2009-10-20 42 1 6 REPS 0 0 2009-10-20 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers. 10317 Ministerial Arrangements 10317 14:00:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today as he is attending the inauguration of the Indonesian President, Mr Yudhoyono. I will answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will also be absent today as he is with the Prime Minister in Indonesia. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. 10317 14:01:00 Questions Without Notice 10317 14:01:00 10317 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister and I refer her to the 78 asylum seekers aboard the Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking in waters off the coast of Indonesia. I also refer her to the fact that under international maritime law these asylum seekers should immediately have been taken to the nearest safe port, in this case in Indonesia. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House why this has not already happened? 10317 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the opposition leader for his question. Before directly dealing with his question, perhaps I should just place a little bit of context on the record here. Of course, we know we live in a world where there is movement of people around the globe. I think we would all prefer to live in a world where there was no war or no persecution and no-one moved. But the truth is that each year of the last 20 years in this country people have arrived here by boat. This happened under the Howard government. For example, from 1998 to 2001 under the Howard government— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Why don’t you answer the question? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! No matter what the provocation, shouting across the table, as the Manager of Opposition Business was doing, is uncalled for. I would also caution those on my left on the frontbench not to do anything that would provoke; but, as I said, provocation is not a reason for displaying that sort of behaviour. It would be suggested that perhaps, given the nature of some of the concerns that people have, we should show a degree of respect to each other. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As I was saying, of course, when the Howard government was in office we saw 12,176 asylum seekers— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance, to this extent: the Acting Prime Minister prefaced her remarks by saying ‘Before I answer the question’ and then proceeded on the course of action she is taking. If she wished to ask for indulgence, she should have done so; otherwise, I would ask you to refer her to the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister has the call. I will listen carefully to her response. She knows that she has to respond to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am assuming that, on this important issue of public policy, people are interested in the full picture. So I am making the simple point that in each of the last 20 years we have seen unauthorised arrivals by boat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the Acting Prime Minister assumes wrongly. We want an answer to our specific question, which is why the 78 asylum seekers have not been taken— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business is warned. He is warned for the comments that he made after he was invited to resume his seat and on the way back to the bench. As I said, I will listen carefully to the Acting Prime Minister. She is responding to the question. She has the call and she knows her obligations to respond to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I do thank the member for Sturt for confirming that the opposition are not interested in the full context of this complex issue. Clearly they are just interested in making cheap political points about it. To respond to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, which has now been placed in a context in which it should be understood by the member for Sturt, can I respond as follows. The Australian government on the weekend responded to reports of a vessel in distress off the coast of Sumatra in the Indonesian search and rescue area. The Indonesian search and rescue authority is the lead agency and is coordinating the response. The Australian government offered assistance to the government of Indonesia and this was accepted by the Indonesian search and rescue authority. As part of its efforts to assist in the search and rescue, HMAS Armidale made contact with the vessel and to ensure the safety of the passengers the people have been taken off the vessel and are on board the Oceanic Viking. Initial indications are that there are 78 passengers on board the vessel in distress, including five women and five young children. The passengers are safe and have no major medical problems. One passenger has a fever and her condition is being monitored. As the vessel was in the Indonesian search and rescue region, Indonesia is the coordinating authority. We are consulting with the Indonesian search and rescue authority about options for bringing the rescued people to a safe place. In doing so we will follow the letter of the law in relation to this matter. International laws relating to safety of life at sea issues are in place to ensure the safety of everyone who finds themselves in distress at sea. They create a complex set of overlapping obligations that the government are currently assessing with the Indonesian government. At the conclusion of this assessment we will act in a way entirely consistent with our legal obligations. We will do so because laws associated with the safety of life at sea protect everyone who travels by sea. Those laws specifically protect Australian sailors and merchant mariners who may find themselves in distress on the high seas. Consequently we will be abiding by the letter of that international law, and we are doing so. 10318 10318 14:08:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the government supporting the Australian economy and employment? 10318 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. Once again we can tell from the opposition reaction that they are not interested in the full context of supporting Australian jobs, but, let me tell you, Australians very much are. We know the impact of the global recession is still being felt around the globe. Unemployment in the US stands at 9.8 per cent, in the European Union area at 9.6 per cent, in the UK at 7.9 per cent and in Canada at 8.4 per cent. Australia’s unemployment rate dropped slightly, to 5.7 per cent, in September and more than 40,000 full-time jobs were created in that month. But we need to remind ourselves, and I take this opportunity to remind the House, that thousands of Australians are doing it tough. Unemployment is 1.4 per cent higher today compared with in July last year. More than 658,000 Australians are experiencing the bitter times that unemployment brings. Others, of course, are living on short hours in cooperation with their employers to maintain employment. It is easy to rattle off statistics, but what we have to do is look at the individuals involved. Last week I received the Keep Australia working report from my parliamentary colleagues Senator Mark Arbib and parliamentary secretary Jason Clare. Their report clearly shows that the global recession is being felt particularly in parts of this country. To take one example, Cairns in Far North Queensland has had a sharp spike in its regional unemployment rate to 13.8 per cent. To keep Australians in Cairns in the electorate of Leichhardt working, we are investing $138 million in building school infrastructure, another $3.9 million in social and defence housing and $4.3 million in community based infrastructure. That is helping companies like Cairns based Metrobuild, which is currently involved in delivering $60 million in school infrastructure projects as part of our education stimulus in North Queensland. Metrobuild project administrator John Lee, the voice of a real Australian talking about this, has said: Metrobuild feels very positive about the impact of the stimulus package. He said 50 workers are directly involved in building the $3.2 million Edge Hill State School’s multipurpose hall. In addition, Metrobuild is also supporting another 19 subcontractors employing staff in a $200,000 refurbishment of the Kuranda State School. It is not just the economy of places like Cairns that has been affected. We know in rural Victoria, in Shepparton, that youth unemployment is currently at 31.9 per cent. Once again, this would have been made worse without the investments of our stimulus package. The Shepparton News reports that more than $10 million of projects started at schools in Greater Shepparton and $32.4 million of new housing approvals have started over the past three months. Greater Shepparton City Council business manager Leanne Mulcahy said the construction boom in Shepparton was ‘amazing’ and she said: We would attribute a lot of that to the stimulus package and the first home buyers grant. She went on to say that they had done computer modelling on the new construction and that a direct increase of $19 million in construction creates another 50 jobs. During the days of the global recession we believe that the predominant task of this government is to keep Australians working. I understand the opposition do not share that sentiment; consequently they guffaw at these good news stories of people being kept in work. But we believe it is vital that during these days we continue to provide economic stimulus and keep Australians working. 10319 10319 14:12:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is again to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer her to the government’s repeated assertions that the surge in boat arrivals to Australia is due to international push factors and to the fact that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports that the number of refugees has decreased from 9.9 million as at 31 December 2006 to 9.1 million at the end of 2008 and that in the first eight months of this year UNHCR figures show that the number of asylum applications has declined from the same period last year. I ask the Acting Prime Minister: why is the government trying to trick the Australian people with spin rather than admitting its policy failure has rolled out the red carpet to people smugglers? 10319 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I always find that it is best if public policy debates are informed by a few facts, and so the Leader of the Opposition perhaps might like to take notice of the following facts. In 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide—a fact the Leader of the Opposition might not like to acknowledge, but a fact nevertheless: an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers. At the same time, Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decades-long civil war which cost tens of thousands of lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between north and south and east and west. Opposition member interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I have just heard the opposition interject that the war is over. Perhaps the member who interjected may like to consider this very sobering and tragic statistic. There are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people. The Tamil community in Sri Lanka feels marginalised and the hard work of postwar political reconciliation lies ahead. We understand that Sri Lanka faces an immense challenge in dealing with the legacy of this very bitter conflict. These are factors motivating people to seek to leave Sri Lanka, sometimes illegally. On the question of the pull factors that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, these are the accurate statistics on the push factors—the things that are getting people to start moving. On an analysis of the pull factors, perhaps I can refer him to an article in the Sunday Age, by the member for Kooyong, entitled ‘Razor wire returns’. I have to say that I do not often agree with the member for Kooyong. In the time I have been in this place, since 1998, we have had some spectacular disagreements on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and on other matters. But I refer the Leader of the Opposition to this article and I would ask him to reflect on it before he makes further statements about the question of asylum seeking. The member for Kooyong said: Did refusing to give permanent protection to people found to be genuine refugees deter? Again, no. In the five years before the introduction of temporary protection visas, there were 3,103 boat arrivals. In the five years after, boat arrivals increased to more than 11,000. Did the coalition government’s eventually giving the overwhelming majority of temporary protection visa-holders permanent protection lead to a surge of refugees? No. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to those words. They might help him answer the question he has asked. 10320 10320 14:17:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 Ms BURKE —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the recent assessment of business and consumer confidence and on the economy more generally? 10320 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. Last week we received further encouraging news that business and consumer confidence remain strong in the Australian economy. The NAB business survey showed that confidence among Australian businesses remains at levels not seen since 2007. The construction industry was one of the most confident, which reflected the government’s infrastructure stimulus. Consumer confidence has rebounded strongly over recent months, and that is very encouraging as well. The Sensis consumer survey released last week showed that consumer confidence rose 13 percentage points in the September quarter. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute index of consumer sentiment rose to its highest level since June 2007. That means consumer confidence in Australia is now almost 50 per cent higher than the pre-stimulus levels of October last year. This compares very favourably to what is occurring internationally. For example, the rebound in consumer confidence in Australia is something like more than double the improvement seen in the UK and the US. It is noted in the Reserve Bank minutes published today that confidence in Australia has held up better and recovered more strongly than elsewhere in the world. This reflects the fact that the stimulus has kept customers going through the door and more Australians in work. That is what has provided this vital boost to confidence. The fact that Australia grew, particularly in the March quarter, gave a very big boost to consumer confidence and business confidence in Australia because it confirmed that Australia was defying global economic gravity—and that has been very, very important. That has given even further confidence to the Australian people. They can see that, by working together, we can get through the worst global recession in over 75 years. Strong confidence is important. Australians understand that the government is gradually unwinding its stimulus. That is very important to a sustainable recovery in the face of what is still a challenging environment. And you see this reflected in the RBA minutes today. They note that: … economic prospects for most of the developed world were still uncertain and the possibility of another downturn in some countries could not be ruled out. As the Acting Prime Minister was saying before, that means we must be very cautious as we move forward because there is still an uncertain international environment. The RBA minutes also reflect the approach of the government and the board. The minutes reflect the fact that the board recognises that fiscal stimulus has already peaked and is beginning to taper away. I quote from the minutes again: Staff estimates suggested that the impact of fiscal policy (including payments to households and other ongoing programs) on GDP growth was likely to have peaked in the June quarter and was now gradually declining. This means that monetary policy and fiscal policy are working together and heading in the same direction through the economic recovery. This gives all Australians confidence that we can tackle the challenges ahead. 10321 10321 14:21:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. I refer the minister to the revelation by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police in Senate estimates last night that a reference to the impact of the government’s policy changes on people-smuggling was removed from the Australian Federal Police report Strategic intelligence forecast—transnational criminal trends and threats to Australia before it was sent out to government agencies. Will the minister confirm that the advice warned of the risk that the government’s policy changes would contribute to an increase in illegal arrivals and will he inform the House on whose instructions this advice was excised from the Australian Federal Police report? 10321 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I thank the shadow minister for her question. However, I am somewhat surprised that she chooses to verbal the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. Last night in estimates, while questioned by Senator Brandis, the commissioner made very clear that he certainly was not going to discuss an internal classified document that goes to operational matters of the Australian Federal Police. Despite the ongoing questioning by Senator Brandis, he made very clear, as is proper, that he would not divulge to the senator, or indeed the Senate committee or indeed ministers of the government, operational matters. I can confirm that the document, entitled Strategic intelligence forecast—transnational criminal trends and threats to Australia, was prepared by the Australian Federal Police on 27 March 2009. As I have said, this document is highly classified and disseminated internally within the Australian Federal Police. Commissioner Negus went on to say yesterday that a sanitised version of the document was disseminated externally to a number of Australian government agencies. It is outrageous for the shadow minister for customs, a person who should know better, to verbal the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police on security matters. As is proper, such intelligence documents are produced for operational use by the AFP and are not produced as a basis for policy advice to ministers. They guide the operational decisions of the AFP and its partner agencies. I say further that he did not affirm nor deny any of the comments put to him by Senator Brandis. It would have been improper for him to do so and, therefore, the Australian Federal Police commissioner showed himself to be a professional, unlike the shadow minister for customs. 10322 Distinguished Visitors 10322 14:24:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The Speaker —I inform the House that we have present in the galleries this afternoon the Premier of Tasmania, David Bartlett, and the Deputy Premier, Lara Giddings. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10322 Questions Without Notice 10322 10322 14:25:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 Mr ADAMS —My question is for the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. How is the government investing to improve road and rail infrastructure in Tasmania through the Nation Building Program? How is this investment being received? Have there been other proposals put forward to build infrastructure, particularly on the Midlands Highway? GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— 10322 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for his question and I thank the Leader of the National Party for his interjection. The interjection, for the benefit of members and for the benefit of the Tasmanian Premier, was: ‘Somebody’s going to build it at last.’ He was the minister for transport. For 12 years they sat opposite and they did nothing about the Midlands Highway. We came into office, committed $190 million—$164 million of it to the Brighton bypass, ahead of schedule by six months—and this clown says, ‘Somebody’s going to build it at last.’ Unbelievable. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —This project will create up to 380 jobs during construction. We are getting on with the job, thanks to the fact that we have fine representatives from Tasmania—all five of them working in cooperation with the Tasmanian state government. I am asked also about whether there are alternative propositions being put forward, particularly with regard to the Midlands Highway. I, with other cabinet ministers, had the pleasure of being in Tasmania last week. We were there for the community cabinet, consulting with the Tasmanian community. Whilst I was there it was drawn to my attention that the state Liberals have billboards up saying that they would duplicate the entire Midlands Highway. I thought to myself, ‘Here they are in here, day after day, and out there Senator Coonan, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer are all saying they would wind back spending.’ Remember that? They are going to wind back the stimulus and they are going to wind back infrastructure spending, but out there is a $2 billion commitment. When you look at the detail, there are two caveats on it. One is that they will duplicate the highway where appropriate. We are doing that; we are getting on with that. The second caveat is that the state Liberals will do it subject to federal funding. That is their other caveat. So they got the Leader of the National Party to travel down to Tasmania on Saturday to back up this strong commitment by the state Liberals. In a moment of honest self-analysis, the Leader of the National Party said this: ‘Anyone who has driven the road would know that it needs upgrading now.’ This person, who was, of course, the transport minister in the former government, knows now that this road needs to be upgraded. What is their profile of spending on this commitment? The first thing he said was: ‘If we are elected next time, we will then give a commitment of $400 million to fix this project that would cost at least $2 billion.’ But it gets worse, because he said that it needed to be fixed now but that it would be delivered in the period between 2014-15 to 2024-25. So there is an optimist for you. They can be held to this commitment if they win the election in 2010—and that is going well! If they win in 2013, if they win in 2016, if they win in 2019 and if they win in 2022, they can be held to account for this commitment of $400 million—for 20 per cent of the $2 billion. We do not know where the other $1.6 billion is coming from. This is a farce. On this side of the parliament we are getting on with the job, in cooperation with the Tasmanian government, of fixing the Midlands Highway right now. We are getting on with the job as part of the $800 million. Three times what those opposite put into infrastructure in road and rail over a similar period we are putting into Tasmania through the Nation Building Program. I look forward to continuing to work with Premier Bartlett on this project. And I ask the opposition: please, get serious. 10323 10323 14:30:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Acting Prime Minster. I refer to comments yesterday by the National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, about the surge in asylum seekers. I quote: I think we should put out a red carpet and welcome them with open hands. Mr Howes also said, ‘One man’s people-smuggler is another man’s liberation hero.’ Given the influence of the AWU at Labor’s national conference, will the Acting Prime Minster inform the House of what input, direct or indirect, Mr Howes has had into the government’s border protection policies? 10323 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I genuinely thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. The answer is none. Matters of policy for government are decided by the government. In deciding our border protection policies, what we determined to do was to be tough on border protection but to deal with people in a humane way. In putting that balance together, we have been very, very focused on dealing with people-smuggling. And, of course, as we deal with people-smuggling, we note that, despite the claims of the opposition to the contrary, the numbers of people moving around the globe have increased. The numbers of asylum seekers have increased. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I see the shadow minister shaking her head, so I am going to take her to some basic facts. According to the UNHCR, at the end of 2008— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Acting Prime Minster answered the question. She said the AWU had no indirect or direct input into Labor’s policies; therefore, the question has been answered and I would ask that she sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As speakers have indicated in the past, there is no way that the Speaker can actually dictate the way in which questions are answered. The Acting Prime Minster is responding to the question. The Acting Prime Minster has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —It will take finer minds than mine to work out whether that is the worst performance the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has ever had, or whether the Keating quote was the worst performance the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has ever had. I will leave it to finer minds than mine to try and work out which was the silliest question. Once again, it may be a heroic assumption in relation to members of the opposition, but I am assuming that in one of these public policy debates of our time—namely, how the world deals with unauthorised people movement—people in the opposition will be interested in the facts. I am constantly being proved wrong, question by question, interjection by interjection— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —That’s right. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —And I am told, ‘That’s right.’ In a triumph of hope over experience, I am going to try and inject some facts into this debate in the hope that maybe the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others might grapple with the facts as they engage in the public debate about asylum seeking and people movement. Fact No. 1 in dealing with the question of how many people are moving around our globe: the UNHCR tells us that, at the end of 2008, the total number of refugees and internally displaced people under its care remains high at roughly 25 million—almost unchanged since 2007. So some sense that there has been a big drop-off is not right. Fact No. 2—and here we go, of course facts do not want to impinge on the opposition’s views— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, as you constantly say, there is only one point of order that deals with answers to questions, and that is relevance. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked a specific question about the influence that Paul Howse has over border protection policy— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. The question made reference to comments about a surge in asylum seekers. I call the Acting Prime Minster. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Fact No. 2—and I will conclude on this, because I think it is important—is that the government has adopted an approach which is tough on boarder protection but humane to asylum seekers. On the question of protecting our borders— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I know that these facts might not suit the opposition, who are catcalling now. On the question of the facts, since September 2008, 82 disruptions of planned smuggling ventures to Australia by Indonesian national police, involving around 1,497 persons, have occurred. That is 82 disruptions. Since September 2008, the AFP has charged 48 people with people-smuggling offences under the Migration Act. We are aware of the detention by the Indonesian navy of the person known as Captain Bram, who was involved in people-smuggling. This is evidence that the government is pursuing tough policies to protect our borders, whilst dealing with the question of asylum seekers in a humane fashion. 10324 10324 14:37:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. Will the minister update the House on recent reports into the strength of Australia’s financial services sector? What do these reports show and what action has the government taken to improve Australia’s competitive position as a regional financial services hub? 10325 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 Mr BOWEN —It is fair to say that, so far, Australia has withstood the global financial crisis better than any comparable nation, but there is more to do to make sure that we capitalise on the opportunities provided by our comparative strengths and also to ensure that we continue to outperform the rest of the world. A robust financial services sector is important to that agenda. It is important to ensure that we continue to capitalise on the opportunities available so that we have well-paying, highly skilled jobs in the financial services sector and export more of Australia’s financial services, which are so important to our economic performance. The World Economic Forum last week released its Financial development report 2009, which gave a significant endorsement of the maturity of Australia’s financial markets. I am very pleased to report to the House that that report marked Australia as second in the world—ahead of the United States, ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore and ahead of many of our competitors—for the maturity of our financial services sector. Importantly, in this very tumultuous time, Australia was the only country in the top 10 to have improved its performance over the last 12 months. The stability of our financial sector has been very important in this result. Australia’s financial services sector has been building on its strengths, building on the quality of our prudential regulation and building on its very good track record. It has been further supported by the strength of the real economy. It has been further supported by the fact that Australia is the only nation among the nations with which we normally compare ourselves which has not gone into a technical recession. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Thanks to the coalition government! DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —The member for Dickson! The member for Dickson could not even organise a successful surrender of his own seat and he is giving us advice. We have all heard of Pyrrhic victories. He had a Pyrrhic surrender—‘the member for to be advised’ interjects. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He may have his Keating suit on today, but he is no Paul Keating. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson is warned! Order! Before giving the minister the call, I suggest to the minister that he would assist if he ignored interjections, and interjectors should learn not to interject and make themselves targets. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —Paul Keating never ran away from a fight. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will return to the question. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —Also important has been the Australian government’s response in instituting the wholesale and retail banking guarantee to ensure the stability of Australia’s financial services sector. As well as being ranked second overall, Australia was ranked first in the world for low risk of sovereign debt crisis, a very important finding , which belies some of the outlandish and opportunistic claims we have heard about the level of Australia’s government debt—first in the world for low risk of sovereign debt crisis. As I say, Australia was the only financial sector in the top 10 over the last 12 months to improve its performance. But there is still a lot more left to do. We need to make sure that Australia does not squander these opportunities. We need to make sure that we build on the opportunities. For some time the world’s investors will be looking to see who got through this crisis the best. The world’s investors will be looking for a safe harbour where prudential regulation is respected and where the financial services and real economy have done well. We will be making a case that Australia is that nation. That is why we have been taking policy initiatives like reducing our withholding tax from the highest rate in the world to effectively the lowest, to rewriting our tax treatment of managed investment funds and to doing all the other things that needed to have been done over the last decade and a half but which were not done. We will continue to do those things. Soon we will be receiving the Johnson report, which was instigated by the government last year to recommend the next steps to build on the work we have already done. While some in the House may contend that the hard work is all done, while some in the House may contend that it is time to withdraw stimulus and to leave the financial sector on its own, and to leave the economy on its own, we say there is more work to be done. We will not miss opportunities to create jobs. We will not miss the opportunities to build a financial services sector in Australia which exports more and creates better, well-paying jobs for Australians. We will not miss the opportunities because that is what the Australian people expect of us. 10326 10326 14:43:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr STONE —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer her to a press release which she issued on 23 April 2003, when she was shadow immigration spokesman, and I quote her: Another boat on the way. Another policy failure. Given 41 boats carrying nearly 2,000 people have arrived in Australian waters since the Rudd government announced its changes to our border protection policies, will the Acting Prime Minister confirm that, by her own criteria, the government’s changes to immigration law represent a massive policy failure? 10326 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 shadow minister for her question. I presume that at the bottom of all of this is the opposition’s view that it is going to land a major political blow if somehow it can suggest it agrees with me. It is a very unusual thing for an opposition to seek to get political advantage by agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister of the alternative political party and the government. But such is the convoluted logic the opposition has got itself into in these desperate days. I thank the shadow minister for watching the Laurie Oakes interview on Sunday. I am sure he is very grateful for her coming up in the viewer attendance numbers as well. I say to the shadow minister that one of the things that have been debated during this nation’s various debates about asylum seeking and refugees is how you deal with the push factors that get people on the move and what one should do in relation to domestic policy settings. I say to the shadow minister—and I take her again to some inconvenient facts for her but things I think she should be recognising in this debate—that statistics from the UNHCR about the number of people on the move and the number of people looking for asylum— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order obviously on relevance. The question was about policy failure in relation— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Murray will resume her seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I know that as soon as I say the word ‘fact’ someone from the opposition—Pavlov’s dog style—needs to move a point of order because they do not want people to know the facts of this debate. The UNHCR facts are as follows: asylum seeker applications have increased by 28 per cent and the number of refugees returning home voluntarily decreased by 17 per cent compared to the previous year. Clearly, from those UNHCR statistics push factors are on the rise. On the question of assessing domestic policy settings and the implications of those domestic policy settings on the number of arrivals, I refer her to the analysis of her own colleague the member for Kooyong. Maybe when question time is at its conclusion she can go and have a cup of tea with him and talk this through with him in detail. But I think the shadow minister would have to acknowledge, in the words of the member for Kooyong: In the five years before the introduction of temporary protection visas, there were 3,103 boat arrivals. In the five years after, boat arrivals increased to more than 11,000. How does the shadow minister put the case that this government’s moving away from the TPV system has made a difference to boat arrivals when those statistics tell a story that is the complete reverse. What I would like the shadow minister to acknowledge—what her colleague the member for Kooyong acknowledges and what the UNHCR is chronicling for us—is that there are factors that get people on the move. The significant factor in our region at the moment is the aftermath of the civil war in Sri Lanka and no amount of manipulation of the truth by the shadow minister or the Leader of the Opposition is going to wish that fact away. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before giving the call to the member for Bendigo, I say to the member for Berowra that as the Father of the House he knows better than to try to interject, and I expect him to show some self-discipline. 10327 10327 14:48:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 Mr GIBBONS —My question is for the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House what is so vital that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme be voted on this year and implemented in the most fiscally responsible way? 10327 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Bendigo for his question because climate change is one of the most significant economic challenges that the nation faces and the introduction of the CPRS is one of the most significant structural changes that we have seen in this country since the reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments in the early 1980s and 1990s. That means that we need informed debate and informed discussion and it also means we need timely action, because this has been talked about for a long time. The government has been working on its proposals for a CPRS since the very beginning of this government. Early passage of the CPRS is necessary and it is most particularly necessary to give business the investment certainty that it craves and needs to support jobs in our economy in the years ahead. This is the view of the business community. I quote from the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, which had this to say a month or so ago; The passage of legislation … will provide a clear signal and measure of certainty around which long-term institutional investors like super funds can begin to base investment planning and decisions. This view is shared widely across the business community and that is why we do welcome the engagement from the opposition, at last, this week. We are very serious about considering these proposals. In responding to their proposals we will be guided by the national interest, which means that any of the amendments they put forward must be economically responsible and they must, of course, also be environmentally credible. Economic responsibility is crucial. It is crucial because as we move through this transition in Australian industry and jobs we have to be acutely aware of the need for medium-term fiscal sustainability. The 2009-10 budget presented projections of the underlying cash balance and net debt position out to 2019-20. Estimates are there of revenue and spending under the CPRS. They were all accounted for in those projections. This means that any additional spending which will increase projected deficits and increase net debt will have to be met by offsets or savings elsewhere. I think the opposition have confirmed overnight that they have calculated the economic costs and the emissions effect of the amendments. We look forward to seeing all of that detail from the shadow minister as part of the negotiations. We do want a sensible discussion about costs and benefits and we do want that within a sensible time frame, because we need to have this voted on this year. The House will have plenty of time and the Senate will have plenty of time, because the passage of the CPRS by the end of the year must provide the investment certainty that business has been looking for for such a long period of time. We need those investments now. We need them to support the green jobs of the future and we need to process, deliberate and act on this important issue this year. 10328 10328 14:52:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to today’s Reserve Bank board minutes on the decision of 6 October to raise interest rates. The minutes state: … the balance of risks was now such that the current very expansionary setting of policy was no longer necessary, and possibly imprudent. Isn’t it the case, Treasurer, that the current very expansionary setting of fiscal policy is also no longer necessary, and possibly imprudent? 10328 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —Well, talk about verballing the Reserve Bank board and their minutes! There they go again. They cannot stand the fact that the stimulus was successful. They cannot stand the fact that the stewardship of this government during a period of grave threat to this country was successful. They simply cannot stand it so they will stretch any fact. They will distort any quote from anybody anytime to completely and inaccurately portray the position of both the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the minutes. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I seek leave to tender the Reserve Bank minutes. Government members—Tender? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —‘Table,’ I should say. Yes, it should be—a very good point. I seek leave to table them. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —And— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Whilst it is abnormal, I will seek the assistance of those on my right. Is leave granted? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —He’s not in court now, Mr Speaker; no. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer has the call. The Treasurer is responding to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The Reserve Bank and the governor—in their minutes today—are saying nothing different from what they have consistently said for a long period of time, and that is that interest rates, at their 50-year emergency lows, could not stay there forever. Those opposite have been running around the country trying to pretend that somehow they could and that there would not be a withdrawal of monetary policy stimulus by the Reserve Bank at any time in the future. They hate the fact that our economy has begun to grow. They simply dislike that because the one thing that they wanted, when they came into this parliament in February this year and voted against our Nation Building and Jobs Plan, was higher unemployment and they wanted it for base political purposes. They therefore resent the fact that our fiscal stimulus, working hand in glove with the monetary policy stimulus from the Reserve Bank, has produced one of the most outstanding results in the world. That is what they resent, and therefore they then go on to perpetrate a fiction that there is somehow some conflict between the Reserve Bank governor and the board and their minutes with government policy. There is nothing in these minutes that says anything other than the Reserve Bank is beginning to unwind monetary policy stimulus because the economy is beginning to grow. It is that simple. Of course fiscal policy and monetary policy are both working together. And the other thing that they refuse to admit is the fact that fiscal policy reached its peak in June this year and it will subtract from growth in every quarter of next year. But the reason they will not admit that is that they have got a policy of withdrawing stimulus— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 90. The Treasurer has accused the opposition of distorting the minutes of the Reserve Bank and I invite him to prove where that is the case or apologise. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Treasurer is responding to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The Reserve Bank board minutes do not say that the fiscal policy of the government is imprudent. In trying to perpetrate that, he was continuing the lie in this parliament that somehow there was an impact— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer has accused me of verballing the Reserve Bank. He has now accused me of lying about the minutes. I have quoted expressly from the Reserve Bank minutes—they speak for themselves— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —and I have asked him a question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question was in order. The Treasurer is responding to the question. If there have been other grievances about the way in which words have been misinterpreted or misread into the record and a member feels aggrieved, there are other forms of the House than can be used. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —On the point of order, Mr Speaker, to accuse somebody of verballing another is to accuse them of having fabricated a statement. That is what a verbal is. Verballing someone is making up a false statement about what they have said. I have quoted expressly from the Reserve Bank. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have suggested the course of action. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect to you, Mr Speaker, as you well know a member who feels that they have been treated offensively has the right to ask for a withdrawal. The Treasurer on four occasions before today has accused us of voting a certain way in this House when the opposite is true. Now today he is accusing the Leader of the Opposition of verballing the Reserve Bank minutes. He is therefore a serial offender. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw for the good of the House. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! One of the standards might be to listen to the standing orders and not interject on everything and every matter. I just remind the member for Bowman of that. Regrettably, this is a discourse that is characteristic of this place where people can place greater emphasis on what might be considered as debating points and the like. We have already had in this question time another shadow minister being accused of verballing. If that was the case, then it would have been raised at that point in time. I am suggesting that the other forms of the House are the best way that this might be handled. On the point that has been raised further by the Manager of Opposition Business about where there is a necessity to repeatedly make personal explanations, this again is something that has occurred over a number of parliaments. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —But not televised. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Sorry, the member for Mackellar is seeking the call? SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —If I were to seek the call, Mr Speaker, I would stand and seek it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I indicated to the member for Bowman, if we really were wanting perhaps to set some better standards for this House, interjecting especially on the chair, no matter what people might think of the occupant, might not be of assistance. But I am indicating that this point that the Manager of Opposition Business raised in his contribution has been a point that has vexed the House for some time where members have repeatedly had to make the same personal explanation. The Treasurer has the call and he will, I hope, conclude his answer. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The Leader of the Opposition was talking about the Reserve Bank board minutes. I would like to quote from those minutes to conclude my answer, Mr Speaker. The board observes that stimulus has already peaked and is tapering away, and it says this: Staff estimates suggested that the impact of fiscal policy (including payments to households and other ongoing programs) on GDP growth was likely to have peaked in the June quarter and was now gradually declining. This should be read in the context of statements that the Reserve Bank governor gave when he attended the Senate inquiry last month. He was talking about the inbuilt withdrawal of the stimulus when he had this to say: Such an outcome would mean that fiscal and monetary policy would be acting broadly consistently, as they did when they were moved in the expansionary direction when the economy was slowing. So the fact is the RBA is withdrawing monetary policy stimulus, the government is withdrawing fiscal policy stimulus; and both are working together. 10330 10330 15:02:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Why is it vitally important that Australia acts now on climate change in an environmentally and economically responsible way? 10330 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr COMBET —I thank the member for Leichhardt for the question. Representing the area of Far North Queensland, he knows very well the threat that climate change represents to great environmental icons like the Great Barrier Reef. Of course, it is to meet that environmental threat that the government is proposing to make this major environmental and economic reform, because the scientific consensus is very clear and that is that the impact of unabated climate change will be significant and costly to many countries and in particular this country. The global community is meeting in Copenhagen in December to address this issue. That is less than 50 days away and the government has committed Australia to playing its part constructively in an endeavour to achieve an international agreement. As the member for Warringah opined yesterday in the opinion pages of the Australian, passing the CPRS before Copenhagen will assist the international negotiations. The CPRS will enable Australia to meet its emission reduction targets in the most economically efficient way. It is important that we pass the CPRS, as the Treasurer was indicating to the House earlier, not only to start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions but also to begin the transformation of our economy and to provide the certainty that is needed for the business community to go on and invest. As I indicated yesterday, the government welcomes the opposition’s proposals, and we certainly look forward to seeing detailed written amendments and costings in the very near future. The government is committed to negotiating in good faith with the opposition in relation to these issues. The government’s job in these discussions is to ensure that the scheme will still add up—that is, that it tackles climate change effectively at the lowest cost to our economy, that it is environmentally credible and that it is fiscally responsible. Therefore, it is critical that the coalition’s proposals meet both of those criteria also—fiscal responsibility and environmental credibility. Whilst the opposition have stated that their proposals will be cost neutral and capable of achieving the same level of emissions reductions as the CPRS, we need to see the detail. Proposals to exclude sectors or to provide additional support to particular industries potentially impose significant additional costs. They need to be balanced with the need to ensure environmental credibility and the fiscal integrity of the scheme. The government remains absolutely committed to passing this important legislation. There are, therefore, three important criteria by which the government will approach these negotiations and assess the proposals of the coalition. They are, as I have emphasised, that the proposals are environmentally credible, that they are fiscally responsible and also that the coalition commit to voting on the timetable that we set on this legislation this year in advance of the Copenhagen conference. These will be the fundamental criteria by which the government approaches these important negotiations. 10331 10331 15:07:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr MORRISON —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the recent statement by the Reserve Bank governor: … the downside risks to which the Board was responding earlier have not materialised. Given that this is the case and that the Reserve Bank is now increasing interest rates, why are the government continuing to pursue their record spending, which will only put further pressure on interest rates, especially for the more than 200,000 Australians they have just convinced to buy a new home? 10331 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —Of course, the question is based on a fundamental miscalculation, a fundamental misrepresentation and a fundamental lack of judgement by all of those opposite. The fact is that both fiscal policy and monetary policy are both working and going in the same direction, just as they did when we were responding to the crisis. As the economy has begun to grow, monetary policy is gradually going to be withdrawn. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I made reference to interest rates increasing and increased spending— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cook will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Is it the shadow minister’s proposition that interest rates at 50-year lows could remain there forever? Is that the proposition he is putting forward—yes or no? I think the Australian people have a lot more common sense when it comes to this issue than those who are sitting opposite. They understand. They understand that interest rates could not stay at 50-year lows forever. They absolutely understand that. They understand that adjustments will be made. They also understand that the government put in place our economic stimulus at a time when this country was in dire need and under threat from a global financial crisis and a global recession. The consequence of that has been the best performance of any advanced economy. That is really what gets up their nose—that in this situation the government has been effective, the government has been competent and the government has put to the forefront of all of its actions protecting the jobs, the families and the small businesses of this country. To score a political point, because they voted against that and they have been embarrassed about it, they are now calling for the complete withdrawal of all fiscal stimulus. That is the proposition that they have been putting forward, which would push unemployment back through the roof. If he really believes what he said, he is really saying that he is in favour of putting builders and tradies out of work. That is where they are. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. My simple question was: why are you continuing to pursue the record spending—future tense? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Cook will resume his seat. The Treasurer is responding to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The economic stimulus that we put in place, responsibly, had its peak impact in the June quarter of this year. In each quarter after June it is withdrawn. For every quarter of next year it will subtract from growth. So the economic stimulus is being withdrawn. It was designed to have its maximum impact at the time that it was really required, in our hour of need, and of course that was in February this year, when those opposite walked into the parliament and voted against the Nation Building and Jobs Plan—one of the most effective economic stimuluses put in place by any government anywhere in the world. Following the advice of the International Monetary Fund and others, we said it would be timely, temporary and targeted. We designed it to be gradually withdrawn so that, as the private sector gradually recovered, the public sector would gradually withdraw. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —That is how it has been done and how it has been designed. The shadow minister just interjected. I want every builder in the country to know what he just said: ‘We’re crowding them out.’ That is what he said. He is pretending there is no spare capacity in Australia’s construction industry. This is unbelievable. How out of touch are this mob? How out of touch is their housing minister, who is in here pretending there is no spare capacity in the Australian construction industry? How out of touch can they all be? They simply do not walk in the same shopping aisles as the average Australian. We understand that there is a need to continue to provide some support because there is spare capacity in the Australian economy and because unemployment will continue to rise. We understand that many people out there, although employed, are working far fewer hours than they would like to work. In fact, all of those reduced hours add up to something like 200,000 full-time jobs, over and above the increase in unemployment that has occurred in this country that the Acting Prime Minister was talking about earlier. So there is still substantial spare capacity in the Australian economy, which is why it does require support. But it is also why, as the private sector growth returns, the monetary policy response from the Reserve Bank will be wound down, as indeed our fiscal stimulus was designed to be wound down. But the opposition want to continue a fiction which no-one else in Australia believes. It demonstrates just how incompetent and how unfit for government they are that they could walk into this House and claim that interest rates could stay at 50-year lows forever and pretend that they are not four per cent below the peak that they were only a short time ago—which has of course been of enormous benefit to an enormous number of people in this community. What we have to do is sensibly manage the recovery, and that is what we are doing. That is why we designed the economic stimulus, the fiscal stimulus, the way we did: to support Australian families, to support employment and to support vulnerable sectors of the economy until private demand returned. The Acting Prime Minister before referred to the fact that the outlook internationally is uncertain, so in the middle of this we have to be very careful in the way in which we manage the recovery, in the way in which we withdraw our stimulus and in the way in which we continue to support the economy. The livelihoods of tens of thousands of families and businesses depend upon it. It is a pity that those opposite do not realise that. 10333 10333 15:14:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 Mr CHEESEMAN —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister outline the importance of growing clean energy jobs and transforming Australia’s economy for a low-carbon future? How is the government’s comprehensive approach to tackling climate change helping unlock those opportunities? 10333 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. It is the case that there are significant opportunities in growing clean energy jobs and securing a low-carbon future for Australia, and this is a very important time for Australia to take those opportunities. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will play a central role in unlocking these opportunities for clean energy jobs and for industries. It will provide certainty for business, accelerating the competitiveness of clean energy technologies—and that is quite critical at this time, when we want to address dangerous climate change. Alongside the CPRS the government is bringing forward comprehensive programs to improve Australia’s energy efficiency, growing clean energy jobs for the future, including through the Energy Efficient Homes Package, which has provided insulation or solar hot water for more than 500,000 Australian households since February this year. That is right: more than 500,000 Australian households since February this year. This compares to around 4,000 solar hot water rebate applications received over the time of the previous government—and they did nothing on insulation. So we have more than half a million households in eight months, compared to 4,000 households in 12 years. And this is about creating jobs. The Insulation Council of Australia and New Zealand, ICANZ, originally estimated that around 4,000 jobs would be created as a direct result of the insulation program. The council then went on to double that estimate. They now advise my department that even that doubled figure may be conservative, as many more jobs are being created. Through the Solar Homes and Communities Plan we are on track to help over 120,000 homes install solar systems since November 2007. Again, that compares, in the life of the former government, to around 10,500 solar panels funded over some 12 years. I think the figures are telling the story. But, importantly, I am advised that there are already around 500 additional solar panel installers in training to meet this unprecedented workload, with around 75 new installers becoming accredited each month. This comes on top of the government’s solar credit scheme, part of the expanded renewable energy target. Industry estimates that that target will drive around $20 billion of investment in renewable energy technologies: clean energy jobs, delivered by the Rudd government—jobs in insulation, jobs in solar hot water, jobs in solar panels, jobs in large-scale renewables. I cannot help but notice that not everyone in the parliament is interested in the task of supporting clean energy technologies and Australian jobs. The member for Tangney has been interjecting ever since I got to my feet. So I was glad that I glanced at the report of a speech from the member for Tangney to a group of climate change sceptics. He was not speaking to the opposition backbench, although there are climate change sceptics there. I am always interested to see what the member has to say. I know the Leader of the Opposition would be interested in this as well, because this is where the intellectual driving force of the Liberal Party on climate change policy is coming from. According to the report the member for Tangney believes that action on climate change is an attempt to overthrow democracy! This is what he said— DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —The member is still interjecting. I want to read his quote out: We have observed anti-democratic comments from many so-called environmentalists calling for the overthrow of democracy and/or capitalism to save the planet. This is the public policy rigour of the Liberal and National parties, when we are at the threshold of one of the most important debates that this country has ever had. He talks about the overthrow of capitalism. Regrettably, it is the overthrow of reason that is the problem we face here. I suspect the member for Tangney calling it the ‘overthrow of capitalism’ would surprise the many hardworking Australian families who are now in the process of wanting to build clean energy industries with the assistance of the Rudd government’s programs—that is, the tradies, the truck drivers, those people along the supply chain and the many, many clean energy jobs that the government are actually delivering with our programs. As for the overthrow of democracy that the member refers to, I can only think of all those Australians who voted in November 2007 to bring an end to 12 years of denial and climate change scepticism on the part of the Liberal-National Party, now led by the Leader of the Opposition, and to provide a clear message from the Australian public that they wanted a government that was going to be serious about tackling climate change and about bringing forward the benefits and the fruits of employment to the Australian economy that our policies are already delivering. 10334 10334 15:20:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 Mrs HULL —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Minister, I refer you to the public comments made recently by the CEO of New South Wales— HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr Clare interjecting— 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL —I am really interested in what he says! Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL —I will recommence, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Riverina has the call. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs HULL —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer the minister to public comments made recently by the CEO of New South Wales Irrigators Council, Andrew Gregson, who questioned whether the government’s $300 million irrigation efficiency program is deliberately designed to fail because of the incredibly tight deadline of six weeks for applications to be submitted. Minister, after two years of delay by your government will you now, on behalf of the government, give a guarantee that, if the $300 million is not fully utilised because of this unrealistic application time frame of just six week, the funding will be allocated to on-farm efficiency projects and not incorporated into further water buybacks? 10335 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 would say that with the guidelines and the timelines that have been set out by the government there is an expectation that that can be completed by all those parties in a manner that is appropriate to the policy delivery that we have sought on this issue. I know that the minister responsible has been particularly assiduous in wanting to drive reform, after a 12-year of hiatus of reform on the question of water delivery in the Murray-Darling Basin, right through to where we are actually concerned about not only providing reform but also enabling the very significant challenges that we face—the challenges of drought and the challenges of water shortage and the like—to be resolved. It is important to note that the minister has made it clear that she is frustrated with some of the pace of reform. There is no secret about that. Also, she has made it clear that she is frustrated with some of the pace of the reform that is taking place within the state jurisdictions. You are quoting a CEO from a state body, but I think it is important for me to put that on the record. The most important thing that the minister has said is that she is concerned about roadblocks and about impediments and delays. I do not think she wants to delay the reform process any longer. In fact, I know that she does not. I will just make the House aware that, jointly with the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, that department is now conducting an audit into the status of a number of projects across the basin. At the end of the day, though, I think it is worth while saying this through you, Mr Speaker, to the people of Australia as well as to the opposition: this is clearly a difficult issue that will require a fair amount of application by us to ensure that the right policy measures are in place. We cannot make it rain, although I was pleased to see Wimmera farmers are responding to the fact that they think they have got some opportunities for their crops because we have seen some decent winter rains. But at the end of the day we are committed to reform. We want to see that reform through and we will not resile from that path. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister has concluded? 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs Hull —Without answering the question I might add. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Riverina has tested the patience of the chair today. 10336 10336 15:24:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. As this is national Carers Week, how is the government improving support for carers? 10336 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Robertson for her question and all of her hard work on behalf of carers in her electorate. The member for Robertson is right: this week is Carers Week and it is an opportunity for all of us—in fact, an opportunity for all Australians—to take time to recognise and thank the hundreds of thousands of carers right across Australia who do such a wonderful job caring for people they love, whether it is mums and dads, sons and daughters or grandparents. These are the many, many people who do such an extraordinary job and for many of them it is a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day job. All of us know that this takes a very significant toll on carers—emotionally and financially and, often, there is a significant physical toll as well. We as a government have made carers a priority. Just yesterday at the launch of Carers Week I announced that the government does intend to introduce a national carers recognition framework. This is something that carers have been calling for for some time. The framework will recognise in legislation the role played by carers. One of the very important things is that it makes sure that all of us understand and recognise through national legislation the commitment and dedication of so many people who do care in so many different circumstances. It is important for us to recognise that we have made clear that we understand the need for financial support as well. As part of our major program of reform of the pension we have just delivered a very significant increase in the carer payment, and that has increased support to more than 140,000 carers across the country who are on the carer payment. Those carers who are on the maximum rate of the carer payment—those who are on the single rate—will receive increases of just over $70 a fortnight. That is a very significant improvement for those carers who are on the maximum rate of the single carer payment. In addition we have introduced for the first time an ongoing carer supplement so that carers, whether they are on the carer payment or on the carer allowance, can know with certainty that each year they will get a $600 payment for each of the people they care for. I have had a number of letters from carers indicating how important these measures have been for them. To quote one carer indicating to me how important it is, she said in her letter: Both the gesture and the dollars have been a big help to them meeting their ongoing expenses. Finally, I would draw the attention of the House to the very significant changes we have made to carer payment (child). This is a payment made to carers who are looking after severely disabled children or children with serious medical conditions. Up until 1 July the rules for carer payment (child) were extremely complicated and restrictive. As a result of these changes we expect that around 19,000 extra carers of severely disabled children will now be eligible for carer payment (child). These are very significant changes that the government has made. We will continue to work hard with those who represent carers to do everything we can to support people who are doing such a wonderful job. 10336 15:28:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —On indulgence: I would like to associate the opposition with the minister’s remarks about the importance of carers and acknowledge not only the good work that the minister has done but also the good work that the former government did in adding $1.3 billion to carers bonuses. 10337 Distinguished Visitors 10337 15:29:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Because a statistically significant number of members have brought it to my attention I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today a former Speaker of this place, Mr Stephen Martin. On behalf of members I express to him a warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10337 Questions Without Notice 10337 10337 15:29:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr BALDWIN —My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Is the minister aware that 10 members of No. 4 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force, who are performing duties in support of the special forces have been left at least $20,000 out of pocket, despite a CDF directive in June directing that they receive back pay dating back 12 to 24 months. Minister, has the government not learned from the SAS pay debacle presided over by the former Minister for Defence and the damage it did to the serving men and women of our Australian defence forces? 10337 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr COMBET —I thank the member for Paterson for his question because it provides an opportunity to outline the specific circumstances of this particular issue. At the outset, I make absolutely clear the government’s commitment to ensuring that our service personnel and their families receive their correct entitlements. The Air Force is currently undertaking the development of a new capability, which is known as the special tactics flight, within No. 4 Squadron based at RAAF Base Williamtown. This involves Air Force personnel who undertake specific training to enable them to undertake a range of activities, including operations with special forces. However, the members of No. 4 Squadron are not special forces personnel. When they are deployed on operations or conducting associated training they have an entitlement to a component of the special forces disability allowance. This allowance is paid in recognition of the hazard and stress associated with service within the special forces environment that they of course experience. I am advised that in April this year, not June as I think the member for Paterson indicated, a directive from the Chief of the Defence Force created eligibility for this allowance to these members and indicated that the allowance would be paid on an occurrence basis—that is, when the capability is in use or when people are in training or in operations, rather than as a continuous payment. At the same time, the CDF also approved the back pay of this entitlement for those deployed or trained prior to April 2009 when eligibility for the allowance was created. The training began in 2007. When transactions related to this allowance, after its generation in April, were loaded onto the pay system at the end of September 2009, I am advised that they were incorrectly loaded at a continuous rate. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If he was their union official rather than their minister, he would call them out on strike on this issue over their pay. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Paterson will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Paterson then left the chamber. YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr COMBET —I understand that the Air Force, upon the loading of this data onto the pay system, immediately recognised—this occurred in September—that the continuous rate for this allowance did not accord with the original directive from the Chief of the Defence Force and therefore they stopped the payment. The suspension of the payment was designed to ensure that the special forces disability allowances were not paid in error, which would have led to the need to recover any overpayments. I am further advised that the Air Force is currently in the process of developing the correct business rules for the payment of the allowance and ensuring that all affected members are paid their correct entitlements. I am advised that currently 18 members of No. 4 Squadron are entitled to receive a component of this allowance through their training and/or their operational activity. Today, I have written to the Acting Chief of the Defence Force to urge urgent resolution of this issue. Finally, could I remark that the first that the government was aware of this issue was yesterday and we have taken immediate action to ensure that the circumstances of the particular service personnel are appropriately investigated by the ADF and that their correct entitlements are paid as soon as possible. 10338 10338 15:34:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the government’s reform plans for health, hospitals and aged care? 10338 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for Deakin for his question. The Rudd government is serious about reforming our health, hospital and aged-care systems. In fact, only three months ago we released the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report and since that time the Prime Minister, the health minister, the Minister for Indigenous Health, the Parliamentary Secretary for Health and I have been travelling around the country road testing the 123 recommendations for reform that were in the commission’s report. In fact, last Friday’s consultation in Alice Springs by Minister Snowdon was the government’s 60th consultation. That is one consultation every 1½ days. We are listening to people at the coalface to get their views. More than 4,500 people have attended these consultations and the feedback has been very positive. In fact, aged-care providers have been actively engaged in the process, recognising the need to build an integrated health and aged-care system that meets the needs of our ageing population. This government has already taken very concrete steps to meet the challenges of an ageing population. We have provided more funding for aged-care services than any previous Australian government, increasing funding to the sector by an average of nine per cent a year. We have rolled out transition care places to support older people recovering and regaining their independence, keeping them out of hospitals and keeping them out of early entry into nursing homes. We have also invested in our aged-care workforce to improve the quality of care today and for the future, and we are making more information available for consumers, particularly about the performance of individual aged-care facilities. Very importantly, we have taken a very tough stand to protect our older Australians. Australians now have one of the longest life expectancies in the English-speaking world and, of course, with increased longevity more people are living with multiple, complex and chronic conditions. The ageing of the population presents substantial challenges that this government is working hard to meet. Under the previous government, Australians had a decade of neglect in the health and aged-care sector. In contrast, we have a blueprint for reform and we are out there consulting with the community and discussing that with them. We stand on the cusp of the most significant reform to our health system since the introduction of Medicare 25 years ago, and I urge the opposition to support it. 10339 10339 15:37:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Minister of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. I refer the minister to her answer yesterday in which she claimed that some 230 demountables had been used to provide Aboriginal housing as a justification for using a further 81 demountables for unauthorised arrivals rather than for Indigenous Australians, despite the continuing housing crisis in the Alice Springs town camps. Why didn’t the minister admit that those 230 demountables have in fact been used to house visiting professionals rather than local Aboriginal people? So I now ask the minister to provide the names of those communities where these demountables have been used to house local Aborigines, as they should have been. 10339 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —Well, it is extraordinary that he is having another go after yesterday, when it was quite clear that you took all of these demountables to Alice Springs to use them in the Alice Springs town camps. How many did they use? Zero. Absolutely none. I made it absolutely clear yesterday what we were using the demountables for—you know what it is, and we know that you used none of them. 10339 10339 15:39:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. How are the government’s plans for GP superclinics progressing and what is the community’s response? 10339 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. There has been some particularly good news in Ballarat which I will come to in a moment, but the most recent government announcement for the newest GP superclinic was in Gunnedah in New South Wales, bringing the total number of superclinics funded by the Rudd government to 36. As the member for Parkes has welcomed, funding of $4.3 million will now go towards the construction of a new facility, the Gunnedah Rural Health Centre, on the grounds of the hospital. The announcement has been met with delight by the local community, including, as I acknowledged, the member for Parkes. He called it ‘a great day for the people of Gunnedah, an exciting model and a long-held dream’. I welcome those comments and welcome the recognition from some of those opposite that the GP superclinic strategy is delivering and will deliver to local communities. I just wonder whether the shadow minister for health is changing his view and will now support the superclinic strategy. It is a little bit difficult to tell when we do not know what his health policy is or whether he actually cares about the superclinic in his electorate. He did not bother to turn up to the sod turning for the Strathpine superclinic in Dickson. It must have been that he already knew he was moving to McPherson at that time. Let me come back to the member for Ballarat because I was delighted last month to join her and officially open the first fully operational GP superclinic in Ballan. For this superclinic, which is really something worth this House taking note of, $1.4 million was provided by the government but the remaining $0.9 million that made up this $2.3 million project was actually raised by funds from the community. I think we should congratulate the community of Ballan for their contribution. The service is going to provide GPs, practice nurses, visiting specialists, allied health services, chronic disease management and—I think of interest to all in this House—for the first time in Ballan, a dental service. For the first time ever, a dentist will be working in Ballan, in the superclinic, courtesy of this funding arrangement. Twenty-six GP superclinic contracts are now signed. In addition to the one in Ballan, five other services are providing interim services. For example I can advise, and I know the member for Dobell has particularly welcomed this, that the Warnervale clinic has started to provide GP services last week for the first time at its interim site. Podiatry, a diabetes educator, an exercise physiologist and pharmacy services are expected to start soon. Given that the member for Dickson was not prepared to turn up to the sod turning for his superclinic in Strathpine, I presume he will not be around for the ribbon-cutting ceremony because, of course, he checked out of Dickson months ago. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —When will there be one on the Gold Coast? 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Interestingly, a member for the Gold Coast is asking when there will be a superclinic on the Gold Coast. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Has the minister concluded? 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The shadow minister was trying to move to the Gold Coast, but he was rejected in McPherson. He is not wanted in Wright. He cannot decide if he is going to run in Dickson. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, the point of order is obviously on relevance. The minister was asked about GP superclinics and is straying very far from the subject. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I understand the member’s point of order, but the minister had managed to get herself back on track at the time that you jumped. The minister will respond to the question. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I am responding to the part of the question which deals with the community’s response. One might expect that the shadow health minister might have a view about GP superclinics, not just as the national spokesperson for the Liberal Party but as a local member who has a GP superclinic being constructed in his electorate. He was not prepared to turn up to the opening ceremony and has not had any interest in the many jobs that are being provided on site. I did notice, though, that he declared the day after the McPherson preselection that he would not give up— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order? Mr PYNE (Sturt) 15:44:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 53AYES Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 77NOES Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 5PAIRS Neville, P.C. Ellis, A.L. Mirabella, S. Price, L.R.S. Randall, D.J. Hayes, C.P. Robert, S.R. McMullan, R.F. Hockey, J.B. Smith, S.F. * denotes teller Question negatived. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —The GP superclinic strategy is going full-steam ahead. As I said, we have services now being delivered in many communities across the country—the longest-serving being in Palmerston, where there are many thousands of members of the community who have received after-hours services at the interim superclinic that is servicing that community. So I say now is the time for the member for Dickson to make a decision about whether he is going to take up an interest in his local superclinic, take up an interest in health policy and take up an interest in Dickson. But, in fact, what we have seen is no fight, no policies and—no surprise—no seat. 10341 10341 15:56:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr HUNT —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. It follows his failure yesterday to deny a meeting in which the government was warned of cost blow-outs in the $2.7 billion pink batts cash splash. I refer the minister to these two quotes for insulation for the same unit in Toowoomba. The first quote, for an area of three by five metres, came in at the maximum government rebate figure of $1,600. The owner decided to get a second quote for the same job. This came in at only $300. Minister, doesn’t this example confirm that the price hikes resulting from the government’s pink batts program are wasting some $900 million of taxpayers’ money? 10341 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am reminded of a question that was asked earlier by the member for Hinkler about a matter relating to the insulation program, where we learned—regarding the company responsible for that particular matter—that in fact the points that had been put by way of questions in the House were not an accurate reflection of the views that the general manager put to me. I also reflect that it was this honourable member who jumped out of a plane without a parachute to tell us that solar panel installations were in freefall—this is what we say—when in fact they were at all-time record highs. What I would say to the honourable member is that it is the expectation of the government that installers will ensure that they follow the guidelines that have been laid out for ceiling insulation. I do say to people that they should take the opportunity to get at least two quotes, if not more, in order to assess the quotation that has been given to them. I also say to the honourable member that we have an extensively delivered compliance and auditing program. He knows that himself because only a couple of weeks ago he was calling on the Auditor-General to provide some auditing, and he knows that the Auditor-General has communicated the fact that the existing audit provisions and plans that are contemplated for this program are sufficient for this point in time, and— Opposition members interjecting— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —No—I am happy to speak about it even further. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. Directly on this issue, the Auditor-General indicated it was his department which— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Flinders will resume his seat. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Flinders is warned! HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —The shadow minister, the member for Flinders, was calling on the Auditor-General to take a specific action, which the Auditor-General deemed was not necessary—he has communicated that to me— 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Flinders has been warned! HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —on the basis that the government takes the effective delivery of this program very seriously. We have a number of measures in place, including compliance and auditing measures. We have PricewaterhouseCoopers now involved in making sure that those compliance and auditing measures are done at a national level and at national scale. It is the case that some ceiling insulations will cost at least $1,600 and, in some instances, even more. But the fact is that, since February, this has been the most comprehensive rollout of an energy efficiency program that we have ever seen in this country. We are delivering the opportunity for families to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and for energy costs to be reduced, and we are employing Australians at the same time. I will make sure that this program continues to deliver the very good benefits that it is bringing to the Australian public. 10342 10342 16:00:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Minister, how is the government providing support for small business, and are there any impediments to the delivery of this support? 10342 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 Dr EMERSON —I thank the member for Forde for his question, for reasons which will soon become evident. I launched the Small Business Support Line on 3 September to provide advisory services to small businesses during the global recession. I am pleased to advise the House that, since the support line became operational, 2,226 calls have been received from small businesses. That support line is being staffed by a team of eight advisers, each with extensive small business experience. Yet again, in criticising the support line, the member for Moncrieff has got it wrong. In a press release of 17 August, he claimed that the Small Business Support Line ‘will be staffed by bureaucrats and offer none of the tangible help which small businesses need day to day’. I can report that a survey of callers reveals a 90 per cent satisfaction rate with the Small Business Support Line. It is staffed by small business advisers with extensive small business experience, not bureaucrats, and is very, very popular—90 per cent satisfaction. I am asked about impediments to the support line and the government’s effort to support small business. The shadow minister for small business is an impediment to the government’s policies. Is it any wonder that, in the list of the Gold Coast’s 100 most powerful people, the Gold Coast Bulletin has relegated the member for Moncrieff from 46th last year to 93rd this year? In explaining the member for Moncrieff’s demise, the Gold Coast Bulletin says: THE Moncrieff MP has taken several hits this year as the Coalition struggles to keep pace with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd … He is regularly mocked by the ALP for failing to ask questions in the chamber. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly, this is a frolic on his own. This is irrelevant and the minister should be serious about question time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will relate his material to the question. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —I was asked about impediments to the government’s policy and the Gold Coast Bulletin has identified the member for Moncrieff as an impediment. In fact, he is sinking like a stone. I can advise the House that it is now 509 days since the member for Moncrieff last asked me a question. I did thank the member for Forde for his question, and there was an especially good reason for that. I note that the member for Forde is a bullet performer in the top 100 most influential people on the Gold Coast—entering for the first time at 75 and rising fast. Do you know what the Gold Coast Bulletin says about the member for Forde and his commitment to this area? It points out that the member for Forde’s office is in Beenleigh. Beenleigh is in Logan City. The Gold Coast Bulletin actually says of him: Despite his federal seat being positioned in Beenleigh, Mr Raguse has managed to successfully lobby Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on the Gold Coast Rapid Transit System and the AFL stadium and secured a community cabinet meeting. So, go the member for Forde! Mr Speaker, this is the only way of getting the member for Moncrieff up to the dispatch box. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, which goes to relevance. I note that a Logan City representative who actually lives in Logan City makes a stark contrast to the minister for small business. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Moncrieff does not have a point of order. The minister will respond to the question. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —We have got something to say about the member for Dickson, because coming in at 77 is another bullet performer—first-timer Karen Andrews, the 49-year-old who emerged from the shadows to beat Liberal Party poster boy Peter Dutton in the McPherson preselection battle. The new likely member for McPherson, Karen Andrews, is said to have more influence on the Gold Coast than the member for Moncrieff. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clearly, the minister is not being relevant to the question. He is also making a mockery of question time, and I would ask you to ask him to sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —I am, Mr Speaker. In conclusion: ‘Danger, danger, danger, Will Robinson over there.’ I am asked what further support the government is providing to small business. Our nation-building infrastructure investment is supporting local tradies and apprentices, and small business is taking up the small business tax break with great gusto. But the global economy remains weak and fragile, and the road to recovery for small business will be a long and bumpy one. The opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition today, persists in calling for the withdrawal of the stimulus and saying, ‘Isn’t it the case that the current very expansionary setting of fiscal policy is also no longer necessary and possibly imprudent?’ There he is—Major Tom in outer space. There he is—right on the outer reaches of the Milky Way. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the press release where we talk about Labor wasting $2,500 an hour on wasted expenditure. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 10344 Miscellaneous 10344 16:07:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, with your indulgence: during the course of question time I had a discussion with the member for Capricornia and with the Attorney-General on the question of the bushfires in Rockhampton. I take this opportunity to advise the House that the Attorney-General today announced that the Commonwealth government will provide disaster assistance to communities affected by recent bushfires in Queensland. This follows declaration by the Queensland government of Bundaberg, Maranoa, South Burnett, Central Highlands and Rockhampton regional council areas as disaster areas. Currently there are a total of 36 fire incidents in Queensland, with over 310 personnel involved. A New South Wales Rural Fire Service unit and an Ambulance Service of New South Wales unit have been deployed to Queensland. All available fire crews in the Mount Archer area are engaged in property protection at Norman Gardens. Three aircraft are also conducting water-bombing activities behind houses in the area. Fire is expected to impact the Norman Gardens and Frenchville areas today. Commonwealth assistance is being provided to the Queensland government through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Funding will include assistance for the restoration of essential public infrastructure and relief operations, as well as personal hardship and distress assistance including emergency assistance payments of $170 per person and up to $780 per family; essential household contents grants of $1,660 per individual and up to $4,980 per couple or family; essential repairs to housing grants of up to $10,250 per individual and up to $13,800 per couple or family; concessional loans of up to $250,000 to eligible primary producers who have suffered physical loss as a result of the bushfires; and freight subsidies of up to $5,000 to assist with the cost of transporting livestock, fodder or water, and building or fencing equipment or machinery. Inquiries in relation to personal hardship and distress assistance should be made to the Queensland Department of Communities. Inquiries in relation to the freight subsidies should be made to the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Inquiries in relation to the concessional interest rate loans should be made to the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority. The Commonwealth, through Emergency Management Australia, will continue to work closely with Queensland authorities, local government and community organisations to ensure that affected communities have all the support they need during this difficult period. I am sure that all members in the House would join with me in wishing well the affected communities, particularly the community in Rockhampton, as they fight these fires. I would also note that we are aware of fire incidents in New South Wales and Western Australia. If it becomes necessary to make further statements to the House in relation to those fire fronts, then we will do so. Thank you. 10345 16:11:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: the opposition associates itself with the good wishes passed by the Acting Prime Minister to the communities affected. Bushfire is a tragic part of our very volatile climate here in Australia. It threatens communities every year right around the country and the response of local, state and federal governments to it should always be prompt and generous. The government’s response has our full support. We encourage the government to do as much as it can to support the communities and the courageous men and women who are fighting these fires. 10345 16:12:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: on behalf of the people of the Rockhampton region, particularly those who have been directly affected by the fires surrounding our city, I thank the Acting Prime Minister for her announcement and the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I know it means a lot to our Central Queensland communities that so many Australians have expressed their concern for our situation and that all three levels of government have pledged support and now this relief funding. I take this opportunity also to sincerely thank all the firefighters, the regulars and the volunteers, the pilots and all the emergency service workers who have responded so magnificently to this unprecedented fire emergency. Of course the local media have also played a very valuable role over the last few days. We will not forget what you have done to keep people safe and to defend their homes. I thank the Acting Prime Minister and all members of the House for keeping the people of Central Queensland in your thoughts. 10345 Personal Explanations 10345 16:13:00 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 honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Yes, most grievously and by a repeat offender. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —In the course of question time, the Treasurer asserted that I had verballed the board of the Reserve Bank when I quoted from the minutes of their monetary policy meeting of 6 October 2009. Far from verballing the Reserve Bank—verballing involves making a fabricated account of someone else’s report—I quoted expressly and precisely from the minutes to the effect that: … the balance of risks was now such that the current very expansionary setting of policy was no longer necessary, and possibly imprudent. 10345 16:13:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr HUNT —I do indeed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr HUNT —During question time today, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts asserted that I had jumped from a plane without a parachute. Whilst the implication is flattering, the reality is somewhat more prosaic. I do, however, worry that he is projecting some dark fantasy. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I will have to think about one. 10346 Documents 10346 10346 16:14:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of Parliamentary Services for 2008-09. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 10346 Auditor-General's Reports 10346 10346 16:14:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 7 of 2009-10 entitled Administration of Grants by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 10346 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 16:15:00 —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: Attorney-General’s Department—Report for 2008-09. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—Report for 2008-09, incorporating report of the Australian Energy Regulator. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Report for 2008-09. Finance—Advance to the Finance Minister—Issues from the Advances under the annual Appropriation Acts—Report for 2008-09. Office of Parliamentary Counsel—Report for 2008-09. Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003—Quarterly report on the operation of the Act for the period 1 January to 31 March 2009. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 10346 Bills R4194 10346 16:15:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I present a corrected explanatory memorandum to the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Tertiary Admission Centres) Bill 2009. 10346 Bills R4212 10346 16:15:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I present a replacement explanatory memorandum to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer Safeguards) Bill 2009. 10346 Ministerial Statements 10346 10346 16:16:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —by leave—The summer season represents a time for holidays and celebration for Australians. Unfortunately, it is also a time when we are most likely to suffer from natural disasters. The purpose of this statement is to update the House on arrangements implemented by the Commonwealth in preparation for this bushfire season which, as we heard at the end of question time, has regrettably well and truly started. While states and territories have primary responsibility for dealing with natural disasters, under the Australian Emergency Management Arrangements, the Commonwealth can provide coordination functions, physical and financial assistance upon the request of states and territories. These requests often occur when effective response to a disaster is beyond the capacity of an individual jurisdiction. When it comes to bushfire preparation and response, the Commonwealth is committed to supporting the states and territories in their efforts. The Commonwealth has worked tirelessly with the states and territories to help them bolster their preparations for this bushfire season. We have done so with the memory of the devastating 2009 Victorian bushfires in the front of our minds. They, of course, caused the greatest loss of life from bushfires since Federation. The Commonwealth is committed to assisting the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission. We welcomed the commission’s interim report and are implementing all the interim recommendations of the commission directed at the Commonwealth. Continued above average temperatures are contributing to an early fire season this year, as we have quite obviously seen in Queensland and, indeed, if I could also recognise, in the fires that affected many people who live in northern New South Wales over the last week. As the Council of Australian Governments has recognised, climate change will increase the intensity and extent of many extreme weather events. Obviously, some impacts from climate change are unavoidable. The government is determined to help ensure that Australia is resilient in the face of future natural disasters. We have adopted an integrated approach to managing emergencies and disasters across all levels of government, the private sector and the community. This comprehensive approach is designed to prepare Australia for all hazards that may arise and ensures that we implement measures to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies. I will now outline the Commonwealth’s actions in each of these four categories. Prevention In terms of prevention, it is estimated that up to 50 per cent of all bushfires in Australia, are regrettably deliberately lit. In March this year I chaired a national forum to develop collaborative approaches to reduce bushfire arson in Australia. Following that forum, the Commonwealth drafted model laws with stronger, more consistent penalties for such offences—with prison sentences of up to 25 years. The government is strongly encouraging states and territories to adopt these model laws. We have also begun work in cooperation with relevant agencies to enhance training and procedures for bushfire arson prevention, investigation and public education. Together with the states and territories, the Commonwealth is also developing a National Action Plan to Reduce Bushfire Arson, which will be considered at the November meeting of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management. Preparedness In terms of preparedness, the Commonwealth has implemented a number of arrangements to support states and territories in their preparation for this bushfire season. Under the Rudd government’s new Natural Disaster Resilience Program, the Commonwealth has committed $110 million, over four years, to assist the states and territories to prepare for natural disasters. The program includes a $2 million national projects fund, increasing to $4 million from next year. That fund will support key projects of national significance. Recognising the importance of working together, the Commonwealth has also focused on building clear communication channels between all levels of government. On 25 September this year, again as recommended in the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission’s interim report, the government conducted a pre-season emergency management operational briefing for states and territories. The briefing covered this season’s outlook for fires and also cyclones as well as Commonwealth support arrangements including resources available to states and territories during disasters. I am pleased to report that these briefings will now occur annually, and I thank the states and territories for their cooperation. The Commonwealth is also upgrading the Wireless Priority Service System to provide priority access during times of network congestion caused by a disaster event for up to 30,000 users on a 3G network. The Commonwealth has also enacted legislation to confer civil immunity on United States firefighters who render assistance during the Australian bushfire season. This will facilitate the conclusion of a firefighter exchange agreement with the United States, currently being negotiated by Victoria. Those negotiations are being conducted on behalf of all states and territories. This is a good example of how governments can work together to achieve real results. The Commonwealth has also invested significant time, working with the states and territories, to implement emergency warnings measures for this season. Based on fire industry requirements, the Bureau of Meteorology will incorporate a new scale of fire danger ratings into its fire weather and warning services, with a catastrophic (code red) category of fire. This measure implements recommendations of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission’s interim report and was endorsed at the extraordinary meeting of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management on 25 September. The Commonwealth has committed a total of over $26 million to assist the states and territories to develop a telephone based emergency warning capability. To underpin the system, the Commonwealth committed over $9 million for the establishment and ongoing operation of the Location Based Number Store, which is a secure, central database of telephone numbers that will underpin the system. This database is now operational and available for testing. The Commonwealth has also committed $15 million for the establishment and operation of the National Emergency Warning System. The system is being developed by Victoria, and I welcome the announcement by the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services that the system will be available after comprehensive testing, which I understand is taking place now. The system will be available by the end of November. The warning system will enable jurisdictions to send emergency warning messages to fixed-line telephones on the basis of service address and also to mobile telephones on the basis of billing address. Due to current technical limitations, the system will not be able to deliver warnings to mobile phones, based on the actual physical location of the user, in this coming bushfire season. To address this, the Commonwealth is working with the states and territories to research the feasibility of location based mobile phone technology. I am pleased to note that Victoria, again on behalf of the states and territories and with Commonwealth support and funding of $1.35 million, has sought information from the market about the possible technologies that are available to deliver that service. Information is requested by the end of this month and will be considered by the Council of Australian Governments in 2010. The government has also established an ongoing forum of peak broadcast media organisations to facilitate improvements in the effectiveness and consistency of national arrangements between the government and the media for the broadcast of emergency warnings. The National Best Practice Guidelines for the Request and Broadcast of Emergency Warnings, which have been developed and endorsed by all participating bodies, are now forming the basis for work being undertaken by the states and territories to refine media agreements and arrangements at the local level in preparation for this bushfire season. The Commonwealth is also working with jurisdictions, the CSIRO and the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre to assess intelligent remote fire detection systems. I want to acknowledge the valuable work and research undertaken by the member for McEwen, the Hon. Fran Bailey MP, into these technologies and recognise her presence in the House. A trial of relevant fire detection systems will be conducted this season, recognising that such technology, if proven and cost-effective, could improve our management of fires and better target community warnings. Response The implementation of the Commonwealth Operational Response Coordination Arrangements provides a single ‘all-hazards’ crisis management and coordination point, for all of Australia, within my department. This will enable the Commonwealth, upon request, to coordinate the provision of support from other jurisdictions to a disaster affected jurisdiction. The Commonwealth can also provide a range of technical capabilities to help the states and territories respond to disasters. These include a full range of Defence capabilities which, although not specifically developed or held for emergency response, can be made available pursuant to the Defence Assistance to Civilian Communities program. In addition, Geoscience Australia also manages a satellite based monitoring system of fire hot spot data for use by the states and territories. In the crucial area of aerial firefighting, the Commonwealth has committed an additional $12.8 million over four years for the National Aerial Fire Fighting Arrangements. This commitment increases the annual Commonwealth contribution to $14 million each year to provide greater access to aircraft and greater participation by smaller jurisdictions in those arrangements. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority also has two aircraft with infra-red surveillance capabilities to bolster state and territory resources. These combined resources are invaluable for firefighters in deploying resources in response to overnight changes in fire conditions. The Commonwealth is also working closely with the states and territories to ensure that the triple zero emergency service operates effectively in crises. As agreed at the extraordinary meeting last month of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, the states and territories are reviewing their procedures for dealing with a surge in demand in their triple zero emergency call centres as occurs in the case of a crisis. Triple zero connects emergency callers to fire, police or ambulance services. It is not a general information line. To reduce pressure on the triple zero service, the states and territories are working to reduce the number of non-emergency calls to triple zero during crises. My department is working with Telstra to develop a national protocol for activating ‘extreme event’ recorded voice announcements, which would redirect non-emergency triple zero callers to other information sources during extreme crises to leave the triple zero service available to deal with those who are genuinely facing an emergency. The Commonwealth is also working with industry to progressively limit calls from mobile phones that make repeated hoax calls to triple zero. The Commonwealth is also making additional call centre capability available to the states and territories for emergency information lines where their local capacity has been overwhelmed in a disaster. Recovery The Commonwealth has robust arrangements in place to help individuals and communities recover from natural disasters. These include: funding support through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements that were described by the Acting Prime Minister at the end of question time, funding support to individuals through the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, sharing of identity related information following a disaster, and helping locate people separated by an emergency through the National Registration and Inquiry System. Following the tragedy of the Victorian bushfires, the Commonwealth government provided and continues to provide national leadership in the recovery effort. In total the Commonwealth is providing around $450 million to help affected communities rebuild and recover. This support has included direct financial assistance payments, assistance with funeral costs, an income recovery subsidy and the provision of mental health and counselling services. The Commonwealth has also worked with the Victorian government in the clean up of fire damaged properties, a comprehensive case management service, small business and primary producer assistance, community hubs and the construction of memorials, amongst a number of other projects and programs targeted at supporting local communities in the response and recovery effort. I would like to acknowledge the work of Minister Macklin and Parliamentary Secretary Shorten in that effort. In the coming months, COAG will also review the Commonwealth’s disaster recovery framework, to ensure that it is appropriately adapted to help communities recover from emergencies. The Commonwealth will ensure that lessons learnt from the Black Saturday recovery effort will be reflected in this review. This unprecedented disaster must be used to strengthen recovery arrangements in preparation for the increasing threat posed by factors such as climate change. A simple and flexible suite of response measures at Commonwealth, state and territory level should be the overarching objective, including direct emergency financial assistance, counselling and information services, and case management. Conclusion The Commonwealth, through COAG, the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management, or MCPEM, and at agency and operational levels is working cooperatively to assist the states and territories to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from natural disasters. To this end, I have written to my state and territory colleagues seeking their advice, if possible by 23 October 2009, as to any other measures within the Commonwealth’s responsibility that may require the Commonwealth’s consideration in this coming bushfire and cyclone season. The government remains committed to assisting states and territories to continually improve their emergency management arrangements and capabilities in order to effectively build individual and community resilience to disasters. I thank honourable members for their attention. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Farrer to speak for 17 minutes. Leave granted. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Ley speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 17 minutes. Question agreed to. 10351 16:34:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to provide the coalition’s response to the Attorney-General’s statement on preparations for this coming bushfire season. As the summer season approaches, our attention is again turned to the grim reality that this is a time when natural disasters such as bushfires are more likely to occur. Fires burning in central Queensland, as mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister at the end of question time, as well as emerging fire fronts in New South Wales and Western Australia, demand from us as members and senators our continuing attention and support. We should never forget the communities that were devastated by the worst natural disaster to ever touch this nation. We should never forget the 173 people who died in the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria on 7 February this year. As with every crisis, particularly natural disasters, the important thing is that we learn from what has happened and make sure that we do everything we can to prevent it from happening again. Our response at both state and federal level must be around fuel reduction, preparedness and our emergency responses. Whilst emergency management including bushfire mitigation and preparedness activities such as fuel reduction and the issuing of emergency warnings is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments, the coalition believes it is important that the Commonwealth remains committed to supporting communities to build their disaster resilience. On 17 August we heard from the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission interim report that many mistakes were made and more could be done to prepare Victoria for a natural disaster of this magnitude. I would like to take this opportunity once again to commend Commissioner Teague and his fellow commissioners on their important work over the last eight months. The Attorney-General mentioned the outstanding contribution and the research of the member for McEwen. We also acknowledge the member for McEwen’s efforts as her electorate suffered the most on Black Saturday. The member for McEwen has worked extremely hard in these last months identifying and investigating methods and technologies to make our communities safer. Among these technologies is FireWatch, which uses technology developed by the German Aerospace Research Institute for NASA’s Mars Pathfinder mission. The member for McEwen, I understand, travelled to Germany earlier this year to see first-hand the digital sensing technology in operation and, on her return, strongly advocated an Australian trial this summer. Comprehensive fuel reduction programs have been another area of vital research by the member for McEwen. A visit to the Sintra region of Portugal, an area that experienced fires of similar devastation in 2003 and 2007, has reinforced in the member for McEwen’s mind the importance of fuel reduction programs, not just burn-offs but thinning vegetation and clearing roadsides in order to limit fire intensity. This is a critical message. The great point about the Sintra model put in place following their fires is that the region forms a World Heritage listed area. This is an important lesson—that is, that environmental outcomes and the maintenance of biodiversity in the bush, and fuel reduction, need not be mutually exclusive. I would also like to acknowledge the member for La Trobe, who has put forward recommendations for action in his electorate to prepare for the upcoming bushfire season. The member for La Trobe recommended a major fuel reduction campaign in the Dandenong Ranges as a top priority. Thus far, there has been very little action from the state Victorian Labor government on this front. It is well known that the Dandenong Ranges is a very high fire threat area, one of the most fire prone in the world. The member for La Trobe tells me that he has also put forward a recommendation for fire refuges in schools. Many of the schools in his area are steeling themselves for the coming fire season and are really anxious. The schools in the electorate of La Trobe have only recently been assessed as needing either major or minor upgrades to their shelters. Some which have been assessed as needing major upgrades will receive minor upgrades or nothing at all. I have been informed that many of the school principals in the member for La Trobe’s electorate are desperate for more assistance. The only major change at this point in time is that some trees have been removed from schoolyards. The coalition urges the Australian government to work with its state counterparts to protect communities and take the actions that state governments need to take at their level for safety during the coming fire season. We do support the measures that the Attorney-General has put forward and we thank the Australian government for their ongoing engagement with this issue. We will support their continuing development. However, these measures on their own, no matter how good they are, can be overwhelmed by inaction by states and excessive fuel loads on the ground. In Victoria the call is for fuel reduction burning at the higher levels of the 1970s and 1980s. For example, in 1980-81, 477,000 hectares of Victorian public forest was fuel reduced. This stands in stark contrast to the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s current burn target of 130,000 hectares a year—a target that is only occasionally achieved. Given that Victoria has over eight million hectares of forest, I fear this represents only a modest commitment to preventative bushfire management. We note with concern the statement by the Attorney-General that there is ‘above normal fire potential across much of southern Australia’. That is something that worries us all. The Attorney said: … climate change will increase the intensity and geographic extent of many extreme weather events. Obviously, some impacts from climate change are unavoidable. Whilst I do not disagree with this statement, we must never use the present or future danger of climate change as a reason not to do everything possible at all levels of government to reduce the risk of fire. The most fundamental responsibility for any government is the protection of its citizens. All state governments and authorities must look carefully at the findings of the royal commission and learn from the mistakes as we approach this summer’s fire season. The coalition is committed to the continual improvement of the measures outlined by the Attorney in terms of improved capability and emergency response and the provision of grants through the states and territories. We pledge our full support to whatever is required at Commonwealth level to effectively build individual and community resilience to bushfire disasters. 10353 Matters of Public Importance 10353 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The consequences of the Government’s policy failures that have increased the people-smuggling trade. 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— 10353 16:41:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —This government is failing the Australian people in one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any sovereign government: to secure and protect our borders. It is failing because of the changes to our immigration laws, which have had the effect of increasingly outsourcing Australia’s generous humanitarian immigration program to the predations of people-smugglers; it is failing because it is exposing the vulnerable victims of this pernicious trade to the great danger of making perilous journeys across the ocean in unseaworthy vessels; it is failing because of the unnecessary stresses and dangers this places on our defence forces, our police and our Customs officers as they attempt to do their job and stop this illegal trade; and it is failing because an outcome of these policies is to relegate further back in the queue thousands of deserving people waiting to have their claims for asylum processed legally. The government’s policies are not tough or hardline, as the Prime Minister states they are—nor are they fair or humane. This government’s border protection policies are none of these things because they are not working. They are not working because they have led to a perception that Australia has softened its stance. This vital issue of people-smuggling and the integrity of our borders and our immigration policy is one which deserves and demands calm and rational debate. The simple fact is that the object of government policy should be to eliminate people-smuggling so that, as far as practicable, there are no unauthorised maritime arrivals of people seeking asylum in Australia. To say that is not racist—nor is it heartless or lacking in compassion. People-smuggling is a vile trade. Millions of dollars are made by the people-smugglers as they put at risk not just the lives of their often desperate passengers but the lives of the Australian defence personnel who have to intercept them, or indeed rescue them, on the high seas. This issue is not about refugees or whether Australia should accept refugees into our community. As honourable members know, Australia has a substantial and generous humanitarian program, where some of the most disadvantaged people in the world are sought out and brought to the safety and the opportunities of life in Australia. We accept around 13,000 refugees every year. This, relative to our population, is one of the largest humanitarian programs in the world. In 2008, based on the figures of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, Australia alone accepted about 10 per cent of the 121,000 refugee claims submitted by the High Commission on Refugees for resettlement. We were exceeded only by the United States of America. So let us not have anyone pretend otherwise: Australians have always brought a generosity of spirit to the principle of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution around the world. We are a nation of open minds and open hearts. But we must always be clear-eyed about the balance to be struck in this debate. There are two goals to be achieved here. One is to be compassionate and welcoming to refugees in generous acknowledgement of our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on Refugees. The other goal is to ensure the processing of the refugee intake is orderly, fair and just so that the integrity of the system is not able to be compromised or thwarted by those who seek to circumvent the rules. And, as we have learned over the decades, across governments of both parties, it is not always easy or straightforward to strike an effective balance between the two. Let us just recall the heartbreaking example of nine-year-old Brindha, the Sri Lankan girl aboard the boat in Merak, Indonesia. She was apparently flown to Malaysia from her home in Jaffna, to spend a month in a jungle camp, only to be put aboard a crammed fishing vessel and then set sail across the waters of the Indonesian archipelago, destined for Australian territorial waters hundreds of kilometres away. Do any of us consider it compassionate to countenance the idea of a nine-year-old girl being subjected to that extremely hazardous journey? And, as we know only too well, many of these boats are unseaworthy—some of them capsize, some of them sink. The plain and simple truth of it is that the criminal syndicates who run this trafficking in human cargo are prepared to gamble with the lives of those on board, having made the cynical calculation that the Royal Australian Navy will come to the rescue. As we have seen with the case of SIEV 36, these pernicious practices not only can lead to serious loss of life but can endanger the lives of our service men and women who go there to save lives. And what are the people-smugglers doing? They are busy counting their profits. Their normal practice is to depart from the people-smuggling vessel just before it reaches the Australian zone. Captain Bram, who is now in custody in Indonesia, apparently missed his rendezvous—but that was his plan. The Australian Navy will tell anyone who cares to inquire into this that they will come onto those boats and find all of the electronic navigation gear taken out. It is taken out by the people-smuggler, the captain, when he disembarks and leaves some junior people on the boat to be arrested. This is a pernicious trade. Yesterday we heard the Australian Workers Union national secretary, Paul Howes, offer this view: One man’s people-smuggler is another man’s liberation hero. I find it hard to imagine a more reckless statement than that. With the best will in the world towards the vulnerable, we should not, as Mr Howes was doing, ever seek to justify the people-smugglers’ vile and pernicious trade. Australians expect their governments to protect their borders against this trade. In doing so we protect the interests of the passengers and we protect the interests of the thousands, indeed millions, of people who are in refugee camps around the world and who would love to be able to come to be resettled in Australia. It should not ever be controversial to state, as a matter of policy and principle, that Australians have the right to decide who comes to this country, our country, and the manner in which they come. The previous Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was criticised for saying that, but the fact is that that is what every Australian expects of their government. Under the Howard government it took a range of strong measures and years of vigilance to halt people-smuggling. The Rudd government, on the other hand, has quite deliberately, and with dangerous naivety, unpicked the fabric of that suite of policies, sending an unmistakeable message to people-smugglers that our borders are open for business. In short, Labor has lost control of our borders. We heard a lot of numbers today from the Acting Prime Minister. So let us have a look at the numbers and at some facts. When the Howard government was faced with a growing tide of asylum seekers arriving by boat, it took hard decisions to stop the flow. In 2001-02 there were 19 boats, with 3,039 people on board. The following year no boats arrived. Over the next five years there were a total of 18 boats, carrying 301 people. On average 60 asylum seekers arrived by boat each year. In just over a year, since the Rudd government began dismantling the immigration policies of the Howard government, we have, as I remind the House, had 41 boats arrive, carrying nearly 2,000 people. If the object of policy is to prevent and discourage these unauthorised maritime arrivals, this enormous upsurge in arrivals must be a failure of policy. Of that there can be no question. The government’s response, the Acting Prime Minister’s response today in particular, is that this has nothing to do with the government’s changes to policy, the so-called pull factors; it has nothing to do with the fact that people-smugglers—and we can rely on the media, the Federal Police report or any range of sources—are out there marketing Australia as a more certain target. Because they are selling a service. Their service, after all, is to say, ‘Pay us your $10,000’—or your $15,000—‘and we will guarantee that we will get you to Australia and that you will get permanent residence.’ So the more certain that outcome, the better a proposition they have to sell. The government says: ‘It’s got nothing to do with that. It’s all push factors.’ Mr Speaker, the push factors have always been there. There are millions of refugees in the world. The tragedy of the case of refugees around the world is such that it is almost demeaning to talk about it in terms of statistics—this enormous total of millions of people, in positions of terrible suffering around the world. This is a gigantic push factor. There are millions of people who are refugees who would dearly love to come to Australia. So the push factor has always been there. Without wanting to diminish the scale of this human tragedy of refugees around the world, I want to address the misrepresentations and inaccuracies that the Acting Prime Minister recited in the course of question time today. Here are a few facts and I will draw all of these from the UNHCR publication 2008 global trends: refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and stateless persons, dated 16 June this year. Firstly, page 7 states: In 2008, the refugee population under UNHCR’s mandate dropped for the first time since 2006. According to the UNHCR, at the start of 2008 the total number of refugees was 11.4 million people. What a toll of misery that is. At the end of the year, the figure had decreased by eight per cent, which is still an incredible number, but the fact is it had not increased. The Acting Prime Minister spoke about pressure from Afghanistan. To again quote the UNHCR: Afghanistan has been the leading country of origin of refugees for the past three decades with up to 6.4 million of its citizens having sought international protection during peak years. As of the end of 2008, there were still more than 2.8 million Afghan refugees. The figure is significantly below the number it had been previously. The Acting Prime Minister also should have drawn attention to this very important point: less than one per cent of the world’s refugees benefit from resettlement—coming to a country like Australia. Over 10 years 807,000 have been resettled versus 11 million refugees who were repatriated. So, the goal of policy—our own and global policy and the UN’s policy—should always be focused on repatriation, because that is frankly where the greatest difference can be made. The Acting Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that in 2008 there had been a 28 per cent increase of the individual applications for asylum or refugee status. What she did not tell the House was that this was almost entirely the consequence of the dramatic number of asylum applications in South Africa, because of the tragedies in southern Africa. The UNHCR notes that if South Africa alone is excluded—this does not include the other big increases in applications for protection in the rest of Africa—‘the global increase in 2008 would have been only four per cent’. It is still an extraordinary toll of misery, but the proposition that she was putting to the House that there had been a sudden increase in the push factors since the election of the Rudd government, or since August last year, is just untrue and it is proved to be untrue from the very document that she was misrepresenting. This Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, unpicked the fabric of the policy measures that had been carefully developed and refined and changed over many years. The policies were controversial and much criticised. Many of the aspects of them that were the subject of the greatest criticism had been changed under the Howard government. But they worked. At the same time, the Prime Minister, in choosing to meddle with this policy mix, claimed that there was no change that he had made that would have any impact on arrivals. He cannot credibly maintain that position. He has to first acknowledge that his policy has failed and then tell the Australian people how he will address his own failure. (Time expired) 10356 16:56:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I commend the Leader of the Opposition for saying that it is important to have a calm and rational debate about this matter. Indeed it is. It is a complex international issue and at the end of the day there is an Australian expression: ‘the proof of the pie is in the eating’, or in the facts. Is it the case that these countries that had such a dramatic increase in people seeking asylum in their countries have suffered that increase as a result of failed policies? The figure for Greece during 2008 was 15,300 asylum seekers; Italy, 36,000; Spain, 13,400; and indeed even tiny Malta had 2,700. The figure for Canada shows a 30 per cent increase during 2008; Norway had a 121 per cent increase during 2008; and the Netherlands had an 89 per cent increase during 2008. Clearly, there are global factors at play that are influencing the number of people seeking asylum in Australia. The fact of the matter is that it is quite damaging—if I might say so, with respect—to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition did, that Australia’s policies are not tough. In fact, we have one of the toughest regimes of any country in the world. We have mandatory detention of those persons seeking asylum for the purpose of conducting security and health assessments. We have excision of offshore islands. We have offshore processing conducted on Christmas Island and we have compulsory return, as we have seen recently, of those persons who were judged not to have legitimate claims to asylum. We recognise the Leader of the Opposition’s respect for our defence and police and other agencies involved in border protection. The reality is that before the last budget we had more ships on the water with an enhanced interdiction capability. That was significantly enhanced in the last budget and it was significantly enhanced because we saw these global factors—the ‘push factors’, as they are known—at play. In fact, in the last budget we injected an additional $654 million into border protection, enhanced surveillance and interdiction capability, enhanced intelligence capability and enhanced law enforcement capability, both domestically and in terms of capacity building in our neighbours. We have also been working very closely with our neighbours. Indeed, President Yudhoyono, as I indicated in the House yesterday, has indicated that these are complex international issues. They involve regional cooperation and will ultimately be resolved only through regional cooperation. In that regard we have contributed $44 million to assist Indonesia with movement alert capability. We have engaged with our neighbouring states, most specifically Indonesia and Malaysia but also with Sri Lanka as well as other countries, in enhancing information sharing. We have worked with law enforcement agencies through the Australian Federal Police and other agencies to develop our transnational crime network. In addition, to assist these countries to process those who are seeking asylum in their countries, we have recently announced an additional $18 million to assist in the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Office of Migration. To again outline the reality, since the government was elected there have been significant global pressures at work. Indeed, the United Nations Secretary-General noted in a recent report to the Security Council that 2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001 and that in 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide. At the same time, Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decade-long civil war which cost tens of thousands of lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between north and south, and east and west. It is estimated that there are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people. The reality is that with our regional partners we are having an impact in this pernicious trade of people smuggling. Since September 2008 there have been 82 disruptions of planned smuggling ventures to Australia involving about 1,497 persons. Since 2008—these are figures as at 15 October—the Australian Federal Police have charged 49 people with people-smuggling offences under the Migration Act relating to 26 irregular maritime arrivals involving 44 alleged crew members and four alleged Australian based organisers. We have seen the apprehension of Captain Bram, as indicated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House yesterday, and with the cooperation of Indonesia the alleged people smuggler Ahmadi has recently been extradited to Australia for prosecution. So the message that is being sent to those who would become involved in people smuggling is that we have a coordinated law enforcement action that is aiming to find them and is having success at finding them, charging them and successfully prosecuting them. That is the message that we want to send. We are tough. The figures are tough and the policies that we are implementing indicate that the government is tough on border protection. But to send that message, to convey that message, we will not detain children behind razor wire, we certainly will not be reintroducing the Pacific solution and we will not be introducing temporary protection visas. In fact, I might say with respect to the Leader of the Opposition that, while he claimed the Rudd government had unpicked the framework introduced by the former Howard government, he has not named one single policy item that he would reverse. I remind the House that yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the sinking of the SIEV X—suspect illegal entry vessel No. 10. That sinking resulted in the deaths of 146 children, 142 women and 65 men in distress, at night time and at sea. There are two things that event demonstrates. One is the evilness of people smuggling. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition and would endorse his comments regarding the naivety at best, and the counterproductive comments at worst, of those who would suggest that it is anything other than a completely evil trade. The second thing the sinking of SIEV X indicates are the consequences of the temporary protection visa policy. I will not use my words but those of the member for McMillan, who said that temporary protection visas were an ‘extraordinarily harsh instrument’ that had not worked and should not be brought back. He said ‘We had women and children trying to get here on boats’ because the refugees could not sponsor them. He said, ‘Some of these boats are so tiny you wouldn’t go fishing in them.’ The member for Kooyong said, ‘I think we need to realise we are dealing with extremely vulnerable people.’ The member for Pearce said, ‘When we had TPVs people brought children on perilous boats because it was the only chance to keep families together.’ The number of women and children who were on board SIEV X who lost their lives was testament to the flaws—it is worse than flaws—and inhumanity of the policy. More than that, the policy was a failure. It was introduced, as I recall, in October 1999. In the two years following, there were 8,455 arrivals. I note that the Leader of the Opposition said that the goal of policy in this area should be focused on repatriation. Well, in fact, 90 per cent of those persons who were granted temporary protection visas were ultimately given permanent visas. Again, the Leader of the Opposition referred on a number of occasions to the unpicking of Howard government policy. I note the shadow minister for justice and customs last week issued a press release, or at least a press release went out in her name advocating a return to Howard government policies. These things can happen—it happened once to me in opposition—but the point of the matter is that that press release was quickly withdrawn, indicating that the opposition have no intention of returning to those policies they had in government. Indeed, as the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship said on 7 October 2008 with respect to the Pacific solution: Minister Evans made much of the closing of the detention and processing centres at Nauru and Manus Island but failed to mention that these facilities were being replaced with the just-completed detention and processing facility at Christmas Island. And I think over the weekend she repeated that it was not the opposition’s intention, if elected, to reintroduce the Pacific solution. So, again, that is ruled out. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to a quote of the former Prime Minister of Australia and I will also quote him in a similar context where he said: It remains our very strong determination not to allow this vessel or its occupants— that is, the people held on the Tampa— … to land in Australia, and we will take whatever action is needed—within the law, of course—to prevent that occurring. In fact, a total of 1,637 people were detained on Nauru or Manus Island under the Pacific solution and, of those, 70 per cent were ultimately resettled to Australia or other countries. Of those resettled, around 61 per cent were resettled in Australia. Again, with respect, that entire Pacific solution was a con. Worse than that, it was a distortion of priorities. The Pacific solution cost $289 million to detain people on Nauru and Manus Island. During that same period, $264 million was spent on surveillance and interdiction. What does this mean? It comes back to the same issue: the opposition have said that we have unpicked Howard government policies and this has resulted in an influx of people to Australia seeking asylum. Those other countries which I have mentioned obviously have not unpicked any similar policies, but the same numbers are occurring—in fact, in many instances, considerably higher numbers. But what is the opposition’s response? Their response, according to the words earlier this week of the Leader of the Opposition, is not to rule in or out any policy. Indeed, the fact that the opposition’s response is only to call for an inquiry has been referred to by a number of commentators as reflecting more the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned not to aggravate any particular views held within his party—some being deeply held views indeed. The bottom line on the matter is this. Australia does have tough border protection policies—indeed I would say among the toughest border protection policies in the world. We are sending the message that we are determined to lock up those who would perpetrate this pernicious trade. We are doing so by delivering arrests. We will not send a message via locking up children behind detention wire, but we have strong and solid policies. (Time expired) 10359 17:12:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —There is an old phrase: lies, damned lies and statistics. Never has a government been more deserving of that rebuke than this Labor government with its misleading use of statistics as it seeks to deny its policy failings. And nowhere is that more apparent than in its excuses for the failings of its border protection policy. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked to take responsibility for the changes his government implemented to our border protection system, which have led to a dramatic rise in boat arrivals. As every Australian knows, since the Labor government softened our border protection laws in August 2008, 42 boats—which I believe is the figure as of today—carrying around 2,000 people have been intercepted by Australian authorities or arrived on our shores. But the Prime Minister yesterday deliberately used selective statistics to insinuate that these figures are just average, nothing out of the ordinary. He indicated that, as Labor has been in government for two years, that is only 20 boats on average for each year. And he said, ‘That is basically the average over the period of the Howard government.’ But he is damned by his own misleading use of statistics. It is a fact that up to the years 2001 and 2002 there were a significant number of boat arrivals as part of an increasingly sophisticated people-smuggling trade through increasingly sophisticated criminal organisations. But the Howard government took action in response. It took tough decisions. It took responsibility. It was not easy, but it put the security of our borders as a No. 1 priority, and it made the integrity of our orderly migration program a priority. The Howard government introduced a series of initiatives that collectively sent a message to people smugglers that Australia would not be a soft target for their trade. That message was sent, and that message was heard, because the statistics speak for themselves. In 2002-03 there was not one boat arrival. In 2003-04 there were three boats. In 2004-05 there were no boat arrivals. In 2005-06 there were eight boats. In 2006-07 there were four boats. In 2007-08, up to the point that the coalition’s policy remained intact, there were three boats. That is an average of three boats over the six years after the border protection policies were toughened. But in the 14 months since Labor weakened the policies and thus sent a message to the people smugglers that Australia is a soft target, there have been 42 boats. But Labor would have you believe—and the Attorney-General was doing it again in this MPI—that this is just an unhappy coincidence, that it is nothing to do with Labor policy failings. They are refusing to acknowledge the pull factors. It is no coincidence according to the Australian Federal Police. In a report finalised in March this year—which has been suppressed by the government ever since—the AFP stated that the changes to the laws were making Australia an attractive target for people smugglers. It is not a coincidence according to the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia, who said people smugglers are using the weakening of the laws as a marketing tool. It is no coincidence according to the International Organisation for Migration’s chief in Indonesia, who said people are well aware of the weaker laws and are ‘testing the envelope’. It is no coincidence according to the many asylum seekers in Indonesia who have been interviewed by the media and confirm that the Labor government’s weaker laws have encouraged them to make the trip to Australia believing it is now much easier for them to get in. What is really disturbing about this debate is the government’s hypocrisy. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs lectured us on the inhumanity of the Howard government’s border protection policies. Yet in 2004, a year in which only three boats arrived, the then shadow minister Stephen Smith said in a press release dated March 2004: The arrival of a boat on Ashmore Reef should be a wake up call for the Howard government to adopt Labor’s tough stance on people smugglers. So, if one boat is a ‘wake up call’, what are 42 boats? Thanks to Laurie Oakes’s demolition of the Deputy Prime Minister’s credibility on this issue on Sunday, Australians now recall the 2003 press release of the then shadow minister for immigration, Julia Gillard, with a headline screaming ‘Another boat on the way, another policy failure’. This was in 2003-04, when there were three boats in total. So, if ‘another boat’ is a policy failure, what are 42 boats? Apparently, three boats in one year is a policy failure but 42 is a policy triumph—according to Labor. Labor was right onto that third boat in 2003-04 with yet another press release from the now Deputy Prime Minister: ‘Boat proves government has no solutions’. So, if one boat proves ‘no solutions’, what do 42 boats prove? Yesterday the foreign minister, in a barely controlled outburst in which he denied the pull factors, demanded to know if the coalition would introduce temporary protection visas—another example of the Howard government’s supposed inhumanity. Temporary protection visas—just like the temporary protection visas that the Deputy Prime Minister, when in opposition, announced were Labor Party policy. Temporary protection visas were a policy announced by the then shadow minister for immigration and now Deputy Prime Minister. The hypocrisy of Labor has to be witnessed to be believed. The AWU is the most influential union in Australia and one of the most influential factors within the Labor Party. When the head of the AWU said that we should roll out the red carpet to the people smugglers, when he called people smugglers ‘liberation heroes’, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the AWU has no influence, direct or indirect, on the Labor Party. Nobody believes that—certainly not Comrade Shorten, the former head of the AWU; certainly not, Comrade Smith, a current member of the AWU; and certainly not Comrade Emerson, a current member of the AWU. Labor suggests that the AWU, which likens people smugglers to liberation heroes, has no influence at all over government policy. It is simply unbelievable. And still Labor refuse to take responsibility for their policy failure. They blame everyone and everything. They outsource the problem to Indonesia. They call the Indonesian President in a panic and make it Indonesia’s problem. They wash their hands of it. The Deputy Prime Minister said of the boat that was intercepted at the Prime Minister’s request: ‘Oh well’—she shrugged her shoulders—‘it’s Indonesia’s problem now.’ Instead of admitting policy failures and fixing them, Labor seek to blame the coalition for not coming up with the answers. They demand that we come up with the solutions to fix the problems that Labor have caused. They constantly demand that the coalition provide the policies to fix Labor’s failures. The coalition has a policy that we have an orderly migration program. We have a policy that we manage the flow of migrants to this country. But we also have a policy to deter the people smugglers from plying their trade. The former border protection system acted as a strong deterrent to people smugglers and allowed Australia to maintain the integrity of our orderly humanitarian and refugee program with an intake at record levels. Labor inherited a strong border protection system but took it for granted. Labor changed it. Labor sent a message to people smugglers that Australia is now a soft target. Labor must fix it. Back in 2003—remember, that is the year of the three boat arrivals—when the then shadow minister for immigration, Nicola Roxon, was asked what the opposition would do, her response was, ‘I think you should direct those questions to the minister.’ Precisely! The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and the Prime Minister must tell the Australian people what they will do to fix the failings of their border protection policy and stop the people-smuggling trade which has seen 42 boats arrive since Labor changed its policies and weakened our border protection system. (Time expired) 10361 17:22:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —Could I say before I commence that I thank the Leader of the Opposition for remarking upon the need for us to have this debate calmly and dispassionately, because, firstly, we are dealing with very complex issues and, secondly, we are dealing with human beings. But we do not resile from the fact that the Rudd government has very strong border protection. That is why we dedicated more resources than ever before to providing extra aerial and maritime surveillance within the region. We now provide more AFP resources in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and other countries within the region in order to focus our attention on the criminal organised syndicates that are willing to exploit desperate people in many circumstances who seek haven in First World countries. Therefore it is important that we ensure, by working closely with our friends in the region, that we dismantle those organised syndicates and that we do not place desperate people in a situation where they are enticed onto vessels and perilous journeys. Clearly there is a different view between the government and the opposition on this matter. The government is of the view that the primary reason for the increase in the number of people seeking haven in First World countries, including Australia, is because of the increases in conflicts very recently. Firstly, it is important to note that there have been irregular arrivals to this country in each of the last 20 years. I think we also agree that there have been surges from time to time. The largest surges were in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Then there was an abatement of such arrivals. We have seen a smaller but not insignificant surge recently. We believe that the facts lay bare the assertions by the opposition that this is about pull factors. The facts are that the Sri Lankan civil war, which has been long and bloody, concluded this year, which of course has led to the significant displacement of hundreds of thousands of people within that country. HWL Clare, Jason, MP Mr Clare interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —It is analogous—as I have just been reminded by my colleague at the table—to the situation in Vietnam in the mid-seventies. In 1975, when there was the fall of Saigon—as it was then called—we saw an influx of boats towards Australia subsequent to that particular conflict. We are now seeing an increase in the number of displaced people seeking haven in this country as a result of that conflict. Equally, it is important to note that it is true that Afghanistan has had conflicts over the last 30 years, and 2008 was the most violent year according to the United Nations. The United Nations Secretary-General, reporting to the UN Security Council, made clear that 2008 was the most violent year in Afghanistan, leading to an increase in the number seeking haven. It is also important to note that, whilst we have seen an increase in the number seeking haven in Australia, we are the target of approximately 1½ per cent of those people. Ninety-six per cent of those people from Afghanistan were seeking haven in Europe; 97 per cent of those people from Iraq were seeking haven in Europe; and 82 per cent of those people from Sri Lanka, I am advised, were seeking haven in Europe or, indeed, North America or Canada. The fact is that we still have to deal with this very important issue and we need to do it by balancing a hardline approach against people smugglers with a humane approach towards those people who find themselves, in many cases, in a desperate situation. That is why in the last year the Australian Federal Police, through their efforts and in collaboration with other law enforcement agencies within the region, have contributed to the charging of more than 50 people. There have been 15 convictions in the last year that go to people-smuggling offences. That is evidence of the increased dedication to resources to dismantle those organised syndicates. There are still plenty of challenges, and for that reason we will continue to work very closely with our friends within the region. Only last month, the Indonesian national police established a people-smuggling task force for the very first time which comprises 145 sworn officers in 12 locations in Indonesia tackling this particular problem. That should be commended. They are now working very closely with the Australian Federal Police in relation to efforts to prosecute those people smugglers. I think it is disingenuous of the coalition to suggest that they were not aware that there would be surges from time to time. Clearly, the reason why the coalition constructed the Christmas Island detention centre, completed quite recently, was that they knew, regardless of the surge declining after 2001, that there would be a significant number of arrivals again. The reason why the coalition spent $405 million of taxpayers’ money on constructing the detention centre after 2001 is proof positive that they knew then what they know now, which is that conflicts will arise around the world, but particularly in our region, which will lead to people seeking haven in this country. That is what we have seen as a result of the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, and therefore we have to continue to work very closely with our friends within the region to prevent those people from attempting to get to this country improperly. Let us be very clear about this. What we do not want to do is return to a time when people were sewing their lips together in detention centres because they were of the view that they were locked away forever. We do not want to return to children behind barbed wire. We do not want to return to a situation which caused enormous angst and anxiety within our country. Therefore it is very important that we—as leaders of this country, representatives in this chamber—have a temperate debate, because we are dealing with not only complex issues but also very emotional issues. Clearly it is incumbent upon the government to act in a calm and temperate manner and I do believe, respectfully, that it is incumbent upon the opposition in matters like this, when we are dealing with very vulnerable people, to also conduct the debate in a humane and temperate manner. It is important that we do that. Clearly there are some that choose not to go down that path. It is always unfortunate when people seek to blame the government of their own country for fatalities. It is always awful to see some person so desperate as to try to blame this country, or its policies, for tragic fatalities. I would advise those opposite that that is certainly not the way that people would expect them to behave. We know, of course, that there have been tragedies in this country. We know there are maritime fatalities. But I do not believe that should be used in a manner to level an attack against the government of this country. Governments of either political persuasion should not be placed in that position. It is not the way we should be embarking upon this debate. I accept the community has concerns about this issue. It is why the Rudd government will continue to dedicate resources to protect the integrity of our borders, to protect the integrity of our immigration system, to provide humanitarian relief for those people who are desperate, to ensure we continue to fund the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration in order to provide assistance to our friends within the region, to provide assistance at least to some of those many millions of people around the world who are suffering through conflicts. (Time expired) 10363 17:32:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —In thrashing around looking for an excuse for their policy failure, looking for an excuse for their being totally paralysed when it comes to knowing what to do, this government is saying that the Howard government’s policies did not work. We have heard it from the last two speakers. Well, yes they did, and let us look at the facts. Those facts are that in late 1999, when we noticed that there was a fourfold increase in boat arrivals and their passengers to more than 4,000, we acted. We did not sit on our hands and say it was all about the push factors. We acted, and we introduced a strategy that was humane and just. So, in the next year, we saw the numbers come down. By 2001-02 we had halved the number of boatloads that thought it was worth their while coming down. By 2002-03, as we have heard, zero boats. Not a one. No deaths at sea, no burnings, no explosions. In the next year, just three; the year after, again, zero boats—not a boat. That was the Howard government strategy in action. Then, of course, we had Labor come into office. What happens? They say, let us abolish temporary protection visas, let us abolish the 45-day rule, let us abolish mandatory detention for all seeking asylum, let us introduce a complementary protection visa as an alternative if they do not make the grade as a visa claimant through the refugee convention, and let us also along the way signal to the people smugglers that we are going to get you all through in 90 days with full rights when you come to Australia. Tragically, that triggered—as we know—the 41 boats that have come into Australia with over 2,000 people and the 82 interceptions on Australia’s behalf by the Indonesians. It would seem they are now supposed to do the dirty work for this government. The second excuse Labor have made is: ‘Well, we can’t do anything about it, because it is all about the push factors. There is nothing we can do.’ The Howard government did not say that, despite the Iraqi war, the Gulf war, the Bosnian-Balkan war. We knew there was trouble in the globe, and there always will be. But we said we would respond to those troubles by the front door offer of refugee and humanitarian places for people we selected to come to this country. Once selected, we offered them full new settler support. We took them into communities where they could learn English, get a job and have accommodation. What this government has done now is to say, ‘We don’t know what to do—there is nothing we can do—it’s all about the push factors.’ I want to ask the government when they last saw a Congolese or a Sudanese on one of these boats, or someone from Eritrea. They are not on these boats, because they do not have the cash or the contacts. They are some of the most desperate and destitute refugees in the world. The women face desperate situations of starvation with their children, and mutilation. They are not on these boats. The reason is that the people smugglers are not interested in their plight because they do not have the cash. It is all about the cash. Unfortunately, yesterday, when confronted with Labor’s problem and its policy failure, Foreign Affairs Minister Smith plumbed new depths of personal insult and displayed his abject failure to have a clue about what to do. He said, ‘Would you see kids behind barbed wire again?’ to us, the coalition opposition. We heard this echoed just a minute ago by the previous speaker, desperately trying to politicise this issue and play the person. Let me remind the Labor government: it was a Labor government which introduced mandatory detention, including for women and children. It was the coalition which changed the rules about detention of women and children. We built the alternative community accommodation, not this government. Indeed, we did not hear policy out of the then opposition—in particular, the shadow minister for immigration—saying that was a problem. We changed Labor’s mandatory detention of women and children. It is a tragic situation today where we have people smugglers deciding who comes to this country, who is most in need. I think this debate brings out the best in Australians, not the worst as implied by the union officials today. The best in Australians say: ‘Let the government decide who is most in need. Do not allow criminals to decide who comes to this country. Do not allow our border security to be trashed so we have the most heinous and vile of international criminals coming through our open door and peddling their vile trade.’ (Time expired) 10364 17:37:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I say to those opposite: you took to mandatory detention like a duck to water and you took it to its zenith. I know we are trying to be calm and rational, and we must be in this debate, because it is a debate that we need to have. But we also do it with compassion, and that is essential—that this debate is conducted with compassion. First of all, I want to talk about the push factors, which are seminal to what we are talking about. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said in a statement in March that the increase in the number of asylum seekers in industrialised countries was due to international factors: Insecurity, persecution and conflict around the world are leading to greater numbers of people seeking asylum in industrialized nations including Australia … With regard to the global displacement of refugee populations, the UNHCR 2008 Global Trends report shows that there were 42 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2008. That is a lot of people displaced, both externally and internally. This included 15.2 million refugees. One-third of all refugees were in the Asia-Pacific region. That is our region. That is our backyard. The opposition just put the question: why aren’t people from Africa on the boats? It is because a third of all refugees are from our region—and tyranny of distance is a factor. Refugees from the African nations are in other nations closer to them; we can read about that. Afghanistan is still the leading country of origin for refugees: 2.8 million Afghans received assistance from the UNHCR in 2008. That represents one in four refugees worldwide. Currently, another country of origin for refugees in our region is Sri Lanka, as we are seeing. There has been talk of temporary protection visas. Temporary protection visas were odious, and nobody should ever think about returning to that system. It makes me despair and it makes me dismayed when I hear the opposition talking about them. But I want to talk in a rational way about temporary protection visas. In 1999, there were 3,721 asylum seekers who arrived on boats. We call them ‘irregular maritime arrivals’. In 2000, there were 2,939 and, in 2001, there were 5,516. When were temporary protection visas introduced? It was in 1999. So, if we are looking at a policy failure issue, that would have to be it. I do not want to get into that debate. I do not want to get into: ‘Am I tougher? Is mine bigger than yours? Blah, blah, blah.’ That is not the debate I want to get into. Honourable members interjecting— HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —Very patriarchal, in context. But this debate is about being calm, rational and compassionate, and it is about having bold border protection, and that is what the Rudd government is doing. There will be push factors, and we have to respond to them. We are responding to them in the best way that we can and we will continue to do that. The relationships with our neighbours—particularly with Indonesia and Malaysia, countries that asylum seekers are coming from or through—are stronger and closer, and they are trying to deal with those issues too. We are funding a whole range of mechanisms in our region to deal with those issues, and we are talking with those countries and working cooperatively with them. I think it was Minister O’Connor who said earlier that with regard to how we respond, in particular in the area of border protection, we have to work closely with our friends. 10000 Georganas, Steve (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Georganas)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. 10365 Bills R4082 10365 Consideration resumed from 19 October. Senate’s amendment— (1)    Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 6), after item 15, insert: 15A After paragraph 70(1)(d) Insert:             (da)    a decision to refuse to vary an approval, other than a decision to refuse to vary an approval under section 17F; 10365 17:42:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The government amendment that is being considered today will enable an application to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision of the minister to refuse to vary an approval. Given that a decision to grant an approval and a decision to vary or revoke an approval are subject to merit reviews in the AAT, it is considered appropriate that a decision to refuse to vary an approval should also be subject to merit reviews in the AAT. However, the amendment does exclude a decision to refuse to vary an emergency approval to extend the period of its effect under section 17F. Emergency approvals are intended to be an interim and short-term measure to avoid potential fuel supply shortfalls following which an approval under section 13 of the act may be granted. Given the short duration for which an emergency approval would be in effect, it is considered appropriate that a decision to refuse to vary an emergency approval to extend the period of its effect under section 17F not be subject to merits review in the AAT. 10366 17:43:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —The opposition support the Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill 2009. We also happily lend our support to this particular amendment, the reason being that it simply refers to a 14-day emergency provision and it ensures that, even if the application to have it reviewed is not successful, it will lapse after those 14 days or any appropriate extension. So it is not unreasonable. It is designed to help, in cases of emergency, provide fuel security. I would simply make the point that in the broader context we are seeking to work towards higher quality but lower emission fuels through better intensity, and that is a goal supported by both sides of this House. 10366 17:45:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —In summing up, I thank the shadow minister for his remarks and support. The Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill 2009 will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. In particular, these amendments are needed to improve the development and enforcement of fuel standards, which in turn benefit the public and the environment through cleaner fuels and reduced vehicle emissions. The measures contained in this bill will help the government stamp out unscrupulous dealers who illegally supply substandard fuels to Australian motorists in breach of national fuel quality standards. The act currently allows for approval for the variation of fuel standards and imposition of conditions to the approval; however, such conditions must relate to the supply of fuel. The bill will broaden the scope of the conditions that can be applied to approvals to vary fuel standards. This will allow for a company that has been granted an approval to be required to take measures to offset the adverse impacts from any supply of substandard fuel. The approvals process has also been streamlined in relation to variations of a minor nature and for the addition of other suppliers to the approval who are referred to as ‘regulated persons’ under the act. The bill will allow for these sorts of minor decisions to be made by senior departmental officers. A key feature of the bill is the introduction of the power to grant approvals in emergency situations to avoid a potential fuel supply shortfall without having to consult the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee. In these circumstances, where time is very limited before the threat of a fuel supply shortfall is realised, the committee need only be notified of the decision. An emergency approval can only apply for 14 days, after which the committee must be consulted on any proposed extension to the approval. The bill will also allow the circumstances in which fuel is supplied to be included as part of a fuel standard. This provision will allow the inclusion or exclusion of certain end uses, where appropriate, from the application of fuel standards and it will assist in addressing issues relating to the complexity of defining fuels used for different purposes and the management of blends. This is particularly important for biofuels where different blend ratios with petroleum fuels will have implications for vehicles. This change will allow for fuel standards to be set for fuels blended with biofuels, such as biodiesel and ethanol, at different percentages and for clarification in the blend standard of the types of vehicles the fuel is suitable for. The bill will introduce a more comprehensive range of enforcement measures, including a civil penalties regime so that there will be for each criminal offence currently in the act an equivalent civil penalty provision. Other enforcement measures include the ability to issue an infringement notice and, if appropriate, accept an enforceable undertaking. These measures will ensure that appropriate action can be taken in respect of breaches of the act. The bill will allow inspectors to enter the public areas of business premises during normal hours of operation and exercise a limited range of monitoring powers without the consent of the retailer or without a warrant. Entry to other areas of business premises or entry outside normal business hours will, as currently applies, require the consent of the retailer or a warrant. The bill will expand current information-sharing powers to allow the secretary to share information obtained under the act to assist in the administration or enforcement of various laws—for example, the Energy Grants (Cleaner Fuels) Scheme Act 2004 and state and territory fair-trading laws. This will facilitate communication with other regulators to increase the intelligence base on potential offenders. It will also assist in addressing gaps in the act’s coverage of the industry. There is only one new offence in the bill. As a consequence of the addition of a civil penalty regime in the act, new section 65D will provide that the secretary can require a person, other than the person who is suspected of contravening a civil penalty provision, who may have information relevant to an application for a civil penalty order to provide all reasonable assistance in connection with the application. An offence applies for failure to give assistance as required. The act as currently written is difficult to enforce. This bill will make the legislation much more robust in ensuring that the quality of fuel supplied in Australia is of the high standard required for new advanced engine technology in vehicles. This will be important to enable us to respond to new fuels and vehicle technologies as they emerge. (Extension of time granted) In closing, let me make clear that this bill will help to stamp out dodgy dealers who supply substandard petrol to consumers and will give Australian motorists confidence that the fuel they are paying for is of the high standard they expect. 10367 17:50:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —As I said earlier, we support the Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill 2009. It builds upon the parent act of 2000, which was a coalition government initiative. It is part of a two-stage process. Firstly, it ensures that we have appropriate speed in dealing with emergency supplies in cases of unforeseen need, whether it is through shortage, act of nature or act of humanity. Secondly—and I think this is the most prospective and important element—it provides a regime to ensure that the quality of fuel provided in Australia will progressively be improved as we seek fuels which have a lower CO2 impact, which have a lower greenhouse emissions impact. This bill, which was set up by the coalition and which is now being amended in line with directions that we established, will help us to achieve a lower emissions economy. For that reason and because we believe that the mechanisms chosen to enforce it are appropriate, we are happy to lend our support. Question agreed to. 10368 Bills R4154 10368 Debate resumed from 19 October, on motion by Dr Emerson: That this bill be now read a second time. 10368 17:51:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —When I was interrupted yesterday, I was following the member for Oxley and I commented that last year the committee that the member for Oxley chairs looked into sustainable long-term practices in franchising. He did a very good job of that. It is a pity that that was completed last year and we still do not have a response from government. I think there is an urgent need to do something about the parlous state of franchise agreements in this country. The government is, frankly, dragging its heels. We have a perfect opportunity in the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009, which we are debating today. I understand that initially the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, Chris Bowen, and federal cabinet had agreed that both consumers and small businesses would be covered by the proposed new unfair contracts terms framework. Of course, this has not happened. Minister Emerson decided to remove small business from the unfair contract proposal. I personally find that very disappointing. From the evidence that was given to the committee which looked into franchise agreements, it is very clear that there is a pressing need to tidy up the arrangements between franchisors and franchisees. The initial instinct to include small business in this legislation was right, I think. That was certainly supported by Associate Professor Frank Zumbo, from the University of New South Wales. Large corporations can, not just in the franchising sector but in other sectors, have considerable power over small contractors. This can impact on small businesses in terms of retail leases, franchises and supply agreements. When the exposure draft came out, the Productivity Commission supported business-to-business contracts as well as consumer contracts being included in this legislation. They said: Small businesses have a dual role in consumer policy: as well as being suppliers of goods and services, they are consumers in their own right. Indeed, in their dealings with larger businesses, small businesses can face many of the same issues as individual consumers, particularly relating to unequal bargaining power and the lack of resources to effectively negotiate contracts. It is certainly clear that by not including business-to-business contracts in this legislation small businesses are the losers. When this matter went to the Senate, it is true that a variety of views were expressed by senators, but Senator Eggleston, who chaired that Senate committee, observed that Western Australia had voiced its opposition to the minister’s decision to remove business-to-business contracts without consulting with the states, which would appear to suggest that the government may not have engaged in adequate consultations with the states through the Council of Australian Governments process. I support this bill, but I find that small business has been left out of the equation. There was some talk about the fact that there had not been time to consider the inquiry into franchising and another inquiry that is going on, but I would put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the inquiry into franchising was finalised around October last year and there has been plenty of time to make sure that those issues that were raised, particularly with regard to franchising, are addressed in this bill in the business-to-business contracts provisions. In any event, going back to the essence of this bill, as business operations grow, inevitably more businesses are also turning to standard form contracts for time and cost efficiency. Standard form contracts are a powerful business tool which makes doing business simpler for both business and consumers in many instances. However, because they are contracts which are not negotiated between parties and are offered on a take it or leave it basis, there is potential for consumers to be disadvantaged by unfair contractual terms. This concern is exacerbated, as the evidence suggests that for many consumers the thought of reading, let alone comprehending, a contract that has been designed to cover all situations is all too much. Standard form contracts are commonly used in the sale of everyday products from telecommunications and energy to car hire and software sales. Whilst I think Australia has made very good protections for Australian consumers, there are, as the Productivity Commission noted in its 2008 Review of Australia’s consumer policy framework, which I just referred to, definite areas with room for improvement. It says that the protection of consumers from unfair terms in standard form contracts is one such area. The bill has been a long time coming. There has been extensive debate and many rounds of consultation, albeit short ones. A number of concerns have been addressed, but there are still some troubling aspects that are causing anxiety to the Australian business community. There can be no doubting the significance of these changes, and it is important that we take the time to get them right before they are unleashed onto the business community, with far-reaching consequences. Our shadow minister has, quite rightly, put forward some suggestions as to how this bill might be improved. We definitely need to have consistency, but this does not have to result in complexity. As we seek to legislate against unfair contractual terms, it is necessary to first consider what is actually meant by ‘unfair’. It is the kind of term that is by its very nature subjective, meaning different things to different people. In the context of this legislation, it refers to contractual terms which cause a significant imbalance between parties’ rights and obligations and where such a term is not reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. In the current Victorian equivalent there is no reference to the protection of legitimate business interests and the focus is instead on whether the term is contrary to good faith. Where a term is deemed to be unfair, it will be rendered void and the contract will continue to bind the parties as though the disputed term never existed, although in some cases where an essential term is found to be unfair the contract will no longer be operative. It is important to consider at this point that the court is compelled to consider both the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract. In isolation, a term may seem unfair but the contract may also provide the consumer with considerable rights elsewhere. This has a notable impact where consumers view that a term imposing an additional charge is unfair. However, in many instances such a charge will only arise where a consumer exercises one of their rights under the contract. This matter was considered in the recent case of Jetstar v Free, where the Victorian Supreme Court considered the state legislation and found that the additional charge was related to a customer exercising their right to vary passenger details on an air ticket purchased at a discounted price—no doubt a case that is familiar to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Consumers and businesses alike must take a holistic approach to interpreting the contract, as this will ultimately determine if the single term is considered unfair. Where the contract must be considered as a whole, it is utterly inappropriate that, by regulation, a minister is able to prescribe prohibitive terms. The power to create per se prohibited terms is unsuitable and unnecessary. Within the last six years that the Victorian law has been operating, this prohibition power has not been used. As I mentioned, it is the contract as a whole and the context in which it operates that will determine if the term is unfair. A term that is unfair in some circumstances, as I said, may not be in others. Allowing a supplier to unilaterally amend service provisions may be more acceptable in some industries than others. The power to prescribe prohibited terms should be removed from the legislation to ensure that the decision as to whether a term is unfair is made in the context of the contract as a whole. Most businesses are willing to accept these changes but it would seem that one of the greatest fears is that they are going to be exposed to a new wave of disputes. I think that is a very real fear—having to expend considerable time and energy to defend claims that can be instigated by a disgruntled consumer under a low threshold in this legislation. It is not right that businesses have the onus of proof in terms of proving both that the disrupted contract is not a standard-form contract and that the term is reasonably necessary to protect their legitimate business interests. I have always had a bit of concern about turning the onus of proof rule on its head, and it does give me some concern in relation to its application in this bill to small businesses. In their submission to the Senate inquiry into the legislation, Brambles noted that the unduly low threshold for bringing a claim was likely to result in a significant number of unmeritorious or frivolous claims. We saw this kind of caper—when I first came into this parliament—over unfair dismissals and, on speaking to some authoritative people, there were a number of frivolous, unmeritorious claims that locked small business up in long hours of preparing to defend their position. I think we always have to make sure that we balance off the tensions between the responsibility of small business to consumers and the difficulties they face from frivolous claims. I can understand the rationale for reversing the onus of proof, in that business will have better access to information to defend the claim than a consumer may have to make it. However, such a position exists elsewhere in law and I believe the greatly extended investigative powers of the regulators will be able to override the necessity for these presumptions. We risk doing more harm than good if the presumption remains. Given the significance of the proposed changes and the number of amendments that have been made—and hopefully will continue to be made—since the draft exposure was first released, businesses will be under a great deal of pressure to make the necessary changes before the proposed starting date of 1 January 2010. David Bell, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Bankers’ Association, has said that the start date is simply unworkable because of the extent of the changes that need to be made, all in the context of other far-reaching legislative changes such as the new credit protection package. This change is not necessarily because there is the extensive use of unfair terms, but rather because changes to the computer system, staff training and arduous reviews will need to take place. Clearly, we would like to be able to protect consumers as soon as it is possible but it is in the best interests of all involved that the transition to this new legislation be smooth and well-informed. A start date of 1 July 2010 will mean that businesses have a reasonable period of time to review their procedures. This debate also highlights the need for consumers to be aware of the contracts they are signing. We need to encourage businesses to further embrace the trend of using clear, readily understandable language in their contracts. At the moment many consumers do not bother to read their documents, because the language is intimidating and confusing. Australian contract law is rooted in the history of freedom of contract. While parties may not always be of equal bargaining power, they are free to enter into any contract so long as it is not illegal. For the sake of business efficacy, the contracts that we make need to be upheld. Consumers need to be empowered so they do not enter into contracts they do not understand, and that has undesired consequences. If businesses do not have confidence in the contracts they sign, this risk will be passed onto the consumer. If consumers do not have confidence to read and compare contracts then the market is ultimately impaired. Consumer protection laws are undoubtedly necessary because of a small number of operators who rely on unfair contract terms but it is equally necessary to educate consumers as to the choices available to them. No doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker, like me, you come across cases fairly regularly within your constituency. I recall one such case recently where a rather elderly person had entered into a financial contract. The legal requirements are that the bank has to get them to sign that they have received both legal advice and financial advice that is independent. That advice was sought. It was a very complex kind of contract. The advice, no doubt, was lengthy and difficult to understand. This person entered into the contract, to later on find that the circumstances had changed and that there was a very severe penalty attached to breaking this contract early. So there is a great need to educate the consumer, to make sure they understand what they are signing and if they do not understand it to seek independent advice so that the terms of the agreement are absolutely clear and they know, for example, what the penalties might be if they decide to break the terms of that contract early and the various other circumstances that present in contract law. Having been involved in teaching contract law as it relates to property for many years, I know the difficulties and the many complexities of such contracts. It is not easy for people who have even a very good education to find their way through those contracts with ease. Ahead of us is a far-reaching reform process for a raft of different consumer protection laws, and this is the first step. Businesses and consumers must have confidence that the process will be rolled out with enough time to adjust if the rest of the reform agenda is to be implemented. There seems to be widespread support for the legislative aims behind these changes. There is a strong bipartisan approach to protect consumers from the few businesses that may disadvantage consumers by relying on unfair contract terms. We should recognise that most businesses value repeat business. They want to do the right thing by consumers but, as always, a few spoil it for the whole and that is why we have the job that we have to do in this place—that is, to review the law at regular intervals and alter it accordingly. (Time expired) 10372 18:08:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009. This bill addresses a number of matters associated with consumer law, and in particular responds to inadequacies relating to consumer protection. In summary, firstly, the bill provides greater consistency and uniformity in consumer law across Australia. Secondly, the bill provides the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Securities and Investments Commission with new powers enabling these authorities to issue substantiation and infringement notices, impose pecuniary penalties and issue public warning notices in relation to recalcitrant conduct—in other words, to name and shame them. Thirdly, the bill introduces a national unfair contracts law which will apply in business to individual consumer contracts. The bill is in response to a 2006 Productivity Commission inquiry and a subsequent October 2008 Council of Australian Governments agreement, and will require similar legislation to be enacted in each state and territory jurisdiction. The bill is the first stage of the government’s long-overdue reform to Australia’s consumer laws. The second stage will rename the Trade Practices Act the Competition and Consumer Act. It will also introduce a new national product safety legislative and regulatory regime. I also note that this bill has been the subject of widespread public consultation and numerous public submissions. The provisions of this bill apply to standard form contracts between business and individual consumers and do not apply to business-to-business contracts, with the exception made for sole traders who may have common business and personal interest in contracts in place. Unfair terms in contracts are unfair whether they apply to contracts between business and individuals or between business and business. I note the concerns raised by the Council of Small Business of Australia that business-to-business contracts are not covered by this legislation. While I would have preferred to see the provisions apply to all standard form contracts, including business-to-business contracts, I welcome the comments made by the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs in his second reading speech that a review is currently underway in respect of franchising laws and the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act. I hope that that review will result in fairer treatment of many small businesses by the more influential, larger organisations. Small businesses are themselves frequently the victims of exploitation by other businesses. Many small business operators have neither the expertise nor the resources to scrutinise business contracts. And just as many individuals do, they frequently enter into contracts with other suppliers in good faith and on the face value of the contractual arrangement they believe they are entering into. Making money out of unfair and hidden costs in contracts has regrettably become widespread business practice, even amongst many of Australia’s largest and best-known business organisations—practices which are unfair and which rip off unsuspecting consumers. The individual amounts involved in these rip-offs are often not large sums of money, but collectively, when thousands of customers are affected, they can amount to huge financial windfalls for the businesses using the unfair conditions. Uniform consumer laws throughout Australia will be welcomed by both businesses and consumers. It is a matter that I and other speakers have talked about in this place on previous occasions. It is a matter that few people in this place would disagree on—that is, having uniform laws throughout Australia on all matters would make the lives of Australians, whether they are individuals or businesses, much easier. For businesses, particularly those working across state jurisdictions, complying with a range of consumer laws from eight state and territory jurisdictions must be a costly administrative nightmare. Likewise for consumers, who today are able to deal with businesses from right across Australia. Having uniformity will provide them with greater confidence and make their choices much easier. It has been estimated that improved consumer laws throughout Australia will save the Australian economy up to $4.5 billion per year. That is $4.5 billion that can either go back into the hands of consumers, enabling them to buy other products or perhaps make ends meet, or be used by businesses to invest in growth and efficiency measures. This $4.5 billion could certainly be used in better ways than simply to rip off unsuspecting consumers. The provisions of this bill are yet another measure implemented by the Rudd government since coming to office to establish a seamless Australian economy. The bill will be of particular interest to the legal profession—after all, it deals primarily with legal interpretations and legal matters. I note that the Law Council of Australia in its submission did not support the inclusion of the unfair contracts provisions in this bill. It instead argued that the existing laws on unconscionable conduct in both the Trade Practices Act and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act were sufficient. To quote the Law Council of Australia trade practices committee’s submission in response to the call for consultation from Treasury: The Committee is not aware of any significant consumer complaints in relation to standard form contracts that would justify such a prohibition on a cost-benefit analysis to the economy. The submission goes on to say: The present unconscionability law under the Trade Practices Act already requires the courts to have regard to all relevant circumstances in determining whether unconscionable conduct has occurred. The Committee expressed the view that considerations of fairness fall properly within the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act and that another layer of complexity—in the form of a separate “unfairness” test for contract terms, is unnecessary and impractical. I will provide some statistics later with respect to the evidence not being there to justify such a prohibition, but I do make three observations now in respect to the Law Council’s submission—and I have read it all. The first is that the submission essentially defends the merits of the existing legislation. It appears to me, on a reading of the submission, that the Law Council is biased towards business. That is an assessment I make, and perhaps the Law Council might disagree with me on that. Secondly, the submission seems to overlook the reality that most consumers will not seek justice in the courts for relatively small sums of money, even if they do feel they have been charged unfairly, and they quite rightly look to the government for the necessary protection. Thirdly, I believe the Law Council is out of touch with consumers. I note that the submission from the Legal Aid Office in Queensland is somewhat different to that of the Law Council and is much more sympathetic to consumers. It is another legal submission yet it seems to be somewhat different to that provided by the Law Council. The Law Council’s views are in fact in stark contrast to the views expressed by consumer organisations such as CHOICE, which said in its submission: CHOICE strongly supports both the decision to include unfair contract law provisions in the Australian Consumer Law and to standardise and improve the enforcement powers available to each regulator. The CHOICE submission also quite rightly points out that often consumers have very little choice in the service contracts they enter into because the services are only offered by a limited number of providers who all use similar terms and conditions. Good examples of this are the large banks, the telcos and the energy suppliers, who operate in a sense in a market where there is limited choice, who each know what the competitor is doing and who each offer very, very similar contracts. They might be marginally different, but they are very similar and tend to use the same methods in trying to secure their customer base. Other speakers have made comments about the way some businesses operate and have also made the point that there are examples, whether it is with the banks, the telcos or the energy suppliers, where we tend to have consistency in the contracts that each of them use. We live in a country that prides itself on being the land of the fair go. All too often, however, the notion of a fair go is thrown out the window by unethical business operators. I note that it is a trend that is increasing year by year. I want to quote some of the statistics in respect to the trends relating to consumer affairs complaints. South Australia’s Office of Consumer and Business Affairs handled 5,410 complaints in 2007-08, an increase of 20 per cent over the previous year. Assuming that represents about 10 per cent of the Australian total, that equates to a level of complaints of around 50,000 a year around Australia. That is just through the state and territory branch offices. ASIC dealt with 11,436 complaints in 2007-08, an increase of seven per cent from the previous year. The Financial Ombudsman Service in 2008-09 dealt with 19,107 disputes, an increase of 33 per cent over the previous year. The ACCC—the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—responded to 65,336 complaints or inquiries in 2007-08, the last year for which I was able to get figures, an increase of 21 per cent from the previous year. It is clear that the consumer protection laws in this country are not working well enough. Those figures, if nothing else, certainly in my view dismiss the comments made by the Law Council of Australia that there is insufficient evidence that we need to change the current laws relating to business conduct in this country. This bill in fact recognises that we do have a problem and is, after the 2006 Productivity Commission inquiry and the Council of Australian Governments meeting in October last year, now an attempt to rectify those problems relating to consumer laws in this country. Whether it will be adequate or not, time will tell. There is no doubt in my mind that, as with all laws, the provisions will need to be constantly monitored and reviewed. It was a Labor government back in 1974 that introduced the Trade Practices Act and began consumer protection laws in this country. It is now the Rudd government that recognises that business and consumer practices have changed markedly since 1974 and that our laws need to reflect those changes. The government also recognises the shortcomings of the existing consumer protection laws in protecting consumers in today’s commercial environment. The ability of the ACCC and ASIC to include prohibited terms in these provisions, to issue disqualification notices, substantiation notices, infringement notices and public warning notices, to order redress where it has occurred and to impose pecuniary penalties and disqualification orders will make the ACCC and ASIC much more effective organisations and will expedite the resolution of consumer complaints. It will give consumers much greater confidence in the laws of the land protecting their genuine rights. The minister has made it clear that this is not the end of the Rudd government reforms but in fact the start of many other reforms, which I know the minister is currently looking into. I understand that there are a number of other matters being reviewed at the moment, in particular matters relating to the franchising laws and the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act. I commend the minister for introducing these provisions and I also commend him for his commitment to reforming and bringing up to date the consumer laws of this country. I believe that many of these reforms are long overdue and I believe that this bill is certainly a start in the right direction. I look forward to the outcomes in respect of the other matters that the minister is currently reviewing. I commend the bill to the House. 10375 18:24:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise today to speak in support of the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 The desire for a national consumer framework and provisions to restrict unfair contracts was canvassed by the Labor Party more than a decade ago, but this policy agenda was not a priority for the Howard government. In October 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed on the vital necessity for Australia to move boldly and comprehensively towards a national consumer policy framework. It was also agreed by COAG’s Business, Regulation and Competition Working Group that this be done with the close cooperation of all the states and territories. It has been formulated in equally close consultation with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The reform measures put forward in the bill represent a central element in the COAG reform program that will deliver a seamless national economy for Australia. The changes presented here are a generational change in consumer law and policy in Australia. They are the first step towards an Australia-wide, seamless economy. In brief, the new bill before us today will introduce a national unfair contract terms law. It will also provide the ACCC and ASIC with a new framework of penalties and enforcement powers. The two regulatory bodies will also have the powers to enforce new consumer redress options. Unfair contract terms laws exist today in many jurisdictions, including the UK, the EU, South Africa and Japan. Unfair contract laws exist in the US and in Canada. Under the current regime in Australia, a number of consumer protection measures exist in various Commonwealth, state and territory laws. There are many broad similarities in these laws. However, over time, significant differences have begun to emerge between consumer laws in the various jurisdictions across Australia. This has had the effect of creating confusion for consumers as well as increasing business costs across the board. There are in fact 13 different consumer protection regimes operating across Australia at the present time. The Australian consumer law regime will for the first time be amalgamated into one national system of consumer law. This national consumer law framework will promote consistency and protection across all Australian jurisdictions. This framework will reduce multijurisdictional complexity and result in lower compliance costs for businesses operating nationally. National consumer laws are a vital first step to creating a seamless national economy, a reform goal that has been championed by the Business Council of Australia. It was also a goal endorsed by the 2020 Summit held last year. The Productivity Commission has estimated that reforming Australia’s consumer protection laws will save the national economy up to $4.5 billion per year. This is an important saving, but it is equally important to remember that the bill will also give added protection to consumers. It will also make the law clearer, easier to implement, more transparent and more accountable for all parties who use contracts to conduct some element of their personal and business lives. The Australian consumer law bill will amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 and make corresponding amendments to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The reforms will be implemented through an application law scheme which the Australian government and the states and territories have agreed to implement for consumer protection and fair trading. The single national consumer law will be called the Australian Consumer Law. It introduces changes that will make life easier for all consumers through clearer, fairer standard form contracts. It will also provide for more effective enforcement of our consumer laws. One of the primary reforms under the bill is the introduction of the national provisions regulating unfair contract terms. Under the bill, the new national unfair contract terms provisions will apply only to standard form contracts entered into during business-to-consumer transactions. Regulation of business-to-business transactions will be reviewed as part of an ongoing reform process of the Trade Practices Act and the Franchising Code of Conduct. However, sole traders are included in the scope of the current bill because, for many of them, business and personal interests are often identical when entering into transactions or contracts. The new unfair contract terms provisions will provide protections for consumers. Consumers will have greater choice, a greater ability to seek alternative options and more ability to accurately assess the risks of signing a particular contract. Businesses will also have to assess their risk properly and will no longer be able to exploit their stronger bargaining position to transfer all of the risk to consumers. Put simply, a term in a contract will be void if it is unfair. It will be deemed unfair if there is a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations and/or the term is not necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the supplier. In determining whether a contract term is unfair, a court will determine whether the term has a ‘substantial likelihood of detriment’ to one party. In order to take an action, the claimant does not have to prove that actual detriment has occurred but only that there is a substantial likelihood of detriment occurring under the terms of the contract. Detriment includes both financial and non-financial detriment. Contract terms must also be transparent. The view that, if something is disclosed, it is therefore all right and beyond reproach no matter how unclearly or obscurely the information is presented is no longer sufficient as a consumer safeguard. This old concept of caveat emptor is no longer an appropriate assumption in a complex modern world of business and contract law. Any lack of transparency is a strong indicator of unfairness. In assisting regulators to decide the fairness or otherwise of terms contained in contracts, a non-exhaustive, indicative list of unfair terms has been developed. This so-called ‘grey list’ gives examples of terms which may be considered unfair. The ‘grey list’ does not prohibit the use of terms in contracts but it can be used for guidance in assessing the fairness of agreements entered into in business to consumer transactions. While certain types of terms may be prohibited in standard form contracts, it has been decided that specific terms should be not be prohibited at this time. However, this issue will be kept under review and the position may potentially change. The bill does not precisely define a standard form contract, but it does provide a set of considerations to be taken into account when assessing a contract’s fairness. One of the matters excluded from the unfair terms test is the main subject matter of the contract—for example, the upfront price payable under the contract. A consumer, for example, cannot be allowed to purchase goods, services or land and renege on the contract just because they later decide it was not a good deal or a good price. The Australian consumer law bill will provide the ACCC and ASIC with a broad range of nationally applicable powers to enforce the new laws. This will ensure that consumers are protected fairly and uniformly across the nation. Under current arrangements, the ACCC and ASIC have been hampered by inadequate powers to deal with harmful and exploitive business practices. In many cases, the states and territories have had wider powers in this regard. The ACCC and ASIC will be able to seek civil pecuniary penalties and disqualification orders and to issue infringement notices, substantiation notices and public warning notices. These regulators will also be able to seek redress for consumers not party to enforcement proceedings. The civil pecuniary penalties will now apply to breaches that can currently only be punished by criminal sanctions and for breaches of the unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act and the ASIC Act. These penalties will be serious, with maximum penalties of up to $1.1 million for corporations and $220,000 for individuals. The ACCC and ASIC will be empowered to disqualify people in breach of the consumer protection laws from being a director of a company. The regulators may also issue substantiation notices, requiring traders to produce documents or other information to substantiate claims they have made in their business or contractual dealings. Substantiation notices can also provide the regulators with a useful preliminary investigative tool to guide their deliberations. Minor breaches of the consumer protection laws can also be dealt with via infringement notices, which may allow those in breach to pay an amount without the need to go to court. One of the most effective ways of ensuring compliance with consumer protection laws is the public warning notices issued by various regulators, including some state fair trading bodies. The so-called ‘naming and shaming’ option is an effective tool to provide information to the public and alert them to traders that may cause detriment to consumers. The agencies will also be able to seek orders for redress on behalf of consumers not party to enforcement proceedings for breaches of the law, ensuring that all consumers affected by a breach have easier access to redress, including refunds. This power would extend only to redress that is quantifiable and would not allow for a court to make orders of a more general nature, such as damages. This mechanism for redress for non-parties will be particularly useful for those thousands of consumers who suffer small losses and who decline to take action individually because of the cost or inconvenience. Businesses should not profit from consumer loss just because the detriment is small or because the harm is spread widely. These enhanced enforcement tools will provide the ACCC and ASIC with additional ways to take effective, proportionate action against a wide range of businesses and others who breach consumer laws. The new Australian Consumer Law represents a milestone in the regulation of business law. The bill before the House today brings substantially enhanced protections to consumers. It contains some of the most significant and far-reaching consumer laws brought before the Australian people in many years. But the bill is just the first step in what will be the most comprehensive overhaul of consumer laws in at least a generation. It is a bill of which this government is very proud. In 2010, the government will introduce measures that will complete the Australian Consumer Law reform process. A second round of reform will then be introduced to parliament to bring in a new national regime of product safety regulations. The Commonwealth will then be able to implement temporary and, if deemed necessary, permanent bans on unsafe products that will apply nationally. This round will also amend the Trade Practices Act to change its name to the Competition and Consumer Act. By the end of 2010, the Australian Consumer Law reform process will be complete. This process will take Australia a long way towards the seamless national economy that was agreed by COAG to be one of this nation’s most fundamental national goals. It is a goal that this government is fully committed to and one that will bring multiple benefits to the Australian people, to Australian business and to the Australian economy. I commend the bill to the House. 10378 18:36:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —in reply—I would like to thank honourable members who have taken part in the debate on the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 and I would like to thank members for the spirit in which they have engaged in the debate. I think it has been a constructive debate on both sides on a very important policy initiative. On 2 October 2008, the Council of Australian Governments reached a historic agreement to create a single national generic consumer protection law to be called the Australian Consumer Law. The bill is the first legislative step to give effect to COAG’s agreement. It will implement key elements of the Australian Consumer Law, including a new national unfair contract terms law and new penalties, enforcement powers and options for consumer redress for the ACCC and ASIC. Attempts to create a single consumer law have been made in the past and they have a sorry history. Most notably, in the early 1980s the federal, state and territory governments agreed to create harmonised consumer protection laws. This initiative succeeded in creating harmonised laws for a time, but consistency was all too soon lost as individual jurisdictions amended and augmented their laws over time. COAG’s decision of 2008 differs from previous attempts at harmonisation in that it establishes an application legislation regime. This means that amendments to the Commonwealth’s consumer protection legislation will automatically apply in all states and territories. In addition, all jurisdictions have agreed to be bound by the intergovernmental agreement for the Australian Consumer Law which sets out the manner in which changes to the Consumer Law will be made in the future. COAG made this intergovernmental agreement at its meeting of 2 July 2009. On 25 June 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics for inquiry and report. In the course of its inquiry, the committee received 58 public submissions and held public hearings in Canberra and Sydney, reflecting the strong interest in this legislation from businesses and consumers. The committee tabled its report on the provisions of the bill on 7 September 2009. The committee expressed strong support for the bill and recommended that the bill should be passed. I note that the coalition members of the committee have also recorded their broad support for the bill. In the report, the committee has also made recommendations in relation to the publication of guidelines by the ACCC and ASIC on the operation of the provisions of this bill and the coverage of the insurance contracts under the proposed national unfair contract terms law. The government will consider the committee’s findings and recommendations carefully prior to debate on the bill in the Senate. I am pleased the opposition has expressed its broad support for the bill and I appreciate the input of opposition members in the debate and the constructive discussions we have had with the member for Cowper and also with Senator George Brandis with regard to some aspects of the legislation. The government will continue these discussions with the opposition and we will consider making amendments in the Senate. This bill represents an important milestone in achieving a lasting national consumer protection law. That said, the creation of a national unfair contract terms law and the strengthening of the enforcement regime for the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act are also worthy objectives in their own right. The Australian Consumer Law reforms will be completed via a second bill to be introduced in early 2010. The second bill will include the national consumer product safety regulatory regime, as well as enhancements to the existing consumer protection regime, based on best practice among state and territory laws. I thank my colleagues on the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. I also want to take the opportunity to thank publicly in this chamber my colleague the previous competition policy minister, Chris Bowen, for all the work he has done on this, as well as the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group for their ongoing cooperation in achieving these major reforms. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 10379 Dr EMERSON (Rankin —Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) 18:42:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 10379 Bills R4193 10379 Debate resumed from 10 September, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be now read a second time. 10379 18:42:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 and I foreshadow that I will be moving substantive amendments in the consideration in detail stage. It is my hope that the government will seriously consider these amendments as they will go a long way to fixing some very serious flaws in what could otherwise be a worthwhile set of reforms to our youth allowance system. The coalition supports improvements to the way that youth allowance is targeted. As the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out on more than one occasion, some of the reforms in this bill are ideas which I called for in March as shadow minister for education. But there are two fundamental flaws with this bill which cannot be allowed to stand if the opposition is to provide its support. It is to these issues that I will immediately draw the attention of the House before discussing some of the broader issues in the bill. First, this legislation is retrospective in its application and effect. It is fundamental to our social contract that governments do not move the finishing line halfway through the race. In relation to this legislation, tens of thousands of students who finished year 12 last year spoke to a range of government employees—teachers, career advisers, Centrelink officials and the like—and were advised that by fulfilling the workforce participation criteria throughout 2009 they would be eligible to subsequently gain youth allowance as independents. These students made significant decisions about their life and study plans on the basis of this advice stamped with the Australian government crest. Tens of thousands of students deferred their studies, as students have done every year, in order that they might fulfil the requirements to obtain youth allowance as independents and therefore fulfil their higher education dreams. The 2009-10 budget came as a rude shock to over 30,000 such students who were told that, having arranged their lives around the demands of the government, they would no longer be eligible to receive youth allowance after the end of this year. The second critical problem with this legislation is that it fails to appreciate the barriers faced by students from rural and regional Australia in accessing higher education. Instead, the government’s changes exacerbate rural disadvantage. Today, on the very day that many year 12 students are beginning their exams, the Deputy Prime Minister is demanding that we pass legislation that will make it impossible for thousands of those same students living in rural and regional Australia to gain youth allowance and achieve their dreams of higher education. The Deputy Prime Minister’s cruel dismissal of the needs of rural students has been haunting year 12 students since the budget. The abolition of the workforce participation route for youth allowance eligibility as an independent will make it harder for thousands of young people from rural and regional families to go to university. Young people in rural and regional Australia have to move to the city if they are to pursue further study and are not necessarily able to rely on financial support from their parents—even if their parents’ income or assets mean that they are ineligible for youth allowance under the parental means test. Students from farming and small business backgrounds in the country are often ineligible to receive youth allowance as dependants because the value of the average Australian family farm is significantly higher than the level of assets allowed under the test. However, the average Australian farming family cannot afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to support their child’s move and their accommodation and living expenses while studying at university. Compare that child from the average Australian farming family to a child from an average Australian metropolitan family. The parents of the average student in the city will be likely to earn more than the average Australian farming family. However, as their parents will not own an asset such as a farm, the city student will be eligible to receive youth allowance, even though the student is able to live at home while attending university. The minister’s claims that this legislation is all about access and equity are clearly absurd. Because this significant cohort of students from the country are ineligible to receive dependent youth allowance, thousands every year currently gain eligibility for independent youth allowance under the workforce participation criteria. This means that they have to earn $19,532 within an 18-month period, which most do during a gap year. This is the criterion that will be abolished by this legislation. These changes fly in the face of the government’s claims that they are interested in increasing higher education participation from all sections of the community. They will in fact be actively discouraging rural and regional students from attending university. The minister is on the record accusing me of seeking to reduce student entitlements—she calls it the Pyne plan. The only side of this debate that is seeking to rip youth allowance away from students is in fact the government. This legislation represents the Gillard garrotte, tightening around the necks of tens of thousands of students whose only crime has been to have aspirations of achieving a higher education and a career in the field of their choosing. Coalition members’ offices, particularly those in rural Australia, have been deluged with concerns from young people and their families, whose distress has been made worse by the Deputy Prime Minister’s indifference to their plight. Hundreds have written their personal stories on the coalition’s Education for Australia web site. I will read just two for members’ information, but all members are welcome to read more for themselves, as I am sure the member for Lindsay will do, at educationforaustralia.com.au. Mikaela Horne, in South Australia, is a prime example. She writes: As a year 12 student living in Eyre Peninsula, I have been studying hard all year as I would like to obtain qualifications from university next year. I plan to then come back and work in a rural town. I’m extremely disappointed to hear that to receive independent status to qualify for the highest youth allowance I would have to work a staggering 30 hours a week or have to defer … university education or give up … future ambitions altogether. Realistically I couldn’t do this in Adelaide while studying a Uni course as they are a 40 hour a week commitment depending on course type. I feel a large amount of rural students would be in the same situation as myself and it’s not acceptable. Discrimination of any form was ‘supposedly’ abolished many years ago so why is it that rural students, who are already at a disadvantage when it comes to Uni education compared to city students are being penalised for yet again? And she concludes: Answer me that Ms Gillard! From a parent’s point of view, Di Williams, of Dunsborough in Western Australia, spoke for thousands of mothers when she wrote: Please reject the new Youth Allowance scheme for rural youth. Our daughter is year 12 now at Georgiana Molloy Anglican School, she is studying for her TEE and has her heart set on a gap year and entering University 2011. Working and earning the old youth allowance during the gap year. With this new Youth Allowance scheme there is no way she will be able to work 30 hrs per week within the 18 month time frame, unless she works 2 or 3 jobs per week which in our area Dunsborough is not easy to do. 3 hrs southwest of Perth, rural WA. If the government allows this for this change to happen there will be a lot of local students vying for jobs in a small area that will not be able to meet their needs. The students will not be able to move to Perth or another area for work as cost would be too high, not only financially but emotionally. It is bad enough they cannot stay at home and attend university without then having to leave earlier to gain the employment. With the 18 month clause - that is ridiculous - if they wish to attend university in 2011 after 1 year gap, then they should be working 30 hrs per week now … Only a few courses will let you defer 12 months, let alone 18 months. Accommodation on campus would be very be hard to find mid year. Please make the government be aware that they are penalizing the youth of rural areas when they should be trying to help rural youth become the future leaders, doctors, lawyers, business people our country needs without asking for overseas professionals to fill the gaps in our society. It is worth noting that it has not just been coalition members who have been receiving this sort of response from their constituents and raising these concerns in the public domain. We have been joined by the Greens, Family First and Independents in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Deputy Prime Minister is isolated in her stubborn refusal to see that her legislation is retrospective and that it unfairly discriminates against students in rural and regional Australia. Even those on her own side of politics and in her own state—the Labor Party in the Victorian state parliament—have been scathing about these changes. The Victorian parliament’s Education and Training Committee is chaired by the Labor member for Ballarat East, which is in the federal member for Ballarat’s electorate. In that committee’s recent report into this issue, that same Labor member, Geoff Howard, wrote in his introduction that the committee: … is concerned that the specific circumstances of rural and regional young people still have not been adequately addressed. Already, many such students defer their studies to meet eligibility criteria for income support and this route to financial independence is set to become even more difficult under the new system. That is a Labor member of the Victorian state parliament writing this. It is not a coalition member writing this but a Labor member who is the chairman of the Education and Training Committee. This report—by a committee controlled by the Labor Party, let alone chaired by a Labor member—was supported by members from both sides of the Victorian Legislative Assembly including Liberals and Nationals. In a particularly scathing passage, the committee argued: … the Committee believes that the removal of the main workforce participation route will have a disastrous effect on young people in rural and regional areas— and that the changes: will have a detrimental impact on many students who deferred their studies during 2009 in order to work and earn sufficient money to be eligible for Youth Allowance. I will be fascinated to see what the Labor members of parliament who intend to speak on this bill have to say in answer to a clear and direct criticism from one of the members of their own tribe in relation to these changes. This report confirms the point that the coalition has been making since the budget: the Deputy Prime Minister’s changes will suffocate many students’ dreams of a higher education. There is not a political party in the land that has not expressed severe concerns about the way that the government is seeking to abolish the workforce participation criteria for gaining Youth Allowance without providing any sort of alternative route for those students from rural areas who are now unable to access Youth Allowance. Actually there is one route the minister is leaving open to these students: the ridiculous 30 hours per week for 18 months option. As many members have identified, this is not a serious option at all. It is sheer nonsense to think that students who have just graduated from year 12 and have been accepted into university will then be able to defer their studies for 18 months and find a full-time job in communities where much of the work is seasonal. The Deputy Prime Minister is aware of these two problems. Indeed, in August, having maintained for three months that these student concerns were just some hysterical reaction to an alleged fear campaign, she held a press conference in this building and, in a rare moment of self-awareness, admitted that she got it wrong. Having admitted her mistake, the Deputy Prime Minister should have fixed it and then we could have moved on. That could have been the end of the matter, and the remainder of these Youth Allowance reforms, which the coalition supports, could have passed easily with bipartisan support. Instead the government announced half-baked amendments which will only provide a stay of execution to a small fraction of the students facing the Gillard garrotte, and it is only for those students who are beginning university in semester 1 next year. I ask the House to think about the logic of this for a second. The Deputy Prime Minister admitted there was a problem with rural disadvantage in her legislation that needed fixing and so she extended the date for remote students to gain access to the gap year provision by six months. This will help 4,700 students who are currently in their gap year, but the government’s half-baked backdown does nothing for rural students into the future. It does nothing to help rural students sitting their year 12 examinations today, let alone the rural students today in years 8, 9, 10 and all students in the future. It does nothing for these people. Similarly, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted there was a problem with retrospectivity, that it was unfair to change the rules for students who had already made their plans and commenced their gap years. However, her changes will help fewer than 5,000 out of the 30,000 students who find themselves in the position in their gap year of facing retrospective changes that move the goalposts midway through the game. If the minister were serious about addressing rural disadvantage, she would be fixing the problem for all rural and remote students into the future, such as those starting their year 12 exams today. If the minister were serious about removing the outrageous retrospectivity of her legislation, she would be fixing the problem for all students, not just those living more than 90 minutes from their campus. The coalition will be moving and supporting amendments to remove the retrospective aspect of the legislation. We have already announced our policy to provide scholarships to students from rural and regional areas who are ineligible for Youth Allowance but whose financial circumstances are preventing them from accessing higher education. We encourage the government to take on board these sensible and fair policies. I note that the member for Bendigo has entered the House of Representatives chamber, a member who does represent regional Australia, a member who must have heard from constituents in his own electorate about the unfairness of the government’s Youth Allowance changes, a member who has probably found that the Gillard backdown has probably not helped anybody in his electorate of Bendigo because they do not live more than 90 minutes from a university campus. He is a member who is facing the exact scenario that I have outlined for rural students whose dreams of higher education have been dashed by the Deputy Prime Minister’s changes to Youth Allowance. Unlike the member for Lindsay, who represents a metropolitan electorate and can in a very blase fashion dismiss the concerns of rural and regional youth, the member for Bendigo does not find himself in that luxurious position of being able to do that. I will be fascinated to see whether the member for Bendigo, the member for Ballarat, the member for Flynn, the member for Capricornia or the members for all the rural and regional seats who mistakenly voted for the Labor Party at the last election are prepared to stand up for their constituents. I would point out to the House that the opposition moved a motion in the parliament in the last sitting fortnight calling on the government to recognise its mistake and its error in respect to the reforms to youth allowance that disadvantage rural people. I am sad to say the member for Bendigo, the member for Ballarat, the members for Flynn, Dawson, Capricornia and other rural seats, the member for Hunter and many others voted that motion down rather than allow it to be debated. They voted against the interests of their own constituents and voted against the interests of the people who put them here in parliament to represent them. I say that more out of sorrow than anger because, in fact, I would appreciate it if they would stand up for their electorates, for their constituents and for their families who had dreams of their children achieving higher education that have now been dashed by the Gillard garrotte. I might even stay in the House to hear the member for Bendigo’s speech if I can stomach it. But, of course, I anticipate that he will not vote for the opposition’s amendments because he will do exactly as he is told by the factional bosses of the Labor Party, as will the member for Lindsay, who is a factional boss himself. I see the member for Newcastle has also entered the House. It is becoming a veritable welter of rural and regional members from the Labor Party coming in. I call on the member for Newcastle to stand up for her constituents, families and young people, who will be garrotted by the Gillard garrotte in these youth allowance reforms. To maintain budget neutrality, the coalition has suggested a reduction in the rate of the new start-up scholarship. This is a new scholarship that no students are currently receiving and is paid in a lump sum at the beginning of each semester. This change will not affect the proposed fortnightly payments to students by even one dollar, despite the spin and falsehood in the minister’s press releases. Under the coalition’s amendments, all students on youth allowance will be better off, receiving for the first time ever a $1,000 start-up scholarship. No student currently on their gap year, preparing to enter university next year and claim youth allowance, will have the rug pulled out from under their feet. Rural and regional students need to be provided with a clear route to university, and the savings measures we have suggested will provide ample funds to assist all these students. Other aspects of this bill meet with support from the coalition. One reform that will not catch too many headlines, but which will be particularly appreciated by many in the higher education sector, is the exemption of merit based scholarships from the income test under social security and veterans’ entitlements legislation. We commend the government for this measure. We also support the increase in the personal income test threshold, the extension of youth allowance to students enrolled in masters by coursework programs and the relaxation of the parental income thresholds. But in improving some aspects of the youth allowance framework, the government has created barriers to thousands of other students from rural Australia. It is bad policy to fix one perceived inequity by replacing it with a new gross injustice. This legislation is currently under consideration by a Senate committee. When that committee reports at the end of the month, I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to take the opportunity to reconsider her position on the two flaws within this legislation. If she does not like the opposition’s suggested savings measure, we are open to the idea of supporting alternative savings measures. But in order to receive coalition support for this legislation, two things need to happen. Firstly, the government must remove the retrospective elements of the bill. Secondly, they must address the issue of rural and regional disadvantage in a serious manner. I would point out to the House that because of the government’s legislative agenda and because the bill abolishing Commonwealth scholarships that were already in place has already been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, the minister has put herself in a russian roulette position where, if this bill fails to pass the Senate at the end of this year because of the opposition and Greens opposition to the retrospective elements in the bill and the entire new scholarships program fails to be passed, she will be responsible. She will be responsible for denying Commonwealth scholarships—the start-up scholarships—of at least $1,000 a year to every single student who would have received youth allowance from 1 January. We are playing for high stakes. The opposition is absolutely clear-eyed about its opposition to the retrospective elements of this legislation. If the minister will sit down with us and talk about how to remove those retrospective elements and talk about how to make sure it is revenue neutral with whatever measures she proposes or if she wishes to adopt the measure that we have proposed, we are prepared to sit down in good faith—there is a lot of good faith going around at the moment—and negotiate with the government. On the other hand, if she insists that the opposition’s amendments not be agreed to or not even discussed then it will be on her head if, on 1 January, every person who is receiving youth allowance is denied a scholarship under the government’s new legislation. The opposition makes that absolutely clear. I warn the government today, as I have since the budget, that the opposition are absolutely determined to stand up for rural and regional students and we are absolutely determined to stand up for students who are in their gap year and have seen the finishing line changed on them halfway through the race. It is offensive and we will not support it. I would recommend that, when the consideration in detail stage occurs, the government take very seriously the amendments that we have put to the House. 10385 19:06:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 0 Mr GIBBONS —It is always a pleasure to follow the shadow minister. Like all his contributions, this one was fact free and full of distortion and, dare I say, verballing. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate because the proposed changes to student income support in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 have generated considerable discussion in my electorate. Indeed, some weeks ago I attended a public meeting in Bendigo where it was clear that there are strongly-held views on this issue. To understand the reason for these changes, I think it is important to remember the purpose of providing income support to students. The benefits of education to the individual and the community at large have become better understood in recent decades. Economists like the University of Chicago’s James Heckman, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2000, have been telling us for almost two decades that public spending on education and skills leads to higher rates of return on investment. Analysis of human capital by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests there are significant correlations between higher levels of educational attainment and both economic growth and improved physical and mental wellbeing. As the OECD said in 2006: Evidence of the public and private benefits of education is growing. Application of knowledge and skills are at the heart of economic growth, with the OECD attributing half of GDP per capita growth from 1994 to 2004 to rising labour productivity. Policymakers around the world now accept that investing in knowledge, skills and innovation is one of the best means available to ensure long-term economic prosperity and better work opportunities. Governments around the world have been increasing their focus on all areas of education, but particularly higher education. We see our universities as the engine rooms of innovation and economic and social progress. That is why we want to make it possible for every young Australian to access higher education or skills training. One of the legacies of the previous government was a confusing array of student financing arrangements, where each change added another layer on top of past mistakes, none of which advanced the important goal of educational equity. In addition to being morally right, equity matters to national productivity. If rising educational attainment is going to make a major contribution to our future prosperity, it is no good limiting access to tertiary education to an elite who can afford it. This is now even more important as the global financial crisis brings new urgency to the debate. When the economic turnaround does come we will need to ensure that we are able to fill the increasing opportunities presented by an expanding economy. In past periods of economic growth we have done far too little to deliver the opportunities of growth to all Australians. We have left our own young people behind while at the same time complaining about shortages of labour and shortages of skills. We would rather take the expedient short-term route of enticing doctors and dentists, engineers and accountants from developing countries to come here than train our own. A developed society like Australia raiding less well-off countries for their scarce professional talent cannot be justified. This time we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. We must lift our game on education and, in particular, on educational equity, and the Rudd government is determined to do so. Equity was at the core of the findings of the Bradley review of higher education. This is an important moral issue. Equality of opportunity always has been, and always must be, a central value of the Australian Labor Party and of the Australian nation. But it is also an economic issue. Without greater equity in our higher education system, Australia will not have the high-level knowledge and skills we need to compete with the most successful countries of the world. Consider the situation in some comparable nations. In Australia, about 32 per cent of young adults have been to university. In contrast, Sweden has a national target of 50 per cent of people up to the age of 25 participating in higher education—a target they have almost achieved. The target in the United Kingdom is 50 per cent of those up to the age of 30 participating in higher education by 2010—and they are currently at 43 per cent. In Ireland, they aim to have 72 per cent of people with a tertiary qualification by 2015—and they are already at 55 per cent. Participation rates amongst disadvantaged groups in these countries have also increased significantly as a result of determined effort and the implementation of innovative programs. Australia’s participation rates, however, have remained stubbornly static in recent years because we have not made the required effort. For the past decade, equity has not been a priority. The most seriously under-represented groups in higher education are those from remote parts of Australia, Indigenous students, those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and those from regional areas. Today, a secondary student from a low-socioeconomic background is only about one-third as likely to attend university as a student from a high-socioeconomic background. And Indigenous people are still vastly under-represented. This is simply wrong. It should have been addressed a year ago and it now falls to the Australian Labor Party to do so. The Rudd government is determined to rectify this appalling neglect and start the process of positioning our education system to be a major national asset for the 21st century. Part of this process is to simplify and improve our system of student income support. The reforms contained in this bill will mean that some 68,000 more students, including many from rural and regional Australia, will for the first time qualify for income support. A further 35,000 existing recipients of income support will now receive higher payments. These changes will benefit many students in my electorate because many families in central Victoria earn lower incomes. Bendigo is ranked 132nd out of 150 electorates by taxable income and the average income is about $42,000 a year. Any student who receives at least a part payment of youth allowance can also receive a range of other support. This is of particular benefit to regional students and their families. These include: student start-up scholarships of $2,254 each year, relocation scholarships of $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 each year thereafter, and rent allowance. More students will now also qualify for youth allowance because the age at which they are considered to be independent from their parents will be reduced progressively from the current 25 years of age to 22 years of age. Most of the concerns raised with me about the proposed changes have been about the changes to the independence test for the Youth Allowance, and I have duly conveyed those to the Deputy Prime Minister. But it is because the parental income test has been so low for so long that some students and their parents have come to think the independence test as the primary way to qualify for support. This was never intended to be the case. The independence test was targeted at students who had left home and were genuinely living independently from their parents. What has happened is that many students from more affluent families, encouraged by educators and in some cases government agencies, in private and other independent schools, have exploited the independence test to sidestep the parental income test. It has been said that they have been rorting that system. I do not agree with that. A lot of the advice families got was from Centrelink and tertiary and other agencies. You cannot blame them for that, but they were certainly exploiting it—there is no doubt about that. While they met the income criterion under the old rules, often by working in a gap year before taking up a university place, many were not really living independently from their parents. The Bradley review found that more than one-third of students who qualified for Youth Allowance in this way came from families earning more than $100,000 a year, almost one in five came from families earning more than $150,000 and one in every 10 came from families earning more than $200,000. The Youth Allowance was originally designed to help less well-off families give their kids a decent education. There is no way a family earning $150,000 or $200,000 a year can be described as less well-off. The changes to the independence test rules are designed to stop this exploitation and direct more income support to those who need it most. There has been a considerable amount of misinformation and distortion from members of the federal opposition and the Victorian National and Liberal parties about these changes. Their scare campaign about one element, the workforce participation criterion for independence, did nothing to help parents and students understand how the changes would actually affect them. The proposed changes to the independence criterion would have meant some students would no longer qualify for Youth Allowance in this way. However, many will now qualify for a benefit through the increased parental income test. In working this out parents need to take into account all of the changes to student income support, and I encourage them to consult the many fact sheets that are available on the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations website. There is also an online student assistance estimator to help work out the impact of the changes. Parents whose student children are not be eligible for Youth Allowance should also check if they qualify to receive family tax benefit part A, which has higher cut-out thresholds than student income support. However, this government is not inflexible and has listened carefully to concerns about those students currently taking a gap year and who did so on the basis of the previous rules and the advice they were given at the time. It is clear that some—not all—of these students would have been disadvantaged during the transition from the old rules to the new rules. That is why, as the Deputy Prime Minister announced in August, students who are taking a gap year now and must move to attend university will now be entitled claim independent status for Youth Allowance until 30 June 2010. This change will mean students who left school in 2008 will still be able to apply for independent status under the current rules. The government has always made it clear that its changes to student income support are intended to be revenue neutral. So to pay for this time extension of the current independence criterion, previously proposed changes to the amount a student can earn before affecting their youth allowance will be deferred by 18 months. Students are currently able to earn $236 a fortnight before their Youth Allowance payment is affected. This will now rise to $400 a fortnight from 1 July 2012. The Rudd government is undertaking a thorough overhaul of the rules for student income support so that more students who need it most, including many from rural and regional Australia, will benefit. Labor has made the system we inherited from the Howard government much fairer to give some 68,000 more students from low-income families the opportunity of a university education. Of course, the opposition’s position on student income support has changed as often as their position on climate change—not to mention a whole range of other issues critical to this country’s future prosperity. We know that in 2003 the former Howard government opposed Labor’s proposals to reduce the age criteria for student independence to 23. But we also know that former Minister for Education, Science and Training Brendan Nelson supported means testing the Youth Allowance, saying: The Final Report of the Youth Allowance Evaluation, released in May 2002, highlighted the broad community support that exists for parental means testing. It ensures that Youth Allowance payments are directed to those young people who are most in need of assistance. Now we have an insight into the current opposition’s attitude towards young Australians from a speech in July by its deputy leader in the Senate, Senator Eric Abetz. Addressing the Australian Liberal Students Federation conference in Hobart, Senator Abetz accused people born after 1980 of viewing government as the solution to all their problems. Generation Y has an ‘entitlement mentality’, according to the senator. It is clear that some members of the opposition would rather see young Australians working two or more jobs to pay their way through university, as most American students are forced to do. We saw further evidence that the opposition are the enemies, not the friends, of Australian students when, in the Senate’s last sitting, with Senator Abetz leading the charge, they voted down the government’s legislation to restore student services. This would have restored essential facilities and amenities for students and, despite the mendacious claims of the opposition, would not allow for a return to compulsory student unionism. When they were in government the coalition ripped $170 million out of university funding, resulting in the loss of vital health, counselling, employment, childcare, sporting and fitness services. As a result, universities have been forced to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to preserve at least some support services and amenities. In his Hobart speech Senator Abetz spoke of his pride at campaigning as long as 30 years ago to strip away these services from students. Indolent spongers off the state, not interested in their own or the country’s long-term future, who do not deserve support while studying at university—that seems to summarise the senator’s view of young Australians today. If he and other like-minded members opposite had their way our university car parks would be full of the BMWs of wealthy students whose parents can afford to pay for their tertiary education. Well, that is not the Labor Party’s view, and it is not the view of the Rudd government. We believe in equity in education. We believe education is vital for the futures of all our young Australians, whatever their parents might earn. And we believe it is vital for the future prosperity of the nation that as many young Australians as possible have the opportunity to obtain a tertiary qualification. That is why we have reintroduced the proposed student services legislation into the parliament. And that is why we have introduced this student income support legislation. I strongly commend the bill to the House. 10389 19:22:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. I thought the previous speaker, the member for Bendigo, started quite well. I agree with his sentiments that equity in education is indeed the one thing that underpins our society. Unfortunately, he only told half the story. He went on to say that more students would get benefits under the proposed changes, and that is correct, but the point of this is that they are not going to get very much. It is very expensive, particularly when you live in rural and regional areas, to attend university when you have to travel large distances and live away from home. I think the amount that some students are entitled to goes down to something like $6 a week, which is a pittance. When the member for Bendigo was speaking about the previous government he mentioned health and bringing doctors in from other countries. Good government policy with regard to tertiary education and rural areas does deliver results—and I will speak of the Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas scheme. In my small home town of Warialda, with 1,300 people, at the moment there are seven students who are either studying medicine or have completed studies and are training in hospitals as doctors, through the RRMA scheme, a policy of the previous government. So, government policy does affect opportunities for education for rural students. We have seen a large change, and I am relatively new to this place. The previous system was not perfect. I believe that having to do a gap year is in some ways discriminatory for rural students, but it was the only way that they could get an adequate level of support to attend university. Many students, particularly from my electorate, have chosen that route, because it is the only way that they can go to university. It is not just the children of farmers; I do not come here as an agrarian socialist. Indeed, before I came to this place I did have some involvement in education as the chairman of the Gwydir Learning Region, one of the most successful and innovative learning organisations in Australia. It is recognised as such. It delivers education to a community of 6,000 people in an area of 10,000 square kilometres—with no tertiary education. It requires resourcefulness. We delivered training and we had relationships with the University of New England to enable those country kids to get a start. But, ultimately, if they wanted to go to university they had to leave the area. Indeed, in my electorate, Charles Sturt University, which is a wonderful institution, now has a campus in Dubbo, but it only offers about three or four courses. So, basically, if you want to do any course at all you have to travel, and not just for an hour or two; you have to travel for many hours. What this change has meant is that country kids now do not have that opportunity. This is the biggest issue that has come through my door in the two years that I have been in this place. It is not just farmers who are coming in and talking about their kids; it is school principals, teachers, nurses, plumbers, electricians and council workers. All those people that rural Australia requires to make it grow and prosper are now going to struggle to educate their kids in tertiary education. The one aspiration that a parent has is to give their child an education and a start to equip them to undertake whatever life puts to them. Many, many parents have contacted me—and, despite what the previous speaker said, it was not a scare campaign—and the fact is that this new scheme does not stack up. The fact that there were considerable savings under the previous scheme would indicate that there is less money going out. And that is the case. This change is not just affecting the education of young people; it is actually affecting rural communities in a broader sense. As the children of the people who are vital to our communities—the professionals who are required to drive and grow our rural communities—get a bit older they look to move to a place where there is tertiary education, because that has become the only alternative they have for educating their children. So not only does that community’s children suffer because they are not given the same opportunity as their city cousins but the whole community suffers because there is an outflow of people, who are leaving mainly to get an education for their children. Statistically, at the moment, a child from rural and regional Australia has about half the chance of going to university as their city counterparts. It does not mean that they are less intelligent and it does not mean they are less motivated; it just means that it is very hard. If you are a rural student and you do not have a parent who is prepared to make sacrifices, even with government assistance you are not going to get to university. The amendments that the coalition has proposed will make considerable differences to what has been proposed by Minister Gillard. The provision for getting independent youth allowance—and this is still the only way that they are going to get an adequate amount of money to undertake the course—is to study for 30 hours over an 18-month period. Also, the sorts of jobs that they require are not available. The jobs that these kids have been doing to earn $19,500 are seasonal—the sort of work that is available in the country. One of the reasons country kids, when they get their education, are snapped up by employers all over the place is their resourcefulness. They go off and pick grapes, they work in shearing sheds, they shear sheep, they drive machinery at harvest time and they work in abattoirs. They do the sort of work that is extremely difficult. It is tedious, it is backbreaking and it is hard. That is what they are prepared to do to get their education, but in a way that actually forms part of their education. Doing that sort of work gives them another tool in their toolbox to equip them on their road to life. That opportunity, tonight, is going to be denied them, because there is a very limited number of jobs that will give someone 30 hours a week of work over 18 months, particularly in this time of higher unemployment. Businesses are going to put on someone who is going to be there for the long term. Why are they going to put on a student—a part-timer—and train them up for the job knowing that in 18 months to two years time they are going to leave? There is also the fact that you can only defer a course for 12 months. If you defer for two years a couple of things are going to happen. Either you are either going to lose heart—the passion that drives you to university will diminish—or, if you do hang in there for the two years, you will have to reapply as a mature-age student. The position will not be held. It is a classic case of what looks good in theory not translating to rural Australia. It is not only here that this government is letting the students of rural Australia down. Guess where the savings were made to cover the overspend that came to light in the so-called education revolution a few months ago? Were they taken out of large metropolitan schools? Were they taken out of the wealthy private schools? No. I can tell you where the savings were made in my electorate. They were made in the central schools: Collarenebri, Goodooga, Binowee, Mendooran—all those schools that are struggling. The school in Collarenebri, identified as one of the third most disadvantaged communities in New South Wales, with its science lab in a demountable, had its funding pulled because of the overspend. So for those kids now it is a question of whether they will get through their education in secondary school with second-rate facilities with no prospect of improvement. Mungindi Central School, which had its funding pulled under the Building the Education Revolution Program, has one boy doing the HSC this year. Can anyone in this place imagine what it is like doing your Higher School Certificate when you are the only child in the class, where the nearest person who you could consider a peer is 120 kilometres away in Moree and where there are no fellow students who you can ask for help with your homework? I take my hat off to that student and to the teachers at that school. They have had their funding cut. Many of these people spend an hour to an hour and a half, morning and night, on a bus to get to school. They get a UAI that gets them to university and their parent, like the parent who came and saw me in one of these towns, might be the manager of the local ag supply company. That parent I am talking about—who is not only the manager of that ag supply company but is also on the P&C, in the show society, in the local Rotary Club and helps run the music festival—is looking for a job in Toowoomba or Brisbane because that is the only way his children are going to get an education. So this is much more than just students missing out on an opportunity to go to university. That is serious enough on its own. But the impact throughout rural Australia of entire families evacuating to educate their children is catastrophic. I urge the minister to reconsider. I actually think we need to go a bit further and look at how we are going to educate our young people from rural Australia, because they are the ones who understand rural Australia. They are the ones who are not frightened to go back as a doctor, a teacher or a plumber or after they have done ag science at university and implement what they have learned, combining the knowledge of their parents with the education they have gained. Why do we need this to happen? We need it to happen because the world’s population in 2050 is going to be 9 billion. They are going to need food. They are going to need the people who grow the food, and those people are going to have to have an education especially in the tough economic environment that we work in now, the global environment for agriculture and, indeed, if we are have an effect of climate change. This is all going to get tougher. Farmers can adapt to these things. They have been doing it for some time. But they need everything at their disposal. One of those things is an education. We need not only the education of the farmer but also the education of the people who are going to come back and educate the farmer’s children, who are going to provide the services that are required in order to have some sort of standard of living in those places. The people who live in those communities in my electorate love those places. That is why they are there. But that does not mean they should be taken advantage of and treated as second-class citizens, and that is exactly what this bill does. That may not have been the intention. It may have been out of ignorance. I notice that the members from the more rural areas of the Labor Party are not on the list of speakers, but they would have had the same number of people come through their doors as I have. Two weeks ago I went to Dubbo Senior College to speak to the kids, as we all do as members. They were a great bunch of kids. I should not say ‘kids’—they were young adults. I expected that we would have a discussion about climate change, about Copenhagen, about the economy—things that may have worried them. The No. 1 issue was youth allowance. They wanted to know how they could go to university with the change in these rules. Their parents will probably make every effort to enable them to go to university, but these young people did not want on their conscience a deterioration in their parents’ lifestyle for the sake of their own education. One of the kids said: ‘Mum and dad have cancelled the idea of a car next year. They’ll just patch up the old one because we’re going to need every cent we’ve got to get me to go to university.’ Parents do that willingly; that is what parents do. But I ask the minister to reconsider this legislation or to at least consider the coalition’s amendments. Personally I think we need to go right back and have a completely fresh look at educating kids from rural Australia, but the minister should at least look at the amendments the coalition has put up. They are economically viable and they will protect the kids who are now in their gap year. I think we should also have some consideration for the thousands of students who are undertaking their higher school certificate as we speak, this week. Where will they be? How can they be concentrating on their exams when they do not know whether they are going to have the financial wherewithal to get an education? Education is the key to everything we do. If we look at everything in our society, in our electorates, that needs fixing—whether it is social disadvantage, education, health, productivity or agriculture—education is the key. I will mention another failure of this government which was one of their grand promises, and that was that every preschool child over the age of three or four would receive 20 hours a week of preschool. Well, not if you live in rural Australia. I brought a delegation down here to see the parliamentary secretary. They had a wonderful scheme to expand their mobile preschool, where they take facilities out to the children in isolated areas so that they get some sort of socialisation and will at least be on a par with their counterparts from town when they go to school. The delegation was told it was ‘a wonderful idea’—but there was not a cent for it. No-one would look at it. What we have to do in this place is get past the rhetoric, get past the politics and start looking at what the real issues are. Education for the people in rural Australia is a real issue. I ask the government and I ask the minister to look at these amendments and at least give these kids half a chance of getting an education. 10393 19:39:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I will start by saying that I know the member for Parkes is a man who is very committed to his electorate and I know that he looks at things very much from the perspective of his electorate. I find myself often agreeing with him on issues, but unfortunately on this issue I do not agree with him. I actually grew up in rural Australia, so I am fully aware of the challenges young people face when they leave home to undertake further study and of the problems and disadvantages associated with education in rural areas. But I have to say that the Central Coast area of New South Wales, part of which falls within my electorate, has the lowest school retention rate in Australia and also has the lowest participation rate of students attending university. I fully support the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 that we have before us today and I would like to congratulate the minister on the process she has undertaken so that we have got to this stage of having this legislation before us. She has undertaken widespread—and I emphasise widespread—consultations with the community and with people affected by this legislation. Coming out of those consultations there have been some changes to the bill and I believe what we have before us today is good strong legislation that will benefit a large number—again I emphasise, a large number—of students throughout Australia. This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to implement key recommendations of the Bradley review of higher education. That review made some very strong points and claimed there was a need for change because the current system was poorly targeted. It made 46 recommendations and from those recommendations the package of reforms for student income support has been introduced. The bill significantly liberalises personal and parental means-testing arrangements that have applied to payments for dependent students, apprentices and unemployed young people so that more low- to middle-income families can access youth allowance and Abstudy. It changes the criteria upon which a youth allowance recipient is considered to be independent. It provides for new entitlements for scholarships for university students receiving student income support payments: an annual student start-up scholarship and a relocation scholarship for eligible students. I would see that as being very beneficial to those students coming from rural areas. It also exempts merit and equity based scholarships from the social security income test, up to a threshold of $6,762 a year. Each recommendation for reforming student income support arising from the Bradley review has been adopted. The review was conducted and the recommendations were adopted. Amendments to the Social Security Act to make significant changes to the personal and parental means test arrangements for payments to students and youth will have an enormous impact in my electorate. While the member for Parkes said he had had a considerable number of people visiting him in his electorate office with problems associated with this legislation, I have to say that over the time I have been a member of parliament I have had a large number of people visit me because their children are ineligible for youth allowance, and these are people who are on very low incomes. He talked about the plumbers and council workers in his area who are ineligible for youth allowance. Well, those are the very people in the Shortland electorate who have come to see me because their children have been ineligible to receive youth allowance, and this has been a longstanding problem. It is important to recognise that these changes to the income test liberalise the amount of money that parents can earn, and they also have a tapering effect. The core part of the reforms will be the relaxation of the parental income test, with the maximum rate of assistance for dependants under youth allowance and Abstudy, and that will take effect from January 2010. This will increase the parental income test threshold from $32,800 to $42,559. That is a significant increase. That is for the maximum payment. The reforms will also soften the current tapering rate—from 25 per cent per child to 20 per cent per family. This means a family with two children aged 17 and 19 who are living at home will receive income support up to a total family income of just over $100,000, compared to the previous cap of $60,000. I think it is only fair that I share with the House tonight a letter I received from a young student. Her parents live in Shortland electorate but she has been required to go to Sydney to undertake her studies. She has struggled financially. Because her parents’ income just exceeds $60,000, she receives no income support. She was on the verge of withdrawing from her studies. When I told her about the changes that will be introduced in this legislation, she was quite delighted. These are the kinds of changes that she wanted to see come into effect. These are the kinds of changes that ensured she would be able to continue to study. In the time I have been a member of parliament, there have been number of young students who have withdrawn from their studies. That is a loss to Australia as a nation. These are young people who would have completed their education and developed the skills and gained knowledge to work at a high level in our society. I agree with the member for Parkes on one thing, and that is that education is vitally important to young people. Education is the key that unlocks the door to allow young people to be financially secure. It is the key that unlocks the door that will give them the skills and knowledge they need to undertake jobs that will provide them with a very comfortable lifestyle. Going back to income support, a family with two children aged between 19 and 23 who have had to move to study at university will now be able to receive some support with a parental income of up to $140,000. That is quite significant. I was reading through some information prior to making this speech. I saw that, over the period of the previous government, there were a number of changes to the youth allowance which disadvantaged people who live in electorates like Shortland. This legislation moves the base so that it provides significant and secure income support to the majority of students who want to attend university. For students who are relocating, the maximum family income will be $168,000. That is quite a significant income. These changes will allow 68,000 more young people to access youth allowance. That is 68,000 students who, prior to the introduction of this legislation, would have been ineligible. So, far from making it difficult for students, this legislation will benefit so many young Australians. And, as I have previously stated, this legislation will benefit Australia as a whole. The government will progressively lower the age of independence from 25 years to 22 years, which will enable more students to access income support over time. Currently a student is considered to be dependent on their parents up until they are 25 years of age. This legislation will change that to 22 years of age. That has also been a bone of contention with many people who have come to visit me when they have had problems supporting their young adults whilst they are attending university. They cannot understand why their 25-year-old is considered to be dependent upon them. There will also be an increase in the personal income test threshold from the current $236 per fortnight to $400 per fortnight, and that will commence on 1 July 2012. There will also be the introduction of a new annual start-up scholarship of $2,254 each year for all university students receiving income support. That will be so beneficial to those 68,000 new students who will be eligible for youth allowance. University students on youth allowance will receive the full value of the scholarship, even if they are only receiving $1 of student income support. The scholarship is equivalent to a $43 per week rise in youth allowance. An estimated 146,000 of these scholarships will be used next year compared with the 12,900 allocated for commencing students under the old system. Once again: 146,000 students are set to benefit; previously 12,900 benefited. I can only see this as being good, I can only see this as benefiting students and I can only see this as a very positive change to youth allowance. The introduction of the relocation scholarship of $4,000 in the first year and $1,000 in later years will provide assistance with the cost of relocating to study for dependent university students who have had to move away from the family home—that is, for students disadvantaged by personal circumstances. There will be 14,200 of these scholarships assessed in 2010, rising to 28,700 in 2013. This compares with 8,100 Commonwealth accommodation scholarships allocated to commencing students under the current system. Once again, this is an enormous increase in the number of students who will be able to benefit from assistance from the government. Once again I would argue that far from disadvantaging students, this is providing an enormous opportunity to students who have missed out. This is providing so many more students with the opportunity to benefit from assistance. My good friend, the member for Parkes, is worried that people in his electorate will be disadvantaged and will not be able to get assistance. What I would say to the member for Parkes is: ‘Look at the figures and you will see that more young people from your area will benefit from the relocation scholarship, benefit from the start-up scholarship and, in all probability, benefit from the liberalisation of the current youth allowance income test.’ In the short time I have remaining I would like to address the issue of a gap year. First and foremost, any student who has already established their independence and is receiving youth allowance in the period up to 1 January 2010 will not be affected in any way by the changes. Further, until 30 June 2010, young people who completed secondary studies in 2008, took a gap year in 2009, commence university prior to 30 June next year and are required to live away from home to study will continue to be able to attain independence under the second and third elements of the workforce participation criteria. That means they will not be disadvantaged and that the decisions that they made prior to the introduction of this legislation will not be affected at all by this legislation. I would argue very strongly that the changes that this legislation brings into force will benefit an enormous number of students. These are changes that students living and studying in my electorate and other electorates throughout Australia will be able to benefit from. These are changes that students living in rural areas will also be able to benefit from. I emphasise that the electorate that I represent in this parliament is an outer metropolitan area with the lowest retention rate and the lowest participation rate in university studies in Australia. When I studied, I went to school in a rural area, so I do understand the issues associated with students living in rural areas. Given all these facts, I see that this legislation has been developed in a very thoughtful way. There has been considerable consultation. It introduces all the recommendations of the Bradley review into Australia’s higher education system. I believe that the legislation should be supported by the other side of the parliament. I do not believe that this legislation should be used as a political football to promote members on the other side of the parliament. Rather, I think it should be supported and that the benefits that this legislation provides should be noted by both sides of the parliament. 10396 19:59:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I rise this evening to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. It gives me great pleasure to do so because it happens to be a topic that I am particularly passionate about. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Member for Kalgoorlie, I do not think the clock has been set. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —Maybe we need to stop the clock so that I get to speak for a longer time, Mr Deputy Speaker! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Kalgoorlie may continue. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —That simply means that I will get a few more moments to express my anger at the legislation that is being proposed by the Minister for Education, who through every deed appears to be totally out of touch with students in rural and remote areas of Australia. There is no way that any minister for education could be serious about the welfare of rural and remote students—students from your own electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker—with this absolutely impossible legislation. When you tell an aspiring university student that, in future, they will have to work for an average of 30 hours a week for a minimum of 18 months in a two-year period to qualify for the independent Youth Allowance so as to allow them to compete with their city cousins, it is an indication that you know nothing about rural students. When the particular minister whom we are speaking of said that she was going to open the door to a new generation of Australians, I am sure that she meant ‘Australians unless those Australians live in the bush’. Anyone who resides in rural or remote areas—Broome, Carnarvon, Port Hedland, Karratha or Kununurra; any of those centres—which do not have fine tertiary education facilities will not have a hope in hell of achieving the dictates laid down by the minister and be able to catch up with their peers in the city who are attending university the year after they leave secondary school. It is impossible. I wonder if listeners to this debate tonight will understand for a moment the lot of a truly rural and remote student who aspires to a tertiary education. Families in the centres that I have referred to and in others like them are not going to be impressed with a change in the income threshold from $32,800 to $44,000 plus per family per year to be eligible for the allowance. It is a nonsense. If the people who work in my electorate are not earning well in excess of $100,000 a year, they cannot afford to stay there, let alone afford to raise kids. For remotely located people, ICPA, the Isolated Children’s Parents Association, fought for and won an allowance so that their primary and secondary students could leave home to attend to their education elsewhere. Because of that allowance, a number of students are able to attend schools in metropolitan and major regional centres, and they do very well. Their parents appreciate the payment they get each year from the government that allows them to send their students away for their education. Students who do well in their primary and secondary education can aspire to attend university. Once they achieve the TEE score that they need to get into university, they are on their own. The government writes them off, except that there is the Youth Allowance program. Students who attend university can get the youth allowance as long as their parents are living in poverty in the major towns in my electorate, because their parents are now allowed to earn $44,000 plus per annum and still qualify for the allowance. That would see them on the breadline in my electorate. It proves once again that the federal Minister for Education is focused on metropolitan areas. There are other students, parents and families elsewhere in the country than just those who reside in metropolitan areas. We need a federal policy for students attending tertiary education that makes allowances for students who happen to be born to families who live and work in rural and remote Australia. This policy is simply gutting the small opportunities that these families had in the past. Once upon a time, a student could leave their peer group behind and go to work for an average of 15 hours a week for an 18-month period. They could cram the work in between the last semester of one year and the first semester some 18 months later and qualify for the independent Youth Allowance. They cannot do that anymore. My students are not going to be able to find 30 hours a week employment for a minimum of 18 months in any two-year period. They are going to be left high and dry. They are going to be totally reliant upon the income—that is, the disposable income—of their parents. Sure, these parents are on high wages, but they are enduring exorbitant costs of living. Think of paying $1,600 a week for a three bedroom, one bathroom house in Karratha and you will understand how irrelevant an increase to $44,000 plus per annum is for these families. It is a nonsense. This minister ought to be ashamed of bringing this proposition to the parliament for us to inflict upon our constituents. It is a disgrace. We have already shamed this minister into extending the introduction period from 1 January to 1 July next year. That is some small sop for the students who are presently engaged in their gap year. But the students of the future will have to go cap in hand with their tertiary entrance mark to a tertiary institution and beg for two years off. My understanding of the present situation is that institutions will not hold a place for two years and that many of the students concerned will have to come back as mature age students and qualify again. The whole thing is a nonsense. I do concede that the independent Youth Allowance was never intended to fill this financial shortfall for families. The independent Youth Allowance was truly intended for those individuals who were not living at home and who were no longer dependent upon their parents. But it was the only thread of survival for aspiring students in rural and remote areas; it was the only place they could turn to because they knew that they would not qualify for the Youth Allowance. Now we have had this federal minister determine that the independent Youth Allowance is also out of reach. I say again: it is a disgrace. It shows a shortage of commitment from the minister, it is a lack of understanding and it is an indication of being out of touch. She, of course, will say that it is a lack of resources. Quite recently, resources were found to the tune of $3.8 million to appoint an assistant director of signage and recognition, strategic communications. This position was specifically designed to enhance the reputation of the minister by the erection of plaques outside the many schools which she is supposedly pouring borrowed taxpayers’ dollars into to erect multiple monuments to her existence. I know that the families in my electorate could have done a great deal with $3.8 million to assist their children to attend tertiary institutions. Resources seem to be able to be found when it is something for the promotion of Labor government spin, but it is difficult to find those resources when it means endeavouring to create a level playing field between children aspiring to a tertiary education in rural and remote Australia compared with those who reside in city or metropolitan areas. Consider for a moment another difference. For children living in suburban Perth whose family have an income in excess of $44,000 per annum, the student may not qualify for Youth Allowance, so what are their options? They simply continue to live at home, catch public transport to the institution of their choice and go on with their course among their peers. The rural or remote student is confronted with the necessity to leave their home, to leave their peer group, to find accommodation within cooee of their institution of choice, to become accustomed to city metropolitan life and then to compete with the students attending that metropolitan institution to gain their grades, their education and their degree. That is a huge difference. It may be fobbed off as being simply a choice to live in rural and remote Australia, as opposed to living in cities. But without the people living in rural and remote Australia the powerhouses which support this nation financially do not exist. To suggest that we should have only people who are non-child bearing living in these remote areas is an absolute nonsense, but it is in league with the proposition put up by this federal minister. Maybe we should have only barren people living in remote Australia. Maybe we should do such a thing to prevent the federal minister ever being confronted with this enormous problem of how to level the playing field for regional and remote students equivalent to those of metropolitan and city students. I suggest it is about time this government got serious about recognising students wherever they may be in Australia and, for those who do not have the luxury of living in cities and metropolitan areas, created special funding. And I am not talking about the paltry couple of thousand dollars start-up bonus to get them to the city. I am sure that the bureaucrats who developed this policy have no understanding of the costs of moving from the country to the city. I know when I moved my own son to the city it was a cost of tens of thousands of dollars. You need to either purchase accommodation or pay board. It is not an easy task. It is certainly not a task that is rewarded satisfactorily with the paltry sums being paid in a bonus to these students under this new legislation. My students deserve a fair go. Their parents deserve a fair go. I have so many families choosing to leave regional and remote Australian towns and move to the city simply so that they can provide accommodation for their students to attend tertiary education. Yet we collectively understand that one of the great problems in regional and remote Australia is to get professionals. We lack the doctors; we lack the accountants; we lack financial advisers; we lack health professionals of every description. These days they are being obtained from agencies and they fly in and fly out because we cannot get them to reside. Yet the very people who are brought up in regional Australia, who are accustomed to the lifestyle of regional Australia and love it, are the ones who are financially prevented from attending tertiary institutions, getting professional qualifications and returning to their town, to their family and to the area they are familiar with and where they so desperately want to provide the professional services that we go through all manner of hurdles to achieve through other means. We bring in overseas doctors ad nauseam under modified regulations, often depriving countries which have a lower ratio of medical doctors to population than we do, but we do it with a clear conscience because we say that it is the one way we are going to solve the lack of doctors in our remote areas. Why does this government not understand? If we want to have professionals back in the bush, including GPs, why is there not some creation of financial assistance to level the playing field between the city and the bush? It is a constant complaint that is brought to me by constituents. It is a very real issue and it is an issue that this minister is telling us all she has addressed. She has come up with this wonderful box of tricks that is perfect for a metropolitan-residing student but that totally ignores the reality of rural Australia. It totally ignores the plight of regional parents who have to leave important, well-paid positions to move to the city so as to create that level playing field themselves. There is no justice in that. This government spins constantly about creating a more just Australia. It is spin, and nothing but spin. It was glorious to see this minister dragged some way, albeit kicking and screaming, towards conceding that the introduction of this legislation from 1 January next year would have been diabolical. Even she had the consciousness to realise that. So, she gave us a paltry six-month extension, and with that wave of her discretion she has decided that she has created a level playing field. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government must consider a tertiary access allowance. It must consider a fund that will recognise the difficulty that country students endure in attending tertiary institutions; a fund that will provide support—such as that for primary and secondary students who leave home to attend education—for families to allow their sons and daughters to get a tertiary education, to get qualifications, and to go back and happily live in proximity to their family and friends. They can then provide the vital professional services to those areas that we now spend so much additional money on providing from other sources. I take no pleasure in taking medical doctors from overseas nations that enjoy a smaller ratio of doctors per head of population than we have. But it is the only way because we penalise our country students so severely that few go back to their grassroots to provide those acquired professional skills. We have heard a number of speakers. A number of points have been put that highlight on one hand the sycophantic adherence to the policies that are promoted in this bill and on the other, such as in the illuminations of the member for Parkes, all of the difficulties experienced by rural students. Listeners to this debate will understand that a huge gulf exists between the theory and the practice. I say again, it is time that this minister, who tells us she is opening the doors to a new generation of Australians, actually went out into regional and remote Australia, heard about the difficulties being endured by those remote students, developed a policy such as a tertiary access allowance, and went back to her cabinet and fought for the funds necessary to level the tertiary education playing field. It is about time. 10400 20:18:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 introduces a number of landmark reforms to the provision of social security for current and future tertiary education students and their families. These reforms relate to issues I have been campaigning on for almost a decade now. I will come back to those shortly. I will deal with the actual content of the legislation as opposed to the inaccurate rhetoric of previous speakers in turn, including the member for Kalgoorlie just prior to me, on the other side. The legislation will, firstly, significantly ease the personal and parental means testing arrangements that apply to payments for dependent students, apprentices and unemployed young people, to allow more families to access youth allowance and ABSTUDY. Secondly, it will change the criteria upon which a youth allowance recipient is considered independent. Thirdly, it will provide for new entitlement-based scholarships for university students receiving student income support payments. These will take the form of an annual student start-up scholarship and a relocation scholarship for eligible students. Fourthly, it will exempt merit- and equity-based scholarships from the social security income test up to a threshold of $6,762 a year. I will spend some time going through each of these amendments because they include things I have been raising in this House for almost a decade. I invite members to refer to a number of Hansards since 2000. They will see that I have been arguing for an overhaul of the social security system for our university students to make it fairer for regional students and their families to afford the costs associated with getting to university and, more importantly, to enable them to stick around at university and complete their studies. It was often a lonely journey, with few parliamentary supporters—among whom I do not include the member for Kalgoorlie. This was especially so among those on the other side who, when in government, had the opportunity and the resources but failed to do anything substantial about it; so, enough of the hypocritical rhetoric that I just heard from the member for Kalgoorlie. Many of those who did and said nothing on this matter are now lining up to criticise this government’s attempts to provide financial assistance to many more additional families and individuals who will be able to better access the benefits of tertiary education. I will begin by giving just a small snapshot of how many students in my electorate of Braddon stay at school until the end of year 12 and how many residents in my electorate have completed a university degree. According to the 2006 census data, of the 4,858 20- to 24-year-olds surveyed 2,048 had completed year 12 as their highest level of education, 881 had completed year 11, 1,522 had completed year 10 and 115 had completed year 9. So you can see from these statistics that getting our kids to stay at school is no easy feat in regional Tasmania. When we look at the same census data for university education in my electorate, we see that of the 33,265 people surveyed 4,464 had a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education, 553 had a graduate diploma and/or a graduate certificate and 478 had a postgraduate degree. So that puts it into a fair bit of perspective for you. Getting yourself to uni is not easy when you live on the north-west or west coasts of Tassie. There are many barriers: financial barriers in terms of the current set-up for youth allowance and social and cultural ones in terms of instilling in the minds of our next generation that gaining university and tertiary qualifications will be worthwhile for their future Before speaking about the specifics of this legislation I would like to share with you a small section of a speech that I gave in this parliament, way back in 2002, on the topic of funding for higher education. I said: Let us look at the benchmarks for youth allowance, Austudy and rental assistance. Also, let us look at this whole area of independence. Until 1997 the age of independence was effectively 22. The decision to take it to the age of 25 has had a significant impact on families in Australia … Many families receive no assistance at all to assist their young people to study and further their education. And those people in regional Australia who cannot access further education and must live away from home to do so have a double whammy. …            …            … It is an anecdotal fact that there are many students not eligible for any financial assistance who are worse off than people who are receiving support. There are students at higher education institutions who are required to not only work part time but to also work long hours. That affects their study so many of them drop their studies because they have to work. That just compounds the issue. As I have mentioned earlier, and again I invite anyone listening to this debate to consult the Hansard for the last decade, the plight of regional families in accessing and affording tertiary education was largely ignored by the former Howard government. In the first term of this Labor government we have set out to better target and assist families and individuals to access and afford tertiary studies, to be able to move away from home to study and to financially afford to bridge what I have referred to as the ‘geographic differential’ between those living at home in the locale of the tertiary institution—usually urban municipalities—and those who are unable to do so, usually being from regional communities. For too many regional families and individuals there has been a discriminatory factor based on geography. This legislation seeks to help more people overcome this differential. It may not be perfect but it is, on balance, a much more equitable support package—and note the word ‘package’—than the current arrangements. I would now like to spend a minute or so talking about the changes to the provisions for claiming independence. As you heard earlier, these concern an anomaly that I have been opposed to for many years. I recall that in 1997 the former government ramped the age up to 25 years. I might add that when the Howard government increased the independence age it did make a commitment—non-core—to progressively scale it back over time. Ten years later it had still not been scaled back. Under the Rudd government the age at which a person is deemed automatically independent will change. It will be phased down from 25 in 2009 to 22 by 2012, at a rate of a one-year phase-down per year. The implications of this will of course be significant in the next few years. I have not heard one member on the other side discuss this. What about parental income thresholds? Again, let us go to the detail of the legislation rather than to the sheer rhetoric that has been hurled at us from the other side. Under the former government, the annual parental income test threshold for dependent youth allowance recipients to get the maximum rate of youth allowance was just $32,800. So, according to those opposite, if, as parents, you earned 500-odd dollars combined each week you were classed as financially sufficient enough to fully bankroll your non-independent child’s tertiary studies. From 1 January 2010 the annual parental income test threshold for dependent youth allowance recipients to get the maximum rate of youth allowance will be increased from $32,800 to the new threshold of $44,165. Importantly, in addition to this increase there is a much more generous sliding or tapering scale as parental income increases. You do not hear about this from the other side. The parental income reduction for youth allowance will change from a taper rate of 25 per cent per person to a family taper rate of 20 per cent. This will reduce the effect of parental income on a youth allowance recipient, particularly where the same parental income applies to multiple kids in a family. For example, for a family with two children living away from home and attending university—as the member for Kalgoorlie said was his situation—the parental income cut-off point will be raised to almost $141,000 per year. This cut-off point used to be $79,000. Let us be clear about this: there is a significant increase in the cut-off point by some $62,000 in the example that I have just cited. To put this into perspective as to how these significant changes in the income threshold will potentially affect families and individuals in my electorate of Braddon, it is worth discussing the median family incomes of families on the north-west coast. According to the 2006 census data, the median income of Braddon families is about $45,000. That is $45,000 per family per year. So you can see that these changes will see many more north-west coast and west coast families being able to access youth allowance. Something else I am very pleased about—and we hear little about this from the other side, so it is not a debate about the legislation; it is a debate in which they are trying to score political points—is the introduction of two new scholarships for students receiving youth allowance. All students receiving youth allowance or Austudy while completing an approved higher education course will receive a Student Start-Up Scholarship. In 2010 the scholarship will be $2,254 for the year and will be paid in two instalments. The Student Start-Up Scholarship will assist as to the cost of things like textbooks, specialised equipment and any of the other lump-sum expenses that always crop up. The second scholarship is particularly important to folk who must move and live away from home to study. Debate interrupted. 10402 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 10402 10402 20:30:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —During the recent recess, I had the opportunity of meeting David and Goliath—David being the local residents of Bardon and Rainworth, and Goliath being the Telstra Corporation. Telstra is one of this nation’s most significant companies and one of our most successful businesses. It is an organisation of critical importance to the businesses and families of Australia. But during the break Telstra was quite naughty. What they did was send out a letter, which was inconsistent with their requirements, letting the people of Bardon and Rainworth know that they were going to install a mobile phone facility in Gerler Street, Bardon. We all accept that we need mobile phone towers in our modern age, and we all realise their significance in the conduct of our work and their importance in daily communications, but, equally, we all know that there are potential health risks with such powerful technology. The bottom line is we do not know exactly what the implications of mobile phone towers are. The fact that the Telstra Corporation wanted to install a mobile phone tower some 170 metres from the Rainworth State School on Boundary Road in my electorate was cause for great consternation. Tonight in the parliament I wish to give a flavour of the concerns of local constituents and, indeed, some constituents of the Labor electorate of Brisbane. The thread that goes through their concerns is health. These are people that clearly reveal they are educated, successful in business, community minded, family oriented and just regular mums and dads like their fellow Australians across the country. Yet the language they have expressed in the emails to me, Senator Conroy and Senator Minchin reflects a deep concern, a deep anger and a deep anxiety about what Telstra is doing and also what the federal Labor government is not doing. Tonight, in the time I have available, I want to reflect the words of Nicole, who is a constituent: I am writing in regards to the proposed installation of a Telstra communications facility at 27 Gerler St. Bardon … …            …            … As there is no conclusive proof of the health effects of EMR I have health concerns both for myself and for my partner as once the facility is installed we will be submitted to EMR 24 hrs a day. I conduct a music tuition business from the property as well and my concerns also extend to the well being of my students who range from children of the age of 4 to adults in their 50’s. …            …            … I am not confident that the long term effects of EMR are harmless and after attending a consultation meeting conducted by Telstra on the 13th of October I am not convinced that Telstra will on the communities concerns. EMR refers to electromagnetic radiation. As I said, we do not know the significance of this powerful technology. It may well be that in 10, 20 or 30 years time sufficient research is done to conclusively prove that there is no concern at all and that everything is fine in terms of its impact on the health of nearby residents. But, equally, there could be substantial consequences for the health of Australians who may be living close to these mobile phone towers. I would like, as I have suggested to the federal member for Brisbane, both the government and the opposition to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship to try to do something that will address these concerns. I have no doubt that this is something that could be of quite significant interest to the rest of the country. Right now it only concerns the people of Bardon and Rainworth but, in the future, mobile phone towers are certainly going to be coming to areas across the country which may well include kindergartens, schools, aged-care facilities, retirement homes and hospitals. Certainly, we all know that there are huge concerns that still remain unanswered. (Time expired) 10403 10403 20:35:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to speak about the stimulus package, its importance and the success that it has had for both the Australian economy and in particular my electorate of Dobell. It is without doubt that without the stimulus package the Australian economy would be in a much worse shape than it is. The stimulus package has meant that the Australian economy is the fastest growing economy in the advanced world. It is an economy that is robust and the envy of the world. It is because of the growth we have had in our economy, which has largely been because of the stimulus package, that we have been able to protect Australian jobs. That is the most important thing that the stimulus package was designed to do—to make sure that Australian jobs were protected. The stimulus package had three phases. The first phase was cash handouts to families, to taxpayers and to pensioners, who were people we all considered needed some assistance and who were also in a position to dispose of that income and help stimulate the economy. In my electorate on the Central Coast, where retail is the biggest employer, it was absolutely vital that people had those cash handouts and it absolutely ensured that employment in the retail sector was maintained. In fact, with that initial cash handout, we actually saw unemployment decrease on the Central Coast, which was something that we could have only dreamed of in relation to the crisis that was embracing the whole world at the time. The second part of the stimulus package was about building infrastructure that was ready to go now, shovel-ready infrastructure, which meant that as soon as practicable work could start and jobs would be created. The third stage of the package was to help with the long-term infrastructure and make sure that those bottlenecks in the economy were overcome. This has been overwhelmingly successful. Our economy has been seen around the world as the Australian miracle, and it is something that we should all be proud of. Looking at what the opposition have said in terms of the stimulus package, one wonders whether they exist in the same country and how they are looking at what is happening in the economy. Their first position was that they supported the first round of cash payments. Then their position was that they opposed the schools infrastructure. When we tried to find out how much they opposed, they could not tell us. We have had different positions from the shadow Treasurer and the opposition leader. The shadow Treasurer said they might go $20 million or $50 million lower—they were not quite sure what they would do. The opposition leader changed his position daily with the numbers in his party room, trying to shore up his leadership. So what we had from the opposition was an incoherent ramble in relation to how they would deal with the global financial crisis, whereas on this side of the House we had a sound, well thought out strategy that took account of the changing nature of the economy and how things would change over time. In my electorate of Dobell, there are over 673 stimulus package projects, totalling $107 million. We have over 106 projects taking place in schools around my electorate. I had the opportunity of meeting Rob, an apprentice at Tacoma Public School, just the other day. Rob is an example of what this stimulus package is about. He is a fourth-year apprentice carpenter who had not worked for six months and whose apprenticeship was in danger of falling over. Because of the stimulus package, he now has a job and his apprenticeship is going to be completed. That is good on two fronts: (1) because it means that this young fellow has a job and is contributing to the economy and (2) because it means that his skills will be used as we come out of this global recession. This is a nation-building stimulus, a stimulus that meets the requirements of the crisis that this country faced. It is something that all members of this place should be supporting. 10404 10404 20:40:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —There are many schools in the electorate of Cowan, and they do great work. On Friday night I attended a dance performance at Girrawheen Senior High School. The Special Dance program is a key curriculum initiative for the school. On the night, there were many routines involving groups of up to 25 dancers and two solo dance performances from year 12 students. A strong crowd of several hundred friends and family members joined with staff to enjoy an excellent show, Girra-Mix. I congratulate all the students but also make mention of award winners: in year 12, Catherine Barnes for dance practical and Jessika Leadbitter for dance theory; in year 8, Emily Edwards, dancer of the year, and Paige Sims, dancer to watch; in year 9, Deanne Straw and Dbada Salih; in year l0, Shae Hazzard and Wendy Ha; and, in year 11, Azlina Asmad and Angela Williams. The Special Dance program, under the leadership of Miss Pamela Konijn, demonstrated that such programs are vital not only in connecting young people to education itself but in helping them to develop a strong work and study ethic as well as the responsibility of working as a member of a team. In speaking with the Director Schools of the Department of Education and Training’s West Coast Education District, David Lee, I got a better appreciation of not only his confidence in the staff at Girrawheen but also the sense of dedication the staff have to their students. Certainly I appreciate that the socioeconomic circumstances and the diversity of the area create challenges, but those challenges are being met via a staff profile and the resources to meet the needs. An important statistic is that close to 40 per cent of parents of students at the school were born overseas, so it is little wonder the school holds up diversity as a strength and is at the centre of many multicultural activities in the district. Students come to Girrawheen Senior High School from Girrawheen, Koondoola, Marangaroo and Alexander Heights. Whilst at the dance performance I also saw Tina Darling, whom I know as the President of the Marangaroo Primary School P&C but who is also the head of the Girrawheen Senior High School Council. Tina is one of the many local people committed to the success of Girrawheen Senior High School. The school provides opportunities for university entrance, trade and training qualifications, and other forms of training and pathways to employment. I have had significant contact with Noel Woodley, the principal, regarding a number of local issues, and it is clear that the leadership is taking the school in the right direction. I have met the deputies, Ann Southwell and, on Friday night, Barbara Newton. I have also met a number of staff members and have been impressed by their commitment and drive. Whenever I am in Girrawheen, which is every day that I am in Cowan, I see the great potential of the area. That potential is clearest when you see the children and young people who live there and in the surrounding suburbs. The state schools in Girrawheen—Hudson Park and Roseworth Primary Schools and Girrawheen Senior High School—offer educational pathways to a good future, and that future is without limitations. What I would say to the people, and particularly the young people, in Girrawheen is that you should have a dream, a dream that you can and will achieve a solid future for yourself. This has nothing to do with luck, and it should not involve waiting for someone to deliver any special benefits to individuals. Through the schools in Girrawheen our young people have access to opportunities, and they should embrace them. No young person should absent themselves from school and no parent or care provider should have anything but a full commitment to ensuring an education for young people. Indeed, by example, those parents and carers should lead the young towards the strongest commitment to education and the opportunity for gainful employment that is directly linked to that very education. Literacy and numeracy are the core building blocks for education. As shown by the recent NAPLAN results, Girrawheen Senior High School has achieved outstanding success in literacy and numeracy. The school operates courses in English as a second language as well as the ITAS, or Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme—all building on literacy and numeracy and providing opportunities for long-term individual success. From these programs and the vocational opportunities provided at Girrawheen Senior High School, the students have achieved success, including tertiary entrance and access to training—Certificate II in Building and Construction—and employment, as well as improved literacy and numeracy outcomes. The programs are there, and the results are there. Beyond the mainstream support, as individually focused as it is, the school has an education support unit and a program for students at educational risk as well as initiatives for talented and gifted students. I say again that Girrawheen Senior High School is a school that provides excellent opportunities for its students. The leaders and the teachers do a very good job, and I offer them my thanks and appreciation for the work they do. This is the first time that the school has ever been mentioned as the subject of a speech. Given the great work that Girrawheen Senior High School does, I think it is long overdue. 10406 10406 20:45:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —Recently I was presented with a petition on homelessness in the Ballarat region. The petition was gathered by the social justice ministry of the Our Lady Help of Christians in Wendouree. This committee has done a terrific job in collecting 140 signatures from residents who are concerned about the level of homelessness in our region. The signatures from members across the Wendouree community are from residents who are seeking further action on the homelessness crisis. It is with an increasing sense of unease that we, a nation of prosperity and wealth, have witnessed a growing number of homeless over recent decades. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare produced a report on Victoria’s homeless from the 2006 census. The Counting the Homeless report found the rate of homeless in Ballarat was 47 per 10,000, compared with 29 per 10,000 in Geelong and 37 per 10,000 in Warrnambool. This equated to 399 homeless people in Ballarat. No Australians should find themselves forced into homelessness. It is, frankly, unacceptable. The Rudd government has put this issue at the forefront of the public agenda. Following our white paper on homelessness the federal government released a national plan on reducing homelessness by 2020. We have committed to halving the rate of homelessness by that time. This is a crucial target and we must meet this objective. The white paper, The Road Home, outlined a number of important steps in our approach to achieving this target. One of the overarching messages in this report was the importance of the entire community accepting and taking responsibility for our nation’s homeless. Since being elected we have seen a dramatic boost in funding towards the homeless. As part of the nation-building economic stimulus plan the Rudd government is investing $5.7 billion in social housing. The social housing program will deliver over 19,000 new homes, with the assistance of the not-for-profit sector, and refurbish more than 60,000 existing properties. Over 10,000 of the repaired homes would have been lost to stock within two years were it not for the Rudd government’s investment. Across my electorate of Ballarat we have seen a number of announcements. At present the Ballarat electorate has seen 65 social housing dwellings approved, to the tune of $14.2 million. Additionally we are undertaking the repair and maintenance of a number of dwellings across the region. The funding provided for social housing under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan aims to reduce the public housing waiting list and reduce homelessness across the region. The Rudd government is also delivering on its election commitment with the implementation of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, now well underway. The Ballarat electorate is seeing a significant surge in affordable rental housing with the approval of 119 homes. Rent for these properties is charged at 20 per cent below the market rate for eligible recipients. This is great news for families in the region that are struggling to pay their bills. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is contributing to affordable housing being built in Wendouree, Soldiers Hill, Golden Point, Sebastopol, Mount Pleasant, Brown Hill, Canadian and Delacombe. Two areas that will see a significant growth in affordable private rental housing include Sebastopol, with 24 homes being built, and Bacchus Marsh, with 78 homes being built. Only a few weeks ago I visited a family in Bacchus Marsh who are now living in a new home built as part of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. Julia and their three boys moved in a few weeks ago now. Tanya Plibersek and I were absolutely delighted to meet with that family and see that having that rental accommodation provided at that rate was providing them an opportunity to, at some point, regain a foot into the housing market themselves. The Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, and I were delighted to visit the region and discuss the importance and value of the initiative to families. It is a perfect example of the impact the Rudd government’s program is having on electorates around the nation. In our nation’s era of relative prosperity, we have an opportunity to bring about real change to those in our community who need it most. It is a wonderful tribute to the Wendouree community that they have come together to speak out on this important issue. I take their concerns seriously. This is a serious issue. I look forward to working with all communities, including those involved with this petition, as we move towards achieving our 2020 targets. I seek leave to table the petition. Leave granted. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders. 10407 10407 20:49:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 0 0 Mr SOMLYAY —I would like to highlight one man’s quest for justice from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. My constituent had joined the New Zealand Navy as a young lad in 1955. About 10 years later the Australian Navy was short of engineers and the New Zealand Navy was short of electricians. It had been usual practice for servicemen from across the Tasman to be ‘loaned’ to various services. This plan was to have four New Zealanders join the Australian Navy and four Australians join the New Zealand Navy. My constituent, Robert Wilson, is not sure what happened to the Australians moving to New Zealand. However, he was one of four New Zealanders who packed their bags and moved to Australia. Mr Wilson and his wife flew to Sydney on 7 July 1966. They were accommodated at the Royal Naval House—known as ‘Johnnies’. Of the four New Zealanders who travelled to Australia, two were married and two were single. Mr Wilson and the other married New Zealander and his wife were accommodated at Johnnies. Both men took the oath of allegiance and a couple of days later were drafted onto HMAS Kuttabul. They were both posted to HMAS Vampire and sailed for the Far East Strategic Reserve in January 1967. The two single New Zealanders also arrived in Australia at this time, one being posted to Melbourne and the other to HMAS Kuttabul. Mr Wilson and his mate were given identical postings on HMAS Vampire. During this time HMAS Vampire escorted HMAS Sydney to Vietnam, ferrying personnel and supplies. The ship and her personnel were also deployed to Hong Kong to evacuate Australian Embassy staff due to civil unrest in that area. Both men were then drafted back to HMAS Kuttabul Fleet Maintenance Unit in 1967. Both families then moved back to New Zealand in June 1968 to complete their New Zealand service. Mr Wilson, his Australian-born wife and his family migrated to Australia following the completion of his service. He became an Australian citizen in 1991. Upon reaching the age of 70, Mr Wilson contacted his workmate, who is also living in Australia now, and he confirmed that his mate had qualified for a gold card. So Mr Wilson lodged an application for a gold card, but it was rejected. He had, in the department’s words, ‘rendered qualifying service’ but in their eyes he was ‘not a member of the forces of a Commonwealth or allied country, who was domiciled in Australia or an external Territory immediately before enlistment in those forces’. Mr Wilson again rang his mate in Tasmania and was assured that his mate’s application was approved. Mr Wilson came to me, his local member, and I made representations to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, to no avail. The minister pointed to privacy restrictions preventing the checking on his mate’s eligibility and the legitimacy of his entitlement. The minister also advised that: … it is not uncommon to have people in similar circumstances granted different eligibilities due to variations in their service particulars. When two men, with their wives, move to Australia to serve with the RAN and then serve on the same ships and finish their service in New Zealand I cannot see why the minister cannot check the records to see why one man receives a gold card and the other does not. If the cases are different then the department should be able to confirm that this is so without hiding behind privacy laws; otherwise justice is not served in this case. Mr Wilson advises me also that one of the single men who came over at the time has been granted a gold card. I call on the minister not to hide behind so-called privacy issues and to examine both cases on their merits and advise me why two servicemen with the same service records should not both have a gold card or the same entitlement. I implore the minister to invoke the commonsense rule and apply it to this case. Having myself been a minister and a chief of staff to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I know how difficult it is for the bureaucracy to admit to a mistake and eat humble pie. On this occasion I believe it is warranted. 10408 10408 20:55:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Last Sunday, 18 October, I had the great pleasure of being invited to attend the launch on Sunday night of the seventh national Greek Welfare Conference, which was held in Adelaide in South Australia. I was very honoured to have been invited and to have attended. At the dinner on Sunday night His Grace Bishop Nikandros of Doryleon was there as the South Australian Greek Orthodox Bishop. He was there representing His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos of Australia, who is the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia. Also, state member Tom Koutsantonis was there representing the Premier. The guest speaker for the night was Monsignor David Cappo, who is the Commissioner for Social Inclusion in South Australia. He spoke to all those in attendance about those who are alienated in our communities and less fortunate and what we can do to help and assist. Also in attendance were Mr John Kiasoglous, the chairman of the Ethnic Schools Board, and Mrs Maria Paltoglou, who is very active, especially in my electorate of Hindmarsh. Mrs Paltoglou is the vice-president of the ladies auxiliary and does a lot of good work—a lot of volunteer work—in my electorate. Also in attendance was Father Patsouris, who is the priest of our local parish of the Greek Orthodox Church at St George in Mile End. The reason we were all there was to acknowledge the fantastic and dedicated efforts by all those associated with the Greek Welfare Centre. It was great to host the national conference in Adelaide on the weekend, and I believe it is still going on and will finish tomorrow. The Greek Welfare Centre was established by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia as a means of providing assistance to migrant ethnic groups. It does everything from assisting the homeless to helping those who are less fortunate, and it even offers an interpreting service. It does very important work, especially in times like this when the economy is very difficult for people. That is why the Greek Welfare Centre is very important in assisting disadvantaged people in the community. It also has such services as ‘meals on wheels’, which is a fantastic service offering home delivered meals. I am sure that the member for Parkes, who co-chairs with me the group that we formed here in Parliament House for meals on wheels, would agree with me. They do magnificent work and in this case it is really important because a lot of the people in the ethnic communities will perhaps lose their command of the English language as they get older. It is important that they have people making contact with them every day through the home delivery service, which ensures that they are having meals catered for and tailored to their needs. It is therefore a very important service. They also offer information and referral services for a variety of government and non-government departments and other mainstream departments. They offer the services of community education and health education. They have a strong passion. They have already established a mental health team to do research and to assist those in our community who suffer from mental-related illness and disabilities. I am also pleased to learn that the Greek Welfare Centre have recently added a youth program focusing on disadvantaged youth within the community. One of my staff has been assisting them along the way. This is a very important service because, as all of us in this place would agree, youth are our future. This was acknowledged on Sunday night in the future visions and aspirations of the Greek Welfare Centre. So much time and effort and hard work have been put into the Greek Welfare Centre to place it in the position it is in today. But, of course, that future depends on the availability of volunteers, and I would like to acknowledge all of the volunteers who are giving their time to help the Greek Welfare Centre. We all know the benefits and tremendous outcomes of our goals, but it is only due to the assistance of those wonderful volunteers. The Greek Welfare Centre is a great organisation. It offers many services and will even assist people to adapt into the Australian community. The Greek Welfare Centre should therefore be very proud of the tireless contribution by the many members of the large Greek community who play a role in all of the individual associations involved in the centre. Once again I would like to congratulate the board of management and all the employees and volunteers of the Greek Welfare Centre. I wish them the very best in their ever-evolving plans for the centre’s direction. Again, I congratulate them for their tireless contribution to the community. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted. 10410 21:00:00 House adjourned at 9.00 pm 10410 Notices The following notices were given: 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —to present a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —to present a bill for an act to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and for related purposes. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland —to present a bill for an act to amend the Native Title Act 1993, and for related purposes. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland —to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, to amend that act, and for related purposes. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —to move: That, in accordance with section 10B of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the House approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Determination 2009 made on 9 October 2009, and presented to the House on 19 October 2009. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —to move: That the House: notes that: building community infrastructure or improving community amenity has the potential to generate local jobs and increase skills and social capital; investment in cycling is regarded as a cost effective way to increase mobility and physical activity levels, make recreation accessible and boost regional tourism; and small shifts in transport modes to other forms, such as cycling, may provide substantial dividends and important benefits for the transport and freight sector and reduce congestion, increase efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions; and supports: the Government’s National Bike Path Program and other programs which encourage people to take up cycling; awareness programs, initiatives, organisations and individuals that promote cycling as a way of getting fitter, having some fun, reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions; and policies, projects and initiatives that deliver increased options for cycling infrastructure. HWB Zappia, Tony, MP Mr Zappia —to move: That the House: notes the widespread calls from throughout the community to provide more clarity with respect to Australian food labelling standards; acknowledges progress made to date in ensuring that Australian food labelling laws provide consumers with the relevant and clear information that they require to make informed product choices; notes that Australian producers and consumers will benefit from clearer food labelling laws and that there are economic and health outcomes related to this matter; acknowledges the importance of this matter to both Australian producers and consumers; and notes and supports the review being undertaken by the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council and asks the Minister for Health and Ageing to consider any options available to speed up the review process. HVW Bradbury, David, MP Mr Bradbury —to move: That the House: notes the impact of homelessness on individuals and families around Australia; acknowledges the strategies of the Rudd Government in addressing affordable housing and homelessness; recognises the important work of not‑for‑profit and other community‑based organisations in tackling homelessness; and congratulates the Nepean Campaign Against Homelessness on the launch of its Regional Taskforce and the work that it has been doing to improve access to affordable housing. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —to move: That the House: recognises that the Australian live export industry: employs 13,000 Australians nationally across 30 separate business types; contributes AUD$1.8 billion each year to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product; pays AUD$987 million a year in wages and salaries; and contributes AUD$830 million to regional economies and underpins the economic and social wellbeing of large slices of rural and remote Australia, particularly in Western Australia; notes that: Australia is regarded as the world leader in livestock export regulation and management; if Australia stopped live export, the trade would go to less scrupulous countries than ours and put severe supply pressure on already struggling third world countries; it would cost the Australian economy AUD$1 billion to phase out live trade; the cessation of live export would have a severe impact on domestic markets, particularly in the regions; many pastoralists in the electoral division of Kalgoorlie do not have the option to crop as an alternative industry as suggested by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) commissioned ACIL Tasman report; and the RSPCA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) should focus on real and relevant animal cruelty issues; and considers that the Australian Government should commit to a campaign countering RSPCA and PETA misinformation. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms King —to move: That the House acknowledges the Australian Government’s significant achievements in improving the economic position of women. 10412 Questions in Writing 10412 10412 889 10412 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 12 August 2009: As at 11 August 2009, how many staff were employed in the (a) Tourism Division; (b) Business Development Branch; (c) Industry Sustainability Branch; and (d) Market Access Branch, of his department. In respect of the (a) Business Development; (b) Industry Sustainability; and (c) Market Access, branches of his department; (i) what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages for the 2009-10 financial year; and (ii) what are the titles and roles of each staff member. What is the role of Ms Tania Constable in his department, how many staff are assigned to assist her, and what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages for her and her staff for the 2009-10 financial year. 10412 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: As at 11 August 2009, the number of operative staff employed were as follows: Tourism Division – 45 (includes 5 staff members in Tourism Division Executive and Strategic Management Team) Business Development Branch - 10 Industry Sustainability Branch - 16 Market Access Branch - 14 The total amount budgeted for salaries and wages for Tourism Division in 2009-10 is $4.687 million.  While each Branch within Tourism Division has an indicative budget for salaries and wages, resources are managed flexibly and staff are allocated across the Division as required to meet workload priorities and demands. The table below shows the structure of Tourism Division at 11 August 2009 and outlines the key responsibilities and roles of staff within each Branch. HEAD OF TOURISM DIVISION BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BRANCH) MARKET ACCESS BRANCH INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY BRANCH National Tourism Strategy Team National Long-Term Tourism Strategy – Policy Coordination and Development International Team Multilateral tourism engagement (APEC Tourism Working Group, United Nations World Tourism Organization; OECD Tourism Committee, ASEAN) Bilateral tourism engagement Shanghai Expo 2010 Free Trade Agreements - Services – Tourism related FIFA World Cup Bid 2018/2022 Tourism – Visa Issues Export Development Grants Scheme - Issues for tourism businesses/organisations Queensland Tourism Assistance Package - Acquittal and Evaluation Industry Capability Team National Tourism Accreditation Framework China Approved Destination Status (ADS) Scheme Business Events Strategy Tourism Consumer Protection Inbound Tourism Compliance Business Capability Issues Research and Statistics Team Analysis of tourism and economic data and the development of advice in support of policy development Negotiation and oversight of the Memoranda of Understanding with the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the Tourism Satellite Account and Survey of Tourist Accommodation Publication of relevant tourism statistical releases Tourism Transport Team Tourism and Transport Policy Issues including: National Aviation Policy Air Services Negotiations Cruise Shipping Transport Security National Tourism and Aviation Advisory Committee National Transport Infrastructure Passenger Processing/Supply Chain Issues Industry Liaison Team Tourism and Hospitality – Labour, Skills and Education Workplace Relations Pandemic Planning and Tourism Business Continuity National Tourism Incident Response Plan Tourism Australia – Corporate Governance oversight Victorian Bushfires Tourism Recovery Package Australian Standing Committee on Tourism / Tourism Ministers’ Council - Secretariat Sustainable and Indigenous Team Nature based tourism, including National Landscapes World Heritage issues, including support for related Ministerial Councils Industry support for adaptation to climate change Indigenous tourism policy development Industry Development Team Australian Tourism Development Program and TQUAL Grants Regional Tourism Projects Investment Regional and Domestic Tourism - Policy and Briefing   Strategic Management Team Budgeting Financial Management, Reporting and Analysis Coordination Tasks Corporate Support   Ms Constable works on the Energy White Paper. 10413 10413 922 10413 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: What is the average duration of unemployment since the last full-time job for recipients of the: Newstart Allowance Parenting Payment Youth Allowance; and Disability Support Pension, for each quarter from March 2006 to June 2009. 10413 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Reliable data are not available to answer the honourable member’s question. A person may become eligible for income support for a range of reasons, including loss or reduction of full-time, part-time or seasonal employment; as a result of a change in their personal circumstances, such as obtaining residency; or through meeting income and asset testing thresholds. Information on when recipients of Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment or Youth Allowance were last in employment may be recorded in text on Centrelink’s system where it is relevant to their payment (such as periods relating to paid leave entitlements or a redundancy payment); however, information on when an income support recipient was last in employment is not a reportable data item in the Centrelink system. Therefore, these data cannot be extracted to reliably assess the average duration of unemployment since the last full-time job for such recipients. Disability Support Pension falls within the responsibilities of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 10414 10414 923 10414 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of the Job Network and related employment services programs such as the Personal Support Programme and Job Placement, Employment and Training, what was the: (a) total number of (i) placements, (ii) commencements, and (iii) employment outcomes; and (b) cost per (i) placement, and (ii) employment outcome; by quarter, from March 2006 to June 2009. 10414 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The following tables shows the total numbers of placements, commencements, and employment outcomes for Job Network, the Personal Support Programme and Job Placement, Employment and Training, by quarter, from March 2006 to June 2009. Job Placements Job Placement figures are for Job Network and other Job Placement organisations only. Personal Support Programme and Job Placement, Employment and Training providers were not contracted to deliver services under Job Placement licences, and were not required to record job placements which means that these placements are not recorded here. Quarter Job Network (Job Placement Licence) Mar-06 162,908 Jun-06 150,777 Sep-06 168,590 Dec-06 162,275 Mar-07 163,889 Jun-07 150,815 Sep-07 157,678 Dec-07 146,680 Mar-08 140,065 Jun-08 133,445 Sep-08 134,611 Dec-08 114,372 Mar-09 106,293 Jun-09 90,647   Commencements The following table provides information on the number of commencements for the three programs. Quarter Job Network Personal Support Programme Job Placement, Employment and Training Mar-06 441,755 9,617 3,991 Jun-06 355,993 7,141 2,547 Sep-06 376,121 14,903 3,849 Dec-06 436,229 8,720 3,481 Mar-07 418,528 8,007 4,197 Jun-07 370,761 10,578 3,491 Sep-07 371,125 12,154 3,993 Dec-07 350,958 11,974 3,678 Mar-08 361,339 12,027 3,780 Jun-08 331,329 13,543 4,093 Sep-08 322,002 13,249 3,785 Dec-08 344,083 10,932 3,839 Mar-09 448,894 10,880 3,885 Jun-09 392,263 6,799 3,261 Employment Outcomes The following table provides information on the number of outcomes for the three programs. Quarter Job Network (1) Personal Support Programme (2) Job Placement, Employment and Training (3) Mar-06 40,551 659 N/A Jun-06 46,220 668 N/A Sep-06 42,550 656 N/A Dec-06 51,364 846 N/A Mar-07 43,017 968 N/A Jun-07 49,481 960 N/A Sep-07 44,747 984 346 Dec-07 51,767 1,341 424 Mar-08 40,673 1,444 502 Jun-08 46,554 1,327 517 Sep-08 41,832 1,483 501 Dec-08 43,567 1,501 505 Mar-09 30,068 1,131 444 Jun-09 30,056 972 423 Note (1) Job Network Outcomes are recorded after 13 weeks in employment. (2) Personal Support Programme PSP providers were paid Economic Outcome fees where participants were placed into 13 consecutive weeks of employment. (3) Job Placement, Employment and Training From 1 July 2007, JPET providers recorded a participant’s employment status at the time of exit from the program. These have been presented as economic outcomes Costs per placement and employment outcome by quarter, from March 2006 to June 2009. The Department does not report cost per job placement. This is because not all job seekers who find a job inform their provider or Centrelink. As a result the providers’ contribution to those placements cannot be attributed and any calculation of cost per placement would overstate the actual cost. Cost per employment outcome under Job Network is sourced from the results of the Department’s Post-Program Monitoring (PPM) survey undertaken three months after job seekers leave assistance. The cost per employment outcome three months following participation in Job Network Employment Services (Job Placement and Intensive Support) is reported by financial year through the Department’s Annual Report. The results by each quarter from 2006 onwards are presented in the table below. The results for 2008–09 are not yet available. Year Cost per employment outcome March June September December ($) 2006 4268 3740 4165 4025 2007 3888 3698 3737 3659 2008 3637 3643 3762 3754 2009 3786       The Personal Support Programme and Job Placement, Employment and Training program were pre-employment programs providing assistance to people with serious and multiple non-vocational barriers to participation in the labour market. Costs per employment outcome are not available for these non-vocational programs. 10416 10416 924 10416 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of Job Services Australia – How many (a) commencements, (b) placements, and (c) employment outcomes, were recorded in July 2009 in (i) stream 1, (ii) stream 2, (iii) stream 3, and (iv) stream 4. What was the total cost per placement in July 2009 for (a) stream 1, (b) stream 2, (c) stream 3, and (d) stream 4. What was the total cost per placement in July 2009 for Job Services Australia for (a) stream 1, (b) stream 2, (c) stream 3, and (d) stream 4. What proportion of the transition caseload had not had a face-to-face meeting with their employment services providers by 1 August 2009. What proportion of the transition caseload in (a) stream 1, (b) stream 2, (c) stream 3 and, (d) Stream 4 had not had a face-to-face meeting with their employment services providers by 1 August 2009. 10416 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The following table shows the number of Job Services Australia commencements, placements and employment outcomes recorded in the month of July 2009, by stream.   Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Commencements 169,447 70,156 95,571 35,203 Job Placements 1,893 4,226 4,013 617   Employment outcomes require 13 or 26 weeks in employment and, therefore, are unable to be measured until at least 3 months has elapsed from the commencement of Job Services Australia.   and (3) The Department does not report cost per job placement.  This is because not all job seekers who find a job inform their provider or Centrelink.  As a result the providers’ contribution to those placements cannot be attributed and any calculation of cost per placement would overstate the actual cost. and (5) In line with the published Request for Tender, transition job seekers commence progressively in Job Services Australia.  The transition guidelines state that the expectation is that Job Services Australia providers will commence job seekers within 3 months of their expected transition time.  As at 31 July 2009, 51 per cent of those job seekers who were eligible to commence on 1 July 2009 had commenced.  A further 27 per cent had a future appointment booked. The following table shows the proportion of currently available transition job seekers eligible to commence on 1 July 2009, by stream, who were yet to attend an appointment with their employment service provider, as at 2 August 2009. Stream % Commenced Percentage with a Future Appointment Percentage without a Future Appointment Stream1 51% 25% 24% Stream 2 53% 27% 20% Stream 3 49% 27% 24% Stream 4 49% 30% 21%   Note – Figures include Pending job seekers only.  Job seekers with exemptions from their activity test have been excluded. 10417 10417 926 10417 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of the Building the Education Revolution— How many jobs are estimated to be (a) created, and (b) supported, by the $14.7 billion Revolution in the (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11, and (iv) 2011-12 financial years. How many jobs in total are estimated to be (a) created, and (b) supported, by the $14.7 billion Revolution. What is the cost per job (a) created, and (b) supported, by the $14.7 billion Revolution. 10417 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 Building the Education Revolution monthly reporting guidelines require states, territories and Block Grant Authorities to provide jobs supported estimated data on the average daily number of on-site workers for the duration of the project. The Treasury estimates that the Government’s Nation Building – Economic Stimulus Plan will increase the level of GDP by 2¾ per cent in 2009-10 and 1½ per cent in 2010-11, supporting up to 210,000 jobs. Building the Education Revolution funding has been approved for a total of 24,426 projects in 9,530 schools. A comprehensive reporting regime has been established through which states, territories and Block Grant Authorities are required to report on actual project commencement, actual project completion, project progress, estimated jobs supported, actual project costs and contracted commitments. The Building the Education Revolution monthly reporting guidelines require states, territories and Block Grant Authorities to provide jobs supported estimated data on the average daily number of on-site workers for the duration of the project. It is not a requirement for states, territories and Block Grant Authorities to report on the costs of creating or supporting jobs. 10418 10418 927 10418 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of the Job Network and related employment services programs such as the Personal Support Programme and Job Placement, Employment and Training: how many job seekers were participating in a mutual obligation activity on 26 June 2009 in (a) total and (b) by mutual obligation activity type. 10418 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The total number of job seekers participating in a mutual obligation activity as at and including the 26th June 09 was 27 248. The number of job seekers by each mutual obligation activity type: MO Activity Type Total Combination voluntary, PT work & Education 107 Defence Force Reserves 21 Education & Training 1,629 Part time work 5,767 Voluntary & part time work 0 Relocation 37 Voluntary work 43 Work For The Dole 19 644 Total 27 248 This data reflects a job seeker undertaking an activity to meet their first six months mutual obligation requirement, which was a feature of the previous employment services model. It should be noted that outside of this six month requirement, job seekers continue to participate in a range of activities to satisfy their ongoing requirement to actively look for work and participate in employment services in exchange for income support. 10418 10418 928 10418 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of Job Services Australia: how many job seekers were participating in a Mutual Obligation activity such as Work for the Dole or Green Corps or another Work Experience activity on (a) 1 July 2009, and (b) 1 August 2009 in (i) total, and (ii) by Mutual Obligation activity type. 10418 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Job seekers being serviced under Job Services Australia have an ongoing Mutual Obligation to participate in activities and look for work, in exchange for their income support. Under Job Services Australia, most job seekers who continue in employment services after 12 months will also have a requirement to undertake a Work Experience activity for every twelve months they remain unemployed. Significantly, job seekers can now start a Work Experience activity at any time, if their Job Services Australia provider agrees it is the most appropriate activity to assist a job seeker achieve their employment goals, so they don’t need to wait 12 months to access these services. During the transition to Job Services Australia, job seekers who were already undertaking an activity, such as Work for the Dole, to meet their six-month Mutual Obligation activity requirement (under Job Network), were supported to continue in those activities. This enabled job seekers to see projects through to completion. Time spent on these activities by job seekers who transitioned immediately into the Work Experience Phase under Job Services Australia was recognised and counted toward their first Work Experience Activity Requirement. As at 1 July 2009 The total number of job seekers participating in Work Experience activities to meet their Activity Test or participation requirements under Job Services Australia as at 1 July 2009, was 26 343, including 329 job seekers in activities commenced on the first day of Job Services Australia. The number of job seekers participating in Work Experience activities by activity type as at 1 July 2009 was: Activity Type Number of Job seekers Accredited Education and Training (Vocational) 261 Non-accredited Training (Vocational) 2 Other 5 Other Approved Programs 1 Other Non-vocational 1 Part Time/Casual Paid Employment 48 Training in Job Search Techniques 1 Voluntary Work in community/non profit sector 10 Subtotal (new activities under JSA) 329 Job seekers participating in activities commenced prior to 1 July under the previous employment services to meet their six monthly Mutual Obligation requirement (including Work for the Dole, Voluntary Work, Defence Force Reserve, education and training, part-time work, relocation or any combination of these activities). 26 014 Total 26 343   Note::A job seeker can undertake multiple placements i.e. that is a job seeker can undertake more than one activity type at the same time. (b)   As at 1 August 2009 The total number of job seekers participating in Work Experience activities as at 1 August 2009, was 26 363, including 9708 job seekers in activities commenced under Job Services Australia. The number of job seekers participating in Work Experience activities by activity type as at 1 August 2009 was: Activity Type Number of Job seekers Accredited Education and Training (Vocational) 6 111 Addictions Intervention (Non-vocational) 9 Brokered Unpaid Work Experience 29 Cultural Services (Non-vocational) 6 Defence Force Reserves 4 Drought Force 20 Drought Force 60+ 26 Interpersonal Skills (Non-vocational) 2 Medical/Health Related Services (Non-vocational) 3 Mental Health Interventions (Non-vocational) 33 Non-accredited Training (Vocational) 72 Other 286 Other Approved Programs 224 Other Non-vocational 43 Part Time/Casual Paid Employment 1 965 Skills Training (Non-vocational) 76 Training in Job Search Techniques 117 Voluntary Work in community/non profit sector 281 Work for the Dole 401 Subtotal (new activities under JSA) 9 708# Job seekers participating in activities commenced prior to 1 July under the previous employment services to meet their six monthly Mutual Obligation requirement (including Work for the Dole, Voluntary Work, Defence Force Reserve, education and training, part-time work, relocation or any combination of these activities). 16 655 Total 26 363   # Job seekers commenced in new placements under Job Services Australia Note: A job seeker can undertake multiple placements i.e. that is a job seeker can undertake more than one activity type at the same time. 10420 10420 929 10420 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of Green Corps under Job Services Australia – As at 12 August 2009, how many participants (a) were undertaking, and (b) are forecast to undertake in the 2009-10 financial year, a Green Corps Work Experience Activity. As at 12 August 2009, what was the age breakdown of participants in the Green Corps Work Experience Activity. Is it a demand driven program. 10420 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Green Corps under Job Services Australia has been improved and expanded which will limit its comparison to the previous program. Under Job Services Australia: Participation in Green Corps activities is available to job seekers of all ages receiving income support payments. Green Corps activities have been significantly expanded from current arrangements with no limits on places available. Job Services Australia Providers are able to vary the length of activities, with flexible start and end dates, allowing activities to be better targeted to community needs. There is no longer a restriction on projects in urban areas. To 12 August 2009, there were 36 job seekers in Green Corps activities under Job Services Australia. There were also 528 job seekers completing Green Corps activities under the previous Employment Services Contract of 2006-2009. Under Job Services Australia, Green Corps is one of a number of options available to job seekers undertaking Work Experience activities. There is no forecasting for Work Experience activities such as Green Corps as access to all activities is demand driven dependant upon the needs of individual job seekers. Of the 36 job seekers in Green Corps activities, under Job Services Australia to 12 August 2009, the age breakdown was as follows: no job seekers were under 20 years of age 11 job seekers were under 30 years of age 13 job seekers were aged between 30 and 44 years of age, and 12 job seekers were aged 45 years or over. 10421 10421 930 10421 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of Australians aged between 15 and 24 – By quarter from March 2006 to June 2009: what is the average duration of unemployment for 15 to 24 year olds receiving income support, and total number of 15 to 24 year olds receiving income support who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. By quarter from March 2006 to June 2009: what has been the average rate of (i) employment, (ii) participation, and (iii) unemployment, for 15 to 24 year olds; and what is the total number of 15 to 24 year olds who are unemployed. 10421 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question, outlined in the following tables: Table 1 provides data indicating the number of 15 to 24 year old recipients of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (other) who are registered as job seekers, by their average duration of unemployment (in days) and the number of these recipients with an unemployment duration of 12 months or more. Table 2 reports for each quarter from March 2006 to June 2009 the average rate of 15 to 24 year olds in employment, participation and unemployment; and the level of unemployment. The level of employment is included in the table for comparison. These are Australian Bureau of Statistics data averaged by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Table 1: Active Job Seekers in receipt(1) of Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance (other) aged 15-24 by duration of unemployment Date Average duration of unemployment (days) (2) Number of recipients with an unemployment duration of 12 months or more(2) 31/03/2006 626 41,168 30/06/2006 648 40,503 29/09/2006 662 39,429 29/12/2006 645 38,354 30/03/2007 646 37,326 29/06/2007 673 35,714 28/09/2007 694 33,748 31/12/2007 673 32,523 31/03/2008 673 31,788 30/06/2008 678 31,022 30/09/2008 675 30,460 31/12/2008 621 31,220 31/03/2009 573 33,430 30/06/2009 566 36,901 Source: Unpublished Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Administrative data. (1) People in receipt of Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance (other) are those who were determined to be current on the payment on the specified day. (2) Unemployment duration includes allowable breaks. Table 2: Selected labour market indicators for 15-24 year olds, March quarter 2006 to June quarter 2009, seasonally adjusted data.   Employment rate (%) Participation rate (%) Unemployment rate (%) Level of uneployment (‘000) Level of employment (‘000) Mar-2006 63.2 70.6 10.5 212.4 1807.7 Jun-2006 63.5 70.7 10.2 207.5 1824.0 Sep-2006 64.2 71.2 9.8 201.4 1848.9 Dec-2006 64.0 70.8 9.6 195.6 1851.8 Mar-2007 63.9 70.7 9.5 194.6 1858.1 Jun-2007 64.3 70.7 9.0 185.3 1877.0 Sep-2007 63.9 70.5 9.3 192.5 1870.3 Dec-2007 64.4 71.3 9.7 203.0 1888.2 Mar-2008 65.1 71.2 8.6 180.7 1921.4 Jun-2008 64.8 71.3 9.1 191.0 1916.9 Sep-2008 64.3 70.3 8.5 177.9 1910.2 Dec-2008 63.2 69.7 9.3 193.6 1884.6 Mar-2009 61.7 69,5 11.2 232.3 1847.5 Jun-2009 60.8 69.0 12.0 249.4 1826.0 Source: ABS Labour Force, Australia, (cat. no. 6202.0), seasonally adjusted data. Please note that a three-month average has been applied to these estimates. 10422 10422 931 10422 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 12 August 2009: In respect of the Productivity Places Program: As at 12 August 2009, how many job seekers, by payment type, (a) were enrolled in (b) had commenced, and (c) had completed a qualification under the program. As at 12 August 2009, what were the (a) employment outcomes, by payment type, and (b) average employment outcomes, for job seekers who had successfully completed a qualification under the program. 10423 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: As at 12 August 2009, there were (a) 132 176 enrolments*, (b) 110 770 commencements**, and (c) 55 383 completions. This data cannot be disaggregated by payment type. *Under the PPP ‘enrolments’ are participants that have applied, met the programs eligibility criteria and were expected to commence training within six weeks of their approval. ** ‘Commencements’ are recorded when an approved training organisation has commenced delivery of formal training to the eligible participant for an eligible qualification – this milestone triggers the first of two PPP payments – the other being the completion milestone. As at 12 August 2009, 40 193 job seekers that were referred by an Employment Service Provider (ESP) had completed a PPP qualification and (a) 5 859 of these achieved an ‘employment outcome’. The distribution of ‘employment outcomes’ across payment type is described in Table 1. No data exists on (b) average employment outcomes. As the states and territories are delivering job seeker places progressively through 2009, performance data is not yet available. Reports demonstrating progress against output targets are due 31 January 2010. Table 1: Employment outcomes by payment type for ESP referred job seekers that had completed a PPP qualification Payment Type (Allowance Description) Job outcome Abstudy Allowance 3 Age Pension (males >65, females >60) 3 Austudy 15 Carer Payment 40 Disability Support Pension 45 Newstart Allowance 4 491 Parenting Payment Partnered 83 Parenting Payment Single 503 Partner Allowance 0 Special Benefit under NSA conditions 1 Special Benefit 0 Widow Allowance 8 Wife Pension DSP 1 Youth Allowance 640 Non Allowance Youth 19 Nil Allowance 7 Total 5 859 10423 10423 934 10423 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 13 August 2009: As at 13 August 2009, and by previous employment status, what percentage of graduates of (a) phase 1, (b) phase 2, and (c) phase 3, of the Productivity Places Program (PPP) were employed after completing their training? 10424 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: As at 12 August 2009, (a) 48.5 per cent of trainees from Phase 1 had achieved an employment outcome after the completion of their PPP qualification, (b) 30.1 per cent of trainees from Phase 2 had achieved an employment outcome after the completion of their PPP qualification, and (c) 7.1 per cent of trainees from Phase 3 had achieved an employment outcome after the completion of their PPP qualification. Employment outcomes are only recorded for trainees that were referred by an employment services provider. The reason why the percentage of employment outcome is significantly higher for Phase 1 as compared to the other phases is that trainees have had more time to achieve an employment outcome. Numbers of trainees that have achieved an employment outcome in Phases 1, 2 and 3 is at Table 2. No data has been provided in respect to a participants ‘previous employment status’ as all PPP participants are recorded as job seekers. Table 2: Trainees that have achieved an employment outcome as a percentage of completions for Phases 1, 2 and 3. Phase Total completions Employment Service Provider (ESP) referred completions ESP referred employment outcomes Percentage of ESP employment outcomes against ESP completions Phase 1 (1 April 08 – 30 June 08) 686 305 148 48.5% Phase 2 (1 July 08 – 31 Dec 08) 23,811 12,515 3,767 30.1% Phase 3 (1 Jan 09 – 12 August 09 30,886 27,373 1,944 7.1% Total 55,383 40,193 5,859 14.6% 10424 10424 935 10424 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 13 August 2009: As at 13 August 2009, in respect of the Productivity Places Program (PPP), what percentage of graduates of (a) Phase 1, (b) Phase 2, and (c) Phase 3, reported improved employment status after training? 10424 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: No reporting has been conducted on ‘improved employment status’ for trainees that have completed a PPP qualification. Information is only collected on whether the participant has achieved an employment outcome following completion. The answer to Question 934 provides data on employment outcomes achieved for trainees that completed a qualification in Phases 1, 2 and 3. 10424 10424 936 10424 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of the Productivity Places Program: (1)           What Funding is the Government providing in the years (a) 2007–2008, (b) 2008–2009, (c) 2009–10, (d) 2010–2011, (e) 2011–2012, and (f) 2012–2013, financial years. (2)           What funding is each State and Territory Government providing in the (a) 2007–2008, (b) 2008–2009, (c) 2009–2010, (d) 2010-–2011, (e) 2011–2012, and (f) 2012–2013, financial years. (3)           What sum of funding has each State and Territory government allocated for this program in their (a) 2008–2009, and (b) 2009–2010, budgets. How will the Government measure the actual financial contribution from each State and Territory government. 10425 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 Australian Government has administered funding appropriated for the following financial years: $27 875 000 in 2007–2008; $336 327 000 in 2008–2009; $487 252 000 in 2009–2010; $523 413 000 in 2010–2011; and $646 003 000 in 2011–2012. All states except the Government of Victoria are signatories to the National Partnership Agreement on the Productivity Places Program(NP PPP). Under the NP PPP the Australian Government provides 100 per cent of the funding for job seeker places and 50 per cent of funding for existing worker places. States have committed to provide 40 per cent of the funding for existing worker places and put in place arrangements to ensure a collection of a minimum 10 per cent private contribution for existing worker places. The NP PPP will be in place from 2009 to 30 June 2012 covering financial years 2008–2009 through to 2011–2012. State commitments under the NP PPP for each financial year are below: State 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–-2011 2011–2012 $m $m $m $m New South Wales 12.492 40.796 67.106 79.654 Queensland 7.686 26.171 41.674 48.769 South Australia 2.799 10.174 15.721 18.133 Western Australia 3.909 13.286 21.183 24.829 Tasmania 0.801 1.597 1.795 7.863 Northern Territory 0.415 1.452 2.268 2.632 Australian Capital Territory 0.636 2.084 3.497 4.183 Total estimated program expenditure under state delivery of the NP PPP for 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 is outlined below. This includes the Australian Government contribution, state contributions and the minimum 10 percent private contribution. State 2008–2009 2009-–2010 $m $m New South Wales 45.857 140.119 Queensland 28.189 88.791 South Australia 10.577 34.394 Western Australia 14.352 45.122 Tasmania 3.025 6.666 Northern Territory 1.526 4.895 Australian Capital Territory 2.416 7.277 Under the terms of NP PPP (and Victoria’s agreement) by 31 January each year, state and territory governments will provide the Australian Government with an acquittal of funding over the previous 12 months. 10425 10425 937 10425 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of the Compact with Young Australians and Youth Allowance (Other)— As at 13 August 2009, how many new recipients of the Allowance since 1 July 2009 had a participation requirement under the Compact. As at 13 August 2009, what was the current average duration of an Allowance recipient. As at 13 August 2009, what percentage of Allowance recipients exited income support within (a) three months, and (b) twelve months. As at 13 August 2009, how many Allowance recipients achieved an (a) employment, and (b) education, outcome for each quarter since March 2006. As at 13 August 2009, what percentage of Allowance recipients achieved an (a) employment, and (b) education, outcome for each quarter since March 2006. What are the key performance indicators which will be used to measure the elements of the Compact. What are the estimated (a) employment, and (b) education, outcomes of the Compact. How will the number of employment outcomes achieved from participation in the Compact be measured. What is the estimated impact of the Compact on the employment rate of Australians aged 15 to 24. What monitoring and evaluation of the Compact will be conducted, and on what date will they be made public. 10426 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: Note: Data as at 14 August 2009 is not readily available. The closest readily available data for each question has been used in the answers below. The Compact with Young Australians includes a National Youth Participation Requirement under which young people will be required to complete Year 10 and then undertake full-time education, training, employment, or a combination of these until the age of 17.  To support the Compact, young people aged under 21 seeking Youth Allowance who do not have Year 12 or equivalent (known as Early School Leavers), will be assessed against new participation requirements. At 14 September 2009, there were approximately 6100 recipients of Youth Allowance (other) who were granted payment on or after 1 July 2009, who did not have Year 12 or equivalent qualifications and were subject to the new participation requirements. As at 31 July 2009, the average duration on income support for Youth Allowance (other) recipients was 70 weeks. As at 31 July 2009, 31 per cent of Youth Allowance (other) recipients exited income support within 3 months of grant. As at 31 July 2009, 75 per cent of Youth Allowance (other) recipients exited income support within 12 months of grant. Number of 13 week employment outcomes and number of education outcomes for Youth Allowance (other) recipients for each quarter from March 2006. Employment outcome payments are made to employment service providers when a job seeker is placed and remains in employment or gains employment for 13 weeks.  A second payment is made if the job seeker remains in employment for a further 13 weeks (referred to as a 26 week outcome).  Education outcome payments are made when job seekers complete one or two semesters of an eligible education/training course. The table below shows the number of 13 week employment outcomes and the number of education outcomes. Quarter Number of 13 week employment outcomes for YA (o) recipients Number of education outcomes for YA (o) recipients Total of 13 week employment outcomes and education outcomes for YA(o) recipients March 2006 4 288   32 4 320 June 2006 4 491 297 4 788 September 2006 4 571 248 4 819 December 2006 5 202 193 5 395 March 2007 4 225   34 4 259 June 2007 4 305 424 4 729 September 2007 4 432 297 4 729 December 2007 4 933 119 5 052 March 2008 3 531   22 3 553 June 2008 3 769 348 4 117 September 2008 3 540 209 3 749 December 2008 3 847 148 3 995 March 2009 2 528   20 2 548 June 2009 2 202 122 2 324 It is not possible to accurately provide the percentage of Youth Allowance (other) recipients who attained an education or employment outcome for each quarter from March 2006. This is because the outcome data is cumulatively calculated for each quarter, whereas the Youth Allowance (other) population is ‘point in time’ and may have fluctuated over the same quarter reference period. Under the Compact with Young Australians: a National Youth Participation Requirement will apply under which young people will be required to complete Year 10 and then undertake full-time education, training, employment, or a combination of these until the age of 17; state and territory governments have guaranteed young people aged 15 to 24 years access to an education or training entitlement; and participation requirements will be strengthened for Youth Allowance and children attracting Family Tax Benefit Part A for their parents. The elements of the Compact are expected to contribute to strengthened participation levels in education and training, resulting in the achievement of the 90 per cent national Year 12 or equivalent attainment rate target by 2015 (which was brought forward from 2020 under the Compact). (7)   (a)   There are no estimated employment outcomes under the Compact with Young Australians. The intention of the education and training entitlement is to enable young people—especially those vulnerable to the tightened labour market effect of the global recession—to be better prepared and qualified for a transition into the workforce particularly as the economy recovers.  (b)   The Government estimates that the education and training entitlement under the Compact with Young Australians will result in up to 135,000 young people being encouraged to return to education and training or undertake further education and training to improve their skills and current qualifications. The Government expects that most early school leavers who take up a Compact place will seek VET training. Early modelling work undertaken by the Department suggested that up to 14,000 young people may take up a school place as a result of the Compact. (8)   See response to 7(a). (9)   See response to 7(a). (10) The States and Territories are responsible for the implementation of the Compact with Young Australians. Clause 58 (b) of the National Partnership Agreement on Youth Attainment and Transitions states that within the COAG framework, the Commonwealth, the States and Territories will develop an information exchange protocol between Centrelink and education and training authorities to assist with monitoring and implementation of the Compact’s National Youth Participation Requirement. Clause 58 (i) states that the development of a formative evaluation of initiatives covered by the Agreement will be undertaken to support further policy development and continuous improvement. This evaluation has not yet been developed but will be done so in collaboration with the States and Territories, once their respective Implementation Plans and reform areas have been agreed by the end of November 2009. Clause 40 states the education and training entitlement will be reviewed in April 2011 by COAG Senior Officials who will report to COAG on the effectiveness of the education and training entitlement and make recommendations to COAG on whether the entitlement should be extended past 31 December 2011. The specific parameters surrounding the effectiveness of the entitlement have not yet been determined by COAG Senior Officials, but the economic conditions at the time will be considered. The National Partnership Agreement does not specify whether the reviews conducted will be made publicly available. 10428 10428 938 10428 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of his department’s document AFFA02/11747 Animals – Exports – Live animal Investigation – Vessel – Al Kuwait: (a) on what date was it created; (b) how many pages does it contain; (c) was it initiated and completed solely within his department; if so, who was the author/s; and (d) on request, which parts of it will be made available to the public, and on what date. 10428 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: I am advised that: The file was created on 21 November 2002 The file contains 341 pages No; many authors The contents of this file will not be made publicly available as they contain working documents, documents subject to legal professional privilege, documents relating to business affairs, and documents containing material obtained in confidence. 10428 10428 939 10428 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of his department’s document AFFA02/12430 Animals – Exports – Investigations- Mortalities from Portland Feedlot: (a) on what date was it created; (b) how many pages does it contain; (c) was it created and implemented within his department; if so, who was the author/s; and (d) on what date will it be made available to the public. 10429 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: I am advised that: The file was created on 17 December 2002 The file contains 165 pages No; many authors The contents of the file will not be made publicly available as they contain internal working documents, documents subject to legal professional privilege, documents relating to business affairs, and documents containing material obtained in confidence. 10429 10429 940 10429 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of the sampling protocol developed by the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr Gardner Murray, for the September 2002 voyage of the MV Al Kuwait: will he (a) direct his department to ask Dr Murray to provide details of the protocol he developed for this voyage; and (b) advise whether any samples were taken from the sheep in the Portland feedlots prior to boarding the MV Al Kuwait; if so, (i) samples of what materials were collected, and (ii) what tests were performed. 10429 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: Dr Murray no longer works for the department and does not have access to departmental files. It is therefore inappropriate to approach Dr Murray. I am advised that the department has no record of any samples taken from sheep prior to boarding the vessel. 10429 10429 941 10429 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of his department’s document AFFA02/2389E Animals – Exports – Export of Live Sheep from Portland: (a) on what date was it created; (b) how many pages does it contain; (c) was it created totally within his department; if so, who was the author/s; and (d) does it contain confidential information. 10429 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: I am advised that: The file was created on 3 October 2002. The file contains 58 pages. Yes; many authors. Yes. 10429 10429 942 10429 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of his department’s document AFFA 02/9097 Animals – Health – Livestock Exports Welfare Issues: (a) on what date was it created; (b) how many pages does it contain; (c) who was the author/s; and (d) will it be available for public scrutiny. 10430 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: File requested on 20 August 2002 The file contains 309 pages Various officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. This file will not be available for public scrutiny as it contains departmental advice to government in the form of minutes to the minister. 10430 10430 943 10430 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of his department’s document AFFA 02/11022 Animals – Exports – Investigations – Mortalities from Portland Feedlot: (a) on what date was it created; (b) how many pages does it contain; (c) was the investigation discussed in the report performed entirely by his department; (d) who was the author/s; and (e) has it been released publicly; if so, on what date. 10430 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: I am advised that: The file was created on 29 October 2002. The file contains 363 pages. There are a number of investigations covered in the file. There are many authors. No. 10430 10430 944 10430 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 Mrs Moylan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of his department’s document AFFA 02/9115 Government relations – Addresses (Presentations) – Speeches – Meat and Livestock: (a) on what dates and where did the presentations occur; (b) to whom were these speeches addressed: and (c) has the content of these addresses been made available to the public: if so, on what date(s). 10430 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: 2 September 2003, University of Melbourne, Victoria. Researchers from the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide and CSIRO, and representatives of Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd, Sheepmeat Council of Australia and Australian Wool Innovation. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 13 June 2003, Casino, NSW. Cross-section of farmers, industry representatives, processors and NSW Department of Agriculture representatives. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 15 November 2002, Whittlesea, Victoria. Members of the Whittlesea Agricultural Society and cattle producers. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 24 October 2002, Brisbane, Queensland. Northern Australian beef producers and Meat & Livestock Australia Ltd representatives. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 3 October 2002, Charles Sturt University, NSW. Beef producers and cattle breed guest speakers. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 31 August 2002, Biloela, Queensland. Producers, processors and sponsors. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 30 August 2002, Gunnedah, NSW. Stock and station agents. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 20 August 2002, Parliament House, Canberra. Parliamentarians and beef industry representatives. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 11 June 2002, Boonah Shire, Queensland. Cross-section of graziers, dairy and hobby farmers, industry representatives, processors and Queensland Department of Agriculture representatives. There is no record of the speech being made public other than at the time of delivery. 10431 10431 945 10431 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of Employment Services Contract (ESC) 2006-09 and 2009-12: (a) what was the cost per placement in each Employment Services Area (ESA) under ESC 2006–09; and (b) as at 13 August 2009, what was the cost per placement in each ESA under ESC 2009–12. 10431 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department does not report cost per job placement. This is because not all job seekers who find a job inform their provider or Centrelink. As a result the providers’ contribution to those placements cannot be attributed and any calculation of cost per placement would overstate the actual cost. 10431 10431 946 10431 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 13 August: In respect of the upgrading of skills component for existing workers under the Productivity Places Program: As of 13 August 2009 and by State and Territory: How many existing workers had (a) enrolled in, (b) commenced, and (c) graduated from the program; and in what qualifications and at what levels were these places taken up. As of 13 August 2009 and by State and Territory, how many existing workers had reported an improved employment status after completing their upgrading of skills training under the program. As of 13 August 2009 and by State and Territory, what percentage of existing workers had reported an improved employment status after completing their upgrading of skills training under the program. As of 13 August 2009 and by State and Territory, what has the Governments monetary contribution for upgrading the skills of existing workers under the program. As of 13 August 2009 and by State and Territory, what has been the monetary contribution of each State and territory for upgrading the skills of existing workers under the program. As of 13 August 2009 and by State and Territory, what has been the employer or individual monetary contribution of each State and territory for upgrading the skills of existing workers under the program. What evaluation and monitoring of this program are being undertaken, and on what dates will the results be made public. What are the key Performance Indicators for the upgrading of skills component of this program. As of 13 August 2009, and for each State and territory, what are the values for each of the measured performance indicators. 10432 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: Most states and territories (states) are in early stages of implementation of the existing worker element of the Productivity Places Program (PPP). The number of commencements is expected to rise from September to December with over 57,000 commencements anticipated to occur by 31 December 2009. Reports from seven states indicate that as of 1 August 2009 arrangements have been put in place for the delivery of over 30,000 places to existing workers. Preliminary data from five states indicates that over 12,000 existing workers have commenced training under the Productivity Places Program to 1 August 2009. This includes an estimated 1,250 commencements for existing workers through a series of national enterprise trials and 11,475 commencements for existing workers under state delivery arrangements. This figure is an underestimate as it excludes data for 2009 for Queensland and Western Australia as data on commencements have yet to be provided by these two states. This figure excludes existing workers at risk of retrenchment who have received training under the structural adjustment component of the job seeker element of the PPP (approximately 7,000 workers). Data on completions are not yet available for all states. The data also exclude additional training effort in Victoria during 2009. Victoria is not a signatory to the National Partnership Agreement on the PPP (NP PPP). Victoria has negotiated a separate arrangement with the Commonwealth Government. This arrangement will see PPP funding incorporated into Victoria’s existing arrangements to support its reform process Securing Jobs for Your Future – Skills for Victoria. As part of this agreement the two governments agreed that a separate Productivity Places Program (PPP) will not operate in Victoria and ongoing PPP funding will instead be incorporated into existing skills funding arrangements on certain conditions, including that Victoria report on overall growth in delivery and higher level qualifications to both job seekers and existing workers. The table below shows preliminary data by qualification level on how many existing workers have commenced training through the PPP under state delivery arrangements. Data on existing workers participating in the national enterprise trials have not been collected at state level as projects were brokered by Industry Skills Councils at the national level and not individual jurisdictions. Data on additional training effort in during 2009 in Victoria, Queensland Western Australia are not included. A breakdown of unpublished data by state and territory should be obtained directly from each state government. Table 1 Existing Worker Qualification Commencements under State Delivery Arrangements – Preliminary Data on Delivery to 1 August 2009 Qualification level Total Advanced Diploma 190 Diploma 2,117 Certificate IV 4,330 Certificate III 4,838 Total 11,475 A breakdown of commencements by qualification has not yet been provided by all states. and (3) The existing worker element of the program is in early stages of implementation. Qualitative data on progress has been collected but the qualitative information that would enable this question to be answered has not yet been collected. It is anticipated that qualitative information will be collected as part of the mid-term review of the funding and operational arrangements of the National Partnership Agreement which is due to occur no later than 30 June 2010. Over $74 million has been notionally provided by the Australian Government as of 13 August 2009 to support training for existing workers under the Productivity Places Program – $17 million through MoUs with all states, $3 million through national enterprise trials and $54 million as a notional payment under the National Partnership Agreement with seven states. In addition a further $15 million has been provided to the Victorian Government to support additional training for existing workers through existing skilling arrangements taking the total Australian Government contribution to date to over $89 million. The table below shows, by state, the Australian Government’s notional contribution as of 18 August 2009 for state delivery of the PPP to existing workers under MoU arrangements and the National Partnership Agreement on the PPP. It also shows the funding contribution that the Australian Government has committed to provide each state for the full 2009 calendar year. These payments are notional only as under the new federal financial framework there are centralised payment arrangements and states do not receive a separate payment for existing workers and job seekers. This notional split of the payments does not reflect how the funds are transferred between governments. A state by state breakdown of funding provided under national enterprise trials is not available as funding was directed to projects brokered by Industry Skills Councils rather than into individual jurisdictions. Table 2 PPP – Notional Payments to States for delivery to Existing Workers, 2008 to 2009 MoU National Partnership State 2008 and 2009 Funding to 18 August 2009 2009 Commitment $m $m $m New South Wales 3.676 23.042 39.939 Victoria 2.612 Not applicable Not applicable Queensland 4.938 14.421 25.265 South Australia 2.587 5.618 9.857 Western Australia 2.454 7.339 12.845 Tasmania 0.749 1.256 1.914 Northern Territory 0.355 0.791 1.393 Australian Capital Territory 0.114 1.229 2.098 Under the terms and conditions of the National Partnership Agreement on the PPP there is a calendar year target for the delivery of training to existing workers. States are required to contribute funding to support this commitment. Data on financial contributions by states are acquitted on an annual basis with the first report due on 31 January 2010. The table below shows the funding contribution that each state has committed to provide under MoU arrangements and under the National Partnership for the 2009 calendar year. Data on actual state funding contributions to 13 August 2009 should be sought directly from state governments. Table 3 State Funding Commitments for Delivery to Existing Workers State(a) MoU National Partnership 2008 and 2009 2009 $m $m New South Wales 0 32.686 Victoria 0 Not applicable Queensland 2.200 20.650 South Australia 2.069 7.886 Western Australia 1.100 10.492 Tasmania 0.358 1.585 Northern Territory 0.198 1.135 Australian Capital Territory 0.091 1.678 Under the terms and conditions of the National Partnership Agreement on the PPP there is a calendar year target for the delivery of training to existing workers. In addition to contributing funding to support this commitment states are required to put in place arrangements to collect in aggregate a minimum 10 per cent private contribution. Financial data will be acquitted on an annual basis with the first report due on 31 January 2010. The table below shows the minimum 10 per cent private contribution equivalent to the outputs that each state has committed to provide for the 2009 calendar year. Data on the private contribution to 13 August 2009 are not available. Table 4 Notional Private Funding Contribution for Delivery to Existing Workers MoU National Partnership State 2008 and 2009 2009 $m $m New South Wales 0.408 8.069 Victoria 0.290 Not applicable Queensland 0.793 5.102 South Australia 0.517 1.971 Western Australia 0.395 2.593 Tasmania 0.126 0.389 Northern Territory 0.061 0.281 Australian Capital Territory 0.022 0.420 Under the National Partnership Agreement on the PPP states are required to provide: monthly progress reports on the implementation of the PPP; six monthly reports on progress against PPP output targets and an analysis of barriers and achievements in meeting the targets; and annual financial reports to acquit funding. Through the NP PPP all governments aim to increase the number of people with qualifications and the number of people with higher level qualifications. States are required to ensure that: Additional training is made available for job seekers and existing workers. Additional training is targeted in accordance with the agreed national qualification profile level. Additional training is targeted at industries, occupations and qualifications in skills shortage. The conditions of agreement, including the following are met: training funded under the Agreement is in addition in existing effort; enterprises and industry representatives are engaged in the program to identify skills needs and facilitate the delivery of training; there is a role for national Industry Skills Councils in the brokerage of training; there is a role for Employment Service Providers in the brokerage of training; a contestable environment for the delivery of training in which public and private providers can compete; 40 per cent of funding for existing worker places is provided by state governments; and a minimum 10 per cent enterprise/individual contribution for existing worker places is collected in aggregate over the life of the Agreement. State progress will be measured through data and reporting arrangements as set out in (7). (9)   Under the terms and conditions of the NP PPP states are required to meet a calendar year target for the delivery of training to existing workers and contribute funding to support this commitment. Data to enable an assessment of the performance of states against 2009 targets will not be available until 31 January 2010. Preliminary data indicates that as result of the present economic climate there is a high demand for training at lower qualification levels and the demand for job seeker places exceeds supply. 10436 10436 947 10436 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Status of Women, in writing, on 13 August 2009. In respect of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS): Does her department require proponents to submit evidence that their proposals are compliant with local planning and building codes; if not, why not. Has her department issued any incentives to proponents that have failed to comply with the requirements of local planning and building codes; if so, why, and in which locations. Will she indicate what steps are taken by her department to ensure that proposals seeking to take up NRAS incentives have complied with the requirements of all local planning and building codes; if not, why not.  Does her department defer consideration of applications for NRAS incentives until proponents have received the relevant development approvals from State or local government authorities; if not, why not. Has her department made any representations to local government authorities regarding any application for NRAS incentives; if so, would it support variations to planning requirements (such as building height) to enable an affordable housing proposal to proceed; if so, why. 10436 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008, Regulation 16, requires that each approved rental dwelling, and the management of it, complies at all times with the landlord, tenancy, building and health and safety laws of the State or Territory and local government area in which the dwelling is located. As part of the application process, while applicants are not required to provide evidence that their proposals are compliant with local planning or building codes, or obtained planning approval, they are required to sign a declaration which states that they will be fully compliant. This allows for applicants to forward plan and to include projects that will deliver dwellings over the four years of NRAS 2008-2012. A reserved allocation of incentives may be offered without this evidence, however, no incentive will be provided, either as a payment or refundable tax offset, until the dwelling meets all requirements of the Scheme, including Regulation 16 above, and is available for rent. As mentioned above, dwellings must comply with the landlord, tenancy, building and health and safety laws of the relevant state or territory. An incentive would not be provided where the Department was aware that this requirement had not been met. All applicants are required to sign a declaration indicating that they will be fully compliant with the National Mandatory Requirements for NRAS, one of which is that “dwellings will comply with State, Territory and Local Government planning and building codes and requirements”. In addition, applicants are also required to indicate the status of their projects (eg. land acquired, design stage, planning approval received, construction commenced/completed). While evidence to support these claims is not required as part of the application process, where there is some doubt during the assessment process about the claims being made, this information has been requested. For those applications which have been approved, incentives are issued in arrears following an annual reporting period.  Approved participants must indicate that they have complied with local regulations and provide a copy of the certificate of occupancy or equivalent for each dwelling. Reserved allocations may be offered to applicants prior to obtaining planning approval. Gaining approval under the Scheme may be a critical part of proceeding with the project and applicants may need or wish to secure this prior to applying for planning approval. Approval under the Scheme may be a way for applicants to secure finance to commence the development. Relevant laws must be complied with and no incentive will be provided, either through payment or refundable tax offset, until the dwelling has met the requirements of the Scheme. The Department has not made any representations for, and does not advocate on behalf of, applicants seeking planning approval or variations to building requirements. Planning approval would be made at the discretion of the relevant local council in line with their usual practices and with reference to their requirements and town plans. 10437 10437 948 10437 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 13 August 2009: In respect of the Jobs and Training Compact - What are the 12 distinct initiatives of the Compact, and the Key Performance Indicators for each. As of 13 August 2009 what is the current performance of each initiative as measured against each of its Key Performance Indicators. For each initiative, on what date(s) will (a) detailed, and (b) any, information be made public on its performance. Will there be regular public reports released on the monitoring and evaluation of each initiative of the Compact. By calendar year from conception of the Compact to 13 August 2009, what is the total Government contribution to the (a) Compact; and (b) 12 distinct initiatives of the Compact. For each initiative, have the Key Performance Indicators been finalised. For each initiative, on what date were the Key Performance Indicators (a) finalised, (b) made available to stakeholders, and (c) made public. 10437 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: –6.        I refer the honourable member to the response provided to Senator Michaelia Cash for Senate Question 2064. 10437 10437 950 10437 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 17 August 2009: In respect of his department’s Local Government National Report for 2006-2007, tabled in the House of Representatives on 11 August 2009— Is he aware that this report indicates that as many as 169 of Australia’s local councils may be financially unviable; if not, why not. Is he aware that the number of financially unviable councils has increased by six since the release of the Local Government National Report for 2005-2006; if not, why not. Has he contacted the New South Wales, Victorian, West Australian, South Australian and Tasmanian governments to discuss their management of local government within their jurisdictions; if not, why not. What structural reforms to local government has the Government enacted to ensure the long term financial viability of local government as a level of government in Australia. Is the Government intending to make any long term reforms to the financial relationships between all levels of government beyond the current Community Infrastructure component of the economic security strategy; if not, why not. 10438 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: to (5) Under the Australian Constitution states and territories have primary responsibility for local government and their reform. The Australian Government is assisting in this process with the $25 million Local Government Reform Fund announced by the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, at the June 2009 meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government. We are also establishing the Centre for Excellence for Local Government to enhance professionalism and showcase innovation and best practice in the local government sector. 10438 10438 951 10438 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 Mr Ramsey asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 17 August 2009: In respect of a submission by Caritas College at Port Augusta, South Australia, for funding under the Building the Education Revolution program to construct a science centre: (a) why was the College’s application unsuccessful; and (b) did her department recommend funding be refused. 10438 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: As part of the application process, each state and territory education authority was required to conduct a competitive process seeking applications from secondary schools within their sector. Funding for Science and Language Centres (SLC) under the Building the Education Revolution program was allocated on the basis of demonstrated disadvantage, demonstrated need for the specified building and the capacity to complete construction within the 2009–10 financial year. A National Assessment Panel of experts assessed the applications submitted to my Department on the strength of the information provided in response to each of the criteria. The National Assessment Panel provided me with a list of the projects deemed suitable in accordance with the assessment criteria and a recommendation for their funding for my consideration. The National Assessment Panel found that Caritas College’s case for disadvantage was not clearly demonstrated and rated a lower score than other applications from schools across Australia. Subsequently, the College was not recommended as suitable for SLC funding. 10438 10438 954 10438 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 August 2009: In respect of remarks attributed to the Premier of Western Australia (WA) during WA Local Government Week from 6 to 8 August 2009, where it was said that the Australian Government was no longer prepared to fund 139 Local Government authorities in WA, and that unless there was a reduction, it would cut financial assistance: does he or the Australian Government intend to change the law or guidelines relating to the funding of Local Government, such as Financial Assistance Grants or Roads to Recovery, with the intention of causing Local Government authorities in WA to amalgamate. 10438 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: Neither I nor the Australian Government intend to change any such laws or guidelines. The Government has no powers to direct the Western Australian Government on the structure of local government, which operates under Western Australian legislation. 10439 10439 956 10439 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 Mrs Bronwyn Bishop asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 20 August 2009: In respect of Stewart House and Royal Far West Schools on Sydney’s Northern Beaches being ineligible for funding under the Government’s education revolution program because their pupils are not categorised as permanently enrolled students – When and how will she intervene to ensure that these two schools receive funding. Is it the position of the Australian Government that the NSW Government should provide more funding to these schools. Did she write a letter to the NSW Minister for Education, requesting that the NSW Government provide additional funding for these two schools; if so, has she received a response; if so, what was the response. 10439 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: All funding for the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program has now been allocated and finalised. Under the BER Guidelines, funding is based on a school’s full-time student enrolment (FTE). As Stewart House and Royal Far West Schools do not have a permanently enrolled student population, they are not eligible for BER funding. The FTE associated with the students that attend either Stewart House School or Royal Far West School has been used to calculate the notional BER funding of their home school. This is a matter for the NSW Government. In recognition of the valuable work carried out by these schools, on 12 August 2009 Minister Gillard wrote to the Hon Verity Firth MP, New South Wales Minister for Education and Training in support of Stewart House and Royal Far West Schools. It is understood that the NSW Government is currently modelling funding options for specialist schools, such as Stewart House School, that do not meet the funding eligibility requirements of the BER. 10439 10439 957 10439 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 20 August 2009: In respect of the Productivity Places Program by level of qualifications, what is the average duration of training for (a) job seekers, and (b) existing workers, who complete a qualification under the program. 10439 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 average duration of training for (a) job seekers who have completed a qualification under the program is 69 days for Certificate II level, 105 days for Certificate III level, 113 days for Certificate IV level and 288 days for Diploma level (see table 1). Data is not yet available at this level of detail for existing workers. Full reporting and reconciliation of activity by states and territories occurs annually in accordance with the National Partnership Agreement provisions. The first annual reconciliation is due in January 2010. Table 1: Average duration of training by qualification level for job seekers who have completed PPP training delivered by the Australian Government Qualification AQF Level Average duration in days Certificate II 69 Certificate III 105 Certificate IV 113 Diploma 288 *Data source: data based on Mainstream Job Seeker PPP, extracted from PPPPIMS Cube as at 22 September 2009 10440 10440 963 10440 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 2009. In respect of the Family Relationship Centre at Ashmore, Queensland — What funds were appropriated to the Centre for the 2008-09 financial year. What funds have been appropriated to the Centre (a) for the 2009-10 financial year, and b) over the forward estimates years. How many staff were employed at the Centre as at 7 September 2009. How many (a) appointments were held, and (b) clients made appointments, at the Centre between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. Does the Centre provide out-call appointments; if so, how many out-call appointments were held between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 10440 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: and (2) (a) (b) The following funds were and will be appropriated to the Gold Coast Family Relationship Centre: 2008-09 financial year - $1,301,520.00. 2009-10 financial year - $1,396,661.11. 2010-11 financial year - $1,396,661.11 (subject to indexation). The Gold Coast Family Relationship Centre has a funding contract until 30 June 2011. There were 12 staff employed at the Gold Coast Family Relationship Centre as at 7 September 2009. 3733 sessions were held at the Gold Coast Family Relationship Centre between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 1260 registered clients and 910 unregistered clients attended sessions at the Gold Coast Family Relationship centre between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. Yes, the Gold Coast Family Relationship Centre provides out-call appointments. 945 telephone sessions were held between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 10440 10440 964 10440 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of the Centrelink office at Southport, Queensland What funds were appropriated to this office for the 2008-09 financial year. What funds have been appropriated to this office (a) for the 2009-10 financial year, and (b) over the forward estimates years. How many staff were employed at this office as at 7 September 2009, how many of these were employed on a full-time basis, and what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages of staff in the 2009-10 financial year. How many (a) clients were seen, and (b) counter enquiries were made, at this office between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 10441 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Funding for Centrelink Customer Service Centres in the northern Gold Coast region (Biggera Waters, Nerang and Southport) is not appropriated to individual offices. As customers in this region use one or more of these offices regularly, resource management in the region is managed centrally to ensure maximum flexibility to meet fluctuating demand. Funds were not appropriated to the Southport office for the 2008-09 financial year. Customers in the northern Gold Coast region attend the office that is most convenient to their work, study, employer provider and/or home. As noted in question 1, funding for 2009-10 and the Southport office is not fixed. Funding for future financial years, including 2009-10 and over forward estimate years will be subject to customer demand and changes to service delivery. Funding will continue to be allocated to the Northern Gold Coast cluster of offices to ensure that the Biggera Waters, Southport and Nerang offices are able to respond effectively to changing customer demographics and demands. On 7 September 2009, 37 employees worked at Southport Customer Service Centre, of whom 29 were employed on a full time basis. The total budgeted funding for salaries and wages for staff for the 2009-10 financial year cannot be provided specific to Southport, as noted above. Centrelink is unable to answer this question completely as it does not currently capture the total number of customers who attend a Customer Service Centre. Centrelink is able to advise that there were approximately 382,000 instances where customers reported income or were recorded at a reception point in Southport in 2008-09. Of these, 87,345 were instances of customers reporting income at Southport and 294,065 were recorded reception contacts. Data on reception contacts does not include situations where a customer’s record was not accessed and may not include situations where the customer was seen by a Customer Liaison Officer prior to reaching a reception point. 10441 10441 966 10441 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of the Medicare Family Assistance Office at Pacific Fair, Broadbeach, Queensland— What funds were appropriated to this office for the 2008-09 financial year. What funds have been appropriated to this office (a) for the 2009-10 financial year, and (b) over the forward estimates years. How many staff were employed at this office as at 7 September 2009, how many of these were employed on a full-time basis, and what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages of staff in the 2009-10 financial year. How many (a) clients were seen, and (b) counter enquiries were made, at this office between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 10441 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Medicare Family Assistance Office at Pacific Fair, Broadbeach, Queensland was established on 12 February 1998. The funding for this office is included at an aggregate level across Medicare Australia’s programs and is not appropriated separately. A budget was allocated to each Medicare Australia office in the 2008–09 financial year. The estimated expenditure for Pacific Fair was $1,137,760. The expected expenditure for the Pacific Fair Medicare office in 2009–10 is $1,135,624. Medicare Australia is not anticipating any significant changes to the operations of the Pacific Fair Medicare office over the forward estimates period. Medicare Australia does not therefore expect any significant change to the cost profile for this office. As at 7 September 2009, 11 fulltime and one part time staff were employed at the Pacific Fair Medicare office (a further three fulltime staff and one part time staff were on maternity leave). An amount of $816,190 is budgeted for salaries and wages of staff in 2009–10. Between 1 July, 2008 and 30 June 2009, 176,665 customers received services in this office. Of this 29,428 made enquiries, the remainder received financial transaction services. 10442 10442 967 10442 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of the Department’s office at Southport, Queensland- What funds were appropriated to this office for the 2008-09 financial year. What funds have been appropriated to this office (a) for the 2009-10 financial year, and (b) over the forward estimates How many staff were employed at this office as at 7 September 2009, how many of these were employed on a full time basis, and what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages of staff in the 2009-10 financial year How many (a) clients were seen, and (b) counter enquiries were made, at this office between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 How many (a) citizenship tests were undertaken at, (b) visa applications were received through, and (c) citizenship applications were received through, this office between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 10442 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: Parliament appropriates funding to the Department for overall delivery of outcomes-not to specific locations. The Department then allocates this revenue to various offices, having regard to expected workload at that office. In the 2008-09 financial year, the Department’s Southport office spent $2,511,120 on staff salary and administrative expenses (infrastructure and overhead costs such as Information Technology and property are funded centrally). For the 2009-10 financial year, the Department’s Southport office has been allocated $2,817,000 for staff salary and related administrative costs. This may need to be adjusted through the course of the year to reflect adjustments to activity levels or potential movement in casework within the Department’s service delivery network. Allocations beyond 2009-10 have not yet been determined for the Department’s Southport office. As at 7 September 2009, the Department’s Southport office employed 33 staff, of which 24 staff were employed on a full time basis. Of the 33 staff, 26 staff were located in the Southport office and seven staff were located at the Gold Coast International Airport. For the 2009-10 financial year total budgeted funding for salaries and wages at the Department’s Southport office is $2,718,962. At the Department’s Southport office during the period 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, 32 679 clients were seen and 25 297 counter enquiries were made. At the Department’s Southport office during the period 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, 3790 citizenship tests were administered, 7266 visa applications were received, and 4000 citizenship conferral applications were received. 10443 10443 970 10443 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of the Australian Electoral Commission office at Southport, Queensland— What funds were appropriated to this office for the 2008-09 financial year. What funds have been appropriated to this office (a) for the 2009-10 financial year, and (b) over the forward estimates years. How many staff were employed at this office as at 7 September 2009, how many of these were employed on a full-time basis, and what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages of staff in the 2009-10 financial year. 10443 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: The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is appropriated a total budget which is then allocated internally.  In 2008-2009, the Southport office was allocated $416,516 for salary costs and $111,096 for property and property related expenses.  Other overhead costs are managed at either the state or national level. For 2009-2010, the Southport office has been allocated $419,946 for salary costs and $115,540 for property and property related expenses.  Allocations for the forward estimate years have not been determined at this stage, however they are not expected to change significantly. At 7 September 2009 there were 7 staff - 4 full-time, 3 part-time, with provision to engage 0.6 temporary staff over the current financial year.  Budgeted salary costs for 2009-10 are $419,946. 10443 10443 971 10443 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 7 September 2009: Is he aware that Ahmad Vahidi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nomination to serve as Iran’s Defence Minister, is a suspected international terrorist sought by Interpol in connection with several bombings in the early 1990s. Has Interpol issued a warrant for his arrest; if so, does it specifically relate to his connection with the 1994 attack on a Jewish community centre in Argentina which killed 85 people. 10443 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: Mr Vahidi is wanted for prosecution by Argentinean authorities for alleged involvement in the bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) centre in Buenos Aires in 1994. Mr Vahidi is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice. An Interpol Red Notice is a non-binding notification of the issue of a valid arrest warrant in an Interpol member country, with a view to enforcement facilitation. The Red Notice against Mr Vahidi was published in November 2007 at the request of Argentina. Interpol has issued a Red Notice, which is an international alert for a wanted person, not an international arrest warrant (although some countries will arrest a person who is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, without requiring further extradition documents from the requesting country). In November 2006, the Argentine court investigating the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) centre in Buenos Aires issued an arrest warrant for Mr Vahidi in relation to his alleged involvement in the bombing. 10444 10444 972 10444 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 Mr Bruce Scott asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of Britain’s High Court decision to allow a case, brought by veterans seeking compensation for adverse health effects from nuclear tests performed in the 1950s in the Pacific, to proceed against Britain’s Ministry of Defence Will the Australian Government consider allowing a case to be brought against it by Australian veterans who were exposed to nuclear radiation at Maralinga, Emu Field and on Malden Island and Christmas Island in the 1950s; if so, when; if not, why not. Alternatively, will the Australian Government consider seeking, on behalf of Australian veterans who were exposed to nuclear radiation at Maralinga, Emu Field and on Malden Island and Christmas Island in the 1950s, compensation from the British Government; if so, when; if not, why not. Alternatively, will the Australian Government, on its own initiative, consider providing compensation to surviving Australian veterans who were exposed to nuclear radiation at Maralinga, Emu Field and on Malden Island and Christmas Island in the 1950s; if so, when; if not, why not. 10444 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: It is up to an individual or a class of individuals to bring forward a common law class action in the Courts in respect of their participation in the British Nuclear Tests Program in Australia.  I am not aware of any notice that has been served on the Federal Government in relation to this.  Decisions on allowing cases to be brought rest with the Courts rather than with the Government.  The Government will respond if and when such a notice is served. My Department is considering the implications of the British High Court’s decision in consultation with other relevant agencies.  Compensation is available to Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and Commonwealth employees who participated in the British Nuclear Test Program in Australia, or their widow(er)s, through the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA).  Civilians (including pastoralists and Indigenous Australians) have access to compensation through the SRCA-like scheme administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. As one of the Australian Government’s election commitments, I am currently revisiting the unimplemented recommendations of the Clarke Review into Veterans’ Entitlements including the Review’s recommendation relating to participants in the nuclear test program. 10444 10444 973 10444 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 7 September 2009: From 1 January 1999 to 7 September 2009, what was the divorce rate (number and percentage) amongst the armed services personnel, by service and gender. 10444 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr Combet —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Data on divorce rates amongst Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel has not been collected for the period in question. 10445 10445 978 10445 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 7 September 2009: Has the National Secretary of the National Serviceman’s Association of Australia approached the Government requesting funding towards the dedication of the National Service Memorial (NSM) being unveiled in September 2010. Has the Government agreed to fund (a) the NSM, and (b) activities that form part of the NSM Dedication Day; if so, what sum of funding has been made available; if not, why not, and will funding be made available. 10445 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes, the National Secretary of the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia wrote to the Secretary of my Department on 10 September 2009 requesting funding to assist with the dedication of the National Service Memorial at the Australian War Memorial. Yes, the Australian Government, under its Commemorations Program, provided a grant of $150,000 in 2006-07 towards the cost of the National Service Memorial in the precincts of the Australian War Memorial. the request for funding of activities that form part of the National Service Memorial dedication day is currently under consideration by the Government. 10445 10445 986 10445 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr Melham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 8 September 2009: In respect of the Commission of Inquiry into the loss of HMAS Sydney II: what was the (a) total cost, (b) sum of fees or remuneration paid to (i) the Hon Terence R H Cole AO, and (ii) Counsel assisting Commander John Rush QC, (c) cost of other staff related expenses, (d) cost of (i) overseas, and (ii) domestic, travel and accommodation, (e) cost of studies and investigations undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, (f) cost of archival research, and (g) cost of all other administrative expenses. 10445 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr Combet —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The report into the loss of HMAS Sydney II was publicly released on 12 August 2009 by the Minister for Defence. Appendix D to the report (available at www.defence.gov.au/sydneyii) outlines the costs associated with the Commission of Inquiry to the end of the 2008/2009 financial year. Since this time the Commission of Inquiry has expended further funds in concluding the Inquiry and updated figures, in response to Mr Melham’s question, are as follows: The total cost of the Commission of Inquiry to 15 September 2009 was $7,290,741. Legal fees paid included: $887,234 to the Hon Terence R H Cole AO RFD QC. $647,716 to Senior Counsel, Commander John Rush RFD QC. Other staff related expenses were $2,839,993 paid for the services of professional service providers, contractors and consultants; and $1,663,171 for remaining legal fees. Travel costs were: $100,731 for overseas travel. $232,662 for domestic travel and accommodation. The cost of studies and investigations undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation was $11,597. The cost of archival research was $61,036. The cost of all other administrative expenses including stationery, books, postage, and IT consumables was $43,210. 10446 10446 987 10446 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 September 2009: Is the Government aware of claims by the Central Tibetan Administration that a large number of Tibetans have been imprisoned for acts of peaceful political expression; if so, Is the Government aware of the specific case of: (a) Sangye Lhamo, age 26, and Pema Yangtso, both nieces of Tibetan-Australian Geshe Sonam Dargye, arrested for peaceful protests in Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture; (b) Wangdu, age 41, former project officer with the AusAid-funded HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) Prevention in Lhasa Project, sentenced to life imprisonment; (c) Dhondup Wangchen, age 34, Tibetan filmmaker arrested in Tsoshar, Eastern Tibet in March 2008 and awaiting trial in Xining, Qinghai province; (d) Runggye Adak, age 54, Tibetan nomad arrested in Lithang, Eastern Tibet in 2007 and sentenced to eight years after calling publicly for the return of the Dalai Lama; (e) Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, age 58, religious leader and community builder, arrested in Kandze, Eastern Tibet in 2002 and sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment in 2005; (f) Gonpo Tserang, age 32, tourist guide, arrested in Dechen, Yunnan province in 2008 and sentenced to three years for text messaging; (g) Bangri Rinpoche, age 42, arrested in Lhasa in 1999 and sentenced to 19 years for passing information outside of Tibet; (h) Lobsang Tenzin, age 42, arrested in Lhasa in 1989 for peaceful protest, sentenced to life imprisonment; (i) Norzin Wangmo, age 30, journalist and cadre, arrested in Ngaba Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in 2008 and sentenced to five years for passing information by phone and email outside of Tibet; (j) Paljor Norrbu, age 81, printer, arrested in 2008 and sentenced to seven years for printing materials deemed to be subversive; and (k) Gedun Choekyi Nyima, age 6, (the Panchen Lama identified by the Dalai Lama), detained in 1995. Has the Government obtained any information about the location, welfare, and where applicable, charges or sentences facing the above Tibetans; if so, can he provide the details and say whether they have been independently verified; if not, what steps will the Government take to obtain such information. 10446 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: to (k) Yes. The Australian Government raised the cases of (a) Sangye Lamo, (b) Wangdu, (c) Dhondup Wangchen, (d) Rungye Adak, (i) Norzin Wangmo, (j) Paljor Norrbu and (k) Gedun Choekyi in the context of the 2009 Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue. Following the Dialogue, the Australian Government raised the case of (a) Pema Yangtso. Based on information provided by the Chinese authorities, we can advise that:                 Sangye Lhamo was accused of “splittist” activities in Ganzi County, Sichuan Province, and placed in an education-through-labour program for two years from 27 June 2008. Wang du (Wang Due) was sentenced in October 2008 by the Lhasa Intermediate People’s Court to life imprisonment and deprivation of political rights for life for espionage. Rungyye Adak was sentenced in October 2007 by the Ganzi Prefecture Intermediate People’s Court, Sichuan Province, to eight years imprisonment with deprival of political rights for four years for inciting “splitting of the state”. Based on the information which we provided, the Chinese authorities were unable to trace an individual by the name of Norzin Wangmo. Gedun Choekyi Nyima was living a normal life and was doing well academically, but his family had asked that they be left alone. No information has been received so far on the cases of (a) Pema Yangtso, (c) Dhondup Wangchen and (j) Paljor Norrbu. On 7 September 2009, we instructed the Australian Embassy in Beijing to follow up these cases with the relevant Chinese authorities. The Australian Government raised the case of (e) Tenzin Delek Rinpoche in the context of the 2007 Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue. The Chinese side advised that he was serving a life sentence in Chuandong Prison, Sichuan Province, after his death sentence was commuted to life in prison on 26 January 2005. The Australian Government will continue to take appropriate opportunities to raise with Chinese authorities individual cases of human rights concern in China. The Australian Government is not able to independently verify the information provided by the Chinese Government. 10447 10447 988 10447 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 September 2009: Further to question No. 971 (Notice Paper, 7 September 2009, page 70), is he able to confirm that Ahmad Vahidi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nomination to serve as Iran’s Defence Minister, is a suspected international terrorist on Interpol’s Red Notice in connection with several bombings in the early 1990s. Is he able to say whether Argentina issued a warrant for his arrest; if so, can he say if it specifically relates to his connection with the 1994 attack on a Jewish Community centre in Argentina which killed 85 people. 10447 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: Mr Ahmad Vahidi is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice. An Interpol Red Notice is a non-binding notification of the issue of a valid arrest warrant in an Interpol member country, with a view to enforcement facilitation. The Red Notice against Mr Vahidi was published in November 2007 at the request of Argentina, where he is wanted for prosecution for his alleged involvement in the bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) centre in Buenos Aires in 1994. In November 2006, the Argentine court investigating the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) centre in Buenos Aires issued an arrest warrant for Mr Vahidi in relation to his alleged involvement in the bombing. 10447 10447 996 10447 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 10 September 2009: In respect of the case of Australian-passport holder and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) spokesperson in Sri Lanka, Mr James Elder— Can he confirm on behalf of the Australian Government that Mr Elder has represented UNICEF well in being a ‘voice for the voiceless’, and that his comments promoting the interests of children in refugee camps were made (a) without fear or favour, and (b) entirely within his job description. Can he further confirm on behalf of the Australian Government that Mr Elder is not a ‘promoter of propaganda’ or ‘a terrorist’, as implied by comments in media reports based on the Sri Lankan Government’s withdrawal of his visa. If the Australian Government confirms parts (1) and (2), is it making representations at the highest level to the Sri Lankan Government to express this view, so that future Australian passport holders who may want to undertake aid work through the appropriate international agencies can do so in full confidence that they have the active support of the Australian Government. 10448 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: & (2) As I (Mr Smith) told the House on 14 September, I have looked at Mr Elder’s reported remarks and they do not cause me any difficulty. Mr Elder has been making the point, as has the Australian Government, that we need to see unimpeded access by international agencies to the camps for internally displaced people. I commend the work of UNICEF, with which Australia works closely and which does vitally important work in Sri Lanka and around the world. The matter of Mr Elder’s visa is one for the Sri Lankan Government, Mr Elder and the United Nations to resolve. Mr Elder and UN officials have indicated to Australian officials that representations by Australia to the Sri Lankan Government regarding the visa were not required. In numerous representations to Sri Lankan government ministers and officials, Australia has made clear its view that international organisations should be given the access and information they need to help meet the needs of displaced persons. Australia has also made clear its strong support for freedom of expression in Sri Lanka, and its view that freedom of expression will be important in encouraging reconciliation between communities and providing non-violent avenues for Sri Lankans to express their grievances. 10448 10448 1000 10448 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 14 September 2009: Can he confirm the Government’s position on Burma developing nuclear capabilities; if so, does it include actions to stop Burma’s nuclear program. 10448 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 Australian Government is concerned that Burma comply with its obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including that any nuclear facilities, equipment and materials are made available for application of safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Government is aware that Russia and Burma concluded an agreement on the construction of a nuclear research reactor in Burma in 2007. Construction of the reactor has not yet begun. Cooperation on nuclear activities must be consistent with both countries’ obligations under the NPT and meet IAEA requirements. The Government is aware of unconfirmed reports that Burma may be developing a clandestine nuclear program with assistance from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK). The Government will continue to monitor developments in Burma and urge the Government of Burma to comply with its obligations under the NPT and under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1874 and 1718 relating to the DPRK. 10449 10449 1005 10449 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 15 September 2009: What was the full cost to the Government of hosting the Rwandan delegation to Australia in June 2009. 10449 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr Rudd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 17 September 2009, the cost of the visit by the Honourable Mrs Rosemary Museminali, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Cooperation in the Government of Rwanda, was $29,454.89. 10449 10449 1006 10449 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2009: How many countries have formally pledged their support for Australia’s bid for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council, and when were such pledges made. What have been the costs, including any commitments for future expenditure, associated with gaining these pledges of support from each country. 10449 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: Offers of support are generally made on a confidential basis. Disclosure of numbers and dates can put this confidentiality at risk and also provide valuable information that would assist Australia’s competitors. Australia’s bid was publicly endorsed by the Pacific Islands Forum in 2008 and 2009. Funding associated with Australia’s campaign is set out in the relevant budget papers. Allocations by financial year are: 2008-09 $1.9m; 2009-10: $5.4m; 2010-11: $5.7m. 10449 10449 1008 10449 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2009: Since he was sworn in, how many Heads of Missions in Australia has he met with, and how many times has each Head of Mission in Australia met with him. 10449 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: I have met with most Heads of Mission. To provide more detailed information would entail a significant diversion of resources which I do not consider justified. No comprehensive records are kept of all the times I have met with each Head of Mission. 10449 10449 1009 10449 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2009: What is the Government’s objective in joining the Asia-Europe Meeting. Was the bid for a temporary United Nations Security Council seat a consideration when deciding to join the Asia-Europe Meeting. What were the costs of joining the Asia-Europe Meeting, including those associated with travel. 10449 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: Membership of the Asia-Europe Meeting will advance Australia’s national interests. It will strengthen Australia’s ties with two regions of great importance to Australia’s prosperity and security. It will allow Australia to make a contribution to efforts to promote dialogue and cooperation between Europe and Asia. The Asia-Europe Meeting comprises 43 countries from Asia and Europe, along with the European Commission and ASEAN. It fosters cooperation on a range of issues of importance to Australia. For example, the dialogue encourages effective regional and global approaches to international problems such as the global economic crisis, climate change and realisation of the Millennium Development Goals. Australia attempted to join ASEM in 1996 and 1998, without success. However, at the last meeting of ASEM Foreign Ministers in Hanoi (25-26 May, 2009), ASEM welcomed our membership and participation at the Brussels Summit (4-5 October, 2010). This was a collective recognition by the countries of ASEM of the strong contribution Australia can and will make to the ASEM process. Australia’s participation in the Asia Europe Meeting process demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working regionally and multilaterally to address economic, political and security challenges. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to the strongest possible relations with our Asian neighbours and it complements our engagement in other regional groupings such as the East Asia Summit and APEC. It reflects also our now strong and modern partnership with Europe. No. During the course of pre-planned travel, I (Mr Smith) raised Australia’s interest in joining ASEM with relevant counterparts. A Deputy Secretary from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade undertook two overseas trips to promote Australia’s interest in joining ASEM. The first was to Cambodia and India from 4-8 January, 2009. The total cost for this travel was $11, 909.76. The second was to Singapore, Vietnam and Jakarta from 11-16 May. The total cost for this travel was $8,657.87. My department managed the daily running of the campaign from within existing resources. 10450 10450 1011 10450 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 September 2009: Which countries have expressed strong support for the idea of a European Union-style community in the Asia Pacific, and (a) how, and (b) on what dates, was this support expressed. As at 14 September 2009, what was the cost of promoting the idea of an Asia Pacific Community, including that associated with travel. 10450 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: A number of countries have expressed strong support for the Prime Minister’s Asia Pacific community initiative. Consistent with the practice of successive Governments, it would be inappropriate to provide details of confidential discussions with other governments.         The Asia Pacific community will not be modelled on the European Union. The Government spent around $409,000 on advancing the Asia Pacific community initiative to 14 September 2009. This figure includes travel costs and Mr Richard Woolcott’s consultancy fees but does not include indirect costs, such as time spent on the initiative by departmental officers, as they are difficult to quantify. 10451 10451 1015 10451 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 15 September 2009: In respect of the Australia-China free trade agreement: (a) on what date(s) was the last round of negotiations held, and what progress was made, and (b) for what date is the next round of negotiations scheduled. 10451 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr Crean —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The last round of negotiations for an Australia-China free trade agreement (FTA) was held on 1 to 5 December 2008. The round continued discussion of respective sensitivities to tariff liberalisation and requests for services and investment liberalisation. Progress was made on the text of many of the FTA’s chapters. Ministerial and officials-level discussions have been continuing, but the next formal round of negotiations has not been scheduled, as yet. Most recently, informal discussions led by chief negotiators were held in Beijing on 7-8 September 2009. 10451 10451 1024 10451 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr Robb asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 15 September 2009: As at 15 September 2009, how many projects have been initiated since the Council of Australian Governments Agreement of 5 February 2009? What sum of money has been spent on these projects? What is the nature of these projects? What are the timeframes for these projects? 10451 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 Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government maintains several program websites on behalf of the Government that display all approved projects.  Given the significant number of projects in the portfolio it is not practical to provide a single list of projects. 10451 10451 1025 10451 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr Robb asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 15 September 2009: As at 15 September 2009, how many projects have been completed since the Council of Australian Governments Agreement of 5 February 2009. What sum of money was spent on these projects. What was the nature of these projects. 10451 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: Refer to answer 1024. 10452 10452 1026 10452 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr Robb asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on the 15 September 2009: In respect of the Building the Education Revolution, had (a) 20 per cent of school infrastructure projects commenced by 1 June 2009, (b) 40 per cent of school infrastructure projects commenced by 1 August 2009; (c) all science and language centre infrastructure projects commenced by 15 September 2009; (d) 60 percent of national school pride projects commenced by 1 May 2009; and (e) 40 percent of national school pride infrastructure projects commenced by 1 July 2009; if not, why not, and when did they or will they commence. 10452 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 Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has referred your question to me as the Minister responsible for the Building the Education Revolution. Education Authorities are required to report monthly at the end of each month on project progress across all elements of the BER. Activity is reported retrospectively. For the purposes of the BER, project commencement is defined as ‘the undertaking of any action, post any design phases, that incurs an expense covered by BER funding’. As at 31 August 2009, Education Authorities have reported commencements of: 6306 (59%) for Primary Schools for the 21st Century projects and of these, 4 projects have been completed; 10,660 (80%) for National School Pride Program projects and of these, 722 have been completed; and 69 Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools (SLC). SLC successful projects were announced on 30 June 2009 and the majority of projects are still in the design phase. Under the Guidelines SLC projects are required to commence in August and September.