to the government to recommend support for the Auditor-General’s request for an additional $30.8 million over four years, with an ongoing amount of $9.3 million annually. The additional funding was to be applied in four main areas. First and foremost, from the committee’s perspective, $7.4 million was sought over four years to restore the target number of performance audits to its traditional level of around 50 audits per year, following the reduction to 45 for this financial year. Both the committee and the Auditor-General regard this measure as being particularly important given the increasing size of the public sector and the number of requests from parliament and private citizens for audits. I am pleased to advise that the government has agreed to provide the funding sought in tonight’s budget. As a result the target number of performance audits will increase to 47 next financial year and to 50 in 2010-11. This is in addition to the production in both years of four better practice guides and the new Defence Major projects report, for which funding was provided in last year’s budget. By way of explanation, the Audit Office was asked to prepare alternative budget proposals costing a total of $20 million or $10 million in additional funding over four years in addition to its preferred position of $30.8 million over four years. The government has determined that the Audit Office will receive an additional $20.1 million over four years in tonight’s budget, with total revenue from government estimated at $68.4 million in 2009-10. Whereas tonight’s budget allocation allows the return to a desirable level of performance audits, not all areas will receive the allocations originally proposed by the Audit Office. The Audit Office sought $10.2 million over four years to enhance IT and other specialist audit capabilities. In relation to IT the Auditor-General advised that the Audit Office is having difficulty in responding to the significant growth and change in the public sector IT environment. Agencies are increasingly relying on complex integrated IT systems to deliver outcomes and the Auditor-General therefore sought funding to undertake structured data analysis in support of the audit program. Additionally, the Audit Office sees a need to increase its use of professional valuation and actuarial advice in light of significant growth in the scale of infrastructure and investment funds and the greater use of current cost methodologies to determine asset and liability values in financial statements. The committee notes that the Audit Office will receive $8.5 million of the $10.2 million it had sought to enhance IT and other specialist audit capabilities. As part of its preferred bid of $30.8 million over four years, the Audit Office also sought $5.6 million to allow an increase in its technical support and quality assurance capability. Global accounting firms have significantly invested in their technical areas since the introduction of the International Financial Reporting Standards, the IFRS, in recognition of greater complexity and to reduce the risk of inappropriate audit opinions. The Audit Office advised that its resources devoted to technical support and quality assurance are the bare minimum having regard to the scale and complexity of its client group, contrary to trends within the auditing profession. The committee notes that the Audit Office will receive $3.6 million over four years to help rectify this as part of the $20.1 million in additional funding agreed to by the government. Finally, the Audit Office sought $7.1 million, as part of its preferred bid of $30.8 million, over four years to meet the workload associated with a full revision to the auditing standards due to take effect in Australia from 1 January 2010. New requirements in nearly 40 standards are expected to increase financial audit efforts significantly, affecting not only audit resourcing but also audit methodology and related training needs. However, the alternative bid for $20 million, which was requested and ultimately selected by government, did not include funding for this additional workload. As a consequence, that funding has not been provided at this time. The Auditor-General has advised that his appropriation for 2009-10 will place the Audit Office in a more sustainable financial position and that it will now have sufficient resources to meet its work program in the year ahead. The committee therefore endorses the budget proposed for the Audit Office for 2009-10. While the committee recommended an additional $30.8 million over four years, the $20.1 million ultimately provided is welcome in a difficult budgetary environment. We particularly commend the funding to restore the program of performance audits and better practice guides to previous levels. With the Australian government’s revenues and expenses presently estimated at approximately $300 billion, a restoration of the audit program will be a modest but prudent investment in a more effective and efficient public sector. However, the committee urges the government to be sympathetic to any request in next year’s budget for additional funding to meet the costs of the full revision to auditing standards. As I said, those new standards will significantly increase the effort required to audit the financial statements of public sector entities. The Auditor-General has advised that the extent of new requirements will represent a 20 per cent increase in workload in that area. I note in this context that the Audit Office has received only partial funding for the substantial increase in audit workload already arising from the introduction from 2008-09 of the new general government sector financial statement. Given that the financial statement audits are mandatory obligations for the Audit Office, there is a risk that any budgetary pressures in this area will force the Auditor-General to again downgrade his discretionary program of performance audits in future years. Given the importance of the performance audits in driving improvements in public administration and accountability, the committee continues to assert that any such downgrade would be a false economy and would be particularly regrettable in light of the welcome restoration of funding in this year’s budget. The committee also urges the government to expedite its response to the recommendations in our December 2008 report on the impact of the efficiency dividend on smaller public sector agencies. If adopted, these recommendations will provide significant relief for the Audit Office and for other small agencies. We expect that the Audit Office will be fully funded for any new obligations that government places upon it. For example, if there are any audit obligations attached to measures responding to the global financial crisis or if new agencies are established, we have always felt that those should be funded. In this context we welcome the provision in this year’s budget of an additional $600,000 over four years to audit the newly created Department of Climate Change. I also note the Auditor-General’s new role, which the committee is currently reviewing, of conducting assurance reviews of the compliance of public advertising campaigns with government guidelines that were issued in mid-2008. While the Auditor-General sought and received $2.5 million over four years for this work, his evidence to our committee suggests that, should the number of advertising campaigns exceed the original level anticipated, additional resources will be needed before this new obligation could be said to be fully funded. The committee may make further recommendations in its inquiry report in due course. On another matter, the committee is required under the Auditor-General Act to endorse the proposed appointment of any person to the office of Independent Auditor before that appointment can be recommended to the Governor-General. The committee is also obliged to report its decision to parliament. The Independent Auditor is a person appointed from the private sector on a part-time basis to serve as external auditor to the Audit Office. I take this opportunity to advise the House that on 19 March the committee unanimously approved the reappointment of the current Independent Auditor, the CEO of KPMG Australia, Mr Geoff Wilson, to a second term. I present a copy of my statement. 3523 Bills R4093 3523 Debate resumed. 3523 17:30:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I will be short because I know there are several other speakers wanting to get on the record this evening. I pick up on the words of the previous speaker, the chair of the Public Accounts and Audit Committee. In relation to the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009, and all bills that go through parliament, I would certainly hope we are not now hearing of the Audit Office losing over a third of its budget and therefore being allowed to do two-thirds of the work. I would certainly hope that the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, of all committees in this place, would argue the case well for a strong Auditor-General to overview programs involving issues such as native title, when we have a clearly broken native title system in Australia with, as I said previously, 81 determinations in the previous nine years at a cost of $11 million a determination. The system is inefficient and it is unjust in the slow outcomes that we are seeing, with a backlog of over 500 determinations waiting to be resolved. In conclusion and summary, I think there would be general agreement that alternative dispute resolution methods and mediation are the way forward in regard to native title. The role of the Federal Court of Australia being increased in that process is welcomed. I think the Federal Court of Australia will be able to refer native title and compensation applications for mediation and give effect to terms of agreement reached by parties to proceedings, including terms that involve matters other than native title. That is a positive step forward. I hope that having one body controlling the direction of each claim will mean that opportunities for resolution will be more readily identified and the interests of the parties involved better focused. It will also allow decision-making processes to be quickened, as determinations are not just limited to native title claims and therefore recognise the broader nature of most of the claims that are before the court. Some of those other matters that are to be considered, and are welcomed as part of this reform, are economic development opportunities, training opportunities, employment and heritage issues, and sustainability and viability issues. I note that the parties will still have to agree on the further matters; therefore mediation is still in play in relation to these other matters. The court can give effect to the parties’ agreements and make orders that pertain to both native title and related matters, and therefore the process becomes more finalised. So, whilst I think that these are good and welcome reforms, this amendment has had a three-year genesis. I note the apology is a symbolic step along the way to hopefully seeing some of the detailed work—not just in legal reform but in justice reform—that we see in this amendment. I also foreshadow an amendment that I will be moving in the consideration in detail stage of this bill, as part of that process of walking together—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—into the future. As part of getting better justice outcomes and more efficiency outcomes from the native title process I foreshadow the amendment, which I will talk about in detail. Over the three years of discussion leading up to where we are today, this has come up repeatedly from people such as Chief Justice French; retired justice Wilcox; Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner; Tony McAvoy; and Kevin Smith of the National Native Title Tribunal. They are all voices of people who work and practice in this area or with bodies that work on detail in this area. I hope that when we get down to the consideration in detail stage of this debate the amendment is considered in good faith by the government, because this has come up on several occasions. It is a sensible proposal that has come forward, and I was both surprised and disappointed that it was not part of the package that is before the parliament today. It has been referred to by government members speaking on this as an issue for further consideration. I hope that we do not miss the opportunity that is before this House to include it in the Native Title Amendment Bill, and therefore to get the even better justice and efficiency outcomes that this amendment would achieve by its passage through this place. 3525 17:35:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I too rise in support of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009. On this occasion I will acknowledge the traditional owners of the land we are gathered on and thank them for their continuing stewardship. I also thank the member for Lyne for his contribution. He is always worth listening to. I might well take him up on the invitation to visit his electorate one day. The bill before the House is another step in the long struggle to provide appropriate recognition of Indigenous land rights. It has been 221 years since Indigenous Australians were first dispossessed of most of their land back in 1788—dispossessed according to the power of the Crown—and it is 17 years next month, on 3 June, since the historic 1992 Mabo decision, where Chief Justice Mason’s High Court recognised a form of native title for the first time. Those historic actions commenced in the High Court way back in 1982. But 1982 is a long time ago. I was just a 16-year-old, in my last year at St George State High School. I think that back in 1982 Bob Katter might have still been a member of the Nationals in the Queensland Bjelke-Petersen government. I am not totally sure about that, but 1982 is a long time ago. The plaintiffs in the action—Eddie Mabo, David Passi and James Rice; all Meriam people from the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait—commenced their action. How significant it was for Australia! I must digress. I am not sure of the history of the word ‘Murray’ in the name ‘Murray Islands’. It could be named after some English person; I am not sure. I have not done the research on that. But it is interesting that the Queensland word for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is actually the Kamilaroi word ‘mari’. The Kamilaroi tribe, in my understanding, are most significant in New South Wales, where the word ‘Koori’ is more often used. There is a bit of trivia there—that a New South Wales word has been accepted by Queensland for Indigenous people. But the area that we are talking about was actually the Murray Islands in the Torres Strait, and not people who identify as Aboriginal but people who are Torres Strait Islanders—although I am sure that if you talk to some Murray Islanders they do not see themselves as Torres Strait Islanders. But I digress. The Murray Islanders that I mentioned—Eddie Mabo, David Passi and James Rice—challenged the concept of terra nullius. I am going to recite from a book that I wrote, The Twelfth Fish, for the definition of terra nullius. At the start of this book, I quote from the Macquarie Dictionary second edition 1991 definition of ‘terra nullius’—the ‘land of no-one’. That was what the legal definition sprang from. These gentlemen, with a lot of legal support, challenged this concept of terra nullius in the courts of Queensland and then ultimately, as I said, their actions moved up to the High Court in 1982—a very long time ago. How did the decision go in questioning this concept of terra nullius? As a great philosopher from the late 1970s stated, ‘Two out of three ain’t bad.’ In the High Court, it was better than that great philosopher from the late 1970s or perhaps early 1980s—I would have to check. In the High Court, it was six out of seven judges. That ain’t bad. The High Court said that native title exists and is therefore recognised by the common law of Australia. How did the High Court of the time come to this conclusion? A lot of people do not realise—except for those people who have read the Mabo decision, which I imagine would not be a lot of people—that the High Court came to this conclusion: they accepted the findings of fact made by Justice Moynihan of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Unfortunately, that was not good news for the late, great Eddie Mabo, but it was obviously better news for David Passi and James Rice and their families. How did the High Court make this leap? When the Moynihan court looked at the claim at the state level—Mabo v the State of Queensland 1988—and when they looked at these facts, they actually went up to Murray Island. They got their feet wet. They went and looked at the fish traps up there. The whole court went up there and looked around, met local people, got their feet wet and really found out about the true facts as they really were. That was why the High Court was quite accepting of this evidence. But the High Court leapt from these coastal fish traps up in North Queensland and was then able to extricate from that these laws that particularly applied to Aboriginal communities. So, from these coastal fish traps, they jumped over to these Aboriginal legal concepts. How did the High Court, as led by Chief Justice Mason, interpret this set of facts and come up with this new truth which we all accept now? How could they put aside 204 years of historical force? The book that I referred to earlier, The Twelfth Fish, is deliberately set in 1992 because the Mabo decision is a significant theme throughout the book. In this book I tried to invent a new word, and the word I used was ‘reterpreter’, which is sort of like ‘interpreter’—where you take facts and turn them into another language and gain a better understanding for yourself. But I played on that and used the word ‘reterpreter’, which—for lovers of English—is a palindrome. If you are an anagram expert you might also understand why I chose this particular word. Unfortunately, the book that I wrote did not particularly take off and not many people have read it. Certainly, if everyone that was upset about the language in it had bought it, I would be a wealthy man. But that was not the case. Instead, rather than rely on the word I attempted to use, I will turn to the introduction to this book where I quoted from someone with a little bit more style. That is TS Eliot, in his poem—not The Hollow Men, you can rest assured that I am not going to quote from that—Little Gidding. He wrote: We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time He had a much better way with words, obviously. As I said, that is why my novel, The Twelfth Fish, is set in the year 1992. For me, especially, it is one of the most significant anniversaries in Australian history, along with—as the member for Lyne said—the apology delivered by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February last year, which was my very first day in parliament. I have written a sequel as well, and that is set around another date, 6 November 1999, but that is a story for another day for people who love the republic or who perhaps love rugby. Going back to the matter at hand, the Mabo decision had far-reaching implications which Indigenous communities, lawyers, mining companies, farmers and politicians continue to process and resolve. It has been touched on quite thoroughly by some of the earlier speakers. But the Mabo decision shone a light on the facade that is terra nullius and the flawed process that delivered flawed—at least morally—certificates of title to every Australian landowner. I include myself in that group. Following a review of the roles of the Federal Court and the National Native Title Tribunal back in 2005, the Howard government decided to give the tribunal greater powers, including the role of mediation. Unfortunately, this has not delivered an effective or efficient mediation process. The Howard decision may have been inspired by the best intentions but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, way too many native title cases have been bogged down in the courts. This has meant additional expenses and unnecessary delays. Since the Native Title Act began in 1993, around 1,000 claims have been resolved. That is fantastic homage to the legislative work done by Paul Keating and members of his government—and, of course, governments since then. Unfortunately, there are currently around 500 claims awaiting resolution. The average time to resolve a native title application has been 12 months where the claim is unopposed, five years and nine months for determinations by consent and seven years for determinations by litigation. I, a former English teacher, did some quick maths and worked out that that is about 2,557 days on average, and obviously a lot of those would take much longer. While the process is lining the pockets of lawyers, traditional owners are missing out on better social and economic outcomes for their communities. I do not want to speak ill of lawyers, obviously, but these time lines and the costs for the resolution of native title claims are totally unacceptable, which is why the Rudd Labor government is moving to improve the system. This bill will give the Federal Court control over all native title claims and allow the court to manage the mediation process. It will encourage native title disputes to be resolved through negotiation rather than litigation. I well remember sitting down with the Murris from the Woorabinda community west of Rockhampton back in 2005 when I was the native title adviser for the Hon. Stephen Robertson when he was the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. So much more can be done when we move away from the adversarial system of legal resolution towards negotiation. Coming from the Labor Party, I have some insights into how complicated politics can be and, Deputy Speaker Thomson, coming from Victoria, I am sure you are able to suggest how complicated politics can be. In my time as a native title adviser I gained a new insight into how complicated politics could be within the Indigenous community. It certainly makes for very complicated politics when people talk about historical links with the land. The Federal Court will not replace the tribunal as the sole mediator but will oversee the role of the tribunal. Where parties cannot reach agreement, the Federal Court can use its powers to ensure matters progress. This bill will also allow the court to rely on an agreed statement of facts between the parties as evidence for consent determination. This will provide greater flexibility and speed up the resolution of native title claims, as will the new ability for the court to make determinations that cover matters beyond native title and to recognise the broad agreements which can be negotiated under the act. That has certainly been the case in Queensland and there have been many cooperative, wonderful decisions between the mining communities and other communities, such as those represented by the member for Kennedy. This bill will also apply the recent changes passed by this House in the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008. Where appropriate, this will make it easier for a court to hear evidence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law and customs. I welcome the changes contained in this bill. I am confident it will lead to more timely resolution of native title claims. I think the lawyers will still do all right too. Obviously, those ski trips to Aspen do not pay for themselves. Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take that back—I know there are hundreds of hard-working lawyers who have never been skiing in the United States and perhaps some who have never been skiing at all. I recognise that this bill does not do everything and it will not create a perfect native title system. There are still some debates to be had about how we might help fund native title claimants to pursue their claims. Nevertheless, I hope that the improvements in this bill will go some way to reducing the costs through a more efficient claims process, but I also acknowledge that more can be done for a fairer native title system. I want to thank the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, for introducing this bill into the House and thank him for his passionate and practical support for the advancement of Indigenous land rights. Recently I made the change to an iPod. It was quite a complicated process. I started out by investing all my money in cassettes. As it turned out, that was not a wise decision. I then moved on to CDs, like so many people. But recently I have made the jump to an iPod. I have put all my CDs on there. There are about 5,000 songs. I have collected the songs from a long way back—back to 1982 when Eddie Mabo, David Passi and James Rice from the Meriam people commenced their High Court action. My preference was always to choose the album and listen to the album, but then I found the function on the iPod where you can put playlists together. You can put all the Bruce Springsteen covers together, all the sad songs together or all the songs written by Queenslanders together. You can do whatever you want to do. I have started doing that. Obviously, it came to the point in time when I wanted to put my top 50 together. It is hard to pluck 50 songs from the 5,000 songs and put them in order and decide as a 43-year-old what my No. 1 song is. Since I fell in love with music as a youngster my tastes have changed. Once upon a time my favourite song would have been Joy Division’s Love Will Tear Us Apart. After 17 years with the most beautiful woman in the world, to love a song like that does not resonate well with me. It is the same with Paul Kelly’s song Careless; things have changed. I am now tossing up the top four songs to be at the top of my top 50. There is Wide Open Road by the Triffids, Walk the Line by Johnny Cash, which I had at my wedding, Head Full of Steam by the Go-betweens and this last song, This Land is Mine, which I am still particularly in love with, by Kev Carmody and Paul Kelly. Kev Carmody is a Queensland songwriter, I think, from Cairns and Paul Kelly is obviously a well-known performer from South Australia. This song is from the movie One Night the Moon. The song has contrasting voices of two men: one is an Aboriginal and one is a white settler. One says, ‘This land is mine,’ and the other one says, ‘This land is me.’ That is really the conflict that exists in all Australians that the exploration of native title is about resolving. Hopefully, that song will still be my No. 1 in 50 years time and, hopefully, so many more native title issues will have been changed in that time. I commend the bill to the House. 3528 17:52:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I take the wisdom of my honourable Independent colleague who spoke before on the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009. There have been 81 outcomes in the last 12 months. There are 500 applications before the court and those 81 outcomes have cost $11 million. In Queensland the government has designated that no action can be taken on any land—change of usage or ownership—without agreement from the native title holders. The House Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs did a tour—we could probably call it the ‘closing the gap tour’—to investigate why First Australians—Torres Strait Islanders and people of Aboriginal decent—have 17 years less life expectancy than other Australians. Their incidence of diabetes and heart disease is 60 per cent higher than that of other Australians. This is not something for us as a nation to be proud of; it is something for us to be totally embarrassed by—not embarrassed; ‘ashamed’ should be the word chosen. In this ‘closing the gap’ tour it became obvious to us that a sedentary lifestyle is playing a part. We toured the Torres Strait Islands, firstly, and then we did the Aboriginal communities. In the Torres Strait Islands much of the fishing has ceased and almost all the market gardening has ceased. That has happened in my lifetime. In fact, when I was a minister in the late 1980s, almost every time you went up there there was a feast and almost all of the fruits and vegetables were local market garden fruit and vegetables. In the last 20 years that has vanished. Joey Mosby was the long-serving chairman on one of the islands. I asked Joey why there were no market gardens now. He rather angrily replied by smashing his fist into his hand, saying, ‘AQIS has killed it.’ This is true, actually, insofar as their chickens and their pigs were removed by AQIS and they were a major source of protein for the people. In the supermarkets it seems to me that about five to seven per cent of the shelf space is taken up with rice, which would not comprise 0.005 per cent in a normal supermarket. The dietary regime that the people up there have is very poor. Part of the reason is that the people have no money; they cannot afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. You may ask, ‘Why haven’t they got market gardens?’ Maybe some people are thinking, ‘Oh, well, they’re lazy.’ That thought may have passed through the minds of some of the committee as well. Ask yourself the question why no Australians have market gardens. I do not know anyone on the mainland who has a market garden. Why should we expect Torres Strait Islanders to have market gardens? There is no doubt that the problems created by AQIS have created a fear in the people’s minds that the growing of any food up there will bring the wrath of the government and the whitefellas down upon them. You had to be there to see the vehemence of the reply by Mr Mosby to understand how strongly people feel about their right to produce their own food having been taken away from them. I am not entirely white, I am certainly not pure merino and I come from Cloncurry. Whether I am one of the brothers or not, I am always accepted as one of the brothers. I am most certainly related to them—I can assure you of that. A lot of these people will open up to somebody like me. Their hatred of the whitefellas is really very vehement. The whitefellas have taken away their right to fish because they have to have a licence and they cannot get a licence to fish. They see all the whitefellas coming in and taking their fish away from them, and their crustaceans away from them in the Torres Strait, yet they do not have a licence. There were two or three licences issued to them but, of course, they cannot raise the money to buy a proper vessel. You would have to look down the gun barrell of maybe a million dollars—certainly half a million dollars—to operate in this way. There is no doubting these people’s ability. In my day as a minister in Queensland, Richard Bowie, Ahmat and Joey Nonna set up the crayfishing freezer on Badu Island. In their second year of operation they turned over $3.2 million. So do not think you are talking about slackers here. These people can perform and they do perform well in a very big and effective way. Richard’s brother William is married to the daughter of Bill Gunn, the Deputy Premier of Queensland. They opened a store up there and they have been very successful. So we are not talking here about people who are slouchers or lazy, but they have a sedentary lifestyle which has been effectively forced upon them by the whitefellas. As far as poor diet goes, by the time the food gets up there—I worked it out—really it is double the price it would be on the mainland. If you have to survive on handout money, because your right to make a living has been taken away from you, and then that money buys only half as much food as it does for anyone else in Australia, is it any damn wonder that there is a 17-year gap between life expectancy for the whitefellas and the blackfellas in this country? Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, you might ask, ‘Who’s responsible for this?’ I will tell you who is responsible for this: the state government of Queensland and the people in this parliament. We are responsible for it. We have created this situation. Everyone down here beats their breast and tells us how wonderful the Native Title Act is, and I think I was described as a racist because I opposed it vehemently. I pointed out to the House at the time that 90 per cent of the mainland communities of First Australians do not come from that area, so what they were doing in Queensland was dispossessing 90 per cent of the communities, which people here would call Aboriginal communities. The people who live there have been dispossessed. Let me be very specific. Relatives of mine are on Palm Island, and it is almost exclusively Torres Strait Islander and Kalkadoon—from my country. Only 60 of the original tribe on Palm Island live there. That was the figure that I saw when I was minister. So the 60 have all the property rights and the other 3,000 have no property rights at all. The land has never belonged to those whose daddies happened to be duke so and so or feudal baron so and so, or some other prominent person. The land belongs to those who till it. If you live in a house you have a right to own that house. You have a right to own some piece of territory. Heaven only knows—these people were the First Australians. Father Passi was an Anglican priest who actually carried this case but he was never given any credit whatsoever; he was a man of towering integrity. Eddie Mabo was exited from the case because he had not been up on the islands for some two or three decades. They said: ‘We own this land. We own it in private ownership. That block there belongs to the Passis, that block there belongs to the Salehs and that block there belongs to the Rices.’ That was the concept that they wanted approval for from the High Court of Australia and which, God bless them, they got approval for. I have the very great honour of having two textbooks, which are still on the reading lists of most universities in Australia, devoted to the things that we did with land ownership in Queensland during those years. It is a very great honour to have two textbooks written about one’s career and what one did in that career. It is also a very great honour for me to tell the House that, during that period, two 60 Minutes programs were done on me—one of which was highly flattering—and three were done on what we were doing then, including one that was a repeat, which has never been done before or since in the history of 60 Minutes. I personally deserve none of that credit whatsoever because I did not make any of those decisions. But we did do one thing: we went out and asked the people what they wanted in terms of land ownership—at that stage, Mabo had not been decided. What we put before them was a continuation of government trust ownership, ownership by the shire councils that we were setting up in each of these communities, ownership by the land councils, ownership by the tribes—it was not called native title; it was called tribal ownership—or private ownership. Those were the options that were put to every one of the 28 communities in Queensland. The result was that 3,800 people voted for private ownership. They wanted to own their own houses. Surprise, surprise! Three people did not and they opposed it, so the result was 3,800 to three. We instituted that legislation in Queensland, which was really a legislative Mabo decision, if you like. We legislated that people could come forward and make application to take up their houses, their farms and their businesses under private ownership. That is what the people asked for and that is what the people got. We made some mistakes in the set-up of the machinery, as have been made here and which we are discussing tonight. With regard to Aboriginal land rights coming to you through who your daddy or your great-grandaddy was and not through your own energies and merit, I thought that in European history that was something decided by Napoleon Bonaparte in the early 1800s. For those of us of English descent, hundreds of thousands of our forebears died in many upheavals to deliver to us the right of private ownership, the right to freehold title. If we do not go to private ownership, what we will have is people trying to run a cattle station, a fishing venture or a supermarket with a tribal council. A lot of shire councils in Queensland have attempted to run a cattle station or a supermarket or a hotel. In Winton the hotel went broke three times with the shire council running it, and the council’s members were all wealthy and successful men, I might add. But you do not run a business with a committee. It just does not work that way at all. For example, in the Northern Territory cattle stations were taken up under Aboriginal ownership—First Australian ownership is the term I would like to use. There were 170,000 head of cattle on them. In an article in the Bulletin magazine it was argued that allegedly there were only 20,000 or 30,000 head of cattle left. Of course that was going to happen. If you were to ask me why the Aboriginal communities are the way that they are, with very high levels of drunkenness, very high levels of alcoholism, if you like, and very high levels of dreadful social statistics, I would tell you: if I went to Sydney and told everyone who lives in Sydney that they were not able to own their own home, they were not able to own their own business, they were not able to own a title to any damn piece of real estate whatsoever, Sydney would not be batting much better than Lockhart River or Pormpuraaw! Why can’t the government simply do for the First Australians what every other government on earth has done? It was not in my electorate at the time, but I went in to Yarrabah to listen to Lloydie Fourmile, who was chairman at Yarrabah. He was banging the table and he said, ‘The only place on earth that you can’t own your own home is at Yarrabah.’ They all looked at me, because all my legislation was completely overturned by the incoming socialist government, which was a dreadful mistake. They met a lot of good people there, but they just did not know what they were doing. I understand that we want to terminate at this stage. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.09 pm to 7.30 pm 3532 Bills R4110 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 3532 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 3532 3532 19:32:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction This budget is forged in the fire of the most challenging global economic conditions since the Great Depression. It is a budget that supports jobs today by investing in the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. In the worst of economic times it is a nation-building budget, carefully crafted to bolster employment now, construct a solid foundation for future growth, and position us to capitalise on the global recovery when it comes. The global recession has been unleashed on Australia with a brutal, uncompromising force. Since September last year, almost all major economies have gone into recession, dragging ours into recession, as well. Others may be overwhelmed by the scope and the ferocity of the biggest global downturn in memory. But Australians are too strong, too resilient, and too united to be overwhelmed. We know we can withstand the worst the world can throw at us. We know this global recession brings adversity, but it brings opportunity as well. And despite momentous challenges, we know we can emerge more productive and more prosperous than before this crisis began. We know we are capable of this budget’s one central task: nation building for the recovery. But it will take time, and it will take discipline. It will take hard choices; doing more with less. And it will take determination and foresight—to invest now in the building blocks of long-term growth and prosperity. To the Australian people I say this is not an easy budget for easy times. These are complex times. And the task in this budget is complex as well: spending to stimulate the economy now to support jobs, but finding long-term savings necessary for fiscal sustainability. The 2009 budget is framed with these challenges in mind. It has at its core the biggest plan for nation-building investment in infrastructure since the Snowy Mountains scheme. Its focus is on an unprecedented push for jobs and productivity, built on the roads, rail, ports and broadband that are the building blocks for sustainable growth. It invests in a Clean Energy Initiative—flagship programs in solar energy and carbon capture central to our vision for the low-pollution economy of the future. It continues to build our Education Revolution—the schools and universities and TAFEs and training places we need for the future. It invests in world-class hospitals, research and innovation. It delivers the fair go our pensioners deserve, and sustainability for the pension system into the future. It increases the tax break small businesses need to invest in difficult times. It establishes an historic system of paid parental leave, and delivers tax cuts for working families. It ensures our defence forces have a strong and sustainable funding base. And it contains the hard choices that chart the course back to surplus. Economic outlook This time last year, I spoke of the need to build a buffer against international turbulence. But since then, we have seen a downturn in global economic conditions unprecedented in our lifetimes. Virtually every advanced economy is expected to suffer a deep recession in 2009. Events have unfolded with astounding speed. In Australia, the mining boom is unwinding. Revenue, growth and employment have been hit hard. Our gross domestic product will fall by one half of one per cent in 2009‑10, recovering in 2010‑11. This contraction is many times less than that experienced by other advanced economies. But it shows not even we can escape the impact of this global recession. The unemployment rate is expected to increase to 8½ per cent by June 2011; again, less than the double-digit rates of other advanced economies, but still too high for this nation, and for this government. Importantly, we face this challenge in a much stronger position than other countries. Our financial system is among the strongest in the world. Our public finances are among the strongest in the developed world. And our early and decisive action to support jobs and growth is working—protecting Australians from the pain of an even worse domestic downturn. Supporting the economy and jobs now The economic stimulus in this budget raises the level of GDP by three-quarters of a per cent in 2009-10, when the economy is expected to be at its weakest. The measures in this budget build on the decisive action the government has taken since the extent of the global recession became clear. Action that will see 35,000 building sites spring up, around the nation. Action that has cushioned the impact on Australia, ensuring the effects of this global recession are smaller than the impact borne by other comparable countries. In the absence of our efforts, the contraction would be four times bigger. And our economy would be 2¾ per cent smaller in 2009-10 and 1½ per cent smaller in 2010-11. Our actions are expected to support up to 210,000 jobs, and reduce the peak in the unemployment rate by 1½ percentage points below the double-digit peak it would reach if we listened to those opposite, who said we should do nothing. The government believes in those 210,000 Australians and we won’t cut them loose. We understand the dignity of work, and the cost of being without it. That’s why we will build on the effectiveness of our economic stimulus by extending two key measures. Extension of the first home owners boost The first home owners boost has supported employment and helped 59,000 Australians buy their first home. In light of the continuing global uncertainty, and the success of this initiative, tonight I announce that we will extend the boost for a further six months—including three months at the full rate, before stepping it down. Small business tax break increase Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy, employing around half of all private sector workers. That is why the government will also provide immediate additional assistance by increasing the small business and general business tax break to 50 per cent for eligible assets ordered between December 2008 and December 2009, in addition to assistance for small businesses to take advantage of e-business opportunities. Nation building infrastructure The government’s fiscal stimulus program started with a timely boost for household incomes, and was followed by support for ‘shovel-ready’ infrastructure. Tonight we mark the start of the third phase—a move into larger and longer-term nation building projects, bringing jobs now and putting in place the building blocks of Australia’s future productivity and prosperity. The centrepiece of this budget is the $22 billion we are investing in the infrastructure our nation needs to grow and prosper in the years ahead. Highways in Central Queensland, the Hunter Valley, and up and down the east coast. Metro rail in Adelaide, in Melbourne, in Brisbane, in Sydney, in Perth, and on the Gold Coast. Ports in the west, and the north—international gateways for our exports. Broadband right around the nation, beginning in Tasmania. Universities and research hubs and hospitals and cancer institutes in towns and cities everywhere. Nation building for every corner of Australia. And through these investments, we can tell our kids and grandkids with pride that to respond to the great economic challenges of our time we created the infrastructure, generated the ideas, shaped the minds, marshalled the energy, and developed the skills that led to a new era of prosperity and sustainability for Australia. Road, rail and ports Tonight I announce the government will invest $8.5 billion in Australia’s critical road, rail and port infrastructure needs. The projects reflect advice from Infrastructure Australia and will be funded from provisions we have set aside, including in the Building Australia Fund. We will invest more than $4.6 billion in the construction and planning of nine metropolitan rail projects across the nation: $3.2 billion towards a dedicated dual rail link from West Werribee to central Melbourne’s Southern Cross Station; $40 million towards planning, design and engineering works for Melbourne’s East-West rail tunnel linking Footscray with the CBD; $365 million towards a light rail corridor for the Gold Coast and $20 million for a detailed planning study into potential new corridors in Brisbane; $294 million to upgrade Adelaide’s Gawler rail line and $291 million to extend the Noarlunga to Seaford line, in addition to $61 million to extend the O-Bahn track in Adelaide; $236 million towards the central city section of the Perth to Fremantle rail line and the Wellington Street bus station to facilitate urban redevelopment in Perth; and $91 million for detailed design work of the Sydney West Metro—a new 25 kilometre rail line from Central Station to Westmead Hospital. The government’s vision for the efficient movement of goods and the drive for national productivity means we must invest in our road network as well. Tonight I announce a further $3.4 billion investment in Network 1—the road freight corridor between Melbourne and Cairns that includes the Hume, Pacific and Bruce Highways: $1.5 billion for the Hunter Expressway—a new dual carriageway road in New South Wales between the F3 and the New England Highway near Branxton; $618 million towards a dual carriageway bypass of Kempsey and Frederickton to the east of the existing Pacific Highway; $488 million to replace 25 kilometres of the Bruce Highway between Cooroy and Curra in Queensland with a better four-lane divided carriageway; and $884 million to upgrade the Ipswich Motorway from Dinmore to Goodna. This investment in major roads and rail will help achieve our goal of building a truly integrated national transport system. And, we will also set aside $389 million to invest in the capacity of our bulk commodity ports, the critical international gateways between our businesses and global markets: $50 million towards design and engineering works for the Port of Darwin’s East Arm, that will improve port capacity and efficiency; and $339 million towards the development of common user facilities at the Port of Oakajee, north of Geraldton in Western Australia. National Broadband Network This new investment comes on top of the government’s plans to partner with the private sector to build a $43 billion superfast broadband network—the biggest nation-building infrastructure project in many years. Supported by an initial investment of $4.7 billion, this will ensure our economy has a fast and efficient communications backbone for the 21st century. Concrete, steel and fibre-optic links reaching out across the whole nation, creating new jobs and clearing new paths to recovery and prosperity in every single community. Clean Energy Initiative The government are also absolutely determined that our nation-building plans will create the low-pollution economy Australia needs for the future. That is why the government is introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and expanding the national renewable energy target. Tonight I am pleased to announce the government will also invest $4.5 billion in a new Clean Energy Initiative—the critical infrastructure that supports low-emission technologies and creates low-pollution jobs. We will establish Renewables Australia, a new innovation body to promote the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable technologies. We will establish up to four new solar flagship projects to demonstrate the viability of solar technologies. And we will support projects that demonstrate carbon capture and storage on an industrial scale from coal-fired power stations. World-class universities, research and hospitals Australia’s recovery depends heavily on the quality of our human capital; on our ability to educate our people and to innovate in business. In total, this budget invests $5.3 billion in tertiary education, research and innovation over six years. Education and innovation The government will commit $2.6 billion from the Education Investment Fund for priority infrastructure projects in Australia’s tertiary institutions and research agencies. This includes: $934 million for 11 teaching and learning projects, 8 research based projects, and 12 vocational education and training projects around the nation; $901 million for 21 research projects in space, marine, climate and nuclear science; And a further $750 million for future funding rounds from the Education Investment Fund. These investments build on our previously announced $14.7 billion modernisation of Australia’s primary and secondary schools. The government is determined to give opportunities for talented Australians to participate in higher education no matter what their background, consistent with the recommendations of the Bradley review into our higher education system. We will invest $491 million over four years to uncap the number of university places from 2012, starting with increased places from next year. This will allow an extra 50,000 students to commence university courses by 2013. We will commit $437 million over four years, to give people from disadvantaged backgrounds an opportunity for a university education. And to help achieve the government’s targets for Australia’s innovation performance, this budget provides funding of $500 million to encourage additional research, development and commercialisation of ideas, on top of $512 million to help universities fund the indirect costs of research. From 1 July 2010, we will also replace the current research and development tax concessions with an expanded tax credit that rewards firms for research and development. Hospitals and health care Australians deserve a world-class hospital and health care system. The government has announced it will invest an additional $2.5 billion over five years to drive hospital and health workforce reform, in cooperation with the states and territories. We will also draw $3.2 billion from the Health and Hospitals Fund to expand and modernise key public hospitals across Australia, improve cancer treatment facilities, and support cooperative research between clinical researchers and health professionals. And we will provide $121 million to relieve pressure on maternity services, and $134 million over four years in a new Rural Health Workforce Strategy to attract medical practitioners to areas of need. Pensions and Parental Leave How parents are encouraged to balance their commitments to work and family, and how we treat our pensioners and carers, are very important benchmarks for the economy we seek to create as we go from recession to recovery and beyond. Paid parental leave To ensure Australians can participate in work, and participate in our recovery, we must ensure they can balance their family commitments. That’s why the government is investing $731 million over five years to deliver a paid parental leave scheme for the first time. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme enables parents to maintain links with their employer and to receive an income whilst nurturing their child. From 1 January 2011, eligible parents will receive taxable payments at the rate of the federal minimum wage, for up to 18 weeks. This is an historic reform, it is long overdue, and it will help us meet the participation challenge imposed on us by our ageing population. Secure and sustainable retirement incomes Tonight, we are proud to deliver on the government’s commitment to pensioners. Our pension reforms are aimed at giving pensioners a fair go now, when they need it most. Just as importantly, we will ensure the pension system is sustainable over the longer term. From 20 September 2009, the government will provide single pensioners on the full rate with an additional $32.49 per week, bringing the value of their pension to a legislated benchmark of 27.7 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. Couple pensioners will receive an extra $10.14 per week combined, through a new fortnightly pension supplement. And because carers are among the unsung heroes of our community, and because of the financial difficulties they face, this budget introduces a $600 a year carer’s supplement for all carer payment recipients, on top of their pension increase. Recipients of a carer allowance will also receive an additional $600 a year for each eligible person in their care. Fiscal strategy It has not been easy to find room in the budget for our commitments to pensioners, and to meet our responsibilities as nation builders. Consider these facts: Since last year’s budget, taxation receipts have been revised down by $210 billion over the forward estimates. This represents around two-thirds of the write-down in our budget position. It is the biggest downward revision in our history. Roughly equivalent to the entire Commonwealth spend on health and hospitals over the forward estimates. Faced with that reality, there are two starkly different ways to go. You can balance the budget by dramatically pushing up taxes and slashing and burning vital services in key areas like health, leading to a deeper and longer recession, and higher unemployment. Or you can offset a temporary collapse in revenue with a program of responsible borrowing that also provides for the stimulus the economy needs when private sector investment is in retreat. This is the course the government has adopted. It is the only responsible course. The government’s balance sheet will continue to be among the strongest in the world. Net debt is forecast to peak at 13.8 per cent of GDP in 2013-14 before falling again, compared with net debt of 80 per cent of GDP for advanced economies in 2014. Returning the budget to surplus Our fiscal strategy is two-pronged: first, to provide fiscal stimulus in the short-term by allowing the budget to adjust automatically to the economy’s movements, and through further discretionary policy action; and second, to bring the budget back to surplus and pay down debt in the medium term. We are driven by the reality that some things our predecessors committed to in boom times are not sustainable now. We have delivered major tax relief to low- and middle-income earners because we are guided by the belief that the tax system best rewards hard work. Our reform efforts are focused on a better balance between tax and transfer payments. Budgets are about priorities. And economic leadership is about making the tough decisions, no matter what the political costs might be. Take the pensions commitment. We gave it in good faith. It is a commitment at the core of our Labor values, and we meant it. And having made that commitment, the onus was on us to find room elsewhere in the Budget to pay for it. We couldn’t raise the pension without hard choices elsewhere. Pension sustainability That’s why tonight I am also announcing some major structural savings to support the longer term sustainability of our pension system, and the budget more broadly. Central to this has been a review of the qualifying age for the age pension, which will be progressively increased to 67 years by 2023, reflecting increases in life expectancy, and consistent with international trends. The rate at which the pension is withdrawn with private income will be increased to 50 cents in the dollar, but a more generous work bonus will be introduced for the first $500 of fortnightly employment income, providing extra assistance to those who work. All existing pensioners will have their payments maintained in real terms, and all singles and couples will receive an increase of at least $10.14 per week. The government will reduce the generosity of some superannuation concessions for those with greater private wealth. The cap on concessional super contributions will be lowered and the matching rate of the superannuation co‑contribution will be reduced temporarily. Private health insurance rebate Spending on the private health insurance rebate is growing unsustainably, and disproportionately favours those on higher incomes. From 1 July 2010, the private health insurance rebate will be reduced for higher income earners. The Medicare levy surcharge will also be increased to maintain the incentive for those able to pay for private health insurance to continue to do so. Treasury modelling shows that, under these reforms, private health insurance coverage will remain at more than 99 per cent of its current levels. Family payments For higher income earners, the income thresholds for some payments made to families will be maintained at their current levels for a further three years. The government is also changing family payments to index the family tax benefit part A to the consumer price index only. This change will maintain the real value of future payments, but they will not grow by as much as they otherwise would. Families affected by this measure will be among the main beneficiaries of other initiatives introduced by this government, including the doubling of the low-income tax offset; the education tax refund; the teen dental health plan; and paid parental leave. We are also improving tax system integrity to crack down on loopholes exploited by a small number of high-income earners. Path to surplus The savings decisions we have taken will allow us to offset fully our new spending in the final year of the forward estimates and ensure fiscal sustainability for the longer term. They will put us on the path to surplus by 2015-16 and ensure that Australia’s public finances remain among the strongest in the world. This budget also enhances the broader, longer term productive capacity of the economy, building a stronger revenue base for future generations. Before the 2010 budget, we will produce the next Intergenerational report, to provide an updated assessment of our demographic challenges and the sustainability of policies. I know some will be unhappy with the hard choices we’ve taken in this budget. Especially those we have asked to contribute more, because they can afford to do so. But I’m confident that most Australians will understand that the choices we have made are necessary, and they are responsible. They are the only way to ensure the budget remains on a sustainable footing and the national balance sheet remains strong. They are the only way to ensure we can responsibly fund our priorities and our commitments to pensioners. And they are right for the circumstances we face together, as a nation. Conclusion Not since the Great Depression has Australia confronted a more difficult set of global economic conditions. We have always been upfront and honest with the Australian people about the reality of this global recession and the magnitude of the challenge. But it is also true that the economy will recover strongly and that Australia will be as well placed as any nation to grasp the opportunities presented by that recovery. Tonight we stand with the Australian people to say we refuse to be overwhelmed by the brutal force of this global recession. We will support jobs today by building the infrastructure we need for tomorrow. This budget builds on a comprehensive strategy that has done so much to ensure we remain better placed than other nations. Nation building for the recovery has become Australia’s central task. The central task of this government is nation building for recovery. The central task of this budget is nation building for recovery. These are truly momentous challenges for our nation. But by steeling ourselves; by pulling together as we always do, when we are tested; we will emerge from this global recession stronger and more prosperous than ever before. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned. 3540 Budget 3540 20:04:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I present the following 2009-10 documents in connection with the budget: Budget strategy and outlook Budget measures Australia’s Federal relations Agency resourcing Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers. Ministerial Statements 3540 20:05:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I present ministerial statements as listed in the document now available to honourable members in the chamber. Details of the statements will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 3540 Bills R4111 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 3540 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 3540 3540 20:06:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010, which, together with Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010, is one of the principal pieces of legislation underpinning the government’s budget. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010 proposes appropriation for agencies to meet: payments direct to local government, and some national partnership payments through the states, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory; requirements for departmental equity injections, loans and previous years’ outputs; and requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2009-2010 seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund totalling $10.6 billion. The implementation of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 has important implications for the Commonwealth’s arrangements for payments to the states and territories and for Appropriation Bill (No. 2). With the commencement of COAG’s federal financial framework reforms on 1 January 2009, most of the annual appropriations for payments to the states and territories will no longer be proposed in Appropriation Bill (No. 2). Instead, those payments will be made under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) will continue to propose appropriations for payments direct to local government and payments through the states and territories for non-government schools that are not paid from the Schools Assistance Act 2008 or the COAG Reform Fund. The Federal Financial Relations Act implements the centralised payments arrangement agreed by COAG and payments to the states and territories are now contained in one piece of Commonwealth legislation. This streamlining will improve public transparency of these payments and the ability of the parliament to scrutinise the payment arrangements. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) also contains an important new provision that will provide parliament with a transparent mechanism to oversee the rate at which amounts committed to the nation-building funds and to the COAG Reform Fund are expended. The government intends that payments from the three nation-building funds and the COAG Reform Fund will be transparent and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Accordingly, the Nation-building Funds Act and the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 provide a mechanism to specify maximum limits, called the ‘general drawing rights limits’, on the amounts that can be paid out from each of the four special accounts in a financial year. It is important to note that bill 2 will not appropriate amounts to be paid from the various funds. The intention of specifying general drawing rights limits is to set maximum limits on the amounts that may be covered by drawing rights issued by the finance minister under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, for the purposes to which the limits apply. As part of the government’s Operation Sunlight program to increase the transparency of the budget, Budget Paper No. 4 contains a new table providing details of all special accounts authorised under the Financial Management and Accountability Act. The new table shows, by portfolio and agency, estimated balances and flows for the budget year and for the previous year. In addition, for the first time Budget Paper No. 4 contains separate estimates of receipts that agencies may retain and spend under section 31 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act or which bodies under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Actmay spend in accordance with their enabling legislation. A separate column shows the estimated special account receipts from non-appropriated sources. This means that Budget Paper No. 4 now contains complete estimates of agency funding identified by each source of appropriation. More detail on these changes is provided in the introduction to the budget paper. Agencies’ outcome statements have been revised to make them better targeted to improve budget transparency and accountability. The changes to outcomes provide greater clarity in terms of the results agencies are seeking to achieve. These improvements do not create new outcomes or change the purposes for which the appropriations are provided. Accordingly, the administered expense appropriations for the revised outcomes are proposed in bill 1. Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer earlier this evening. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 3541 Bills R4109 Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced. 3541 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 3541 3541 20:11:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2009-2010 is to provide funding for the operations of the three parliamentary departments. As part of Operation Sunlight, the government’s reform agenda to improve budget transparency and accountability, the parliamentary departments’ outcome statements have been revised to make them better targeted to improve budget transparency and accountability. The changes to the outcomes provide greater clarity in terms of the results the parliamentary departments are seeking to achieve. The total appropriation sought through this bill is $172.7 million. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 3542 Bills R4120 3542 Bill and explanatory memorandum—by leave—presented by Mr Albanese. Bill read a first time. 3542 3542 20:13:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is a bill to amend the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995. The global economic recession is the great challenge of our time and the Rudd government has made dealing with its impact a priority. Tonight I introduce a bill that will assist Australia deal more quickly and therefore more effectively than it otherwise could. The Financial Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 will provide the government with greater flexibility to assist local government in Australia. We know that the global economic recession is placing new pressures on local government across Australia. We have seen reports from the Australian Local Government Association that councils are facing increased defaults on council rates payments. And, while record low interest rates are assisting families with mortgages, many councils are seeing a reduction in their level of investment income. The government’s financial assistance grants provided through the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act is an important mechanism to provide ballast in the balance sheets of local government. On average these grants contribute around seven per cent to council revenue. Earlier this year the government was able to bring forward the fourth quarter’s grant payments to Victoria and Queensland to assist disaster-affected councils. That decision helped affected councils manage cash flow at a critical time. More broadly in Australia, however, we face the challenge of the global economic recession. Until now the act that provides Commonwealth funding to local government lacked the means to bring forward some payments from a future year to the current year. The bill I introduce tonight remedies that situation. The proposed amendments for theLocal Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 will increase the Commonwealth’s flexibility to provide additional funding in a particular year, including by, in effect, bringing forward funding from a future year, when economic or other special circumstances warrant such measures. The other element of the Financial Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 relate to the Federal Financial Relations Act. Other government decisions taken in the 2009-10 budget will require an increase in the general drawing rights limit for the 2008-09 financial year for the purposes of section 9 of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 so that the necessary payments can be made. To do this, the bill will increase the general drawing rights authorising debits from the COAG Reform Fund for the purposes of making grants of general revenue assistance to the states in the financial year starting 1 July 2008. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 3543 Bills R4115 3543 Bill and explanatory memorandum—by leave—presented by Mr Albanese. Bill read a first time. 3543 3543 20:17:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 is required to give effect to the infrastructure spending announced in the government’s 2009-10 budget. To provide funding for these priorities the bill repeals the crediting of $2.5 billion from the 2007-08 budget surplus to the Education Investment Fund that was to occur by 30 June 2009. This amount will be made available for the new clean energy initiatives. The clean energy initiatives will encourage further research and innovation in clean energy generation and low-emissions technologies. The government will use the clean energy initiatives to help accelerate the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage, solar energy and other forms of renewable energy. These technologies will play an important role in Australia’s transition to a low-pollution economy. There will still be more than $6.5 billion in the Education Investment Fund for education and research infrastructure, of which $4.1 billion has been committed in the 2009-10 budget, and in the nation-building package announced by the Prime Minister on 12 December 2008. The balance of $2.4 billion plus investment earnings, estimated to be around $630 million over the forward estimates, will be available for future education and research projects. The government’s nation-building investments will help support economic activity in the short term and expand growth potential in the medium to long term. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 3543 Bills R4119 3543 Bill and explanatory memorandum—by leave—presented by Ms Macklin. Bill read a first time. 3543 3543 20:20:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In this budget, the Treasurer has announced the most significant reforms to Australia’s pension system since it was introduced 100 years ago. The government’s secure and sustainable pension reform delivers a simpler, fairer and sustainable pension system to prepare Australia for the consequences of our ageing population. These long-overdue reforms will improve the adequacy of the pension system, make its operation simpler, and secure its sustainability into the future. Central to this reform is providing security and certainty for Australia’s carers. Carers make great sacrifices caring for the most vulnerable in our community. We recognise the selfless contribution made by carers every day of their lives. And the great financial pressure many of them are under. As part of the government’s secure and sustainable pension reform, 500,000 carers will now have greater financial certainty and the peace of mind that it brings. Carer payment recipients will receive pension increases of $32.49 a week for singles on the full rate and $10.14 per week combined for pensioner couples. A carer payment recipient partnered to a non-pensioner will receive an increase of $5.07 per week. And to give carers the financial security they deserve and the capacity to manage their financial circumstances, the government is replacing ad hoc bonuses with a legislated annual supplement. For too long, carers have been burdened by the uncertainty of not knowing whether they will receive one-off bonuses, making it difficult for them to plan ahead and manage their financial circumstances. This bill introduces a new payment, called carer supplement, into the social security law. The first carer supplement payments will be made before 30 June this year. Carer supplement, which is a payment of $600, will be available to a wide range of carers, including those who are caring for children or adults with disability, as well as people who are caring for veterans with particular care needs. The existing $1,000 child disability assistance payment will continue to apply for recipients of carer allowance paid in respect of a child. Carer supplement will be an ongoing payment, guaranteed by this legislation, and will be available each year to eligible carers. It is intended that the first payments of carer supplement will be made by 30 June 2009, for people who were qualified for carer supplement (as I am about to describe) on 12 May 2009. On an ongoing basis, from July 2010, a person will receive carer supplement if the person was qualified for, and received, one of the qualifying payments for the payment period, normally a fortnight, that includes 1 July. Qualification for carer supplement will be linked to receipt of a range of payments made to carers, including carer allowance, carer payment and Department of Veterans’ Affairs carer service pension. People who receive wife pension or Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension as well as carer allowance will also be eligible. A carer who receives both carer payment and carer allowance will receive an amount of carer supplement for each, in addition to increases to their pension. For example, a single carer who receives both full-rate carer payment and carer allowance will get two carer supplement amounts, totalling $1,200 plus an annual pension increase of $1,689, bringing additional permanent increases in this budget to $2,889 a year. A couple comprising a full-rate carer payment recipient partnered to a disability support pensioner, for whom the carer payment recipient also receives carer allowance, will receive pension increases of $527 a year and two carer supplement amounts. This couple will benefit from permanent increases of $1,727 a year. The increases to payment rates for carer payment will be introduced by legislation in the coming weeks. This bill is part of the government’s response to the needs of carers and highlights the government’s commitment to improving much needed assistance. Expenditure on the new carer supplement will total $1.8 billion over the budget period. This bill also contains some of the measures announced in the budget to reform family payments to make them more sustainable for the long term. This bill pauses indexation of higher income thresholds for certain family assistance payments for three years. The family tax benefit part A higher income free areas, family tax benefit part B primary earner income limit, and baby bonus family income limit will remain at their 2008-09 levels and indexation will not be applied to these thresholds from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2012. Indexation of the thresholds will recommence on 1 July 2012. The indexation of rates for these payments will not be affected by this bill. The family tax benefit part A higher income free area is the threshold at which the base rate of part A begins to reduce. Families above this threshold receive a reduced rate of payment until the effect of the withdrawal rate reduces their payment completely. Each family’s family tax benefit part A income cut-out depends on the age and number of children. For example, this change means the income limit for part A for a family with two children under 18 will remain around $112,000 until 2012. The family tax benefit part B and baby bonus income limits were introduced by the government in the 2008 budget. The income limit for family tax benefit part B was set at a generous $150,000 per annum while the baby bonus income limit was set at a comparable $75,000 in the six months following birth (or following commencement of care by an adoptive parent or a long-term carer). Individuals or families with incomes above these limits are not eligible for the respective payment. These measures will limit the growth of family payments to families at the higher end of the income scale and save $1.4 billion over the forward estimates. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 3545 20:29:00 House adjourned at 8.29 pm 3545 Notices The following notices were given: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 14 May 2009 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 12 noon on Monday 25 May 2009 unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard to present a Bill for an Act to establish Safe Work Australia, and for related purposes. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to amend the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, and for related purposes. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon to present a Bill for an Act to establish Health Workforce Australia, and for related purposes. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and for related purposes. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll to move: That the House: notes that: a comprehensive and accessible rail transport system is an important link in the Australian transport chain that joins communities and strengthens industry; and the Australian Government has invested an unprecedented $26.4 billion investment in road and rail infrastructure through the Nation Building Program over the six year period from 2008‑09 to 2013‑14; and supports: the Australian Government’s budget announcement of more than $25 billion for key road, rail and port projects; fiscal strategies and major infrastructure projects that aim to create jobs and boost long term productivity; and the continued encouragement of private involvement in delivering new infrastructure. ZT4 Somlyay, Alex, MP Mr Somlyay to move: That the House: recognises and commends service undertaken by all those who have served the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the people of Australia in the name of Australia; takes note of service undertaken by ADF personnel on ‘Undeclared Operations’ on behalf of the Australian Government and the Australian people; commends personnel on ‘Undeclared Operations’ for their duty on behalf of all Australians by working to serve, protect and defend Australian citizens against perceived threats; acknowledges the risks associated with ‘Undeclared Operations’ and notes that the personnel recruited understood the significant risks involved in their work; and calls upon the Department of Defence to reconsider declaring such missions as ‘Active Service’. 3547 Questions in Writing 1 1 372 1 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 November 2008: Further to his answer to my question without notice (Hansard, 22 October 2008, page 54) concerning the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal (DFRT) and pay and allowance issues for Special Air Services Regiment (SASR) personnel: What date did the DFRT hand down the determination on pay and allowances for the SAS. When was he notified of the determination. Who brought the issue before the DFRT and what outcome did they request. If this matter was not referred to the DFRT, why did the DFRT decide to review it. Why was there any requirement at all to reduce the level salaries and allowances to members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Why was the DFRT determination back-dated to August 2007. Why was the determination not given effect from a future date. What hardship provisions were made for the affected personnel. Why was an interest rate of 7.2 per cent applied to the ‘debt’ when it was not incurred by fault of the person serving. Were the estates of soldiers killed in Afghanistan affected by this decision; if so, has he reversed the decision. Who decided that a soldier could live on $250.00 per fortnight after deductions for debt repayment, given that a single pensioner currently receives around $281.00 per week. Why was the Chief of the Defence Force not informed by the DFRT of the likely consequences arising from the determination. How was the DFRT’s decision conveyed to those who were to be adversely affected. Were deployed personnel informed of the decision while they were overseas. Has all of the money repaid by the affected service persons, including interest payments, been reimbursed to the service persons. How will this decision impinge upon the superannuation of the affected persons. 1 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr Fitzgibbon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am advised the Salary Determination was signed on 5 March 2008 with a date of effect of 9 August 2007. It was implemented on 21 August 2008 and backdated to 9 August 2007. In May 2008, a written brief was provided to my office advising that a determination had been made by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. Issues relating to the implementation of the determination were brought to my attention as a result of the Senate Estimates hearing on 22 October 2008. and (4) I am advised the Australian Defence Force brought the matters before the Tribunal. The Special Forces Pay Group and Pay Structure sought to roll qualifications and skills allowances for qualified special forces personnel into a 16-group placement methodology. I am advised the case put before the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal did not seek to reduce salaries or allowances. and (7) The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal is an independent tribunal. The Australian Defence Force has no say over dates and implementation effect. I am advised the case put by the Special Forces Pay Group sought for the decision to be backdated to align it with the date of effect for other determinations. This outcome was sought on the grounds that to seek otherwise would be inequitable for Special Force members as they would otherwise not be eligible for the extra superannuation payable as a result of the anticipated effect of the Determination. I am advised that the Special Forces Pay Group did not anticipate that any soldiers were facing adverse financial hardship as a result of the matter. As a precaution however, the Chief of Army directed Special Operations Command to ensure that appropriate support mechanisms were provided to any soldier identified as requiring assistance. I am advised that there was no interest charged by Defence to any member in regard to any Special Forces Determination debts. I am advised that all Pay Category adjustments and remediation has now been completed, following the Chief of Army’s directive. Any impact on individual soldiers will not be discussed due to privacy reasons. However, any affected estates would have now been remediated, in line with the Chief of Army’s directive. I am advised that there was no Departmental decision to this effect. I am advised that the Determination made by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal was made in accordance with the pay case put before them. I am advised that Defence did not anticipate the management problems that have now been identified as a result of this Determination. The Australian Defence Force did not appreciate the complexity of the issues involved. In addition, the capabilities in the electronic systems on which this information was stored did not allow Defence to make an accurate assessment of the possible effects of the Determination. I am advised that following the signing of the determination in March 2008 and the decision for an implementation date of 21 August 2008, a series of rolling information briefs occurred. Following a review of members’ individual proficiencies, the majority of members were informed in July 2008 that the changes could render their qualifications ineligible. Many of the discrepancies were identified during this review and action commenced to have qualifications accepted through recognition of prior learning and recognition of current competencies. Yes. I am advised that information to deployed personnel was communicated via email through the chain of command. Deployed personnel were briefed by their supervisors. I am advised that no interest was charged on debts as a result of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination and that by 16 April 2009, all personnel affected by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal decisions had their original pay grade placements restored in the pay system thereby providing reimbursement for any debts that have occurred. I am advised that there will be no impact on the employer superannuation obligations for members of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme because the retirement benefit that is paid is a percentage of salary at retirement based on the member’s rate of pay, which is the maximum rate of pay which applies to the member’s rank and pay level and the member’s number of years of effective service. I am advised that there should be no impact on the employer superannuation obligations for the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme members because the employer benefit is based on final average salary and years of effective service. Final average salary is one third of salary payable during the last 1095 days of service (i.e. three years). 3548 3548 375 3549 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 10 November 2008: In respect of his department’s land at West Wattle Grove Moorebank, will he confirm: (a) that 54.8 hectares of surplus land on this site was listed for sale by tender with Jones Lang LeSalle; and (b) that the closing date for tenders was Thursday 17 April 2008; and advise whether: (c) this land was sold; (d) the Commonwealth has any remaining interest in this land; and (e) the contract for sale included any conditions relating to the future use of the land. 3549 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr Fitzgibbon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. No, the preferred tenderer did not exercise the Call Option to purchase the site, which expired on 15 December 2008.  Defence is currently reassessing the future disposal strategy for the site, in light of the revamped Commonwealth Property Disposals Policy announced by the Government on 25 February 2009. Yes. No; but the tender conditions did include the following clauses: 17.1 The sale of the Property is being conducted having regard to the Australian Government’s surplus land disposal objectives. These include: optimising sale proceeds within the context of the broader Australian Government sales and policy objectives; minimising the Australian Government’s exposure to residual risks and liabilities; ensuring that the successful Tenderer has the necessary financial and managerial capabilities to provide timely investment into appropriate infrastructure; ensuring the sale outcome is consistent with relevant policy requirements including environmental policy; ensuring the successful Tenderer demonstrates a commitment to the effective development of the Property; and achieving a sale outcome which contributes to a competitive, sustainable and efficient residential development. 17.2 By submitting a Tender, the Tenderer acknowledges the objectives of the Australian Government and confirms it has considered residential uses for the Property. 3549 3549 426 3549 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 Mr Hartsuyker asked the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, in writing, on 26 November 2008: Which websites are maintained by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC). How much did the ACCC spend on the maintenance of websites in 2007-08. How much is the ACCC estimated to spend on the maintenance of websites in 2008-09, and each of the three outyears. How much is the ACCC estimated to spend on the development of websites in 2008-09 and each of the three outyears. How much extra funding did the ACCC receive in the 2008-09 budget specifically for the maintenance of websites. How much extra funding did the ACCC receive in the 2008-09 budget specifically for the development of websites. How much has the ACCC spent up until 25 November 2008 on the design, implementation and running of the GroceryChoice website. 3550 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The websites maintained by ACCC are: accc.gov.au aer.gov.au aer.gov.au/eisg (secure site) recalls.gov.au, nprecalls.gov.au (secure site) scamwatch.gov.au, and the ACCC intranet. The ACCC spent $492,707 on the maintenance of websites during 2007-08. The following are estimated costs for maintenance of websites in 2008-09, and each of the three outyears: 2008-09 $374,000 2009-10 $391,000 2010-11 $410,000 2011-12 $429,000 The following are estimated costs for the development of websites in 2008-09 and each of the three outyears. 2008-09 $3,266,000 2009-10 $913,000 2010-11 $956,000 2011-12 $1,001,000 The ACCC received $238,000 in the 2008-09 budget specifically for the maintenance of websites. The ACCC received $2,342,000 in the 2008-09 budget specifically for the development of websites. However, the ACCC subsequently returned a total of $4.292 million from appropriation bills 1 and 2 out of a total $7.233 funding received from appropriation bills 1 and 2 which was allocated for FuelWatch. The ACCC spent $3,609,988 up until 25 November 2008 on the design, implementation and running of the GroceryChoice website. 3550 3550 429 3550 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 the Department of Immigration and Citizenship internal performance reviews: how many are currently underway; (b) what is each evaluating; (c) on what date will each report; and (d) how many have been completed since November 2007. 3551 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: Eleven internal performance reviews were currently underway. and (c) The following list provides details of internal performance reviews which were currently underway and the expected reporting date: Review of Systems for People Program performance to provide specialist and independent advice on the Department’s progress against those recommendations associated with Boston Consulting Group (Completed February 2009). Review strategies for the Living in Harmony program’s funding and communication approach to ensure the program effectively addresses issues of cultural, racial and religious intolerance, while promoting respect, fairness, inclusion and a sense of belonging for everyone (Completed January 2009). Mid-term evaluation of the National Action Plan to Build on Social Cohesion, Harmony and Security (National Action Plan) to review the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the NAP and DIAC’s role as well as other federal agencies, state and territory governments and community grants (August 2009). Performance and Financial Audit of selected Settlement Grants (Completed February 2009). Evaluation of a Regional Settlement Pilot Project to identify key procedural lessons learned from the Pilot, document processes, engage key stakeholders and identify successful strategies (Completed January 2009). Adult Migrant English Program Review of structure and outcomes (Completion date yet to be determined). Legal Services Panel Review of information capture relating to current legal services panel key performance indicators (June 2009). Management of the notification of decisions to identify and map the different types of departmental notifications, provide a risk based analysis of these notifications and provide assurance that policy and legislative requirements are being met (Completed December 2008). Risk based audit of selected visa classes (onshore protection) to examine the management of the onshore protection program and achievement of program objectives (Completed February 2009). This is part of a regular review process for the program overall. Proust Review - Evaluation of the Palmer and Comrie Reform Agenda – including Related Ombudsman Reports (Completed December 2008. Report publicly available). Ministerial Communications review to examine the management, quality assurance and timeliness of ministerial submissions and correspondence (March 2009). Nineteen internal performance reviews have been completed between November 2007 and 27 November 2008. 3551 3551 446 3551 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: at the department and agency level; and by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3552 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 following agencies and departments in my portfolio (excluding the Department of Climate Change and their related agency who will respond separately) will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year: Department/ Agency Administered (Section 8) $’000 Departmental (no win no loss) $’000 Total $’000 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1,820 5,658 7,479 Australian Public Service Commission 300 Nil 300 Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General 160 Nil 160 Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Nil 100 100 TOTAL 2,280 5,758 8,038   For the period 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, the following amounts were committed under Regulation 10 of the FMA Act by each FMA agency in the Portfolio (excluding the Department of Climate Change and their related agency who will respond separately): Department/Agency Amount $’000 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2,101 Australian Public Service Commission 597 Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor General Nil Australian National Audit Office 5,012 Office of Inspector-General of intelligence & Security Nil Australian Institute of Family Studies 388 Office of the Privacy Commissioner Nil Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman 665 National Archives of Australia 6,588 Office of National Assessments 296 TOTAL 15,647         For the period 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, all the expenditure committed under Regulation 10 was approved at the department or agency level.  No Regulation 10 approval was sought from the Minister of Finance and Deregulation. and (b) The Departmental depreciation expense and asset purchases as published in the 2007-08 financial statements by each FMA agency in the Portfolio (excluding the Department of Climate Change and their related agency who will respond separately) were as follows: Department/Agency Depreciation Expense $’000 Asset Purchases $’000 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 4,383 3,091 Australian Public Service Commission 1,478 1,702 Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor General 203 1,936 Australian National Audit Office 1,591 1,860 Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security 17 59 Australian Institute of Family Studies 297 122 Office of the Privacy Commissioner 30 76 Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman 783 286 National Archives of Australia 12,680 3,171 Office of National Assessments 2,945 1,669 Old Parliament House Established as a legal entity on 1 July 2008 TOTAL 24,407 13,972         The budget is allocated to priorities on the basis of need and the Government does not try to allocate funding from particular sources to particular assets and programs. 3553 3553 451 3553 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: (a) at the department and agency level; and (b) by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3553 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: Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) The 2007-08 surplus as reported in DIAC’s Annual Report is $35.4 million. The Department operates under a funding agreement which is reconciled every year, based on activity and cost movements. The actual amount to be returned to budget has not yet been finalised with the Department of Finance and Deregulation. $375 million at departmental level. (b) nil. The Department does not segregate the appropriation receivable balance for specific items. Tracking of depreciation funding has not been undertaken since the implementation of accrual accounting and Machinery of Government changes to the structure of departments. (b) $94.722 million was reported as depreciation and amortisation expense in the 2007-08 financial statements. (c) The Department does not record separately purchases of assets that are replacement assets. The department spent $32.042 million of corporate funding on assets which would include replacement of assets. Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal The Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal will not be returning money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year. nil. (b) nil. The Tribunals do not segregate the appropriation receivable balance for specific items. Tracking of depreciation funding has not been undertaken since the implementation of accrual accounting and Machinery of Government changes to the structure of departments. (b) $1.687 million was reported as depreciation and amortisation expense in the 2007-08 financial statements. (c) The Tribunals do not record separately purchases of assets that are replacement assets. The Tribunals spent $1.689 million on capital expenditure in the 2007-08 financial year, all of which was internally funded. 3554 3554 452 3554 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: (a) at the department and agency level; and (b) by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3554 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr Tanner —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance), including its portfolio agencies will return a total of $204.94m in the 2008-09 financial years as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year. This consists of a $5.0m return of unused T3 sale funding, and $199.94m return of annual administered operating appropriations pursuant to section 8 of the Appropriation Act (No.1) 2007-08. For the period 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008 spending proposals of up to $480.8m, inclusive of contingent liabilities were authorised within the Finance and Deregulation Portfolio, under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (FMA Regulations). Specifically, $459.8m was authorised for Finance, $12.1m for ComSuper, and $8.89m authorised for the Australian Electoral Commission. Of the Finance portfolio total, $383.7m (inclusive of contingent liabilities) was authorised under the Fleet Management Agreement which relates to the lease and management of vehicles under the whole-of-government vehicle fleet contract. Officials in the Finance portfolio authorised spending proposals of up to $97.1m under FMA Regulation 10. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation provided FMA Regulation 10 authorisation for the Fleet Management Agreement, which involved a spending proposal of $383.7m. In the 2007-2008 financial year Finance, including its portfolio agencies, expensed a total of $43.77m of depreciation and amortisation (refer 2007-08 agency Annual Reports). Agency  ($000’s) Finance 32,159 AEC 5,341 FFMA 556 ARIA 370 ComSuper 5,339 Total 43,765 Depreciation funding contributes to total budget appropriations and is allocated to agency priorities on the basis of need.  The Government does not try to allocate funding from particular sources to particular programs. 3555 3555 456 3555 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s Portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to the budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: (a) at the department and agency level; and (b) by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 year to directly replace assets for which it is appropriated. 3555 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Health and Ageing returned $693,869,561 to consolidated revenue due to underspends in 2007-08. Cancer Australia returned $151. Spending proposals must satisfy all the requirements of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) and its regulations, including obtaining regulation 10 where required, prior to commitment. Attachment A lists the number and amount of all spending proposals approved under Regulation 10 of the FMA Act for the period 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008. Since the introduction of accrual budgeting in 1999-2000, departments and agencies have been appropriated for some non cash items, including depreciation. The accumulated funds are included as ‘appropriation receivable’ in each agency’s balance sheet. These funds are available to the department and agencies to meet expenditure as required, including for the replacement of assets. The department and agencies do not separately identify funds held for the purchase of assets. Attachment B shows the estimated funding required to support the forecast depreciation expense for the 2007-08 financial year, depreciation expense in 2007-08 and the amount spent on assets in 2007-08. ATTACHMENT A Amounts approved under Regulation 10 of the FMA Act for 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008 Agency Amount Approved at Agency Level $’000 Department of Health and Ageing 2,613,945 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 662 Australia Sports Anti Doping Agency 945 Cancer Australia 39,757 National Blood Authority 1,309 National Health and Medical Research Council 46,599 There were no amounts approved by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and the Professional Service Review did not approve any amounts under Regulation 10 of the FMA Act during the period in question. ATTACHMENT B The following table shows the estimated funding required to support the forecast depreciation expense for the 2007-08 financial year, depreciation expense in 2007-08 and the amount spent on assets in 2007-08. Agency Estimated Funding Required to Support Forecast Deprecation Expense 2007-08 $’000 Depreciation Expense 2007-08 $’000 Expenditure on Assets 2007-08 $’000 Department of Health and Ageing 17,746 17,660 20,895 Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Ltd 838 540 2,872 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 600 569 704 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency 2,192 1,196 2,435 Australia Sports Anti Doping Agency 554 590 2,732 Australian Sports Commission 13,892 14,276 13,461 Cancer Australia 221 152 220 Food Standards Australia New Zealand 240 249 514 General Practice Education and Training Ltd 400 514 11 National Blood Authority 840 554 1,725 National Health and Medical Research Council 530 417 1,972 Private Health Insurance Administration Council 141 145 219 Private Health Insurance Ombudsman 158 152 197 Professional Services Review 273 293 201 Source: Estimated funding required to support the forecast depreciation expense in 2007-08 listed in the departmental income statement of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2008-09. Depreciation expense is the amount of depreciation and amortisation expenses in the agency annual reports for 2007-08. Expenditure on assets is the amount of cash used for the purchase of property, plant and equipment and intangibles in agency annual reports for 2007-08. 3557 3557 461 3557 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: at the department and agency level; and by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3557 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The Minister for Climate Change has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Climate Change returned $4,649,649 as a result of administered program underspends in the 2007-08 financial year at 30 June 2008 when the funding lapsed. No funding was returned in the 2008-09 Budget. For the period of 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008: the Department of Climate Change has committed to spend $25,196,494.00 under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. This amount includes the 2008-09 financial year and future years.  All of these commitments under Regulation 10 were authorised by a delegate of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at the department level. the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER) has not committed any expenditure under regulation 10. Both the Department of Climate Change and the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator: did not have any depreciation funding available as at 30 June 2008; did not spend any depreciation funding in the 2007-08 financial year; and did not spend any depreciation funding in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets. 3558 3558 462 3558 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: at the department and agency level; and by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3558 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In relation to my ministerial responsibilities: The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will return $12.1m in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year for programs in the Environment, Heritage and the Arts portfolio. No other Agency within the portfolio will return unspent 2007-08 money to the budget in 2008-09. The table below identifies, for the period 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, the total value of agreements or arrangements entered into by the department and agencies in the Environment, Heritage and the Arts portfolio subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the Act) requiring authorisation under regulation 10 of the Act. Note the values identified include expenditure in the 2007-2008 financial year and future financial years. Agency Total Value of Agreements Department of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts $166,364,122.32 Bureau of Meteorology $33,770,913.00 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority $574,373.03 Total $200,709,408.35 Every agreement or arrangement requiring regulation 10 authorisation under the Act was authorised by a delegate of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at the department or agency level. (3)  The table below identifies the sum of depreciation funding for each department or agency in the Minister’s portfolio: (a) available as at 30 June 2008; (b) the amount spent in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) the amount spent in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. (1)   Represents depreciation expense for the 2007-08 financial year. (2)   Represents cash payments used for the purchase of capital assets. (3)   Due to the fact that accurate records have not been held since the implementation of accrual accounting and the Machinery of Government changes to the structure of the Department, DEWHA has provided an estimate of cash available to replace assets as at 30 June 2008. 3559 3559 464 3559 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: at the department and agency level; and by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3560 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Please refer to Senate Question on Notice 1071 (2). Please refer to Senate Question on Notice 1107 (1). Please refer to Senate Question on Notice 1107 (2). 3560 3560 466 and 467 3560 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of    money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: (a) at the department and agency level; and (b) by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3560 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Tourism Australia will return $6.2 million to budget in accordance with the foreign exchange reporting guidelines. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism – $481.3 million was approved at the departmental level.            Geoscience Australia – $12.9 million approved at the agency level. (b) $0.00 Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism – $0.2 million. Geoscience Australia – $7.7 million. Tourism Australia – $4.6 million. (b) Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism – $0.1 million. Geoscience Australia – $6.4 million. Tourism Australia – $5.8 million. (c) Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism – $0.1 million. Geoscience Australia – $5.8 million. Tourism Australia – $2.0 million. 3560 3560 468 3560 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: at the department and agency level; and by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3561 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: None. Department of Veterans’Affairs $6.720 million; $6.720 million; and Nil. Nil; $17.552 million; and $10.093 million. Australian War Memorial Not applicable. $14.761 million; $15.6 million; and $15.6 million. 3561 3561 469 3561 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr Hockey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water, in writing, on 1 December 2008: Which agencies and departments in the Minister’s portfolio will return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends in the 2007-08 financial year; and what sum of money will be returned to budget from these programs. From 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, what sum of money has the Government committed to spending under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 for applicable departments and agencies under the Minister’s portfolio; and how much of this commitment was approved: (a) at the department and agency level; and (b) by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What sum of depreciation funding: (a) is available for each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio as at 30 June 2008; (b) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year; and (c) was spent by each department and agency in the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated. 3562 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The Minister for Climate Change and Water has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: In relation to my ministerial responsibilities: The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will not return money to budget in the 2008-09 financial year as a result of underspends for programs within the Minister’s portfolio in the 2007-08 financial year. For the period 1 December 2007 to 30 June 2008 and for that part of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts that came within the Minister’s portfolio, the Department entered into agreements or arrangements requiring authorisation under Regulation 10 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (the Act) totalling $187,766,091.55. This amount includes expenditure in the 2007-08 financial year and future years. Every agreement or arrangement requiring Regulation 10 authorisation under the Act was authorised by a delegate of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation at the department level. The table below identifies the sum of depreciation funding for that part of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts that came within the Minister’s portfolio and portfolio agencies a) available as at 30 June 2008; b) the amount spent in the 2007-08 financial year; and c) the amount spent in the 2007-08 financial year to directly replace assets for which it was appropriated.  Sum of Depreciation Funding: available as at 30 June 2008. spent in 2007-08. (1) spent in 2007-08 to directly replace assets. (2)   $’000 $’000 $’000 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Water programs only) (3) NIL 422 422 National Water Commission 71 410 57 Murray Darling Basin Commission NIL NIL NIL Represents depreciation expense for the 2007-08 financial year. Represents cash payments used for the purchase of capital assets. Due to the fact that accurate records have not been held since the implementation of accrual accounting and the Machinery of Government changes to the structure of the Department, DEWHA has provided an estimate of cash available to replace assets as at 30 June 2008. 3562 3562 537 3562 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 4 December 2008: In respect of the funding of government and non-government primary schools for 2009-13: (a) is there a requirement for government and non-government primary schools to offer physical education in these funding agreements; if so, how many hours of physical education each week are required to be offered; (b) how many primary schools currently offer two hours of physical education each week; and (c) what proportion of primary schools currently offer two hours of physical education each week. 3562 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: The National Education Agreement was signed on 29 November 2008. Consistent with the new Federal Financial Framework, input controls have been replaced by a strong focus on accountability and transparency measures which correlate more directly to educational outcomes. Responsibility for physical education lies with individual jurisdictions and non-government education authorities. On 5 December 2008, all Australian Education Ministers agreed to embed health and physical education as a learning area in state and territory school curricula. This was undertaken under the auspices of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Information on individual schools is not available. The reporting requirements for this measure were part of an annual certification process by school authorities from the 2006 school year. School authorities were required to notify that they were compliant/not compliant for 2006 and 2007, but information on practice at individual schools (apart from non-government non-systemic schools) was not collected. This level of information is not available. 3563 3563 538 3563 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Sport, in writing, on 3 December2008: In respect of the 2008-09 Budget item Sport and Recreation facilities—contribution to funding (Budget Paper 2, page 230) What was the application process for these 91 projects. How many applications were received in: (a) December 2007; (b) January 2008; (c) February 2008; (d) March 2008; (e) April 2008; and (f) May 2008. How many applications were received prior to the 2008-09 Budget. Were any applications received after the 2008-09 Budget. What were the eligibility requirements. Against what criteria were these applications assessed. Was a panel established to assess these applications; if so who was on it. On what dates were these applications assessed. What documentation was required for each application. Was there only one round of funding for this program. Will there be any further rounds of funding for this program. 3563 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: We worked closely with local communities, councils and grass roots sporting groups to identify and select projects that help promote healthy lifestyles and physical activity. The Government allocated funding for all of these projects in the 08/09 Budget. All parties and organisations have been notified of funding and the Department is negotiating funding agreements in line with due process. In cases where Government funding forms part of a co-funding arrangement, the details are being worked out with the relevant parties through the negotiation of the funding agreements. see (1). see (1). see (1). see (1). see (1). see (1). see (1). see (1). The funding for the projects was committed in the context of the 2007 Election. see (10). 3564 3564 550 3564 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 Mr Hartsuyker asked the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, in writing, on 4 December 2008: Has the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) spent any of the $7.1 million that was appropriated to it in the 2008-09 Budget for the 2008-09 financial year under the FuelWatch measure. Has the ACCC returned this money to Budget following the defeat of the FuelWatch legislation in the Senate. Did the ACCC recruit any staff to work on the FuelWatch measure. Why did the ACCC return an operating loss in 2007-08. Which areas of the ACCC were responsible for the loss. Which areas of the ACCC overspent and which areas underspent. Did the ACCC seek the approval of the Finance Minister to budget for an operating loss in 2007-08; if so, did the Finance Minister approve this loss; if the loss was not approved, why not. In respect of the 2008-09 Budget Measure Petrol Price Monitoring—appointment of a permanent petrol commissioner, which included $1.342 million in funding for the 2007-08 financial year (Budget Paper 2, page 289): how much did the ACCC spend in 2007-08 on this measure; and if the ACCC underspent, has the unused money been returned to Budget. Will the Government provide any additional funding for the ACCC to implement the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Bill 2008; if so, what sum. 3564 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes Yes. The ACCC’s operating loss in 2007-08 was due to litigation settlements, please refer to the ACCC Annual Report, note 4G on page 146. The Legal area. The following areas were underspent: Executive Corporate Legal Enforcement & Compliance Regulatory Affairs Mergers & Acquisition and Adjudication. No areas were overspent. Yes, and the Minister approved the loss. In 2007-08 the ACCC spent $684,136 on this measure. The balance of the funds has not been returned to the budget. The ACCC received additional funding for Criminal Cartel Enforcement – Investigations and Prosecutions in the 2006-07 budget. The sum for 2008-09 was $6.192m. 3565 3565 555 3565 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr Truss asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 3 February 2009: Does he agree with the Australian Road Assessment Program that the Cooroy to Gympie section of the Bruce Highway is the worst part of the national highway in Queensland (QLD) (Safer Roads Save Lives: Star Ratings For Queensland Country Highways, April 2008, pages 14-6). Is he aware that the Queensland Government has decided to impose a 90 kilometre per hour speed limit on a large part of this section of the Bruce Highway. What is the Australian Government’s target date for completing the four-laning of the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Curra. What funding will be provided for this project in the: (a) 2009-10; (b) 2010-11; (c) 2011-12; (d) 2012-13; (e) 2013-14; and (f) 2014-15; financial years. What is the estimated total cost of four-laning the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Curra. 3565 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 April 2008 Australian Road Assessment Program report on “Start Ratings for Queensland’s Country Highways” identifies a section of the Bruce Highway approximately from Cooroy to an area south Gympie as having the lowest start rating for the National Network in Queensland. Yes. and (4) The Australian Government has committed $200 million for the Cooroy to Curra section, under the Nation Building Program. The Queensland Government has submitted a proposal to Infrastructure Australia for the duplication of the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Curra. 3565 3565 557 3565 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 3 February 2009: Does she agree that reliable, accurate data on national child care vacancy rates is essential for planning the future location of child care centres; if so, why. What data has the Government used to determine the most appropriate locations for its investment in building the first 38 of 260 planned child care centres in priority areas. Is she aware of the importance to the child care industry of having access to figures on supply and demand of child care services by region in order to plan for its future needs. Are child care centres across Australia required to report their vacancy rates to the Government every week; if so, have these figures been publicly released since November 2007; if these figures have not been released since November 2007, (a) why not, and (b) how can child care organisations make informed expressions of interest for the Government’s proposed child care centres. 3566 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: There is currently no reliable, accurate data on national child care vacancy rates. The vacancy numbers provided by services to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations provide very limited assistance in assessing unmet demand for child care. Vacancies refer to the number of places, based on a service’s own business practices, which the service considers to be available for use in the forthcoming week. Looking forward a single week is inadequate for long term planning and the model of reporting provides no information on unmet demand where services identify they have no vacancies. There are a number of data sources currently available to assist in planning the future location of child care centres. In respect of the location of the 260 centres the Department has used data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on population numbers, information from local governments on potential demographic changes. These data are publicly available. In addition, the Department has used utilisation data of current services from its administrative systems and information about the number of licensed places available in a given location. At the jurisdictional level this data is provided publicly via the Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services. This data cannot be made publicly available at a regional level as it would potentially release commercially sensitive material. The Department recognises that there are, however, limitations to using these data alone. Issues of quality and cost of care options, travel to work routes, availability of other care types and other localised issues all impact on the usage rates for a specific service/area, which will not be reflected in the aggregated data. On that basis, in addition to the data sources mentioned above, the Department has used local information, including local feasibility studies, reports by local/state or territory governments, planning information about future developments or expansion in the area, stakeholder feedback (including the Registration of Interest process undertaken by the Department) and any information available to the department about services in the area facing financial difficulties. As noted in my response to Question 2, there are a number of data sources available to assist in identifying the need for additional child care in a given location. Child care centres are required each week to report their anticipated vacancies for the following week. The information on whether a vacancy exists or not for a given service is publicly available in the manner intended when the system was developed. That is, if a parent rings the Child Care Access Hotline they will be informed of vacancies within the area of their interest. At this local level the vacancy information assists to provide parents with a guide to potential services that may meet their need. However, as vacancies reported is provided by individual services, without a clear definition or any process of verification, the accumulation of those numbers to regional, state or national reporting is neither valid nor reliable and hence has not been released publicly. Vacancy information will be made available to parents and the industry on mychild.gov.au in addition to the Child Care Access Hotline, but only after undertaking the ground work to ensure the data has improved accuracy and usefulness. The Department has found the vacancy data currently collected to be unhelpful in assessing the unmet demand for child care in the priority locations identified for Early Learning and Care Services. 3566 3566 559 3566 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 3 February 2009: In respect of allegations that some parents have been claiming thousands of dollars on the child care tax rebate for long day child care services despite not having paid their fees, and when services are withdrawn, continuing this practice at another child care centre: Is the Minister aware of such newspaper reports. What is the Government doing to ensure parents cannot fraudulently claim the 50 per cent child care tax rebate. Is it correct that proof of payment of child care fees is not required by Centrelink in order for the 50 per cent tax rebate to be claimed; if so, why. Is it correct that proof of enrolment at a child care centre is all that is required by Centrelink for the 50 per cent rebate to be claimed; if so, why. What investigations will the Minister undertake to prevent such fraud; if no investigations will be undertaken, why not. What sum of money does she estimate such practices are costing the taxpayer. 3567 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: I am aware of a limited number of newspaper reports concerning parents being able to claim the quarterly 50 per cent Child Care Tax Rebate (CCTR) payment without paying their fees. Under family assistance legislation, parents cannot fraudulently claim CCTR. A family must incur a liability for the cost of using child care. Payment of CCTR is based on child care attendance information, as reported by the child care service providers. CCTR is not paid where there is no child care usage. Under family assistance legislation a family must have incurred a liability for payment of child care fees. These arrangements are in place so that the vast majority of families, who pay their fees on time, are not disadvantaged and receive their correct entitlements in a timely manner. Many families use this assistance to pay any outstanding fees to their child care service provider. Where an issue of non payment arises, the Professional Support Coordinator network can provide help to the management of a child care service provider to address the organisational and financial issues that might be affecting service viability. In addition to proof of enrolment and child care usage at a child care centre, families must meet the following eligibility requirements: they have a child in their care who meets the immunisation requirements they or their partner (if they have one) meet the residency requirements their child attends approved or registered care and they have the liability to pay for the cost of the child care they must have their income assessed for Child Care Benefit (CCB) purposes (at zero rate CCB or more, as CCTR is not income tested) meet work, study and training requirements. and (6) There is no fraud against the Commonwealth – and by extension against the tax-payer. Parents have incurred a liability for which they are legally entitled to receive a tax rebate. 3567 3567 571 3567 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 3 February 2009: In respect of the electoral division of Chifley in the lead up to the 2007 Federal Election: (a) did the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) undertake to reduce the number of Aboriginals who were not enrolled to vote; (b) what action was taken by the New South Wales administration of the AEC to enrol Aboriginals to vote; and (c) what was the most successful initiative and how many Aboriginals were enrolled to vote as a result. In respect of the electoral division of Chifley: (a) is the AEC satisfied with the number of Aboriginals currently enrolled to vote; (b) what are the AEC estimates for the number or percentage of Aboriginals who are not enrolled to vote; (c) what lessons have been learnt from the 2007 Federal Election regarding attempts to increase the number of Aboriginals enrolled to vote; and (d) what plans exist to increase the number of Aboriginals enrolled to vote. 3568 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr Tanner —The Special Minister of State has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Yes. Prior to the 2007 Federal Election, the AEC increased its focus on ensuring that as many eligible electors as possible were enrolled prior to the issue of the writs, including advice on the change to the close of rolls period. A national, targeted enrolment stimulation drive commenced in March 2007 with mail-outs, phone follow-up and door-knocking. For the 2007 election, the AEC’s communication strategy included targeted advertising, products and initiatives for special groups including youth, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) Australians, Indigenous Australians, people experiencing homelessness, electors with disability, and overseas electors. Advertisements were placed on television and radio, in press, magazines, cinemas, outdoor billboards, and on the internet. In addition, as part of the national public awareness strategy for Indigenous electors, the following national activities were undertaken: - From April to August 2007, mainstream press and radio enrolment and election advertising was adapted (and translated into six languages for radio) for placement in Indigenous media and press. This included three enrolment editorials in the Koori Mail, a series of interviews and announcements on the National Indigenous Radio Service and a ‘last chance’ close of rolls media release; - A direct mail campaign including a ‘how to vote’ package was distributed to Indigenous community organisations, councils and media outlets; and - A section of the AEC website was developed for Indigenous electors with information on how to enrol and vote, including DVD segments, recorded radio interviews and other materials. The AEC in NSW undertook a range of activities to enrol Indigenous Australians for the 2007 Federal Election. In late 2006, staff from the Division of Chifley conducted a community visit and enrolment drive at the Western Sydney Community Aboriginal Corporation at Minchinbury. The 2007 Community Electoral Information Officer (CEIO) program was delivered across NSW. CEIOs visited a number of communities (including in the Division of Chifley) in the lead up to the 2007 election. The CEIOs made contact with community councils, Indigenous organisations, schools, resource centres, Indigenous sporting and other organisations. They also provided targeted AEC publications and pamphlets, enrolment forms, and postal vote applications. The field visits raised awareness of the electoral process, generated and confirmed the enrolment status of Indigenous electors and encouraged greater participation in the 2007 election. A CEIO officer attended community meetings to promote enrolment and voting, including: - A meeting of the South Western Sydney Indigenous Network where a presentation was conducted and enrolment packs distributed; and - The Indigenous Employment Expo at the University of Western Sydney, Blacktown campus. Footage from this event was used on the segment recorded for Living Black on SBS television. Local Indigenous communities in Doonside, Hebersham, Dharruk and Tregear in the Division of Chifley were included in the targeted enrolment stimulation program prior to the 2007 election. The electoral roll does not identify Aboriginality or any other ethnicity. From enrolment records the AEC cannot estimate the number of Indigenous people enrolled or not. The impact of enrolment initiatives targeted at Indigenous Australians cannot be measured in terms of enrolment numbers. At the close of rolls for the 2007 Federal Election, the Division of Chifley had 92,506 enrolled electors. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006 Census (figures applied to the new Chifley divisional boundaries of 2007) estimate that approximately 2,500 Indigenous people of voting age reside in the Division of Chifley. Participation in the electoral process by Indigenous Australians is one of the AEC’s business priorities. The AEC is committed to further develop and implement strategies aimed at increasing the level of enrolment and participation for Indigenous Australians throughout Australia. The AEC cannot estimate the number or percentage of Indigenous Australians not enrolled to vote in the Division of Chifley, for the reasons stated above. To increase the number of Indigenous Australians enrolled, the AEC will continue to establish relationships with Indigenous organisations and maintain contact with these organisations between electoral events through visits and attendance at Indigenous events. In the AEC’s 2008-2009 National Business Plan, Indigenous Australians are identified as a business priority. The NSW State Office 2008-2009 Business Plan includes the following activities: - Participation in National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) Week activities (to be held from 5 to 12 July 2009); and - Working with divisions to implement relevant local strategies for their communities. The 2008-2009 Business Plan for the Division of Chifley includes local public awareness strategies, aimed at Indigenous electors. As part of the plan contact has been established with Blacktown Aboriginal Corporation in Doonside, Butucarbin Aboriginal Corporation and Aboriginal Youth Services in Hebersham and Stepup Employment in Minchinbury. AEC staff in the Chifley divisional office will attend the Indigenous Jobs Market 2009. This event is an opportunity for the AEC to further expand networks into the local Indigenous community. 3569 3569 572 3569 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr Truss asked the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, in writing, on 3 February 2009: In respect of the Government’s decision to replace the small business field officer network with a $42 million program to fund 36 Business Enterprise Centres: which Business Enterprise Centre has been funded to service the federal electorate of Wide Bay. 3570 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 Dr Emerson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Small Business Field Officer program had only been budgeted by the previous government until 30 June 2009. No funding commitment had been made beyond this time. In the 2008-09 Budget, the Government provided $42 million over four years to fund 36 Business Enterprise Centres located in suburban, rural and regional Australia. The funding agreements with each of the 36 Business Enterprise Centres do not specify a geographic region to be serviced. A list of the 36 centres and their contact details is available on the AusIndustry website. To assist small businesses deal with the economic consequences of the global financial crisis, the Government has announced an additional $4 million in funding for small business advisory services throughout the country, which includes $100,000 for Burnett Inland Economic Development Organisation Inc located at 10 Moore Street, Goomeri, in the federal electorate of Wide Bay. 3570 3570 573 3570 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 Mr Bruce Scott asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 3 February 2009: With the establishment of Wheat Exports Australia (WEA) under the Wheat Export Marketing Act 2008, how many wheat export licences have been issued since 1 July 2008. As exporters wanting to export bulk wheat must now be accredited by WEA, (a) what companies have been accredited and issued with licences to export bulk wheat from Australia, and (b) are there any exemptions. What approved tonnages do the licences cover, and are there any limitations. To which nations is the bulk wheat being exported. Which export terminals do the bulk wheat licences cover. What licences cover non-bulk wheat exportation, and are there any exemptions or limitations. 3570 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr Burke —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: From 1 July 2008 until 11 March 2009 Wheat Exports Australia accredited twenty three companies to export bulk wheat. Accredited companies are: ABB Grain Ltd; AWB (Australia) Limited; AWB Harvest Finance Limited; Bunge Agribusiness Australia Pty Ltd; Cargill Australia Limited; Concordia Agritrading (Australia) Pty Ltd; Elders Toepfer Grain Pty Ltd; Emerald Group Australia Pty Ltd; Glencore Grain Pty Ltd; Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd; GrainCorp Limited; GrainCorp Operations Limited, Grain Pool Pty Ltd; J.K. International Pty Ltd; Lempriere Grain Pty Ltd; Louis Dreyfus Australia Pty Ltd; Marubeni Australia Limited; Noble Resources Australia Pty Ltd; OzEpulse Pty Ltd; Pentag Commodities Pty Limited; Queensland Cotton Corporation Pty Ltd; Riverina (Australia) Pty Limited and Sumitomo Australia Pty Ltd. (b) All exporters who want to export bulk wheat from Australia must be accredited by Wheat Exports Australia under the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme. WEA cannot impose tonnage limitations unless a company seeks to limit its bulk exports as part of its application for accreditation. Tonnage limits apply to: Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd, J.K. International Pty Ltd, Lempriere Grain Pty Ltd; OzEpulse Pty Ltd and Pentag Commodities Pty Limited. Details are available on the WEA website www.wea.gov.au. All other accredited exporters have no tonnage limitations. Since October 2008 bulk wheat has been exported to the following 29 countries: Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, New Zealand, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and Yemen. Accreditations by WEA to export bulk wheat do not specify the port terminal to be used for export. Accreditations allow bulk wheat exporters to export from any port of their choosing. However, the legislation imposes specific requirements on accredited exporters or associated entities who also operate port terminal facilities to make sure they allow access to other exporters on fair and reasonable commercial terms. The Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme applies to bulk wheat exports only. Accreditation is not required for non-bulk wheat exports. 3571 3571 575 3571 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in writing, on 3 February 2009: From the financial year 1982-83 to 3 February 2009: what total sum of payments from the Commonwealth, including its agencies and recipient bodies, has been made to Mr Mick Dodson or any corporation or entity of which he is a member. 3571 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr Tanner —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No payments to Professor Michael Dodson AM were made. Please note the following: Only records available to Finance were searched – ie. the financial records of the entities within the Finance and Deregulation Portfolio. Entities with which Professor Dodson is, or has been, associated could not be readily identified and were, therefore, not included in the search. Data for the full period dating back to 1982-83 was not readily available in all cases – Department of Finance and Deregulation records were examined from 1999 to the present. Comsuper did not provide details in relation to personal superannuation. 3571 3571 576 3571 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 4 February 2009: Does her department accept the “Belmont” benchmark described in Mr John Bruce Martin’s petition to Parliament, lodged on 25 August 2008; if so, why; if not, why not. 3571 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs Elliot —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The relationship between staffing in aged care facilities and the quality of the care delivered is complex.  Currently there is considerable diversity in staffing arrangements across accredited facilities.  This suggests that it is not clear that there is a single optimum staffing level and mix, and that rather, there may be many sets of arrangements that, in response to their particular circumstances, provide quality aged care. Under the Aged Care Act 1997 aged care providers are responsible for maintaining an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff and having in place a skills mix appropriate to the care needs of the residents.  Staff mixes will vary in individual facilities according to the nature of the care and service needs of residents, the mix of high and low care, the proportion of residents with dementia, etc.  These factors vary widely across aged care facilities.  Thus the number of staff that is appropriate for a given number of residents will vary from facility to facility and from time to time as changes in the mix of residents’ needs within a facility occur. The Government has indicated that the issue of minimum staffing levels will be considered after the impact of the new Aged Care Funding Instrument on aged care financing is understood.  Since this will affect residents and their families, people who work in aged care, and care providers, the views of all of these groups will be sought. 3572 3572 577 3572 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 4 February 2009: What is the Government doing to ensure that harmful refrigerant gases, notably R134A and R401, are being recycled and not released into the environment when bulldozed into landfill. 3572 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Fluorocarbon refrigerants, such as the type mentioned in the honourable member’s question, are regulated in Australia under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Regulations 1995 (the Regulations). Only those businesses which hold a Refrigerant Trading Authorisation are allowed to acquire, possess or dispose of these refrigerants and only those technicians holding the appropriate qualifications and the associated Refrigerant Handling Licence are permitted to handle these refrigerants. Under the Regulations, technicians must ensure that all refrigerant is recovered from refrigeration or air conditioning equipment when it is decommissioning and must give the used refrigerant to a Refrigerant Trading Authorisation holder or a refrigerant destruction facility. Refrigerant Trading Authorisation holders must accept all surrendered refrigerant and must ensure that such refrigerant is destroyed by the operator of an approved refrigerant destruction facility. The regulatory controls are supported by an industry product stewardship scheme. The product stewardship scheme pays technicians for each kilogram of waste refrigerant that is returned for destruction, collects waste refrigerant from Refrigerant Trading Authorisation holders and organises disposal. There are offence provisions in the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 and the Regulations relating to any act that causes refrigerant to be emitted to the atmosphere, other than in a manner prescribed by the Regulations. 3572 3572 578 3572 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water, in writing, on 4 February 2009: Does the Government intend to introduce a rebate system where people who clean up harmful refrigerant gases from disused refrigerators are paid a fee per tonne of gas equal to the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide being considered under an emissions trading scheme. 3572 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: As noted in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper, the Government will issue permits to entities that arrange for the destruction of used synthetic greenhouse gases in accordance with Scheme verification requirements. These arrangements will apply to used hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerant gases. Permits will be able to be traded or sold on the carbon market. 3572 3572 585 3573 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 9 February 2009: In respect of the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme— Since what date has the program been in operation. For each financial year since the program’s conception, including the financial year to date, what total sum of payments has been made under the program nationally, in New South Wales (NSW), and in the electorate of Paterson. What sum is the average treatment claim per individual nationally, in NSW, and in the electorate of Paterson. In the postcodes of 2311, 2312, 2315, 2316, 2317, 2318, 2319, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324, 2415, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2428, 2429, and 2430: for each financial year since the program’s conception, including the financial year to date, what is the total sum of payments, number of patients referred to dental practitioners, and number of procedures undertaken. For each financial year since the program’s conception, including the financial year to date, how many patients have been referred to dental practitioners by general practitioners nationally, in NSW, and in the electorate of Paterson. What total number and types of procedures have been performed under the program. 3573 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Medicare chronic disease dental scheme commenced on 1 July 2004. It was modified from 1 November 2007. and (b) The total benefits made nationally and for New South Wales under the chronic disease dental scheme by financial year are in the table below: Financial Year Benefits paid (a) national Benefits paid (b) NSW (by state of patient) 1 July 2004 - 30 June 2005 $304,662 $189,285 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2006 $683,645 $481,334 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007 $845,629 $577,933 1 July 2007 – 30 June 2008 $89,526,040 $65,651,402 1 July 2008 – 28 February 2009 $213,078,865 $160,901,571 Data for the electorate of Paterson has not been provided. Generally health statistics are provided at the national or state level. To provide statistics at a smaller geographic level can lead to issues of privacy and confidentiality. The average total benefit claimed per patient: Nationally is $2,122 NSW is $2,262 Electorate level data has not been provided for privacy and confidentiality reasons. Postcode level data has not been provided for privacy and confidentiality reasons. and (b) The table below shows the number of patients who have accessed at least one dental service in that financial year. Financial Year Number of patients (a) National Number of patients (b) NSW (by state of patient) 1 July 2004 - 30 June 2005 1,404 817 1 July 2005 – 30 June 2006 2,461 1,489 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007 3,336 1,888 1 July 2007 – 30 June 2008 42,146 28,644 1 July 2008 – 28 February 2009 113,867 81,427 Electorate level data has not been provided for privacy and confidentiality reasons. Since 1 July 2004, there have been 1,907,324 services provided under the program. There are a range of dental services available. In total there are currently 447 different items under the Medicare Benefits Schedule for dental services. The number of services for individual item numbers can be accessed at: http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/medicare/mbs.jsp 3574 3574 591 3574 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 Mr Hartsuyker asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, in writing, on 11 February 2009: Further to the answer to part (2) of question No. 427 (Hansard, 9 February 2009, page 21): what sum of money for the estimate of expenditure for the defeated FuelWatch legislation will be excluded from the forward estimates. 3574 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr Tanner —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The amount excluded from the forward estimates has a fiscal balance impact of $13.8 million over three years from 2009-10. This is the total estimated fiscal balance impact in the outyears for the FuelWatch measure. In addition, unspent 2008-09 appropriations with a fiscal balance impact of $4.3 million will be returned to the budget. 3574 3574 592 3574 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 11 February 2009: In respect of the Adelaide Rail Freight Movements Study— Have the terms of reference been finalised; if so, on what date. Has a consultant for the study been appointed; if so, on what date. Has the draft report on the analysis of the east-west rail freight task along the Melbourne to  Adelaide and Adelaide to Perth corridors and the detailed assessment of the current rail alignment from Murray Bridge to Adelaide been completed; if so, on what date was this completed; if not, on what date will it be completed. How many meetings has the Project Reference Group held and on what dates did these meetings occur. 3575 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: Yes, on 22 December 2008. Yes, on 19 February 2009. See http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au No. Quarter 2, 2009. Three. 25 August 2008, 3 February 2009 and 11 March 2009. 3575 3575 600 3575 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 12 February 2009: Is it correct that asset considerations for a single pension recipient do not exist for land holdings less than two acres; if not, what is the correct interpretation. Is it correct that asset considerations for a single pension recipient do exist for land holdings greater than five acres; if not, what is the correct interpretation. Does the size of land holdings affect the pension rate; if so, why is it an issue as compared to the value of land holdings. 3575 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: A pensioner’s principal home and up to two hectares of private land on the same title is exempt from the social security assets test. Subject to certain qualification criteria, Age Pensioners and Carer Payment recipients of age pension age may have the maximum amount of land on the same title as their long-term principal home that can be exempt from the assets test, increased from two hectares to encompass all land on the same title. To qualify for the concessional treatment, the pensioner must have a long-term (20 year) continuous attachment to their principal home and land on the same title, and they must be making effective use of productive land to generate an income, given their capacity. The value of land in excess of that allowable in their circumstances (up to two hectares or all land on one title) is included in the pensioner’s assessable assets when determining their rate of payment. The assets test has set thresholds below which a person’s rate of payment is not affected. Currently the threshold is $171,750 for a single home owner and $243,500 for home owner couples. Where a person’s rate of pension is worked out under the assets test, the value of their assets above the assets test threshold reduces their pension by $39 a year for each extra $1,000 in assets. Pensions currently cease to be payable when assets exceed $555,750 for a single home owner and $882,500 for home owner couples. 3575 3575 601 3575 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 12 February 2008: Is the Minister or his department considering any aspect of the issue of payment of fees to record labels that radio stations pay for playing their recordings. Does the Minister view the principle of local content an important one to protect within any cultural consideration of content. 3575 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Minister and the Department have received representations from various stakeholders on this issue and are considering these representations. The Broadcasting Service Act 1992 (BSA) has a requirement to promote the role of broadcasting services in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity. This requirement is an important element of the regulatory scheme. 3576 3576 602 3576 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 12 February 2009: Does the Government recognise the low salary and wage conditions in the not for profit and charitable sectors; if so, does it recognise the importance and value of salary packaging and sacrificing and fringe benefits tax rules on motor vehicles as necessary creative answers to attract talent in these comparatively low paid sectors. 3576 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government recognises the valuable role played by the not-for-profit sector and the importance of tax concessions to this sector. Fringe benefits tax (FBT) plays an important role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of Australia’s taxation system. It places employees with access to fringe benefits on a more even footing with employees whose remuneration consists entirely of salary or wages. The introduction of FBT was designed to remove a serious gap in the income tax law and ensure that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax. The FBT system also facilitates including fringe benefits in an employee’s income for means testing benefits such as family tax benefit, ensuring that families are treated equally. The Government provides FBT concessions to assist not-for-profit organisations to undertake their work. Public benevolent institutions, public hospitals, ambulance services and health promotion charities are provided with a capped exemption from FBT in recognition of the special nature of those organisations. A number of other non-government, not-for-profit organisations that are eligible for a capped rebate of 48 percent of the amount of FBT that would otherwise be payable. The rebate is available to not‑for-profit employers who are unable to claim FBT as a tax deduction. Organisations that qualify for this rebate include certain religious, educational, scientific or public educational institutions. The concessional fringe benefits tax valuation of some motor vehicles benefits is not directed at assisting not‑for‑profit organisations undertake their activities. The valuation methodology was introduced as part of the original FBT legislation with the aim of minimising compliance costs for all businesses. I note that the tax treatment of the not-for-profit sector falls within the scope of Australia’s Future Tax System Review. The review’s consultation paper, issued in December 2008, discusses, amongst other matters, the FBT concessions available to the not-for-profit sector and the valuation of motor vehicle benefits. 3576 3576 603 3576 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 12 February 2009: In respect of the 2006 High Court Case New South Wales v Commonwealth (WorkChoices Case), are the following statements factually correct: (a) “It is true that Corporations in NSW fall/fell within the purview of the WorkChoices legislation.”; (b) “It is true that public sector corporations within NSW and other States fall/fell within the purview of the WorkChoices legislation.”; and (c) “Following the High court ruling, it is also true that the Commonwealth does have powers under section 51(xx) over public sector corporations at a State level.”. If (1) (a) to (c) are incorrect, why. If (1) (a) to (c) are correct: (a) from the Commonwealth’s perspective, what constitutional questions arise in relation to Section 109 of the Constitution and matters of authority, consistency and jurisdiction; and (b) could he provide the States’ perspective on this issue. 3577 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: It is not appropriate for me to provide legal advice or commentary on the High Court’s decision in New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006) 229 CLR 1. Questions relating to the operation of workplace relations legislation should be referred to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. 3577 3577 604 3577 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 12 February 2009: Is he aware of the (a) Old Bar Beach Sand Replenishment Group Inc. (OBBSRI); and (b) genuine concerns this group has about the rapid erosion of the Old Bar foreshore, including the loss of two houses and the imminent threat to several others; if so, what action will he take. Does the Government support restoration and preservation of sand on beaches, such as Old Bar; if so, what steps is the Government taking to facilitate, encourage and support restoration and preservation activities; if not, what alternative measures does the Government encourage. Will he agree to meet with the OBBSRI, as well as the person who has lost two houses through rapid dune erosion. 3577 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In respect of the Old Bar Beach Sand Replenishment Group Inc: Yes. (b) Yes, I am aware of the group’s concerns regarding the erosion of the Old Bar foreshore and the resulting loss of houses in this location. I have received correspondence from the group in November 2008 and February 2009. Planning and management of coastal areas primarily rests with State Governments, which in turn, have devolved many aspects of day to day planning decisions to Local Government bodies. This particular matter is the responsibility of the local Council for Old Bar Beach, the Greater Taree City Council. Under the NSW Government’s NSW Coastline Management Manual, 1990, the Greater Taree City Council has established a Coastline Management Committee to develop a Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Greater Taree City Council area, including Old Bar Beach. Development of the Coastal Zone Management Plan has commenced. Until the Coastal Zone Management Plan has been completed, caution should be taken to ensure that any interim works follow the NSW Coastline Management Manual and advice is sought from the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change’s Coastal Engineers. My Department has advised the Old Bar Beach Sand Replenishment Group to liaise with the Greater Taree City Council and to engage a coastal engineer to identify the most appropriate method of approaching the sand erosion problem in this specific area. While the Australian Government has a limited involvement in coastal planning processes, we acknowledge the challenges facing coastal communities through unprecedented levels of population growth and the potential risks from a changing climate. To better prepare for these challenges the Rudd Government’s recent Caring for our Country initiative directs resources to provide necessary information and stimulate action in coastal communities. Further information on this initiative can be found on the Caring for our Country website at www.nrm.gov.au. The Department of Climate Change through the Local Adaptation Pathways Program is providing funding to help local councils undertake climate change risk assessments and develop action plans to prepare for the likely local impacts of climate change. Further information on this program can be found on the Department of Climate Change website at www.climatechange.gov.au/impacts/settlements.html The Department of Climate Change, in consultation with State and Territory Governments, is also conducting a ‘first pass’ National Coastal Vulnerability Assessment. This assessment will identify: the risks to Australia’s coastal zone from climate change (including the implications of sea-level rise); national priorities for Australia’s adaptation response, including priority areas for research; and the final report on the ‘first pass’ National Coastal Vulnerability Assessment is due for completion in 2009. This will be followed by extensive consultation on the results of the work and on directions for the future. Additionally, on 20 March 2008, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change and Water and I requested the House of Representative Standing Committee on the Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts undertake an Inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities (the Inquiry). The Inquiry is to report on issues related to climate change and environmental pressures experienced by the Australian coastal areas and give regard to policies and programs, population growth, sustainable use of resources, climate change impacts including projected seas level rise, promotion of sustainable communities and governance and institutional arrangements. To date there have been 103 submissions and 22 public hearings to the Inquiry. Public hearings have been scheduled through to the end of May 2009. See answer to (1) (b). It would be more appropriate for the OBBSRI and the individual mentioned to meet with the State and local government representatives who have the primary responsibility for planning and management of coastal areas. 3578 3578 605 3578 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 12 February 2009: Why are convoys, such as those who were with the Australian General Transport company operating between Alice Springs and Darwin during World War II, ineligible for Gold Cards. 3578 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Eligibility for the Gold Card is assessed on an individual basis and is determined by specific criteria set out in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). Under the VEA, a veteran who served in the Australian Defence Force is entitled to the Gold Card if the veteran: has qualifying service and has reached the age of 70 years; or is severely disabled due to war or defence service; or is receiving a service pension and satisfies the income and assets tests for treatment; or is receiving a disability pension at 50 per cent of the general rate and also a service pension; or is an Australian former prisoner of war. Qualifying service attributable to service during World War II is different from ‘operational service’ in that there are two elements to the concept of qualifying service. Firstly, a person must have been engaged in operations against the enemy and secondly, the person must have incurred danger from the enemy at that time. A veteran incurs danger from hostile forces when he or she is at risk or in peril of actual bodily harm from hostile forces. Those who served in certain locations of Northern Australia above latitude 14.5 degrees south for at least three months between 19 February 1942 and 12 November 1943 (inclusive) have both operational and qualifying service. Operational service provides access to the disability pension and treatment for accepted disabilities. The origin of the 14.5 degree south latitude and period 19 February 1942 til 12 November 1943 goes back to 1943 when the Repatriation Act 1920 was amended to include service ‘within Australia’ as service in a ‘theatre of war’. The Repatriation Commission, which determined what areas were to be ‘theatres of war’ for the purpose of the Repatriation Act 1920, defined ‘theatre of war’ as including the Northern Territory north of the parallel 14.5 degree south latitude between 19 February 1942 and 12 November 1943. The latitude 14.5 degree south was selected as the furthermost limit of the range of Japanese bombers operating against Australia, while the dates 19 February 1942 and 12 November 1943 were the dates of the first and last Japanese bombing raids on the Northern Territory. In 1986 the Repatriation Act 1920 was replaced by the VEA. Veterans who served north of 14.5 degrees south and the islands contiguous to that part of the Northern Territory for less than three months during the specified period may also qualify if they “incurred danger”. As the test for “incurred danger” is objective, not subjective, qualifying service in such circumstances is determined on a case‑by‑case basis. This interpretation of “incurred danger” accords with that made by the Full Federal Court in the case of the Repatriation Commission v Thompson and is consistent with the intent of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 and its predecessor legislation. Personnel in convoys travelling from Alice Springs to Darwin may have been apprehensive and aware of the possibility of being bombed (or strafed), but a person does not incur actual danger by merely perceiving or fearing that they are in danger. To be at risk or in peril from hostile forces of the enemy and therefore have qualifying service, a member of the convoys would have to have been in the general area of a bombing. 3579 3579 606 3579 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, in writing, on 23 February 2009: In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009: (a) which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from his department; (b) what sum of funding did each organisation and project receive; and (c) for what purpose was each funding commitment made. 3579 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 Dr Emerson —The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:   Organisation Purpose of funding Funding Allotz.com Limited Hotel Yield and Channel Management Software $5,000 (GST incl) Baby Hugs Pty Ltd Remote controlled cot rocking device $7,000 (GST incl) Cheeta International Pty Ltd Powered lifting trolley $59,000 (GST incl) Combat Clothing Australia Pty Ltd TCF Post 2005 Strategic Investment Program $107,000 (GST incl) Dermerase Holdings Pty Ltd Device for Cosmetic beauty treatment for skin $5,000 (GST incl) LTD Dev-Audio Pty Ltd Specialised microphone for group conversations and analytical software for enhancement, data capture, filing and storage $40,000 (GST incl) Queensland Hosiery Mill Pty Ltd TCF Post 2005 Strategic Investment Program $71,000 (GST incl) Revevtec Holdings Ltd Develop a new combustion engine for the sport and recreational aircraft industry $386,000 (GST incl) Wet Set Solutions Pty Ltd Underwater Camera Housings for film making industry $35,000 (GST incl) Intimsco Pty Ltd T/A inQbator Support under the ICT Incubators Program for the better-performing Incubators to continue to play a significant role in the national innovation system. This project was previously funded by the BITS (Building on IT Strengths) Program. December 2007 Quarter Grant Drawdown $110,000 (GST incl) Intimsco Pty Ltd T/A inQbator Support under the ICT Incubators Program for the better-performing Incubators to play a significant role in the national innovation system. This project was previously funded by the BITS (Building on IT Strengths) Program. March 2008 Quarter Grant Drawdown $77,000 (GST incl) Genomics Research Centre, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus The recipient was awarded funding under the Competitive Grants component of the International Science Linkages program to undertake a collaborative research project with the London Migraine Clinic, UK and the Institute of Environmental Science & Research Ltd, New Zealand, to identify migraine genes and understand the underlying molecular basis of migraine that will lead to a more accurate and reliable diagnosis and appropriate treatment options. $375,697.30 (GST incl) Project: “National Science Week on ‘Roller Coaster’” Recipient: Rueben Meerman - ‘The Surfing Scientist’ To assist costs of producing science documentary segments for the ABC’s ’Roller Coaster’ television program, broadcast during National Science Week in August 2008.  $4,400 (GST incl) In 2008, Griffith University (which includes a Gold Coast campus located in Moncrieff electorate) received funding under the Australian Research Council (ARC) National Competitive Grants Program*. In 2008, the ARC funded 105 research projects (including both new and ongoing projects) at Griffith University $8,566,952 (GST excl) Griffith University In addition Griffith University is the administering institution for the ARC Centres of Excellence in Policing and Security established in 2007 $2,000,000 (GST excl) *please note: The ARC does not distinguish between campuses in the reporting of funding allocations 3581 3581 610 3581 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, in writing, on 23 February 2009: In respect of the Government’s funding of organisations and projects between 3 December 2007 and 20 January 2009: which organisations and projects based in the Moncrieff electorate received funding from his department; what sum of funding did each organisation and project receive; and for what purpose was each funding commitment made. 3581 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 Dr Emerson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Please refer to the Answer provided at Parliamentary Question Number 606. 3581 3581 611 3581 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr Truss asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 23 February 2009: In respect of the proposal by Powerlink to construct a 14 kilometre power line from Woolooga to Eerwah Vale in South East Queensland: is he aware that the rare, endangered Richmond Birdwing butterfly’s habitat will be directly affected by the proposed power line route; has the presence of the butterfly been reported for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and will he declare the powerline a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and require a full environmental impact assessment. 3581 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am not familiar with the proposal referred to by the Member for Wide Bay. The project has not been referred for consideration under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). However, I note that the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly (Ornithoptera richmondia) is not listed as a threatened species under the EPBC Act. This question does not arise as the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly is not listed under the EPBC Act and the proposal has not yet been referred for my consideration. 3582 3582 612 3582 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 23 February 2009: Has the Government allocated $970 million over 5 years to implement its Universal Access for Early Childhood Education initiative by 2012–13. Did the attachment to the COAG Communiqué of 29 November 2008 state that ‘the distribution of funding across the States in the first 4 years will have an emphasis on assisting those jurisdictions that are further behind in the delivery of preschool services’. Given that preschool participation rates in New South Wales (NSW) are just 64 per cent compared with 87 per cent across Australia, and parents pay the highest fees of any in the nation: will a higher proportion of the $970 million funding be allocated to NSW; if so, what is that proportion likely to be; what specific policies have been implemented in the short term to at least bring NSW into line with other States as soon as possible; what measures will be taken to ensure that the NSW Government does not further cut funding; what oversight will the Government provide to ensure that any money allocated to NSW goes directly to preschools, especially community-based preschools, to enable them to reduce fees and make preschool more affordable for NSW families; and by what date will the COAG funding begin to flow through to NSW preschools. 3582 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: The Commonwealth has agreed to provide $970 million over 5 years for the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education (NP ECE), which has been signed by members of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and is available on the COAG website. This includes $955 million to be distributed to states and territories to support the implementation of Universal Access, $14 million for data development and evaluation and $1 million for completing previous projects funded under initial Universal Access payments in 2007–08. Yes. The 2009 Report on Government Services (RoGS) states that the preschool participation rate in New South Wales was 60.4 per cent in 2007–08, compared to 64.6 per cent in 2006–07. NSW Officials have estimated the actual participation rate at 87 per cent if preschool provided through Department of Education and Training and private Long Day Care Centres is included. The distribution of Universal Access funding to states and territories through the NP ECE is based on the population of 4 year olds in each jurisdiction. For the first 4 years of the NP ECE loadings apply based on the ‘gap’ in early childhood education participation and hours, and the ‘cost’ in terms of remoteness and the Socio-Economic Index for Areas. In the final year, funds will be distributed based solely on the projected population of 4 year olds in each jurisdiction. The proportion of the $955 million to be allocated to NSW has been calculated on a weighted distribution that included an estimated participation rate of 87 per cent for NSW. This is reflected in the NP ECE as endorsed by all first ministers. The proportion of funding to each state and territory is noted in the NP ECE. NSW will receive a total of $278.6 million over 5 years. The Commonwealth is negotiating a Bilateral Agreement with the NSW Government that will detail how Commonwealth funding toward the achievement of Universal Access, by 2013, will be utilised in that State. The delivery and regulation of preschool is a state government responsibility. The NP ECE requires all states and territories to maintain their current roles and level of effort in the delivery of preschool programs. The Bilateral Agreement, currently being finalised, will contain a series of agreed deliverables and timeframes for actions in the first two calendar years. The National Partnership and the Bilateral Agreement will be reviewed after 18 months to assess progress towards the Universal Access to early childhood education commitment. Payment to the NSW Government will be made once the Bilateral Agreement is approved by the relevant Ministers. Payments will be made in accordance with the payment cycle notified in the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. Funding will be provided on a 6 monthly cycle, based on progress reporting, including annual progress against agreed performance indicators. 3583 3583 613 3583 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 Dr Jensen asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 February 2009: Has Dr Alex Wodak provided any information or opinion on the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s policy relating to Dr George O’Neil or his naltrexone clinic or naltrexone therapy in general; if so, what was the content of that information or opinion and how has it affected Government policy or decision-making relating to funding for Dr O’Neil’s clinic. 3583 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: A search of departmental correspondence records show that neither the Department of Health and Ageing, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) or the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have received any information or opinion from Dr Alex Wodak about Dr George O’Neil, his naltrexone clinics or naltrexone therapy in general. 3583 3583 614 3583 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 0 Mr Georgiou asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 24 February 2009: When does the Government plan to introduce legislation to: (a) establish the statutory office of National Security Legislation Monitor; and (b) implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of sedition laws. 3583 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As I announced on 23 December 2008, as part of the Government’s comprehensive response to the reviews of Australia’s security and counter-terrorism laws, the Government is progressing legislation to establish the statutory office of the National Security Legislation Monitor as a matter of priority. The legislation is being developed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department. As I announced on 23 December 2008, as part of the Government’s comprehensive response to the reviews of Australia’s security and counter-terrorism laws, the Government will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission with respect to the federal sedition laws. The Government is planning to release exposure draft legislation in the first half of 2009. This will provide an opportunity for public input prior to the introduction of any legislation into Parliament. 3583 3583 615, 616, 617, 618, 619 and 620 3584 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 24 February 2009: When does the Government plan to introduce legislation to: (a) establish the statutory office of National Security Legislation Monitor; and (b) implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s review of sedition laws. 3584 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As I announced on 23 December 2008, as part of the Government’s comprehensive response to the reviews of Australia’s security and counter-terrorism laws, the Government is progressing legislation to establish the statutory office of the National Security Legislation Monitor as a matter of priority. The legislation is being developed by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department. As I announced on 23 December 2008, as part of the Government’s comprehensive response to the reviews of Australia’s security and counter-terrorism laws, the Government will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission with respect to the federal sedition laws. The Government is planning to release exposure draft legislation in the first half of 2009. This will provide an opportunity for public input prior to the introduction of any legislation into Parliament. 3584 3584 621 3584 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 25 February 2009: Why did the Federal Police raid the anti-whaling ship Steve Irwin? 3584 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 Mr Debus —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 9 February 2009, Japanese authorities referred a number of incidents between the Marine Vessel (MV) Steve Irwin and Japanese whaling vessels to the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. As a result of the referral and in accordance with Australia’s domestic obligations under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation 1988, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) commenced preliminary enquiries regarding alleged violations of Australian domestic law. As a result of these enquiries, the AFP boarded and executed a search warrant on the MV Steve Irwin, following its arrival in Hobart on 20 February 2009. The decision to execute a search warrant was an operational decision of the AFP. Further information on this matter is available in the Hansard record of the AFP’s appearance before Additional Estimates on 23 February 2009. 3584 3584 622 3584 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 25 February 2009: Further to his answer to question No. 359, (Hansard, 9 February 2009, page 19): is the Government aware of new tidal generating technology, other than the barrage tidal system; have any studies been conducted resulting in findings consistent with the World Energy Council’s estimate of installed generating capacity from the inlets known as Walcott and Secure Bay in the Kimberley being at 4.2 gigawatts with productivity of 8.3 terawatts per annum; does his answer to point (b) rely on the construction of alternating current (AC) or bipolar high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission lines; can he indicate the known line losses applicable to the approximate 1700 kilometres HVDC system now operating between Kolwezi and Inga in the Republic of Zaire; would the length of a HVDC line installed to connect AC transmission generators from Walcott Inlet to the south west of Western Australia be approximately 1700 kilometres; if HVDC transmission installation is cost effective in the Republic of Zaire, could it be so in Australia; was the proposal for a 45 megawatt barrage installation in Derby in Western Australia designed to service two small isolated regional communities separated by approximately 150 kilometres; how do the economics of 4.2 gigawatts installation using a HVDC transmission line like the one in the Republic of Zaire compare with a 45 megawatt barrage system in terms of unit costs over a 100 year life span; what are the environmental concerns and what is the significant environmental difference of the West Kimberley topography to that of areas to its immediate south; and is it a fact that based upon published World Bank costing estimates for HVDC transmission systems and Murdoch University RISE Institute reports on Fence Line, a 4.2 gigawatts generation station and HVDC transmission system connecting to the south west of Western Australia and onwards to Roxby Downs in South Australia could be constructed for the approximate cost of the pre Christmas 2008 stimulus package of approximately $10 billion. Can he indicate whether the British Government has announced the first stage of constructing large tidal generators in the Severn Estuary. Considering the joint need for: job creating stimulus packages, especially for retrenched mining construction workers, and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, why does the Government encourage retail spending over investing in Australia’s future energy needs. If the Government is ‘not pursuing a World Heritage nomination’ why is it necessary to conduct an Australian Heritage Council assessment. 3585 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 Government is aware of a number of renewable energy technologies, including tidal barrage and the concept of tidal fence technology. No studies have been commissioned by the Commonwealth Government. Not applicable. No (noting that the Republic of Zaire became the present-day Democratic Republic of Congo in May 1997). No assessment of potential transmission lines has be undertaken by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government has not investigated the issue. The Commonwealth Government is not proposing such a scheme at present. The Commonwealth Government has not undertaken such a study. In February 2008, the Commonwealth and Western Australian Governments announced a joint Strategic Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of the West Kimberley region. The outcomes of the Strategic Assessment will address in detail the environmental values of the region. The Commonwealth Government is not aware of the specific details of past Derby tidal project proposals. The Commonwealth Government is broadly aware of the proposal. and (b) The numerous stimulus measures announced by the Government will benefit businesses and help reduce the impact of the global recession on Australian jobs.  Specifically, the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan (NBJP) will help support and sustain up to 90,000 jobs over the next two years and will add around ½ of one per cent to GDP growth in 2008-09 and around ¾ to 1 per cent to GDP growth in 2009-10. In addition, the Government recently revealed a new Jobs and Training Compact to help support jobs. The Compact consists of three parts: A Compact with Young Australians A Compact with Australians who have been retrenched A Compact with Local Communities 3586 3586 625 3586 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 26 February 2009: In respect of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts funded: National Portrait Gallery, Australian National Maritime Museum, National Gallery of Australia, National Museum of Australia, Bundanon Trust, National Film and Sound Archive, and Artbank: how many staff are employed at each institution; during the 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years, what amount of funding has been allocated for salaries and wages of staff at each institution; and since his appointment as the Minister, has he visited the offices or auxiliary facilities of any of these institutions, if so, which ones and when. 3587 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: National Portrait Gallery As at 26 February 2009, 57 staff were employed (includes part time, non-ongoing and casual staff).     2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Wages and Salaries 2,500 Anticipated to be similar to 2008-09 but will be subject to annual internal budget process Anticipated to be similar to 2008-09 but will be subject to annual internal budget process On costs 2,300 TOTAL 4,800 Note: final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister visited the National Portrait Gallery on: 18 April 2008 (when it operated from Old Parliament House) 22 May 2008 (construction site visit) 9 October 2008 3 December 2008, and 4 December 2008 Note: The Minister also attended a DFAT function held at the National Portrait Gallery on 9 February 2009. Australian National Maritime Museum The Australian National Maritime Museum employed 121 staff as at 26 February 2009, including all full and part time, ongoing and non-ongoing staff whether ‘active’ or on approved leave.     2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Wages and Salaries 7,535 7,836 8,150 On costs 1,100 1,100 1,001 TOTAL 8,635 8,936 9,151 Note: final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister has visited the Museum on three occasions: 21 May 2008 13 December 2008, and 15 January 2009. National Gallery of Australia National Gallery of Australia employs 258 people.     2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Wages and Salaries 13,526 14,178 14,989 On costs 4937 5219 5585 TOTAL 18,463 19,397 20,574 Note: final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister has visited the Gallery on four occasions for the following official functions: The opening of Australian Surrealism on 27 February 2008 The 2020 Summit Dinner on 19 April 2008 Senators’ and MPs’ viewing of Turner to Monet on 4 June 2008, and Senators’ and MPs’ viewing of Degas on 4 February 2009. The Gallery is aware the Minister has also attended Gallery premises for other functions unrelated to Gallery business. National Museum of Australia The National Museum of Australia employs 285 people.     2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Wages and Salaries 15,654 16,325 16,989 On Costs 5115 5343 5628 TOTAL 20,769 21,668 22,617 Note: final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister has visited the Museum on three occasions: 21 August 2008 to open the Emily Kame Kngwarreye exhibition 1 December 2008 to open the Behind the Lines Cartoon exhibition, and 29 January 2009 to open the redeveloped Australian Journeys gallery. Bundanon Trust The Bundanon Trust employs a full time equivalent of 18.24 people.     2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Wages and Salaries 991 1,046 1,076 On Costs 106 115 118 TOTAL 1,097 1,161 1,194 Note: final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister visited the Bundanon Trust on 13 February 2009. National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA) As at 27 February 2009, the NFSA employed 217 staff.     2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Wages and Salaries 11,546 11,661 11,707 On Costs 3711 3500 3534 TOTAL 15,257 15,161 15,241 Note: final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister visited the NFSA’s headquarters in Canberra on 20 February 2008 and 18 June 2008 and the NFSA’s Sydney office on 30 October 2008. Artbank 17 staff (16.25 Full time equivalent)      2008-09 $’000 2009-10 $’000 2010-11 $’000 Salaries 1,088 1,131 1,176 On Costs 163 170 177 TOTAL 1,251 1,301 1,353 Note: Artbank’s operating costs are self funded. Staff salaries are funded from revenue generated. Final allocations for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are subject to annual internal budget review. The Minister has not visited Artbank since being appointed as Minister. 3589 3589 626 3589 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 March 2009: Is she aware that some people were ineligible for a pensioner bonus payment in December 2008 because of their declared (temporary) income in the week ending 17 October 2008. Why did a pensioner couple who earned $564 for casual exam supervision in the week ending 17 October 2008 miss out on a pensioner bonus payment of $2100 because of their honesty in reporting their temporary income to Centrelink. 3589 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 questions is as follows: Eligibility for the Government’s Economic Security Strategy payments made in December 2008 was dependent on a person receiving a qualifying payment, like the Age Pension, on 14 October 2008. That was the day the Strategy was announced. People whose pension was suspended due to employment or were on a zero rate of pension due to the application of the income test on 14 October 2008, could not be regarded as ‘receiving’ their pension. It is possible for Age Pensioners to be suspended or have a zero rate for up to 13 weeks during temporary employment. The income test threshold applying as at 14 October 2008 for pensioner couples to receive a part pension cut out at $2,602 per fortnight. Therefore a pensioner couple with no other income who earned $564 in the week ending 17 October 2008 would not have missed out on the Economic Security Strategy payment. It is possible that the additional earned income of $564 from casual work together with income from other sources increased the couples overall income for that fortnight above this threshold resulting in the suspension of their pension for the period that included the 14 October 2008. 3589 3589 Financial Investments 627 3589 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 March 2009: How many investors with non-bank funds are currently unable to access their investments. For deeming purposes, does Centrelink regard frozen funds as assets, and if a fund is not paying dividends is the investment regarded an asset; if so, why do people over 65 years of age have their investments included in deeming provisions if these investments cannot be liquidated and are no longer paying dividends. 3590 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: FaHCSIA is unable to identify the number of investors with non-bank funds currently unable to access their investments. However, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) has information on the number of people in those frozen mortgage funds that have received the benefit of ASIC’s hardship relief. Generally investments are exempted from the deeming rules when the investment has fundamentally failed. Where a company is placed in liquidation and the administrator or liquidator confirms the estimated returns for investors, the reduced value of a customer’s investment with the failed company may be re-assessed and back-dated to the date a company administrator was first appointed. Arrears of income support payments may be payable in these circumstances. Funds that are frozen continue to be treated as financial investments for deeming purposes because, although the fund may be temporarily frozen, it has not failed. In some circumstances, an income support recipient may be eligible for payments under hardship provisions if their investment is considered unrealisable in circumstances where their pension is reduced or cancelled under the assets test, and they are in severe financial hardship. 3590 3590 628 3590 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 March 2009: What is the Government or the Reserve Bank of Australia doing to put the pressure on second tier lenders to pass on the full interest rate cuts? 3590 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government has made it clear that it expects all lending institutions to pass on reductions in interest rates to Australian households and businesses as quickly as possible. The Government’s investment in up to $8 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) is helping smaller lenders to raise new funds and add competitive pressure to the mortgage market. The Government’s wholesale funding and deposit guarantees have ensured that second tier ADIs have access to funding, which has allowed them to continue to lend to households and businesses, and at lower interest rates than otherwise would have been possible. This has helped maintain competition in the Australian lending markets. 3590 3590 629 3590 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr Melham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 March 2009: In respect of applications for access to Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) records under the Archives Act 1983, in the fiscal years 2007-08 and 2008-09 (to 10 March): (a) how many applications were referred to ASIS by the National Archives of Australia; (b) how many related to (i) individual persons, or (ii) organisations and/or subjects; (c) how many resulted in the release of material; (d) how many were subject to (i) internal reconsideration, and/or (ii) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; (e) did any reviews result in the release of additional material; and (f) on how many occasions did he or his delegate issue conclusive certificates under the provisions of the Act in relation to ASIS records. 3590 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 49 applications were referred to ASIS by the NAA: 2007-08, 15 2008-09 (to 10 March), 34 Applications related to: individual persons: 2007-08, 13 2008-09, 0 organisations and/or subjects: 2007-08, 2 2008-09, 34 Five applications resulted in the release of material: 2007-08, 0 2008-09, 5 13 were subject to: internal consideration: 2007-08, 1 (from 06/07 applications) 2008-09, 12 (from 07/08 applications) and/or review by the AAT: 2007-08, 3 (ongoing) In 2008-09, two reviews (from 07/08 applications) resulted in the release of additional material. In the fiscal years 2007-08 and 2008-09, no conclusive certificates were issued under the provisions of the Act in relation to ASIS records. 3591 3591 632 3591 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 10 March 2009: Considering the emissions involved in fibreglass and rockwool insulation manufacture and installation, will Australian wool insulation qualify for the $1,600 Energy Efficient Homes Package subsidy. 3591 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, Australian wool insulation will be eligible. All ceiling insulation products and technologies are eligible provided that they meet the minimum material and installation requirements in terms of safety, quality and performance set out in the relevant Australian Standards and the Building Code of Australia. These are outlined in the Early Installation Guidelines for the insulation components of the Energy Efficient Homes Package. One industry association, the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand (ICANZ) estimates that when ceiling insulation is correctly installed into a typical home, “the energy and greenhouse gas emissions produced during its manufacture would be recovered in around four to five weeks”. ICANZ further estimates “that when R3.5 glasswool insulation batts are installed into a typical home with a remaining lifespan of say, 40 years, it will save over 340 times the energy made to use them.” Refer to Attachment A for full media release. It’s important that the broadest range of insulation products and technologies that meet the minimum standards outlined in the guidelines are eligible for installation under the program. This will promote economic activity and job creation across the broader insulation industry supply and distribution chain. It will also allow the full capacity of the Australian insulation industry to be deployed in meeting the demand necessary to insulate 2.7 million homes in 2.5 years. ATTACHMENT A Insulation recovers energy/greenhouse production costs within five weeks 12/Feb/2009 The energy and greenhouse gases saved by installing insulation into the 2.7 million uninsulated homes, as proposed by the Federal Government’s Energy Efficient Homes Package, far outweighs the energy used in the production of the insulation, according to the Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand (ICANZ). Mr D’Arcy, ICANZ CEO said, ‘When ceiling insulation is correctly installed into a typical home, the energy and greenhouse gas emissions produced during its manufacture would be recovered within around four or five weeks. “We estimate that when R3.5 glasswool insulation batts are installed into a typical existing home with a remaining lifespan of say 40 years, it will save over 340 times the energy that was used to make them. “The building codes for new homes, which have an average life expectancy of 70 to 80 years, already have provisions for minimum energy performance that include insulation. “We are a little surprised that a question regarding the relative performance of insulation in saving energy compared to energy required to make it has been raised in the media, Parliament, and during the Senate inquiry, as the answer is so unequivocally in favour of insulation,” Mr D’Arcy said. “For quite some time now both here and overseas residential building insulation has been well recognised as the most immediate, sustainable and cost effect measure in addressing burgeoning residential energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. For example: Research by the international consulting firm McKinsey and Company —A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction found that ‘Almost a quarter of possible emissions reductions would result from measures (such as better insulation in buildings that carry no net lifecycle cost, in fact they come free of charge)’. Stern Review —Economics of Climate Change found that ‘energy efficiency has the potential to be the biggest single source of emissions savings in the energy sector. This would have both environmental and economic benefits: energy-efficiency measures cut waste and often save money’. United Nations Environmental Project —Buildings and climate change, Status Challenges and Opportunities highlights that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the building sector accounts for 30-40 per cent of global energy use. Substantial benefits can be gained at low cost by improving the energy efficiency of buildings. International Energy Agency —World Energy Outlook 2006 found that `Meeting the world’s growing hunger for energy requires massive investment in energy supply infrastructure… Policies that encourage the more efficient production and use of energy contribute 80 per cent of the avoided CO2 emissions…’. “As a one-off investment, insulation provides substantial and ongoing benefits in energy and greenhouse gas savings. It also improves the comfort, health and well-being benefits that flow on to extra money in the household budget, improved productivity, and less incidents of illness,” Mr D’Arcy said. Mr D’Arcy also reported that some Australians are seeking more comfort by buying air-conditioners instead of insulating or improving the energy efficiency of their homes first. The number of air conditioners installed in Australia rose from 33 per cent of homes in 1994 to over 60 per cent of homes in 2005 (ABS 4602.0 2005). “This trend has continued and is one of the main reasons for increasing home energy demand. “Importantly, the Federal Government’s insulation measures are a key to addressing burgeoning household energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. They will also assist many less fortunate Australians to achieve the comfort levels they desire and reduce their energy bills, leaving more money for rent, mortgage or other household budget items,” Mr D’Arcy said. Media inquiries: Glenn Schaube GRS Communications: 03 9478 5224, 0439 320 151 3593 3593 633 3593 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 10 March 2009: In respect of the Government’s Economic Security Strategy in 2008— As at 10 March 2009, how many children of low and middle income families in the electorate of Chifley received the $1000 bonus, and what was the total sum of these payments. As at 10 March 2009, how many single pensioners in the electorate of Chifley received the bonus one-off payment of $1400, and what was the total sum of these payments. As at 10 March 2009, how many pensioner couples in the electorate of Chifley received the bonus one-off payment of $2100, and what was the total sum of these payments. 3593 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: Currently available data shows that, as at 28 February 2009, in the electorate of Chifley: 43,623 children attracted a $1,000 Economic Security Strategy payment for families at a total cost of over $43 million; 11,622 single pensioners had received a $1,400 Economic Security Strategy payment for pensioners at a total cost of over $16 million; 10,726 pensioners who were a member of a couple received a $1,050 Economic Security Strategy payment for pensioners at a total cost of over $11 million; and over $5 million in Economic Security Strategy payments had been made to recipients of the Carer Allowance who were caring for 5,647 care recipients. 3593 3593 634 3593 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 10 March 2009: In respect of the Government’s Economic Security Strategy in 2008. As at 10 March 2009, how many single veterans in the electorate of Chifley received the bonus one-off payment of $1400 and what was the total sum of these payments; and As at 10 March 2009, how many veteran couples in the electorate of Chifley received the bonus one-off payment of $2100 and what was the total sum of these payments. 3593 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 10 March 2009, 595 single Veterans’ Affairs pensioners in the electorate of Chifley each received a $1,400 Economic Security Strategy (ESS) payment. The total paid to these pensioners was $833,000. As at 10 March 2009, 240 veteran pensioner couples in the Chifley electorate received combined ESS payments of $2,100, for a total of $504,000. In addition, seven partnered Veterans’ Affairs’ pensioners received $1,050 (half of the partnered rate) because their partner was not entitled to payment. 3594 3594 635 3594 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 10 March 2009: In respect of the Government’s Economic Security Strategy in 2008— As at 10 March 2009, how many first home owner grant applications were received from the electorate of Chifley for (a) existing, and (b) new, dwellings. As at 10 March 2009, how many applications for each category in the electorate of Chifley have been successful and what was the total sum of these payments. From 10 March 2009 to 31 June 2009, how many applications for first home owner grants does the Government anticipate receiving from the electorate of Chifley. 3594 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: This level of information is not available, the information is only available on a State and Territory basis. The Minister for Housing issued a Media Release on 24 February 2009 providing information on the number of First Home Owners Boost grants paid broken down by State and Territory. 3594 3594 637 3594 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 March 2009: In the conflict resulting from the break up of the former Yugoslavia, (a) how many warrants have been issued by the International Court of Justice for suspected war criminals from (i) Bosnia, (ii) Croatia, and (iii) Serbia, and (b) how many suspected war criminals from each country have been handed over to the International Court of Justice. 3594 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: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is the independent ad hoc judicial body established by the United Nations Security Council for the specific purpose of investigating and prosecuting crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia during the armed conflict of the 1990s. It was established in 1993 and is expected to disband in 2012 when all proceedings are concluded. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over cases of individual criminal responsibility. According to information provided on the ICTY website, the ICTY has issued at least 89 warrants for individuals from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of those, approximately 86 appear to have been transferred to the tribunal. At least 14 warrants have been issued for individuals from Croatia. Of those, approximately 12 have been transferred to the tribunal. The ICTY has issued at least 15 warrants for individuals from Serbia. Of these 15, all have been transferred to the tribunal. 3594 3594 638 3594 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 March 2009: How many Family Court Judges are currently appointed; how many personal staff does each have; and what is the budgeted allocation for such staff during the 2008-09 financial year. How many Federal Magistrates handling family law matters are currently appointed; how many personal staff does each have; and what is the budgeted allocation for such staff during the 2008-09 financial year. 3595 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Family Court of Australia has 35 Judges appointed (including the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice). There is currently 1 vacant judicial position in Newcastle. On average there is 1.85 direct support staff (Associates) per Judge (totalling 64.70 FTEs). Associates are employed under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) by the Chief Executive Officer and, as such, are not the ‘personal staff’ of Judges. The budgeted allocation for these support staff for 2008-09 is $4.769 million. The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia has 46.80 Federal Magistrates allocated to family law (including the Chief Federal Magistrate). On average there are 2 direct support staff (Associates) per Federal Magistrate (totalling 96.60 FTEs). Associates are employed under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) by the Chief Executive Officer and, as such, are not the ‘personal staff’ of Federal Magistrates. The budgeted allocation for these support staff for 2008-09 is $6.680 million. 3595 3595 639 3595 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 March 2009: Did the ‘Semple report’ (Des Semple and the Attorney-General’s Department, Striking the Right Balance, August 2008) recommend the number of Family Court Judges be reduced over time to 25; if so, by what date will this recommendation be implemented. 3595 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Report of the Review of the delivery by the federal courts of family law services, Future Governance Options for Federal Family Law Courts in Australia: Striking the Right Balance, recommends ‘that there should be a single family court, with two separate judicial divisions serviced by a single administration’ (paragraph 111). The Report then comments, at paragraph 112, that the ‘number of justices in the Superior and Appellate Division would be reduced over time as judges retire to around 25, based on current family law workloads in the Family Court and FMC.’ The Government is considering the recommendations made by the Report. 1 1 640 1 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 March 2009: Did the ‘Semple report’ (Des Semple and the Attorney-General’s Department, Striking the Right Balance , August 2008) recommend that the handling of family law matters by Family Magistrates be merged with a new general division of the Family Court; if so, was this recommendation contrary to a submission received by Federal Magistrates handling family law matters, who expressed concern that the culture of the Magistrates Court would be sacrificed if the merge were to occur. If this recommendation was contrary to the views expressed by these Federal Magistrates in their submission, (a) what action has he taken to ensure that the culture will not be sacrificed under the merger, and (b) has he met with these Federal Magistrates to discuss their concerns; if so, when; if not, why not. 1 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Report of the Review of the delivery by the federal courts of family law services, Future Governance Options for Federal Family Law Courts in Australia: Striking the Right Balance, recommended that there be a single family court, with two separate judicial divisions – a Superior and Appellate Division, and, a General Division – with existing Family Court of Australia judges constituting the former, and Federal Magistrates with family law expertise being offered appointment to the latter division (paragraphs 111-112). A submission to the Review made by Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe on 5 June 2008 outlined the overall view of the Federal Magistrates Court at that time, that any structural changes to the Court might affect its ‘collegiality, culture and work practices’. The submission is available on my Department’s website, www.ag.gov.au. On 20 November 2008, the report of the Review and a consultation paper were released for public comment. On 6 February 2009, Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe, on behalf of the Federal Magistrates Court, made a submission noting that it was ‘pleasing that the report recognises the culture of the Court and places significant emphasis on the preservation of this culture and work ethic within a new structure’ (submission, p 3) and that a ‘large number of Federal Magistrates expressed support for the recommendations of the Semple Report’ (submission, p 7). The submission is available on my Department’s website, www.ag.gov.au. The Government is considering the recommendations made by the Report of the Review. Having regard to the Chief Federal Magistrate’s submission of 6 February 2009 on behalf the Federal Magistrates Court, these questions do not arise. 1 1Family Law Services 641 1 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 March 2009: During the review of Future Governance Options for Federal Family Law Courts in Australia, were any of the organisations representing litigants women’s, men’s and grandparent’s organisations consulted; if so, to what effect; if not, why not. Following receipt of the ‘Semple report’ on the review in part (1) (Des Semple and the Attorney-General’s Department, Striking the Right Balance, August 2008), has he or his department consulted with any of the organisations representing litigants women’s, men’s and grandparent’s organisations; if so, what was the response; if not, why not. 1 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Terms of Reference required the Review of the delivery by the federal courts of family law services to ‘consult the judiciary and Chief Executives of the Family Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court, as well as with the Federal Court and a small number of other key stakeholders identified during the process of the consultations’. During the Review, the Review Team and the consultant did not directly consult the organisations referred to in (1) above. All interested persons and organisations, including these organisations, had the opportunity to make a submission in response to the Report of the Review and a consultation paper (see (2) below). On 20 November 2008, the Report of the Review and a consultation paper were released for public comment by 6 February 2009. My Department received 35 submissions, including submissions from National Legal Aid, Women’s Legal Services Australia, and a combined submission from the Lone Fathers Association, Parents Without Partners, Dads in Distress, and the Shared Parenting Council of Australia. The submissions are available on my Department’s website, www.ag.gov.au. 3596 3596 642 3597 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 10 March 2009: Did the ‘Semple report’ (Des Semple and the Attorney-General’s Department, Striking the Right Balance, August 2008) postulate that merging the Federal Magistrates Court with the Family Court would yield savings in administrative costs. Did the ‘Semple report’ estimate the cost savings associated with the merger; if so, what is the sum of the cost savings; if not, why not. Has his department estimated the cost savings associated with the merger; if so, what is the sum of the cost savings; if not, why not. 3597 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Report of the Review of the delivery by the federal courts of family law services, Future Governance Options for Federal Family Law Courts in Australia: Striking the Right Balance, comments that the ‘amalgamation of the administration and corporate services in the family law area would provide economies of scale and avoid the current duplication of administrative and corporate services’ of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court (paragraph 69). The Report does not include an estimate of the cost savings. This was not necessary for the purposes of the Review. My Department has undertaken estimates of the cost savings. The Government is considering the estimates. 3597 3597 643 3597 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 11 March 2009: What further action has the Government taken to support the implementation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. What consideration has the Government given to further aid projects in addition to those already supported. 3597 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: The United Nations Human Rights Council considered Bangladesh’s human rights record under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process during its session from 2-13 February 2009. The Council will review the human rights records of all 192 United Nations Member States once every four years. During the session Australia recommended that the Government of Bangladesh take steps to implement the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord and encouraged the Government of Bangladesh to take steps to protect the social, economic, and cultural rights of minorities, refugees and displaced people. The Australian High Commission in Dhaka maintains an ongoing relationship with the Chittagong Hill Tracts International Commission. It attended the Commission’s briefing sessions on 16 and 22 February 2009 to seek an update on the political and human rights situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The Australian High Commissioner to Bangladesh takes every appropriate opportunity to encourage the Government of Bangladesh to fully implement the Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord. The Australian Government explores options to assist the people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), subject to funding availability. Over the period 2006-2010, 100 scholarships to study in Australia will be provided in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to support the indigenous people of the CHT. The scholarship program aims to enhance the human resources of the CHT people. The people of the CHT are also assisted as part of Australia’s broader Bangladesh country assistance program. In May 2008, AusAID signed a four year agreement with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to provide $20 million in assistance to an Integrated Maternal and Child Health Project, targeting mothers, new-borns and children under five. The project has been implemented in two sub-districts of Bandarban, a district of the CHT. It will be expanded to cover all seven sub-districts over the next three years. 3598 3598 644 3598 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 11 March 2009: Further to his answer to question No. 581 (Hansard, 26 February 2009, page 105): (a) what is the estimated cost of fully answering the question; (b) what resources would be required to fully respond to the question; and (c) how many staff in his office or department would be involved in responding fully to the question. Does his department maintain a database of organisations it has funded; if so, does the database include the Federal electorate of each organisation funded. From 2 December 2007 to 11 March 2009, has he or his personal staff requested his department to prepare any advice regarding expenditure (of organisations funded) per electorate; if so, which ones. Has he, his personal staff, or his department ever advised a Member or Senator of successful funding applications of organisations based in his or her electorate or State. Does his department advise him of successful funding applications made by organisations in his electorate of Hotham. 3598 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr Crean —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) The department publishes details of the discretionary grants issued by programs which it administers or manages on the discretionary grants page of the department’s website (http://www.dfat.gov.au/dept/grants/). Details published include recipient name, grant title, grant description, date of approval and amount. However, the department does not maintain nor publish information on the electorates in which funded organisations or activities are located. Identifying successful discretionary grants applications pertaining to the Electorate of Moncrieff fully would entail: checking the business address of each funded organisation at the time of grant approval against the electoral boundaries for Moncrieff; and checking separately whether any funded activity occurred within the Electorate of Moncrieff. It is difficult to estimate costs and resources required to carry out such an exercise, but it would entail a significant diversion of resources. In these circumstances, and given the information publicly available on the discretionary grants page of the department’s website, I do not consider the work can be justified. No. In response to queries from Parliamentarians, Portfolio Ministers and the department have in the past provided advice about successful discretionary grant applications. The Government’s decision that from 6 December 2007 details of all discretionary grants must be published on agency websites now provides the means by which the department makes public details of successful discretionary grant applications. No. 3599 3599 645 3599 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Attorney-General, in writing, on 12 March 2009 Did the ‘Semple report’ (Des Semple and the Attorney-General’s Department, Striking the Right Balance, August 2008) estimate how the greater efficiency associated with the proposed merger translates into lower legal costs for litigants before the family law merged courts; if not, why not. Has he requested his department model savings in legal costs for family law litigants before the merged courts; if not, why not; if so, what are the anticipated savings and how will he ensure that the savings are passed on. 3599 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Terms of Reference for the Review of the delivery by the federal courts of family law services required consideration of governance options for a more integrated family law system, structures and management processes necessary to achieve this, and impact of any such changes on administrative or judicial structures. The issue of legal costs for litigants was beyond the scope of the Terms of Reference for the Review. However, the Report of the Review, Future Governance Options for Federal Family Law Courts in Australia: Striking the Right Balance, does note the improvements for litigants, such as less forum confusion, which could result from the proposed merger (paragraphs 100 and 124). I have not requested my Department to model savings in legal costs for family law litigants before any implementation of the restructure of the federal courts recommended by the Report of the Review. At this stage my Department is focussed on improvements in the corporate governance, judicial case management and structure for the family court system. These improvements will enable a greater number of disputes to be resolved as efficiently as possible without the cost and trauma of protracted litigation, including through simpler procedures, front end support for users and better integration of courts with other dispute resolution services. 3599 3599 649 3599 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 16 March 2009: In respect of the Building the Education Revolution Guidelines: (a) how does a State, Territory or Block Grant Authority (BGA) determine which schools will receive either slightly lower or higher amounts than the indicative funding cap which is allocated on the basis of enrolment numbers for that school; and (b) what is the meaning of ‘slightly’ under the heading Funding (page 5) concerning endowing States, Territories and BGAs with the power to vary the indicative funding cap allocated to each school. 3599 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard — For each element of the Building the Education Revolution program (BER), it is the responsibility of the relevant state/territory education authority or Block Grant Authority to call for, and initially assess, proposals from schools within their jurisdictions and to submit lists of projects to the Commonwealth for approval. The approval of projects will be based on the needs of the school, the outcome of consultations with relevant Principals, Parents and Citizens or Parents and Friends groups, and the project’s capacity to meet the requirements set out under the BER Guidelines. The term ‘slightly’ in the BER Guidelines is intended to mean ‘a small amount’. It is not meant to have a specific monetary value. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be closely monitoring the submission of applications under the BER and will be working with states/territories and Block Grant Authorities to ensure an equitable distribution of funds. In circumstances where a school’s funding is lower than their notional allocation, the project will not be approved unless it can be demonstrated that consultation with the schools’ principal and community has occurred. 3600 3600 650 3600 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 16 March 2009: In respect of comments made by Associate Professor Frank Zumbo of the Australian School of Business reported in the article ‘Fuel Price Probe Call’ by Mr Robert Turner (Geraldton Guardian, 11 March 2009, pages 1-3), that Federal Petrol Commissioner Mr Joe Dimasi should investigate petrol pricing in the City of Geraldton in the electorate of O’Connor: given Geraldton has the advantage of bulk shipping facilities, will he (a) request the Commissioner to inquire into the high petrol prices in Geraldton, and (b) provide the Commissioner with the power to investigate and fully monitor the price of diesel in Geraldton, as recommenced by Professor Zumbo. 3600 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 17 December 2007, the Government directed the ACCC to formally monitor the supply of unleaded petrol products in the petroleum industry in Australia. Formal monitoring provides the ACCC with the power to seek information regarding the prices, costs, and profits in relation to the monitored good or service. The Government has also asked the ACCC to focus on diesel and automotive LPG prices. As part of its monitoring, the ACCC monitors petrol, diesel, and automotive LPG prices in all capital cities and around 110 country towns. One of those country towns monitored is Geraldton. 3600 3600 652 3600 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 Mr Haase asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 17 March 2009: In respect of the Government’s National Binge Drinking Strategy announced in March 2008: (a) why was the Western Australian (WA) branch of Sports Medicine Australia not allocated funding under the ‘Rethinking Drinking in WA Sport Project’ that it jointly proposed with the WA Department of Sport and Recreation; and (b) why was none of the 19 recipients of the funding sporting organisations, when such organisations were a particular focus of the strategy. 3600 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Community Level Initiative (CLI) is one of the components of the National Binge Drinking Strategy, which provides an avenue to establish and develop local solutions to address youth binge drinking within communities. Over 300 applications for CLI funding were received. The large number of applications meant that the selection process was very competitive. Proposals were rigorously assessed against the agreed criteria by an Expert Advisory Group (EAG) which was established to oversee the selection process. Membership of the EAG comprised representatives from the Australian National Council on Drugs including indigenous representation, the Australian Local Government Association, representatives from the Australian Youth Forum, and the Department of Health and Ageing. After the assessment process was completed, the EAG recommended 19 projects for funding. Some $3.6 million was available for this round of funding. The 19 successful projects account for this full amount. The ‘Rethinking Drinking in WA Sport Project’ was found to be less suitable for funding than the successful projects. While no sporting organisations were successful in the first CLI round, many of the successful projects incorporate activities in the sporting field. For example, some of the successful projects are targeting youth through sporting clubs and licensed premises by providing alcohol-free venues and events and engaging youth in sporting activities, so that sport becomes a healthy alternative to alcohol consumption. In addition, $5.2 million was provided under the National Binge Drinking Strategy for the significant expansion of the Good Sports initiative of the Australian Drug Foundation. The Good Sports initiative aims to develop safer and healthier communities by supporting local sporting clubs to build a culture of responsible drinking. The program helps sporting clubs manage alcohol responsibly and reduce alcohol related problems such as binge and underage drinking. The Australian Government is also working closely with sporting organisations to develop solutions to binge drinking, particularly by younger Australians, again as part of the National Binge Drinking Strategy. The Minister for Sport, the Hon Kate Ellis MP, announced on 18 January 2009 that six major sporting organisations, representing football, cricket, netball, rugby union, rugby league and AFL, have signed up to a National Alcohol Code of Conduct (the Code). The Code includes principles for the responsible service and consumption of alcohol and outlines responsibilities for organisations and for individuals when representing their sport. These six sporting organisations are also working with the Government to develop and implement the Club Champions Program. It will provide education and support within sporting clubs to encourage the safe and responsible consumption of alcohol. 3601 3601 653 3601 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 Mr Haase asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 18 March 2009: In respect of the contracting of Visionstream to install communication infrastructure: why is there a delay of up to four months to reconnect existing telephone numbers in pre-wired offices in the Port Hedland and Broome areas of Western Australia. 3601 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Australian Government is not privy to any contract Visionstream may have to install communication infrastructure for pre-wired offices in the Port Hedland and Broome regions of Western Australia. There are a number of businesses supplying telecommunications services and Visionstream may have a contract with one of these businesses. The Government would encourage individuals and businesses considering purchasing telecommunications services to investigate the range of services and providers that may be available to them. If any particular small business or individual consumer experiences difficulty in obtaining a telecommunications service promptly they may wish to discuss the matter with their telephone company, including whether they are entitled to compensation under the Customer Service Guarantee, and/or the provision of an interim service. If individuals or small businesses are unable to resolve the matter they should seek the assistance of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. Part 2 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 requires the Primary Universal Service Provider, Telstra to take all reasonable steps to ensure that standard telephone services are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis wherever they reside or carry on business. Telstra’s Standard marketing Plan (SMP) sets out how Telstra will meet its obligations under the USO. The SMP provides that where a site is not readily accessible to telephone network infrastructure that Telstra can use, or where Telstra does not have access to sufficient capacity on existing infrastructure, Telstra will aim to supply the standard telephone service within 20 working days from the date of the customer’s request, or on a later date if requested or agreed to by the customer. The SMP also provides that where Telstra expects extensive delays it will offer the customer an interim service. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has broad powers to penalise Telstra if it breaches the USO. If Telstra has not satisfactorily met its SMP, ACMA can be contacted by phone on 03 9963 6800, via email to payphones@acma.gov.au or by writing to: Industry Monitoring Team PO Box 13112 Law Courts MELBOURNE VIC 8010 Individual consumers and small business in the Port Hedland and Broome areas may be entitled to financial compensation under the Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Standard 2000 (CSG). The CSG provides that telephone companies must pay financial compensation to customers where certain minimum performance requirements are not met. Minimum standards under the CSG include the time within which new services must be connected; faults must be rectified; and appointments must be kept. The CSG only applies to consumers with five phone lines or less. If a carriage service provider supplies a customer with more than five eligible telephone services at one time, the carriage service provider is exempt from complying with a performance standard in relation to the supply of each of the services. 3602 3602 655 3602 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 18 March 2009: Is he aware of any request from the Japanese Government for Australian Federal Police to raid the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s vessel in Hobart in early 2009; if so, what are the details. Did he have prior knowledge of the decision of the Australian Federal Police to raid the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s vessel in Hobart in early 2009; if so, how did he respond. 3602 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: The execution of the search warrant was an operational decision of the AFP. The AFP undertook preliminary inquiries in relation to incidents which were alleged to have occurred at sea between the Japanese whaling fleet and the Steve Irwin in response to a formal request from Japanese authorities on 17 February 2009 for Australia to investigate the alleged incidents. As a result of the referral and in accordance with Australia’s domestic obligations under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (1993) (SUA Convention) the AFP commenced enquiries in relation to alleged violations of Australian domestic law. I was briefed on 20 February 2009, the day the AFP executed its search warrant on the vessel, by a ministerial submission from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That submission was for my information only and did not seek any decision by me. I noted the submission. 3602 3602 656 3602 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 18 March 2009: Does she know that the Blacktown Local Government Area (LGA) contains more people than Darwin, Hobart and Canberra, is the third largest LGA in Australia and is served by Mt Druitt and Blacktown hospitals which are administered as one unit. Can she confirm that Blacktown Mount-Druitt Hospital (BMDH), because of the high prevailing burden of multiple chronic diseases, has the busiest emergency department in terms of presentations than any other hospital in New South Wales (NSW) including John Hunter Children’s Hospital, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Royal North Shore Hospital. Have BMDH activity levels increased to the point where in early 2007 they had already reached the levels forecast for 2011. In NSW, does the Blacktown LGA have the: (a) most early pre-mature deaths; (b) most potentially avoidable deaths; (c) highest cardiac mortality burden and rate; (d) highest number of cigarette related admissions; and (e) highest number of alcohol related admissions. 3603 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Based on the latest Local Government Area (LGA) population figures available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) website (Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia, 2007 - Catalogue Number 3235.0), the Blacktown LGA (285,564) contains more people than the Darwin LGA (72,859) and the Hobart LGA (49,593). However, Canberra is not part of an LGA, but is included in the ‘Unincorporated ACT’ LGA region reported by the ABS. Blacktown does not contain more people than the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) region (339,761), and is the fourth largest LGA region behind Brisbane (1,006,976), Gold Coast (524,654) and the ACT (339,761) Queries regarding the administration of the Mt Druitt and Blacktown hospitals would be more appropriately directed to New South Wales (NSW) Health. Queries regarding the service volumes and reasons for presentation at emergency departments for Blacktown Mount-Druitt Hospital (BMDH) or any other NSW public hospital are more appropriately directed to NSW Health. Queries related to hospital forecast activity for BMDH are more appropriately directed to NSW Health. Queries regarding Blacktown LGA trends are best directed to the ABS. 3603 3603 657 3603 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 Mr Forrest asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, in writing, on 19 March 2009: Has the Australian Government received a request from the Victorian Government to match funding for a new solar power station in northern Victoria; if so, what is the nature of any public tendering for this project. Is he aware there is already a solar power station project currently under way near Mildura, and can he provide assurance that a new project of similar size would not prejudice the existing project. 3603 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government has not received a request from the Victorian Government to match funding for a new solar power station in northern Victoria. I am of course aware of Solar Systems’ high-concentration solar photovoltaic project at Mildura. This project has been offered funding of up to $75 million under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund and another $5 million through the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. The Victorian government also supports this project with up to $50 million. 3603 3603 667 3603 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 19 March 2009: From 3 December 2007 to 19 March 2009: (a) how many and what percentage of payments made by the Minister’s department to small businesses were not made within (i) 30, and (ii) 60 days of receipt of the goods or services and an invoice; and (b) what was the average time lapsed between invoice received and payments made by the Minister’s department to small businesses. 3604 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr Fitzgibbon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Defence does not maintain separate accounts payable records of small and large business. The following answers have been calculated from total creditor records after removing payments to: known large businesses, foreign suppliers, other government agencies and employees. 47,785 (7.4 per cent). 14,539 (2.2 per cent). 18.9 days. 3604 3604 683 3604 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 19 March 2009: Did the Sydney West Area Health Service lodge an application to the Health and Hospitals Fund by the deadline of 2 p.m. Australian Eastern Daylight Time, Monday 19 January 2009. If an application was lodged, was it in order and is it currently being assessed. Did the application apply for funding totalling $202.45 million for the: Cardiac Diagnostic and Intervention Centre (estimated cost component of $59.8 million); Cancer Care Centre (estimated cost component for radiotherapy and chemotherapy of $43.25 million, and inpatient capacity of $20 million); Comprehensive Emergency Care Zone (estimated cost component of $15 million); Renal Care Centre (estimated cost component of $20.7 million); Acute Surgical and Medical specialty units (estimated cost component of $34.5 million); and enhancement of specialist diagnostic capacity (estimated cost component of $9.2 million). Did the application indicate whether the Sydney West Area Health Service would meet: a small part of the cost; half the cost; a majority of the cost; or none of the cost. 3604 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. The application is currently under consideration by the Government and details cannot be released. The application is currently under consideration by the Government and details cannot be released. 3604 3604 Blacktown Local Government Area 684 3604 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 19 March 2009: Is she aware that the Blacktown Local Government Area (LGA) has the largest urban Aboriginal population. Have any initiatives been taken in the Blacktown LGA to increase the life expectancy of the Aboriginal population (ie, Close the Gap). Given the current level of acute care availability in Blacktown, is she able to estimate when closing the gap in life expectancy will be achieved. 3605 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: According to the 2006 Census Indigenous Profiles Blacktown Local Government Area (LGA) has the biggest urban population in NSW, and ranks 4th among all Australian LGAs. The Australian Government is working towards improved health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through whole-of-government arrangements for policy development and service delivery, and improved access to, and responsiveness of, the mainstream health system. On 29 November 2008, the Commonwealth announced $805.5 million over four years from 2009-10 as its contribution to COAGs’ $1.6 billion National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes. This investment will make a significant contribution towards closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians within a generation. In addition to mainstream services, the Government funds a number of specific initiatives in Blacktown to provide improved health in key areas such as primary health, maternal health, mental health and drug and alcohol services. The Aboriginal Medical Service in Mt Druitt receives $2.1 million to provide primary health care and bringing them home services to Indigenous people in the Sydney West Region, including $281,000 under the New Directions: Mothers and Babies Services. The Marrin Weejali Aboriginal Corporation in Blackett receives $434,000 in Commonwealth funds to provide drug and alcohol services including counselling, advocacy and referral services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and their families. WentWest Limited receives $1.546 million in Commonwealth funds to provide general practice support and health services to the Blacktown LGA, including health checks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre known as ‘The Shed’ in Blacktown is an initiative under the National Suicide Prevention Strategy that provides emotional and practical support for men. This service has a special focus on Indigenous men (approximately 80% of clients) and men aged 25 – 45. In 2008/09 ‘the Shed’ will receive $235,541 of Commonwealth funding. Under the National Illicit Drug Strategy Non-Government Organisation Treatment Grant Program (NIDS NGOTGP) Bridges Incorporated will receive $188,000 in 2008/09 to provide outreach counselling to the Aboriginal Medical Service Western Sydney and Mt Druitt Indigenous Church, this funding was recently extended. Due to the limitations in data quality and the variation year to year due to the small size of the Indigenous population in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes Indigenous life expectancy estimates at the state and national levels only. Therefore, it is not possible to determine Indigenous life expectancy estimates for small geographic areas. 3605 3605 Blacktown-Mount Druitt Hospital 685 3605 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr Price asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 19 March 2009: Is she aware of the ‘Reid review’ (1994) which found that, in the 1990s, Blacktown‑Mount Druitt Hospital serviced 36 per cent of the Sydney West Area Health Service population but was only funded for 21 per cent of the resources. Has this malapportionment been rectified. 3606 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am aware of the 1994 Reid Review. Under the National Healthcare Agreement and National Partnerships, the Commonwealth will provide the New South Wales government with approximately $20.5 billion in funds over five years until 2012-13. This is an increase of around 47% or $6.5 billion over the previous agreement. The New South Wales Minister for Health, the Hon John Della Bosca MP, is responsible for determining how funds will be divided and distributed to New South Wales public hospitals.