2006-02-27 41 1 5 SENATE 0 0 2006-02-27 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Paul Calvert) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 Business 1 Senator ELLISON (Western Australia —Minister for Justice and Customs) 12:31:00 —I move: That the following order operate as a temporary order until 30 June 2006: If a division is called for on Thursday after 4.30 pm, the matter before the Senate shall be adjourned until the next day of sitting at a time fixed by the Senate. 1 12:31:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —The point here is that, presumably, this is becoming a part of a non-temporary order that is being extended by the government. I think that the Senate ought to look at that to determine whether it does become permanent or whether we revert to the standing orders as they are. Otherwise, we will be repeating this motion more down the line. That is just a request to the minister to have a look at it. 1 12:32:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —Briefly, I concur with those comments. Also, it is worth noting and reminding those who have forgotten the effort of the former Leader of the Government in the Senate last year to use the existence of this sessional order to bring in a motion without notice at 4.29 on a Thursday afternoon. It would be nice to at least have an assurance that that type of behaviour is not going to be repeated if we are going to be agreeing to these sorts of motions. 1 12:32:00 Ludwig, Sen Joe 84N Queensland ALP Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate 0 0 Senator LUDWIG —While everyone is contributing to this, I think this is a matter that can be referred to the Procedure Committee, for them to consider it. It was a sessional order that came from there. Those matters are usually dealt with there. We can certainly look to see how we can it get back to the Procedure Committee so they can give it some consideration. Question agreed to. 1 Bills R2442 1 Consideration resumed from 7 February. 10000 CHAIRMAN, The The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with Australian Greens amendments (1) and (5) to (7) on sheet 4784 revised, moved by Senator Milne. The question is that amendments (1) and (5) to (7) be agreed to. 1 12:33:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —Just to remind the chamber where we are up to, when we finished debating the amendments on the last occasion, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, had just responded to amendment (1) that I was putting forward. The amendment was to accept, in principle, a national energy efficiency target and to move that the Senate set up a task force to work out how that target would be implemented. The amendment also requires companies to do as the government asks—that is, to do an audit of the energy efficiency opportunities that may be available to them—but my amendment goes further and requires companies to implement that target. Also, it would require them to have a payback period. As it currently stands on the sheet circulated by the Chairman, we are dealing with my amendment (1) on sheet 4784 revised. I ask senators to be aware that we are looking at the revised sheet. I ask leave to also incorporate amendment (2) in this body of amendments. So, when we vote on this tranche of amendments, it would include amendments (1) and (2) and (5) to (7), as they all go together. Leave granted. KA5 Milne, Sen Christine Senator MILNE —I move Australian Greens amendment (2) on sheet 4784 revised: (2)    Clause 4, page 2 (after line 8), after the definition of monitoring warrant, insert: payback period means the period of time it takes to recoup the cost of the initial capital outlay of an energy saving project. I add this amendment to the amendments I mentioned before. I would like to speak to them now and respond to Senator Ian Campbell. Senator Campbell said, in his rejection of my proposed amendments, that there is a moral imperative to see strong economic growth continue. He implied that, by requiring companies to implement the findings of their energy efficiency audits, somehow that would not be good for economic growth. Once companies have identified the energy efficiency savings, my amendment says that they must implement those measures if they can get a payback on those measures within two years. It is not going to impact on economic growth because if the company gets the audit and it says, ‘You could take this measure, but in fact you wouldn’t get a payback on that for 10 years,’ my amendment would not come into play. My amendment is saying, ‘Let’s force them to implement the audit findings.’ In the first stages, between 2006-07 and 2007-08, we would say to them, ‘If you can pay it back and if you’re going to get benefits within two years, do it,’ and then it would gradually extend it to a four-year payback by 2010-11 and 2011-12. That way you gradually increase the pressure on companies to implement the findings. I do not accept the minister’s statement that an interventionist approach such as this would have larger costs to industry, because he also went on to say later that in fact the idea of this is that companies would identify the savings and, once they have seen the savings as a result of their audit, naturally they would implement them. That is where my difference with the government is in regard to this. There has been no evidence to date to show that companies, when they have looked at what they could do in a voluntary capacity, would actually go ahead and do it if they have other short-term imperatives—for example, expansion and other things that the company’s strategic plan might have in place. This is not asking them to lose money. All this is doing is requiring them to prioritise energy efficiency over other strategic objectives that they may have in their company’s forward planning process. What the Greens are proposing will in no way undermine the bottom line. The other thing that it will do is give a level playing field to the companies who want to do the right thing. At the moment, the government’s bill applies to the 250 largest energy users in Australia. What if they all do their audit as required by the government and they all see before them a number of initiatives that they could take which will cost them some capital in the short term? If those companies that want to do the right thing take those measures in the first three or four years, there will be a capital up-front cost. Then there will be the laggards who have no intention whatsoever of taking on those up-front costs. So the progressive companies will have a barrier to doing the right thing because they will be constantly held back by those who have no intention of doing the right thing. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia and reduce the amount of energy that companies use, you have to allow the good, progressive companies to take the action they need to take without then being at a disadvantage on a non-level playing field. This just goes to pure, simple, sensible economic management. I have talked to a lot of people in the private sector. What they have said is that they do not mind government regulation but they do not like being told how they have to do it. I am proposing that the government’s measure with my amendments would do exactly that. It would set a regulatory framework that would require them to do an audit and tell them they must implement the audit. But, as to how they do that, the measures they take are the measures they identify for themselves. I do not see a downside in the amendments I am proposing. Furthermore, I am proposing a strategic plan of identifying a national energy efficiency target for the long term. I am not suggesting how that target would be developed or how it would be implemented. What I am proposing is that the government moves to set up a task force which, within the next 18 months, would report and work out how to actually do that, as indeed has occurred in many European countries. Finally, the government makes the statement that the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill will apply to the 250 largest companies and it will have a good outcome because it will reduce energy use. That is the leap of faith that the government makes. I would like the government to identify what its performance objective is and where the accountability is in this bill. I am proposing a mechanism which would give accountability. The minister has identified 250 companies. I am asking the minister to stand up and tell the Senate what he identifies as his objective energy saving as a result of this bill and what the time frame is, because there is no time frame either. I would like to know exactly how much energy he anticipates saving in the next three years as a result of this legislation. What is your target? What do you require these companies to save? If they do not, will you then move to do as I am proposing and put in a requirement to implement these particular measures? It is no use going with this plan in the same way that the government currently is going on greenhouse. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent in the next 50 years, yet there is no mechanism for doing it. There is no target to say whether we are on track, what our objective is and how we measure anything against it. The criticism that I am putting to the government now is that it is putting something out there which says, ‘Do an audit,’ and by osmosis the audit will lead to a reduction in energy use. I am asking the government to give us the target so that we, the Senate, can measure the government’s performance on energy efficiency as a result of this legislation by determining the performance level of the 250 largest companies in response to its legislation. If you do not have a target then you are just talking hot air about energy efficiency. We will not know for the next couple of years how many companies actually implement any measures as a result of the energy efficiency bill. The downside and the big cost of this is that state governments right now are considering building new energy infrastructure at great cost to the taxpayer. The Australian taxpayer is once again subsidising energy use by large companies while the federal government is not prepared to put any pressure on them to use energy efficiently. We all know that energy efficiency is the cheapest way of saving energy. It is the low-hanging fruit in the whole energy debate. We do not need to be building new power stations and new sources of supply if we can reduce the volume of energy being used by the same amount that those new power stations would bring online. I spoke last time about the potential to run a major education campaign to let people know that, when they turn off their energy appliances at home using standby remote control, they are actually using energy. About 12 per cent of energy use in Australia occurs when people are not there and they thought they turned the appliances off with the remote but in fact they are still using energy. There are a number of ways of doing it. My point here is that, with state governments moving again to look at the supply issue, why can’t we see energy efficiency as a substitute for new supply by saving the same volume that would be provided through development of new infrastructure that would cost a great deal more both in upfront capital cost and cost to the planet through greenhouse gas emissions and long-term problems? And so I put to the minister that, rather than just reject the amendment I am putting forward, he should respond to the criticisms I am making. What is your target for these 250 companies? How will we judge whether this initiative is a success or not? If it is not a success—if you have not reached your target in the next 12 months—will you then do as I am asking and have a requirement to implement the audit findings over a period of time, where there is a reasonable pay-back period, and to provide a level playing field for progressive companies instead of continually rewarding those who are not and will never be prepared to do the right thing until they are required to? 4 12:45:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —The Democrats will support the amendments moved by the Australian Greens. The problem that we have at present is that there is no significant driver for energy efficiency in this country; electricity is still cheap enough for big corporations to ignore this as being an issue for them. I recognise the problems associated with putting up such complex amendments as these. I also realise that the government is not likely to agree to them. But I also sense that there is deep frustration on the part of non-government members in this place about the lack of progress on this issue. This is an attempt, and I congratulate Senator Milne on it, to put in place measures which could provide that driver. I will give an example of where big industry does not take up measures which have very short payback periods: cogeneration. Cogeneration is a system for use where, mostly in big manufacturing operations, a lot of heat is generated. Cogeneration can harvest that heat and use it to generate electricity, usually with the use of natural gas and generators. Enormous savings can be made over time as well as energy being fed into the grid. But when last I looked at the figures, only a very small proportion of the potential for cogeneration had been picked up. That is despite the fact, as I said, that the payback period is very short. As Senator Milne has already indicated, the problem is that businesses make their decisions on infrastructure based on other priorities. If the government were really serious about getting across to them the message that Australia has to reduce its greenhouse emissions massively—by at least 60 per cent by 2050—this would be one very good way of doing that. I would hope that the minister, if he rejects this out of hand, which is what I think we are all expecting, will at least take up some of the ideas and come back to this place in the future with legislation which puts in place something similar. To reiterate, the Democrats, like so many people in this country, are disappointed that there has not been much of an effort at all on energy efficiency. Voluntary measures have not worked up until now, and there is no reason to suggest that they are going to work over the next five or 10 years either. This is a mechanism which would at least ensure that they do. 5 12:48:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —The opposition acknowledges that there has been some serious thought put into the propositions embodied in the amendments that have been moved by Senator Milne on behalf of the Australian Greens. As Senator Allison has conceded, this is a complex set of propositions with, I think, quite laudable aims in terms of promoting the achievement of energy efficiencies and putting in place a number of measures to require corporations to identify the areas in which those savings can be achieved. They are complex, and that complexity is something that the opposition would rather look at and assimilate in a better time period than is available for the consideration of this legislation. That in itself does not completely direct our consideration of the amendments. As I intimated earlier in this debate, our concerns also arise because this would become yet another measure creating a slush fund for the government to administer. The amendments put in the hands of the minister the distribution of moneys collected under these measures. Those moneys are to be expended at the discretion of the minister on particular projects. I have had some involvement, through this place, in looking at measures administered by this government where ministers had the final say on where particular moneys—accumulated under this or that budgetary measure or by the collection of revenues, such as the levy on milk products—were spent. I have seen the way that the government has abused the process of distributing those funds to garner political advantage. Looking at the Dairy RAP program, we have seen millions of dollars distributed across the country, not necessarily into the areas most affected by dairy deregulation but into areas which the government considered advantageous for it in the electoral advantage that such expenditure might garner. We saw such edifying propositions under Dairy RAP as the expenditure of moneys for a private school in Toowoomba for running wine appreciation classes. That was supposed to help the dairy industry in the Toowoomba region. In Beaudesert it was used to fund the purchase of property for a polocrosse field. There was of course a world-class polocrosse facility within an hour’s drive, but that did not stop the funding of this facility. As I understand it, it is not much more than a paddock with a shed, a gate and a sign. But that expenditure enabled the announcement to be made and some political advantage to be generated. Of course, under the Regional Partnerships program, better known to the public as ‘regional rorts’—and this is probably most germane to this legislation—we have seen an amount of money approaching $1.2 million paid to a company called Primary Energy Pty Ltd. Primary Energy Pty Ltd have an idea. They have been funded for that idea. They do not have financial backers; they do not have an ethanol plant under construction; they do not, indeed, have any idea of when they will actually have that plant under construction. The final amount of money—a small amount of the original grant of something in excess of $1.2 million—will be paid when they finally get a financial backer. In excess of $1.1 million has been paid to Primary Energy to date to achieve precisely nothing. Of course, when I say ‘nothing’, I mean that there was nothing in it in a public sense. But, in a party political sense, we have seen a series of announcements and the promotion of the expenditure of this public money as an opportunity for the electorate of the then Deputy Prime Minister in the seat of Gwydir. So we have seen the government administering these pots of money under various programs, allegedly to promote particular outcomes, and in some cases achieving them. But, in many cases, they achieve not the promotion of the public interest but the promotion of the political interests of the National Party and the Liberal Party, depending on which part of the country this falls in. We saw on the weekend the release of another paper that analyses a number of government programs, including the Roads to Recovery program. The Prime Minister promised that the Roads to Recovery program would not be used to advantage coalition seats, yet a Mr Leigh from ANU published a paper on the weekend that shows that there is a weighting in the Roads to Recovery program in funding National Party and Liberal Party seats, giving them an advantage over non-government seats, and attributes to that funding an outcome in terms of votes. I have called for the government to respond to that paper because it makes a very serious allegation. The Prime Minister, in the case of the Roads to Recovery program, faithfully promised that it would not be used in any way to distribute funds disproportionately or to the advantage of the coalition, yet that is precisely the allegation made in the paper Mr Leigh recently produced that has been the subject of some discussion over the weekend. We want to acknowledge that in many respects this is a worthwhile proposition that has been put forward by Senator Milne, but we still think it needs some work done to it and we are not happy to give our support to a proposition that would create yet another slush fund for a minister of this government to administer when its form, in relation to those propositions, has been so bad. 6 12:56:00 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I think I would be more amused to see Senator Milne respond to that fairly pitiful approach from Labor, which I guess reflects the total paucity of any policy ideas when it comes to greenhouse gases or climate change. They have not had a new policy in 10 years. I guess it would be shocking for Senator Milne to expect anything greater than a repeat of the Labor Party’s hatred of regional Australia and Regional Partnerships programs and the continuing attack on Primary Energy, the company of which Ian Kiernan is chairman, after a personal attack on Ian Kiernan recently. Then, of course, there is a slamming of the Roads to Recovery program, which picks up so much of the road funding that is required around Australia because state Labor governments, state by state, have dropped the ball in relation to road funding. These are direct grants to local governments to build roads. I think Senator Milne’s propositions deserved far more attention than was given by the Labor Party. During the last sitting week I set out the reasons that we were opposed to the more interventionist approach of Senator Milne, but I do not think it is fair to say, as Labor has said, that it is a complex set of arrangements. I do not think it is that complicated. I think Senator Milne proposed the establishment of a task force with four members. This task force is to be established within three months. The task force would report to the minister within 18 months of the commencement of the act. The minister would have to make the report public. You would establish an energy savings fund, which I imagine would be funded by the industrial corporations or companies required to comply with this part of the law. The fund would do certain things: promotion, public awareness building and encouraging energy savings, for example. I do not think it is a complex set of proposals at all. I think it is a cop-out for Labor to say that it is too hard for them to devour this over the last 10 sitting days and come to a conclusion on it. My view, however, is not as negative about the response that Australians make to the need to protect our climate, to protect our environment and to do so through voluntary measures. The history of the past decade or so shows how the government works in partnership with the private sector, and we have done that very effectively through the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program. We work with them, for example, through the Solar Cities program. There are 11 fantastic short-listed proposals—private-public partnerships again, which I think will transform the impact of the roll-out of renewable energy across Australia. We work together in a range of programs: the building energy rating systems that the Commonwealth has supported; the water energy labelling systems, which again put information into the hands of consumers; the appliance rating systems—all of these world leading systems have the government working in partnership with the private sector to inform people about the consequences of their decisions. In a way, this mandatory measure—it is not a voluntary measure—mandates for the first time in Australian history that around 250 companies, our biggest energy users, representing around 60 per cent of the energy consumed in Australia, will be required to make an energy efficiency audit and to publish those audits. They will also be required to publish compliance with those audits. That puts a very powerful new measure in place. I think it is unfair to the Australian community and to Australian industry that have in fact responded so strongly, community by community, business by business, household by household, to the challenge of sustainability. How do we ensure that we have a strong economy with job security where people can look forward to the future knowing that they will have an economic environment where their children can get an education and jobs and where the main breadwinners in each household will have some job security? How do we also ensure that they live in that environment of economic security alongside a natural physical environment where the damage done in the past is being repaired and that environment is made sustainable for the future? More and more people are becoming aware that we cannot keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the rate we have in the past. We have put about a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere over the past 150 years. If we do not make the sorts of changes that we are part of making here today, we will pump another couple of trillion tonnes into the atmosphere over the next 50 years. The consensus of science says that that could change the climate dangerously and put at risk not only human life but also ecosystems across the planet. We have to find the most efficient and the most effective ways to do what Senator Milne says. It would be terrific—an incredible economic and environmental outcome—if you could, through energy efficiency measures, save us building a couple of fossil fuel powered stations. Senator Milne is quite right: the state governments between them have about 25 fossil fuel powered power stations on the drawing boards at the moment, and yet they have the temerity to blame the Commonwealth government for not setting up a carbon-trading scheme. They do nothing themselves. They have virtually no program other than very small greenwash proposals to put the odd solar cell on a library here and there or change 20 per cent of the ministerial car fleet to Priuses—all those sorts of greenwash things. Virtually no state government has any serious public investment program to substantially change the greenhouse footprint of Australia. They do have 25 fossil fuel powered power stations on the drawing board, and many of them will get built to fund the increasing number of desalination plants that they have got on their books. So the states really are getting away with murder when it comes to greenhouse gas policy. They can always point the finger at Canberra, but the reality is that here in Canberra the government is committing billions of dollars to investment programs and we are bringing in this new mandatory measure for Australia’s top 250 energy-consuming companies. I think that Senator Milne is making a very good point in terms of the payback period. Companies will have to look at the payback period of all of these investments and they will have to make an assessment of where they put their investment. The reality of these audits is that for the first time many of these companies will see the bottom line benefits, the energy consumption benefits and the greenhouse gas benefits of reducing their energy use and improving their efficiency. Perhaps, for example, in the case that Senator Allison raised, going to cogeneration will force many companies, for the first time, to look at how they better use heat from existing processes and whether they can use that heat to produce energy and to save energy from the grid and from fossil fuel powered power stations. They may well do it. I think this is a substantial step forward. I think the higher regulatory approach that Senator Milne puts forward would not be effective in the view of the government in improving Australia’s energy efficiency. Senator Milne asked me to say what this bill’s objectives were and how we would measure effectiveness. We will measure effectiveness when we see the 250 companies do their audits and publish their audits and their compliance. That is what we seek to set out here in terms of the overall targets that the government has set our country. We have set our country a target of limiting our greenhouse gas emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels. That is our Kyoto target. We are on track to achieve that. There are many risks to achieving that in a rapidly growing economy but, according to our latest figures, we are on track to achieve that target. We are one of the few countries in the world that is on track to achieve it. Of the annex 1 signatories, the handful of countries that have commitments under Kyoto—and I think there are only 35 of them; less than a third of the world’s emissions are covered by Kyoto—very few will meet their targets through domestic action, as Australia will. That is our target. The government also accepts—or, as the environment minister, I accept—that the globe needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by around 50 to 60 per cent by about the middle of this century, as Senator Allison has said. Australia cannot do that unilaterally. Australia may actually be able to make a bigger contribution or it may make a smaller contribution, but the target for the world is a 50 to 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has also committed, as a very high policy priority, to take on its share and its role in achieving that target as a responsible member of the international community. That is why we are deeply engaged in all of the international processes through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, through the G8-plus process and through the Asia-Pacific climate change partnership through a series of technological partnerships and a world-leading program of domestic action. 8 13:07:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —There are a couple of other things I want to mention. The minister keeps referring to the appliance-rating system as an example of the government’s energy efficiency measures. It is one of the recommendations that came out of the urban water inquiry that was conducted. For the record, I remind the minister that that was not a government initiative; it was in fact a Democrat initiative. The government came to us and said that they wanted to transfer some money out of a fund, which we were a party to negotiating, into other programs, and this was our suggestion. The point is that we did not sit around waiting for the appliance industry to do audits to see whether they would like to put rating systems on. They had shown no interest in this matter up to that point. It only happens when government acts and says, ‘This must be done and it must be done by this date.’ I hope that the mandatory labelling system that applies to appliances will soon move to a mandatory energy efficiency rating so you will not just see how many stars you have got but you can be sure that the appliance you buy meets minimum standards. That is where we need to be moving. I think we have given big industry lots of time to look at their energy efficiency and where it might be going. Now is the time for us to move from what is a voluntary measure. They cannot possibly say that the government is not interested in reducing efficiency. Given Kyoto and the great debate there is around greenhouse, they cannot possibly say they have not noticed that this is an issue or that a lot of people in this country would like them to move to greater efficiency. To think that if they have an audit they will suddenly change their mind about this is ludicrous and laughable. That is the reason, Minister, that some of us in this chamber are talking about obligation and the need for the government to put in place that obligation. I have a question. I am not sure whether I missed this in the debate. Regarding the 250 companies that are required to report that they have conducted audits, is there a reporting-back process that indicates when and if they accept those audits and go on to do the work which is demonstrated to be viable? 9 13:10:00 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Yes, it is an annual public report. We did cover that earlier. 9 13:10:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I appreciate the minister saying that they will judge the performance of this legislation on the basis of the number of companies that comply with the mandatory requirement to audit, but that is not the point I was making. I am expecting that they will all oblige and meet their mandatory obligation to audit the opportunities they have for energy efficiency. I think the minister well understands the point I was making, which was not whether they agree to do their audits and then do them but what government then expects them to do. You are putting a lot of faith in companies doing the right thing after they have done their audits. I agree with you that if you are a company it makes sense to want to save money, and if you find a way of saving money it is not very sensible to think that you would not take that action. But the point is that companies have a number of competing objectives at various times and, unless you prioritise energy efficiency, they may well choose to spend any capital they have up front on other initiatives rather than investing in energy efficiency, even if there is a relatively short payback period. I do not think two years is excessive. That is the absolute easiest hurdle. It is not an unduly harsh measure to propose that they identify energy savings that will pay them back in two years. Then it can be taken out to four years over a period of time so they know what is coming. I still have not heard the minister respond to the idea that, by failing to have a mandatory requirement for them to implement, you are not creating a level playing field. You are not offering an incentive to progressive companies who might wish to take that action but might see themselves as disadvantaged with respect to other companies who are not required to take that action and are able to spend their money on other things. That will slow it down. That is why I will be moving an amendment later in relation to a performance objective to force a requirement to look at this in a couple of years. But again, it will be a lost opportunity. There is a lost opportunity factor. The minister talks about Australia’s compliance with Kyoto. Let us remind ourselves: the only reason Australia will come in—if it does—on our target of 108 per cent of 1990 levels is the windfall gain the Australian government was able to achieve by counting the avoided emissions from stopping land clearance. It is not because we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions in either the transport or the energy sectors. If you take out the one-off windfall gain Australia got under the Kyoto arrangements as a result of its land clearance policy, you find that Australia’s emissions in the transport and energy sectors are well above—20 to 30 per cent—the Kyoto level. Let us be realistic; let us not kid ourselves about Australia performing or outperforming other countries on the Kyoto targets. We got the most generous target in the world—an eight per cent increase on 1990 levels while other countries tried to set themselves reductions. Having got that generous target, we have had the windfall gain. You cannot have many more windfall gains unless you manipulate the system in order to generate credits from something else so you do not have to take any action. I am talking about the transport and energy sectors and, in the case of this bill, the 250 large companies in particular. I am not persuaded about this, having looked at the aluminium sector, some of the other big industries around Australia in the last few years and the subsidies. They already get incredible subsidies for bulk power contracts. I have not seen them take energy efficiency initiatives so that when the bulk power contracts run out they can continue to compete. I am seeing them now mounting major pressure on governments to continue bulk power contracts rather than reduce their dependence on energy. As to the state governments, you are absolutely right. It disgusted me to see the previous Carr government in New South Wales—I recognise that the former Premier has now left politics—set up a greenhouse gas office and approve a new coal fired power station and a desalination plant. It is the height of hypocrisy. It disgusts me. Then I look at South Australia and I see BHP Billiton’s planned Roxby Downs expansion. In order for that to happen, they want the government to build them a desalination plant so that they have the water to sustain the increased mining of uranium, to send that offshore. The whole thing is a disgrace. I do not see BHP Billiton—except in the headlines over the Wheat Board scandal of course, undermining appropriate processes and systems around the world—out there accepting the full-cost responsibility of anything they want to do. No; they have their hands out for the government and the government is rushing to help them, not only with a desalination plant but also to subsidise their expansion through the provision of energy to run their desalination plant. It is time that people started to look at the whole cradle to grave aspect of production and energy costs, because energy is embedded in everything. I think we should recognise just how urgent the crisis is. We need action now. We cannot wait for companies to get around to it. That is why I do not accept the minister’s explanation about how you are going to judge the performance, the effectiveness, of this legislation. I will not be judging the effectiveness of this legislation on whether companies comply with the need to do an audit—I expect they will. But I want to know, in the absence of a mandatory requirement for them to implement the findings of these audits, at what point the government is going to say: ‘These 260 companies use X amount of power now. If they have not reduced that power consumption as a result of these audits within three years and by X amount then we will take some action to force the implementation.’ That is what I want to hear from the government. I cannot understand why you have an objection to moving on this now, especially when, as I have said, there is in my view a very generous two-year payback period. That is the concern I have. As to the Labor Party’s opposition to the amendments, I am disappointed, because there has been quite a period since we last sat for the Labor Party to think about and look at these amendments. I did draw them to the attention of the shadow minister. There has been adequate time to look at them. It is another lost opportunity to move forward on this, especially when I recall that, Senator O’Brien, in relation to the Greens sun bill a few years ago it was the Labor Party that derailed that Senate committee report into the implementation of the Sun Fund. That was another attempt by the Greens to generate money to put into the development and roll-out of photovoltaics across rural Australia. That is something that I am still passionate about. I am inspired by the German experience and by the visit to Australia this week of Dr Hermann Scheer, who has been the brains behind German energy efficiency and renewable energy legislation. He is here giving a seminar at this very time. I regret that I am unable to be at that seminar because I am here in the chamber. He has talked about the way in which in Germany they stimulated a revolution and created 160,000 jobs in renewable energy technology by moving to a relatively simple conceptual framework that said, ‘We will require power companies to buy renewable energy at a fixed price over a period of time.’ As a result, people could go to the bank and borrow to install renewable energy—photovoltaics, wind or whatever it is—because there was a guaranteed price over a period of time. As a result, Germany has created a solar revolution. We could be doing the same in Australia. I am seriously disturbed by the fact that we have abandoned the whole renewable sector in favour of so-called clean coal and the fossil fuel industry. I certainly resent that going on at the moment and the shift in research priorities at the CSIRO. Even just lately we have had in South Australia a situation in which Tim Flannery has been virtually censored for saying that climate change is the greatest security threat facing humanity. The federation of commercial television stations said that they objected to that wording. How can we have a situation where people get censored for their opinions? Sir David King, Tony Blair’s chief scientist in Britain, has come out and said exactly the same thing. People are saying it all over the world, but apparently in Australia we are not allowing people out there in the community to hear the message that this is urgent, this is serious. We are beyond voluntary action. If we do not act now we could have some major climate catastrophes. The science is showing that this will not be an incremental process; this will be a threshold process. The point is that we do not know when we will reach the threshold, but when we do there will be no going back. That is the frightening thing. Around the world we are seeing the acidification of the Southern Ocean, the slowing down of the great ocean conveyor and the melting of the ice caps. Surely in Australia we can require the 260 biggest energy users to do an audit of energy efficiency opportunities and to implement them if the payback period is less than two years. 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Barnett)—Senator Milne, could you confirm that you are moving amendments (1) and (2), then (5) to (7) on revised sheet 4784, and R(7) on sheet 4784 revised is the new R(7)? Is that correct? KA5 Milne, Sen Christine Senator MILNE —That is correct. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to. 13:25:00 The committee divided.       (The Chairman—Senator JJ Hogg) 7 Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Brown, B.J. Milne, C. Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. Siewert, R. * 51 Adams, J. Barnett, G. Brandis, G.H. Brown, C.L. Campbell, G. Campbell, I.G. Carr, K.J. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Crossin, P.M. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Faulkner, J.P. Fielding, S. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Forshaw, M.G. Hill, R.M. Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. Hutchins, S.P. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, J.A.L. Marshall, G. Mason, B.J. McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. Nash, F. O’Brien, K.W.K. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Polley, H. Ray, R.F. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. * Sherry, N.J. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. Webber, R. Wortley, D. * denotes teller Question negatived. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Australia —Minister for the Environment and Heritage) 13:30:00 —by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (32) on sheet QF234: (1)    Clause 8, page 4 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:          (1)    A controlling corporation’s group consists of the following entities:               (a)    the controlling corporation;               (b)    the controlling corporation’s subsidiaries covered by subsections (3) and (4) (if any);               (c)    the joint ventures covered by subsection (5) (if any);               (d)    the partnerships covered by subsection (6) (if any).          (2)    The members of the group are the entities mentioned in subsection (1). (2)    Clause 8, page 5 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:          (5)    A joint venture is covered by this subsection if a member of the group (other than a joint venture or partnership) is a participant in the joint venture and the participants in the joint venture have either:               (a)    nominated that member as the responsible entity for the joint venture in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (7); or               (b)    not nominated an entity as the responsible entity for the joint venture in accordance with those regulations.          (6)    A partnership is covered by this subsection if a member of the group (other than a joint venture or partnership) is a partner in the partnership and the partners in the partnership have either:               (a)    nominated that member as the responsible entity for the partnership in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (7); or               (b)    not nominated an entity as the responsible entity for the partnership in accordance with those regulations.          (7)    The regulations may establish rules under which:               (a)    participants in a joint venture may make, and revoke, nominations for the purposes of subsection (5); and               (b)    partners in a partnership may make, and revoke, nominations for the purposes of subsection (6). (3)    Clause 9, page 6 (line 8), omit “Note”, substitute “Note 1”. (4)    Clause 9, page 6 (after line 9), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note 2:  Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (5)    Clause 9, pages 6 (lines 19 to 22) omit subclause (5), substitute:          (5)    The application must:               (a)    identify the controlling corporation; and               (b)    contain any other information required by the regulations; and               (c)    be in the form (if any) specified in the regulations.       (5A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (5)(b) may only require the following information:               (a)    information that is reasonably necessary for assessing applications made under this section;               (b)    information that would be required by subsection 12(4) to be entered on the Register if the controlling corporation were registered under Part 4. (6)    Clause 10, page 6 (line 26) to page 7 (line 15), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:          (1)    A controlling corporation’s group meets the energy use threshold for a financial year if in that year the total energy used by the entities that are members of the group is more than 0.5 petajoules. (7)    Clause 10, page 7 (lines 30 to 34), omit subclause (6). (8)    Clause 11, page 8 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add: Note:   Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (9)    Clause 11, page 8 (lines 14 to 17), omit subclause (4), substitute:          (4)    The application must:               (a)    contain information required by the regulations; and               (b)    be in the form (if any) specified in the regulations.       (4A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (4)(a) may only require information that is reasonably necessary for assessing applications made under this section. (10)  Clause 12, page 9 (before line 5), before subclause (1), insert:       (1A)    The object of this section is to encourage compliance with this Act by providing for a register containing information about corporations registered under this Part and their compliance with this Act. (11)  Clause 12, page 9 (line 9), after “contents of”, insert “part or all of”. (12)  Clause 12, page 9 (after line 15), after subclause (4), insert:       (4A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b) may only require information that is reasonably necessary to further the object of this section. (13)  Clause 14, page 9 (after line 26), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note:   Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (14)  Clause 14, page 9 (line 27) to page 10 (line 2), omit subclause (2), substitute:          (2)    The application must:               (a)    contain information required by the regulations; and               (b)    be in the form (if any) specified in the regulations.       (2A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) may only require information that is reasonably necessary for assessing applications made under this section. (15)  Clause 15, page 11 (lines 8 and 9), omit the note, substitute: Note:   Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (16)  Clause 18, page 13 (lines 28 and 29), omit subclause (7), substitute:          (7)    The assessment plan must set out the manner in which the controlling corporation intends to comply with subsection 22(1).       (7A)    Without limiting the scope of subsection (7), the assessment plan must set out:               (a)    whether the controlling corporation intends to rely on section 22A in order to comply with its obligations under subsection 22(1); and               (b)    if the controlling corporation intends to rely on section 22A in that way—the other members of the group that are intended to prepare a report in accordance with section 22A; and               (c)    whether the controlling corporation intends to rely on section 22B in order to comply with its obligations under subsection 22(1); and               (d)    if the controlling corporation intends to rely on section 22B in that way—the corporation that is intended to prepare a report in accordance with section 22B. (17)  Clause 18, page 13 (line 30) to page 14 (line 7), omit subclause (8), substitute:          (8)    The regulations may:               (a)    set out requirements for a proposal in relation to the following:                     (i)    the types of actions mentioned in subsection (4);                    (ii)    the deadlines for doing those actions;                   (iii)    matters that must be set out for the purposes of subsections (7) and (7A); and               (b)    require particular information to be set out in the assessment plan.          (9)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (8)(b) may only require information that:               (a)    is reasonably necessary to assess the extent to which this Act achieves its objects; or               (b)    is reasonably necessary for the administration of this Act. (18)  Clause 19, page 14 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note:   Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (19)  Clause 20, page 15 (before line 7), before subclause (1), insert:       (1A)    The object of this section is to require registered corporations to undertake assessments of a kind mentioned in paragraph 3(2)(a). (20)  Clause 20, page 15 (lines 7 to 11), omit subclauses (1) and (2), substitute:          (1)    A registered corporation must ensure the carrying out of the proposal in its approved assessment plan for assessing the opportunities for improving the energy efficiency of its group.          (2)    A registered corporation must ensure the carrying out of that proposal in accordance with requirements (if any) set out in the regulations. (21)  Clause 20, page 15 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraph (3)(d), substitute:               (d)    any other matter reasonably necessary to further the object of this section. (22)  Clause 22, page 16 (before line 12), before subclause (1), insert:       (1A)    The object of this section is to create public reporting requirements of a kind mentioned in paragraph 3(2)(b). (23)  Clause 22, page 16 (after line 27), after subclause (3), insert:       (3A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (3)(d) may only require information that is reasonably necessary to further the object of this section. (24)  Clause 22, page 16 (lines 30 and 31), omit paragraph (4)(b), substitute:               (b)    be signed by a person who is the chair of the board of directors, the chief executive officer, the managing director, or an equivalent officer, of the registered corporation; and               (c)    include a statement by that person that the board of directors of the registered corporation has reviewed and noted the report. (25)  Clause 22, page 17 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:          (6)    Despite subsection (5), the report need not be made available to the public at a time if, within the period of 12 months ending at that time, the registered corporation had made another report under this section available to the public. (26)  Page 17 (after line 3), after clause 22, insert: 22A Public reporting—decentralised reporting          (1)    The registered corporation is taken to comply with subsection 22(1) in relation to a period mentioned in subsection 22(2) if:               (a)    the registered corporation’s approved assessment plan sets out, in accordance with paragraph 18(7A)(a), its intention to rely on this section in order to comply with its obligations under subsection 22(1); and               (b)    the registered corporation prepares a report that describes the way in which only part of the proposal mentioned in paragraph 22(3)(a) was carried out during the period; and               (c)    one or more other members of the group prepared a report or reports describing the way in which the remaining part or parts of the proposal were carried out during the period; and               (d)    each report mentioned in paragraph (b) and (c):                     (i)    meets the requirements in subsection 22(3) for the part or parts of the proposal to which the report relates; and                    (ii)    meets the requirements in subsection 22(4); and                   (iii)    has been made available to the public in accordance with subsection 22(5).          (2)    For the purposes of applying subsection (1) in relation to a report prepared by a member of the group other than the registered corporation:               (a)    treat references in subsections 22(3) and (4) to the corporation, or the registered corporation, as references to the member of the group that prepared the report; and               (b)    treat references in subsection 22(3) to the proposal in the approved assessment plan of the registered corporation as references to the part or parts of that proposal to which the report relates. (27)  Page 17 (after line 3), after clause 22, insert: 22B Public reporting—reporting by manager of joint venture          (1)    Subsection (2) applies if:               (a)    a joint venture is a member of the registered corporation’s group; and               (b)    the participants in the joint venture have nominated a member of the group (the responsible entity) as the responsible entity for the joint venture for the purposes of subsection 8(5); and               (c)    a corporation (the operator) operates or manages the joint venture; and               (d)    the registered corporation’s approved assessment plan sets out, in accordance with paragraph 18(7A)(c), its intention to rely on this section in order to comply with its obligations under subsection 22(1); and               (e)    the operator prepares a report that describes the way in which the part of the proposal mentioned in paragraph 22(3)(a) relating to the joint venture was carried out during the period; and                (f)    the report is signed by the chief executive officer of the operator; and               (g)    the report includes a statement by the chief executive officer of the operator that the board of directors of the responsible entity has reviewed and noted the report.          (2)    If this subsection applies:               (a)    subsection 22A(1) applies in relation to the report prepared by the operator as if the operator were a member of the group; and               (b)    for the purposes of applying subsection 22A(1) in relation to the report prepared by the operator:                     (i)    treat the reference in subsection 22(3) to the corporation as a reference to the operator; and                    (ii)    treat references in subsection 22(3) to the proposal in the approved assessment plan of the registered corporation as references to the part or parts of that proposal to which the report relates; and                   (iii)    disregard paragraphs 22(4)(b) and (c). (28)  Clause 23, page 17 (lines 12 and 13), omit note 2, substitute: Note 2:  Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (29)  Clause 23, page 17 (after line 18), after subclause (3), insert:       (3A)    Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (3)(b) may only require information that is reasonably necessary to:               (a)    administer this Act; or               (b)    assess the extent to which this Act achieves its objects; or               (c)    assess the benefits and costs of complying with this Act. (30)  Clause 23, page 17 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add:          (6)    Despite subsection (5), the report need not be given to the Secretary at a time if, within the period of 12 months ending at that time, the registered corporation had given the Secretary another report under this section. (31)  Clause 25, page 19 (after line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add: Note:   Section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914 creates an offence where Commonwealth officers (including persons performing services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth) disclose information in breach of a duty of confidentiality. (32)  Clause 29, page 22 (line 32), omit the penalty, substitute: Penalty:                10 penalty units. Question agreed to. 17 13:31:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —by leave—I move Greens amendments (3) and (4): (3)    Heading to Part 3, page 6 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add “energy use threshold”. R(4) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 26 to 28), omit subclause (1), substitute:          (1)    The energy use threshold will be prescribed by the regulations.       (1A)    The regulations must set a sliding scale for the energy use threshold of a minimum of 0.5 petajoules for a controlling corporation’s group for each financial year commencing in the 2006-2007 financial year reducing annually to a minimum of 0.2 petajoules for a controlling corporation’s group by the financial year 2011-2012.        (1B)    A controlling corporation’s group meets the energy use threshold for a financial year if in that year the total energy used by the controlling corporation’s group is more than the energy use threshold nominated for the relevant financial year as prescribed by subsection (1A). As the bill is currently structured, the energy use threshold relates to companies that use more than 0.5 petajoules of energy, thereby restricting the bill’s capacity to draw in all of Australia’s small and medium scale businesses. At the moment the bill deals with Australia’s largest 250 companies. I think it is entirely appropriate that we target the largest companies to begin with, but we also want medium sized companies to look to energy efficiency as a way of becoming more competitive, reducing their costs, contributing to Australia’s reduced greenhouse gases and contributing to reduced pressure to build new supply. What I am proposing with these amendments is that, instead of just leaving this bill to capture the largest companies in Australia, the threshold be reduced over a period of time so that by the year 2011-12 it would apply to companies using more than 0.2 petajoules. At the moment the bill is saying, ‘Okay, we recognise it is just going with the largest 250 companies.’ By having a sliding scale so that the threshold reduces over time, we are giving notice to medium-sized companies in Australia—those that use between 0.2 and 0.5 petajoules—that, over a period of time, they too will be captured by this legislation. It is really telling corporations that, as we roll into this legislation, they too will be captured by the need to do energy efficiency audits. Again, this is not saying that the government’s initiative is not worth while; it is saying it is worth while but it does not go far enough because it is not capturing the next level of industry in Australia. I think it is entirely appropriate that middle-sized industries in Australia are on notice that this bill is coming down the track and will apply to them and that they have a period of time to adjust to the idea that they too will be involved in the energy audits. I regret, of course, that the legislation—with my amendment having been defeated—will not require them to implement what they find, but at least having a sliding scale will increase the number of industries across Australia to which the legislation applies. It is a simple notion: a sliding scale, reducing the current threshold of 0.5 petajoules down to 0.2 petajoules. 18 13:35:00 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —We have two problems with the proposed amendments. Firstly, what we are doing by requiring those within the terms of the bill to be captured is to embrace something like 60 per cent of the energy use by businesses in Australia—around 250 companies. We are requiring them to spend a lot of money. It is a big expense. The rationale for this—and I am biased of course—is a sound one. We are requiring 250 companies to spend a lot of money and, by doing that, we are capturing more than half of Australia’s energy use in the equation. On our best estimates at this stage, by lowering the standard to 0.2 petajoules, you will capture somewhere between two and three times the number of companies—so you are massively expanding the reach, which I am sure is what Senator Milne would like us to do—but there will be only about a 10 per cent improvement in the size of the energy market. So by capturing nearly three times the number of companies you only go from 60 per cent to 70 per cent. So the efficiency of the measure drops off rapidly. I know that there is a philosophical difference between the government and Senator Milne on this issue, but we believe that by mandating that these 250 companies not only go through an incredibly expensive energy audit but also are required to report annually on the implementation of the audit you will do a couple of things. Firstly, you will create a public register, effectively, of all of these companies using all this energy showing what they can do to reduce their energy use and become more efficient and annual reporting on what they are doing. So you will be able to identify the best practice companies and you will also be able to identify any company that is falling behind best practice or becoming a laggard, which might have been a word that Senator Milne used. You create a new public accountability process—a league table, effectively—of companies in terms of their performance in reducing energy use, increasing efficiency and, of course, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The other thing you will do is create a large demonstration effect. You will create efficiencies and economies of scale in the very business of doing energy audits because you will have this massive number of energy audits. It will be a lot more affordable. It should bring down the price of going through this process for a lot of those second-and third-tier companies that Senator Milne is talking about. So I think we are aiming in a similar direction. We are very cautious about putting in new levels of red tape and new costs on top of businesses because ultimately that flows through to consumers and puts up the cost of living for people. We want to achieve the very best we can for improved energy efficiency, improved greenhouse performance and improved environmental outcomes and do so with the lowest possible cost to the consumer and to the economy. We think this is the right policy setting to achieve it. I respect the fact that Senator Milne would like a more interventionist, hands-on approach. We are trying to do it in a way that minimises the cost to consumers, particularly low-income earners. 19 13:39:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —The opposition will not be supporting these amendments. I am advised that it is our view that at this stage the thresholds which have been established of picking up 60 per cent of business picks up the largest businesses. The measures as proposed in the amendments would introduce complexity for the smaller end users, which we would not support at this stage. We think that that is a measure for the next stage in this process, so we will not be supporting these amendments. 19 13:39:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I thank senators for their contributions. I would just like to respond to the minister when he says that he does not want to put the additional cost on second- and third-level industry to conduct the audit and report. The whole point about energy efficiency is that it is designed to save companies money. Frequently, unless they are forced to do the audit in the first place—which is, I am sure, why the government is moving on the large companies—often they do not identify just how inefficient their operations are in terms of the amount of energy they are using and the cost savings that are achievable. Frequently they surprise themselves at how much money they can save. I object to the notion that the government is about not passing on cost increases to consumers, implying that energy efficiency is going to cost. Energy efficiency will save businesses money directly but it will also save the community and the world a long-term cost associated with increased energy supply. It is the supply and demand issue that has to be addressed here. I think it is reasonable to say that once the large companies get into energy audits there will be a template for how you actually go about it. It is a quarter of a million dollars for the large companies. I am sure it is not going to be a flat fee of a quarter of a million dollars for medium and smaller companies. There will be other ways of doing it. It will be less complex for less complex operations, and so on. So I reject the notion that it is going to be a quarter of a million dollar fee for everyone, regardless of whether it is BHP or some medium-scale business in a regional centre, for example. There will be cost efficiencies in terms of scale. I agree with what the minister is saying—that at the moment by targeting and carefully focusing the legislation on the 250 largest companies you are looking at 60 per cent of the energy use, and that is a good thing to do. We are also looking for cultural shifts here. We are looking for regional leadership. We are looking for community leadership. We are looking for people to be able to show that, at any scale of business, energy efficiency is a good idea. So by moving to capture more medium-scale businesses, you take this from just the 250 around Australia into, as the minister has himself acknowledged, thousands of businesses across Australia. Not only are we talking about leadership in energy efficiency, cogeneration and take-up of renewables but we are also talking about competitiveness. Reducing the costs of production is one thing the government ought to be conscious of since it goes into these free trade agreements that put increasing pressure on Australian business to be able to compete with prices when you have China, in particular, sending manufactured goods to the global market that are heavily subsidised by the environment, human rights abuses and low wages. Everywhere I go, Australian businesses say to me that their main problem is that they just cannot compete against low-wage economies that subsidise levels of production by destroying the environment and by poor occupational health and safety standards as well as low wages. So, given that, if we can help companies to be more efficient and reduce the costs of production it must be a good thing. It is my contention that the only way you will get them to do this is by requiring them to do the audit, which is the very rationale the government is using for big business. I am arguing that the same rationale applies to medium and small business—although 0.2 petajoules would not be a small business, so we are talking medium-scale businesses. Let us encourage these businesses to do their audits and find ways to make the audits affordable. Let us look at that. I do not know what those cost savings are going to be. If the government chooses to reject this, as the Labor Party has in the short term, let us have a look at what the costs would be for businesses of that scale to undertake similar audits. Surely once we get it down to a fine art with the large companies it will not be that difficult to modify for medium-scale companies. Again, I think that this is a lost opportunity to spread the cultural change—the shift that is required—across the whole of Australia, and rural and regional Australia in particular. I cannot see that by staying with the 0.5 petajoule threshold we are actually spreading the message about energy efficiency and achieving the cultural change and the shift that we need to assist business not only to be better for the environment but to be more competitive in their fields. Question negatived. 20 13:45:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I move: (8)    Page 30 (after line 26), at the end of Part 9, add: 42 Review of operation of Act          (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act to be undertaken as soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act.          (2)    The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.          (3)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act. During the course of this debate, I have argued that one of the main problems with the bill is failure to require the outcomes of the audits to be implemented. The minister has just said that, by virtue of creating, effectively, a league table amongst big business as to who is doing the right thing by implementing the energy efficiency measures that have been identified, the public pressure will be such that they will do the right thing. That implies a whole new round of activism and requiring the community, shareholders and activists to go out there and start running campaigns on this when there is absolutely no need to do so if the government would actually require the companies to do it. I have also said that we should establish the goal that we are trying to achieve and the time frame we are trying to achieve it in, and the minister still has not responded to that. What is the level of energy saving the government would expect to achieve within three years as a result of this bill? We need to know so that we can see whether it is in fact being effective. You will have your audits which will tell you what could be done and what has been done, and I guess you will have a running sheet of what has been saved and what is achievable, but I am moving for an independent review of the operation of the act to be undertaken as soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the act. In other words, five years after this act is implemented let us have an independent review of exactly whether this Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill has been effective in reducing the amount of energy that these companies use. The review should be given, as a written report, to the minister, and the minister must then table a copy of that review in each house of parliament within 12 months of the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this act. In other words, an independent review will take place after five years, that will be given to the minister and the minister will table it within 12 months of that. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I expect the government will say, ‘We will be reviewing it all the time as it goes on in terms of the audit.’ But at least if you have an independent review of the act after five years, if companies have not done as the government expects they will do—and that is actually implement the initiatives that would save the greatest amount of energy—it gives us an opportunity to come back and take whatever steps might be necessary at that point. So I think it is more than reasonable. We have a difference of philosophical opinion here as to whether requiring companies to do the right thing by enforcement measures or asking companies to do the right thing in a voluntary capacity is the right way to go. We have a different philosophical view on it, and mine is that we should require them to do it, within reason, if there is a reasonable payback period. However, since that is not the government’s view, and I have not been able to prevail upon the Senate to accept that view, I now ask that the Senate supports the notion of an independent review after five years so that we can then take other measures if they are necessary. Again, this is not because we have some idea about going after big business. This is about two things. It is about climate change and doing the right thing in terms of the global environment, and it is about saving taxpayers from investing in new energy production on the supply side, which is hugely expensive. However, it is also about helping companies, in spite of themselves, to be more competitive in a global environment by reducing their ongoing costs of production. 21 13:49:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —I indicate Democrat support for this amendment, as we supported the previous amendment put forward. It is a modest request of the government, and the government has in the past acceded to such requests by the Senate, so I encourage Labor to support this and the government to agree to it. It is perfectly reasonable. We cannot know if this has worked unless we have a review. This simply asks the government to do that. 21 13:50:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —The opposition will be supporting this amendment. We do think it is a modest request but very worthy of our support. We agree that the issues which have been canvassed in this debate are extremely important to the Australian public and, indeed, to the whole of this globe, and we think it is extremely reasonable to ask that the operation of the propositions which the government have embodied in this bill with the amendments that they have proposed ought to be subject to an independent review and that review should not just sit on the desk of the minister when it has been conducted—it should be made public. Therefore, subclause (3) of this amendment, which would require the report of that review to be tabled in each house of parliament, places the matter fairly and squarely before the public and requires the government of the day—whoever it might be at that time—to table that report so that there can be full public knowledge. We know of no reason why the government would not support this other than that they may be unhappy about scrutiny of their actions. Their support or otherwise of this amendment will show whether the government are prepared to be open and transparent in their dealings with issues as important as this. 22 13:52:00 Fielding, Sen Steve E4R Victoria FFP Leader of the Family First Party 0 0 Senator FIELDING —This is an important issue, and I think all parties have acknowledged that. It is sending the right signal—that as parliament we need to ensure that we are encouraging all to do more with regard to energy efficiency. As I said, all parties have agreed that it is an important area, and we are sending a strong signal to business that they must look at energy efficiency opportunities. The issue here is that we should have a review after a certain period of time to have a look at how well the program is working and see whether extra measures need to be taken. Family First support this amendment, and I am hoping to see it put through. 22 13:53:00 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —On page 41 of the explanatory memorandum the government sets out a timetable for evaluation and review of the program. It sets out the process in some detail—the completion of a baseline survey this year; ongoing data collection and analysis from company reports from 2006 to 2010; yearly efficiency review and reporting, as I have mentioned previously, throughout those four years; yearly ‘running changes’ throughout 2006 to 2010 to give us an ongoing update about performance against the audits; special evaluation data collection in 2009; a draft evaluation report written in January 2010; the circulation of the draft report in February 2010; and the final evaluation report written and released in July 2010. That is full evaluation, reporting and public release to occur in four years, not five. So the government’s proposal is actually more stringent than the amendment that Senator Milne—without any doubt with the best outcomes in mind—is proposing. We go over and above that and say we will have a review evaluation for the five months after the final report, up until December 2010, and then implement evaluation findings in the ongoing program. We regard this as an ongoing program. It is the beginning of a substantial change to the way companies in this country look at their energy use. It will help them change their energy use and become a lot more efficient, and it is a program that the government are committed to. The energy white paper, which is a substantial piece of policy work and has been analysed and copied around the world, identified through studies done within the National Framework for Energy Efficiency that projects within the residential energy sector could see savings of 13 per cent. I think Senator Milne was looking for some idea of the sort of savings that could be made. I am not saying these are targets; these are achievements that have been identified within the National Framework for Energy Efficiency. Page 109 of the energy white paper reports that they looked at energy use reductions in the order of 10.4 per cent for the commercial sector and 6.2 per cent for the industrial sector. They are substantial achievements in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and energy efficiency improvements. Within the government’s own explanatory memorandum before the Senate is a program for review that is more stringent than Senator Milne’s. The government are keen to make this work, to make sure the program is a success and to see it reviewed comprehensively. We have made a commitment in the explanatory memorandum, and I now make my own commitment, to ensure that that review is public. 22 13:56:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —The issue here is the independence of the review. We have seen many government reviews in the past which we have later found out have left out significant detail because pressure was brought to bear and changed the tenor of the reporting. The key is that the review be independent. We have just had the example of a recent report on climate change where we found that the recommendations had been lifted out of the review and had never seen the light of day. The recommendations in that report on climate change have only been reported recently. They were for strategies and targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they were rejected. My requirement here is for an independent assessment that is then made public. That is the issue of concern here. Yes, the government has put in place an evaluation process, but I am moving that it be independent and not government controlled. Question negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. 23 Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Australia —Minister for the Environment and Heritage) 13:59:00 —I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 23 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 23 14:00:00 23 McLucas, Sen Jan 84L Queensland ALP 0 Senator McLUCAS —My question is to Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing, but unfortunately he is not in the chamber. Mr President, I seek your guidance as to what I should do to proceed. AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The senator ought to ask her question anyway. It is directed specifically to Senator Santoro, and I gather he is entering the chamber now. Better late than never. 84L McLucas, Sen Jan Senator McLUCAS —My question is to Senator Santoro. Does the minister recall saying last week that he would conduct an investigation into the allegations of abuse at the George Vowell centre ‘during the next few days’, and saying, ‘I intend to be very open about this whole process’? Has the minister’s investigation examined why no action was taken after relatives wrote to the department, complaining about neglect at this facility in May 2005, other than to write back and request that the complaint be made formal? Under the Aged Care Act, isn’t it possible to investigate anonymous or informal complaints or refer them to the standards agency? Why wasn’t this done, given the serious nature of the issues raised in the complaint? Given the minister has stated that the failure to follow up this complaint was either a failure or deficient attention, will he now be very open as to why it occurred? 23 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —I thank Senator McLucas for her question. I reject outright any suggestion that I or, in fact, my department have failed to investigate, as I committed that we would do, the allegations of lack of response or lack of proper and timely response. Senator McLucas should be very careful in tackling this particular issue because it is not an issue that we would want to politicise. As I said repeatedly during many media conferences, we all have grandmothers and grandfathers and we all have relatives in nursing homes who deserve and, in the main, right throughout Australia, receive the very best attention that our publicly funded aged care facilities can provide. I caution Senator McLucas not to become political on issues such as this. On the rare occasions when this sort of abuse occurs, it is required to be treated very sensitively. I can assure the Senate what I assured Senator McLucas would be the case—that is, I asked for an immediate investigation to take place. That investigation is taking place. I have been advised that it will be concluded by the end of this week, and at that point in time I will do whatever I can to make the public aware of those details. More importantly, when after the end of this week the Senate resumes in three weeks time, I will come back to the Senate and I will inform the Senate on this matter, bearing in mind that there are also very delicate privacy considerations included in this particular issue. I will be very forthcoming and open, as I said to Senator McLucas I would. What I am saying to the Senate and to Senator McLucas, through you, Mr President, is that the commitment I made is being maintained. I was advised just before I came into question time that the investigation is taking place. You can try to beat it up as much as you wish, but you have my assurance, and I strongly recommend that you try to depoliticise this issue because it is not one that lends itself to cheap politics. 24 McLucas, Sen Jan 84L Queensland ALP 0 Senator McLUCAS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister have full confidence in his department and the government’s aged care accreditation and complaints resolution system and how they have responded to this case? 24 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —I believe that the department I am overseeing is made up of well-meaning and competent people who do their best to service a part of our community which requires proper and constant care. As I have said to Senator McLucas, and as I have sought to reassure the Australian public, there are obviously areas, whether they are in the department that I am responsible for or any other department, where improvements can constantly be made. The undertaking that I have made repeatedly through a series of interviews and a series of assurances is that, where I believe that finetuning is required, where an inquiry is required and where action is required after that inquiry, that will happen. That is an assurance that is rock solid. Senator McLucas, I suggest, with respect, should be reassured by that. 24 14:05:00 24 Chapman, Sen Grant FF4 South Australia LP 1 Senator CHAPMAN —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Administration. Minister, how important is sound budget management by all tiers of government? How does the financial position of the Australian government compare with those of individual states? 24 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —I thank Senator Chapman for that astute question. It is a fact that over the last 10 years the financial position of the Australian government has improved enormously. When we came into government, the budget deficit was $10 billion annually and we inherited a debt of $96 billion. Today we are on track to record a surplus of $11½ billion, and government debt will be eliminated entirely in the next few months. It really is important that the Australian government runs surpluses when the Australian economy is strong. That helps us keep pressure off interest rates, and it makes sure that as a government we are contributing to national savings. Unfortunately, while the Australian government is adding to national savings by more than one per cent of GDP this financial year, on the other hand, state and local governments are actually detracting from national savings by 0.3 per cent of GDP because, unbelievably, those state governments are heading into deficit and running up debt. Last year, of course, we saw the biggest state government, New South Wales, under its Labor administration, trying to do something to address its parlous economic position. It is incredible that, after 10 years of strong economic growth, an unprecedented property boom in Sydney and massive net benefit from the GST, Labor in New South Wales is facing these horrendous deficits. Unfortunately, in the case of South Australia, the Rann Labor government seems intent on going down the New South Wales path. Opposition senators interjecting— JX4 Minchin, Sen Nick Senator MINCHIN —I just happen to know a bit about the state of South Australia. That state has received over $17½ billion in GST revenue since the GST was introduced, including a windfall of $402 million over and above what it would have got if we had continued with the old Labor way. Yet, despite that windfall, South Australia’s budget is now heading into the red. The Rann government itself is projecting an operating surplus of just $9 million for 2006-07. But, if you look at the underlying cash position, which is how we measure the federal government budget, when using the same measure as the federal government budget for South Australia you will see that South Australia will run a deficit of $105 million in 2006-07. So Mr Rann has turned windfall revenue gains into a budget deficit and now has the hide to base his campaign for re-election in the state on his economic credentials. Mr Rann runs around taking credit for the air warfare destroyer contract, which he had nothing to do with. The person who should be commended for the air warfare destroyer contract is Senator Robert Hill, my esteemed colleague. It was the federal government that let that contract, not the Rann government. All that we heard from Mr Rann and Mr Bracks just meant that they cancelled each other out. Mr Rann also had the hide to try and take credit for the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine, ignoring the fact that it is the mine’s owners who are putting the capital at risk to expand that mine. And it is absolutely no thanks to the Labor Party, which actually forbids new uranium mines. It is all right to expand an existing mine, but apparently you are not allowed to open new mines. Of course, Mr Rann takes credit for the growth in the South Australian economy, which, again, he had absolutely nothing to do with. That is all the effect of sound economic management at the federal level. So the South Australian government is doing what other state governments are doing under Labor—cruising on national economic strength, pocketing windfall GST revenues and squandering all of those revenues on misplaced priorities. The disastrous financial situation in New South Wales is clearly a sign of what awaits South Australia if they re-elect the Rann government. 25 14:10:00 25 McLucas, Sen Jan 84L Queensland ALP 0 Senator McLUCAS —My question is to the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. Can the minister confirm that the Immanuel Gardens nursing home on the Sunshine Coast was sanctioned three weeks ago for failing to comply with aged care standards? Isn’t this nursing home the subject of allegations that a carer abused residents last year? Can the minister confirm reports that, after the carer was sacked over the allegations, he got another job at a nearby aged care centre? Doesn’t this case again highlight the need for stronger protections for aged care residents? Isn’t the government’s aged care system failing to protect frail, elderly Australians? 25 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —I thank Senator McLucas for her question. I am aware of allegations of inappropriate handling of residents by an assistant at the Immanuel Gardens nursing home. I understand that in fact that staff member’s employment has been terminated. Senator McLucas may not be aware, but I am making her aware now, that the matter is in hands of the Maroochy Criminal Investigation Branch of the Queensland Police Service. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further in relation to that. However, what I can say is that the department has been quite diligent in relation to this matter. On 6 February 2006 the department imposed a sanction on the Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland district, the approved provider of the Immanuel Gardens nursing home. The sanction was imposed because the approved provider failed to address noncompliance with the accreditation standards within the agreed time frame. I think that would indicate to Senator McLucas and other senators that the department is quite diligent in following up its obligations in relation to compliance. Under the sanction the approved provider has appointed an adviser with nursing experience to implement an improvement plan to address the areas of noncompliance for a period of six months. The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency undertook a review audit on 11 and 12 August 2005 and an accreditation site audit on 6 to 8 December 2005. It identified noncompliance with the accreditation standards. It is disappointing, I admit, that the provider allowed care to remain compromised to the extent that the department found it necessary to impose sanctions. The sanctions will assist and encourage the approved provider to improve the delivery of care and services to existing residents at the home. The department has written to the residents and their relatives, as they must when these sorts of cases unfold, to inform them of the situation. The approved provider held a meeting of residents and relatives to discuss issues at the home and explain what action is being taken to address those issues as a matter of urgency. The Australian government has in place a quality framework to identify and quickly deal with issues that may affect the health, safety and wellbeing of residents. What this particular case shows—and I would like to say thank you to Senator McLucas for drawing this case to the attention of the Senate—is that the Australian government has a quality framework in place to handle contentious aged care issues such as this. I again stress that these cases are in the minority. The vast majority of aged care residents in publicly funded homes throughout Australia are in good care. They are cared for by people who regard their sole existence as being to take care of people who are elderly, vulnerable and potentially, in a minority of cases, subject to abuse. I reject with respect any suggestion by Senator McLucas that somehow the aged care quality control framework that the Australian government has in place is failing. I would again say to Senator McLucas that, really, this whole area of government policy is one that should be treated in an apolitical fashion, not because, as honourable senators feel— AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans interjecting— BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —I am more than happy to be held to account. I am not worried at all. Keep on asking the questions, because I have confidence in the system, whilst admitting that, where cases of finetuning become obvious, the government will respond to suggestions from residents, from relatives and from the professionals within the community. 26 McLucas, Sen Jan 84L Queensland ALP 0 Senator McLUCAS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that when this nursing home was inspected in August 2005 the team found that it failed to comply with 15 of the 44 care standards, including clinical care, infection control and pain management? Did the agency’s report of August 2005 not note that the Immanuel Gardens nursing home has ‘a record of persistent failure to comply with accreditation standards over the last three years’? Why did it take from August 2005 to February 2006 to impose a sanction on this facility, which was clearly not meeting the expected care outcomes? 27 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —Obviously, Senator McLucas does not want to accept the reasonable answer that I have just given. That is fine. Once the accreditation agency found that there were some faults it had to go through some considerations and processes— AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —Three years! BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —I reject the interjection by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. The department has in fact imposed sanctions. It is not often that sanctions of that severity are imposed on nursing homes, and I think that the department and the agency have acted with propriety. 27 Distinguished Visitors 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President’s gallery of a delegation from the Sri Lankan parliament led by the Hon. Mr Mahinda Samarasinghe, Minister of Disaster Management and Human Rights. On behalf of all senators I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and to our Senate. Honourable senators—Hear, hear! 27 14:16:00 Questions Without Notice 27 14:16:00 27 Parry, Sen Stephen E5V Tasmania LP 1 Senator PARRY —My question is to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz. Will the minister please outline to the Senate the Howard government’s approach to balancing forestry jobs and conservation in Tasmania? Further, is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area, which is of critical concern to Tasmanian workers and their families? 27 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator ABETZ —I thank Senator Parry for his question and note his longstanding interest in supporting a sensible balance between jobs and conservation in Tasmania. I can say to Senator Parry that I am aware of an alternative policy to the Howard government’s very balanced approach in this area. The policy announced by the Tasmanian Greens yesterday would be a disaster for Tasmania’s sustainable forest practices and for Tasmanian forest workers, their families and their communities. The simple fact is, according to their own policy, the Greens want to lock up more forest in Tasmania, preventing it from being sustainably harvested or, indeed, used for tourism. This is despite the fact that after the Howard government’s Community Forest Agreement over 40 per cent of Tasmania forests are now unavailable for logging and an astonishingly high figure of 100 million trees are protected. But, of course, for the Greens that is not enough. They always want more, even if it costs sustainable forestry and tourism jobs in Tasmania and even if it means sourcing our timber from the unregulated forests of South-East Asia and South America. With this new policy, the Greens have once again moved the goalposts. First, it was old-growth forests. Then it was native forest. Now we even have the prospect of regrowth forest not being available for harvest. Despite all their pretences of supporting tourism jobs in Tasmania’s forests, the Greens simply want to lock the forests up totally and utterly. To the extreme Greens, trees really do come before humans and their sustainable jobs—even tourism jobs. The scary thing is that it is entirely possible that in just a few weeks the Greens may be in a position to implement this job-destroying policy in an accord with the Tasmanian Labor Party. That would see the productive and renewable forests, such as the Weld, Blue Tier and Wielangta, being completely shut down. Jobs will be clear-felled and confidence in the Tasmanian economy will be severely damaged all because the Lennon Labor government is so desperate to hang on to power. They have already bankrolled the Greens over Recherche Bay and refused to rule out a minority government with them. Less than a year ago the Tasmanian resources minister had this to say about Recherche Bay: The Tasmanian Government has achieved the appropriate balance between protecting cultural heritage values and allowing the land owners access to and use of the land. I agree. What has changed since April last year? Nothing, other than the grubby attempt by Paul Lennon to hang on to power with a Greens-Labor accord. My message to the Tasmanian forest workers and tourism operators who rely on the forest industry is very simple and straightforward: as with the last federal election, only the Liberals can be trusted to protect their sustainable jobs and their communities. E68 Sterle, Sen Glenn Senator Sterle interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Sterle, your colleague is on his feet. 28 14:21:00 28 Forshaw, Sen Michael 656 New South Wales ALP 0 Senator FORSHAW —But it was a very good interjection. My question is directed to Senator Santoro, the Minister for Ageing. Does the minister recall saying on the 7.30 Report last week that the complaints system is ‘working well’? Does the minister recall saying on Lateline on the same day that the complaints system ‘needs to be finetuned’ and that some complaints ‘fall through the cracks’? Does the minister recall releasing a statement the same day convening an urgent summit on elder abuse in the wake of the reported abuse at the George Vowell centre? Can the minister now indicate what his current position is? Is the complaint system working or do some complaints fall between the cracks? Do we need to have an urgent summit to overhaul the whole system? What is the current position? 28 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —The senator opposite heard me correctly in all instances, but I will explain so that he can understand today what he did not understand the other day. Throughout this sad and sorry saga, after the unfortunate incident came to my attention, I have always maintained that I am open to suggestions from residents, from relatives, from providers and from professionals within the aged care industry as to how we can improve the system. I remain as open to suggestions for improvement as I was in the interviews that I did last week. I can say to the honourable senator opposite that yesterday I was made aware of a survey in relation to the complaints resolution scheme. For the benefit of the senators opposite, what happens is that every time a complaint comes in a survey form is sent out. People respond to that, and 49 per cent of all the people in a 12-month period who submitted complaints to the complaints resolution scheme responded. Of those 49 per cent, only six per cent expressed dissatisfaction with the complaints system. 84L McLucas, Sen Jan Senator McLucas —Are you happy? BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —Senator McLucas interjects, and I know it is not a kosher thing to take interjections, but I will take the interjection of Senator McLucas. No, I am not happy that there was a six per cent unhappiness of respondents in relation to— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Senator, ignore the interjections and address your remarks through the chair. BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —I am trying to do my best, Mr President. I am trying to talk some sense and understanding particularly into Senator McLucas. Six per cent, I suggest, is not a good result but it is not the worst— ZW4 Sherry, Sen Nick Senator Sherry interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Sherry! BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —It is not the bad result that Senator McLucas and others are trying to suggest. I can inform the Senate that there has been a review of the complaints resolution scheme undertaken by the complaints ombudsman. I am currently looking at that review and I am in the process of determining whether or not any further action— AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —And what did that say? It was highly critical. BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —Well, when I have reviewed it— 5K4 Faulkner, Sen John Senator Faulkner —You need a dozen summits! 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections across the chamber. Come to order. BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —When I have reviewed it— 5K4 Faulkner, Sen John Senator Faulkner —You need a dozen summits! 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —After I have reviewed that particular review, I will let the Senate know that— AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —How about another review? Opposition senators interjecting— BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —I have inherited a review of the complaints resolution scheme and I am going to look at it. You are just going to have to wait for as long as it takes me to have a look at it and inform the Senate. In relation to the summit— Opposition senators interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Senators to my left— Honourable senator—So funny! 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —I do not think it is funny at all. I think the people out there watching on television today would be absolutely disgusted with the opposition and the way they are carrying on in here today. BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —In relation to the summit, on 14 March I will convene a meeting of the ministerial advisory committee, which is a genuinely representative and authoritative committee made up of representatives of residents, carers, providers and the various institutions that run the aged care system throughout Australia. I have asked the committee to consider providing me with advice as to how we go about resolving some of the issues that have come to the forefront. AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —So you are reviewing the review of the summit on the activity? BOT Santoro, Sen Santo Senator SANTORO —I just do not see how senators opposite can object to me consulting with the people who know the system. I just cannot see how the people opposite can reasonably object to me consulting with the chief stakeholders, including residents and advocates on behalf of residents. If there is something wrong with that, they should send me an email or a memo and explain where, in fact, I am getting it wrong. But I intend to fully consult the aged care community. I assure senators in the chamber that we will do so expeditiously. (Time expired) 29 Forshaw, Sen Michael 656 New South Wales ALP 0 Senator FORSHAW —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I think I have quite a few but I just do not know how much time I have got. Actually, I think the minister has proved the adage— Government senators interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! 656 Forshaw, Sen Michael Senator FORSHAW —It is quite clear that Fred Daly was right when he said that the minister’s best position is beside himself. Can the minister confirm that he has postponed his urgent summit on elder abuse? Given the serious nature of this issue and the legitimate concerns in the community over recent reports, why is the minister now delaying his summit for another two weeks? That does not sound to me like it is expeditious. Is this now a non-urgent crisis summit? Is it not vital that the community regains its confidence in the aged care complaints system? What is the minister’s position today on the effectiveness of the aged care system in protecting the elderly? 30 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —Last Tuesday, when asked that question, I informed the public, including senators opposite interested in this issue, that I would convene a meeting of the aged care ministerial council. Yesterday, on Sunday, through a media release that has been reported in today’s press, I announced that that would be on 14 March—that is, Tuesday week. I have not postponed any meeting. I announced that there will be a meeting and yesterday I announced the date. That meeting will go ahead. Subsequent to that meeting, I will inform the Senate of the outcomes of the committee’s deliberations. 30 Distinguished Visitors 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President’s gallery of a member of the German Bundestag, the honourable Dr Herman Scheer MP, who was involved in the vital issues seminar today. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators—Hear, hear! 30 14:28:00 Questions Without Notice 30 14:28:00 30 Lightfoot, Sen Ross WP6 Western Australia LP 1 Senator LIGHTFOOT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator the Hon. Amanda Vanstone. Will the minister inform the Senate of the government’s efforts to assist employers in regional areas fill apprenticeship positions? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 30 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator VANSTONE —I thank Senator Lightfoot for the question. We are introducing a new trade skills training visa. This will be a great opportunity for regional Australia to build and a great opportunity for young Australians in regional Australia to ensure that they can undertake apprenticeships. This is simply because there are some opportunities in regional Australia not being taken up by Australians, and that means that some of the off-employment training that takes place has got fewer students in regional Australia. That makes some of those courses not viable. If the course shuts, it means that the Australian students in the course obviously cannot go on with it, so it makes it hard for them to get an apprenticeship. We were approached by employers and trade-training companies to allow overseas students to come and take those positions if Australians are not available to take them up, and we have acquiesced to this proposition. We have said that the regional certifying bodies, the people in the local area, will have to certify that an Australian was not available to take up the position. Once that has been done, we are happy for an overseas student to come and pay the full fee for the trade place. This is something that senators on the other side well understand in terms of universities, and, if it is good enough for overseas students who can afford to come and pay money to get Australian qualifications and take them home or maybe decide that they want to stay here, it is good enough for kids who are doing a trade as well to have that opportunity for their families to invest in them to get world-class trade qualifications. Of course, the regions are happy about this because it means that you will have a baker in Mount Isa or a mechanic in another town where they had a shortage and that the training courses that might otherwise become not viable in regional Australia will have extra students in them. The important point is that all the fees are paid by the overseas student and a local certifying body has to certify that an Australian was not available to take up the job. I was asked what we have on the other side as an alternative policy. There were some remarks put together by Tony Burke, the opposition spokesperson. It frankly shocked me to hear Mr Burke say: ‘What is going on in Australia? We will be having apprentices from Beirut, Bombay and Beijing.’ You do not have to be very bright to figure out what is going on there. Why did Mr Burke select Beirut, Bombay and Beijing? 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’Brien —Perhaps it was the alliteration! 7E4 Vanstone, Sen Amanda Senator VANSTONE —It is pretty clear what is going on there. This is a return to the old Arthur Calwell Labor Party—absolutely. If all he was after was some alliteration, Mr Burke could have said, ‘We don’t want apprentices coming from Belfast, Blackpool, Brighton or Bristol.’ But he did not say that, did he? No. He left the English towns out. He only chose the Middle East, the subcontinent and Asia to complain about. I think the Labor Party needs to get their immigration spokesperson quietly in a backroom and just ask him whether they really want to go back to the days of Arthur Calwell. Is that what you are really on about? NB5 Campbell, Sen George Senator George Campbell —What was Costello on about? 7E4 Vanstone, Sen Amanda Senator VANSTONE —We have made it clear that the money is being paid by the overseas students, that Australian jobs are protected, and all you can do is go out and have a big dog whistle. You should be ashamed of yourselves! Honourable senators interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! There is far too much noise in the Senate today and the last interchange of interjections across the chamber was most unsenatorial. 31 14:33:00 31 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 Senator ALLISON —My question is to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and Treasurer say that immigrants and dual citizenship holders should abide by Australian values or be kicked out. What specifically are those Australian values? 31 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —I thank Senator Allison for her question. I think that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and other government spokesmen have merely said what is the consensus view of all Australians: that when migrants come to this country and seek to become, and do become, Australian citizens they should abide by the general rules that govern this great country. Those general rules essentially are: a commitment to our liberal democracy, a commitment to pluralism and a commitment to abiding by the general rule of law. It is a fact that in Australia, as a long part of the Western tradition, there is a separation of church and state and, while as a proud pluralist country we respect the rights of everyone to honour their faiths, we do seek to ensure that we eliminate extremism in Australia and that we do ensure that everybody, no matter what their faith, their background or their originating culture, does abide by the fundamentals that make this one of the great democratic nations of the world. This is one of the freest, most democratic and most successful nations ever crafted by humankind. We are all proud of that. That is why this nation is such a magnet for migrants from all over the world. There are many more people wishing to come to Australia than it is possible for us to accept in any given year. Under our government, we have substantially increased the migration program. We have unashamedly changed the emphasis from simply family reunion to skills, because we do believe that, given the extraordinary worldwide demand to become an Australian, we are in a position where we can say to prospective migrants, ‘We welcome you, but we do put a premium on you bringing to this country those skills which this country needs and which will ensure that you can make a positive and strong contribution to the success of this nation.’ I think that ordinary Australians understand what it is that makes this country strong and what unites us, and that is the sorts of freedoms and tolerance and respect for the rule of law which are the Australian values that the Prime Minister and Treasurer were referring to. Part of that mosaic is tolerance of difference and, as a government, we want to ensure that we maintain that tolerance. But we are quite unashamedly saying that extremism is not part of the normally regarded view of what it is to be Australian and that leaders in all communities should do their utmost to eliminate extremism from their communities. 32 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator ALLISON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, as the government already deports immigrants who go to prison for offences against the law, and this is decided by the courts, will there be a new set of values laws just for immigrants and, if so, who will decide that those laws have been breached? Will the government also abide by the new values laws itself or will they only apply to the 42 members of parliament in Australia who have been born overseas? Isn’t this just another example of the government dog whistling and an ongoing cynical attempt to divide Australians, this time with Muslim people the victims? 32 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —There are no new values laws. I do not know what Senator Allison is talking about. We unashamedly say that Australian citizenship is one of the most prized possessions anyone on this planet can have. To become an Australian citizen is a magnificent thing and something that all recipients should value and respect. They should uphold the pledge they make when they become Australian citizens and not act contrary to the laws of this country and the values that it represents. 32 14:38:00 32 Humphries, Sen Gary KO6 Australian Capital Territory LP 1 Senator HUMPHRIES —My question is to the Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator Kemp. As one who had great pleasure in taking part in ceremonies in Canberra this weekend to do with the Queen’s Baton Relay, I ask the minister to update the Senate on the progress of preparations for the Melbourne Commonwealth Games. 3L6 Conroy, Sen Stephen Senator Conroy —Tell us about Turin. AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —How was the trip on the gravy train? 32 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 Senator KEMP —Thank you, Senator Evans, for the welcome back! I appreciate the question from Senator Humphries and for his continuing interest in the 2006 Commonwealth Games. There are only 16 days to go until Melbourne hosts the 2006 Commonwealth Games. 3L6 Conroy, Sen Stephen Senator Conroy —Then you are retiring. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Conroy! WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —Not only is Melbourne gearing up for the games—you just worry about preselections in Victoria, Senator Conroy. I know that you are not one of the lemmings, Senator Conroy, but you just concentrate on the main game. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Minister, ignore the interjections and address your remarks through the chair. 3L6 Conroy, Sen Stephen Senator Conroy —I hear you are going to retire. ZW4 Sherry, Sen Nick Senator Sherry interjecting— AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Senator Conroy, Senator Sherry and Senator Carr, come to order! AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The minister was addressing his remarks directly to the senator. I think if you are going to call people to order you ought to call the minister to order. The senator was responding to those remarks. After your earlier intervention, I urge you to be even-handed in dealing with those issues. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —If you recall, Senator Evans, I just asked the minister to ignore the interjections and address his remarks through the chair and I was drowned out by three of your senators behind you. WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —As I was saying before the interjections, not only is Melbourne gearing up for the games but many of Australia’s towns and regions are getting into the spirit as the Queen’s Baton makes its way to the MCG for the opening ceremony. In fact, the Governor-General, as Senator Humphries would know, set the baton on its way from Government House early this morning on a journey that will take the baton through Canberra suburbs and the Snowy Mountains before resting in Bombala this evening. The Queen’s Baton Relay is one of the great traditions of the Commonwealth Games. It is a wonderful tradition and a terrific symbol of Commonwealth unity. In total, some 3,500 people will carry the baton on its journey around Australia before it reaches its final destination at the MCG. The baton will travel through more than 500 Australian communities over 50 days and will be carried more than 21,500 kilometres. I congratulate all those who have taken part in the Queen’s Baton Relay and who have been chosen as community runners. It is the longest and most inclusive relay in history. For those who have an interest in the Commonwealth Games—and most Australians do, I am pleased to say—the 18th Commonwealth Games will bring together some 4,500 athletes from 71 Commonwealth nations and territories. The Australian team will be the largest ever for a Commonwealth Games, with over 420 sportsmen and sportswomen all vying for a spot on the podium. The Australian government is proud to be supporting what will be Victoria’s biggest ever cultural and sporting event. The games will provide us with not only an opportunity to see Australia’s elite sportsmen and sportswomen competing against some of the best athletes in the world but also a chance to showcase Australia’s cultural achievements. Last week, with the state government, Festival Melbourne 2006 was launched. The festival brings together artists and performers from across Australia and the Commonwealth for a celebration of contemporary music, dance, circus, street theatre and a youth program. On 15 March the MCG will play centre stage to the rest of the world for the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. Today the public had a sneak preview of what is believed to be the largest temporary stage ever assembled on the MCG. That will certainly attract some interest. This is a very important sporting event. It is important for Australia’s sportsmen and sportswomen. It is important for Australia; it gives us a chance to showcase Australia to the wider world. I am sure that most Australians will take great pleasure in these events, which will start in Melbourne in 16 days time. 34 14:43:00 34 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 Senator CONROY —My question is to Senator Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to Telstra’s plans to axe 5,000 payphones throughout the country, cutting an essential lifeline for many Australians. Is the minister aware that Telstra had originally planned to dump 25,000 of its 30,000 payphones and believed that it would not be prevented from doing so by existing regulations? Can the minister confirm that there is nothing to stop Telstra from slashing more than 80 per cent of its payphones throughout Australia? Is it not true that government regulations designed to ensure Telstra maintains its presence in rural and regional Australia have been shown to be completely ineffectual by this affair? 34 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —Thank you to Senator Conroy for the question. As usual, Senator Conroy has it completely wrong. What in fact has happened is that the government has made the supply, installation and maintenance of payphones a part of the universal service obligation that remains. We have done this because we recognise that access to payphones is a very important community facility. Under the universal service obligation, Telstra is required to make payphones reasonably accessible to all Australians on an equitable basis. This is backed up by detailed rules on how Telstra will remove and relocate payphones, as well as its service quality and fault rectification standards. Failure to comply with the universal service obligation or the rules is a breach of the Telecommunications Act and carries significant penalties. Telstra is paid a subsidy to allow it to provide non-commercial standard fixed line and payphone services. Last year the universal service obligation payment was $211 million, of which Telstra paid $142 million and the rest of the industry paid $69 million. Universal service obligation payments are based on market share. I can inform the Senate that under no circumstances will payphones be removed from areas where the universal service obligation requires them to be. There are at least 7,500 payphones covered by the universal service obligation, and most of them are in rural Australia. Those of us who have travelled around rural Australia extensively realise how important it is that those communities are not deprived of access to their payphone. Last week and today I met with Telstra to get to the bottom of what appeared to be a report in the Australian Financial Review that does not represent what Telstra proposes to do. Telstra is at least able to look at its commercial operations. It is certainly entitled to look at some rationalisation of payphones where there are three in one area, for instance, and where there are other services available that make the provision of a payphone simply redundant. It is important that we identify where those particular facilities are and that we make sure that the universal service obligation responds appropriately so that all those who need a phone have it. So not only is Senator Conroy completely wrong in what he has just put as a premise to the question but Senator Conroy apparently thinks that 32,000 payphones must remain, irrespective of whether there are seven in one place and irrespective of whether most of the population in a particular locality might have a mobile phone. We need to get real here and realise that Telstra has to run a commercial operation. The government has an obligation to ensure that those who need a phone get one, and that is precisely what we are doing. 34 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 Senator CONROY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If the government has been unable to guarantee the provision of an essential service like a payphone to towns like Taroom, Cootamundra, Jerilderie, Bombala, Severn and Corrigin, what other services can Australians expect to be slashed in coming years? With Telstra’s already announced plans to slash thousands of jobs in rural and regional Australia, won’t a privatised Telstra be forced to continue cutting services in these areas? Isn’t it true that Telstra’s payphone plans are just the first wave of service cuts that we can expect from the fully privatised Telstra? Will the minister now table the map and the list of the 5,000 targeted phones? 35 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —I have answered very comprehensively with the fact that this is not a concluded plan on the part of Telstra. We are determined to ensure that the universal service obligation will make sure that all people who need a payphone will have one. Senator Conroy, I am sure, would love it if Telstra had announced something of this kind. They have not. The universal service obligation is the guarantee that looks after consumers and will continue to look after consumers. We will continue to ensure that we have a robust framework that looks after the bush, not like Labor, who simply abandoned it. 35 14:49:00 35 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 Senator BOB BROWN —My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Is Senator Coonan aware of the decision by Commercials Advice Ltd—otherwise called CAD—on Thursday to allow an ad featuring Tim Flannery, the eminent Adelaide scientist, for the SolarShop in Adelaide, in which he said, ‘Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity today’? Is the minister aware that the decision to allow the ad to go ahead was reversed on Friday because CAD said it was problematic? Can the minister say what the government’s view is of opinion being censored in advertisements on Australian television, particularly when it comes from such an eminent person as Dr Flannery? Is the minister aware of commercial considerations infesting decisions about private TV ads? Is there a market for what can and cannot be said by such an authority? 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —That is a very long question. 35 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —Thank you to Senator Brown for the question. I am aware of the article that appeared in Adelaide’s Sunday Mail—and it may have been in the Herald Sun also—which featured a claim that an advertisement featuring Dr Tim Flannery was censored by Commercials Advice Ltd, which is a division of Free TV Australia. It is alleged in the article that Dr Flannery opened a commercial for solar panels by saying, ‘Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity today.’ As the senator may be aware, Commercials Advice Ltd reviews all commercials broadcast on commercial free-to-air television and ensures that the advertisements adhere to applicable legislation, including the Trade Practices Act, where statements are not permitted to be made that are false and misleading or likely to mislead and deceive. I have sought the advice of Free TV Australia on this matter. At the time that my advice was sought, Free TV had stated that the SolarShop commercials had not been rejected. As you quite rightly say, Senator Brown, there has been a subsequent decision. Commercials Advice had at the time sought clarification from SolarShop on a number of issues to ensure that such statements would not be false, misleading or deceptive. Free TV has stated that discussions with SolarShop continued and in fact were successful. Clearance of the advertisement was then given. I think that comprehensively deals with your question. 36 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask about the outrageous attempt at censorship by CAD last Friday. Is the minister aware that the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr Tony Blair, who is visiting here at the invitation of Prime Minister Howard, has said that climate change is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism? Will the minister review the ability of CAD to censor advertisements which contain opinion from anybody? Is it not true that if opinion is to be censored in advertisements we will end up with ad-free TV in Australia? N26 Abetz, Sen Eric Senator Abetz interjecting— 36 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —I can only really— QD4 Brown, Sen Bob Senator Bob Brown —Mr President, on a point of order: Senator Abetz’s interjection about the Holocaust is entirely distasteful to me. I know he will not withdraw it, but I think he should think about it again. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —I am sorry, I did not hear the interjection. Senator Abetz, if you did make an improper— N26 Abetz, Sen Eric Senator Abetz interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator! If you did make an improper allegation, I ask you to withdraw it. N26 Abetz, Sen Eric Senator Abetz —Mr President, in response to Senator Bob Brown’s assertion that any opinion should be allowed in advertisements, I asked, across the chamber to him: would he allow Holocaust naysayers to have their opinions broadcast as well? Of course, that is where he comes undone. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Interjections across the chamber are disorderly anyway and I ask senators to be more mindful of their interjections. 2M6 Coonan, Sen Helen Senator COONAN —I will repeat that it is incorrect to state that Commercials Advice had rejected commercials submitted for approval. Commercials Advice, as Senator Bob Brown probably knows, reviews all commercials broadcast on commercial free-to-air and it reviews them for statements of fact. All statements of fact in a commercial must be either substantiated or amended as necessary so that the factual claim is not open to question. As Senator Bob Brown would know, it is not for reasons of censorship but for reasons of law that statements must not be false, misleading or deceptive and in contravention of the Trade Practices Act. In this case, Commercials Advice did seek further advice in relation to two of their commercials as a routine procedure that many advertisements go through before receiving approval from Commercials Advice. 36 14:55:00 36 Stephens, Sen Ursula 00AOS New South Wales ALP 0 Senator STEPHENS —My question is to Senator Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I also refer the minister to Telstra’s plan to axe 5,000 payphones throughout Australia and the company’s belief that it is entitled to dump up to 25,000 payphones. Is the minister aware that these cuts will result in the number of payphones in many rural and regional areas being cut by up to half? Can the minister confirm that the local presence plan that the government claims ensures Telstra’s presence in the bush does nothing to prevent these service cuts? Does the minister now concede that the government’s local presence plan is completely useless and will do nothing to protect rural and regional Australia from a fully privatised Telstra? 36 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —So far as I know, Telstra has no announced or concluded plans to axe payphones, as Senator Stephens has alleged in her question. And the local presence plan, far from being useless, is still under development and requires me to respond to the draft plan that Telstra has submitted to me. The local presence plan will ensure that what consumers value in rural and regional Australia— 3L6 Conroy, Sen Stephen Senator Conroy —It won’t ensure the payphones, will it? 2M6 Coonan, Sen Helen Senator COONAN —the presence of local technicians and the presence of local organisations to assist consumers—will remain, along the lines of Telstra Country Wide. 3L6 Conroy, Sen Stephen Senator Conroy —They’ll have a tech but no phone. 2M6 Coonan, Sen Helen Senator COONAN —I can appreciate that Senator Conroy cannot keep quiet, but Senator Stephens, his colleague, asked a question and I was endeavouring to provide some constructive information in response to Senator Stephens’s question. What is important about this is that this government stands up for people in rural and regional Australia. It does not matter whether it is a matter of making sure they have a local payphone or whether they have a local presence to assist them with their issues in telecommunications, this government will not abandon people in rural and regional Australia. We have a robust framework quite capable of responding to any of the issues that are thrown at it, because it has been carefully thought through and carefully calibrated to assist consumers. It ill behoves the Labor Party to be talking about services in rural and regional Australia when they abandoned the bush when they corporatised Telstra without a plan as to what would give people equity in rural and regional Australia. Not a cent was set aside for the bush. It does not matter whether it was when they were in government or even in their election policy; as far as the Labor Party is concerned, rural and regional Australia does not exist. It is this government that cares about consumers and cares about giving them telecommunications as an essential, critical service, and we will continue to stick up for the bush. Opposition senators interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Show some respect to your colleagues when they are trying to ask a supplementary question. 37 Stephens, Sen Ursula 00AOS New South Wales ALP 0 Senator STEPHENS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I acknowledge that the minister has mentioned technicians, presence, services and hopefully some payphones, but I ask: does the minister recall comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Vaile, on the local presence plan, when he said: The government wants more than a marketing document from Telstra. We want a real and quantifiable plan. How do these comments square with those of Telstra executive Ms Kate McKenzie, who stated that the plan ‘will achieve very little except more words on paper’? Doesn’t the payphone debacle demonstrate that Telstra is right, that the local presence plan is just ‘words on paper’ and that it does absolutely nothing to protect services for rural and regional Australia? 37 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —I do not know how I can gently let Senator Stephens into the secret, but the local presence plan is under development. It has not even been completed yet. So Senator Stephens is going to have to wait and see before she is able to make those kinds of comments. What is important is that this government has put in place a package worth in excess of $3 billion to make absolutely certain that the people in rural and regional Australia will not be left behind by the sorts of plans that the Labor Party would have for telecommunications. This government will continue to make sure that people in rural and regional Australia are served with good telecommunications. This means not only payphones but also the customer service guarantee to fix the fixed line services and the local presence plan, which will assist those customers on the ground out there in rural and regional Australia to have access to the services that they need—and in a timely fashion—and ensure that equitable services are available throughout the country. (Time expired) JX4 Minchin, Sen Nick Senator Minchin —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 38 Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers 38 38 15:00:00 McLucas, Sen Jan 84L Queensland ALP 0 0 Senator McLUCAS —I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Ageing (Senator Santoro) to questions without notice asked by Senators McLucas and Forshaw today relating to aged care. Six years ago Australians were horrified at the revelations that elderly residents in residential aged care were subjected to kerosene baths, that residents were neglected and that the care that was being provided was far from standard. Confidence six years ago in Australia’s aged care system was seriously undermined. The minister at the time, Mrs Bishop, convened meetings, consulted and set in place systems that she said were designed to protect vulnerable Australians in residential aged care. And here we are in 2006 with horrific allegations of elder abuse in residential aged care—allegations that have horrified every single one of us whether or not we have a relative in aged care. The allegations in Victoria and in Queensland have once again shaken the confidence that Australians have in our aged care system. The response from the Minister for Ageing today—and, I might say, last week—was one of the best applications that I have ever seen for a scriptwriter for the TV program Yes Minister. Despite his assurances, the minister did not respond openly, transparently or, in my view, honestly to questions put to him in question time today. I asked the minister why no action was taken after relatives of the alleged victim wrote to the department in May 2005 complaining about neglect and asking why the department had not acted in the way that they can. Under the Aged Care Act it is quite possible for an allegation that has been sent to the department or the minister to be sent, through the department, to the standards agency. That option was not taken, but the minister did not use question time today to explain to the community why it did not happen. As we know, it is quite possible for that to occur. Senator Santoro did advise the Senate that the investigation by the department will be concluded this week. He then obfuscated—he was not clear—about what was going to happen to that report. I call on the minister to make that investigation public, to provide it to the Senate, so that confidence in our aged care system can start to be restored in the community. I further asked the minister about an aged care facility in Queensland—the Immanuel Gardens Nursing Home. I asked him to confirm reports that the carer involved in the allegations got another job at another nearby residential aged care facility after he got the sack from the first one. The minister did not even attempt to clarify that situation. We have to make sure that confidence in aged care can be restored. It is encumbent upon the minister to use the opportunity of question time, to use the opportunity whenever possible, to restore confidence in aged care by coming clean—by telling people what has happened, by telling people what his department has and has not done and by telling people what he and the previous minister have done. The minister did explain that on 11 and 12 August 2005 an examination of Immanuel Gardens Nursing Home was undertaken—and now, at the end of February 2006, finally, sanctions have been imposed. That is on top of the fact that the report that was done in August 2005 said that the problems were systemic, that they had been going on for three years. So the report said that these problems had occurred and then the department did not act promptly. It has been seven months since the first inspection happened and we finally have a response this week. I reject absolutely the minister’s assertion that the Labor Party or in fact anyone involved in this matter is trying to politicise this issue. Aged care is a significant sector of the care component of the Australian community. We have to be confident in it. It is our job as the opposition to monitor the actions of government—and I take that job seriously. But the bottom line is: it is the minister’s responsibility to restore confidence in aged care—and we are providing that opportunity. (Time expired) 39 15:06:00 Patterson, Sen Kay LI4 Victoria LP 1 0 Senator PATTERSON —I rise to speak on the issue at hand, which is the motion to take note of Senator Santoro’s answers to questions. It pays to have been around here for some time, because I remember very clearly the state of aged care facilities when Labor was in government. It was disgraceful—and in Victoria, in particular, it was nothing short of an appalling situation. In Victoria there were large nursing homes which had run down in terms of capital and leasehold nursing homes where the facilities and the services offered to older people were enough to make you want to vomit when you left after visiting. I visited nursing home after nursing home after nursing home, particularly in Victoria, and it was nothing short of an absolute disgrace. Labor did nothing. Labor had a report written by Professor Gregory. Professor Gregory said that there was not sufficient funding for nursing homes and there was not sufficient means for using the resources of people who go into nursing homes. I have always given credit to the Labor Party for the reforms they undertook in hostels by allowing an ingoing, which meant that there was the ability for providers to have capital for nursing homes. But Professor Gregory said that something like 80 per cent of people were living in rooms with four to five people, 75 per cent of nursing homes did not meet building standards, 11 per cent of homes did not meet basic health standards and funding to nursing homes had been cut by 75 per cent over a four-year period—the four years before we came into government in 1996. So Labor have nothing—no record, no credibility, nothing to stand up and be able to say, ‘Look what we did.’ When they hold a mirror up to themselves, they will see the disgraceful state that existed in nursing homes, particularly in my state of Victoria. A range of measures have been introduced by various ministers for aged care since we have been in government. A system of accreditation has been introduced—the first nationally legislated quality assurance program for aged care. Directors of nursing homes and providers around the country say that the government’s accreditation system is the best thing that has happened in aged care. It has lifted the standards. We now have an aged care system that most countries would be proud of. We have introduced certification providing standards to ensure that the buildings and the physical environment are what Australians would expect for older Australians needing care. I admit that the allegations that were made about what occurred in a nursing home in Victoria are very serious. Senator Santoro, a very new minister, has responded very rapidly to those allegations. He announced that a special meeting of the aged care advisory committee will take place in Canberra on Tuesday, 14 March. This meeting will explore solutions to allegations of abuse in Australia’s aged care facilities. Short of having a video camera in every room, unfortunately there will be situations like this. What we have to do is minimise the likelihood of it happening. I am sure Senator Santoro is going to be discussing that in great detail with the aged care advisory committee. That committee comprises representatives of the aged care industry, staff and residents and is regarded as a representative committee. The government is keen for members of the public and aged care industry professionals who have ideas and suggestions for improvement to have input into that process. Senator Santoro has called for people to email the task force at aca.taskforce@health.gov.au with any views or any suggestions they might have. If requested, they will be treated confidentially. I think that is important. There are people out there who may have suggestions and ideas about what should happen. Senator Santoro has met with the granddaughters of one of the alleged victims to hear a first-hand account of their experiences and he assured them that he would do all he could to bring about an improvement in the aged care system with a view to preventing the sort of abuse that their late grandmother experienced. All of us are shocked, no doubt, by the allegations of this abuse. But, as I said, you can put all the best measures in the world in place and unfortunately, whether it is in child care—and the states know this because the states have to regulate and monitor child care—or aged care, there will be people who find their way into those systems who are less than desirable. That may be the thing we need to be looking at, but Senator Santoro has made a very immediate start on this issue. (Time expired) 40 15:11:00 Brown, Sen Carol F49 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator CAROL BROWN —I rise to take note of answers given by the new Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, during question time today. Although he has not been in the seat long, any objective observer would have expected him to be across this most serious and important issue. Indeed, this very issue is a litmus test for him early on in his ministerial career. Is he going to be a minister who fudges and hides behind his bureaucrats or is he going to be a minister who is prepared to call a spade a spade and decry mismanagement and scandal? Is this a minister who will seek to sweep things under the carpet, as so many of his predecessors have done? Not since the kerosene baths of Bronwyn Bishop have we faced such outrageous and disgraceful treatment of elderly Australians in the nation’s aged care facilities. The revelation that four dementia patients aged in their nineties were allegedly raped and assaulted at a Victorian nursing home are a national shame. No amount of clouding or fudging can hide it. This is a test for Minister Santoro—a test of frankness and openness, a test of the strength of his mettle—for while I am sure all senators in this place are appalled at what has happened it is to Minister Santoro that we turn for a resolution of this disgraceful situation. That is why today I am saddened. I am saddened that, with the opposition seeking legitimate answers to questions, Minister Santoro has gone the bluff and bluster instead of being open. He has told us in this chamber today that he will review a review of a review of the complaints resolution scheme. Let me say this to you, Minister Santoro: while your feet are barely under the table you cannot be held personally responsible for these instances, but the government you represent can, and the government you represent will be held to account for its mismanagement. Do not fall into the trap of blindly following the line established for you. Blaze your own trail. In the aftermath of these recent Victorian cases, we see a litany of failings resurface from our aged care sector. Today in the Herald Sun we hear of a woman conducting a bedsheet sting to see how often her mother’s sheets were being changed and discovering they were not changed for a month. Families bring food in, particularly fresh fruit, because of concerns over their loved ones’ diets. Homes provide only two pads a day to incontinent aged care residents. There are concerns about theft and inappropriate standards of care. It all smacks of a system failing. Aged care Australians deserve more than this. Working Australian families deserve more than this. Aged care has become an increasingly important service as our lives grow more complex and busy, and life expectancy in our community rises. Traditional extended family models have given way to nuclear families and, with parents and partners working full time, the capacity for families to care for aged relatives is constantly diminishing. It is only going to get worse as the impact of the government’s new Work Choices act is felt in our community, and working hours and conditions become even more demanding. It is only going to get worse as demand for aged care places increases in line with our ageing society. We need to arrest this problem now. We need real solutions from this minister to the national aged care crisis. But what has happened? We are getting no answers or solutions from this minister in this place. We are getting a summit at some time in the future so he has the breathing time he needs to get his lines right. But, as Kim Beazley said last week, this government has had all the breathing space it needs. This government needs to do more than just concede that standards are not being met; it needs to ensure that they are met. For almost seven years we have had a system in crisis. Consider this time line from the Herald Sun. In 2000, 57 residents were given kerosene baths to treat scabies. Also in 2000, a Caulfield aged care resident was sprayed in the face with fly spray when found covered in ants. In 2001 a woman was found to have lost a leg to gangrene due to a lack of proper care, and another was found to have been left alone, restrained in a chair, for five hours in complete darkness. Also in 2001 a woman died of head injuries after being assaulted by a male resident at the home where she lived. In 2003 another woman died after being assaulted by a fellow resident. Skip ahead a few years and it is the same all over again. An advocacy group highlighted claims of bed linen not being changed for weeks at a time, of patients’ teeth not being brushed and of Jewish patients being fed pork. And then we have these latest explosive allegations—and bear in mind that this is just Victoria that we are talking about. It is time for real answers and solutions to our aged care crisis. (Time expired) 41 15:16:00 Humphries, Sen Gary KO6 Australian Capital Territory LP 1 0 Senator HUMPHRIES —I have not often seen such a shameless beat-up on the floor of the Senate as I have seen with this issue today. Frankly, I think the members of the opposition do no credit to themselves by using the language that they do about Australia’s aged care system. ‘A system in crisis,’ we hear. ‘A system that isn’t working,’ we hear. Members opposite not only are obviously quite content to play politics with this issue and to take what information they have to paint a picture which is a very serious distortion of what is taking place in Australia’s aged care system at the moment but are also quite prepared to do so in circumstances where they treat the sensibilities of those in that system and the families of those in that system as merely pawns in this rather tawdry game that they play. The fact is that Australia’s aged care system, while far from perfect, has experienced enormous improvement in the last 10 years under this government, and nobody could objectively look at the way in which Australia’s aged care system operates today and not honestly come to that conclusion. Senator Carol Brown jumped up in this debate and made a series of claims about things that have gone wrong in nursing homes around Australia. I do not have any evidence to suggest that the things that she listed did not at one stage occur, but I think Senator Brown and those with her on that side of the chamber need to answer two questions. First of all, can she honestly say that incidents of that character did not occur during the 13 years before 1996 when the Labor Party was in government? Of course she cannot guarantee that. Secondly, can they really promise to the electors of Australia that somehow under a Labor government incidents of that kind would not occur? Of course they cannot. The question is not whether in isolated cases around this country there are failures in the standards that we expect of our aged care system. The question is: have we done enough to lift that standard, to better fund the aged care system and to provide an adequate safety net for those who enter aged care facilities in this country? I believe that we have taken very important steps towards achieving just those goals. The fact of the matter is that we have in place across this country today, for the first time, a comprehensive accreditation system of nursing homes and aged care facilities which never existed under the previous Labor government. The fact is that in many cases we would not know whether the sorts of incidents that Senator Brown listed in her speech actually occurred, because there was not an accreditation system to pick those things up. Today, we have standards in place. They are very high standards. Obviously, not every aged care facility in this country is able to meet those standards to the same degree as every other. We have the enormous irony of those opposite attacking the government because certain homes on occasions—I suggest fairly isolated occasions—do not meet the standards that they themselves could not be bothered to put in place when they were in government in this country for many years. You did not have those standards and now you criticise us because on occasions people in this country do not meet the standards that we have put in place. We have required the certification of aged care facilities so that a certain standard has to be met in terms of the infrastructure and the quality of the fabric of those buildings in this country, and we have backed those demands for higher standards with funding to the aged care system to ensure that it is better able to meet those new standards. We have also of course greatly increased spending on aged care across the board in this country, including more than doubling the amount we spend on aged care by, for example, enlarging the number of places available in Australia for those who seek residential accommodation. That is about doing something to improve the system. It is a comprehensive response to that problem. It is a response to a system which was left to us in disarray and disrepair 10 years ago when we came to office, and we make no apologies for the fact that we have made enormous strides in meeting those new standards. Senator McLucas describes this as a system which is not working. That is a disgraceful claim, and it is not borne out by the evidence. (Time expired) 42 15:21:00 Forshaw, Sen Michael 656 New South Wales ALP 0 0 Senator FORSHAW —The Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro, arrived late for question time today, and he may as well not have turned up at all, given his failure on at least three occasions to answer serious questions put to him by the opposition. Senator Santoro attempted to fob off the outrageous, terrible things that have been reported in recent times that have occurred in at least one nursing home in Victoria, where allegations of rape have been made. He said he is going to have a summit, he is going to have an inquiry, he is going to have a review and he is going to have a meeting of the state ministers. Senator Santoro has recently been appointed as the minister, and it has become very obvious, through the estimates hearings two weeks ago and his performance here in question time, that he either fails to read his briefs or he is completely ignorant and fails to understand them. I suspect it might be both. It is an outrage that the minister dealing with serious issues such as this can stand in this parliament and say we should depoliticise this issue. In other words, the opposition, according to Senator Santoro, should not ask him questions regarding his responsibility as Minister for Ageing. He wants to get off scot-free. Let us have a look at the situation to date. The Howard government have been in power for 10 years. They are making a big thing about celebrating this anniversary. In 1996 the newly elected Howard government introduced the new aged care legislation. I remember it well because I was in charge of it from the opposition benches when the debate took place in the Senate. It was a long, drawn out debate and the legislation was very detailed. The new coalition government at the time promised a new world for aged care. Senator Patterson, who has once again made a contribution on this issue, as she has been doing for many years, talked about the supposed terrible, disgraceful years under the previous Labor government. The coalition government said they were going to change and improve things. Today in this debate Senator Patterson could not address the issues that are occurring now under this supposed new beaut system. All Senator Patterson did was once again go back to those old arguments that it was pretty bad back in the eighties, as if somehow that excuses their failure to resolve issues and ensure that standards are kept and our aged people in this country are not mistreated in nursing homes. It is happening today and it has been happening with regularity since this government came to power. Senator Humphries a moment ago could not think of one example to point to from when we were in government, but he said: ‘There must have been some. We just assume that it happened.’ The fact is that under this government some of the most outrageous situations have occurred, and we have raised them in this parliament time and time again. We all recall the outrageous conduct in a nursing home where patients were given kerosene baths. Senator Brown in her excellent contribution told of a litany of problems that have occurred under this government. We have had situations under this supposedly great accreditation scheme where homes have been given accreditation and passed all tests one day and then three months later failed half the tests after a particular serious incident has occurred. We now have this terrible situation where a person has been charged with the alleged rape of elderly patients in the nursing home. That is happening now under this government. You have to accept responsibility for it. You cannot walk away from it and you cannot try and point to what you think may have happened 15 years ago as some sort of an excuse. You have to start acting on this serious issue. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 44 44 15:26:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) to a question without notice asked by Senator Allison today relating to comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) concerning Australian values. I asked Senator Minchin what values the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been referring to over the last few days when they have said that people who do not abide by Australian values should be kicked out. Minister Minchin said that there is consensus about those Australian values but declined to spell them out for us here today. I think the Treasurer would be in no better position to do that. In fact, I would suggest that if we were to look at the Australian government’s own actions with regard to values we would find a very different set of values being practised than what are understood by general consensus in the population as Australian values. Let us talk about some of the values in Senator Minchin’s answer—pluralism, the rule of law, eliminating extremism and tolerance of difference. No-one would disagree with any of those. The problem is that there is no process. What are we talking about here? There are already rules of law. In fact, immigrants in this country get sent back to their place of origin, even if they came here as children, if they break the laws and are sent to prison. Our detention centres are full of such people. That is another issue. Already everyone in this country obeys the rule of law or is punished for not doing so. As I said, immigrants are sent back home if they are in that category. What I find interesting is that there are references now to a secular state. It seems to me that Senator Minchin, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are being a bit selective on this question of secularity. Much has been made of it in recent days. I think this is about secularity for Muslims, not for Christians or people of other religions in this country. Let us have a look at some of the issues. For a start, in this parliament we have prayers in the morning. That is not secular; it is religious. Religion is probably more visible now in Australian politics than it has been in three decades. Mainstream churches are providing more and more government social services, even though governments are challenging those churches’ right to speak out on social justice issues like the treatment of refugees, industrial relations and welfare. Church based schools are receiving more subsidies than ever in the past, and enrolments in non-government schools are steadily increasing, particularly in Christian schools. The disastrous appointment and subsequent resignation of Archbishop Peter Hollingworth as Governor-General at the time when the abuse of children in institutions created by churches was being very hotly debated drew attention to some of the problems of mixing church and state. The government appointed as chairman of the so-called Fair Pay Commission a man who declared that God would guide him in making minimum pay conditions. That too has come under fire. It is hardly an act of a government that is interested in secularity. Mr Costello himself has made much of his support of evangelical Christian groups. He made a pre-election visit to Hillsong, the largest Pentecostal church in the country. A Liberal MP in Perth said that people should vote for the Howard government on the basis that the Prime Minister was a Christian, and the Prime Minister himself used his end of year address in parliament to deliver a mini sermon on Christianity. All of this is occurring in an international context which, since 2001, has been overwhelmingly focused on religiously inspired terrorism. We are talking here about very dangerous precedents being set: talking about Australian values without being able to spell them out, without being able to live them, as I would argue the government should be doing instead of what it is doing at the present time. Dishonesty in government is looking more serious in this country, whether we are talking about AWB or the Prime Minister saying in a book that has just been published that the ‘children overboard’ scandal against the government was, in fact, a problem with people sinking their own boat. This has been demonstrated to be absolutely untrue. These are some of the values that Australian people expect their government to reflect, but it is not. I urge the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and Senator Minchin to pull back from this very divisive dog-whistling approach, which is obviously targeting Muslim people, to consider their remarks about secularity and to consider whether or not we should move down that path. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 45 Petitions 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 3I6 Senator Stott Despoja 50 45 To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the Senate concerns that Austudy recipients currently do not have access to Rent Assistance, which means that thousands of students around Australia are missing out on up to $98 each fortnight simply because of their age. Your petitioners believe: the costs faced by students aged 25 and over are usually equal to—if not greater than—those faced by younger students; there is no rational basis for excluding older students from the extra assistance that Rent Assistance can provide; and Austudy recipients should be eligible to receive Rent Assistance. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate urge the Government to make Austudy recipients eligible for Rent Assistance. 50 3I6 Senator Stott Despoja Senator Stott Despoja (from 50 citizens). 00AOT Senator Webber 56 45 To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that Australian employees will be worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s proposed changes to the industrial relations system. The petitioners call on the Senate to: Guarantee that no employee will be worse off under proposed changes to the industrial relations system. Allow the minimum wage to continue to be set annually by the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Guarantee that unfair dismissal law changes will not enable employers to unfairly sack employees. Adopt Labor’s system based on minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; and the right to associate and to collectively bargain. 56 00AOT Senator Webber Senator Webber (from 56 citizens). Petitions received. 45 Notices 45 45 15:32:00 Watson, Sen John VJ4 Tasmania LP 1 0 Senator WATSON —Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion Nos 1 and 2 standing in my name for 10 sitting days after today. 46 Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes the call by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) for people applying for Australian citizenship who do not ‘share certain beliefs’ to be refused citizenship, and those Australians holding dual citizenship who do not ‘share certain beliefs’ to be stripped of their Australian citizenship; and calls on the Treasurer to outline how that non-sharing is defined and how this could be framed in law. Senator Humphries to move on the next day of sitting: That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 2 March 2006, from 3.30 pm to 7.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Aged Care (Bond Security) Bill 2005 and related bills. Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on water policy initiatives be extended to the last sitting day in 2006. Senator Heffernan to move on the next day of sitting: That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 1 March 2006, from 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the administration by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of the citrus canker outbreak. Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— recognises that: smoking continues to be a major cause of death and disability in Australia, more than 25 per cent of adolescents aged 12 to 17 in Australia in 2004 smoked cigarettes at least weekly, and research estimates that an adolescent who starts smoking today will smoke for a minimum of 16 years if male and 20 years if female; notes that the tobacco industry depends on its ability to attract young people to use its products in order to encourage them to become addicted; concurs with the Action on Smoking and Health Australia campaign that is calling on supermarkets to follow the lead of Coles in Tasmania by reducing its tobacco display to small rows of plain brand names and prices; and calls on the Federal Government and state and territory governments to protect the health of Australian children and young people by requiring that: smoking-tobacco products are kept out of sight in all retail outlets, quit smoking messages are placed at all points of retail for tobacco products, and tobacco sales through vending machines are banned. Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes: that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors will meet on 6 March 2006 to consider the resumption of aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, the recent media reports that suggest the United States of America (US) and Israel are considering a military strike on Iran, and the recent report by the Oxford Research Group that found that as many as 10 000 people could die in such an attack; and calls on the Government to: support diplomatic initiatives to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, encourage all parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue its requirements for nuclear disarmament, and rule out Australian support for a military strike on Iran by the US or Israel. Senator Hurley to move on the next day of sitting: That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report: all actions carried out by the Government for assisting refugee and special humanitarian visa holders in their country of departure and managing the transition of refugees and humanitarian entrants from their country of departure to their settlement in Australia; the processes used by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to handle the migration of the family of Mr Richard Niyonsaba to Australia and the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Niyonsaba after his arrival in Australia; and recommendations for improvement in the processes for assisting refugees and humanitarian entrants in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of all future new arrivals to Australia. Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes: that on 23 February 2006 the Northern Territory Minister for Natural Resources, the Environment and Heritage, Ms Marian Scrymgour recommended against the proposed expansion of the McArthur River mine proposed by Xstrata Plc., the potential impact on the environment, tourism and fisheries industries dependent on local ecosystems, should the mine be approved, the strong opposition of local Indigenous communities to the contamination of traditional fishing grounds and living areas, the impossibility of conducting open cut mining in a waterway without serious environmental consequences, and that Ms Scrymgour recommended against this proposal on the grounds that it failed to meet the tests of science or sustainability; and commends Ms Scrymgour on this decision. Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes that: India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the President of the United States of America (US), George W Bush, will visit India in the week beginning 26 February 2006 to advance sales of US nuclear power technology to India, and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) intends to visit India where the Australian Government hopes to facilitate uranium export contracts; and calls on the Government to: cease pressuring the state and territory governments to permit the expansion of uranium mining, and cease activities that deliberately undermine the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty. 48 Committees 48 48 Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) 15:34:00 —by leave—I move: That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on the administration of the Migration Act be extended to 2 March 2006. Question agreed to. 48 Business 48 Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) 15:35:00 —by leave—At the request of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Brandis, I move: That business of the Senate order of the day no. 3, relating to the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Future Fund Bill 2005, be postponed to a later hour of the day. Question agreed to. 48 Leave of Absence Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) 15:35:00 —by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ferris for the period 27 February 2006, on account of parliamentary business overseas. Question agreed to. 48 Notices 48 The following items of business were postponed: Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator O’Brien for today, proposing the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, postponed till 28 February 2006. General business notice of motion no. 298 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, proposing the introduction of the Privacy (Equality of Application) Amendment Bill 2005, postponed till 27 March 2006. General business notice of motion no. 334 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to sexual assault on children in Australia, postponed till 2 March 2006. General business notice of motion no. 368 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, postponed till 1 March 2006. 48 Motions 48 15:36:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —I move: That the Senate directs that the use of the bollards in the slipway on the Senate side of Parliament Drive be restricted to periods of heightened security risk. Question negatived. QD4 Brown, Sen Bob Senator Bob Brown —I will not call a division, but I record that my fellow Greens supported the motion and the opposition, along with the government, opposed it. 48 Matters of Urgency 48 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 27 February 2006, from Senator Conroy: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move: “That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Telstra’s secret plans to remove at least 5 000 payphones throughout Australia, including nearly 1 300 phones in rural and regional Australia; The revelations that under the current regulatory regime, Telstra would be able to remove around 25 000 of its 32 000 payphones; The fact that the Minister was unaware of Telstra’s plans before they were reported in the media; Telstra’s failure to reveal these plans under questioning on the issue during Senate Estimates; and The fact that the Government’s privatisation agenda is already resulting in telecommunications services throughout Australia being slashed. Yours sincerely Stephen Conroy Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 49 15:39:00 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CONROY —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following are matters of urgency: Telstra’s secret plans to remove at least 5 000 payphones throughout Australia, including nearly 1 300 phones in rural and regional Australia; The revelations that under the current regulatory regime Telstra would be able to remove around 25 000 of its 32 000 payphones; The fact that the Minister was unaware of Telstra’s plans before they were reported in the media; Telstra’s failure to reveal these plans under questioning on the issue during Senate Estimates; and The fact that the Government’s privatisation agenda is already resulting in telecommunications services throughout Australia being slashed. I rise today to discuss the disturbing revelations of Telstra’s plans for its 32,000 payphones throughout Australia. Last week we learned, not through the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts but through a leak to the Australian Financial Review, that Telstra has decided to dump 5,000 payphones across the country. These cuts amount to a 15 per cent reduction in the total number of payphones operated by Telstra in Australia. More disturbingly, the impact of these service cuts will be felt most keenly in rural and regional Australia, where many areas will experience a 50 per cent reduction in the number of payphones in their area. The loss of these payphones may not seem like a dramatic issue to the chattering classes with their offices on Collins Street. However, these payphones are a lifeline to many people in Australian society. They are an essential service to the young and the elderly in our community. Payphones are a necessity for those Australians who are unable to make use of mobile phones for either financial or coverage reasons. They are often used by those in our community who are most in need. Kids Help Line has stated that 30 per cent of the calls it receives each year are from payphones—a point that makes sense when you consider that children who are in need of this service are often not in a family environment that would allow them to make such a call from home. Anyone with a young family will appreciate the importance of payphones to enable children who are too young to be given a mobile phone to call home and ask for a lift from soccer, the movies or an unsafe situation. Payphones are also essential for allowing the marginalised and homeless in our community to stay in contact with society. Recent developments in voice mail services have enabled homeless people to be contactable by phone through payphones, allowing them to stay in touch with potential employers, service providers and landlords. Itinerant workers in outback Australia also rely on these payphones for staying in contact with their families and employers while working in isolated areas. Telstra’s plan for its payphones will leave these vulnerable people without any options for communications services. While it might not be obvious to some, these payphones do provide an essential community service. Unfortunately, they are not profit drivers for Telstra and, as such, post privatisation, they will be on the chopping block. This is, of course, one of the many reasons why the Labor Party opposed the privatisation of Telstra. The current management of Telstra is pursuing exactly the strategy that one would expect of a private company—the maximisation of the bottom line. The provision of essential community services is coming a poor second to propping up the share price. We all know what has been going on with the Telstra debate. We all know that this government has been engaged in a conspiracy with the previous board and management of Telstra to dividend-strip Telstra and take the profits it had earned over the last 10 long years of the Howard government. Instead of reinvesting its profits in its own network, it has been dividend-stripped by this government. All of the money has gone to the shareholders, including the government, to prop up the share price. Despite all of that, and despite flogging off Telstra 2—T2, as it is known—for $7.40, the price of Telstra shares languishes below $4 today. So all of the efforts of the government and the previous board and management of Telstra have failed miserably to deal with the fundamental lack of investment and lack of foresight by the Telstra management. It has been an ideological binge specifically designed to prop up the share price. That is all it has been. So it is no surprise that unprofitable but essential community services like these payphones will be the first to go post privatisation. Do not say you were not warned. Do not come into the chamber and cry crocodile tears. Did we all see the photos in the newspapers last week of Senator Coonan slamming her fist on the desk and hear her demanding to know what was going on and saying, ‘I have called in Telstra today’? And what did Sol Trujillo have to say for himself at the interview he did after that? He said, ‘Senator Coonan has given me the green light to get rid of uneconomic phones.’ As usual, the minister talked tough one day and rolled over to Telstra the next, just as has been happening for the last six months since Telstra was taken over by Mr Trujillo. The protestations of outrage from coalition members over the past weeks have been pathetic. We have seen Senator Barnaby ‘I won’t sell Telstra under any circumstances’ Joyce trying to cover for the fact that he talked tough but that in the end ‘Backdown Barnaby’ gave in and voted for the sale of Telstra. That is why he has to cry now. That is why Senator Fiona Nash has gone missing from today’s debate. I am pleased to see in the chamber some people who I know care about some of these issues: Senator Adams, welcome. But Senator Nash and Senator Joyce have run away. Senator Ronaldson, I am sure your mum will be watching, as usual, for your contribution. You do not need my help to publicise yourself; you have your mum on the job. But, having said that, you do have a genuine interest in trying to hold Telstra to account. It is just disappointing that you have failed so miserably. What we need is a wake-up call, and last week’s leaked document should be that wake-up call. It should be a wake-up call to Senator Robertson, Senator Adams, Senator Joyce and Senator Nash because, as we saw at the Senate estimates, we were once again completely misled by the evidence given. I have read some of Senator Adams’s comments over the weekend where she was saying, ‘I did ask a question about this.’ Funnily enough, Senator Adams, they did not tell you the truth, did they? No. And what are you going to do about it? Nothing. You are going to sit here. You will talk a lot of pious words and express a lot of outrage but, in the end, just like Senator Ronaldson, you will do nothing. You will keep telling Senator Minchin and Senator Coonan to sell it. So do not cry crocodile tears in the chamber for the people of Western Australia who are going to lose their mobile phones, because you, Senator Ronaldson, Senator Joyce and Senator Nash, are the cause of it. Each and every one of you put up your hand to sell Telstra. The sale of Telstra was always going to result in Telstra’s management slashing services in this way. That is what private companies do. Telstra’s payphone plans are just the first wave of service cuts that will occur as a result of the Telstra sale. Labor warned that a privatised Telstra would leave town faster than the banks and it is now doing so at a breakneck speed. It was inevitable that a fully privatised Telstra would cut back essential services in favour of fattening up the bottom line. Liberal and National MPs who voted for the privatisation of Telstra now have to accept the consequences of their votes with no crocodile tears. They should be honest with the electorate and accept responsibility for the inevitable results of what they voted for. Crocodile tears from the communications minister, Senator Coonan, will do nothing to lessen the impact of these service cuts on their communities. The only thing that will save services for those communities is for the government to abandon its extreme privatisation agenda. So, if you want to make a difference, Senator Ronaldson, to the communities that you or Senator Adams are going to cry for, stand up today and say, ‘It’s time the government had a rethink.’ That is the only thing that is going to save these phones—nothing else. Unfortunately, Telstra’s secret plan to dump 5,000 payphones post privatisation is just the tip of the problem. The documents obtained by the Financial Review reveal that Telstra originally planned to dump 25,000 of its 30,000 payphones—that is 25,000 out of 30,000—and believe that the existing regulations do not stop them. That is the truly frightening part of this, and you all signed up to it. That is what Telstra believe, and the minister was given the opportunity in question time today to say, ‘No, that is wrong.’ Telstra believe the existing regulations will allow them to dump up to 25,000 payphones in Australia. When the minister had the chance to deny that, she went missing again. Senator Coonan today gave the green light to Telstra to slash and burn payphones in this country. Sol Trujillo has admitted it again. He is quite an honest man, Sol. He is not interested in the misleading attempts by some senators in this chamber to pretend that they care. Sol says it as he sees it. He repeats what he is told. Senator Coonan in question time today gave a green light to Telstra to slash and burn payphones in Australia. That is a fact. That is what Hansard will show. The universal service obligation, a law that is supposed to guarantee a minimum level of basic service for Australians, currently allows the number of payphones in Australia to be reduced by more than 80 per cent. The universal service obligation that the government intends to enforce on Telstra is a plan that, as I said, allows payphones to be slashed by 80 per cent. Incredibly, the local presence plan, which the government claims ensures Telstra’s presence in the bush, does nothing to prevent the number of payphones in rural and regional Australia being cut by up to 50 per cent in many areas. That is right, believe it or not: Senator Coonan’s local presence plan does nothing to stop a 50 per cent cut of payphones in many regional and rural centres. In light of these revelations, the Howard government’s claim that the government would be able to ensure that a fully privatised Telstra maintained adequate services in the bush now lies in ruins. If the government has been unable to guarantee the provision of an essential service like payphones post privatisation, what other services can Australians expect to be slashed in the coming years? Telstra executive Kate McKenzie belled the cat when she stated that the government’s new regulation to protect service levels in rural and regional Australia will ‘achieve very little except more words on paper’. So do not let us have any crocodile tears today, Senator Ronaldson and Senator Adams. Telstra is making it perfectly clear that it is nothing more than words on paper. The government’s local presence plan has been proven by this debacle to be completely useless. The plan does not include one single binding commitment from Telstra to maintain service levels and has not deterred Telstra from planning to slash these payphone services in the slightest. That is just the truth—not one single binding commitment from Telstra. What has been the response of the Howard government to these cuts? It has not abandoned its extreme privatisation agenda that is driving the cuts. It has not acted to actually give teeth to Telstra’s local presence obligations and include some binding commitments from the company with respect to service levels. No! We do not want to bind Telstra to meet their obligations. Instead, the minister, Senator Helen Coonan, has asked Telstra to provide her with a list of the phone booths that it intends to remove. When we asked for it to be tabled, when we asked for the map, when we asked in question time today for the list of 5,000 phone booths to go, the minister joined the cover-up. The minister would not table the list or the map because she is engaged in rolling over to Telstra, and it would be too embarrassing. So, instead of acting to stop these service cuts, the minister is asking Telstra to tell her in advance the services that it is going to slash. Maybe this is just so that it can make sure that it is in as few marginal government seats as possible. I am a cynic. Come clean, Senator Coonan. Do not cover this up. Come clean with the Australian community. Let us have the map, let us have the list and bring on the debate. (Time expired) 52 15:54:00 Eggleston, Sen Alan 4L6 Western Australia LP 1 0 Senator EGGLESTON —Senator Conroy says he is a cynic, and I suspect he is also someone with a very short memory because, when it was last in office, the Labor Party’s regional telecommunications record was one of neglect and utter disinterest in the need to provide modern telecommunications to the people of regional Australia. Under Labor, consumer safeguards of today, like the universal service obligation and the customer service guarantee, simply did not exist. These and other consumer and regulatory safeguards will remain in place under this government regardless of the ownership of Telstra. Under the Labor governments of Hawke and Keating, before the Howard government’s introduction of the consumer service guarantee, some consumers could wait more than two years just to have a telephone service connected. Now, under the Howard government, consumers are guaranteed a connection within 20 working days. What a major transformation that is! Given its previous abysmal record, the Labor Party’s new-found interest in regional telecommunications is certainly welcome, but I must say it is something of a surprising development. Turning to the specific issue of payphones, the government acknowledges that access to payphones is an important community service, particularly for those of a low socioeconomic status who may not be able to afford a fixed-line or mobile connection and for people in remote areas that do not have access to mobile telephone services. That is why the government has made the supply, installation and maintenance of payphones part of the universal service obligation. That means that these payphone services have to be supplied as part of the USO. Having said that, it should be acknowledged that payphones are no longer as crucial as they once were. Today, mobile telephones and mobile telephone coverage are far more readily available throughout this country. This is highlighted by the increasing trend of people to dump their fixed line connection and rely solely on their mobile phone. Thanks to Howard government policies, mobile phone penetration now exceeds 90 per cent of the Australian population, with close to 19 million mobile phone subscriptions. The government’s subsidies to extend coverage to small and remote communities and along national highways mean that 98 per cent of the population of Australia now has mobile phone coverage. This means that demand for payphone services has declined. Indeed, Senator Conroy might care to inform the Senate of the last time he used a payphone. Telstra operates some 32,000 payphone terminals in Australia. It has decided to remove 950 payphones, with a further 4,050 under review. I would ask that the Senate not rush to criticism but examine the detail of Telstra’s proposal. According to advice from Telstra, nearly all of the 950 payphones will be removed from sites where there are multiple payphones, and planned removals are in areas that are under-utilised and where other commercial services are available. Importantly, none of the approximately 7,500 payphones covered by the universal service obligation will be removed. David Moffatt, Group Managing Director of Telstra Consumer and Marketing, said: Telstra is not considering removing pay phones required for public health and safety reasons, stand-alone pay phones in remote areas, or those subsidised by the universal service obligation. A large number of the pay phones we are considering removing are in metropolitan areas on sites with more than one phone. Of the remainder, the majority are located on private property and could be replaced by privately owned pay phones. Senator Conroy might be interested to know that there has actually been a slight increase in the number of Telstra payphones provided in rural and regional Australia in recent years. More importantly, most of the payphones removed in recent years have been in urban locations, where there are alternatives readily available. The government will insist that no-one is disadvantaged by having a payphone removed from their community, and Telstra has assured the government that, when it intends to remove any single-site payphone, it will conduct a three-month consultation process, with stickers placed on the phone. People concerned about the loss of a payphone service will be able to contact Telstra in order to provide the company with feedback on that proposed loss. Senator Conroy has asserted that the government’s privatisation agenda has resulted in the slashing of telecommunications services throughout Australia. Personally, I would have thought a Labor senator would not want to go there, given Labor’s record on deficient services in regional areas of Australia. It is undeniable that today’s telecommunications services are far superior to how they were when the Howard government first came to office. There have been a number of telecommunications reviews, and the government has responded with a range of relevant initiatives to improve telecommunications services and infrastructure around Australia. Prior to the recent announcement of the $1.1 billion Connect Australia package and the $2 billion Communications Fund, the government had already spent more than $1 billion on telecommunications services since 1997 in rural and regional Australia alone. From 1997 to mid-2005, the government directed $1.016 billion in funding to regional telecommunications. Following the successful passage of the T3 legislation, the government has, as I said, invested $2 billion into a communications future fund in order to future-proof telecommunications services in rural, regional and remote Australia. Spending from that Communications Fund will be tied to independent and regular reviews of telecommunications services in regional, rural and remote Australia. The first review will be conducted in 2008, with further reviews to follow every three years. This is hardly a story of neglect of the need of people in regional Australia to have good telecommunications services. The $1.1 billion Connect Australia package, also announced not so long ago, will roll out affordable broadband connections to people living in regional, rural and remote Australia, as well as further extending mobile telephone coverage, building new regional communications networks and establishing vital telecommunications services for remote Indigenous communities. Let us not forget, and let us make the point very strongly, that Telstra is going to remain in rural and regional Australia because, in August 2005, the government imposed a licence condition on the company requiring it to maintain a local presence in regional, rural and remote Australia. That means—among other things—that, under the universal service obligation, payphones in regional, rural and remote Australia will be maintained. In conclusion, far from the government’s privatisation agenda resulting in reductions in services to regional Australia, it has to be said that the people of regional Australia are reaping the benefits of improved services, thanks to Howard government policies. (Time expired) 54 16:04:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —I rise to join in this debate on this important urgency motion relating to Telstra’s announcement about removing payphones around Australia—or, at least, what we have heard about Telstra’s plans to do so. When the Democrats opposed the privatisation of Telstra—the very many tranches of the Telstra sell-off, including the most recent one which made that complete—we warned that Telstra would put shareholder interests ahead of the national interest and that the government’s framework to protect the universal service obligation and ensure the bush had state-of-the-art services was very flawed. Just six months later, Telstra, without informing the government, are pursuing plans to slash payphones in key areas around Australia. I think this is a clear indication that Telstra are putting shareholder interests above national interests. I also imagine this is only the beginning. Telstra’s obligation to provide payphones is one element of its universal service obligation. The USO, as it is called, is provided for in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act. One object of the act is that the fulfilment of this universal service obligation should generally be open to competition among carriers and carriage service providers. To this end, the TCPSS Act gives the minister the power to designate a universal service provider with primary responsibility for delivery of the USO, and secondary USO providers for particular services in particular service areas. Telstra is the current universal service provider for the payphone service obligation for Australia. Loss-making payphones are subsidised through the USO levy. But, according to the Australian Communications Authority in its Payphone Policy Review, published in February last year, payphones provided by Telstra in response to this obligation comprise about 50 per cent of all payphones in Australia, the other 50 per cent being provided on a commercial basis. Given the government’s privatisation agenda, clearly the government must reconsider how it deals with aspects of telecommunications that are in the national interest. Access to payphones and other telecommunications services such as broadband is critical for the vast majority of Australians, especially for people in rural and remote areas, Indigenous communities, children, overseas tourists and the many Australians who cannot afford mobiles or who simply choose not to use them. I do not think we can stress enough that, with the development of the market for mobile phones, it is the case that payphones are no doubt used far less often than they once were. But I would argue that that does not diminish the responsibility for providing them and that payphones will be used by people in emergency situations, people who do not have a mobile phone and people who may not have a phone at home. The necessity to keep them in those areas so people have access to them has not diminished. These payphones may not be commercially viable; they may not be commercially profitable; nonetheless, that does not mean that Telstra should be entitled to remove them from where they are currently located. At the very least, the communities around which these payphones exist should be consulted, and the removal of any payphone should be with the consensus of the local community. Quite frankly, I doubt very much that that consensus would be reached. I was interested this week in the comments made by communications expert Paul Budde. He argued that the government should be considering mobile alternatives: turning phone booths into information terminals with access to government services connected with social problems, employment and a whole range of other services that are rapidly becoming difficult to access by telephone. If you need a job and you do not have access to the internet, you are out of luck. If you are homeless and you do not have a mobile phone, the same applies. I think Mr Budde’s idea is an excellent example of a potential whole-of-government approach to community services. I strongly encourage the government to both talk with Telstra about their proposals—in fact, require Telstra to talk to the government about their proposals—and focus on some of the interesting ideas that have come up. (Time expired) 55 16:09:00 Wortley, Sen Dana E6C South Australia ALP 0 0 Senator WORTLEY —The Howard government disregarded the views of more than 70 per cent of Australians when it voted to go ahead with the privatisation of Telstra—more than 70 per cent of Australians who know that a privatised Telstra is all about profits, not people. Both Liberal and National Party MPs voted for the privatisation of Telstra. We raised the issues of concern on this side of the chamber. We said that a privatised Telstra would inevitably increase prices and desert communities if it could not make a profit, and those on the opposite side of the chamber did not agree. And now we learn that Telstra is secretly moving along the road of its cost-cutting program with its plans to axe 5,000 payphones throughout Australia, a devastating blow to thousands of Australians living in cities and in regional and rural Australia for whom these phones are in many ways a lifeline. Telstra’s secret plans to do away with 5,000 payphones—so secret are their plans that apparently even the minister was not informed of them—demonstrate how inadequate the government will really be in ensuring a fully privatised Telstra maintains adequate services for all Australians. Payphones are an essential service to many in our community, particularly the elderly, the young, the homeless, the socially disadvantaged and many in regional and rural Australia, including those travelling through these areas. For many who use payphones, it would not be unreasonable to assume that this is their only form of timely communication. The availability of payphones in emergency situations must be considered with regard to both safety and lifesaving applications. We have previously heard arguments about the country’s high mobile penetration rate, but there exist genuine reasons for concern about the proposed reduction of pay telephones across Australia. Senator Conroy has already raised the issue of the Kids Help Line. A submission to the review of payphone policy in 2003 from Kids Help Line—a 24-hour national telephone counselling service for children and young people aged five to 18 years—highlighted the vital role of pay telephones in providing access to the service. Kids Help Line counsellors play a role in intervention and crisis intervention, responding to concerns about suicide, mental health issues, child abuse, homelessness, pregnancy, grief, bullying, domestic violence and drug and alcohol use. To quote from the submission: Payphones play a significant role in facilitating children and young people’s access to the KHL telephone service. Each year, Kids Help Line answers over 400,000 calls from children and young people from all parts of Australia. In the 2003 financial year, KHL counsellors answered 461,000 calls. Approximately 30% of these calls are made from payphones. The report further highlights that 56 per cent of calls regarding homelessness, 44 per cent relating to violent assault, 39 per cent relating to sexual harassment, 36 per cent relating to physical abuse and domestic violence and 28 per cent relating to sexual abuse were from payphones. Again I draw your attention to the fact these calls on payphones are made by children and young people. When Telstra surveys the use of payphones, it must be remembered that children under the age of 15 are not included in the surveys. The removal of payphones will have a considerable impact on access to these and other services for many in our communities. Another submission, this one from Women with Disabilities Australia, also claimed significant importance of the availability of payphones, stating that women with disabilities are more likely to be dependent on payphones for communication with friends and family and in emergencies than any other group. The submission highlights reliability, availability and accessibility of payphones as being of vital importance to women with disabilities. With regard to the future, particularly relating to the issue of mobile phones, cost is raised as a barrier for many people with disabilities who are living on the disability pension and also for people with low dexterity, who would have difficulty operating a mobile phone. The removal of the 5,000 pay telephones is just the beginning of what we can expect from a privatised Telstra. And what of our guarantee of service? Telstra’s universal service obligation in relation to payphones is: ... to ensure that payphones are reasonably accessible on an equitable basis to all people in Australia, no matter where they live or conduct business. Telstra’s obligation extends to the supply, installation and maintenance of Telstra operated payphones in Australia, including the process for ... resolution of any complaints about the location of payphones. Note that it says ‘reasonably accessible’ and ‘on an equitable basis’. What this government fails to comprehend is that what Australians want is affordable and accessible telecommunications across all of Australia, and this includes access to pay telephones. What we have is a plan to remove 5,000 payphones, including 1,289 in rural areas, with some areas in rural and regional Australia losing up to 50 per cent of their payphones. And how does Telstra tell the Australian people that the payphones are to be lost to their community? By marking the targeted phones with a sticker claiming the phone is to be relocated, when the reality is, in some cases, that it will be removed and not replaced. According to a report in Monday’s Financial Review, which appears to have more information than the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts had at that stage, a Telstra Country Wide briefing note: ... reveals a strategy to minimise consultation with local governments over the move, divert complaints and avoid media scrutiny. According to the article, the briefing note reveals that Telstra had investigated a proposal to remove more than 25,000 payphones but were concerned about the potential political backlash. If we go to the Telstra website, we will find a heading citing criteria for public payphones, and in that section it says: In making a decision as to whether a request for a Telstra operated payphone is justified, Telstra will have regard to the following factors: whether the request meets the criteria ... for Telstra to fulfil its universal service obligation, or can be commercially justified … This government has failed to listen to the Australian public and has pursued its extreme ideological agenda to privatise Telstra at the expense of those people who rely on it the most: rural and regional Australians and the socially disadvantaged in our cities and suburbs. Let us consider some of the targeted areas, according to the table printed in the paper. In my home state of South Australia, in the south-east, Mount Gambier will lose 122 payphones, Port Lincoln 112 payphones and Adelaide 334 payphones. In New South Wales, Albury will lose 192 payphones, Newcastle 55 payphones, Sydney—north, south, east and west—985 payphones and Goulburn 273 payphones. In Queensland, Brisbane will lose 274 payphones, Rockhampton 125 payphones and Toowoomba 76 payphones. In Victoria, the Melbourne area will lose a total of 749 payphones. In Western Australia, Perth will lose 203 and Kalgoorlie 43 payphones. In the Northern Territory, Darwin will lose 147 payphones. In Tasmania, Hobart will lose 49 payphones and Launceston 107. Telstra has targeted thousands of jobs in rural and regional Australia, and now our payphone services are being targeted. It appears the minister supports this rationalisation of services. The government previously accused Labor of scaremongering about the impact of the privatisation of Telstra. Well, we are not even there yet and we have information being made available to journalists—a Telstra briefing note—revealing cuts to payphone services that the minister was not even aware of. This was a document detailing 5,000 payphones being slashed, removed from the communities. (Time expired) 57 16:19:00 Ronaldson, Sen Michael XT4 Victoria LP 1 0 Senator RONALDSON —I have heard some quite remarkable speeches from Senator Conroy, but today’s was an absolute doozy: dripping in insincerity. There are some on this side who do not like Senator Conroy; I think he is sometimes so silly and so insincere that he is almost lovable. That was a speech which, I am sure, he will have no pride in re-reading. In fact, I rather suspect that he will not re-read it, because he does not believe one single word of it. I think what is quite clear today is that this is not a matter about payphones. Senator Wortley admitted it and let the cat out of the bag: this debate is about the privatisation of Telstra. It comes from an opposition that is desperately trying to claw back some public goodwill. The most remarkable part of today was that it was led by someone who is spending not one single minute in regional and rural Australia. He has spent every waking hour rolling candidates from the Left in Victoria. 4L6 Eggleston, Sen Alan Senator Eggleston —In downtown Melbourne. XT4 Ronaldson, Sen Michael Senator RONALDSON —In downtown Melbourne. He is not spending any time in regional and rural Australia. He is quite comfortably ensconced down there at 4 Treasury Place, and he does not go out. He has no idea what the requirements of regional and rural Australia are. I look in this chamber today and I see myself, Senator Adams and Senator Eggleston—who spends a lot of time in regional and rural Western Australia—who have some understanding of it. The Australian Labor Party could not even get someone who has got any background in regional and rural Australia to come into this chamber and talk on this matter today. I want to go back to some of the points that Senator Conroy made. This was a privatisation debate, not a payphone debate. The payphones were just the excuse. I want to read to the Senate—as I have done on numerous occasions—comments made by Senator Conroy about privatisation. He came into the chamber today pleading on behalf of Australians that privatisation is a bad policy for Australia and that Australians do not support it. On 16 August last year, on the Jon Faine show, Senator Conroy said: It makes no difference to the majority of Australians one way or the other about the ownership structure. Those are the words of the man who came in today, and Senator Wortley joined in as well, and started to beat up on the outcome of privatisation. Then he had the gall and the temerity to talk about the Commonwealth Bank and to compare this with the banks leaving town. Who sold the Commonwealth Bank? Who sat back and watched the banks leave country towns all over Australia—and did absolutely nothing about it? The Australian Labor Party was responsible for that. Which party unilaterally did away with analog and did not have an appropriate regime in place to replace it? The Australian Labor Party. I have not heard one person from the Australian Labor Party apologise for what they made regional and rural Australians go through in that analog debacle. It was a debacle, and not one word of apology was given. The big difference between the Australian Labor Party and the coalition is that we put in place mechanisms to support regional and rural Australians. Senator Eggleston talked very articulately about the amount of money that we have put into regional and rural Australia, and I will go through that again in a moment. What I want to talk about now is the ‘secret plans’ by Telstra that the Labor Party have been talking about. It is as if the Labor Party had stumbled across something that fell off the back of a truck. I have here the briefing that they are carrying on about: a Telstra press release. Congratulations! How secret is that? The Telstra press release has fallen off the back of a truck and the Labor Party are quoting from that. Get serious! They are going out and spreading the story amongst the media that this is some secret plan. It is not secret; there is a media release from Telstra. I say to the Labor Party: let us debate the payphone issue, but let us not clothe it in some semblance of secrecy and act as if you have gone out and cleverly got something. Telstra have said what their plans are; if you want to talk about that, I am happy to do so. I would have thought that the very least that Senator Conroy could do today would be to make up his mind about how many payphones there are in Australia. In the space of about two hours, between lodging this urgency motion and asking a question at question time today, there seems to be a difference of about 2,000 payphones. Senator Conroy could at least get his facts right in relation to that. Senator Stephens alleged quite falsely in question time that the majority of the reductions in payphones were in regional and rural Australia. With the greatest respect, Senator Stephens, that is not right. If you want to debate this, that is okay. We on this side are happy to debate it. But please do not come in here and make statements which are quite clearly incorrect and have no veracity at all. As Senator Eggleston said, there are plans for some 950 payphones to go. There are some 400-odd which are being looked at. The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has said quite rightly—because she is a great supporter of the payphone requirement under the universal service obligation—that those phones are untouchable. The USO payphones are untouchable. Telstra will not be touching those payphones. The minister has quite rightly insisted on Telstra going through a community consultation process in relation to the removal of payphones. I do not think there is one person in Australia who would not agree that, if a phone is not being used, it is costing a lot of money and there are other alternatives, that payphone need not remain. I think it was back in 2004 when there was an inquiry by the Australian Communications Authority into payphone policy. The ACA found that, in the main, this policy was working well. They made some suggestions, for example, in relation to Indigenous Australians. The government responded to that. (Time expired) 59 16:27:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —I support the urgency motion moved by Senator Conroy. It is important that this chamber debate the direction that Telstra is going, which is highlighted by the plan to reduce the number of payphones in Australia. The direction is the same as that being taken by the government—as we reflect this year on 10 years of the current government being in office. I have been here for all of those 10 years, and it has been a period in which the rich have got richer much faster than the poor. And the gap between the rich and the poor, despite the arguments coming from elsewhere, has grown. The wherewithal of the poor has not expanded anywhere near as fast as the galloping ability of the very rich for consumption. This has been highlighted over the weekend with the announcement by the Treasurer that two people representing the wealthy will look at what changes could be made to the government’s taxation regimen. One has no doubt that that will be concocted to reduce the need for the wealthy to contribute, as they have in the past under the rules of the past, towards the benefits that all Australians gain from not just having a democratic country but the semblance of an egalitarian country where basic needs are met. This debate today is about removing a basic right. The removal of access to payphones for the poorest Australians or those in greatest need deprives them of a right which wealthy Australians take for granted at all times no matter where they are. I wonder just how many people in executive authority in Telstra, let alone those in this chamber these days, have used a payphone this year. Very few, I will guarantee. I know we get Telstra cards, which enable us to use payphones. But I wonder how many members even get Telstra cards these days. We get them free of charge; the public does not. But they are very important as far as I am concerned because I do travel quite a lot in rural Tasmania. I know the value of that service, particularly if you are out of range of a mobile phone. I could bank on the need for that service being so much greater if you happen to be an isolated person who may or may not be rearing a family, who occasionally reflects on whether they are going to need emergency assistance at some time and where the nearest payphone is, if they are not able to afford a conventional phone. We are seeing a great move to mobile phones, but they are still an expensive component of the poor people’s budget in Australia. I wonder who is assessing that. In this country we need to assure the basic right to communications, because it is a basic right for all Australians. When we start removing payphones from rural and suburban Australia, we are starting to erode those rights. Certainly there will come a time when for some reason a local population moves on and there is not the need for the same infrastructure. But that is rare in Australia these days. In fact, the opposite is occurring: there is somewhat of a drift to the bush. So I support the motion. I think that, at the very least—and other speakers have said this—the government must direct Telstra, as far as it can, to conduct seminars in the local areas where these phones are to be removed. Not just a sticker in a phone box but the announcement of a meeting, with Telstra personnel present, to discuss the removal of that payphone is when we will get a little democracy back into this process of high-handed decisions being made in the velvet lined boardrooms of Telstra. 60 16:32:00 Adams, Sen Judith E4Q Western Australia LP 1 0 Senator ADAMS —I wish to address Senator Conroy’s matter of urgency in relation to the provision of payphones by Telstra throughout Australia. The government has made the supply, installation and maintenance of payphones part of the universal service obligation. We have done this because we recognise that access to payphones is an important community service, and those opposite have described this very well. Under the USO, Telstra is required to make payphones ‘reasonably accessible to all Australians on an equitable basis’. This is backed up by detailed rules on how Telstra will remove and relocate payphones, as well as its service quality and fault rectification standards. I spoke at length on this at Senate estimates. I said: I would consider that surely it is a social obligation, and Telstra is the only provider in the area that I am talking about. There is no way those phones are going to be profitable, but they should be there. And Mr Pinel from Telstra said: If they are captured by the universal service obligation, then we have an obligation to provide them. As I say, I am happy to take the specifics from you and explore the issues. If there are community issues that we need to take into consideration that we have not already, I am happy to give you that undertaking. So I was very happy with that reply. For Senator Conroy’s information, the local presence plan has not been finalised. This plan will protect payphones. Failure to comply with the USO or the rules is a breach of the Telecommunications Act and carries significant penalties. Telstra is paid a subsidy to allow it to provide non-commercial standard fixed line and payphone services. There are at least 7,500 payphones covered by the USO—most of them in rural Australia. Telstra has advised that nearly all of the 950 payphones earmarked for possible removal will be from sites where there are multiple payphones and that planned removals are in areas that are underutilised and where there are other commercial services available. I have a list of those payphones that are being looked at in Western Australia, and I must agree with their statement because a lot of them are with mining companies, there is a lot of duplication and people are no longer living in some of those areas. The number of payphones is at odds with Senator Conroy’s claims of 5,000 payphones throughout Australia being earmarked for removal, including nearly 1,300 in rural and regional Australia. I can inform the Senate that under no circumstances will payphones be removed from areas where the USO requires them to be. The minister for communications, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, has affirmed that the government considers payphones an essential community service. As a fellow rural senator, I know she understands the importance of payphone services to country areas. She was quoted in the Age of 21 February 2006 as saying she: ... wants to make sure that no-one is disadvantaged by having a payphone removed from their community. She underlined this position when she stated: The message is loud and clear that the Government will not see people in rural and regional areas stranded without a payphone. Not everyone has access to mobile phone services. This particularly applies to senior citizens living in rural areas and regional towns who are not always comfortable with mobile phone technology, may not appreciate the higher costs involved with using mobile phones or do not have mobile coverage in their area. On this last point, the need for payphones is particularly important in small towns where the mobile phone coverage is not dependable or is nonexistent. Whilst I know that this situation will be alleviated to a very large extent in time because of this government’s huge financial commitment to improving communication services in the bush, the fact remains that at the present time many people in country areas depend on the local payphone. It is a lifeline for people who for whatever reason do not have access to either a mobile phone or a residential landline phone. In that situation, many people, both young and elderly, depend on that payphone down on the main street of the town to link them to the wider world to conduct business on a multitude of different matters. By her comments, the honourable minister not only has demonstrated her understanding of these people’s needs but is committed to protecting their access to a payphone. Last week I travelled to the Northern Territory with other members of the Community Affairs References Committee as part of our inquiry into petrol sniffing in remote areas of Australia. As part of this trip, we flew by charter plane to Yuendumu, a remote Aboriginal community 460 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs, and then travelled by troop carrier for a further two hours to Mt Theo, an out-station off the Tanami Road. I have been to some remote places in my time, but it does not get much more remote than Mt Theo in Central Australia. There, to my amazement, in the middle of a small cluster of buildings was their lifeline and link to the outside world—a solar-powered Telstra payphone. I could not help being struck by the fact that this was an essential link being provided by Telstra to this small community in this remote corner of Australia using the most up-to-date technology available—so much so that I took several photos of the phone box. There is another side to this: unfortunately, this payphone and the one in Yuendumu were jammed with coins and could only be operated by a phone card. It was reported two months ago, and they have still not been fixed. I intend to follow this issue up personally with Telstra and remind them of their obligation to these communities. In the past ten years, the coalition government has invested more than $1 billion in rural and regional telecommunications, meaning regional and rural Australians now have more access than ever before to high-quality, modern telecommunications. To future-proof telecommunications services, a $2 billion dedicated Communications Fund has been established and is administered by an independent board. The $2 billion of capital in the fund will be invested to deliver an income stream to fund the government’s responses to the recommendations made by legislated regular reviews of regional, rural and remote telecommunications services. (Time expired) Question negatived. 62 Documents 62 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Barnett)—Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today’s Order of Business at item 11 which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and a temporary chair of committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. The list read as follows— (a) Committee documents Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee—Additional information—Budget estimates (supplementary) 2005-06 (presented on 9 February 2006) (b) Government documents Pooled Development Funds Registration Board––Annual report 2004-2005 (presented on 21 February 2006) Gene Technology Regulator––Quarterly report for the period 1 July to 30 September 2005 (presented on 23 February 2005) (c) Report of the Auditor-General Report no. 29 of 2005-2006––Performance Audit––Integrity of Electronic Customer Records: Centrelink (presented on 15 February 2006) (d) Return to order Science and Technology––Genetically-modified foods (presented 13 February 2006) 62 Miscellaneous 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Barnett)—I present a letter from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory (Ms Aagaard) transmitting a resolution of the Assembly relating to the illegal foreign fishing incursions in Northern Australia. 62 16:40:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. It is important that the Senate notes the resolution on illegal fishing agreed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 16 February this year—important because the Howard government needs to recognise that the Northern Territory, like the other states and territories, is tired of this government’s inability or unwillingness to act against illegal fishing in Australian waters. Not unexpectedly, the Northern Territory’s resolution concerns Australia’s northern waters, waters that are being systematically pillaged by illegal fishers. The Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, Mr Vatskalis, noted during debate on the illegal fishing resolution that illegal incursions threaten our fishing resources, our biosecurity and our sovereignty. He also informed the assembly that the Territory’s entreaties to the Commonwealth to take action against illegal fishers have gone largely unanswered. Dozens of suspected illegal fishers are sighted in Australian waters each day; only a fraction of these are ever intercepted. Among those, most are subject to the Howard government’s catch and release policy. The concerns expressed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly are not held in isolation. The Northern Territory Seafood Council has said its members are concerned about the threat illegal fishing poses to the future of the industry in the north. The Western Australian government and the Western Australian fishing industry have expressed similar concerns. Federal Labor, through the shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries, Mr Gavan O’Connor, has long insisted that the Howard government take firm action against the plundering of our waters. How has the Howard government responded? In the main, with empty words. The former fisheries minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, has copped enough of a bagging without my joining in—in my view, much of the criticism of his performance has been justified. I do not think he cared too little about the threat of illegal fishing but I do not think he got the support he needed from his colleagues to take effective action. Senator Scullion is another member of the government who I have no doubt shares the frustration of the Northern Territory Labor government, the fishing industry and federal Labor with the Howard government’s lack of resolve on illegal fishing. Senator Scullion talks a big game in the Territory but utters not a peep of protest against his government’s inaction here in Canberra. Senator Abetz is the direct beneficiary of Senator Macdonald’s dumping from the ministry. It is yet to be seen if the industry will benefit from his appointment. More to the point, it is yet to be seen if he will do any more to tackle illegal fishing than his predecessor. He has dumped, I might say, on Senator Macdonald already by conceding that the Howard government’s approach to illegal fishing has failed. What Senator Abetz has failed to do, however, is explain how he will do better. I encourage Senator Abetz to respond to the Northern Territory resolution in a positive manner. The minister must begin by acknowledging the deep frustration held by the states and territories and the fishing industry relating to the Howard government’s failure to tackle illegal fishing. The Northern Territory wants the Prime Minister to convene a summit of relevant ministers and stakeholders to develop a national strategy. The Howard government’s approach to illegal fishing is not working—even Senator Abetz acknowledges the fact. I want to know whether Senator Abetz will take that proposal—that is, the proposal of the Northern Territory assembly—to the Prime Minister and work with his state and territory ministerial counterparts on a national plan. I would like to know, if he is not intending to do that, then why not? Why will he not work with those colleagues, as they request? 63 16:45:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —by leave—The Greens support the substance of the resolution from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and their serious concerns about increased illegal fishing and note that the Territory and Western Australian governments have been calling for strong action to protect our northern fisheries and livelihoods for some time. We note the urgency of the matter but are concerned to ensure that the federal government’s actions have long-term sustainability of the region in mind rather than grabbing a quick fix that may make matters worse. There is a lot of pressure on the federal government to take firm action on the issue, but we want to send a strong message of caution that relying only on a strict policy of interception and detection could make a bad situation much worse. A study by Professor James Fox from ANU for Environment Australia in 2002 sounded the warning: One clear effect of the Australian fisheries enforcement policy of destroying vessels has been to put pressure on individual— and small craft owners— ... who are unable to recover from the loss of their vessel and gear and are either forced into debt or out of fishing— completely. Conversely the larger owner/traders have effectively flourished under this policy as they are easily able to find second-hand vessels to replace destroyed vessels and they pass on the entire risk of destroyed fishing gear to their captains and crews. Their control of fishing and the indebtedness of fishers has increased. In addition, captains and crews involved in shark fishing are financially responsible for any loss of fishing gear, usually owned by the fish trader/vessel outfitter. This gear is very expensive. When it is confiscated by Australian authorities, that contributes further to the indebtedness of fishers without having impact on the boat owners and traders. What this tells us is that, in relying purely on intercepting and destroying the smaller vessels, we are potentially inadvertently consolidating the illegal industry in fewer but more organised hands. Foreign vessel fleets operating under licence or poaching within Indonesian waters have had a major impact in recent years. This is one of the reasons so many Indonesian operators are sailing into Australian waters and having such a devastating impact on our marine environment. There is a huge temptation to simply arrest as many people as possible to show that something is being done, but with hundreds of impoverished Indonesians in detention serving long sentences for nonpayment of illegal fishing fines we will have attacked the wrong end of the problem and simply have compounded the misery. We believe the government must target the large operators and organised crime networks which are operating in Australian and Indonesian waters. The illegal trade cycle has to be broken, but we cannot do this without the assistance of the Indonesian government. This means that the approaches of working with our Indonesian counterparts must be at the forefront of our action. We also need to look at what we can do to support sustainability and long-term food security at a village level in Indonesia, particularly in coastal villages. The Indonesian government’s economic empowerment of coastal community program is designed in part to address this question. We believe it is firmly in Australia’s interests to support this initiative. We must also look at the ecosystems which are at the basis of this whole question. The Arafura and Timor seas are a global marine hot spot and need our careful attention. We need a better understanding of the environment that this illegal activity is occurring in. At this stage we have very little understanding of the true status of most of the shark populations in Australian waters. There is widespread concern about declining shark numbers but we do not have a handle on those populations. There is only basic biological information on the background of most of these species. We have little knowledge of the habitat preferences and other ecological requirements of these species. It is absolutely imperative that this is part of any of the programs dealing with illegal fishing. Sharks are under threat—we have no doubt about it. We also need to look at what international trade sanctions and practices we can put in place as a mixture of packages for dealing with illegal fishing. There is no one easy answer to the fishing problem. We need to look at a shared seas approach where we work together with our northern neighbours to protect our shared seas. There is no real boundary in the habitats or environment between our northern neighbours and us. We must acknowledge that the boundary is an artificial boundary and one that our marine species pay no regard to. Therefore our approach has to be a joint approach to managing all our regional seas, not just Australian waters. We cannot leave the Indonesian government to deal with the Indonesian waters. It has to be a regional marine management approach. We also need to look at how we invest our trade resources and to acknowledge that we need to deal with some of the fundamental causes of hardship in Indonesian coastal communities and that those resources have been fished out. There is no use arguing about the fact that they have been fished out and pointing blame; we need to acknowledge there is a problem and share our marine and fisheries expertise in this country with our northern neighbours. It would be highly desirable to target our aid packages to replenishing the reef systems that have been depleted in Indonesian waters. We need to establish a collaborative fisheries management framework that, yes, has deterrents as part of that package. We also need a much better fisheries management approach; we need to be sharing our resources. We also need to establish a marine protected area program that protects areas of high biodiversity as nurseries for our northern fisheries and that protects threatened species, such as shark species. We therefore support this motion of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly but believe that, although the measures that the Northern Territory government put forward are worth supporting, we need to go beyond that. We urge the Australian government to take note of this motion from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly but to go further and look at all the initiatives that must be included in a comprehensive package if we are to deal with illegal fishing in Australia’s northern waters. 65 16:52:00 Scullion, Sen Nigel 00AOM Northern Territory CLP 1 0 Senator SCULLION —by leave—I would like to note the motion by Minister Kon Vatskalis, the minister for fisheries in the Northern Territory. It is somewhat disappointing to me that a new minister, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, with plenty of vim and vigour has declared that not on his watch is this going to continue. He has immediately gone to the Northern Territory with the greatest of grace and spoken to Minister Vatskalis. He escorted Mr Vatskalis out on the boats and explained some of the challenges that we are facing and the nature of those challenges so Mr Vatskalis can get across and have a better understanding of those facts. It is a great disappointment when the motion that they can come up with really does not go to the core of the issue—the challenges that we are facing and the resolutions to some of those challenges. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Siewert for her contribution. She went some way to understanding the complexity of this issue, and it was a significant contribution to the debate. I thank her for that. It was in stark contrast with those opposite for whom, frankly, this is just another opportunity for some cheap political point scoring. For someone like Kon Vatskalis to put his hand on his heart and say, ‘I’m here in the interests of all Territorians,’ I think is a bit misleading. There is no doubt that there is a lot of mischief behind this motion. There is certainly not a lot of advice to look to for establishing policy changes with success. There is no doubt that foreign fishing is something that we are all looking to. It is a very complex and difficult challenge. I think most people who are involved at any level in the processes would understand and recognise that. In the motion, they talk about ‘foreign nationals establishing camps throughout Northern Australia’. It sounds like some sort of a jamboree! As far as the eye can see, there are foreign nationals popping up tents and establishing camps! Before I came down here today, I thought I would make a last minute check. You have to be careful of your facts. Well, I certainly do, and we do in this place. There is no indication from all the authorities I could speak to about ‘foreign nationals establishing camps throughout Northern Australia’. Yes, there have been some landings, and they are not only unfortunate but something that we need to strive very carefully to ensure does not continue to happen and, in fact, abates. It is a very important part of that process. To say that foreign nationals are establishing camps throughout Northern Australia is, again, part of this political tomfoolery. It tends to mislead the people and the parliament in which the motion was made. It smacks of cheap political point scoring. What is necessary is to do exactly what our minister has done. He said, ‘This is a very important issue.’ Issues of this importance and this complexity are only really resolved with genuine partnership—to genuinely say, ‘We need a bipartisan approach to this. We all need to sit down together and assist each other in this matter.’ It is only very recently in the history of illegal fishing in Australia over 15 to 20 years that the Western Australian or Northern Territory governments have become involved in this process. That is unfortunate, because there have been a number of vessels that have either landed or sought to fish very much in inshore waters. In the past, this has been an issue that has substantially dealt with offshore fishing. I confess, as part of government, that we can do a lot better. There might be only a small number of vessels, but they pose a very genuine risk. This is an opportunity to talk to this place about what we have in place. We talk about biosecurity, and the Vatskalis motion says that it puts ‘our bio-security and national sovereignty at great risk’. In terms of the biosecurity, it is good to remind the people in this place exactly what we do. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service ensures that before the vessels come to Darwin Harbour they anchor off Charles Point, sometimes in horrendous conditions. Divers are taken out to the vessel. They dive on the hull of the vessel to ensure there is no biofouling. There are some five species of biofouling that we do not want to come into Australia, so those vessels are inspected. If they are found to be clean of those particular foulings, they are allowed into Darwin Harbour. That is very comprehensive, expensive and sometimes dangerous. People are put at risk, but we put it at such a high priority that that is exactly what we do. The North Australian Quarantine Strategy has been active in places like Swift Bay in Western Australia. Many of us here can remember when some of the first refugees—some 87; I can recall the number as something like that—came ashore there and disappeared into the reaches of the Kimberleys. The North Australian Quarantine Strategy team arrived in the place and made sure there was no marine fouling there. They made sure there were no quarantine impacts. That is a process that happens to this day. If there are any pieces of boat that flow ashore, if there are any reported landings, there is a comprehensive follow-up. It is very important that people understand that. This is the nub of it, in the middle of this motion: [We] call upon the Commonwealth government to agree to fund the expansion of the indigenous marine ranger program throughout Northern Australia as a matter of urgency. I have become a little cynical in this place. The Indigenous Ranger program is primarily not a compliance regime. They will tell them that themselves. I was in Borroloola last week speaking to the coordinator of the Indigenous Ranger program, who is doing an exceptional job. Principally, their role is to look at research into a whole range of issues, but principal compliance outside of reporting is certainly not within their bailiwick. But it has been said: ‘Let’s have an Indigenous rangers program. The Commonwealth should expand it and they should pay for it,’ knowing that there is no compliance capacity within those. We have not have had a sea ranger program arrest any of these boats. They have played a fundamentally important role in detection. In those communities, people like Gibson Farmer from the Tiwi Islands, or Mr Mbababook from Maningrida, make up a comprehensive part of border strategy, but they cannot be relied on to be a fundamental part of our compliance regime. That is just not what they do. As a fisherman in the Northern Territory for just on 20 years, I note with interest that since the Labor government and Kon have been in charge, the fishermen tell me that there is hardly a vessel capable of getting outside of Darwin harbour. What has happened to boats like the Perbasue, the Salu and the Emalambrit? They have gone. The Labor government forgot to mention that. Then they thought: ‘Perhaps we could call on the Commonwealth to provide the funds. That would be innovative.’ But the Commonwealth did not fund that whole process. We lent them one of the Andrew Fisher class vessels. They were the vessels that predated the Bay class vessels. I think they were ugly vessels and that is probably why they were replaced. But, for whatever reason, the Northern Territory government sought to use one. The Commonwealth, very reasonably, has provided them with a Charles Kingsford. I am not sure how often it went to sea, but I cannot find anybody in the industry who has ever seen it outside the harbour. Whether it did a day trip or something, I am not sure. I will stand corrected if that is the case. But the Labor government have demonstrated that they have made no commitment at all to protecting their own waters. If you talk to Fisheries police, they will tell you that they get around with dinghies on top of their cars. That is the total input of the Northern Territory government. We have this letter from the Northern Territory government, popping this resolution off to the Senate for us to debate. Those on the other side have grasped at another straw, like a drowning man grasping at a straw, thinking that this will really crack open the policy. But you have to dig into this to see the real cynicism. They have made no contribution at all. We provide, through CDEP arrangements, ongoing funding for the manning of those crews in the sea ranger programs. To now say, ‘We should expand all of that,’ and to put it down to foreign fishing is pretty cynical and is completely out of order in this place. It attempts to mislead this place about the capacity and the functions of that particular process. Calls for us to adopt this strategy fly in the face of commonsense. It contains absolutely no bilateral involvement whatsoever and, without that bilateral involvement, it will not work. In 2005, then Minister Senator Ian Macdonald visited the marine affairs and fisheries minister in Indonesia. We are working very closely with them to ensure that they have a much greater involvement in compliance. I am gratified to see that the West Australian has reported that two Indonesian navy patrol boats are patrolling our borders. I cannot make a close correlation that it was a consequence of that meeting, but a regional marine management approach is certainly the way to go. I know this government are working on that. The evidence is the Chen Long which has been spoken about in the media. What a fantastic outcome for Australian fisheries, for Customs and for the Navy. We should not be in this place knocking them. We should be supporting them. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 68 Documents 68 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Barnett)—I present the report of the 18th Commonwealth Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers, which took place in Kenya from 3 to 8 January 2006, and visit to the United Kingdom. 68 Committees 68 68 68 17:03:00 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 0 Senator FAULKNER —I present the 126th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Person referred to in the Senate: Professor Barbara Pocock. Ordered that the report be printed. 5K4 Faulkner, Sen John Senator FAULKNER —I seek leave to move a motion relating to the report. Leave granted. 5K4 Faulkner, Sen John Senator FAULKNER —I move: That the report be adopted. This report is the 46th in a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be accorded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate. On 3 February 2006, the President received a submission from Professor Barbara Pocock, Director, Centre for Work and Life, University of South Australia, relating to comments made by Senator Abetz during question time in the Senate on 29 November 2005. The President referred the submission to the committee under Privilege Resolution 5. The committee considered the submission on 9 February 2006 and recommends that Professor Pocock’s proposed response, as agreed by the committee, be incorporated in Hansard. The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons’ submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in Privilege Resolution 5. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question agreed to. The response read as follows— RESPONSE BY PROFESSOR BARBARA POCOCK PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(b) OF THE SENATE OF 25 FEBRUARY 1988 On 29th November 2005 in question time Senator Abetz, in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, said that I had misled parliament. He went on to question my independence calling me ‘supposedly independent’. Specifically, Senator Abetz referred to my appearance before the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee’s Inquiry into the Work Choices Bill. Senator Abetz said that I had ‘failed to disclose union-funded research totalling well over $500,000. She also failed to disclose a period of full-time work with the United Trades and Labour Council and two years working for the former leader of the Australian Democrats.’ I regard the statement that I failed to disclose facts to a committee of the Parliament as a serious allegation. My reputation as a reliable person who does not lie or mislead is of great importance to me, both professionally and personally. Senator Abetz is factually wrong on the three charges of ‘failing to disclose’ that he levels at me under privilege. These facts are easily tested by reference to public sources and to Hansard. Since 1987 I have received funds from the ACTU for research projects (including ACTU contributions to research projects funded in the main by the Australian Research Council) to the value of $55,000 ($30,000 for research on long hours of work, $5,000 for research on precarious employment and a $20,000 contribution to an ARC Linkage grant). I have received research funds of $87,000 for other union-linked projects. This includes the project I mentioned to the Committee that I am undertaking with unions on the effects of low pay, to which union organisations are contributing funds of $72,000 (much less than my estimate before the Senate Committee). Since 1987 my research has been supported by funds of over $1.4 million. Of this, only 10 per cent is made up of funds from union sources ($142,000). This is close to the level of support I have received from non-ARC government bodies (federal, state and local), and less than support from large corporations. This is well below the $500,000 alleged by Senator Abetz. The bulk of support for my research has come from competitively won, peer-assessed ARC grants through the Commonwealth Government. Over my twenty years of active research I have undertaken significant projects on vocational education, industry restructuring, industrial relations theory, work and family, family friendly conditions in Aboriginal legal services, work/life balance, part-time and casual work, equal pay, and women’s employment, as well as women’s representation in unions and union reform. Senator Abetz implies that having received funds from unions, I am no longer independent. In fact, I have been a critic of many union activities as my publications show. However, my research often pursues analysis of employment issues as they affect the disadvantaged, including the low paid and women. These issues are also of obvious concern to trade unions. This coincidence of concern explains union support for my research into low pay, long hours and precarious employment and their effects upon Australian workers and their families. It does not, however, mean that I am a paid advocate for unions, just as I do not become a spokesperson for a corporation or a Commonwealth government agency when they contract me to research a particular issue. I guard the independence of my analysis with vigour. However, this is the conflation that Senator Abetz suggests. It is wrong. The second allegation that Senator Abetz makes is that I failed to disclose that I had worked for ‘a period of full-time work with the United Trades and Labour Council and two years working for the former leader of the Australian Democrats’. As is readily apparent from public web sources (including my own web site and that of the University of Adelaide), I worked for the United Trades and Labour Council from 1986-88 and for Senator Stott Despoja for fourteen months in 2001-02. I have also worked—and for longer periods—for the Reserve Bank of Australia and the NSW Government and, for the last seventeen years, as a university academic. I did not disclose any of these facts to the Senate Committee for the simple reason that I was not asked. To suggest that I ‘failed to disclose’ my employment history is disingenuous to say the very least. Senator Abetz makes his misstatements in an attempt to undermine my reputation as an independent researcher. He fails to acknowledge that I have been an academic for seventeen years and my research has been widely published in Australia and internationally. It has been funded from many sources, and I have received seven ARC funded projects following a rigorous process of peer-review. I have a national and international reputation as an expert on industrial relations, best exemplified by my Queen Elizabeth II Research Fellowship 2003-2007. My research is on the public record and has been for many years. However, Senator Abetz’s attempts to malign my reputation were made a short time after I represented, with others, the shared grave concerns of 151 Australian academic experts about the Government’s Work Choices Bill before the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. At that appearance, Hansard records that Senator Murray suggested that questions from Government Senators about sources of funding for my research were ‘McCarthyist stuff’. This is a suggestion which deserves close study. It will not affect my own efforts to bring research evidence to bear on questions of public importance in Australia, and I hope that it will not affect other researchers, whose work should be considered on its merits, not sullied by factually inaccurate personal attacks made under privilege in our parliaments. Barbara Pocock Professor Centre for Work and Life University of South Australia 31st January 2006 70 70 70 17:06:00 Webber, Sen Ruth 00AOT Western Australia ALP 0 0 Senator WEBBER —I present the annual report for 2005 of the Committee of Senators’ Interests. Ordered that the report be printed. 00AOT Webber, Sen Ruth Senator WEBBER —I also seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report. Leave granted. 00AOT Webber, Sen Ruth Senator WEBBER —I thank the chamber for its indulgence. I would like at this point, as we have presented the 2005 annual report, to place on record the committee’s thanks to its retiring chair, former Senator Kay Denman, and its retiring secretary, Anne Lynch, who has been farewelled on numerous occasions previously. On behalf of the committee, I would like to place on record our thanks for their extensive and professional service and welcome Dr Rosemary Laing as our new secretary. 70 70 70 17:07:00 Patterson, Sen Kay LI4 Victoria LP 1 0 Senator PATTERSON —On behalf of the chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Humphries, I present additional information received by the committee related to hearings on the 2005-06 Budget estimates. 70 70 70 17:07:00 Patterson, Sen Kay LI4 Victoria LP 1 0 Senator PATTERSON —On behalf of the chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Senator Troeth, I present three reports of the committee: Proposed Construction of Chancery, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Proposed Construction of Chancery, Rangoon, Burma Proposed 171st Aviation Squadron relocation, Holsworthy Barracks, NSW I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the reports. Leave granted. LI4 Patterson, Sen Kay Senator PATTERSON —I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Construction of Chancery, Phnom Penh, Cambodia The Committee’s first report of 2006 deals with a proposal from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the construction of a new chancery building for the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The proposed chancery will accommodate Australia’s permanent mission to Cambodia, and provide a modern, efficient, pleasant and safe working environment for embassy staff. The new chancery will accommodate the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, AusAID, the Department of Defence and the Australian Federal Police. The chancery will also provide accommodation for the Canadian Embassy. The existing chancery is located in a three storey villa built in 1972 and purchased by the Australian Government in 1992. The current chancery does not meet current security, access, services and space requirements. The proposed chancery will be designed to meet the specific space needs and functions of the tenants whilst providing for some future expansion within the prescribed building setbacks. The proposal of works includes: facilities for official functions, exhibitions and meetings; guardhouses, security support facilities and a perimeter fence; engineering services infrastructure; a water treatment system; on-site water storage tanks with fire fighting capability; official fleet and A-based staff parking; and landscaped surrounds within a secure compound. Having investigated the proposal, the Committee asked the Department to provide it with further detail on the various parties involved in the project delivery to be provided subsequent to the hearing. However, the Committee was satisfied with its findings and recommends that the works proceed at the estimated cost of $19.93 million. Construction of Chancery, Rangoon, Burma The Committee’s second report of 2006 deals with a proposal, also by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, to construct a new chancery building in Rangoon, Burma. The Department reported that Australia’s existing chancery is in a building constructed in 1901 and no longer meets functional or security requirements. After examination of different options, the Department proposed to provide a new purpose-built building to serve as Australia’s permanent mission to Burma. The building will house the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, AusAID and the Australian Federal Police. One of the Committee’s concerns was a report that indicated that Burmese bureaucrats had been ordered to leave Rangoon for a new capital which would be located 320 kilometres to the north at Pyinmana near Mandalay. At the public hearing the Department responded, on the best advice it had received to date, that it did not expect the move to have any significant implications for the Chancery. The Committee has given detailed consideration to the proposal and recommends that the works proceed at the estimated cost of $12.87 million. 171st Aviation Squadron relocation, Holsworthy Barracks, NSW The third report of 2006 presents the Committee’s findings in relation to the proposed relocation of 171st Aviation Squadron to Holsworthy Barracks, NSW. The Department of Defence’s primary aim in relocating the 171st Aviation Squadron to Holsworthy is to improve the ability of Army aviation to provide troop lift support to the newly established Special Operations command and counter-terrorist capability also located at the Barracks. The collocation of dedicated army aviation support with counter terrorist and special operation forces is expected to enhance capability and improve safety, thus satisfying one recommendation of the Board of Inquiry into the Black Hawk accident that occurred in Townsville in 1996. The proposed relocation will include the following elements: refurbishment of facilities accommodating command operations and logistic elements; and works to Luscombe Airfield to enure satisfactory accommodation for aircraft related facilities. The Tharawal Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Cubbitch Barta Native Title Claimants Aboriginal Corporation provided evidence for the Committee at the public hearing. Both groups voiced concerns over heritage concerns on the Holsworthy site and the impact of Defence’s proposal on aboriginal sites. Defence assured the Committee that an environmental consultant had been employed to provide “…an open, transparent and comprehensive public environmental report…” part of which will include Aboriginal cultural heritage issues. After significant discussions with both aboriginal groups and Defence, the Committee recommends in this report that after the consultation process on environmental and cultural heritage matters has been completed, the Department of Defence report its findings to the Committee. Whilst the Committee wants to ensure that comprehensive environment and heritage examinations are carried out on the Holsworthy site, it does not intend unnecessarily to obstruct the project delivery of the proposal. In this regard, the Committee recommends that the works proceed at the estimated amount of $92 million. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my Committee colleagues and all those involved in the three inquiries. I commend the reports to the Senate. Question agreed to. 72 72 72 17:08:00 Wortley, Sen Dana E6C South Australia ALP 0 0 Senator WORTLEY —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 71st report of the committee, entitled Treaty tabled on 29 November 2005. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. E6C Wortley, Sen Dana Senator WORTLEY —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Report 71 contains the findings and recommendation of the committee’s review of the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China concerning transfer of sentenced persons. This agreement, tabled in parliament on 29 November 2005, will allow for the repatriation of Australian or Hong Kong prisoners who are serving out their sentences in reciprocal countries and have community ties in their country of origin. As you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, the period of review of proposed category 2 treaty actions by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is 15 sitting days. The period of review for this treaty expires on 27 March when the committee expects to report on other proposed treaty actions tabled on 29 November 2005. The committee has decided to table this report today because of its regard for 18 Australians who have the potential to improve their chances of rehabilitation by serving out their sentences in Australia where they would have no language and cultural barriers to overcome. This includes five Australians sentenced to imprisonment in Hong Kong, another four who are in jail awaiting trial or sentence and a further nine who have been arrested and are currently on bail. Under the agreement, the transfer of prisoners between Australia and Hong Kong would be voluntary with the terms of the transfer negotiated between parties and agreed to by the transferring prisoner. Transferring countries would retain jurisdiction for the revision, modification or cancellation of convictions and sentences imposed. As the agreement provides for the continued enforcement of a transferred prisoner’s sentence, the sentences imposed by the transferring party would not change; however, a sentence may be adapted in accordance with the domestic law of the receiving party if it is incompatible with the law of the transferring party. Where this is the case, the receiving party cannot impose a more severe sentence than that imposed by the transferring party. The committee found that the agreement is worthwhile considering the high number of sentenced Australians in Hong Kong. In particular, the agreement will help to relieve the financial and social burdens imposed on prisoners’ relatives, improving the potential for prisoner rehabilitation and reducing the burden on Australian consular officials in Hong Kong. Mr Acting Deputy President, in conclusion, the committee believes it is in Australia’s interest for the treaty considered in Report 71 to be ratified. I commend the report to the Senate. Question agreed to. 73 Delegation Reports 73 73 17:11:00 Patterson, Sen Kay LI4 Victoria LP 1 0 Senator PATTERSON —by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia, which took place from 16 to 24 November 2005. 73 Committees 73 10000 Hutchins, Steve (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hutchins)—The President has received letters from party leaders seeking variations to the membership of committees. Senator KEMP (Victoria —Minister for the Arts and Sport) 17:12:00 —by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Australian Crime Commission—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed—Senator Ian Macdonald Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Discharged—Senator Fielding Appointed—Participating member: Senator Fielding Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee— Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Stephens to replace Senator Marshall for the committee’s inquiry into the economic impact of salinity in the Australian environment. Question agreed to. 73 Bills R2417 73 Bills R2477 73 Bills R2498 73 Bills R2499 73 Bills received from the House of Representatives. Senator KEMP (Victoria —Minister for the Arts and Sport) 17:13:00 —I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have two of the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. 73 73 17:14:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— STUDENT ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2005 The Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 amends the Student Assistance Act 1973 and the Social Security Act 1991 to make it clear that a student cannot apply for assistance under the Student Financial Supplement Scheme under either Act after the commencement of the Bill. The Bill also amends both Acts to provide for the alignment of the Student Financial Supplement Scheme repayment thresholds and indexation with the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and applies the definition of taxable income used under the HELP arrangements to the SFSS. The Student Financial Supplement Scheme was a voluntary loan scheme under which eligible tertiary students could trade-in income support in return for a loan, on the basis of a $1 trade for a $2 loan. The money traded-in became part of the loan, all of which is repayable. The Student Financial Supplement Scheme was not delivering good outcomes for students or for Australian taxpayers, and as a consequence it was closed administratively on 31 December 2003. No new loans have been issued since its closure. The Student Financial Supplement Scheme was closed in response to increasing levels of bad and doubtful debt and reduced take-up of loans. The Australian Government Actuary has estimated that some 84 per cent of the loans under the Student Assistance Act 1973 and 56 per cent of the loans under the Social Security Act 1991 may never be repaid. The Student Financial Supplement Scheme was introduced in a climate of high youth unemployment, high interest rates and when few commercial loan packages were available to students. The take up of the Student Financial Supplement Scheme has declined over the years. The Bill also makes a minor technical amendment to the Student Assistance Act 1973 by inserting an express provision to permit the incorporation of an instrument “as in force or existing from time to time” for the purposes of section 14 of Legislative Instruments Act 2003. This will eliminate the need to make new regulations under the Act whenever guidelines for the non-statutory ABSTUDY and Assistance for Isolated Children schemes are altered. I commend the Bill to the Senate. FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2005 The purpose of this Bill is to update, clarify, and align or integrate several financial management provisions in legislation. The Bill proposes amendments to 16 Acts and the repeal of 2 Acts. The Bill is divided into 4 schedules. Schedule 1 proposes amendments to 9 Acts that establish individual Special Accounts. These amendments cover the following Special Accounts: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Account, the Aboriginal Advancement Account, the ARC Research Endowment Account, the Child Support Account, the Gene Technology Account, the Industrial Chemicals Account, the National Blood Account, the Medical Research Endowment Account and the Natural Resources Management Account. Most of the amendments covering Special Accounts are of the same type as the amendments made in Schedule 1 of the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act 2005 (FFLA Act). The FFLA Act commenced on 22 February 2005. These amendments aligned financial management provisions in 85 Acts with the amendments made to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) by the Financial Management Legislation Amendment Act 1999. The Financial Management Legislation Amendment Act 1999 abolished separate accounting funds in the Commonwealth’s financial management framework and introduced the concept of Special Accounts. A Special Account is a ledger that records amounts in the Consolidated Revenue Fund set aside for expenditure on the purposes of the Special Account. The proposed amendments covering the Medical Research Endowment Account and the Natural Resources Management Account differ from the amendments made in Schedule 1 of the FFLA Act. The proposed amendments transfer from the Finance Minister to the respective Ministers responsible for these Special Accounts the power to receive money on trust for the purposes of each Account. Under the devolved financial management framework that now applies in the Commonwealth public sector it is appropriate that these powers be exercised by the Ministers responsible for the Acts that establish these Special Accounts. Schedule 2 of the Bill proposes amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) to authorise Comcare to pay workers’ compensation benefits to employee either through Commonwealth employers or direct to employees. The SRC Act currently authorises compensation benefits only to be paid directly to employees. The proposed amendments reflect current and best practice to ensure there is a seamless transition for the employee between payment of salary, etc and payment of compensation. The amendments also give effect to the conclusion of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, in its report 395 Inquiry into the Draft Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill, supporting amendments to align the Act “with current good practice whereby Comcare makes compensation payments to agencies”. Schedule 3 of the Bill proposes amendments to 6 Acts that are not included in Schedules 1 or 2. I will now highlight the main amendments proposed in Schedule 3. The Bill proposes amendments to the FMA Act to extend to law enforcement agencies access to the modifications to the FMA Act that currently apply to intelligence or security agencies. These modifications are set out in the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997. Some law enforcement agencies need to undertake sensitive activities that are similar in nature to those of intelligence and security agencies. It is therefore appropriate that they be able to access the same modified application of the FMA Act for those sensitive activities, subject to Ministerial agreement and consideration by Parliament through an amendment to the FMA Regulations that would prescribe a law enforcement agency for this purpose. Amendments to the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 are proposed to correct, update and to express in clearer language, various provisions. The amendments cover such matters as the inclusion of non-gender specific language, Sectional Committees, evidence taken in public or in private, and payment of allowances. The amendments do not alter the intent of the existing provisions. Amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 are proposed to transfer from the Treasurer to the Finance Minister the power to approve the investment of surplus money by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander body and to provide the Finance Minister with a delegation power in relation to that approval power. The amendment proposed to the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972 provides the Finance Minister with a delegation power in relation to his existing powers to approve borrowing by, and guarantees relating to, the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The amendments proposed to the Native Title Act and the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act align these Acts with the amendments made to 25 Acts by the FFLA Act. Schedule 3 also proposes the amendments to the FMA Act and the Public Service Act 1999 to clarify that the appropriation authority for an act of grace payment, or payment to a person because of special circumstances arising out of employment by the Commonwealth, is not provided in these Acts. The appropriation authority would generally be an agency’s annual appropriation, providing the payment relates to some matter that has arisen in the course of an agency’s administration. Schedule 4 of the Bill proposes the repeal of 2 Acts, the Employment Services Act 1994 and the Loan Act 1977. With the commencement of the Employment Services market in 1998, the case management system set up by the Employment Services Act is no longer required and the Employment Services Regulatory Authority, which is established in that Act, has become non-operational. The Employments Services Act is, therefore, now redundant. The Loan Act is also redundant. It authorises the Treasurer to borrow a specified amount of money during the financial year ended 30 June 1978. This proposed law will update, clarify and align or integrate a wide range of financial management provisions applying to Commonwealth entities and thereby enhance the financial management framework of the Australian Government generally. The Bill largely proposes a continuation of the types of amendments made in the FFLA Act. I commend the Bill. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 2005-2006 There are two Additional Estimates Bills this year: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4). I shall introduce the latter Bill shortly. The Additional Estimates Bills follow on from the Appropriation Bills that were introduced on the occasion of the 2005-2006 Budget. They seek appropriation authority from Parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last Budget. The total appropriation being sought through the Additional Estimates Bills this year is almost $2.63 billion, which is partially offset by expected savings in appropriations of around $603.9 million. Taking savings into account, the expected net increase in expenditure arising from Additional Estimates Bills is approximately $2 billion, or about 3.5% of total annual appropriations. These savings are described in the document accompanying the Bills, the “Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations”. The total appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) this year is around $1.26 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from changes in the estimates of programme expenditure, due to variations in the timing of payments and forecast increases in costs, reclassifications and policy decisions taken by the Government since the last Budget, most of which have been described in the “Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook” document published in December last year. The major items of expenditure in the Bill include: a net increase of $167.1 million to the Employment and Workplace Relations Portfolio, the major components of which are: $110.7 million to fund the Workplace Relations Reform Package; and $52.4 million additional funding to meet the increased demand for highly disadvantaged stream of Job Network services; $124 million to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to provide: $104 million business exit assistance as part of the Fishing Structural Adjustment Package to support the sustainability of Australian Government managed fisheries; and $20 million support for the hardwood timber industry as part of the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement; an increase of $155.8 million to the Department of Defence, which includes: $40.9 million to provide a Special Forces Task Group to Afghanistan; $16 million to fund the deployment of helicopters and support elements in Afghanistan; $25.1 million in indexation adjustments; and a net increase of $73.8 million consisting substantially of a reclassification of appropriation to revise Defence’s depreciation and inventory related estimates; an additional $29.2 million to the Attorney-General’s Department, including: $18.1 million for security costs associated with the APEC Leaders Week 2007; and $10.5 million for enhancement of the national urban search and rescue capability; a total of $54.6 million to the Australian Federal Police for airport policing measures, in particular; $27.2 million for Phase One of Community Policing at Airports; $18.2 million to provide a first response counter terrorism capability at relevant airports; and $9.2 million to establish Joint Airport Investigation Teams with the Australian Customs Service, who will also receive an additional $1 million for this initiative; an additional $16.5 million to increase the apprehension, detention and prosecution of illegal foreign fishers operating in Australia’s northern waters. As part of this measure the Australian Customs Service will receive $13.7 million; $28.5 million to the Department of the Environment and Heritage as additional supplementation for the Great Barrier Reef Structural Adjustment Package; a net increase of $41.2 million to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, including: $16.2m to implement the Government’s response to the Palmer and Comrie Reports; $9.3 million to implement more flexible and timely immigration detention arrangements arising from amendments to the Migration legislation; and $8.3 million to introduce a visa requirement for all maritime crew arriving in Australia; $22.5 million to improve aviation security. Of this amount, $11.9 million has been provided to the Department of Transport and Regional Services to improve security of international passenger aircraft through increased inspection of air cargo, while $10.6 million has been allocated to the Australian Customs Service to increase air-side patrols at airports; a total of $22.1 million has been provided to the Australian Tax Office, the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Federal Police to conduct investigations and prosecutions arising from Operation Wickenby; a net increase of $42 million to the Department of Foreign Affairs, including: a $10 million contribution to the American Red Cross as part of Australia’s response to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the United States; and supplementation of $19.8 million for increased passport volumes. The remaining amount in Appropriation Bill (No. 3)—around $577.8 million—relates to estimates variations and other measures. I commend the bill to the Senate. APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2005-2006 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides additional funding to agencies for: expenses in relation to grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; and non-operating purposes such as equity injections and loans. The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 is almost $1.37 billion. The principal factors contributing to the additional requirement since the 2005-2006 Budget include $744.4 million in additional payments to the States and Territories, such as: $346.3 million in GST compensation payments; an additional $304.3 million to support primary producers in regions that have been declared eligible for Exceptional Circumstances assistance; $18 million under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement to fund additional plantation establishment and productivity improvements in existing plantations and native forests; $16.3 million for mental health under the Australian Health Care Agreements; and an additional contribution of up to $10 million to Victoria to enhance and extend the scope of the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony. Bill 4 also proposes $333.8 million in additional appropriation for non-operating expenses, including: $131 million to the Department of Health and Ageing to purchase and store antivirals, vaccines, intravenous antibiotics and protective equipment for the national medical stockpile, in preparation for a potential pandemic influenza; $27.9 million will be allocated to the Department of Defence to fund a Special Forces Task Group to Afghanistan, and a further $27million will be provided to deploy helicopters and support elements in Afghanistan. These increases have been fully offset by savings arising in the Department’s non-operating budget; a total of $34.3 million to the Australian Federal Police to fund the Joint Airport Intelligence Group and to implement Phase One of Community Policing at Airports; $40.9 million to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to implement the Workplace Relations Reform package; and $11.4 million to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to fund additional temporary accommodation; Finally, $290.5 million has been re-appropriated to the Department of Transport and Regional Services as a New Administered Expense for the Roads to Recovery program to facilitate the direct payment of these funds to local councils. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kemp) adjourned. Ordered that the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 be listed on the Notice Paper as one order of the day, and the remaining bills be listed as separate orders of the day. 78 Bills S493 78 Bills S489 78 Bills S494 78 Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the bills without amendment. 78 Committees 78 Message received from the House of Representatives notifying the Senate of the appointment of Dr Southcott to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in place of Mr Turnbull. 78 Bills R2473 78 Bills R2470 78 78 17:16:00 Patterson, Sen Kay LI4 Victoria LP 1 0 Senator PATTERSON —On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Senator Payne, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 and the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Bill 2005 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. 79 Bills R2468 79 Debate resumed from 7 December 2005, on motion by Senator Ellison: That this bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) 79 17:19:00 Sherry, Sen Nick ZW4 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator SHERRY —The Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 extends measures which were implemented on a trial basis for the 2001 census. This followed a report of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs—yet another very impressive committee report, I might say, which reflects the important role of parliamentary committees, which is much underestimated by the current government. LI4 Patterson, Sen Kay Senator Patterson —I remember what Mr Keating said about them. ZW4 Sherry, Sen Nick Senator SHERRY —We remember what you used to say about them and how little regard you have for them after 10 long years in office, Senator. The report, entitled Saving our census and preserving our history, recommended retaining name-identified census information for future research with appropriate safeguards. The amendments increase penalties for breeches of secrecy in relation to information entrusted to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The maximum two-year penalty comes into line with compatible offences in other Commonwealth legislation and reinforces the seriousness of the unauthorised disclosure of personal information gathered under the act. The main purpose of the bill is to codify the circumstances in which name-identified information collected in the 2006 census and all subsequent censuses may be obtained by the ABS and stored by the National Archives of Australia. The bill sets out that name-identified information will only be retained for those households which provide explicit consent. I want to emphasise that. It will only be retained for those households which provide explicit consent, and the information will only be released after a closed-access period of 99 years. Again, I want to emphasise that: information will only be released after a closed-access period of 99 years and where the household has provided explicit consent. Prior to the 2001 census, all name-identified information from past censuses has been destroyed once processing was complete. For privacy reasons and to encourage households to consent, the name-identified information should not be available for any purpose within a 99-year closed-access period, including access by a court, tribunal or other government agency. The closed-access period of 99 years contained in this bill is much longer than the usual 30 years for most archived material, as specified in the Archives Act 1983. I can think of one example. We have the release of cabinet information after, I think, a 30-year period—the 30-year rule. You could argue that that is certainly much more sensitive in terms of name identification and the information that is released on a specific name basis. Here we are dealing with persons in the community and the release of information with their explicit consent after 99 years. The bill makes some consequential amendments to the Census and Statistics Act 1905 which arise from the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and some amendments to the criminal provisions of the Census and Statistics Act which harmonise the criminal provisions of the CSA with the Criminal Code in accordance with recommendations received from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Amendments are made to existing provisions in the Census and Statistics Act to make a refusal or failure to fill out a form or answer a question when directed to do so by notice in writing a strict liability offence. The office of the DPP has indicated that, prior to the commencement of chapter 2 of the Criminal Code, the offence outlined in section 14 of the Census and Statistics Act was understood and accepted to be a strict liability offence. The intent of the amendment is to restore strict liability to the offence and bring it into line with the general principles of criminal responsibility in chapter 2 of the Criminal Code. The penalty for a breach is one penalty unit, and strict liability is considered to be appropriate in this instance to encourage compliance. Amendments are also made along similar lines in respect of existing provisions that make it an offence to provide false or misleading statements in relation to a request or direction for statistical information in accordance with the act. However, the existing penalty, which is lower than the equivalent provided by the Criminal Code, will be retained. Further amendments are to be made to the secrecy provisions of the Census and Statistics Act to harmonise with the offences under the Criminal Code. Amendments are also made to the applicable penalties. The current sanction is equivalent to 50 penalty units or two years imprisonment. However, this is inconsistent with the fine/penalty ratio of five penalty units to one month imprisonment in section 4B(2) of the Crimes Act 1914. The bill proposes an increase in the penalty to 120 penalty units, which would be consistent with the application of the ratio to the two-year term of imprisonment. This would also bring the penalty into line with compatible offences in other Commonwealth legislation and reinforce the seriousness of the issue in relation to the protection of information entrusted to the Australian Statistician and the officers of the Australia Bureau of Statistics. Speaking on behalf of the Labor Party, we believe that census data is very important. It is very important that this material is collected. It is very important to the long-term economic and social planning of the country, amongst other things. I understand the Democrats are to move an amendment to prevent the Australian Statistician or ABS officers from disclosing census information to any government agency under any circumstances. We believe that that is an inappropriate amendment, for the reasons I have outlined. We do not see good reason to support the Democrat amendment. It is true that the secrecy of census information is important to encourage people to provide truthful answers without fear, but there is no reason why people cannot consent to make that information available to researchers via the National Archives after 99 years. We see the safeguards and the balances presented in this piece of legislation as appropriate. We will be supporting the bill and we will not be supporting the Democrat amendment. 80 17:26:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill amends the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and the Archives Act 1983 with the purpose of ensuring the preservation of name-identified information collected from those households that provide explicit consent at the coming census this year and in all subsequent censuses. The information is intended to be used for future genealogical and other research following its retention for a closed-access period of 99 years. The bill follows the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report called Saving our census and preserving our history. That report and that inquiry came out of, if you like, a lot of lobbying and agitation in various sections of the community for something along these lines. I should note the work of former Democrat senator Vicki Bourne from New South Wales in highlighting the views about the desirability of this bill. It is also worth noting the concerns directed at this bill by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who are concerned that the retention of name-identified information may negatively affect the primary purpose of the census. Whilst the preservation of information for a century down the track for genealogical and other sorts of historical research is valuable, that is not of course the core purpose of the census. This is, if you like, an attempt to get a positive by-product out of the census for people 100 years down the track. The core purpose of the census is the collection of accurate statistical data for today through the encouragement of completely full and open responses from the public. One of the concerns expressed by the ABS has been that, despite the giving of consent by individuals in relation to this information, answers provided may be less than comprehensive and totally complete if there is that seed in the backs of their minds—that is, that it is less than 100 per cent confidential—because in the past the identifying information was destroyed once the statistical data had been extracted. As consent will presumably not be limited to certain questions, there is the possibility that, while individuals will have no problem honestly answering some questions, they may object to, or even subconsciously resist, supplying complete information for others. Another issue that may arise from an arrangement such as that provided for in this bill is consent. It has been suggested that the environment in which the census data is collected reduces concern about consent, as you must proactively tick the box to opt in. The Democrats recognise the government’s commitment to the requirement for explicit consent in relation to this bill, but we do call on the government, as part of this legislation and this debate, to ensure that the process for acquiring this consent be strictly controlled. Issues of voluntariness and coercion are always important where the provision of consent is required and the collection of data is not monitored. At the very least, it is vital that individuals are fully informed of the consequences of providing their consent. The government has a responsibility to ensure that this information is provided and understood, not just because of some nice adherence to principles underlying this issue but because, as we believe, it is central to maximising the chances of getting the highest degree of accuracy and completeness in the information that people provide in the census. So extensive public education should be undertaken prior to the census to ensure fully informed consent is given. This is especially important for participants for whom English is not their first language. The Democrats also think it is important to note concerns relating to the collection of information on those under the age of consent. We do recognise that it is difficult to legislate for future rights; however, the rights of children whose parents are providing the information on their behalf should not be dismissed as being of no consequence. Australians also need to always consider the ability of future legislation to override any commitment that the current government or parliament gives to protecting the relevant information for the 99-year closed-access period. The Democrats have done work over a long time in the areas of privacy and the protection of personal information, and Senator Stott Despoja in particular has been heavily involved. To a large extent, I am presenting remarks also on her behalf today, as she is not able to be here, to ensure that some of the views she has about this legislation are put on the record as well. The bill itself currently provides that future amendments to the act may allow for the release of this information. The proposed non-disclosure provision of the bill, section 19A, substitutes the previous section 19A, which restricts statisticians and officers from divulging, communicating or voluntarily providing such information to an agency during the closed-access period—that is, during that 99-year period—‘other than in accordance with this act’. The concern with those words is that they could potentially be used as a loophole for future use of the relevant information if the act itself is amended down the track. The wider issue about the sharing and exchanging of information between different government agencies for different purposes is of concern, of course, and always has been, but I think it is particularly relevant these days. I think any suggestion that this sort of information may end up being released for purposes other than what is specified in the legislation we are debating today is serious. In saying that, I am not suggesting that there is a hidden agenda somewhere—next week or next month, or under the next government—to sneak through an amendment to this act that will allow all this information to be put in the back pocket of ASIO or anything like that. I am talking again about the importance of preserving the integrity of the core purpose of the census. If there is any perception of a lack of protection of this information for any purpose other than what is outlined here—the National Archives and the 99-year release period—then that could affect the completeness and accuracy of the information people provide. So I just wanted to clarify that the underlying rationale behind the concerns expressed is that, if there is any feeling amongst the community that this information is going to be preserved but there is no guarantee that it will not be passed on other than after the 99-year release period through the National Archives, people may be less inclined to give consent, which undermines the purpose of the census. Indeed, they may give consent but not give full information, which is even more of a concern because it undermines the overall accuracy of the census. As referred to by Senator Sherry, there is an amendment circulated in the name of Senator Stott Despoja that seeks to address this issue. Given the numbers in the chamber and, indeed, given the issues that have been raised about technical aspects of this act and the status of the National Archives under the Archives Act, I might just signal to the minister that the intent behind the Democrat amendment, as I hope I have made clear, is to try to get absolute clarity for the general public that there is no loophole for any future government to exploit that would allow this information to be released for other purposes. I realise no government or parliament can guarantee 100 per cent the actions of any future government or parliament, but what I might do is put a question along these lines to the minister, in the committee stage of the debate, to see if we can get a clearer commitment and statement from the government that any use or release of this information down the track under the provisions of the act would not be for anything other than the general intention outlined in the explanatory memorandum and the government’s statements surrounding this legislation. It is also relevant to mention the relationship between this bill and privacy concerns surrounding a proposal by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to create a statistical longitudinal census data set or SLCD. That proposal aims to link future census data in one database. In one sense, that is separate and it is still being developed but if you link the sorts of privacy issues that the Democrats have raised today with regard to this legislation with the proposal of the longitudinal census data set and you combine those two potential concerns then it multiplies as well. I think it is important to emphasise the overall thrust and intent of what is being done here. As I said, it is something which many have called for—indeed, Senator Vicki Bourne called for it—in the past and which will be of significant value to historians many years hence. Ninety-nine years does seem a fair way away. It is perhaps something that all of us here do not have to worry about, although, as I think I heard Senator Sherry say in a totally different debate once upon a time, for children born these days, such as his daughter, there is a fair prospect that they will live to 100. So it is quite possible that this legislation will be relevant for our children if not for ourselves, even if 99 years does seem a long time away. It is in that context that we should recognise that there is a potential for the valuable intent of this legislation and of course the crucial importance of the census to be undermined if there is any perception that the information, now that it is going to be preserved, could somehow or other be authorised to be accessed for purposes that people would be less comfortable with. Hopefully I have made that reasonably clear in outlining some of the issues that this legislation brings up. I flag again that, rather than proceed with the amendment, I would rather ask a question or two and get a clarification or commitment from the minister during the committee stage of the debate about the concerns that we have raised. 83 17:39:00 Adams, Sen Judith E4Q Western Australia LP 1 0 Senator ADAMS —The purpose of the Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is to amend the Census and Statistics Act 1905 and the Archives Act 1983 to ensure that name-identified information collected at the 2006 census and all subsequent censuses will be preserved for future genealogical and other research and released after 99 years. This information can only be stored if the occupants of the household give their explicit consent. By way of background explanation: in 1998 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs brought down a report, Saving our census and preserving our history. This report recommended that name-identified information contained in forms from future censuses be retained, that the records be closed for a period of 99 years and that census information continue to be processed and handled only by officers of the National Archives of Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This bill is of special interest to me as in a former life I was an area coordinator for the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the 2001 census. This was the first time that people were given the option of agreeing to the retention of their census form with a minimum closed-access period of 99 years. The previous Australian practice had been that all name-identified information collected in the census was destroyed once the ABS had extracted statistical data from the forms and they were no longer needed for processing. The 2001 census experience showed that people were delighted to be part of this trial, with some 52 per cent of responses choosing to have their information retained. The percentage in the area I covered was far greater than this. The option of preserving family information for future generations of family history researchers and genealogists added momentum to the whole census experience. I come from a rural area, and we have a large number of farming families who have been in the area since the 1890s. Now, with internet access, they are very keen on their genealogy. When you go to most people with a census form they are not very keen about it, but these families really were delighted to be able to take part in it. I think this is a huge breakthrough, and I commend the committee for their perseverance in being able to bring the bill up. This bill includes explicit protection from disclosure under compulsion to any Commonwealth agency, and the public can be confident that their privacy will be respected, whilst future historians and genealogists will still be allowed a unique and comprehensive glimpse of Australian life for our descendants. The census is carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in accordance with the Census and Statistics Act 1905. Its main purposes are to measure accurately the number of people in Australia on census night in order to provide a reliable basis to estimate the population of each state and territory and to provide information for small geographic areas and for small population groups. The next census is due to be held on the night of 8 August 2006. This bill amends the Census and Statistics Act and the Archives Act 1983 to ensure that name-identified information collected at the 2006 census and all subsequent censuses, for those households that provide explicit consent on the form, will be preserved for future genealogical and other research. There will be a closed-access period of 99 years rather than the usual Archives Act closed-access period of 30 years. The bill contains provisions to ensure that, during the 99-year period, the name-identified census information will not be released under any circumstances, not even to a court or a tribunal. Under this legislation, upon the expiry of the closed-access period, the name-identified information of those households which have explicitly consented to this happening will be released so that it can be used for research purposes. I commend the bill to the Senate. 84 17:44:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —In August this year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics will conduct the 15th census of population and housing, which will provide invaluable information about our country to be used in research and decision-making by governments and the community and will also provide the opportunity to preserve a picture of our society for future generations. In the 2001 census over 50 per cent of respondents elected to have their census forms preserved, and this information will be retained by the National Archives of Australia for a closed-access period of 99 years before being released for genealogical and other research purposes. The Census Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 seeks to extend this practice of retaining census information where consent is provided to the 2006 census and subsequent censuses. Consequently, for persons who give consent, their 2006 census information will be retained by the National Archives with access provided in the year 2105. In censuses prior to 2001, all name-identified information was destroyed by the ABS; in 2001, where a person did not provide consent, their information was also destroyed. This process will continue for the 2006 census of population and housing and all subsequent censuses. The origin of this bill—as has been stated by other senators here today—lies with a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Legislation and Constitutional Affairs, in its report Saving our census and preserving our history. The standing committee’s recommendation was that keeping name-identified census information for future research, with appropriate safeguards, will make a valuable contribution to preserving Australia’s history for future generations. The bill includes provisions to ensure that Australians can trust the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the National Archives of Australia to protect the information provided and not release any name-identified information in the 99-year closed-access period. During processing, the confidentiality of the information is protected under the Census and Statistics Act 1905, as is all information provided to the ABS. There are also provisions to protect the information once it is passed to the National Archives, and it will not be available to other bodies—including courts, tribunals and Commonwealth agencies—for any purpose. At this point, I will deal with some issues that Senator Bartlett raised in the Democrats’ proposed amendment. The amendment proposed by the Australian Democrats will have the effect of precluding the transfer of census information to the Archives for those Australians who have elected to have their census records kept. The phrase ‘other than in accordance with this act’ is included specifically to allow the transfer of census information to archives, as legislated in section 8A of the Census and Statistics Act, to take place. This is the only instance of the Census and Statistics Act allowing the transfer of census information to an agency. No other transfers of census information to agencies are allowed for or included under the Census and Statistics Act or these proposed amendments. The Australian government will also not be supporting the amendments to this bill proposed by the Australian Greens. The content of the census is determined every five years on the basis of community consultation, followed by thorough testing. The content of Australia’s census is not set in legislation; rather, it is contained in a determination that was tabled before parliament on 29 November last year. With the content finalised, the forms have been printed, so any changes now would require the forms to be redesigned and reprinted, delaying the census by up to one year and costing around $20 million. In addition, it is unlikely that the topic proposed by the Greens could be included in the census, as great care has been taken in choosing the topics, assessing the importance of the issue, the need for data, the quality of the responses and the reaction of the public. Consultation on the content of the 2011 census will take place in 2008, and the Greens, along with all members of the Australian community, will be welcome to make suggestions for census topics at that time. If sexuality were suggested as a topic in this process, whether or not it could be included in the census would be assessed then, using the criteria I have already described. To return to the present: the 2006 census of population and housing will be held on Tuesday, 8 August. For this undertaking, the ABS will be employing approximately 30,000 census collectors to deliver and collect census questionnaires, and the Australian public will also have the option of completing their 2006 questionnaire online. The recruitment of field supervisors has commenced. My colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Chris Pearce, launched the recruitment campaign two weeks ago. Already there are more than 15,000 applications for the 3,500 supervisor vacancies. This augurs very well for a successful census. The 2006 census requires the participation of all Australians, and I thank the Australian community for their support of the work of the ABS in its ongoing activities, and I look forward to their cooperation in the project. As a result of the census, Australians will have accurate information on the number and key characteristics of people in Australia on census night and the dwellings in which they live. The census will provide a snapshot of our society, who we are, how we live and what we do. As before, topics will include ancestry, education, occupation and transport to work. Additional insights will come from new questions about people with a disability and unpaid work done. All this information will be valuable for research and planning activities of governments and other users. I think senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 86 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 86 17:51:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —There is an amendment that has been circulated in the name of Senator Stott Despoja, and I will not be proceeding with that. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration for his assurance. I realise that he cannot bind the action of every single government and parliament for the next 99 years with regard to what they might do. The parliamentary secretary is powerful but not that powerful. I think that the clarification he has given about the restrictions on how the information can be used—or, more importantly, cannot be used—is worth while. The Democrats are keen to ensure that there is absolutely minimal prospect of the information that is retained by consent being used by anybody other than the National Archives or for any purpose other than what has clearly been outlined. So I thank the parliamentary secretary for his words. One of the purposes of the census that is being collected later this year is to determine official population estimates. That information does get used to allocate Commonwealth funds to state, territory and local governments. That is a wider issue. As a Queenslander whose funds from the federal level are currently under threat by grasping southerners trying to grab money away from us, I should say that it is a worthwhile reminder for all of us to do all we can to encourage people in our own states to fill in the census form. It can add up to an extra few dollars and cents towards services in our own states. It is a reminder of the significant impact that people filling out the census fully can have on a whole range of other issues. I also take the opportunity, having been reminded by the parliamentary secretary’s comments, to mention the very important work of the enormous number of people who work as census collectors during this period. I have a recollection of following at my mother’s heels, when I was much, much smaller, when she was a collector back in about 1971. It is a very important task, and the more help they have in encouraging and assuring people that there is no risk in filling out the forms and no danger of the information being misused—whether it be tomorrow or in 98 years time—then the better statistics we will get when the census forms are filled out. 86 17:54:00 Nettle, Sen Kerry 00AOR New South Wales AG 0 0 Senator NETTLE —I indicate that I will not be proceeding with the Australian Greens amendment that was circulated in the chamber the last time we were here. I take on board the comments by the parliamentary secretary responsible for this process in the House of Representatives. There are other avenues and ways in which the Greens can pursue this issue, and we will certainly commit to ensuring that the issues of sexuality are comprehensively covered in the census following the one that is being held this year. I also note that I was concerned about some of the comments that were made by the parliamentary secretary in the House of Representatives. Those comments seemed to indicate that he held a view that some groups of people within our community do not deserve the same right as other groups of people in our community to have their contributions and their relationships recorded in the census. That is an issue of concern to the Greens, but we will continue to pursue it for future censuses. 87 17:55:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I did have two comments lined up for the Democrats amendment which has not been moved. The thrust of what Senator Nettle wanted to put forward is worth while to record, but, as the parliamentary secretary in this place said, there is a process for having it potentially considered for the next census, in 2011. Another issue which I want to put on the record for future census purposes—and it is also relevant for this census—is the issue of gender. The census has always signalled people to tick a box to indicate whether they are male or female. There is now a greater recognition of a group in the community—often called the intersex community—who do not consider themselves to be either male or female. I think that issue could also be considered for inclusion on the next census. I also note that I saw some correspondence between a member of the community and the ABS surrounding that specific issue. It indicated that the ABS had advised that people who did believe it would be inaccurate to tick either the male or female box could write down an answer that met their own view about their gender. I understand that it is an accurate thing to do, for a person to indicate their view of themselves as an intersex person, and that it does not invalidate an answer. I think it is worth putting that on the record, because it is a much larger number of people in the community than is often assumed, from the invisibility of that topic until quite recently. I was also disappointed in the comments of the parliamentary secretary in the other place, Mr Pearce, in a media release he put out surrounding the Greens media release. I am sure he thought it was very witty to make a play on the word ‘fairies’ and to make suggestions about different forms of sexuality, but I thought it was less than appropriate and some people took offence from it. We can all get a bit carried away with taking offence about everything and we need to recognise the spirit in which comments are put forward, but my view is that the comments of Mr Pearce in the media release expressed contempt about people of minority sexualities. I think it was inappropriate and I would suggest he might want to reconsider that with future media statements. I am not sure if the Democrats would have supported the proposed amendment, for the reasons outlined, but I do think they are issues that are worth considering for future censuses. I believe the issue of gender identity is also one that needs to be considered for future statistical purposes when we do have the census collection. Census collection and statistical information are not part of the history wars, the ideological wars or anything else; they are about getting as accurate a snapshot as possible of the full diversity of the Australian community. I think we would have a more accurate reflection if some of those questions were contained in future censuses. But I realise it is a difficult task designing census questions in a way that gets people to understand and answer the questions. That is something that obviously can be considered over the next few years before the next census is finalised. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. 87 Senator COLBECK (Tasmania —Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) 18:01:00 —I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 88 Bills R2233 88 Debate resumed from 15 September 2005, on motion by Senator Minchin: That this bill be now read a second time. 88 18:01:00 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CONROY —I rise to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004. This bill was originally introduced and debated prior to the 2004 election. When this legislation was considered in the previous parliament, Labor and the minor parties combined in this chamber to amend it. Unfortunately, the amendments were not accepted by the government and the bill lapsed. Labor believes that the rationale for those amendments still stands, and I will return to that point later in my remarks. The bill arises from the panel of experts’ review of the law of negligence conducted by Justice Ipp back in 2002. Justice Ipp’s review was initiated following widespread community concern about skyrocketing public liability insurance premiums. Public activities and events were put into jeopardy because affordable insurance cover was simply not available. Justice Ipp developed a set of recommendations designed to reduce claims costs and put downward pressure on insurance premiums. In response, all states and territories introduced tort law reforms to bring claims costs under control. Evidence now is beginning to emerge that these reforms have improved the availability and affordability of public liability insurance. Labor has consistently stressed the need for Commonwealth action to support the efforts of the state and territory governments to reduce public liability premiums. In the previous parliament, Labor supported amendments to taxation laws to facilitate structured settlements which reduce costs to insurers. Labor also backed the principle that the TPA needed to be amended to allow people who engage in high-risk recreational activities to be able to waive their rights to sue. In addition, Labor endorsed legislation to remove the personal liability of volunteers performing work for the Commonwealth. The Ipp review recommended that the Commonwealth should ensure that reforms to the law of negligence at the state level should not be undermined by the practice of forum shopping by litigants—that is, claims that cannot be pursued at state law should not be the basis of an action under Commonwealth law. Since 2002, Labor has supported appropriate amendments to the Trade Practices Act to ensure that public liability claims costs did not blow out on another front following state tort law reform. However, the opposition has always argued that the need to reduce insurance premiums which threaten the viability of community events must be balanced against the rights of injured consumers. This bill fails to strike that balance. A number of provisions of the Trade Practices Act can give rise to an action for personal injury damages. This bill is concerned with actions under part V division 1. The key provision in this part of the TPA is section 52, which prohibits corporations from engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct. Other provisions of the TPA which can give rise to an action for personal injury damages include part IVA, which deals with unconscionable conduct, and part VA, which imposes liability on manufacturers or importers of defective goods. Labor is concerned that the government has adopted an inconsistent approach to addressing the potential for forum shopping. Where personal injury or death is caused by misleading and deceptive conduct, this bill seeks to abolish the rights of both individuals and the ACCC acting in a representative capacity to recover damages. In contrast, where an action for personal injury damages is based on other provisions of the TPA, such as for unconscionable conduct, damages will still be available. In 2004, the parliament established a new compensation regime in part VIB to apply to personal injury damages claims arising under the TPA. Labor supported this legislation. Part VIB imposes limitation periods, caps and minimum thresholds for damages to eliminate small and trivial claims. This compensation regime is broadly consistent with the limitations on negligence actions which have been imposed by state and territory law. The regime does not, however, apply to all actions for personal injury arising under the TPA. While it applies to personal injury cases arising from unconscionable conduct or the sale of defective goods, it does not cover actions for misleading and deceptive conduct. In the last parliament, the opposition argued that the capping regime in part VIB should be extended to cover these cases. Labor remains convinced that this is the best course of action. There is no need to completely abolish long established consumer rights. In the two years since this legislation was first proposed there has been no evidence of an explosion in TPA claims where plaintiffs have been seeking to get around state law. When this matter was first presented to the parliament back in 2003, Labor sought to have the matter considered by a Senate committee. The committee examined the government’s claims about the impact of this bill on consumers. The government has argued that consumers will not be adversely affected by the removal of the right to seek damages for misleading and deceptive conduct, because damages for negligence will still be available under state law. However, the Senate Economics Legislation Committee was presented with a number of scenarios where consumers would have no remedy available to them if this bill was passed. One possible example cited related to a case involving a defective drug where the defendants destroy or ‘lose’ test results. In such a situation, plaintiffs would lack the crucial evidence needed to make out a negligence claim. Labor believes that this bill has the potential to undermine the culture of care that has developed in Australia since the enactment of the TPA. As a consequence, consumers may be exposed to a greater risk of injury. During the committee’s hearings, the Law Council noted that the prohibition on misleading and deceptive conduct in section 52 of the act has led to general improvements in community safety and cautioned against restricting its scope. The consumer watchdog, the ACCC, also strongly opposed amending the TPA to remove liability for personal injury under section 52. The ACCC’s argument was based principally on literature known as the economics of accidents. Simply stated, this analysis suggests that liability for the cost of accidents should be assigned to the party that could most easily and cheaply take the actions needed to minimise the risk of an accident. I will outline some of the significant points made by the ACCC in relation to the effect of the government’s proposal to abolish consumer rights in this bill. The ACCC noted that section 52 of the TPA provides an important incentive for business to behave fairly and to have regard for consumers’ safety. Without the availability of this important remedy, the standard of behaviour that consumers are entitled to expect may break down. This is a very significant concern. Furthermore, the commission has noted that limiting the scope of section 52 is economically inefficient. This is because it forces consumers to incur greater search costs in order to determine which suppliers are reliable. Finally, the ACCC has argued that removing liability for misleading and deceptive conduct which causes personal injury actually damages the competitive process. It allows firms that engage in misleading and deceptive practices to win customers at the expense of those who play by the rules. Given this evidence from the ACCC, why is the government intent on eliminating an important consumer protection provision? The government has placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that section 52 is a strict liability provision. This means that the intent of a company that misleads and deceives is not relevant in determining liability under the act. Consequently, the government asserts that it is easier to bring an action under the TPA as there is no requirement to prove fault, as is required in negligence cases. Labor does not accept this argument. The fact is that section 52 of the Trade Practices Act has been a strict liability provision since 1974. As the Law Council told the Senate committee, if it were significantly easier to bring an action for personal injury under section 52 rather than for negligence, it would have been used in many more cases. Provided that the quantum of damages available under the TPA is broadly consistent with the amount available under state or territory law, there is no reason to believe that the availability of a TPA remedy will drive forum shopping. Companies that engage in misleading and deceptive conduct which causes personal injury or death should not be excused of responsibility for their actions. As the ACCC’s Jennifer McNeill told the Senate committee: In a situation where a business misleads or deceives a consumer and the consumer suffers damage ... the commission thinks that, as a matter of principle, they should be held accountable and liable for that damage, irrespective of intention. McNeill said that this was because: ... it is much more within the control of the business involved whether and how the representations are made; it is not within the control of the consumer whether and how the representations are made. The danger of forum shopping, which this bill seeks to address, can be dealt with in a better way. All that needs to be done is to ensure that plaintiffs are unable to recover damages under Commonwealth law that exceed those available under state and territory law. During the committee stage of this bill, Labor will move amendments to ensure that the capping regime in part VIB of the TPA also applies to actions commenced for a breach of section 52. This will remove the economic incentive for forum shopping while maintaining a fundamental consumer protection provision of the TPA. Labor’s approach is a practical one. We support action to bring claims costs under control and put downward pressure on premiums. At the same time a balanced approach is required. This bill must be amended so that the rights of people who have suffered injury as a result of misleading and deceptive behaviour are not eliminated. Labor believes that this is the only fair way to deal with this issue. 90 18:11:00 Murray, Sen Andrew 3M6 Western Australia AD 0 0 Senator MURRAY —I, too, rise to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004. This is the latest in a long run of bills attempting to attend to this area of tort law and of trade practices law. The amendments in the bill relate to part V division 1 of the Trade Practices Act. Part V division 1 of the Trade Practices Act contains key consumer protection measures, the most commonly used ones being those that deal with misleading and deceptive conduct and false and misleading representations. The Bills Digest No. 170 of 31 May 2005 had some concluding comments which well captured the nature of discussion on the bill. They said: The amendments in this Bill implement Recommendation 19 of the negligence review, so that individuals will be prevented from recovering damages for personal injury and death brought about by a breach of Part V Division 1 of the TPA. These amendments reduce consumer rights under the TPA. These amendments do however close a loophole in the law that has the potential to undermine the Ipp Report’s recommendations and hence the Government’s policy response to the insurance crisis. The insurance crisis has abated and some may therefore argue that these amendments are unnecessary. Those who support these amendments suggest however that premium pricing may again increase if the reforms to negligence laws are undermined by claimants relying on other avenues of legal redress such as Part V Division 1 of the TPA. The Bill is also a reminder of the broader policy issues at play and in particular whether the review of the laws of negligence has achieved the correct balance between premium affordability and access to compensation for those who are injured. This question is particularly pressing given the fact that the review that led to the overhaul of the country’s personal injury laws was completed within such a very short period of time and was a reaction to a crisis in the insurance market. Missing in that conclusion is what should be the strongest criticism of all of this sort of legislation—that is, that it is built on assertion. It is built on assertion about the consequences to maintaining a provision in law which has identifiably not been abused. There is no record whatsoever that this provision in the Trade Practices Act has ever been abused and there is no credibility to the assertion that it will be abused. The departments are bound to say, ‘Such and such a case did such and such a thing.’ I am talking about wholesale, universal, systemic abuse. It just has not happened. The Australian Democrats stridently, again, oppose the amendments in this bill because they further curtail the rights of people who have suffered an injury from pursuing legal action for damages for pain and suffering arising from their injuries. The government’s argument has been that unless it takes these steps there will be an increase in litigation to the level of countries like the United States and that insurance premiums will again rise exponentially. The government argues that this is the only way to curtail litigation: by taking away a person’s right to it. These proposed changes to the legislation have been achieved through successful lobbying from the insurance companies and through an overhasty response to a crisis to which the government has now doggedly stuck. In every state of Australia the large insurance companies did push tort law reform and were successful, even in the face of opposition from plaintiff lawyer groups, which they painted as greedy and bloodsucking. Some insurance companies and some plaintiff lawyers might indeed be greedy and bloodsucking, but certainly not all are. We need insurance companies and we need plaintiff lawyers, and we need to find a balance between their vested interests. This legislation does not provide that balance and nor do its predecessors. Plaintiff lawyer groups were attempting to retain the rights of injured people to bring actions for damages while the insurance companies were attempting to maintain their profit margins and to keep their businesses as viable as possible. This amending bill has been introduced because there is a suggestion that people who have lost the opportunity to pursue damages claims under tort law will now use section 52 of the Trade Practices Act to bring actions to recover damages. The government argues that if this particular amendment is not passed there will be a flood of actions pursuant to section 52. There is no evidence to support this contention. The Law Council of Australia made a submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 5 August 2003 which dealt with this issue at that time. At that time it identified nine cases where action had been taken pursuant to section 52 of the Trade Practices Act. It said: ‘None of these cases would appear to be frivolous. The council notes that the apparent volume of claims overall in this area could not be described as excessive given that the Trade Practices Act has been in force for almost thirty years.’ In his second reading speech, Mr Brough stated that this amendment was ‘to assist governments to formulate a consistent approach to the problems of rising premiums and reduced availability of public liability insurance’. This point was reiterated in Senator Minchin’s second reading speech. That was the argument that state governments also ran with in respect of changes to a plaintiff’s right to action for damages arising from negligence. Of course, there is vested interest always in these things because governments themselves are subject to those actions. However, the premiums have continued to rise and sections of the community have now lost their right to compensation commensurate with the injury done to them. This is typical of this government—decrease rights, decrease access to justice; increase obligation, increase your liability for action taken against you by the state. In general, the Democrats support the rights of aggrieved parties to take claims for damages and compensation to the courts and for those matters to be decided by the courts. While we support necessary restraints on ambulance chasers and excessive litigation, the so-called reforms in this area have gone far too far, and we have consistently opposed them. The argument was that, if there were a limit to common-law actions, then insurance premiums would be reduced, the number of claims would drop and genuine complainants would survive. Claims have dropped, insurance profits have risen significantly, premiums remain high and cover is more difficult for small organisations to get than ever. There is no indication as to why these further changes should reduce insurance premiums and it further and unnecessarily limits the ability of injured people to bring an action. A panel of experts reviewed the law of negligence in Australia after a ministerial meeting on public liability insurance in 2002. The panel recommended the changes so that the law at state and federal levels would be consistent. However, although the Hon. Minister Brough states that this consistency will be achieved by the passage of these amendments to the Trade Practices Act, it should be pointed out they will not. These changes are styled upon the New South Wales legislation. Not all states have followed the New South Wales legislation, and consistency will therefore not be achieved as has been asserted. According to the government, these measures are being introduced so that the Trade Practices Act cannot be used to undermine state and territory civil liability tort reforms. As far as any inconsistency remains, they can be used to do just that. I also point out that, in the government’s anxious desire to keep the insurance industry contented, they appear to have completely overlooked the impact this legislation will have on future budgets. Generally the payouts made by the courts include provision for the ongoing care of an injured person calculated at the cost of the care and the number of years they are likely to require the care. Courts will no longer have to do these long and complicated sums because the injured people are now forced to rely exclusively on Centrelink and Medicare payments for the rest of their lives. So, in aggregate, what this bill does, as do the other bills, is to transfer liability from the insurance companies to the taxpayer. I would like to point out some other points which, instead of simplifying matters and taking them out of the hands of lawyers, appear to increase the likelihood of litigation. In particular, the calculation of the date of discoverability is rather open ended. It is three years except in those circumstances where it is up to 12 years. There is certainly an attempt at specificity. However, it appears to open up avenues for long, drawn-out litigation processes to determine whether or not a person can bring an action. This takes time, money and energy, which an injured person may not wish to expend, so there will be a reduction in litigation, as the government wants, but also a reduction in real justice. In the case of some injuries, three years is a very short period of time. The current proposed time limit will put off people who may have a legitimate claim but not sufficient funds from pursuing it. That is not justice; that is intimidation. I concede that this aspect does not apply to smoking related diseases, but I do believe there are other conditions which may have a long gestation period. The Democrats support the notion that people can bring actions against tobacco companies. Tobacco companies were well aware by at least the 1960s of the scientific evidence which showed the link between smoking and lung, throat and mouth cancer, but they continued to promote smoking as part of a healthy, trendy lifestyle. However, the limitation period and the calculation of the limitation period proposed in this legislation appear to create opportunities for lawyers rather than certainty for plaintiffs. I am also aware of some of the definitions contained in the proposed amendments. The definition of a most extreme case is ‘a case in which the plaintiff suffers non-economic loss of the gravest conceivable kind’. I suggest that this again does not promote certainty in the law and appears simply to create an opportunity for lawyers to offer up different determinations of exactly what the ‘gravest conceivable kind’ really means. It is a matter which is going to be subject to jurisprudence. It again appears to lend itself to much preliminary examination of issues rather than dealing with the question of the amount of damages that a person can claim for a certain type of injury. The government has reiterated that the purpose of the bill is to reduce insurance premiums. The changes to state legislation were for the same purpose, but there has been no notable reduction in insurance premiums. I certainly have not had constituents ringing me up and saying how wonderful it is that insurance premiums have dropped or that they can get cover for whatever they need, particularly for small not-for-profit organisations. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that these amendments will achieve any end other than a loss of consumer rights for potential legitimate claimants. They will, in fact, further disadvantage injured Australians and taxpayers, who will now carry the burden of Centrelink and Medicare payments for the injured, which would have been carried by insurance companies through court decisions. For the reasons outlined above, the Australian Democrats oppose this bill, as we have previous bills which have had this intention. 93 18:23:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —On behalf of the Australian Greens, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004, because it deals with a very serious issue—namely, the right of those who have suffered injury or death caused by products made by companies or corporations to gain help, redress or compensation from the courts. These amendments reduce consumer rights under the Trade Practices Act. At its core, with the exception of tobacco products, this bill prohibits people from being awarded payment of damages for death or injury under part V, division 1, of the Trade Practices Act as it currently stands. A glance at the act reveals that part V is headed ‘Consumer Protection’, whilst division 1 is titled ‘Unfair practices’. If this bill is implemented, people will not be able to take action if, for example, death or inquiry has resulted from misleading or deceptive conduct or false or misleading representation. Will companies be able to get away with misleading and deceptive conduct or false or misleading representation that causes death or injury, while people have no rights to take action? This bill strips these protections, which I believe were once one of the envies of the world, from the act and renders them useless. The Senate will be endorsing the removal of consumer protection and enshrining unfair practices. I believe this is unfair and disgraceful. The Senate should query why tobacco products remain outside this amendment. I do not want you to think that we think that they should not be, but why not other products? Many other products will gain full statutory immunity. What about the many and various claims of new technologies—for example, genetically modified products, particularly in foods? We do not know at the moment what impacts these will have. We also do not know what claims will be made about these products. There are claims now about how much healthier we are all going to be. Why is the government so concerned about tobacco products and not the raft of other dangerous products? I believe this is policy making on the run. This bill, as has already been highlighted, had its genesis in 2002 with the review of the law of negligence in Australia undertaken by a committee chaired by Justice David Ipp. The final report of the committee was presented in September 2002. The justice and his committee were forced to work with terms of reference that can only be described as narrow. For instance, they were asked to develop and evaluate: ... options for amendments to the Trade Practices Act to prevent individuals commencing actions in reliance on the Trade Practices Act, including actions for misleading and deceptive conduct, to recover compensation for personal injury and death. This legislation is the result of a fundamentally predetermined report. The Greens are opposed to this bill because it makes it harder for plaintiffs or injured people to successfully sue corporations or companies when those very same corporations or companies caused injury or death. While we agree that high insurance premiums are a problem for the community—and I have dealt with this on many occasions, having worked for a long time for non-government organisations—we do not believe that undermining consumer rights is the answer. In fact, this bill makes it easier for corporations to avoid liability. That is a very significant outcome of the legislation before us, and I believe it is patently wrong. What kind of message does this give to corporations which make faulty goods—life jackets that do not float, cars that explode, blenders that electrocute or drugs that deform? The message is that it does not matter if you use deceptive language or if a product has an adverse outcome for the community. We believe that this legislation should be opposed. We do not support the reduction of consumer rights. We believe that we should be protecting and improving consumer protection in this country. We agree with other senators who have spoken on this legislation. Previously we have opposed this legislation; we oppose it now. 95 18:27:00 Ellison, Sen Chris 9X5 Western Australia LP Minister for Justice and Customs 1 0 Senator ELLISON —I would like to thank all the speakers who have participated in this important debate today, which deals with the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004. The bill is a final plank in the program of tort law reforms pursued by both the Commonwealth and state governments over the past few years. These reforms will benefit all Australians by making insurance more affordable and available. A number of speakers have touched on this. A great deal of research has gone into this. The expert panel which was chaired by Justice Ipp has been mentioned. This bill will implement recommendations 19 and 20 of the review of the law of negligence. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 6.29 pm to 7.30 pm 95 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 95 19:30:00 Campbell, Sen George NB5 New South Wales ALP 0 0 Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —I wish to make some brief comments in support of the amendment circulated in the chamber by Senator Conroy. I did not have a chance to speak in the debate on the second reading of the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill 2004, so I will put the comments I want to make on the record now. This bill is a response to rising insurance premiums, and is predicated upon the argument that increased litigation and increased damages for successful litigation are to blame for the rising costs of insurance. The assumption behind what is contained in this bill is that the only important thing is to prevent law suits. The bill substantially ignores the importance of the Trade Practices Act in protecting the rights of consumers. It follows, in many respects, the reform of tort law and other areas of compensation law, and bears resemblance to the workers compensation changes of a few years ago. The basic debating point inherent in the bill is personal responsibility versus the right to be compensated when wronged against. The onus in the bill throws the focus back on to personal responsibility, rather than on the rights of individuals to seek compensation when they have been wronged. How can it be a matter of personal responsibility when a problem is due substantially to the negligence of someone else? That is what this bill substantially ignores. The intent of the bill is to block damages suits related to breaches of part V division I of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The most significant parts are section 52, ‘Misleading or deceptive conduct’ and section 53, ‘False or misleading representations’. The bill seeks to stop ‘forum shoppers’—in other words, people who look for places where their action has the greatest chance of success. People cannot access the TPA for relief when other avenues have been blocked. There is nothing to suggest that there is a vast wave of action in this avenue. This bill substantially seeks to solve a problem that does not seem to exist. Litigation under those sections of the TPA has not been prevalent. According to the information available to me, there have only been nine cases prosecuted under those sections of the act between 1989 and 2002. It obviously cannot be argued that this has contributed to the boom in insurance premiums. The bill follows on from a review of the law of negligence. This review was conducted by Justice Ipp, and is generally referred to as the Ipp report. The terms of reference for the review stipulated: It is desirable to examine a method for the reform of the common law with the objective of limiting liability and quantum of damages arising from personal injury and death. The terms of reference were obviously designed to achieve a contrived solution. The Ipp report stated: There is no conclusive evidence that the state of the law of negligence bears any responsibility for this situation. Further, it stated: There is evidence to suggest that the insurance crisis is at least partly attributable to the conduct of certain insurance companies but that is not to say that the state of the law of negligence has not contributed to the current state of affairs. This hardly constitutes a rousing call to cut away at the law of negligence. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which reviewed the legislation and reported to this chamber on it, stated in the Labor senators’ minority report that the potential to incur damages is an incentive to make safe products and advertise them appropriately, that the bill could have adverse effects on consumer safety and will force consumers to make greater efforts to ascertain that goods are safe and suppliers are reliable, and that it essentially permits companies to win customers on the back of misleading and deceptive practices over companies that are acting ethically. The bill simply makes it harder for people to claim compensation. If you take away these avenues to sue, what other options are then available for individuals to seek redress? For example, how can a consumer be sure that a product entering the market is safe? This will free up, in my view, shonky firms from potential damages and encourage them to engage in practices that, at best, are suspect. It will create competitive pressures in order to cut corners and it will reduce substantially, in my view, the incentive for companies to do the right thing. One area that must be of particular concern is the area of electrical goods where standards in this area are usually pretty high. If you take the brakes off companies in terms of their ability to be sued if they put inferior products onto the market then you are potentially creating a problem of what could be of very substantial and serious proportions. But there also seems to me to be the potential in this legislation to create conflict between the sorts of goods that are entering into our market—which in many respects will be protected from litigation if they are found to be inferior or inadequate—and the standards that we set for production of goods in this country. That is an issue that I think has not been perhaps given enough consideration in drafting of this bill. I would have thought the Trade Practices Amendment (Personal Injuries and Death) Bill (No. 2) 2004 provides a solution that is potentially better. That bill would have inserted a new part VIB into the Trade Practices Act 1974 setting down principles for calculating damages for personal injury and death where there has been a breach of the Trade Practices Act, barring part V division 1. This bill was also fulfilling a recommendation of the Ipp report. Why cannot the same solution and the same principles be applied to part V division 1 of the Trade Practices Act? If the problem is the quantum of damages and speculative claims pushing up premiums, is regulation of the damages not a better solution than none at all? This would offer some certainty for insurance companies to allay their need to raise premiums excessively. It would also maintain avenues for consumer recourse. This seems to me to be a better idea than simply cutting off those avenues to take action entirely. In conclusion, this bill seems to me to seek to crack a walnut with a hammer. It aims to solve a problem by completely disadvantaging those who should be protected most from it. While small businesses and community groups may gain some small benefit, consumers in the end will lose what is a very important protection. Consumers will now have an important avenue of action cut off for want of a sensible solution and be denied a protection that they should inherently believe is there when they purchase goods in the open market. I support the amendment circulated in Senator Conroy’s name. 97 19:40:00 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CONROY —I thank Senator Campbell for that thoughtful contribution. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 4822 standing in my name: (1)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 27), after item 7, insert: 7A Paragraph 87E(1)(a) After “Division”, insert “1,”. This is a very simple amendment. As I mentioned during my remarks in the second reading debate, the parliament amended the Trade Practices Act in 2004 to insert a new part VIB. Part VIB establishes a regime to deal with compensation claims for death or personal injury. The regime only applies to specified provisions of the TPA. Section 87E of the TPA sets out the provisions of the act that are subject to part VIB; it includes prohibitions relating to unconscionable conduct and the sale of defective goods. It does not include actions arising under division 1 of part V of the act such as claims alleging injury because of misleading and deceptive conduct. The effect of Labor’s amendment is to ensure that the damages regime contained in part VIB applies to claims for personal injury damages brought under division 1 of part V. The amendment will limit the amount of damages that are recoverable from misleading and deceptive conduct which causes personal injury in a manner which is broadly consistent with the state negligence laws. This will eliminate any incentive for forum shopping which could undermine state tort reforms. In contrast, the government’s bill proposes to abolish longstanding consumer rights. Labor’s amendment will ensure that all actions for personal injury under the Trade Practices Act are treated in the same way. It clearly deals with the potential for forum shopping and I commend it to the Senate. Question negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. 97 97 19:43:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 3M6 Murray, Sen Andrew Senator Murray —Could the opposition of the Democrats to the third reading of the bill please be recorded. 97 Bills R2395 97 Bills R2398 97 Bills R2399 97 Bills R2401 97 Bills R2394 98 Bills R2400 98 Debate resumed from 5 September 2005, on motion by Senator Colbeck: That these bills be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) 98 19:46:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —I want to commence by making it clear that Labor supports the passage of the Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 and related bills before the Senate. The Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 is effectively a rewritten and renamed version of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, which has been the primary legislation for the administration of Australia’s offshore petroleum resources for 40 years. The legislative package before the Senate amends the structure and style of Australia’s offshore petroleum legislation and implements a modest number of minor policy amendments. According to the government, the management regime for offshore petroleum exploration, production, processing and conveyance will remain largely unchanged. In his second reading speech in the other place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—who was, incidentally, dumped in the recent reshuffle—said the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 and incorporated acts have become complex and unwieldy. The changes are designed to reduce compliance costs for the industry and the state and territory governments who administer them. My colleague the member for Batman noted these comments and compared the size of the current act—less than 600 pages—with its replacement, which is more than 600 pages. The explanatory memorandum is itself over 300 pages long. Legislation is rarely simplified by making it longer, something Australia’s accountants know only too well following the introduction of the government’s new tax system. There are many challenges confronting our energy sector. In 2003-04 we exported $8 billion worth of crude oil, LNG, and LPG, and a further $1 billion worth of refined products. This sounds good until you understand that, in the same period, we imported well over $10 billion worth of crude oil, LPG, and refined products to fuel our transport sector. In a country which, due to its size, is so reliant on transport, we cannot afford to be complacent about the future of our domestic oil and gas industry. The International Energy Agency’s 2005 review of Australian energy policy noted Australia’s thirst for oil, saying that the transport sector could particularly benefit from efficiency efforts with its fuel efficiency standards at the lower end of IEA countries. The review noted too that transport accounts for 40 per cent of final energy consumption and is projected to grow by two per cent annually over the two decades to 2020. At the same time, oil production in Australia by 2020 is likely to be less than half of what it is today and demand is likely to exceed production at least threefold. Our reliance on imported oil is already having repercussions. Many motorists are struggling to keep their tanks full and afford other necessities of life. The impact of oil prices is starting to show in patchy retail spending. The transport sector is also feeling the squeeze. Australia is consuming oil three times faster than we are finding it, and we already import 60 per cent of our domestic oil needs. The Howard government has never addressed this fundamental problem of Australia’s reliance on imported fuel or the need to apply the competition blowtorch to the petrol industry. We are running out of time, and Mr Howard is leaving Australia unprepared for the future. There is no simple solution to the problem of high petrol prices, but there are things the Howard government can do to make a difference. There are responsible steps which the Howard government could take now. First, instead of increasing our reliance on imported oil, the government should help develop an Australian gas to liquids fuel industry. We want Australia’s natural gas developed to make us more self sufficient in transport fuels and less vulnerable to future global oil shocks. Australia’s competitors in the gas industry are way ahead of us, particularly in the Middle East where countries like Qatar already have major gas to liquids projects making refined products for the global market. Second, it should provide a real future for the biofuels industry held back by continual Howard government incompetence, cronyism and mismanagement. Third, it should apply the competition blowtorch to this industry to make sure Australians get the lowest possible prices at the bowser. I commend to the Senate Kim Beazley’s blueprint speech entitled ‘Developing the Australian fuel industry’. I also commend Mr Beazley’s blueprint speech on skills and schools, which outlines Labor’s plan to address Australia’s growing skills deficit. No industry sector has been harder hit by skills shortages than the energy sector. I also commend to the Senate the many sensible things Martin Ferguson has had to say as Labor’s resources spokesman, including the detailed remarks he made during the debate on these bills in the other place. These bills do not address the big issues facing Australia’s energy sector. They do not address our future domestic fuel needs. They do not address our need for skills. They do not address the provision of infrastructure to support industry development. Having said that, these bills are unlikely to do any harm. It is not high praise, but it is the basis on which Labor extends its support for their passage. 99 19:53:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —I rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 and the five related bills that are being considered by the Senate today. The Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 is an extensive revamp of the longstanding Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, which the government has argued needed rewriting to reduce compliance costs for the industry and for the state and territory governments. The Democrats note that the bill, in addition to reducing complexity, makes some minor changes to the current regime, the majority of which we do not have a strong objection to. We do, of course, have some concerns with the principal act, which enables petroleum exploration in marine parks, a matter which my colleague Senator Bartlett will talk more about later. I want to say tonight that we are very critical of the fact that efforts have gone into this major rewrite of offshore petroleum policy instead of addressing the more critical issue of the impending oil crises and rising petrol costs. The latest research shows that oil peaking presents the world with a risk management problem of global proportions. There is now an energy security planning vacuum in Australia, as there is in other countries. When oil consumption begins to exceed production by even a small amount, the price of oil could soar to well over $US100 a barrel, greatly increasing the cost of transport fuels and the petrochemicals used to make thousands of plastic products, fertilisers and pesticides for food production. Within a year or so this could create a global recession. The impact on the wellbeing of Australians, particularly those with outer suburban lifestyles hinged on two-car families and constant car trips to work, school and supermarkets, will be disastrous. I think people need to realise that oil production is not just about transport and the cost of getting to work; it is also about manufacturing, farming and the availability and cost of everyday products and food. Oil decline will have a huge impact on world food production and will have a devastating effect on developing countries in particular. Since 1980, the gap between oil demand and oil supply, once considerable, has steadily narrowed, and today it is almost negligible. Since 1965 the amount of oil discovered each year has inexorably plunged despite all our advances in technology. Because of the lack of access to accurate data, there is no certainty about when oil production will peak and then decline. Some governments are very concerned about this uncertainty but our government is either unaware or is choosing to ignore the serious threat of reduced oil supplies as we reach 2025. We know that the United States hit peak oil in 1971; the United Kingdom with its North Sea oil peaked in 1999; and Australia peaked in 2000. The Middle East remains one of the only areas that has not reached peak oil. Many of these countries do not release details about how much oil is extracted from the reservoirs or what methods are used to extract that oil. Nor do they permit audits by outsiders. Indeed, the condition of the Saudi and other OPEC oil fields is a closely guarded secret. According to a report published in the New York Times, Sadad al-Husseini, one of the most respected and accomplished oil men in the world and ex-director of Saudi Aramco, revealed that the Saudi government was seriously overstating its reserves. The report states: “You look at the globe and ask, ‘Where are the big increments?’ ... if demand and depletion patterns continue, every year the world will need to open enough fields or wells to pump an additional six to eight million barrels a day—at least two million new barrels a day to meet the rising demand and at least four million to compensate for the declining production of existing fields. “That’s like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years,”... “It can’t be done indefinitely. It’s not sustainable.” Husseini’s message, like that of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, is that the world is heading for a devastating oil shortage and contradicts the calming speeches of the Saudi oil minister and predictions of the US Energy Information Administration. The US Department of Energy called for an investigation. The report, entitled World oil production: impacts, mitigation and risk management, states that action must start 20 years before peak oil to adapt to declining oil supplies. It says: Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive and less damaging to the world’s economies than delayed mitigation. Based on estimates of peak oil, several scenarios have been identified: (1) that oil production peaks then declines around 2010 inducing a world-wide depression, wrecking the Australian economy and producing mass unemployment; (2) that oil peaks between 2015 and 2025, making a less painful adaptation possible, provided that most developed nations agree to reduce oil dependence with strong government market intervention, the introduction of fuel rationing, fuel efficiency standards and so forth; (3) that oil peaking after 2025 allows a timely adaptation with mutually agreed supply and demand side oil conservation measures recommended by the International Energy Agency. While many governments are banking on a peak after 2025, the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas predicts that oil will actually peak around 2010. The association’s data shows world oil production increasing by 2.2 per cent per year, which is the rate at which it increased in 2004, according to IEA, and then peaking between 2008 and 2012 followed by a 2.2 per cent per annum decline in production to 2045. Further, as conventional oil production begins to peak, the light, sweet crude gets used up first and the remaining conventional oil gets heavier and more sour with more impurities reducing the energy return on the energy invested and producing more greenhouse gas emissions. Non-conventional oil produces far more CO emissions than conventional oil. The Energy research Centre in the Netherlands supports the hypothesis that an oil peak sometime in the period 2010 to 2020 is far from impossible, saying: While there are many events that could postpone an oil peak till after year 2020 there are equally many events that could lead to an oil peak before the year 2020.                   …         …           … … an oil peak in the near future is indeed plausible and … it would be very useful to consider the possible consequences for global energy markets and the resulting drive for system innovations. … we are referring to the period up to 2020 rather than any one particular year. … scenarios with limited availability of oil and sharply rising prices deserve serious attention in terms of the consequences for European energy transitions and related energy research, demonstration and development strategies. Eric Streitberg, Managing Director of ARC Energy, asked participants at the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference to put up their hands if they thought that we had reached peak oil. Fifty per cent of the people in the audience put up their hands, saying that they believe we are at peak oil. These are practising petroleum industry professionals. Chevron, the US’s largest energy group with a good environment record, has set up a website warning of the pressures of high demand and fewer fields, and offering a forum for discussion. On the website, Chevron says: One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. It also says: We call upon scientists and educators, politicians and policymakers, environmentalists, leaders of industry and each one of you to be part of reshaping the next era of energy. Chevron has also said, ‘Inaction is not an option.’ Even Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest energy group with a bad environmental record, said in a recent advertisement: The world faces enormous energy challenges. There are no easy answers. Just last week President George Bush, in his State of the Union address, for the first time admitted that America’s reliance on oil is a real problem. He said: America is addicted to oil … He also said: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. President Bush then went on to announce a 22 per cent increase in clean energy research. He recognised the need to change how we power our homes and offices and invest more in solar and wind technologies. He also argued that Americans must change how they power their automobiles, and promised greater research into better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and into pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. He said: We’ll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. While there were some criticisms about the practical effects of President Bush’s announcement, it did signal an important shift in energy policy for the United States. The question now is: where does that leave Australia? Transport predictions to the year 2010 in Australia for single-occupant car commuting, car travel generally, air passenger travel, intercity road freight and intracity commercial vehicle traffic all show an unsustainable growth in oil dependency. Over the last 40 years, Australia has become addicted to cheap oil, especially for transport, which uses almost 80 per cent of Australia’s petroleum. Fifty-five per cent of road transport fuel is petrol; 39 per cent, diesel; and six per cent, LPG. The oil-dependent transport sector is responsible for 76 per cent of oil consumption; that has to be reduced, as it poses a very serious threat to Australia’s future economy. Achieving energy efficiency in all sectors of the economy requires action to be taken by individuals, companies and governments, but it is government who can encourage and discourage energy efficiency in so many ways. A key priority in guaranteeing Australia’s energy security is, in our view, to reduce the transport sector’s overdependence on oil. It does not matter that there is uncertainty about when peak oil will occur; what matters is the consensus that that peak will occur. We must act now. We suggest the following initiatives be undertaken by government. Firstly, the government should develop car fuel efficiency standards to ensure that, by 2015, the average fuel consumption of the car fleet, including most four-wheel drives, be four litres per 100 kilometres and, for the SUV and light truck fleet, 6.5 litres per 100 kilometres, giving an overall 50 per cent increase in fuel efficiency. Secondly, we should conserve oil reserves through the use of natural gas as a transition fuel, the manufacture of energy-efficient hybrid electric cars and LCVs, and the building-up of a strategic six-month reserve of diesel and petrol. Thirdly, we should absorb the costs of oil depletion into the price of diesel, petrol and aviation fuel and utilise other green taxes designed to decouple the growth in oil consumption from the growth of GDP, and use the green taxes to rebuild and enhance rail infrastructure in all urban areas. Fourthly, the government should promote and fund the uptake of telecommuting, eco-driving, car-pooling and TravelSmart programs in all urban areas. Fifthly, the government should change current land-use planning practice to eliminate residential sprawl, and provide public transport services in new residential and industrial areas. Sixthly, the government should change the constitution of road planning and building agencies to make it their responsibility to reduce the demand for road space and travel by car. Finally, the government should build urban bikeway networks for bicycles and electric bicycles, provide secure bicycle parking at all modal interchanges and railway stations, and encourage the use of electric bicycles with solar electric and/or overnight battery charging. To implement these recommendations, an Australian energy security policy, with both demand- and supply-side measures should be produced to mitigate oil dependency. As Professor Peter Newman, a transport academic from Murdoch University, pointed out on the television show Catalyst late last year: We have lots of preparedness for terrorist attacks; but where’s the plan for peak oil? We don’t have one. In my contribution to the debate on the energy efficiency bill during the last sitting week, I called on the government to make the 2006 budget about the future of Australians and Australia and to invest in energy efficiency schemes, renewable energy, water and other areas in which energy efficiency can be found. Today I add to this list and call on the government to invest in an energy security policy with both demand- and supply-side measures. This is a matter of urgency. 103 20:07:00 Webber, Sen Ruth 00AOT Western Australia ALP 0 0 Senator WEBBER —The Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 and its associated bills replace the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. Although we are told that these new bills aim to simply rewrite the 1967 act to make it more user friendly, we are confronted with these new bills that increase in size from some 400 pages to over 600. Of course, in these days of extensive explanatory memoranda, this also runs to about 300 pages. It is interesting that, to make something easier for industry to operate and for government to regulate, it somehow requires more words than the act it is replacing. It puts one in mind of the new fairer, simpler tax act that doubles the length of the tax act. So we should not ever be surprised about how this government talks about the need to simplify but it always ends up with more and more provisions to do so. There must be some perverse logic along the lines that, by making it more complex, longer and more verbose, we are in fact simplifying it. Having said that, I believe that we, like other industrialised nations, need to do better when it comes to our love affair with petroleum and its products. It is passing strange to hear no less than the President of the United States say exactly the same thing to the people of America in his State of the Union address. Quoting President Bush is not something I thought I would be doing, but the point he made about our overreliance on petroleum was a point well made. Petroleum and other energy products such as LPG represent nearly 10 per cent of Australia’s export revenue. It is an important part of our country’s trade performance and, as such, it deserves our close attention. But the fact remains that, although we exported over $8 billion worth of petroleum and gas and a further $1 billion worth of refined products, we imported over $10 billion worth of the same products. So, whichever way we want to consider it, we are a net importer of petroleum and gas. So, just like President Bush said to the American people, we also need to do more to reduce our reliance on oil and gas imports. It is simple supply and demand, really. As demand increases, especially in China and India, and as supply remains at its current levels, prices will continue to rise. There is no way to change that simple law of economics. So if we as a country continue to rely on importing oil to drive our cars and fuel our transport sector then we will have to face up to increasing prices. It is estimated that, by the year 2020, the demand for energy in this country will have increased by some 50 per cent. We are looking at a situation in which, by 2020, over 60 of Australia’s requirements for fuels will be imported. In fact, in March 2003, when I spoke on the Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Bill in this place, the price of oil at that stage was $37 per barrel. Now, a short three years later, the price is around $60 per barrel and rising. The reality is that our oil reserves are being used at such a rate that, by 2020, we will be producing less than half what we currently produce. Over that same time, demand is likely to increase threefold. The United States Energy Information Administration, in an article posted in 2004 entitled ‘Long-term world oil supply scenarios’, concluded: Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in absence of lower-cost alternatives. This is the reality that exists for all users of oil. It is a reality that is not often acknowledged. That is why I am pleased to have seen President Bush raise the issue. We all need to understand that, unless we find alternatives, we are destined to eventually reach the position that although oil will still be available we just will not be able to afford it. The report goes on to say: In any event, the world production peak for conventionally reservoired crude is unlikely to be “right around the corner” as so many other estimators have been predicting. Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development. Although the Energy Information Administration article concludes that scarcity will not be a problem for decades, it is also clear that the long lead times that are required to move to new technology means that we can no longer afford to wait. If we continue to rely on foreign oil to fuel our transport requirements, we will be facing a substantial decline in our living standards because of increased fuel prices. However, there are answers and solutions to this dependence on foreign oil. Firstly, we can continue to encourage exploration and investment to bring additional sources of petroleum online here in Australia. We need to engage more actively with industry to find new sources of oil. We need to ensure that the regulatory framework is as efficient and as appropriate as possible. As a nation, we need to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place and that there are sufficient skills in the Australian labour market to ensure our maximum exploitation of this industry. Secondly, we can do as President Bush suggests and use technology and research to find alternative sources of energy. It is a fact that we already possess the technology and raw materials to do just that; what is missing, however, is leadership from the government. Consider these points. We have large reserves of natural gas, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. We have a car industry that already has the capacity to manufacture LPG dedicated vehicles. A motor vehicle travelling 20,000 kilometres a year that is powered solely by gas produces 600 cubic metres fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a car burning petrol. The saving at the petrol station for a car travelling 20,000 kilometres per year is at least $1,200 dollars per year based on current prices. What is needed here is national leadership. There is no reason why Australian car manufacturers could not become the world leaders in the production of gas powered vehicles. As many of us know, most taxis in this country now run on gas; so why does this government not take a lead by announcing that all new government fleet vehicles must be solely powered by gas? Consider the boost to Australian car makers. Over time, there is no reason why we could not move to phase out petrol powered cars in favour of those powered by gas, especially if the government were prepared to lead by example. The way to do that is exactly the same as we have done in the past. When the manufacture of cars was changed with the introduction of unleaded petrol, the doomsayers predicted all sorts of chaos and pain. However, we have seen that this was not the case and over time we have largely made that transition. Let us be clear, though: this is not the sort of change that comes about in a short time. It is a change that comes about over decades. That is why we need to start moving towards gas powered vehicles now, to ensure that we make the most of those decades. The worst thing we can do is to not start to address the problem. Why don’t we offer worthwhile rebates to car purchasers to encourage more of them to switch to gas powered vehicles? The current cost for a Ford Falcon powered by gas is $37,280, as opposed to $34,880 for one powered by petrol. If we could, as a nation, increase the market for cars powered solely by gas, I am sure that the price would fall. We have a unique opportunity here to take a lead on this. Why wait until petrol is so expensive that we suffer a decline in our living standards? Having said that, I believe we also need to consider what we are doing about developing our gas resources onshore. We confront the same situation that we have confronted in this country for many years: we have abundant natural resources, we extract them and then we export them offshore. There is no reason why we should not be developing an Australian industry that converts gas to liquids. I understand that in Qatar they have just spent over $10 billion developing a major infrastructure project to do just that. I fail to understand why Australia is not developing a similar project. Should we end up exporting our gas to Qatar so that they can process it and we can import the refined product back to Australia? We should be taking the opportunity currently available as a result of the resources boom. We need to use the proceeds of this boom to fund the development of new industries that will provide the future economic growth that this country needs, because the current resources boom will not last forever. Our oil and gas industry does not simply need a rewrite of the previous bill. What is needed is a decent, long-term plan of action that ensures the viability of the oil and gas industry. As I have said before, if we continue as we are, then as the cost of petrol continues to increase so will our standard of living fall. Australia is blessed with abundant natural resources. What we are not blessed with is the vision to use those natural resources most effectively. We need a Commonwealth government that has a plan to reduce our reliance on foreign fuels. Surely, now that the President of the United States is running the argument that the US needs to reduce its reliance on foreign fuel and find alternatives, the Commonwealth government will wake up and confront the same issue. Compare our approach to the oil issue with that of Sweden. Sweden has just announced the establishment of a committee made up of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, public servants and others, which will report to its parliament in several months. The aim of the Swedes is to replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy within 14 years. As their Minister for Sustainable Development has said: A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices. The price of oil has tripled since 1996! Consider the head start the Swedes already have: 20 per cent of all their energy needs in 2003 came from renewable resources. Only 32 per cent of their total energy came from oil, which was down from 77 per cent in 1970. Before Australia takes the option that some have called for, of considering nuclear energy, we should be following the lead of Sweden and beginning to plan for an economy that is not reliant on imported oil. I would like to conclude my remarks by talking about the state of the oil and gas industry in Western Australia. In the last financial year, the growth of exports from WA’s oil and gas industry has soared. Crude petroleum oils were up $650 million, which is a more than 80 per cent increase over the previous year. Natural gas exports in the same year were up $337 million, or over 64 per cent from the previous year. Those figures speak for themselves. In the June quarter of 2005 the value of oil and gas exports from Western Australia was over $2.5 billion. That is just for one quarter. Currently in Western Australia over $10 billion worth of oil and gas projects are approved or awaiting approval. These are huge projects, which will continue to earn revenue for the Commonwealth and valuable export dollars for Australia. The state government of Western Australia is spending over $180 million on infrastructure projects in the north-west to support those industries. The Commonwealth, however, is spending nothing. It is all good and well to rewrite the petroleum bill, but when is the Commonwealth going to put its money on the table for infrastructure projects that will support the ongoing growth of Australia’s oil and gas industry? I would like to place on the record the superb work that has been done by Alan Carpenter, now Premier of Western Australia but previously the minister for state development, and his predecessor Clive Brown, in encouraging the expansion of the oil and gas industries and ensuring that the state’s infrastructure plan meets the needs of those industries. We have a unique opportunity to start working towards reducing our reliance on imported fuels. We must grasp this chance, which is provided on the back of the current resources boom, to build for Australia’s future. What is needed is a vision for the future, not a rewrite of existing legislation. 106 20:22:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I want to make a few brief comments on the Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 and related bills. The broader issues that are raised by the proposed laws clearly touch on some of the longer term issues around our country’s reliance on oil and petroleum resources. When even President George Bush is talking about the need to break the addiction of the United States to oil, however genuine or otherwise that pronouncement is, it is a recognition of the significant problems that can occur when nations do not recognise the problems but plough ahead, business as usual, and assume that we will just continue to find more and more oil and petroleum resources to meet our ever-growing consumption—let alone issues like potential export desire. A couple of aspects need to be emphasised. Other senators have already talked about peak oil. Regardless of different views about when peak might be or how it might be manifested, the simple fact is that we are dealing with a resource that is not renewable and the consumption of which continues to grow. We are also dealing with a resource that is a significant contributor to greenhouse emissions. These bills are a reminder to highlight the importance of putting just as much energy—renewable energy—vigour, and broader assistance into developing alternatives. The other aspect that needs to be emphasised—and I note that there is an amendment dealing with this—is the environmental impact of petroleum exploration and extraction on the marine environment. Broadly speaking, we know a lot less about the marine environment than we know about the terrestrial environment. That includes knowing less about the total impact of some of the things we do in the marine environment. That should be a reminder about the importance of adopting a precautionary approach. One of the consequences of the continuing demand for oil and petroleum products is the continuing push for exploration in more and more remote areas where we do not know much about the marine environment that we are exploring or extracting from. Not only is there a risk of doing damage; there is a risk of doing damage to things that we do not even know are there. There could be a loss of biodiversity or other impacts before we even realise that it is there to be lost. There needs to be a lot more focus on that. I take the opportunity to remind the Senate and those who are following this debate that the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee has an inquiry currently under way into the effectiveness of our protected area regime throughout Australia. I am pleased that that committee, of which I am the chair, is including marine protected areas in its examination. It is not looking only at how much more marine and land environments we can lock up, throw away the key, and keep people away from. It is also looking at how effective we are in protecting our marine environments, particularly those areas that we recognise as having special values, and designating those protected areas. I have a particular interest in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, being from Queensland. It is a marine environment that is not only of mind-blowing biodiversity and spectacular beauty but also of enormous economic importance to my own state of Queensland. I have attempted in the past—and I have had a private senator’s bill introduced in this place—to try to expand the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from the potential risks of offshore petroleum exploration and extraction. It is a simple fact that waters to the east of the designated Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are not protected from exploration and extraction. Clearly, there is always a potential for flow-on negative consequences to the marine park if significant oil reserves are extracted in areas adjoining the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That is an issue that deserves to continue to be explored. It is something that I have explored in this chamber and in committees over a few years, and I am pleased that an amendment has been circulated that touches on some of those issues. I think it is important, with legislation like this, to raise these issues and make sure that we do not glibly brush them to one side. Obviously there is a lot of economic opportunity, prosperity and wealth to be generated from oil reserves. I am not blind to that, ignoring it, or saying that it cannot be of value, but we should not ignore the value—including the economic value—of the marine environment. It may be longer term and it may be harder to measure, but that does not mean that it is not there. We need to do a lot better at recognising that and factoring it into the cost benefit analysis of the various things that we undertake. With those brief comments I conclude my remarks and allow the chamber to proceed to some of the amendments. 107 20:29:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I rise to say how absolutely shocked I am that in a supposedly comprehensive rewrite of a piece of legislation, the Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 and related bills, at this period in our history the environment is practically ignored. For all the talk about ecologically sustainable development, for all the talk about triple bottom-line accounting and for all the public awareness that goes on in relation to whale strandings, seismic testing and the ecosystem approach, neither the word ‘marine’ nor ‘ocean’ appears in the bills. Can you believe that? In 2006, neither the word ‘marine’ nor ‘ocean’ appears in the offshore petroleum bills. Where is offshore? Offshore is the marine environment. I find it absolutely disgusting that these bills have been written with, effectively, a prehistoric approach to our oceans. Australia has been running around the world in international fora talking up its oceans policy. Australia has an oceans policy, but it writes offshore petroleum legislation that fails to mention the oceans and the marine environment and uses the sea only in jurisdictional reference—as in territorial sea. The generic term ‘environment’ is used but only in a very short section on restoration of the environment—that is a matter of a couple of pages in a massive bill. Even then, it only goes to minimal restoration of the ecosystem and environment. This legislation should have been framed in the context of Australia’s oceans policy, which was introduced in 1998, and in the context of ecosystem based management—environmentally sustainable development, multiple-use management and regional marine planning. And yet it is not framed that way, not at all. It makes some fundamental assumptions that the marine environment is a free good; that it is there for the sole purpose of providing resources to humankind. So the marine environment only exists as long as it can provide oil, gas, fishing and whatever else humans decide they want to use the marine environment for—and use it for as long as it takes to destroy it without even understanding the complexity of it. At the World Parks Congress in Durban a couple of years ago, it was recognised that 10 per cent of the world’s terrestrial area is in national parks protected areas of some kind but that less than one per cent of the world’s oceans have the same level of protection. It was moved in Durban that we should aim in the next decade for 10 per cent of the world’s terrestrial environment to be put into protected areas. It has long been understood that if you make marine parks then you not only protect ecosystems but you actually support fisheries, because those marine parks act as breeding grounds. They are protected areas for the fisheries to maintain resilience, breed up fish stocks and so on and maintain the wild fisheries outside those marine protected areas. 00AOL Colbeck, Sen Richard Senator Colbeck —Not true. KA5 Milne, Sen Christine Senator MILNE —It is absolutely true of marine parks and protected areas. There is a vast amount of literature demonstrating the value to fisheries of marine protected areas. I would suggest that you read some of that literature if you dispute that. It is a matter of fact in ecosystem based management and in fisheries management. Over this last summer we have had whale strandings around Australia. At the time we had a whale stranding off the south-east coast of Tasmania, we had naval vessels there using sonar and we had the oil and gas industry in Bass Strait also using seismic testing. Both of those things are in fact proven. The Navy admitted that it was there this summer using seismic testing and, indeed, the oil and gas industry were also testing in Bass Strait at the time. What is Australia supposed to be doing in terms of strandings and tissue testing in regard to the impact of seismic testing on cetaceans? We were supposed to be developing a national network and protocols for rescue and post-mortem. As far as I am aware, little has happened with regard to the development of that protocol for rescue and post-mortem. There has been no word on that for many months. We have to have a protocol that includes investigation of noise pollution in cases where it seems likely that noise is involved. That is currently what is going on in the US. A noise protocol is being developed in the US as a result of court action that was taken because of the impact of noise from seismic testing and sonar activity on whales. The requirement for tissue testing of stranded cetaceans for possible seismic impacts is an issue that ought to be considered in this particular legislation. The marine environment is not a driver in the legislation, and it does not provide sufficient direction in terms of what should be done in relation to offshore petroleum and exploration. The other problem with this legislation is that there is no reference to other stakeholders: other agencies or authorities of relevance to the marine environment with a stake in knowing what the oil and gas industry is up to. There is nothing about consultation and referrals with those other agencies. The government should have taken the opportunity to better integrate one of the major marine resources statutes—the oceans policy—into this particular legislation, and it has completely ignored it. Another issue that concerns me is that an exploration permit lasts six years, the renewal of an exploration permit lasts for another five years and the option for a retention lease could last for another 15 if the area is not economically viable in current circumstances. On an initial read of the legislation, it seems possible for a company to have a commercial interest in an area for up to 26 years before production occurs. Add the production time onto that and it could be argued that this is effectively a property right over a public resource that could be used to stymie efforts to establish marine national parks due to claims by the industry for compensation. This cementing of rights appears again in several clauses and in the explanatory memorandum as well: the creation of the express right to recover petroleum in a retention area. Once again, there is this idea of resource security. So we are giving a public good—the global commons, the marine environment—over to companies effectively for 26 years. If we move because the culture changes and people realise how important the marine environment is and we go to protect marine environment areas, you are going to have the petroleum companies arguing that they should get compensation for not being able to proceed even though they have not proceeded earlier because it suited them and it was not economically viable to do so. There are no objects in this bill. Can you believe that? We have a complete rewrite of this legislation, and there is no object in the bill. One of the amendments that I intend to move on this bill tonight is to put an object into the bill to ensure that any offshore activities relating to petroleum exploration, recovery, storage and transport are carried out in a way that is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, especially in relation to the conservation of marine resources. I would argue that that is an entirely appropriate object for a bill of this kind. To bring to this parliament a bill which is effectively an administrative bill to cover the activities of offshore petroleum exploration, mining, drilling, seismic testing and so on and to not have an object in the bill is disgraceful. Much more environmental detail needs to be in the bill, and it is not there. We need to have a public process with notices in major relevant daily newspapers, on the web, to various organisations and so on. There is no requirement for that. The application process for an exploration lease does not require an environmental constraints assessment; it only requires a statement of the economic viability of the company applying. Before exploration leases are allowed, there should be an environmental constraints assessment. It is unbelievable that a company can apply for an exploration lease but it does not require any assessment of environmental constraints. This legislation might as well have been written in 1900. That is how backward it is in terms of current oceans policy around the world. This is from a government that, as I said, goes to marine conferences and argues that it is passionate about cetaceans, that it has got an oceans policy and has set up an oceans office. To do what? This is an oceans policy that has no legislative backing. None of the principles of the oceans policy are incorporated into this bill. I would expect that, when Senator Colbeck gets to his feet to explain the government’s position, we will get an explanation as to why there is no reference to environmental or ecosystem management; why there is no reference to ecologically sustainable development; why there is no object in this bill; and why there is carte blanche for the oil and gas industry. It is going to be even more critical in the coming years as we face the oil crisis. As other senators have mentioned earlier tonight, we are facing an oil crisis. That is why the Greens in this house moved for a reference to a Senate committee to start looking at the strategic planning issues for energy security and oil supply for Australia. The government did not recognise the need for it, because it takes the view that all you have to do is give people more concessions, give companies more corporate welfare, incentives, tax breaks, environmental breaks and whatever else to get them to drill and somehow they will find more—that is, we have a planet which is infinite. We have a finite planet. The oil and gas companies have pretty well combed the entire planet. They know where the reserves are that are easy to get, and most of them have already been accessed. I believe we have already reached the rollover point where demand has exceeded supply and, if we have not already reached peak oil, we are likely to do so in the next decade. I agree: we need to have some strategic planning to get Australia off the oil drip in the same way as has been talked about for the United States. But that is separate from this issue that we are discussing here tonight, which is a bill about how Australia deals with its offshore petroleum activities. It should be noted that Australia has the largest marine jurisdiction in the world. We have twice as much water as land, and only five per cent of the world’s ocean area has already been discovered biologically. We hear virtually every month that new sea mounts are being discovered. People are moving rapidly to try to protect the biodiversity around these sea mounts before the trawlers get there and smash the areas as they have currently been doing. The best thing this government could do, if it wanted to take some leadership on the marine environment, would be to protect the sea mounts and ban trawling in Australian waters. That would make a significant contribution, but I do not expect that kind of leadership from the government. Simply saying that all you have to do when you apply for an exploration licence is give a statement of economic viability of the company, not the environmental constraints of the area, demonstrates precisely where the government is coming from. I am really shocked that the people drafting this bill did not think to incorporate the principles of ecological sustainable development and ecosystem management into this particular legislation. Senator Bartlett mentioned a moment ago the issue of marine parks and cetaceans—and one of the Australian Greens amendments tonight will be moving to prohibit oil exploration in marine reserves. That is entirely appropriate. If you are going to stop fishing in marine reserves and recognise that marine reserves protect the ecosystem then you do not favour the oil industry by kicking out the fishermen in order to give access to the oil companies, which is effectively what is happening around Australia’s coasts. In goes the oil industry, and what sort of damage do they cause in marine parks, especially when they get involved in seismic testing? It is extremely noisy, as we know, and can have a significant impact on marine species. It is entirely appropriate that we do not have oil and gas exploration in marine protected areas, and I will be moving that in these amendments. We are also putting an object into the bill that offshore activities relating to petroleum exploration be carried out according to the principles of ecologically sustainable development; that an environmental plan must be required before any petroleum activity is given any kind of approval; that any plan for exploration must comply with an improved environment plan; and that operations must not continue where new environmental risk is identified in compliance with something apparently the drafters and the government have not heard of—that is, the precautionary principle. It is a new idea in Australia, it seems. It is well recognised in other parts of the world and is especially recognised by people who take marine protected areas and ecologically sustainable development seriously. The other problem is that there is no cradle-to-grave approach to environmental protection from the industry. No mention is made of the EPBC Act at all. Where is the integration between this act and the EPBC Act? It seems like a disjointed approach that will not add up to marine protection and could never be satisfactory. A moment ago I raised the issue of whether the seismic guidelines are in place. Senator Colbeck seems to think that they are. I would like to ask specifically what has happened to the Department of Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee dealing with the EPBC seismic operations and cetacean guidelines. I want to know whether they have been updated, whether the new guidelines that were being drafted are in fact out there and implemented and, if these new guidelines have not been implemented, why haven’t they, because they were hideously outdated and there was a strong recognition that they needed to be. So we have some big issues with this. We are simply seeing a premise in this bill that the ocean is a free commodity for the benefit of the offshore oil and petroleum industry, providing maximum resource for use in the whole fossil fuel industry and that the environment can be compromised. It is disgraceful and I never want to hear the minister for environment, Senator Ian Campbell, stand up in this place again and talk about oceans policy and how he is the great champion of cetaceans. He is not here tonight. I would like the minister who is representing the minister responsible for this legislation to explain how you can bring in here an offshore petroleum bill which has no object for the bill, no recognition of the problems with cetaceans and in the marine environment, no recognition of the concept of ecologically sustainable development and no recognition of environmental management and does not mention the words ‘oceans’ or ‘marine’ once. What a joke this legislation is! 111 20:47:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —That was an interesting presentation by Senator Milne. I thought that some of the things she put on the record she might have been au fait with—certainly in relation to the tissue sampling. My advice is the guidelines on that have been completed. I am sure that you will look forward to getting some advice on that particular matter and some of the others that you raised in your presentation. It is disturbing that issues like blaming the Navy for whale strandings around Tasmania in the last 12 months were placed on the record in the way that they were. The Navy were in the area during two of the whale strandings but they were in fact in port. KA5 Milne, Sen Christine Senator Milne —No, they were not. 00AOL Colbeck, Sen Richard Senator COLBECK —They were in port for the first two of the strandings, Senator. They were actually at sea during the third. Obviously, there are investigations going on with that, but to place carte blanche blame on the Navy for all of the events that occurred is, I think, quite disingenuous. It does nobody’s cause any good, including the Greens, to make comments of that nature. I think the public would expect more of us, that we would put these sorts of matters on the public record correctly rather than making broad, sweeping statements that apply blame rather than deal with the specifics of the issue as they stand. It stands us all in poor stead. It certainly does not help those who are genuinely involved in looking at these issues on a proper basis. I would like to thank everyone who took part in this debate. Australia’s marine jurisdiction is extensive, as has been said, as are the hydrocarbon resources held within those areas and their contribution to the nation’s economy. It is therefore not surprising that a substantial legislative package such as this is needed for encouraging exploration and managing Australia’s offshore petroleum industry. This legislation is also conspicuous by the thoroughness of consultation that was undertaken in its drafting, both with the offshore petroleum industry and state and the Northern Territory governments. I express my gratitude to the Prime Minister, who gave approval for exposure drafts of the bill to be widely circulated to stakeholders during the drafting process. I am particularly grateful to those industry members and officials who examined the draft bills and provided critical comments and constructive suggestions about them. This was important with a view to avoiding inadvertent changes in rewriting provisions from the current acts into the new texts. We now have before the Senate these best practice items of legislation. Technological developments, global energy markets and the world economy all exert impacts which mean the regulatory framework for offshore petroleum exploration and development is unlikely to stand still for long. Change is inevitable, at times involving subordinate legislation, at times the act itself. That said, I have no doubt that if the bills we are voting on today are passed their titles will become part of the energy resource sector vocabulary for a long time to come. More than that, I am confident that this legislation, by reducing compliance and administration costs for industry and governments, will help make Australia a more attractive place for petroleum exploration and development. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. 112 Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 112 20:52:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 4708: (1)    Clause 6, page 17 (after line 7), after the definition of location, insert: marine protected area means an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, managed through legal or other effective means. (2)    Clause 77, page 76 (line 5), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add “or a marine protected area”. (3)    Clause 77, page 76 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:               (3)    Subsection (2) does not authorise exploration for petroleum in a marine protected area. I rise to address these Australian Greens amendments on the issue of oil exploration prohibited in marine reserves. In so doing, I want to respond to something Senator Colbeck said a moment ago. I want an answer from Senator Colbeck. There is a Department of the Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee, which has been dealing with the EPBC seismic cetacean guidelines. I want to know whether the new guidelines have been drafted and released and whether they are being implemented, because the guidelines that were being used, which were the limbo stick, if you like, above which all activities were allowed, were absolutely outdated and unacceptable and in no way could deal with international concern about noise pollution and scientific evidence in relation to seismic testing and the like. Further, Senator Colbeck did not listen to what I said. I said that at the time of the whale strandings in south-east Tasmania the Navy was in the area using sonar. In the case of the first stranding, they were in port. In the case of the second, they were not. Also, I said that offshore petroleum seismic activities had commenced in Bass Strait in the days before the testing. I then went on to say that it is time we dealt with those particular issues. I accept that the Navy report has not been released publicly. I would be delighted if Senator Colbeck would release all the details from the Navy in relation to that particular stranding, the updated seismic cetacean guidelines and any minutes from the Department of the Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee to tell us how often that committee has met and what it has done in the last 12 months. That would be a considerable improvement in public knowledge of what is going on in relation to that particular matter. The amendments that I am moving now are in relation to the prohibition of oil exploration in marine reserves. It is fairly self-explanatory. A definition exists for ‘marine protected area’—an area of land or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources managed through legal or other effective means. The Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 should have been dealt with in the context of regional marine planning. We should be looking at statutory integrated regional marine planning, and it should be very proactive about requiring companies to be looking at a duty of care to protect the environment, not just to mop up after the damage they have caused. All this bill does is require them to mop up after the damage. It does not require them to take a duty of care. It has no object to adhere to ecologically sustainable development and it does not come within the context of integrated regional marine planning. We are going to see major conflict in relation to the marine environment in the next 20 or 30 years because of the government’s complete failure to look at integrated regional marine planning. Fish stocks are running out. Oil is running out. There will be huge pressure on gas reserves. At the same time, there will be a recognition that the marine environment is so overstretched that it cannot maintain the ecosystems, in part because of global warming and in part because of the damage that has been done as a result of a range of things, not least of which is the oil and gas sector. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this legislation does not make provision for the precautionary principle, for this legislation to be incorporated into regional marine planning in the context of oceans policy, which should by now have some legislative backing or statutory framework, and it does not. In the absence of that, it is logical and quite clear that, if you are going to set aside a marine protected area in order to maintain biological diversity of natural and associated cultural resources and if you take the time and trouble to exclude the fishing industry in order to allow ecosystems to be managed as whole ecosystems in an attempt to maintain their viability and some sustainability into the future under the stresses that they are currently under, then you would allow mining, exploration, drilling and seismic testing in those areas, which go against all of the principles of marine park planning. On that basis, these amendments set aside quite clearly a recognition that marine protected areas are important. The amendments are consistent with the agenda laid out at the World Parks Congress, which was welcomed by the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the minister for the environment, and the plan of action out of Durban, which became endorsed as a plan of action at the World Conservation Union Congress in Bangkok, where Australia had a delegation. There we are, at all of these international fora, agreeing that the marine environment is important, agreeing that we need to increase marine protected areas by 10 per cent in the next decade and agreeing that we need to have ecosystem planning. I do not know whether all of those things were even consulted on. There is no suggestion of where EPBC, the Department of the Environment and Heritage or anyone fits into this, but they are certainly excluded. Given that, I am now moving to include this prohibition of oil exploration in marine reserves. It is entirely logical to accept these amendments, and it would be consistent with the government’s stated aims to protect the marine environment, which I have heard at any marine conference I have ever been to. 114 20:59:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —In relation to the steering committee that Senator Milne referred to, that process is continuing. I do not have any specific information on its deliberations, but it will reconvene in the second week of March. As to the issue of what activity was occurring in and around Bass Strait at what time, I stand by my comments. The seismic work that was being conducted at the time of the whale stranding was over 430 kilometres away in Bass Strait. The strandings occurred off the south-east coast of Tasmania. There are a range of issues in relation to that on which the science is being developed. I recognise it is a serious issue and there are a range of scientific opinions on that. But, as I said earlier, I believe to apply carte blanche blame to certain things without putting the details of the facts on the table is disingenuous. I ask Senator Milne to consider the terminology she uses, particularly in relation to marine parks and marine protected areas. There is a distinct difference. Under operations occurring at the moment, marine protected area proposals are currently being developed for the south-east region of Australia. Under the proposals, something like 17 per cent of that region will be included in marine protected areas, as opposed to the 10 per cent that Senator Milne talked about. But they are not marine parks; they are marine protected areas. There are different classifications of use allowed within those marine protected areas. In some circumstances, they allow fishing. I am concerned at Senator Milne’s understanding of that as an issue because the fishermen are not necessarily locked out of marine protected areas, depending upon the use classification. Given the prominence of the issue in her home state of Tasmania over the last few months, I am really concerned that she does not appear to understand exactly what is going on with that. In relation to interaction with the EPBC Act, for every activity authorised under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, an environmental management plan is required. These requirements are set out in regulations made under the act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999. They effectively deal with the issues that Senator Milne raised in relation to her amendments. That is the basis on which the government will not be supporting the Greens amendments. The government, throughout this process, has consulted with the environmental movement. It has consulted with the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, the Wilderness Society, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, the Surfrider Foundation, the Marine and Coastal Community Network and the conservation council of Australia. 115 21:03:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —I thank Senator Colbeck for bringing up the definitional difference. As the minister here tonight, I ask him to explain to the Senate the difference between a marine protected area and a marine national park. I think it is very important that we get that from the government, which has introduced the legislation, so there can be no room for doubt. In relation to the proposed marine protected area of St Helens, which he has referred to, what is the delimitation on fishing that will apply to this protected area? What is the delimitation on offshore petroleum exploration, the matter in hand tonight, that will apply to that area? The minister, in response to Senator Milne, spoke about the 450 kilometre gap between the seismic testing in Bass Strait and the whale strandings off the east coast of Tasmania. Could the minister please tell the committee how far a whale can move in 24 hours? Could he also tell the committee what the government’s knowledge is on how far sonar testing can be picked up across the span of ocean to which it is exposed? It would help us to work out the potential impact on the cetaceans that Senator Milne talked about if the minister could give us the government’s knowledge on these important matters which are, of course, central to this amendment. 115 21:05:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator Brown, I do not have the specific information here with me about whale travelling distances, sonar travelling distances or the rate of fall-off, for that matter, of sonar sounds. I can undertake to get that for you on notice and I am quite happy to do that. In relation to marine parks and marine protected areas, my understanding of a marine park is that it is essentially a whole of water environment with floor to surface protection of that environment around the marine park. As to the key fundamentals of marine protected areas, particularly those that are being proposed at the moment in the south-east of Australia as the first of a range of MPAs proposed around Australia, the principle objective is protection of the benthic environment—in other words, the ocean floor and the immediate environment of the ocean floor: the floor itself and what is growing on the floor. That brings into play the capacity for different methods of operation of fishing, particularly, that are determined to be of low impact within those zones. That includes recreational fishing and, in other areas where there is no impact on the benthic environment, commercial fishing. There are other classification areas that under the proposals are no-take zones, which are protected completely. There is capacity for exploration through those areas but, as I said during my presentation earlier, any formalised application for those issues needs to go through an application under the EPBC Act in accordance with the regulations of 1999. 115 21:07:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Surely any reasonable person listening to that must start to query a situation where a marine protected area is not a marine national park because it is the sea floor that is being protected, not the waters above. You can fish in the waters above but presumably not drop your line—or whatever other equipment you have—to the ocean floor, or the area above it, unless you are a petroleum explorer. Then you can come in and set up your establishment on top of it and drill right through it. Could the minister explain the government’s logic in this? The minister, Senator Colbeck, does not know how far whales travel and does not even know how far exploratory sound bombing of the ocean floor travels but says he will get that information for us. We, of course, need that information for these particular amendments which are to protect marine reserves and the associated ecosystem. So I ask the minister if he could give us information on, firstly, the logic of allowing petroleum exploration damage to the benthic zone and to the ocean floor and, indeed, below it, and the risk which goes with that of oil spills—the attendant risks that we all know about—while keeping it as a marine protected area from a fishing point of view. And could he please tell us when he will get the information which is essential to these motions—basic information which no minister should come in here without—about the movement of cetaceans and the distance in which sonar testing can be picked up. 116 21:10:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator Brown, those issues would quite rightly and quite properly be dealt with in the management plan that would be required to be put into place under an application to operate in one of these zones. I reject the assertion that you make in relation to the information that I might or might not have here tonight. But those issues should and quite properly would be dealt with as part of a management plan, as is provided for in the act. 116 21:10:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Well, no. I know the minister is standing in tonight but when you bring legislation before the Senate you bring it with the knowledge that there will be a debate on it. The last thing you want to do is say that there is some other device, some other piece of information which is centrally germane to the legislation and to amendments and is the information that is going to inform a committee, but you cannot have it while you are debating it. This does not stand. The minister might say that the management plans are a regulatory device and that the Senate will be able to look at them at some future time, and I would like him to inform us about that. But Mr Temporary Chairman Brandis, as you will no doubt agree, it is the minister’s responsibility to come in here informed about all aspects of this legislation. Copping out by saying, ‘Well, I don’t know’ or ‘I’ll tell you later’ is simply not adequate to an informed debate on a matter as important as this. So I ask him: can he get that information? We have doubled the size of the adviser’s box since Senator Milne spoke. Can he get that information and inform the committee before we move on? 116 21:12:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator, as I have said— Opposition senators interjecting— 00AOL Colbeck, Sen Richard Senator COLBECK —I will take the interjection, Senator O’Brien. The adviser’s box is exactly the same size it was before. Senator Brown, as I said before, it is quite right and proper that there is a process in place and via the EPBC Act issues relating to the marine environment will be dealt with under that act. I refute your assertion. We can go in a circular argument all night, I suppose, if that is what you want to do, but it is my responsibility to have provisions in place to deal with these issues. I think I should have an understanding of that and I am quite confident that is the case. 117 21:12:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —The Labor Party has, in fact, some sympathy with Senator Colbeck’s arguments on behalf of the government in that it is our view that this act, or indeed other acts of this parliament, contain adequate provisions for environmental assessment, determination of approvals and management of exploration programs in environmentally sensitive areas. The argument does not stand or fall on whether every single pertinent provision that Senator Brown mentions is contained in this legislation. For example, as Senator Colbeck has pointed out, aspects of the EPBC Act do apply to exploration under this legislation. We do take the view that that is a more appropriate place for that material to be dealt with. We do not think that this is the appropriate legislation which would, for example, prohibit exploration in a particular area. The appropriate legislation would be either Commonwealth or state legislation, depending on whether the waters under the constitutional arrangements were Commonwealth or state waters. Those particular pieces of legislation would need to establish the various tenures for marine protected areas. That legislation would need to clearly spell out the prohibitions on use and the permitted use for the areas which are to be described as marine protected. Those are the premises on which the opposition will be approaching this legislation. We understand the intent of the amendments, but we do not accept the premise upon which they are based—that is, that the absence of every single aspect of the material mentioned in the amendments should be in this bill. It is our view that there are provisions in other legislation which cover the measures which are intended to be addressed. In some cases, in terms of marine protected areas, that legislation will be beyond the reach of this parliament, because it will not be Commonwealth waters that we are dealing with. We think that, in that case, it is more appropriate that it be dealt with by the state legislation. We are not minded to support the legislation on the basis of those principles. Whilst we understand the matters being pursued by Senator Brown and Senator Milne, we do not believe that they are matters which need to be contained in the bill now before the Senate. 117 21:16:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I want to comment on a couple of matters. When I talked about consultation, I was referring to the fact that the decision whether to issue a permit, lease or licence does not involve collaborative decision making or involvement with those with expertise in ecology; the decision to issue a permit or licence is made by the designated authority, who is the state or territory minister alone. No reference is made to other sectors or agencies. When I was talking about consultation, I was talking about this bill in the context of regional marine planning and the fact that the other agencies that have expertise in these matters over a range of issues are not included and that, ultimately, the minister can decide and will do so as the designated authority. In terms of consultation, Senator Colbeck listed all of the NGOs, or non-government organisations, which had been consulted in relation to this bill. Perhaps he would like to enlighten the house as to what they said about this bill. Consultation does not mean just asking them, hearing what they have to say and then taking no notice whatsoever. Consultation, if it is genuine, means you incorporate into the bill some of the concerns expressed by the people you have consulted. Perhaps Senator Colbeck could tell us: what is incorporated into this bill that has come from all of those NGOs who are involved with environmental protection? What did ACF have to say? You have quoted them as one of the groups who have been consulted in relation to this bill. Did they think it was a great bill and had no problems? What did the environment groups have to say about this Offshore Petroleum Bill? Now that you have listed them all, let us hear the comments that they had to make in relation to this bill before you proceed to tell us that you consulted them. You have proceeded anyway. I would suggest that every one of those groups would have drawn your attention to the fact that this legislation does not use the word ‘oceans’ once, does not use the word ‘marine’ once and fails to talk about ecologically sustainable development or ecosystem based management. 118 21:18:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator Milne, my advice is that, in relation to the management of environment regulations that form part of this process, which came into force in 1999 and were updated in 2005, WWF and ACF in particular were part of the consultation and agreed with our proposals in relation to that. 118 21:19:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Did they agree with the proposal in relation to everything, or was there some point of concern or disagreement? That is the whole question that Senator Milne asked, and that is what we have a right to be informed about. Senator Colbeck might tell us about that. In not unexpectedly professing Labor’s support for the legislation, Senator O’Brien claimed that the EPBC Act in part covers the matters at hand here. I ask that minister—and I invite Senator O’Brien to contribute—which parts of the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, cover activities, including granting of exploration licences, that are involved in this legislation and which parts of the EPBC do not. If the minister cannot answer that, Senator O’Brien obviously does know about it and would be able to answer it. 118 21:20:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —I do not have, and nor do I think I should be expected to have, all of the details of the consultation process that was undertaken. I think that is a reasonable position that I can and should take. I will say that, for every activity authorised under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, an environmental management plan is required, which would obviously deal with the issues that we are talking about. As I have said before, these requirements are set out in regulations made under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999. As I have said, the amendments to the management of environment regulations were entirely agreed upon by all stakeholders, including the WWF and the ACF. 118 21:21:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Really? What about the other environment groups? What about the legislation as a whole? In his second reading speech, the minister said: I refer to issues such as establishing more comprehensive and up-to-date provisions about delegations and bringing the enactment into compliance with modern administrative law principles, for instance by explicitly requiring consultation with relevant parties before certain adverse decisions are taken. Could the minister’s delegate tell us what is meant by that sentence, what are the relevant parties referred to in that sentence and what sort of adverse decisions are being referred to there? 119 21:22:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —I am not going to enter into a debate to interpret the minister’s second reading speech. I think the speech is quite clear in what it says and in my view the issues that we are debating have been dealt with in my previous answers. 119 21:23:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —It is exasperating that we have a parliamentary secretary who cannot understand a sentence that is written by the minister and is presented as an explanation of this legislation to the Senate. It is a very important sentence and the minister’s delegate should be on top of it. I ask him if he would be good enough to ask the minister to report back to the Senate as to what is meant by the term ‘requiring consultation with relevant parties’, who the relevant parties will be and what the ‘certain adverse decisions’ referred to in that sentence are. This is a second reading speech on a very large piece of legislation and this is critical terminology. It is not explicit. It does not give an example. It is entirely reasonable and common—that is what this committee debate is about—for the committee to be informed about such a matter. It is a failure of Senate process when a minister’s delegate in a debate like this says, ‘I’m not going to tell you.’ This is a failure by government to inform the parliament on a debate which is quite critical. Senator O’Brien, who was trying to help the parliamentary secretary out before, might know. I invite him to contribute to the debate if he does. If not, there are a couple of other pieces of the second reading speech I would like to ask about. We all know that second reading speeches above all have to be clear in what they state because they describe and explain the government’s approach to and reasons for legislation. It is absolutely critical that they not be misunderstood and that they be totally explicable by the government representative. I have a few more of those but, while the parliamentary secretary is considering that with advice, I will sit down and wait. 119 21:25:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator Brown, I do not think it is reasonable for you to decide, as you usually tend to do, that the best way to debate an issue is to attack the person debating the issue rather than argue the issue. If that is the track that you want to go down, I will ask for some advice in relation to that issue. If you have some other questions, you might like to put those on the record while I am waiting for that advice. 119 21:26:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —I thank the parliamentary secretary for responding. He is going to try and get some information. I do not want to put the other questions on record; I want to ask the parliamentary secretary because he is here. We do not put these things on record; we get them explained during a debate. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would give the chamber the government’s definition of ‘ecologically sustainable development’. The paragraph in the second reading speech immediately following the one which I quoted earlier says: An example of this— referring to the previous sentence— is the right by holders of exploration permits and retention leases to recover petroleum on an appraisal basis. Could the parliamentary secretary explain that sentence? 120 21:27:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Again, I do not have specific interpretations of these particular issues here with me. I am going to have to seek advice in relation to this. I think ‘ecologically sustainable development’ is a commonly used term that we have an understanding of. Perhaps we have different interpretations of what we would like it to mean, but I am not going to get involved in a circular debate on this matter as part of this process. 120 21:28:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —It is not a circular debate. It is called snookering when a minister’s delegate says, ‘I can’t explain.’ Mind you, I did tempt the parliamentary secretary to explain that term because he would have been the first government member in the history of this parliament to explain what the government means when it uses that term. He is rating as well as his predecessors on that one. While he is looking for an explanation of that sentence, I go to the next paragraph, which says: Other changes are intended to achieve greater administrative tidiness, one instance of which is the proposal that exact periods of a year would no longer be required for fixing work program milestones. In addition, there are refinements to National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority powers and functions plus machinery amendments, such as disapplying the Navigation Act 1912 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 in relation to an offshore petroleum facility. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could explain what is meant by the term ‘disapplying’ and why that is occurring. 120 21:29:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —In relation to the first issue, about compliance with modern administrative law principles and the requirement for consultation of relevant parties, my advice is that that relates to those who may be impacted on by the activities undertaken under the act and therefore a consultation process is required to occur. In relation to the second point that you raised and which you say is contained in the second last paragraph of the second page of the second reading speech, I am not sure that we do not have a different format of the document, because neither I nor my officials can identify the section you are talking about. You might like to run through that for me again so that we can explore that. 120 21:30:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —I asked for a copy of the legislation and attendant papers here 20 minutes ago, and I was reading from the Senate Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 second reading speech. I was reading from the second page and the second last paragraph. In response to what the minister just said: he says that consultation with ‘relevant parties’ means with those impacted on; does that mean that, where there is some activity that requires consultation with relevant parties, the environment drops out at that stage—‘before certain adverse decisions are taken’? Suddenly even the WWF and the ACF are no longer relevant to the deliberations of this government over what should happen in that particular instance. 120 21:32:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator Brown, that is not the interpretation that I would place on it. It refers back to the requirements of the 1999 act, which was updated in 2005 and does include the involvement of environmental groups. I am not trying to be difficult about this paragraph that we are seeking. Please don’t get me wrong in that respect; I am genuinely trying to find the paragraph. It may be that the documents that we have are formatted in a different way, but we cannot at the moment find the words that you quoted. If you would like to run through them again for me, I can perhaps identify them in my document. 121 21:32:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Sure. The paragraph begins: There are also amendments deleting unused provisions, which no longer need to remain in the legislation. and amendments to make explicit concepts that are currently implied or merely to be deduced. An example of this— this is what I quoted before— is the right by holders of exploration permits and retention leases to recover petroleum on an appraisal basis. That beats me and I would be happy if we could get an explanation as to what that meant. 121 21:34:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —It does appear that we have a conflict in documentation here. That particular paragraph does not appear in the second reading speech that I have as part of my documentation, so I really have no choice but to take the question on notice. 121 21:34:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Thank you. I will be interested to find out the explanation there; that has heightened my interest somewhat! Chair, I did ask Senator Colbeck about the next paragraph, which begins: Other changes are intended to achieve greater administrative tidiness … It goes on to say: … there are refinements … such as disapplying the Navigation Act 1912 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 in relation to an offshore petroleum facility. I asked why those acts are being, to use the term in the second reading speech, ‘disapplied’. 121 21:35:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —Can I help the parliamentary secretary out to the extent that I can on the advice that I have. The passage which refers to the recovery of petroleum on an appraisal basis apparently refers to a previously existing arrangement where a lease and permit were required to assess, and another lease was required to take oil from a lease to appraise the value of the lease. Those two provisions are being combined into one. That is the advice that I have. I am not sure how far that takes the debate, but perhaps that helps the parliamentary secretary out. 121 21:36:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Thanks, Senator O’Brien. Senator Brown, it appears to me that we have very different copies of the second reading speech, which is extremely unfortunate in the context of conducting this debate. So, in relation to that final point that you raised, I am going to have to take that on notice too, Senator Brown. 121 21:36:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I wanted to ask why it is necessary to have a situation where you can in fact prescribe oil exploration in certain areas, especially in relation to protected marine areas. It seems to me that this legislation is creating, if you like, new acreages where the petroleum industry will effectively have private property rights for a long period of time. There should be a process which should be gone through, which involves public notification of the proposed creation of new acreages for oil and gas exploration and the seeking of public comment on those, not just in petroleum magazines but also in daily newspapers relevant to the state, on the web, nationally and so on because, in frontier areas which are new to petroleum exploration and development, there may well be very significant environmental values and ecosystems which need protection. The Department of the Environment and Heritage and, in particular, the National Oceans Office should have veto rights if an area is too sensitive to sustain petroleum or any other exploration or if the environmental values are not yet known or fully understood. As I said before, very little of the oceans has been adequately explored, and we simply do not know what is there. This legislation is effectively creating private property rights over the global commons which are the oceans and not providing a capacity to proscribe oil and gas exploration in areas. There is an assumption that there is no place where the oil and gas sector cannot go. For some reason or another, people think that it is perfectly fine to use the seabed in any place for this particular purpose. The fact that these new acreages are being created without the capacity to proscribe makes it even more important that we have in this legislation the amendment as proposed that, in considering an area for an oil or gas permit or licence, there should be the capacity to assess it as a marine protected area in full consultation with the Oceans Office and the Department of the Environment and Heritage and therefore proscribe oil exploration. At the moment, there is no provision anywhere. There just seems to be an assumption that the industry can operate sustainably anywhere; it is just a matter of the technology. I would dispute that absolutely. I do not believe that that is the case. That is the point I was making earlier about the failure of this legislation to be integrated with environmental legislation and with the National Oceans Office. The failure to have an oceans policy backed by a legislative or statutory framework means we get into these situations where we are considering oil and gas exploration as if it were a single-user regime in complete isolation from any other marine use, let alone marine conservation. That is not the case. The oceans are complex ecosystems, just as we find with terrestrial ecosystems, and you cannot bring in legislation that deals just with a single use without recognising the integrated nature of that. That is why it is imperative that we have a situation where, in marine protected areas, it is possible to prohibit exploration for oil, gas or petroleum exploration—any of that exploration and seismic testing et cetera—which would then allow the provision to prescribe areas in the first place rather than have as the basic assumption of this legislation that oil and gas exploration can go anywhere where there is not currently a marine protected area. I would like the minister to explain to me whether in fact this legislation is creating new acreages and why there is no provision for full public consultation and consultation with the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the National Oceans Office in order that there be consideration of veto rights on the basis of environmental values and the precautionary principle. 122 21:41:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —I do not concur that the assertion that you are putting forward is in fact the case. As I have said previously, for every activity authorised under this act, an environmental management plan is required. Those environmental management plans are developed in accordance with the EPBC Act and also the environmental regulations that were referred to previously. So it is not a situation of carte blanche. If a company want to conduct some explorations, they make an application to do so and it goes through the processes that we have described. So I would reject the assertion that you are making that it is in fact carte blanche. There is a process for approval that does include consultation, and the process for the development of management plans under that process has gone through a process of consultation with players, including environmental groups, and they have ticked off on that. So I cannot agree with the assertion you are making, Senator Milne, that essentially any area outside a marine protected area—or a marine park, for that matter—is carte blanche. 123 21:42:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —I presume when the minister is saying that they have ‘ticked off on it’ that he means the legislation. I would like him to say what he does mean. We will check on this overnight, no doubt. I go back to the second reading speech. In the middle of page 3, it says, talking about the boundaries that are encompassed by this bill: A small northward displacement of the scheduled area outer boundary north-west of Western Australia is also proposed, in line with Australia’s continental shelf claim beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline that has been submitted to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Could the minister tell us where that is or take it on notice so that we can find out in the morning? Also, it says up the front: The Government saw the need, some years ago, to rewrite the Act to provide a more user-friendly enactment that will reduce compliance costs for governments and the industry. I wonder if he could give a description to the committee on what the order of reduction of compliance costs is in dollars for both those entities—the governments and the industry—on a per annum basis. 123 21:44:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —Senator Brown, I was not talking about the legislation; it was the regulations that I have referred to several times before that were developed in consultation with all key stakeholders and that went through a review process. They are the regulations that are part of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. 123 21:45:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —Senator Colbeck may have been distracted by one of his colleagues when I asked— LI4 Patterson, Sen Kay Senator Patterson —No he wasn’t. QD4 Brown, Sen Bob Senator BOB BROWN —There were two other questions; would he like to answer those? 123 21:45:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —The distraction was in fact quite an informative process, which has informed me that there are in fact two different documents. There was a second reading speech prepared for tabling as part of the legislative process, which the minister asked to be cut down. But the original second reading speech, which you are referring to in the questions are asking, was actually tabled. This clarifies the reason why we have different documents to refer to. The issues that you raised in your last question are also raised in parts of the second reading speech, which I do not have. Again, I will have to take that issue on notice. 123 21:46:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I want to return to the point I made previously. I understand that, in the explanatory memorandum, in relation to retention leases mention is made of marine protected areas and the power of the joint authority to lay down conditions over a retention lease. The memo says that while the joint authority has the power to make conditions such as the lessee being excluded from marine protected areas, those powers must conform to the general scope and purposes of the act. It would therefore appear that this act is being put before any marine protected area or national park legislation in the hierarchy of decision making. It seems curious that the joint authority can tell the lessee to stay out of a marine protected area, but the park service cannot. I want to know which takes precedence when it comes to gas and oil exploration—this particular act or an act to provide for a marine protected area? 124 21:47:00 Colbeck, Sen Richard 00AOL Tasmania LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration 1 0 Senator COLBECK —I will have to seek some advice on that particular point for you. I do not have that information here with me. 124 21:47:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I think this highlights the point I have been making throughout: what this legislation does is entrench a disintegrated, multijurisdictional approach to the oceans that has artificial boundaries and delegated responsibility. We would have hoped that we would get real integration with marine regional planning, and the fact that we have not—the fact that this legislation is pertaining to oil and gas outside the context of other jurisdictions and authorities that have responsibility for oceans—means we are going back to something that was current 40 years ago. This act was written 40 years ago as a policy framework and set of underpinning assumptions, and the rewrite of this act does not in any way challenge the assumptions on which that act from 40 years ago was written. Now we are getting into a total tangle here because it is not integrated. It is a single-user approach to what we now know is a highly complex, integrated ecosystem. This is a critical issue for me: to determine whether, in the hierarchy of legislation, the parks and environment legislation will take precedence over this act, rather than the other way round. Progress reported. 124 Bills R2492 124 Senator PATTERSON (Victoria) 21:50:00 —On behalf of the Chair of the EconomicsLegislation Committee, Senator Brandis, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Future Fund Bill 2005 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. 124 Adjournment 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 9.50 pm, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. 124 124 21:50:00 Brandis, Sen George 008W7 Queensland LP 1 0 Senator BRANDIS —I remember in the early 1970s, when I was a schoolboy first coming to political awareness, it was the custom of my family on Sundays at noon to watch on the television a short program by BA Santamaria called Point of View. Mr Santamaria would warn against the threat of communism. He would talk about the tyranny of communism. I can still remember the lurid diagrams—the hammer and sickle across so many nations of the world and the downward-thrusting arrows in South-East Asia—and it was obvious to me, even to my schoolboyish eyes, that Mr Santamaria was very much against the prejudices of his time. Indeed, he subsequently entitled his memoirs Against the Tide. For those were the days when Mao Zedong was regarded as a great historical figure, when there was more sympathy for the Vietcong than for the Australian and American forces deployed in Vietnam, when Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were cult heroes, and Mao jackets and fatigues, red-star adorned workers’ caps and T-shirts displaying the latest item in communist kitsch were the last word in radical chic. It was a time when brilliant parliamentarians—men of outstanding intellect such as WC Wentworth, the member for Mackellar, and Senator Ivor Greenwood—were mocked and ridiculed as right-wing extremists when they sounded the alarm to an apparently unseeing world on the gravity of communist tyranny in so many nations. With the passage of the years, the world’s eyes slowly began to open. By the middle of the 1970s, Soviet scientists like Andrei Sakharov and writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were received in the West, and the West heeded their warnings about what the Soviet system stood for. Solzhenitsyn in particular exposed the Gulag. We in Australia witnessed at relatively close quarters the genocide of Pol Pot in the late 1970s, and then later in the 1980s we saw the Tiananmen Square massacre and the fall of the Berlin Wall. By the early 1990s, the collapse of communism had led to the opening of the Kremlin archives, and the full magnitude and horror of the system which had prevailed in the eastern European nations and in the Soviet Union were exposed for all to see. Solzhenitsyn’s dire warnings were demonstrated to be nothing more than a stark picture of an awful reality. The world began to reassess. However, to this day there is for some—particularly among the bourgeois left in the West—a selective capacity for outrage. There are still some who practise discrimination in their condemnation of political tyranny and selectivity in their pity for its victims. It is in that context that I want to draw to the attention of the Senate a most important resolution of the European Parliament that was carried some four weeks ago, on 25 January. It was resolution No. 1481 and it was moved by Mr Goran Lindblad, a Swedish parliamentarian of the European People’s Party. The resolution, which acknowledged and condemned the extent of communist atrocities in the 20th century, came on the heels of a report to the European assembly of its political affairs committee. This is the first comprehensive audit of the number of deaths directly attributable to communism in the 20th century. Although there have been numerous estimates by writers, academics and think tanks, the Council of Europe’s document is the first comprehensive study by a major government body. For that reason alone, it is an occasion of historic significance. According to the Council of Europe, a conservative estimate of deaths worldwide which are directly attributable to communist governments and revolutionary movements since the time of the Russian Revolution in 1917 is 94.5 million souls. That figure does not include people who died in wars fought by communist regimes against other nations. It does include deaths from genocide, purges, deportation, famines, civil wars, wartime reprisals, deaths in gulags and other concentration camps, and all other forms of domestic state-sponsored killing. The countries in which the greatest number of deaths are estimated to have occurred are China, 65 million; the Soviet Union, 20 million; Cambodia, two million; North Korea, two million; Africa, 1.7 million; Afghanistan, 1.5 million; Vietnam, one million; and Eastern Europe, one million. According to the Council of Europe, the death toll attributable to communism in the last century was almost one million people per year. On average, more than 2,500 people a day for every day of every year of the 20th century were exterminated in the service of ideology. To put those figures into context, the most reliable estimate of the number of people, military and civilian, killed in the First World War is between 10 and 15 million and, in the Second World War, between 50 million and 60 million. In other words, the number of people killed by communism in the 20th century—even on the most conservative estimate—exceeds by some 20 million the number of people killed in both world wars. Unlike war, the death toll from communism was the result of the deliberate policy of communist apparatchiks, driven by ideology to liquidate their own countrymen. It has been rightly said by historians that the 20th century was the most bloody century the world has ever seen. It was the most bloody century because of the development of war and killing on an industrial scale. It was the most bloody century because of the rise of tyrannical regimes across the world. But of all the causes of human suffering, death and bloodshed in the 20th century, the deliberate, advertent imposition on domestic populations by communist governments and communist movements of a policy of extermination of those who did not fit into their particular ideology—almost 100 million people—was the greatest. I think it is important that this Senate acknowledge the resolution of the Council of Europe. Some six years into the 21st century, it is not too early for us to assess the 20th century with the beginnings of some sort of historical perspective. It is not too early for us to begin to grasp the awful magnitude of the experiment that was communism. Even though our minds can barely comprehend the almost astronomical numbers of human souls involved, including men, women and children, we can at least in relative terms appreciate that in the century of industrial scale warfare, communism—an ideology, the fruit of the brains of men and women—was responsible for more slaughter than both of the great wars. We should be pleased that the Council of Europe, which presides over the jurisdiction in which much of the slaughter took place, has at last published an audit of that tyranny. We, on all sides of politics—professed practitioners of liberal democracy—should note it with solemnity and humility, and we should resolve that that should never be allowed to happen in this century, and the moral blindness which saw the West avert its eyes in the 20th century should never be suffered to happen again. 126 126 22:00:00 Moore, Sen Claire 00AOQ Queensland ALP 0 0 Senator MOORE —In December 2003, soon after I came to this place, I had the experience of being diagnosed with breast cancer. It was an experience that so many women share. When I went through my treatment at that time, with the good luck and fortune that I had, I said that I would try and make some kind of statement in this place on every anniversary of that time. I managed to do that once and, last year, if people remember, there were many pressing activities in this place and because of administrative and operational requirements the adjournment process was cancelled on a number of evenings. So at that time the Senate was spared my annual contribution on this particular issue. However, this evening I have the opportunity to catch up on that process. Tonight I want to share with the Senate the experiences of a couple of good friends of mine. As we all know, the statistics that confront us as a community on this issue are damaging and almost soul destroying. The good thing for many people who are going through it, though, is that it is not soul destroying. It is terrible. It is very painful. It can be isolating. But in the case of my two close mates who are going through that journey at the moment, it has led us to be able to share in a special way experiences that we hope will be taken up by other people. Our experiences show that when you are going through the journey there are so many people around who want to be part of that and give you the assistance that they think you may require and who also have the strength to know that when you say, ‘Go away and leave me alone’ that it is not rude; it is actually your way of coping. I want to talk particularly about a very good mate of mine who is now at the final stage of her treatment after being diagnosed late last year. She is an oncology nurse. She knows the process. She knows all about the theory of the treatment, working with the families and how it affects so many people in our community. What she did not know until November last year was that it was going to affect her and her own family. But the strength, the amazing resilience and the humour of this woman, whose friendship I treasure, has allowed her to survive the process. We had lunch together two weeks ago and, with her typical excitement and joy of experiencing all, she talked about getting just about every possible side effect she could get from the range of treatment she had, though not as bad as some people experience. We found we shared that experience as well. I think that one of the things about going through the cancer journey is that every time along the road where you think it is too much and you just cannot take the next step, you can look around and see so many people who are going through much worse than you are. Somehow it seems that you do not have the choice to stop and get off the boat because other people are there with you. In talking to my mate she explained that it is her small group of friends, mainly those who share her nursing profession, who have kept her grounded as she has worked through the original diagnosis, the desire to run away from it and pretend it did not happen and the range of treatments that we are so fortunate to have in this country. Because of her background, my mate chose to go through the public hospital system. She has been blessed with the amount of support she has received and the extraordinarily effective treatments both through the chemotherapy process and through the radiography treatment that she is undergoing at this moment. She has lost all her hair and now has a delightful series of very poor taste scarves. She has purchased a wig so that when she returns to her profession, which she intends doing very soon, she will be able to astound her comrades with the various colours of hair, not just her own. She will be able to create moods to take her through the process. The thing that she treasures most is the support and love of the friends who are around her. We were laughing about the fact that somehow it is not until you are actually there that you can value those friendships. Because they are a group of nurses, they have a particular relationship and I think they have a very special way of expressing themselves and their humour. At all times they are there on call for her. To watch the way these relationships, which are over 20 years duration, have been able to weather the storm of one of their own number going through the process has been, I think, an astounding experience for all of us. She does not know that I am speaking about her tonight and she will probably be a little traumatised by the process. But her own story is one that has been played out in the Queensland media because she is a state politician. When she was originally diagnosed, she had to make that decision about whether she was going to go public and let everyone know it was going to happen or whether to react later. The decision she made was that she and her family would go public. Now her story is going to become one of inspiration for all those women who receive that diagnosis. On current statistics, over 50 women will have probably received that message today. Somewhere in Australia through various processes—through mammogram clinics or their local doctor—they will have received news today that they are going to start the process of treatment. The methodology which they choose to take up will be very personal for each of them. The range of treatment is there but, in terms of the way they focus on the experience, each woman will have to make her own choice. The experience of my mate, I think, will give some inspiration to many of us who are working through this process. We will be able to show that the cancer journey is one that never ends, but we can work through it. We have talked about that in this place before. My friend has been called several times in the last few months to work with other women who are also at different stages in their treatments. Always she is available for them. I want to put on record this evening some information about her journey and some information, once again, about the value which cannot be measured of the various networks that we can surround ourselves with as we are going through this process. Some of those networks are provided by the hospital system, but mostly we rely on our friends, families and those around us. In terms of our national networks, at the moment there is a very successful advertising campaign, which has caught the imagination of younger women. In recent statistics there is increasing evidence of breast cancer in women in their 30s. That is something that until recently people did not fully understand. It was something that we would turn away from rather than say that women of all ages should look, check and make sure that they are following the key signs that doctors tell us about. For all those women who are working through this process at the moment, there is a network there for you. My friend, who is just about to return to full-time work, knows that so many people are supporting her. She knows that she will get the best possible medical support. As we said last week, the most important thing is knowing that there are people who truly understand what the experience is all about, who will give as much as you are prepared to take and will keep the message alive for the other women in Australia. It is not enough to know about the theory of this illness, it is not enough to read the leaflets and get into intelligent academic conversations; the important thing is to understand that it could happen to any one of us at any time. There are so many people wanting to give support, and this journey is best travelled with the friends and the support that are there. 128 128 22:09:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I rise tonight to talk about the brickworks at the airport bushland in Western Australia. As with all of Australia’s principal airports, Perth Airport is on Commonwealth land. Unlike most other capital cities, however, much of that land remains bushland. The airport is of extremely high conservation value. It is highly biodiverse and has one of the largest areas of uncleared bushland left in the metropolitan area. A large part of it is listed under the WA Bush Forever plan. Bush Forever is a plan that lists and in theory should protect all the significant remnant native vegetation in the Perth metropolitan area. It is what is left from all the industrial and housing development in Perth and it is particularly important. Unfortunately, the airport bushland has suffered a series of impacts over many years and, as late as last year, 37 hectares of bushland were cleared on this site. In 2003-04, 35 hectares were cleared. Not only were these areas cleared but other areas were drained into the remaining bushland, some of which was wetland. Perth has already lost 85 per cent of its wetlands on the Swan coastal plain, so any impact cannot be sustained. The airport land holds all that remains of the once vast five-mile swamp, one of the habitats of the extremely endangered Western Swamp Tortoise. While fragmented, it also holds valuable Indigenous heritage sites. Unfortunately, the Perth Airport bushland is under attack yet again, and it is an attack that the Commonwealth can do something about. The community is now confronted with a proposal for yet another brickworks in the area. The proponent is BGC, a well-known Perth construction company. The location of this proposal is within a localised airshed referred to by state authorities as the Swan Valley airshed. In this locality, five other brickworks operate. You can get the message that the local community is fairly sick of brickworks. They are in Bellevue, Caversham, Midland and there are two plants in Malaga, all within a 15-kilometre radius. These brickworks have been emitting pollutants to the atmosphere for many years and have been shown to breach ambient air quality standards for hydrogen fluoride according to the WA Environmental Protection Authority. There are many other substances emitted by these brickworks that have not been monitored for. These include acidic gases, dioxins, furans and heavy metals, all of which are known to cause ill health at ambient conditions over long periods of time. In 2003, the Department of Environment brickworks policy review concluded that despite no clear cause and effect relationship between brickwork emissions and ill health, the weight of evidence over many years has shown demonstrable health impacts, particularly respiratory irritation and sensitivity, in the surrounding communities. The proposed new brickworks on the airport land adjoins the communities of South Guildford, Hazelmere and High Wycombe and is very close to Bassendean and Ashfield. People are living within 200 metres of this site, and I am getting the message loud and clear that people have had enough of living under this kind of chemical fallout. The major development plan which is supposed to be developed for any major development on the airport land fails, in my opinion, to adequately consider the existing brickwork emissions to the local area because, as they state, there is almost no ambient monitoring data for this area. If we do not monitor it we are not going to bother to look at the impact. Yet again, we are being asked to trust the proponent. It is my understanding that the preparation of the plan did not even include a flora survey of the proposed site even though a portion of it is a Bush Forever site. I cannot underestimate the importance of Bush Forever sites in Western Australia and Perth. Similarly, Indigenous interests have been bypassed. The WA Department of Indigenous Affairs are currently investigating Indigenous heritage sites on WA airport land and possible breaches of land clearing that have already occurred at sites on airport land. This is an area in which the Commonwealth is completely responsible for Indigenous, environmental and public health outcomes. The results so far have not been positive—some would say they are of a Third World standard. No state government agencies have the power to regulate this site. It is unclear exactly how the federal government will regulate such an industry on airport land. We believe this needs to be given major consideration by the Commonwealth government. We believe the Commonwealth has been lax in approaching traditional owners and native title claimants for the area. It has been remiss in demanding a full environmental impact statement for this proposal. It is riding roughshod over residents’ concerns for their health and the health of their children. WA agencies, at last, have got the message. But, unfortunately, the Commonwealth does not seem to. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has the final say on this project. Unfortunately it does not appear that you have to take into account environmental protection, public health or Indigenous heritage when considering this proposal. It is up to the minister for airports to make the call over environmental protection, Indigenous issues and public health. That is not a proper process, or the right process, for such an important area. I mean no disrespect to the minister; it is just that the process has been inadequate for dealing with this extremely important issue. It seems that this must be the world’s worst practice for assessment and considering checks and balances. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, what I would call best practice in decision making. On any other land these decisions would be made by the appropriate state government agencies with responsibility for health, heritage, environmental protection and planning laws. In fact Western Australians are very used to going through these processes. I am not saying that WA has the best processes in the world, but we certainly have a highly used environmental protection act and an agency that considers these issues. How will the public be informed of unexpected emission releases, spills, accidents or breaches of ministerial conditions—if any are set—in real time when the proponent is only required to report annually? Again, in Western Australia under our various laws we have a defined process, which the community knows how to access, requiring reporting and notification to the community. How efficiently and with what certainty will the federal government be able to close the plant should conditions become untenable for the surrounding community or if ministerial conditions are breached? I heard here at estimates just last week that the agency monitoring ministerial conditions does not report to the community if environmental conditions are breached. Again, Western Australians are very used to accessing the monitoring of ministerial and environmental conditions. I believe this is a classic test case for the government’s commitment to sustainability. So far it is failing the test on environmental, health and Indigenous heritage grounds. I hope the government will take a second look at this proposal and reconsider its approach for the good of all concerned. 130 130 22:17:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I would like to speak tonight about the issue of live animal exports. It is an issue I have spoken about many, many times in this chamber and it is getting a bit tedious and distressing to have the same issues come up time and time again with the same incorrect and dissembling responses from the government and the industry. As many senators would know, last night there was footage screened on the 60 Minutes program of appalling cruelty in the way cattle were slaughtered in an abattoir in Egypt—the abattoir that most Australian cattle transported to Egypt go through. I have seen more of that footage and footage from other slaughterhouses where Australian livestock go to in the Middle East. Frankly, the footage that was shown on 60 Minutes was G-rated compared to the stuff that I have seen. But, quite rightly, what was shown was enough. It was enough for the minister, Mr McGauran, to say it was completely unacceptable and completely inhumane. However, the same responses that are coming forth from the industry and the minister have been heard time and time again. This, of course, is not the first time 60 Minutes has shown footage of the appalling mistreatment of animals that are part of the livestock trade out of Australia. It has also been shown on other commercial TV stations, which makes you wonder why the minister looked so shocked when he saw it again last night. I am not suggesting he was faking it; I am suggesting there is an amazing ability by those in the government who keep defending this trade to just block out of their minds the reality of what the trade involves. There is continual repetition by the industry and the minister of the same old arguments they have been using for decades now about why the live animal export trade has to keep happening. I draw attention to the response that the minister, Mr McGauran, made to the dorothy dixer he got in the House of Representatives a couple weeks ago on 14 February. This chamber was not sitting so I did not have a chance to respond to it. He took the opportunity to criticise me fairly comprehensively for my call to phase out the livestock export trade. He once again repeated the same old fabricated nonsense that: Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia hold a strong preference for fresh meat because of consumer requirements and religious beliefs ... many of the markets do not have refrigeration— Apparently they do not have fridges over there much these days. He went on to say: ... many communities cultural and religious preferences demand that meat needs to be purchased and consumed near where the livestock is slaughtered. This is simply not true, and the fact that it keeps getting repeated does not make it true. Frankly, the fact that it keeps getting repeated year after year and is used to attack people who criticise the trade is offensive and incredibly irritating. There already exists a very significant, substantial market from Australia in slaughtered meat, in processed meat, to the Middle East and to Muslim countries. I draw the Senate’s attention to a media release put out by the Federation of Islamic Councils on 24 February citing the facts with regard to this. For example, last year Australian lamb meat exports to the Middle East were a record 14,052 tonnes. Australian mutton meat exports to the region went up by 24 per cent in the same period. These are figures that are in the public arena. According to this statement, they represent the equivalent of more than two million sheep slaughtered in Australia for Middle Eastern Muslim countries. The type of slaughter that has been shown repeatedly, including on 60 Minutes last night, is not by any stretch of the imagination halal slaughter. That would not pass for halal slaughter in Australia. We have accredited halal slaughter processes in Australia which are in accordance with the Islamic sharia. We might ask the great expert in Muslim and Islamic law Peter Costello about sharia law, which he seems to think is some reason for people to be chucked out of the country. In this case, it is simply an Islamic ruling regarding how cattle have to be slaughtered in accordance with Muslim practice. We already have accredited slaughtering in Australia and scope for that to be expanded. We already export to Muslim and Middle Eastern markets enormous amounts of meat slaughtered according to that practice, in accordance with Australian law and Australian animal welfare standards. It is time to drop the myth that there is no alternative or that religious practices mean that they will not buy the product unless it is slaughtered there right in front of their faces. There is a very small component of that for religious and celebratory occasions, but to suggest that the entire live export trade has to keep going because of that is monumentally false. Similarly, the suggestion that they do not have enough refrigeration over there to be able to deal with meat that has been slaughtered overseas and chilled meat products from other countries, like Australia, is simply farcical and plays on people’s ignorance. Some of these countries are extraordinarily wealthy. If you have been to airports like Dubai airport and the like, there is a bit of refrigeration, and I think they have a bit of refrigeration in other parts of the country as well. It is a laughable excuse. It is tragic that it keeps being put forward and that the industry keeps repeating it. Presumably, some in the government keep believing it. It echoes to me the attitude that has led to the tragic situation Australian farmers are facing because of the AWB scandal at the moment. I am not alleging kickbacks or anything like that, but it is the same approach of believing whatever it is the industry bodies, the people who run the industry and the people who profit from the industry keep telling people and the government. They keep telling the government, ‘We’ve sent people to these abattoirs and it’s all fine and the Australian cattle are well treated,’ and the government keeps believing them. It is the same as AWB. They ask them, ‘Is everything all right?’ They say, ‘Yes, it’s all right,’ and that is good enough for the government. Frankly, it should not be good enough any longer. I think the fact that the government has not recognised this from the ample amount of evidence that is already in the public arena is a sign of their incompetence and the responsibility they have to bear for some of the difficulties that the industry faces from these continual regular public controversies. In making these criticisms and in regularly calling for the live export trade to be phased out, I do not in any way suggest that there are not economic consequences for some Australians or that people’s livelihoods would not be affected. But I do say that, if the trade were shifted and live trade phased out in an ordered way, it would have far less impact on people’s livelihoods than the sorts of sudden shocks that can happen to a market when you get bans like we have had—prolonged bans to Saudi Arabia, for example, and other sorts of things. This is not going to be the last controversy. Every time this controversy happens, I stand up here and make a speech. The minister stands up and says, ‘We’re very concerned about animal welfare. We’re onto it. We’ll fix it up. It’s not going to happen again. Everything is all right now.’ A year later, something else happens. I stand up and make another speech. The same thing happens again. Meanwhile, hundreds and thousands of animals continue to suffer extraordinarily and in appalling ways. The other fact that needs to continue to be emphasised in this regard is that there is ample and credible evidence put together and studies done by agricultural economists, not rampant vegetarian animal libbers, that say that there are clearly viable strong employment and export opportunities in the trade of meat slaughtered and processed in Australia that is being lost because of the live export trade. It is a market like anything else, but plenty of markets have a self-sustaining way. That does not mean that there are lost opportunities if we go down a different path. It is time to go down that different path. It is time for the industry and for the government to finally open their eyes and ears and recognise not only the inherent cruelty involved in this trade that simply cannot be got rid of but also that there are many job opportunities being lost in Australia and many export dollars already being earned that can be built on if there is a simple recognition and the stubborn attitude is finally shifted. Recognising a need to shift does not mean that somehow or other you have lost— (Time expired) 133 22:28:00 Senate adjourned at 10.28 pm 133 Documents 133 The following documents were tabled by the Clerk: [Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number] Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Act—Decision-Making Principles Governing the Retention of Anti-Personnel Mines by the Australian Defence Forces [F2006L00588]*. Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 39—Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00453]*. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act— Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (confidentiality) determination No. 2 of 2006—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2006L00584]*. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority instrument fixing charges No. 1 of 2006—Access to the NCPD by NCPD insurers during 2004-05 and 2005-06 [F2006L00530]*. Aviation Transport Security Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 40—Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00564]*. Bankruptcy Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 4—Bankruptcy Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00521]*. Broadcasting Services Act—Variation to Licence Area Plan Tasmania Television—No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L00583]*. Civil Aviation Act— Civil Aviation Regulations—Instrument No. CASA EX03/06—Exemption—training and checking organisation, flight system [F2006L00351]*. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—Airworthiness Directives—Part— 105— AD/A320/190 Amdt 1—Engine Pylon Spar Box Ribs [F2006L00449]*. AD/A320/191—Ram Air Turbine—Carbon Blade [F2006L00384]*. AD/A330/45 Amdt 2—Wing Rib 6 [F2006L00454]*. AD/B737/2—Engine Fuel Supply—Leak Tests [F2006L00456]*. AD/B747/339—Fuselage Lower Lobe Skin STA 741 to STA 1741 [F2006L00452]*. AD/B767/218—Off-Wing Escape System [F2006L00451]*. AD/B767/219—Aileron Control Override Quadrant [F2006L00370]*. AD/BELL 412/40 Amdt 1—Main Rotor Yoke [F2006L00448]*. AD/BELL 412/44 Amdt 1—Tail Rotor Blade Fwd Tip Weight Retention Block and Aft Tip Closure [F2006L00447]*. AD/BELL 412/47—Hoist Cable Cut Electrical Circuit [F2006L00368]*. AD/BELL 412/49—Rescue Hoist P/N BL10300-60 and P/N BL10300-59 [F2006L00446]*. AD/BELL 412/50—Breeze-Eastern Rescue Hoist Assembly [F2006L00444]*. AD/DHC-8/107—Outboard Flap Front Spar Attachment Fittings [F2006L00443]*. AD/DHC-8/108—Horizontal Stabiliser Attachment Fittings [F2006L00442]*. AD/DHC-8/109—Fuel Access Panel Attachment Anchor Nut [F2006L00441]*. AD/DHC-8/110—Outer Wing Fuel Access Panel [F2006L00440]*. AD/DHC-8/111—Fuselage Bottom Skin and VHF Antenna Support Structure [F2006L00439]*. AD/DHC-8/112—Forward Engine Mount Assembly [F2006L00438]*. AD/DO 328/39—Elevator Drain Holes [F2006L00437]*. AD/DO 328/40—Flight Control Component Identification [F2006L00436]*. AD/DO 328/41—Ground Spoiler [F2006L00435]*. AD/DO 328/42—Rudder Spring Tab Bolt [F2006L00434]*. AD/DO 328/43—Landing Gear Bolts [F2006L00433]*. AD/DO 328/44—Aileron Elevator and Rudder Trim Tabs [F2006L00432]*. AD/DO 328/45—Spring Tab Output Rod Hinge Bolt [F2006L00431]*. AD/DO 328/46—Ground Spoiler Support Arms [F2006L00430]*. AD/DO 328/47—Roll-Spoiler Actuator Lockplate [F2006L00429]*. AD/DO 328/48—Rudder Spring Tab [F2006L00428]*. AD/DO 328/49—Cockpit Seat Belt Buckle Centre Screw [F2006L00427]*. AD/DO 328/50—MLG Longitudinal Beam [F2006L00426]*. AD/DO 328/51—Cockpit Seat Restraint System [F2006L00422]*. AD/DO 328/52—Landing Flap Arm Rivets [F2006L00421]*. AD/DO 328/53—Drain Hole in the Outer Wing [F2006L00420]*. AD/DO 328/54—Rudder Pedal Adjustment [F2006L00419]*. AD/EC 120/15—Spherical Thrust Bearings [F2006L00457]*. AD/EMB-120/41—Bleed Air System [F2006L00359]*. AD/EMB-120/42—De-Ice System [F2006L00358]*. AD/F50/93—Propeller Blade De-icer Boot [F2006L00354]*. AD/F100/75—High Pressure Compressor [F2006L00355]*. AD/F100/76—Main Landing Gear Outboard Door [F2006L00417]*. AD/F2000/3—Main Net Straps at Frame 23 [F2006L00416]*. AD/F2000/4—Engine Cowls [F2006L00415]*. AD/F2000/5—Engine Nacelle Firewalls [F2006L00413]*. AD/F2000/6—Horizontal Stabiliser Hinge [F2006L00411]*. AD/F2000/7—Engine Nacelle Fail-Safe Fasteners [F2006L00409]*. AD/F2000/8—Overwing Emergency Exit [F2006L00406]*. AD/GAZELLE/20 Amdt 1—Tail Gearbox (TGB) Support Tripod [F2006L00404]*. AD/GBK 117/8 Amdt 3—Tail Boom Vertical Fin Spar [F2006L00401]*. AD/HS 125/177—Hydraulic Over-Temperature Switch Fuse [F2006L00458]*. AD/ROBIN/32 Amdt 1—Wing Internal Inspection [F2006L00523]*. 106— AD/CFE 738/1—High Pressure Rotor Components [F2006L00365]*. AD/CFE 738/2—Fan Rotor Discs [F2006L00459]*. AD/CFE 738/3—High Pressure Turbine Stage 1 Aft Cooling Plate and Stage 2 Disc [F2006L00363]*. AD/CFE 738/4–Stage 2 High Pressure Turbine Aft Cooling Plate [F2006L00362]*. 107— AD/APU/20—Hamilton Sundstrand Compressor Impeller Assemblies [F2006L00382]*. AD/PMC/47 Amdt 2—McCauley Threaded Propellers [F2006L00455]*. Class Rulings— Addendum—CR 2005/93. CR 2006/4-CR 2006/6. Corporations Act— ASIC Class Orders— [CO 06/68] [F2006L00473]*. [CO 06/105] [F2006L00590]*. [CO 06/106] [F2006L00591]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 41—Corporations Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00547]*. Customs Act— Tariff Concession Orders— 0513656 [F2006L00597]*. 0514334 [F2006L00492]*. 0514732 [F2006L00574]*. 0514785 [F2006L00598]*. 0515069 [F2006L00400]*. 0515323 [F2006L00373]*. 0515342 [F2006L00410]*. 0515343 [F2006L00375]*. 0515403 [F2006L00377]*. 0515404 [F2006L00489]*. 0515406 [F2006L00380]*. 0515684 [F2006L00387]*. 0515716 [F2006L00389]*. 0515953 [F2006L00392]*. 0515954 [F2006L00395]*. 0515957 [F2006L00494]*. 0515958 [F2006L00496]*. 0515968 [F2006L00498]*. 0515969 [F2006L00399]*. 0515970 [F2006L00402]*. 0515971 [F2006L00403]*. 0515972 [F2006L00405]*. 0515973 [F2006L00414]*. 0515974 [F2006L00559]*. 0515975 [F2006L00407]*. 0515976 [F2006L00386]*. 0515977 [F2006L00408]*. 0515978 [F2006L00490]*. 0516024 [F2006L00522]*. 0516025 [F2006L00378]*. 0516027 [F2006L00554]*. 0516028 [F2006L00548]*. 0516029 [F2006L00381]*. 0516030 [F2006L00385]*. 0516032 [F2006L00499]*. 0516033 [F2006L00500]*. 0516034 [F2006L00501]*. 0516035 [F2006L00510]*. 0516036 [F2006L00509]*. 0516037 [F2006L00573]*. 0516038 [F2006L00388]*. 0516039 [F2006L00511]*. 0516040 [F2006L00572]*. 0516042 [F2006L00512]*. 0516043 [F2006L00513]*. 0516046 [F2006L00599]*. 0516047 [F2006L00514]*. 0516049 [F2006L00515]*. 0516050 [F2006L00516]*. 0516051 [F2006L00538]*. 0516052 [F2006L00555]*. 0516053 [F2006L00556]*. 0516054 [F2006L00412]*. 0516055 [F2006L00383]*. 0516064 [F2006L00376]*. 0516065 [F2006L00557]*. 0516066 [F2006L00504]*. 0516067 [F2006L00507]*. 0516068 [F2006L00372]*. 0516069 [F2006L00391]*. 0516324 [F2006L00558]*. 0516325 [F2006L00488]*. 0516326 [F2006L00506]*. 0516327 [F2006L00505]*. 0516328 [F2006L00503]*. 0516372 [F2006L00570]*. 0516373 [F2006L00571]*. 0516374 [F2006L00502]*. 0516375 [F2006L00393]*. 0516376 [F2006L00600]*. 0516377 [F2006L00394]*. 0516378 [F2006L00396]*. 0516387 [F2006L00398]*. 0516516 [F2006L00581]*. 0516517 [F2006L00508]*. 0516518 [F2006L00487]*. 0516520 [F2006L00579]*. 0516603 [F2006L00493]*. 0516605 [F2006L00495]*. 0516607 [F2006L00549]*. 0516608 [F2006L00539]*. 0516609 [F2006L00491]*. 0516610 [F2006L00577]*. 0516611 [F2006L00486]*. 0516612 [F2006L00497]*. 0516645 [F2006L00540]* 0516646 [F2006L00551]*. 0516647 [F2006L00541]*. 0516648 [F2006L00542]*. 0516649 [F2006L00552]*. 0516745 [F2006L00575]*. 0516747 [F2006L00576]*. 0516760 [F2006L00568]*. 0516761 [F2006L00567]*. 0516881 [F2006L00580]*. 0516882 [F2006L00578]*. 0516883 [F2006L00553]*. 0516885 [F2006L00569]*. 0516887 [F2006L00565]*. 0516888 [F2006L00566]*. 0516889 [F2006L00543]*. Tariff Concession Revocation Instruments— 3/2006 [F2006L00418]*. 4/2006 [F2006L00544]*. 5/2006 [F2006L00545]*. 6/2006 [F2006L00546]*. 7/2006 [F2006L00601]*. 8/2006 [F2006L00602]*. Customs Administration Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 5—Customs Administration Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00484]*. Defence Act—Defence Force Regulations—Declaration of Defence practice areas, dated 15 December 2005. Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act—Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Regulations—Certificates under regulation 5A, dated 12 January [2]; and 9 February [2] 2006. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—Amendments of lists of exempt native specimens, dated— 1 February 2006 [F2006L00369]*. 2 February 2006 [F2006L00374]*. Extradition Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 6—Extradition (Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00527]*. Financial Management and Accountability Act— Adjustment of Appropriations on Change of Agency Functions—Direction No. 13 of 2005-2006 [F2006L00593]*. Financial Management and Accountability Net Appropriation Agreement (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) Variation 2006 [F2006L00470]*. Fisheries Levy Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 3—Fisheries Levy (Torres Strait Prawn Fishery) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00519]*. Fisheries Management Act—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gear Requirement Direction for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector—2006 [F2006L00520]*. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act—Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code—Amendment No. 85—2006 [F2006L00469]*. Higher Education Support Act— Declaration of percentage of Commonwealth supported places to be provided by Table A providers for a course of study in medicine, dated 23 February 2006 [F2006L00631]*. Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 2 of 2006)—SAE Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd [F2006L00450]*. Income Tax Assessment Act 1997—Income Tax (Effective Life or Depreciating Assets) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00563]*. Insurance Act—Insurance (prudential standard) determinations Nos— 1 of 2006—Prudential Standard GPS 220—Risk Management [F2006L00474]*. 2 of 2006—Prudential Standard GPS 230—Reinsurance Management [F2006L00475]*. 3 of 2006—Prudential Standard GPS 310—Audit and Actuarial Reporting and Valuation [F2006L00476]*. Migration Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 10—Migration Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00471]*. Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Pay-related Allowances) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00463]*. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 7—Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00529]*. National Transport Commission Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 11—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Alternative Compliance Schemes) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00256]*. 12—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Australian Road Rules) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00241]*. 13—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Australian Road Rules) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00240]*. 14—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Compliance and Enforcement Bill) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00254]*. 15—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Dangerous Goods Act) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00277]*. 16—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Dangerous Goods Act) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00276]*. 17—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Dangerous Goods Regulations) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00275]*. 18—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Dangerous Goods Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00274]*. 19—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Driver Licensing) Regulation 2006 [F2006L00273]*. 20—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Driving Hours Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00250]*. 21—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Heavy Vehicles Registration Act) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00290]*. 22—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Heavy Vehicles Registration Act) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00289]*. 23—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Heavy Vehicles Registration Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00243]*. 24—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Heavy Vehicle Standards Regulations) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00239]*. 25—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Heavy Vehicle Standards Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00238]*. 26—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Higher Mass Limits) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00272]*. 27—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Mass and Loading Regulations) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00262]*. 28—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Mass and Loading Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00258]*. 29—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Oversize and Overmass Vehicles Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00245]*. 30—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Restricted Access Vehicles Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00248]*. 31—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Road Transport Charges Act) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00284]*. 32—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Road Transport Charges Act) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00282]*. 33—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Road Transport Charges Regulations) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00281]*. 34—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Road Transport Charges Regulations) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00279]*. 35—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Vehicles and Traffic Act) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00287]*. 36—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Vehicles and Traffic Act) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00286]*. 37—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Vehicle Standards) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00267]*. 38—National Transport Commission (Road Transport Legislation—Vehicle Standards) Regulations 2006 [F2006L00264]*. Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 8—Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) (National Standards) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00532]*. 9—Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) (National Standards) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L00531]*. Payment Systems (Regulation) Act—Standard—The Setting of Wholesale (‘Interchange’) Fees in the Designated Credit Card Schemes [F2006L00468]*. Privacy Act— Determination No. 2006-1A giving general effect to Temporary Public Interest Determination No. 2006-1 [F2006L00425]*. Temporary Public Interest Determination No. 2006-1 [F2006L00424]*. Product Rulings— Addendum— PR 2003/26. PR 2004/7. PR 2006/1-PR 2006/4. Quarantine Act—Quarantine Amendment Proclamation 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00329]*. Radiocommunications Act—Radiocommunications (Compliance Labelling—Electromagnetic Radiation) Amendment Notice 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00342]*. Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00343]*. Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00344]*. Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determination 2006/01: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office [F2006L00560]*. Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act— Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment (Second edition) [F2006L00534]*. Revocation of the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment (First edition) [F2006L00535]*. Seas and Submerged Lands Act— Seas and Submerged Lands (Historic Bays) Proclamation 2006 [F2006L00526]*. Seas and Submerged Lands (Territorial Sea Baseline) Proclamation 2006 [F2006L00525]*. Seat of Government (Administration) Act—Ordinance 2006 No. 1—Companies Ordinances Repeal Ordinance 2006 [F2006L00467]*. Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Decision to refuse to consider any further RSE Licence Applications, dated 2 February 2006 [F2006L00326]*. Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation Report 01/06 [26 dispensations]. Taxation Determination—Erratum—TD 2006/1. Taxation Ruling—Notice of Withdrawal—TR 2003/12. Therapeutic Goods Act— Therapeutic Goods (Emergency) Exemption 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00537]*. Therapeutic Goods (Listing) Notice 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L00472]*. Therapeutic Goods (Listing) Notice 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L00589]*. Veterans’ Entitlements Act— Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum—Payment to Victims of Bali Bombing) Determination No. R6 of 2006 [F2006L00482]*. Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum—Queensland Indigenous Reparation Payment) Determination No. R5 of 2006 [F2006L00479]*. Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum—South Australian Fishery Payment) Determination No. R4 of 2006 [F2006L00477]*. Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum—Superannuation Co-contribution Amounts) Determination No. R7 of 2006 [F2006L00480]*. Governor-General’s Proclamation—Commencement of Provision of an Act— Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005—Item 22 of Schedule 1—16 February 2006 [F2006L00345]*. *       Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument. 140 The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended: Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for the period 1 July to 31 December 2005—Statement of compliance—Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 140 The following documents were tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 20 June 2001, as amended: Departmental and agency contracts for 2005—Letters of advice— Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio agencies. Finance and Administration portfolio agencies. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio agencies. Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio agencies. 141 Answers to Questions on Notice The following answers to questions were circulated: 141 141 587 141 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: With reference to the department and/or its agencies: For each financial year from 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: (a) how many, and what was the cost of consultants engaged by the department and/or its agencies to conduct surveys of community attitudes to departmental programs; and (b) for each consultancy: (i) what was the cost, and (ii) who was the consultant, and (iii) was this consultant selected by tender; if so, was the tender select or open; if not, why not. Were any of the surveys released publicly; if so, in each case, when was the material released; if not, in each case, what was the basis for not releasing the material publicly. 141 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Australian Bureau of Statistics For 2000-01 to 2003-04, no consultants were engaged to conduct surveys of community attitudes to departmental programs. For 2004-05: No, the consultancy has not yet been completed. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Nil NA Australian Office of Financial Management Nil NA Australian Prudential & Regulation Authority Nil NA Australian and Securities Investments Commission Chant Link & Associates have been engaged to conduct surveys of community attitudes to ASIC in 2000 and 2002. The consultant was not selected by Tender; Chant Link have conducted similar survey’s in 1998 and 1996: Total Cost: $226,347 Project 2000, $102,111 Project 2002, $124,236 A Summary of the 2000 report is available on ASIC’s website i.e. www.asic.gov.au The reports are ‘Commercial in-confidence’ and are not released publicly. Australian Taxation Office Details for financial years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 appear in the respective Commissioner of Taxation Annual Reports The level of detail requested is not readily available from the Tax Office and would require a significant diversion of resources to obtain. However, some research reports are published by the Commissioner and others are not. Published reports are available on the ATO website. Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee Nil NA Inspector-General of Taxation Nil NA National Competition Council Nil N/A Productivity Commission Nil NA Treasury and (2) Treasury – Details of any consultants engaged to conduct surveys of community attitudes to departmental programs would be included in the department’s relevant annual reports and responses to the Senate Order. Board of Taxation – The Board of Taxation has engaged consultants to advise it in relation to post‑implementation reviews of the quality and effectiveness of the non‑commercial losses provisions in Division 35 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, and the small business capital gains tax concessions in Division 152 of the Act. The Board’s post‑implementation reviews are conducted against review criteria which are set out on the Board’s website. As part of this work, the consultants have conducted surveys of the experience of taxpayers and their advisers with the two pieces of legislation reviewed. Details of the consultancies for the non‑commercial losses provisions are shown in the Board’s 2003‑04 annual report which is available publicly. The details of the consultancies, conducted in 2004‑05, for the small business capital gains tax concessions are as follows: Consultant Project Engaged cost ($) Reason1 Procurement method2 Webb Martin Pty Ltd Post‑implementation review of the small business CGT concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997: conduct an evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of the concessions. 167,912 (c), (e) Select The University of New South Wales Post‑implementation review of the small business CGT concessions in Division 152 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997: conduct an evaluation of the compliance and administration costs of the concessions. 59,695 (c), (e) Select 1 Key to reasons for engagement: need for rapid access to latest technology and expertise in its application; specialist in‑house resources unavailable in time allowed; need for independent study; need for change agent or facilitator; specialist skill or knowledge not available in‑house; other. 2 Select tenders are invited from a short list of competent suppliers. This category is applied where there is a known limited market for the services required, and when value for money would not be achieved through a full open tender process. Direct engagement may include the engagement of: a consultant selected from a pre‑qualified panel arrangement; a recognised and pre‑eminent expert; a consultant who had previously undertaken closely related work for the Board; or a consultant known to have the requisite skills where the value of the project did not justify the expense or delay associated with seeking tenders. It s not possible to separately identify the components of the consultancies that deal with surveys of the experience of taxpayers and their advisers with the legislation reviewed. No. The consultants’ reports, including information on their survey findings, have been provided to the Board of Taxation as input to the Board’s reports to the Treasurer on the two reviews. The Board’s report on the non‑commercial losses review, which reflects, inter alia, the survey findings, is available publicly. 143 143 591 143 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: With reference to the department and/or its agencies: For each financial year from 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: (a) how many consultants were engaged by the department and/or its agencies to conduct surveys of community attitudes to departmental programs and what was the total cost; and (b) for each consultancy: (i) what was the cost, (ii) who was the consultant, and (iii) was this consultant selected by tender; if so, was the tender select or open; if not, why not. Were any of the surveys released publicly; if so, in each case, when was the material released; if not, in each case, what was the basis for not releasing the material publicly. 144 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator Santoro —The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: In total, there were eight consultants engaged by the Department and/or its agencies in relation to conducting surveys of consumer attitudes towards departmental programs. The total cost of all consultancies was $1,257,523.78. Details of the consultancies are set out below: Year No. of Consultants used Total Cost 2000-01 3 $772,924.40 2001-02 1 $2,640.00 2002-03 2 $157,962.75 2003-04 6 $305,214.13 2004-05 1 $18,782.50 (b)   (i) Cost (ii) Name of Consultant (iii) Consultant selected by tender 2000-01 $28,765.00 Tall Poppies An open tender process was used. $66,550.00 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used. $676,062.80 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used $1,546.60 Cultural Perspectives An open tender process was used 2001-02 $2,640.00 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used. 2002-03 $103,125.00 Cultural Perspectives An open tender process was used. $54,837.75 Wendy Bloom and Associates An open tender process was used 2003-04 $56,069.80 Cultural Perspectives An open tender process was used. $54,909.50 AC Neilson An open tender process was used. $92,878.35 Wendy Bloom and Associates An open tender process was used $71,368.00 Eureka Strategic Research An open tender process was used. $27, 000.00 Urbis Pty Ltd An open tender process was used. $2,988.48 Woolcott Research Pty Ltd An open tender process was used. 2004-05 $18,782.50 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used. (i) Cost (ii) Name of Consultant (iii) Consultant selected by tender 2000-01 $28,765.00 Tall Poppies An open tender process was used. $66,550.00 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used. $676,062.80 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used $1,546.60 Cultural Perspectives An open tender process was used 2001-02 $2,640.00 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used. 2002-03 $103,125.00 Cultural Perspectives An open tender process was used. $54,837.75 Wendy Bloom and Associates An open tender process was used 2003-04 $56,069.80 Cultural Perspectives An open tender process was used. $54,909.50 AC Neilson An open tender process was used. $92,878.35 Wendy Bloom and Associates An open tender process was used $71,368.00 Eureka Strategic Research An open tender process was used. $27, 000.00 Urbis Pty Ltd An open tender process was used. $2,988.48 Woolcott Research Pty Ltd An open tender process was used. 2004-05 $18,782.50 Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) An open tender process was used. Except for the Urbis consultancy, results have not been released. 144 144 593 144 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year from 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: (a) how many consultants were engaged by the department and/or its agencies to conduct surveys of community attitudes to departmental programs and what was the total cost; and (b) for each consultancy: (i) what was the cost, (ii) who was the consultant, and (iii) was this consultant selected by tender; if so, was the tender select or open; if not, why not. Were any of the surveys released publicly; if so, in each case, when was the material released; if not, in each case, what was the basis for not releasing the material publicly. 145 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: , (b), (i), (ii), and (iii)— Department of Finance and Administration (Finance) Financial Year Consultant engaged Cost Selection Arrangement 2000-2001 Nil Nil 2001-2002 Nil Nil 2002-2003 Nil Nil 2003-2004 Nil Nil 2004-2005 DBM Consultants Pty Ltd $236,637.50 Select Tender Dandalo Partners Pty Ltd $196,853 Open Tender TOTAL 2004-2005 $433,490.50 Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) 2000-2001 The Research Forum $39,900 Select Tender Wallis Consulting Group $29,051 Open tender TOTAL 2000-2001 $68,951 2001-2002 The Research Forum $187,242 Select Tender Value Creation Group $16,500 Select Tender TOTAL 2001-2002 $203,742 2002-2003 The Research Forum $100,034 Select Tender Value Creation Group $68,250 Select Tender TOTAL 2002-2003 $168,284 2003-2004 Australian Marketing and Research Services $50,668 One of a panel that was formed through an open tender process TOTAL 2003-2004 $50,668 2004-2005 Eureka Strategic Research $215,424 Select Tender TOTAL 2004-2005 $215,424 Finance DBM Consultants Pty Ltd undertook surveys of community attitudes to, and likely investor demand for Telstra as an input to the Telstra Scoping Study. Consistent with past practice, the Government does not propose that the Scoping Study, which contains sensitive commercial information and advice to Government, will be publicly released. The survey conducted by Dandalo Partners P/L was publicly released on 21 June 2005. It is available in hard copy, and online at http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2005/june/e-government_services AEC The surveys undertaken during the financial years 2000-01, through to 2004-05 have not been publicly released. The survey results were sourced to improve AEC processes. The survey conducted in 2003-04 market tested alternative Senate ballot paper designs in response to a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) recommendation, proposing an alternative Senate ballot paper. The survey report has been presented to the JSCEM. 146 146 608 146 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year from 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: (a) how many consultants were engaged by the department and/or its agencies to conduct surveys of community attitudes to departmental programs and what was the total cost; and (b) for each consultancy: (i) what was the cost, (ii) who was the consultant, and (iii) was this consultant selected by tender; if so, was the tender select or open; if not, why not. Were any of the surveys released publicly; if so, in each case, when was the material released; if not, in each case, what was the basis for not releasing the material publicly. 146 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator Abetz —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Please refer to the answer provided by the Minister for Finance and Administration in response to Question on Notice 593. 146 146 681 and 683 146 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: In relation to all overseas travel where expenses were met by the Minister’s portfolios, for each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date what was the total cost of travel and related expenses in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff. In relation to all air charters engaged and paid for by the Minister and/or the Minister’s office and/or the department and its agencies, for each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: (a) on how many occasions did the Minister or his/her office or department and/or agency charter aircraft, and in each case, what was the name of the charter company that provided the service and the related respective costs; and (b) what was the total cost. 146 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator Coonan —The Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and himself, has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: DFAT and (2) Ministerial travel costs are tabled biannually in Parliament. I consider that the preparation of further breakdown of this information would involve a significant diversion of resources and, in the circumstances, I do not consider that the additional work can be justified. AusAID (b) (c) Nil. Because of the underdeveloped nature of transport infrastructure in a number of countries where AusAID is present, air charters are used in the absence of other feasible transport options. The overwhelming majority of these charters are used for domestic travel within the country concerned in circumstances where surface or sea travel is not feasible for reasons such as security, time efficiency or the absence of transport infrastructure (eg trafficable roads). Such charters are funded as transport costs against the relevant country aid program or project and often through subcontracted arrangements. These small scale charters are not managed or recorded centrally, and given the scale of the usage, providing the information sought would require a disproportionate and unreasonable diversion of resources. Austrade No records relating to any of the questions. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 (a) Nil One charter - Freebird Aviation, Johannesburg, RSA Nil Nil Nil (b) Nil $A 40,772 Nil Nil Nil ACIAR – Nil. EFIC – Nil. AJF – Nil. 147 147 839 147 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Ageing, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: With reference to the department and/or its agencies: For each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date, can a list be provided of customer service telephone lines, including: (a) the telephone number of each customer service line; (b) whether the number is toll free and open 24 hours; (c) which output area is responsible for the customer service line; and (d) where this call centre is located. For each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date, what was the cost of maintaining the customer service lines. For each of the financial years 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date, can a breakdown be provided of all direct and indirect costs, including: (a) staff costs; (b) infrastructure costs (including maintenance); (c) telephone costs; (d) departmental costs; and (e) any other costs. How many calls have been received, by year, in each year of the customer service line’s operation. 147 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator Santoro —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: No central information resource is maintained of all the telephone communication services that would allow a comprehensive answer to the questions. Partial answers have been provided where possible from the information available and the department has also consulted with our service providers Optus and Telstra to verify some data. Provision of a comprehensive breakdown of direct and indirect costs for all 1800 telephone service lines would be time consuming to obtain and would require a significant diversion of resources. Obtaining information back to 2000-01 is either not possible or would incur a substantial cost to the department. Answers are provided from the data available. and (c) Departmental details are provided at Attachment A. Portfolio agencies’ details are provided at Attachment B. Agencies’ costs for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the General Practice Education and Training Ltd (GPET) and the National Blood Authority (NBA) are also included in the departmental figures in Attachment A. All 1800 lines are toll free numbers. Standard hours of operation are generally 8.30 am to 5.00 p.m. These hours have been extended during information campaigns and/or health crises/emergencies. The department has one major call centre in the ACT answering 16 toll free 1800 lines. The other toll free lines are generally directed to the relevant area within the portfolio. There are arrangements for calls to be answered in alternative “terminating points” locations when an 1800 number is busy and there is an overflow in demand. This is common with the telephone communications technology available. Departmental details are provided at Attachment A. Portfolio agencies’ details are provided at Attachment B. , (b), (c), (d) and (e) A complete detailed cost breakdown is not available for the department and portfolio agencies. Attachment B provides some of the details for portfolio agencies. On average, the department receives approximately 800,000 calls per year to its telephone service lines. The total calls by line cannot be provided without a significant diversion of resources. Where available, agency details are provided in Attachment B. Attachment A Department Customer Service Line Output/Program Area Outcome Actual cost of calls: 12 months to April 05 1800 003 637 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $103 1800 005 119 TAS State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $478 1800 007 757 Medical Indemnity Program (2) Access to Medicare $996 1800 010 125 National Alcohol Campaign (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $380 1800 010 624 TGA SIME Help Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5,031 1800 011 163 Strengthening Medicare (2) Access to Medicare $44,269 1800 012 555 Childhood Nutrition Program (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $478 1800 019 122 NT - State Office Switchboard Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $385 1800 020 102 ACT State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $465 1800 020 103 Central Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $14,149 1800 020 512 TGA Product Recall Information Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $2,803 1800 020 613 PBS Health Information Line (2) Access to Medicare $13,987 1800 020 653 TGA Information Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $22,248 1800 020 787 Rural Health Help Desk (5) Rural Health $798 1800 044 114 Adverse Drug Reaction Program (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $1,614 1800 048 998 NSW State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $16,957 1800 052 022 Commonwealth Carelink Inquiry Line (ACT) (0) Whole of Portfolio $85 1800 052 222 Commonwealth Carelink Inquiry Line (ACT) (0) Whole of Portfolio $77,962 1800 059 059 WA - Primary Central Wheat Carer Respite Centre (0) Whole of Portfolio $34,998 1800 062 267 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $668 1800 066 247 Mental Health Publications (4) Quality Health Care $1,043 1800 133 374 VIC State Office 1800 Switch Number - Regional Victoria only (0) Whole of Portfolio $1,449 1800 141 144 Office of Devices (Medical) (6) Hearing Services $7,144 1800 177 099 QLD State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $2,121 1800 188 098 SA State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $2,986 1800 198 008 WA State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $1,654 1800 198 008 WA State Office 1800 Switch Number (0) Whole of Portfolio $1,654 1800 200 131 ICARUS - Survey Evaluation of Innovative Care Rehabilitation Service Pilot - ACC (4) Quality Health Care $308 1800 200 701 BSC Health Information Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $334 1800 220 007 PANS Recall Program (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6,986 1800 222 337 Consumer Perspective Survey (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $344 1800 222 471 Carelink Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $909 1800 240 087 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $158 1800 240 849 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,650 1800 245 597 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $194 1800 245 756 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,468 1800 246 254 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $489 1800 247 384 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $6,534 1800 248 720 Bonded Scholarship Scheme (9) Health Investment $1,494 1800 249 257 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $312 1800 249 497 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,043 1800 249 798 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,337 1800 250 015 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Information Line-(English) (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $1,570 1800 302 102 Voice Conferencing for Dial in for Multiple Users (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $396 1800 351 000 National Blood Donor Info Line (4) Quality Health Care $366 1800 352 132 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $717 1800 357 590 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $8 1800 359 652 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,038 1800 440 011 Voice Conferencing for Dial in for Multiple Users (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $3,373 1800 440 012 Voice Conferencing for Dial in for Multiple Users (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $1,057 1800 440 253 Voice Conferencing for Dial in for Multiple Users (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $82 1800 460 440 Rural Aust Medical Undergraduate Scheme - National Rural Health Alliance (5) Rural Health $2,215 1800 627 129 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $350 1800 627 394 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,419 1800 627 490 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $237 1800 628 225 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $503 1800 633 152 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $5,827 1800 634 400 Publications Fax Line (0) Whole of Portfolio $462 1800 636 754 WA Complaints Resolution Line (0) Whole of Portfolio $1,855 1800 639 168 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $282 1800 640 602 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $260 1800 642 218 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $6,326 1800 645 894 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $317 1800 646 741 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $765 1800 648 009 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,319 1800 648 406 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $259 1800 648 490 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,713 1800 648 843 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $263 1800 649 546 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $836 1800 651 398 Carer Respite Centre (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $403 1800 652 179 Free call 1800 time and day management (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $473 1800 666 022 Outsource Australia Service Centre (0) Whole of Portfolio $408 1800 667 677 Rural GP Help line (5) Rural Health $1,062 1800 670 348 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $3,617 1800 671 457 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $31 1800 671 811 Immunisation Information Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6,834 1800 671 831 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $773 1800 673 488 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $2,073 1800 675 169 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $889 1800 675 394 Pap Smear Information Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $330 1800 676 182 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $3,886 1800 676 296 Private Health Insurance (8) Choice Through Private Health $615 1800 676 446 Childcare Hotline - **Shared with FACS** (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $624 1800 676 938 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $867 1800 678 445 Service Activity OATSIH - 1800 Info line (7) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health $371 1800 679 567 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $169 1800 680 139 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,195 1800 680 763 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $427 1800 683 221 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $4,073 1800 683 228 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $163 1800 684 387 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $411 1800 700 600 Aged Care Rights Service (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,771 1800 727 899 Health Services Improvement (2) Access to Medicare $1,039 1800 732 662 Dr Connect (4) Quality Health Care $179 1800 773 312 Health Help Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $968 1800 780 939 Review of Rural, Remote & Metropolitan Areas Classification Scheme (5) Rural Health $190 1800 802 306 Australian Pituitary Hormone Program (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $543 1800 807 487 CAAS Helpline (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $485 1800 808 725 PAP Smear Service (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $330 1800 809 361 Medical Device Incident Report Investigation Scheme (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $661 1800 809 618 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,531 1800 812 306 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,096 1800 814 029 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $204 1800 814 259 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1,210 1800 816 532 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $48 1800 817 263 Callex (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $3,806 1800 822 882 Allocation Round for Nursing Home Tendering (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $404 1800 987 104 The Bonded Medical Places Scheme (9) Health Investment $932 1800 999 332 Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Help Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $1,579 1800 022 863 ANCARD Publication Request Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $272 1800 246 956 Community Services & Training - Sydney (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $4,014 1800 250 020 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 021 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 250 022 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 023 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 250 024 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 026 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 250 027 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 028 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 250 029 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 030 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 031 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 032 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 250 033 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $21 1800 250 034 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $5 1800 250 035 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 250 036 National Illicit Drugs Campaign Language Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $6 1800 300 540 Health & Ageing Graduate Hotline (0) Whole of Portfolio $691 1800 351 000 National Blood Authority (4) Quality Health Care $421 1800 359 251 National Respite for Carers (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $1 1800 004 599 Communicable Diseases and Tsunami (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $4,522 1800 805 172 Healthy Schools Communities (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $1,951 1800 025 772 Go for 2 (fruit) and 5 (vegetables) (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $156 1800 002 612 Provision of Office Services (0) Whole of Portfolio $330 1800 447 394 Hip Replacement Inquiry Line (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $0 1800 679 673 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $0 1800 686 126 Office of Hearing Services – Forms and Help Line via Centrelink (6) Hearing Services $0 1800 813 762 Office of Hearing Services Help Line (6) Hearing Services $0 1800500072 Metaframe RAS 18 (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $61,106 1800500209 TGA Symonston (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $22 1800500236 TGA Symonston (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $36 1800500294 Quality Outcomes Branch (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $394 1800500380 Metaframe RAS 18 (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $189 1800500496 Office of Hearing Services (6) Hearing Services $44 1800500726 Office of Hearing Services (6) Hearing Services $15,993 1800500853 Aged Care Help Line (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $22,866 1800500983 NHMRC (9) Health Investment $712 1800501429 Metaframe RAS 18 (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $21,949 1800500053 Asthma Publications (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $4 1800550294 Quality Outcomes Branch (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $15 1800550552 Quality Outcomes Branch (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $5,382 1800555013 Office of Hearing Services (6) Hearing Services $3,338 1800555377 Voice Conferencing (used internally within the Department) (0) Whole of Portfolio $2,350 1800500724 Office of Hearing Services (6) Hearing Services $477 1800 247 723 National Respite for Carers Program (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $0 1800 020 531 Continuing Medication Hotline (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $0 1800 029 928 National Respite for Carers (3) Enhanced Quality of Life for Older Australians $0 1800 044 144 TGA – Beauty News Australia (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $0 1800 188 087 Pathology Review Section (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $0 1800 188 331 Puggy Hunter Memorial Scholarship Info Line (1) Population Health and Safety (including TGA) $0 Attachment B Agencies Name of Agency Telephone number of each customer service line Output area responsible for customer service line 2000-2001 to 2004-2005; Cost of maintaining the customer service lines Infrastructure costs (inc. maintenance) Telephone costs Number of calls, by year, in each year of line’s operation Aged Care Standards & Accreditation Agency Ltd. (ACSAA) 1800 288 025 ACSAA 2000-2001 - n/a 2001-2002 - n/a 2002-2003 - n/a 2003-2004 - $145 2004-2005 - $470 (to April 05) 2000-2001 - n/a 2001-2002 - n/a 2002-2003 - n/a 2003-2004 - $127 2004-2005 - $330 (to April 05) 2000-2001 - n/a 2001-2002 - n/a 2002-2003 - n/a 2003-2004 - $19 2004-2005 - $140 (to April 05) 2000-2001 - n/a 2001-2002 -n/a 2002-2003 -n/a 2003-2004 - 6 calls 2004-2005 - 244 calls Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) 2000-01 - 1800 378 112 for Personal Radiation Monitoring Services (PRMS) 2001-02 to 2004-05 - 1800 378 112 for PRMS and 1800 022 333 for ARPANSA ARPANSA PRMS 2000-2001 - $3,905 2001-2002 - $7,840 2002-2003 - $8,010 2003-2004 - $8,899 2004-2005 - $7,026 2000-2001 - $650 2001-2002 - $650 2002-2003 - $650 2003-2004 - $700 2004-2005 - $700 2000-2001 - $3,255 2001-2002 - $7,190 2002-2003 - $7,360 2003-2004 - $8,199 2004-2005 - $6,326 2000-2001 - 3,786 calls 2001-2002 - 7,461 calls 2002-2003 - 7,794 calls 2003-2004 - 8,898 calls 2004-2005 - 7,944 calls Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) 1300 652 166 FSANZ This information cannot be provided without a significant diversion of resources. This information cannot be provided without a significant diversion of resources. This information cannot be provided without a significant diversion of resources. 2000-2001 - No line 2001-2002 - Information not available as it requires the retrieval of archived information 2002-2003 – 9,758 calls 2003-2004 – 4,250 calls 2004-25th May – 5,644 calls Private Health Insurance Ombudsman (PHIO) 1800 640 695 The PHIO is responsible for the line (output group 2 – direct delivery of services) 2000-2001 - $204,556 2001-2002 - $239,368 2002-2003 - $252,656 2003-2004 - $263,143 2004-2005 - $284,799 2000-2001 - $6,000 2001-2002 - $6,127 2002-2003 - $6,865 2003-2004 - $6,500 2004-2005 - $6,215 2000-2001 - $18,556 2001-2002 - $13,241 2002-2003 - $13,791 2003-2004 - $12,643 2004-2005 - $9,144 2000-2001 – 10,350 calls 2001-2002 – 10,922 calls 2002-2003 – 10,527 calls 2003-2004 – 10,244 calls 2004-2005 – 6,664 calls (to April 05) 157 157 940 157 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 2005: On how many occasions have children detained at the temporary Immigration Reception and Processing Centre on Christmas Island been denied the opportunity to participate in a school excursion. For each occasion, would the Minister identify: (a) the date of the excursion; (b) the nature of the excursion; (c) the reason permission was denied; and (d) the responsible decision-maker. 157 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: It should be noted that the response below is based on records held on the current Detention Services Provider (DSP) computer system, Immigration Services Information System (ISIS) in use at Christmas Island since 21 June 2004. Prior to the current DSP entering into the detention services contract with the department, records were held on paper files. The department does not have this information readily available and to collate this information would involve a manual examination of individual files and is an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources. There has been one instance where a detainee child was unable to participate in a school excursion. The specific date has not been recorded for the day that the child detainee missed the excursion but it is known that the excursion was held in the month of October 2004. No details regarding the nature of the excursion were recorded by the DSP. The child did not give the permission slip to either his parents or the DSP staff when he returned from school. The DSP had no indication that the child wished to participate in the excursion and consequently there was insufficient time to provide the additional staffing required. This was explained to, and understood by, the child’s parents. The DSP, in consultation with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) and the child’s parents made the decision not to allow the child to participate in the excursion. On another occasion, approval was initially not given for students to attend Harmony Day 2005 activities on 8 April 2005. This decision was subsequently reconsidered, however, and approval was given to detainees to attend the celebrations. Despite the invitation being extended to all students and their parents, only 13 detainees (eight students and five parents) accepted the invitation and attended the event. Overall, from 1 July 2004 until 10 June 2005, the children have attended 18 school-based excursions and 11 community-oriented excursions. 157 157 1085 157 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 16 August 2005: Is the Minister aware that international students are experiencing delays of up to 3 months between their payment to the universities of private health insurance premiums (as a condition of their visa) and receiving private health coverage. Will the Minister investigate the situation and urge universities to arrange cover as soon as possible after the payment of the premium is received. 157 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: The Department of Health and Ageing (DHA), which administers the Deed of Agreement governing the provision of Overseas Student Health Cover (OSHC) to international students, advises that the arrangements for OSHC premiums paid directly to an educational institution is a commercial arrangement between the provider and the institution and that each of the providers have their own arrangements in this regard. However, students are covered by OSHC from the date of payment to the educational institution, even in the event that the forwarding of that payment to the health fund is delayed. Initial cover takes effect from the date of arrival in Australia. Please see the answer to part (1). 158 158 1094 158 Bishop, Sen Mark 2L6 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Mark Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 18 August 2005: For each of the last 3 years of operation of the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Scheme: (a) how many new claims were made; (b) how many claims for increase were made; and (c) what was the average lump sum payment made in each year. With reference to (1) above, what was the acceptance rate of all claims in each year. For each of the years in question: (a) how many internal reviews were sought; (b) how many decisions were amended as a result; (c) how many rejected claims were appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT); and (d) how many AAT applications were: (i) upheld, (ii) rejected, (iii) withdrawn by applicant, and (iv) settled before hearing. For each of the years in question: (a) in how many: (i) primary decisions, (ii) internal reviews, and (iii) applications to the AAT, was external legal advice sought; (b) what was the total cost in each year, and (c) how much was paid to each external provider in each year. In relation to (1) above, can the Minister provide answers in relation to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme which commenced 1 July 2004. 158 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 2004/05       5 485 Initial Liability claims 2003/04   6 874 2002/03   6 012 2004/05   5 475 Lump Sum claims 2003/04   5 027 2002/03   5 383 MCRS do not have claims for increase. Any request for an increase in a lump sum payment is treated as a new claim. 2004/05   $28 375 2003/04   $24 735 2002/03   $22 405 2004/05    67.4 % for Initial Liability 2003/04    74.2 % 2002/03    70.5 % 2004/05    35.5 % for Lump Sums 2003/04    37.8 % 2002/03    40.9 % The internal review procedures are available for any decisions made by delegates and not just for Initial Liability and Permanent Impairment payments. The number of reviews sought were: 2004/05   1 534 2003/04   1 585 2002/03   1 636 The number of reviews that resulted in decisions being amended were: 2004/05   422 2003/04   404 2002/03   360 and (d) The number and result of appeals to the AAT in each of the financial years were: 2004/05      applications       365                     upheld                128 (decision affirmed by the AAT)                     rejected              33 (decision varied by the AAT)                     withdrawn         121                     settled                149 2003/04      applications       388                     upheld                118 (decision affirmed by the AAT)                     rejected              12 (decision varied by the AAT)                     withdrawn         65                     settled                103 2002/03      applications       280                     upheld                91 (decision affirmed by the AAT)                     rejected              3 (decision varied by the AAT)                     withdrawn         46                     settled                66 The number of cases where legal advice was sought was: 2004/05      primary                 44                     reconsiderations  387                     AAT                     * 2003/04      primary                 54                     reconsiderations  1 033                     AAT                     * 2002/03      primary                 37                     reconsiderations  1 148                     AAT                   * *In all AAT cases external legal advice is sought. The cost of legal advice was: 2004/05   $6 117 965.49 2003/04   $5 825 667.10 2002/03   $5 358 130.88 The cost per legal firm was:                2004/05      Sparke Helmore                 $1 662 210.81                     Phillips Fox                        $1 511 914.26                     Dibbs Barker Gosling      $   945 619.75                     AGS                                    $1 882 775.35                     Blake Dawson Waldron  $   115 445.32 2003/04      Sparke Helmore                 $1 638 416.91                     Phillips Fox                        $1 581 782.65                     Dibbs Barker Gosling      $   984 301.75                     AGS                                    $1 404 692.13                     Blake Dawson Waldron  $   216 473.66 2002/03      Sparke Helmore                 $1 327 670.91                     Phillips Fox                        $1 462 952.27                     Dibbs Barker Gosling      $   761 070.45                     AGS                                    $1 287 612.95                     Blake Dawson Waldron  $   518 824.30 661 claims for Initial Liability MRCS do not have claims for increase. Any request for an increase in a lump sum payment is treated as a new claim. No lump sum payments were made in 2004-05. 160 160 1098 160 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 Senator Faulkner asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 August 2005: With reference to the relaunched National Security advertising campaign: For each of the financial years, 2004-05 and 2005-06: (a) what is the cost of this advertising campaign; and (b) what is the breakdown of these advertising costs for: (i) television (TV) placements, (ii) radio placements, (iii) newspaper placements, (iv) printing and mail outs, and (v) research. When did the campaign begin, and when is it planned to end. Over what period will the TV advertisements run. What: (a) creative agency or agencies; and (b) research agency or agencies, have been engaged in the campaign. Is a mail out planned; if so: (a) to whom will the mail out be targeted; and (b) what database will be used to select addresses – the Australian Taxation Office database, the electoral database or other. What appropriations will the department use to authorise any of the payments either committed to be made or proposed to be made as part of this advertising campaign; (b) will those appropriations be made in the 2004-05 or 2005-06 financial year; (c) will the appropriations relate to a departmental or administered item or the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration; and (d) if an appropriation relates to a departmental or administered item, what is the relevant line item in the relevant Portfolio Budget Statement for that item. Has a request been made of the Minister for Finance and Administration to issue a drawing right to pay out moneys for any part of the advertising campaign; if so: (a) what are the details of that request; and (b) against which particular appropriation is it requested that the money be paid. Has the Minister for Finance and Administration issued a drawing right as referred to in (7) above; if so, what are the details of that drawing right. Has an official or minister made a payment of public money or debited an amount against an appropriation in accordance with a drawing right issued by the Minister for Finance and Administration for any part of the advertising campaign. 161 Ellison, Sen Chris 9X5 Western Australia LP Minister for Justice and Customs 1 Senator Ellison —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 2004–05: $7,176,000 – 2005–06: $10,200,000 2004–05: $2,866,398 – 2005–06: $6,272,562.74 2004–05: $199,702 – 2005–06: $233,347 2004–05: $2,778,276 – 2005–06: $1,604,494 2004–05: $1,367 – 2005–06: $1,367 2004–05: $148,275 – 2005–06: $170,665 2004–05: 25 September 2004 – 31 June 2005 2005–06: 14 July 2005 – 31 May 2006 2004–05: 25 September 2004 – 30 October 2004 2005–06: 14 July 2005 – 24 July 2005, 4 Sept 2005 – 2 October 2005, 6 November 2005 – 27 November 2005, 12 February 2006 – 5 March 2006 BMF Pty Ltd. Worthington Di Marzio. No mail out planned. Attorney-General’s Department departmental outputs appropriations. Appropriations made in both years. The appropriations for the campaign are included in the departmental outputs appropriation for output 2.4 in the Attorney-General’s Department. See response to 6 (c). No. No. No. 161 161 1144 161 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 September 2005: With reference to biofuels: Will the Government consider amending the Fuel Standard (Petrol) Determination 2001, which bans the sale of ethanol blends of more than 10 per cent, in light of the availability of vehicles designed to run on 85 per cent ethanol and the many flexible fuel vehicles now on the market which are designed to run on much higher levels of ethanol than is currently permitted in Australia; if not, why not. 162 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: No. The E10 fuel standard was set after consideration of testing commissioned by the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) which demonstrated that some vehicles and non-automotive engines are likely to suffer damage when operated at higher levels of ethanol. The Australian Government, through DEH, is currently developing a set of standards relating to the ethanol blended fuel range. Current progress is listed on the DEH website at http://www.deh.gov.au/ atmosphere/fuelquality/standards/ethanol/index.html including the “Proposed Fuel Quality Standard for Fuel Grade Ethanol”. This paper sets out the Government’s proposed position on an Australian fuel grade ethanol quality standard for use as blendstock with petrol up to the 10% level. 162 162 1176 162 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 13 September 2005: With reference to the answer to question no. HS41 provided to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee during additional estimates hearings on 15 February 2005: Can Centrelink explain how individuals were targeted for a review of real estate property values; and (b) what criteria did Centrelink use to determine who should be reviewed. Can Centrelink explain why, between the financial years 2002‑03 and 2003‑04, the number of reviews of individuals in receipt of a number of allowances and payments declined significantly (e.g. the number of reviews of Newstart Allowance recipients dropped from 731 to 192 and the number of reviews of Disability Support Pension recipients dropped from 622 to 142). Can Centrelink explain why, between the financial years 2002‑03 and 2003‑04, the number of reviews of individuals in receipt of the age pension increased from 14 390 to 19 169. Can Centrelink confirm that it has no available information on the state or territory of residence of the payment recipients who suffered a cancellation or reduction of payment following a review of property during the financial years 2002‑03 and 2003‑04. For the 2005‑06 financial year, how many reviews of payment recipients’ real estate property values are planned. For the 2005‑06 financial year to date: (a) how many reviews of payment recipient’s real estate property values have been completed; and (b) can a summary of the results of those reviews be provided in the same format as provided in the answer to question no. HS41. 162 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Individuals were selected for review based on known risk characteristics. (b) Centrelink does not publish the review criteria. Prior to 2002–03 Centrelink review activity was reported through the National Selections Review System. As outlined on page 80 of the Centrelink Annual Report 2002-03, Centrelink moved to a new computer system for recording the outcomes of review activity. Full functionality had not been implemented at the time of writing the Annual Report and variations in real estate review numbers have occurred through ongoing refinement to the new system. The number of real estate reviews for Age Pension customers increased from 14,390 in 2002-03 to 19,169 in 2003-04, as the result of a part year effect of the 2003 Federal Budget Initiative Profile-driven verification of real estate assets for Aged program customers (Implementation date of 1 Jan 2004) as outlined on Page 192 of the Family and Community Services 2003 Portfolio Budget Statements Booklet. Centrelink is unable to break down cancellation and reduction of payment data by State and/or Territory because the data is collated at Centrelink Area levels, which cross geographical borders. Approximately 20,000 Service Profiling Service Updates and 600 Compliance and Fraud Reviews relating to real estate are planned for the 2005‑06 financial year. Centrelink will conduct a further 40,000 property valuation updates via data exchange with the Australian Valuation Office as part of the May 2003 Budget initiative Centrelink Service Delivery - Enhanced Information Technology Capability as outlined at page 199 of the Family and Community Services 2003 Portfolio Budget Statements. The following table provides details for the 2005‑06 financial year to 15 September 2005 including: (a) the number of reviews updating real estate property values that have been completed; and (b) the results of those reviews by program type. Centrelink Review Activity for Real Estate – Financial Year 2005-2006 (to 15 Sept 05) Program  Number of Reviews Completed Number of Cancellations Decreases in Payment Fortnightly Savings $ Age Pension [1] 6,662 54 1,534 135,177 Austudy Payment 3 1 0 428 Carer Payment 35 1 8 878 Carer Allowance 0 0 0 0 Disability Support Pension 123 1 30 2,909 Family Allowance 1 0 1 115 Family Tax Benefit 6 0 0 0 Mobility Allowance 0 0 0 0 Newstart Allowance [2] 36 0 2 802 Parenting Payment Partnered 12 1 4 1,122 Parenting Payment Single 4 0 2 385 Partner Allowance 130 5 10 2,415 Sickness Allowance 0 0 0 0 Special Benefit 0 0 0 0 Widow Allowance 0 0 0 0 Youth Allowance 0 0 0 0   0 0 0 0 TOTAL  7,012 63 1,591 144,231 NOTE: [1] Age Pension includes Wife Pension (Age) and Widow B Pension. [2] Newstart Allowance includes Mature Age Allowance. 163 163 1227 163 Ludwig, Sen Joe 84N Queensland ALP 0 Senator Ludwig asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 15 September 2005: With reference to the 22 Lithuanian war criminals that were referred to the Government by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in 2002: Can an update on the outcome of these cases be provided. Were allegations received; if so, when. Did the Australian Federal Police (AFP) undertake an investigation into any, or all, of the named persons; if so, what was the outcome of each investigation; if not, why not. Were charges brought against any of the individuals; if not, was this decision made by the AFP or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Has any foreign government formally requested the extradition of any of these persons, either on a charge relating to the information mentioned above, or for any other reason; if so, were any extradition proceedings brought against the 22 persons named and what was the outcome; if not, why not. 164 Ellison, Sen Chris 9X5 Western Australia LP Minister for Justice and Customs 1 Senator Ellison —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: In response to a request from the Lithuanian government, details about 22 Lithuanians, including those who could not be located, those who were deceased and those who were identified as residing in Australia, were provided to the Lithuanian authorities. No charges were laid against those persons residing in Australia. Allegations of war crimes against the 22 names persons were not referred to the AFP for investigation. On 30 September 2001, the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) received a letter from the Lithuanian authorities requesting Australia’s assistance in determining whether 22 names persons ever entered Australia, if so whether they were living or deceased, and the address for those that could be located. An identical request was received via the AGD from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in May 2002. The AFP made relevant inquiries and forwarded the results to the AGD. The AFP conducted inquiries in relation to the status and whereabouts of the 22 persons named in the request from the Lithuanian authorities. The AFP was not requested to investigate allegations of war crimes against the 22 named persons nor were precise details of the alleged offences provided to commence an investigation. No, a criminal investigation was not requested nor conducted. This was an AFP decision. The Australian Government does not disclose whether it has received an extradition request. The receipt of an extradition request becomes public at the time of arrest or subsequent extradition proceedings before a magistrate. 164 164 1245 164 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 26 September 2005: Can a list, by postcode, be provided of: (a) the number of recipients of Carer Payment (Adult) in Western Australia; and (b) the number of recipients of Carer Allowance (Adult) in Western Australia. For the period from 1 January 2005 to the present, can a list, by postcode, be provided of the number of recipients of Carer Payment (Adult) in Western Australia who were moved to the Age Pension on turning 65, for males, or the relevant qualifying age for women. Are carers who become entitled to the Age Pension able to choose either the Carer Payment or the Age Pension, or are they automatically transferred from the Carer Payment to the Age Pension; and (b) can details be provided of these processes. 164 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The number of recipients of Carer Payment (adult) in Western Australia, by postcode is as follows. Postcode Number of customers 6000 <20 6001 <20 6003 <20 6004 <20 6005 <20 6006 <20 6007 <20 6008 <20 6009 <20 6010 <20 6011 <20 6012 <20 6014 20 6015 <20 6016 27 6017 <20 6018 79 6019 35 6020 31 6021 63 6022 <20 6023 <20 6024 41 6025 54 6026 33 6027 85 6028 37 6029 <20 6030 58 6031 <20 6034 <20 6035 <20 6036 <20 6037 <20 6041 <20 6042 <20 6044 <20 6050 <20 6051 20 6052 21 6053 38 6054 104 6055 27 6056 130 6057 32 6058 36 6059 75 6060 61 6061 224 6062 112 6063 72 6064 201 6065 87 6066 76 6069 24 6070 <20 6071 <20 6073 <20 6074 <20 6076 44 6081 <20 6082 <20 6083 <20 6084 <20 6100 20 6101 46 6102 55 6103 38 6104 61 6105 46 6107 120 6108 94 6109 60 6110 133 6111 76 6112 152 6121 <20 6122 <20 6123 <20 6124 <20 6125 <20 6126 <20 6147 56 6148 30 6149 27 6150 28 6151 <20 6152 39 6153 30 6154 <20 6155 69 6156 38 6157 38 6158 <20 6159 <20 6160 <20 6162 41 6163 217 6164 117 6165 <20 6166 24 6167 109 6168 135 6169 151 6170 <20 6171 <20 6172 33 6173 <20 6174 <20 6175 <20 6176 <20 6207 <20 6208 48 6210 281 6213 <20 6214 <20 6215 <20 6218 <20 6220 22 6224 <20 6225 57 6226 <20 6227 <20 6230 154 6231 <20 6232 20 6233 31 6236 <20 6237 <20 6239 <20 6244 <20 6251 <20 6253 <20 6254 <20 6255 <20 6256 <20 6258 22 6260 <20 6262 <20 6271 <20 6275 <20 6280 55 6281 <20 6284 <20 6285 <20 6286 <20 6290 <20 6302 24 6304 <20 6306 <20 6308 <20 6311 <20 6312 <20 6315 <20 6317 <20 6318 <20 6320 <20 6321 <20 6322 <20 6323 <20 6324 <20 6327 <20 6328 <20 6330 127 6331 <20 6332 <20 6333 <20 6335 <20 6337 <20 6338 <20 6348 <20 6352 <20 6353 <20 6358 <20 6359 <20 6363 <20 6369 <20 6370 <20 6375 <20 6383 <20 6390 <20 6391 <20 6394 <20 6395 <20 6397 <20 6398 <20 6401 37 6407 <20 6409 <20 6410 <20 6411 <20 6415 <20 6418 <20 6429 <20 6430 51 6432 32 6433 <20 6437 <20 6438 <20 6440 <20 6442 <20 6443 <20 6450 50 6460 <20 6461 <20 6475 <20 6485 <20 6488 <20 6501 <20 6502 <20 6503 <20 6510 <20 6514 <20 6515 <20 6516 <20 6519 <20 6525 <20 6528 <20 6530 157 6531 <20 6532 <20 6535 <20 6536 <20 6537 <20 6556 <20 6558 <20 6560 <20 6562 <20 6564 <20 6566 24 6568 <20 6603 <20 6608 <20 6613 <20 6620 <20 6630 <20 6635 <20 6638 <20 6640 <20 6642 <20 6646 <20 6701 31 6707 <20 6710 <20 6714 <20 6718 <20 6720 <20 6721 <20 6722 24 6725 108 6726 <20 6728 49 6740 <20 6743 32 6753 <20 6758 <20 6760 <20 6765 38 6770 37 6799 <20 6844 <20 6892 <20 6904 <20 6905 <20 6909 <20 6911 <20 6913 <20 6917 <20 6922 <20 6924 <20 6926 <20 6929 <20 6931 <20 6936 <20 6941 <20 6943 <20 6945 <20 6946 <20 6953 <20 6955 <20 6956 <20 6959 <20 6964 <20 6966 <20 6968 <20 6969 <20 6985 <20 6987 <20 6988 <20 6990 <20 6992 <20 TOTAL 6603 Notes:  Data as at 23 /9/2005 All cells that have a value of less than 20 have been changed to display “<20”. This rule has been employed for privacy reasons. The number of recipients of Carer Allowance (adult) in Western Australia, by postcode is as follows. Postcode Number of Customers 6000 27 6003 24 6004 <20 6005 <20 6006 66 6007 30 6008 64 6009 63 6010 82 6011 28 6012 52 6014 110 6015 39 6016 76 6017 35 6018 270 6019 116 6020 141 6021 251 6022 71 6023 86 6024 116 6025 205 6026 161 6027 272 6028 90 6029 20 6030 178 6031 30 6033 <20 6034 <20 6035 39 6036 33 6037 27 6041 21 6042 <20 6043 <20 6044 <20 6050 102 6051 65 6052 86 6053 116 6054 253 6055 85 6056 385 6057 96 6058 118 6059 254 6060 200 6061 459 6062 361 6063 140 6064 452 6065 247 6066 173 6067 <20 6069 67 6070 <20 6071 23 6072 <20 6073 22 6074 <20 6076 141 6081 28 6082 24 6083 <20 6084 41 6085 <20 6100 77 6101 126 6102 139 6103 73 6104 138 6105 136 6107 294 6108 222 6109 131 6110 305 6111 223 6112 402 6121 <20 6122 36 6123 <20 6124 <20 6125 27 6126 <20 6147 160 6148 112 6149 136 6150 83 6151 64 6152 141 6153 118 6154 83 6155 199 6156 151 6157 122 6158 41 6159 <20 6160 70 6162 145 6163 662 6164 259 6165 <20 6166 86 6167 256 6168 395 6169 420 6170 39 6171 41 6172 94 6173 25 6174 <20 6175 <20 6176 <20 6207 <20 6208 137 6210 960 6213 <20 6214 <20 6215 43 6218 <20 6219 <20 6220 54 6221 <20 6224 <20 6225 129 6226 <20 6227 <20 6228 <20 6229 <20 6230 387 6231 <20 6232 74 6233 112 6236 <20 6237 25 6239 28 6240 <20 6244 <20 6251 <20 6253 <20 6254 <20 6255 31 6256 <20 6258 53 6260 <20 6262 <20 6271 23 6275 <20 6280 178 6281 28 6282 <20 6284 <20 6285 22 6286 <20 6288 <20 6290 <20 6302 49 6304 26 6306 <20 6308 23 6309 <20 6311 <20 6312 48 6315 23 6316 <20 6317 27 6318 <20 6320 <20 6321 <20 6322 <20 6323 <20 6324 35 6326 <20 6327 <20 6328 <20 6330 398 6333 52 6335 <20 6336 <20 6337 <20 6338 <20 6346 <20 6348 <20 6350 <20 6352 <20 6353 <20 6355 <20 6359 <20 6363 <20 6365 <20 6367 <20 6369 <20 6370 <20 6375 <20 6383 <20 6390 23 6391 <20 6394 <20 6395 <20 6396 <20 6397 <20 6398 <20 6401 86 6403 <20 6405 <20 6407 <20 6409 <20 6410 <20 6411 <20 6413 <20 6415 <20 6418 <20 6421 <20 6424 <20 6426 <20 6428 <20 6429 <20 6430 115 6432 71 6433 <20 6437 <20 6438 <20 6440 <20 6442 <20 6443 <20 6447 <20 6448 <20 6450 130 6460 <20 6461 <20 6464 <20 6468 <20 6475 <20 6477 <20 6479 <20 6485 <20 6487 <20 6488 <20 6489 <20 6490 <20 6501 <20 6502 <20 6503 <20 6506 <20 6507 <20 6510 <20 6511 <20 6514 <20 6515 <20 6516 24 6517 <20 6519 <20 6522 <20 6525 40 6528 <20 6530 347 6531 <20 6532 20 6535 21 6536 <20 6537 <20 6556 <20 6558 <20 6560 <20 6562 20 6564 <20 6566 50 6567 <20 6568 <20 6569 <20 6575 <20 6603 <20 6606 <20 6608 <20 6609 <20 6613 <20 6616 <20 6620 <20 6623 <20 6628 <20 6630 <20 6631 <20 6635 <20 6638 <20 6639 <20 6640 <20 6642 <20 6646 <20 6701 47 6705 <20 6707 28 6710 <20 6713 <20 6714 <20 6716 <20 6718 <20 6720 <20 6721 <20 6722 43 6725 161 6726 <20 6728 74 6740 <20 6743 37 6751 <20 6753 <20 6758 <20 6765 37 6770 41 6798 <20 6799 <20 6906 <20 6921 <20 6931 <20 6959 <20 6966 <20 6968 <20 6992 <20 Total 18327 Notes: Data as at 23/9/2005. All cells that have a value of less than 20 have been changed to display “<20”. This rule has been employed for privacy reasons. During the period 1 January 2005 to 23 September 2005, 38 customers in Western Australia were granted Age Pension on turning Age Pension qualifying age who were, in the previous two week period, receiving Carer Payment. As there were less than 20 in each postcode only the total can be provided. Carer Payment recipients turning Age Pension age can elect to stay on Carer Payment. There are no automatic processes, each instance requires a Customer Service Officer to take the necessary action. (b) Centrelink’s procedures require that when a customer turns Age Pension age a Centrelink officer contacts the customer and discusses whether it would be in the customers interests to move to Age Pension or remain on Carer Payment. When a customer is granted Age Pension they receive a letter advising them this has occurred. The normal administrative review processes are available. 166 166 1247 166 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 26 August 2005: Can a list be provided, by postcode, of the number of recipients of Carer Payment (Child) in Western Australia. Can the department identify the number of recipients of Carer Payment (Child) who are sole parents; if so, can a list be provided, by postcode, of the number of sole parents who are in receipt of Carer Payment (Child) in Western Australia. Can a list be provided, by postcode, of the number of recipients of Carer Allowance (Child) in Western Australia. Can the department identify recipients of Carer Allowance (Child) who are sole parents; if so, can a list be provided, by postcode, of the number of sole parents who are in receipt of Carer Allowance (Child) in Western Australia. 166 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The number of Carer Payment (Child) recipients in Western Australia by postcode is 142. There are less than 20 recipients in each postcode in Western Australia, therefore the data cannot be provided by postcode due to privacy reasons. The number of recipients of Carer Payment (Child) in Western Australia who are sole parents is 39. There are less than 20 recipients in each postcode in Western Australia, therefore the data cannot be provided by postcode due to privacy reasons. The number of recipients of Carer Allowance (Child) in Western Australia is 10,242. Numbers by postcode are as follows. Postcode Number of Customers 6000 <20 6003 <20 6004 <20 6005 <20 6006 <20 6007 <20 6008 23 6009 <20 6010 50 6011 <20 6012 <20 6014 58 6015 <20 6016 33 6017 <20 6018 97 6019 43 6020 53 6021 71 6022 21 6023 59 6024 58 6025 137 6026 121 6027 214 6028 131 6029 <20 6030 254 6031 60 6033 <20 6035 23 6036 31 6037 <20 6041 <20 6042 <20 6044 <20 6050 29 6051 24 6052 42 6053 41 6054 115 6055 68 6056 263 6057 80 6058 68 6059 93 6060 51 6061 220 6062 136 6063 93 6064 249 6065 196 6066 174 6067 <20 6069 88 6070 <20 6071 <20 6072 <20 6073 <20 6074 <20 6076 80 6081 22 6082 21 6083 <20 6084 38 6100 29 6101 38 6102 43 6103 39 6104 49 6105 91 6107 159 6108 143 6109 79 6110 256 6111 158 6112 283 6121 <20 6122 28 6123 <20 6124 <20 6125 <20 6126 <20 6147 87 6148 57 6149 55 6150 44 6151 45 6152 60 6153 53 6154 27 6155 201 6156 74 6157 39 6158 22 6159 <20 6160 <20 6161 <20 6162 34 6163 265 6164 268 6165 <20 6166 60 6167 172 6168 191 6169 268 6170 63 6171 37 6172 99 6173 31 6174 <20 6175 <20 6176 <20 6207 <20 6208 39 6210 340 6213 <20 6214 <20 6215 <20 6218 <20 6220 25 6221 <20 6223 <20 6224 <20 6225 83 6226 <20 6227 <20 6229 <20 6230 171 6232 48 6233 62 6236 <20 6237 <20 6239 <20 6240 <20 6244 <20 6251 <20 6252 <20 6253 <20 6254 <20 6255 <20 6258 33 6260 <20 6262 <20 6271 <20 6275 <20 6280 83 6281 <20 6282 <20 6284 <20 6285 <20 6286 <20 6288 <20 6290 <20 6302 <20 6304 <20 6306 <20 6308 <20 6309 <20 6311 <20 6312 31 6313 <20 6315 <20 6317 <20 6318 <20 6320 <20 6321 <20 6323 <20 6324 23 6326 <20 6327 <20 6328 <20 6330 157 6331 <20 6333 <20 6335 <20 6336 <20 6337 <20 6338 <20 6346 <20 6348 <20 6350 <20 6353 <20 6355 <20 6356 <20 6357 <20 6359 <20 6365 <20 6367 <20 6369 <20 6370 <20 6372 <20 6375 <20 6383 <20 6390 <20 6391 <20 6392 <20 6394 <20 6395 <20 6398 <20 6401 53 6405 <20 6407 <20 6409 <20 6410 <20 6415 <20 6418 <20 6421 <20 6422 <20 6426 <20 6429 <20 6430 101 6432 68 6433 <20 6437 <20 6438 <20 6440 <20 6442 <20 6443 <20 6446 <20 6448 <20 6450 67 6460 <20 6461 <20 6464 <20 6468 <20 6472 <20 6475 <20 6476 <20 6477 <20 6479 <20 6485 <20 6487 <20 6488 <20 6490 <20 6501 <20 6502 <20 6503 <20 6507 <20 6509 <20 6510 <20 6511 <20 6513 <20 6514 <20 6515 <20 6516 <20 6517 <20 6518 <20 6519 <20 6521 <20 6522 <20 6525 <20 6528 <20 6530 192 6532 <20 6535 <20 6536 <20 6537 <20 6556 <20 6558 <20 6560 <20 6562 <20 6564 <20 6566 <20 6568 <20 6603 <20 6606 <20 6608 <20 6609 <20 6613 <20 6620 <20 6623 <20 6630 <20 6631 <20 6632 <20 6638 <20 6640 <20 6642 <20 6646 <20 6701 23 6705 <20 6707 <20 6710 <20 6713 <20 6714 53 6716 <20 6718 <20 6720 <20 6721 <20 6722 40 6725 38 6726 <20 6728 <20 6740 <20 6743 <20 6751 <20 6753 25 6754 <20 6760 <20 6765 <20 6770 <20 6798 <20 6936 <20 Total 10,242 Note: All cells that have a value of less than 20 have been changed to display “<20”. This rule has been employed for privacy reasons. Data is current as at 23 September 2005 The number of sole parents who are in receipt of Carer Allowance (Child) in Western Australia is 3,457. Numbers by postcode are as follows. Postcode Number of Customers 6000 <20 6003 <20 6004 <20 6005 <20 6006 <20 6007 <20 6008 <20 6009 <20 6010 <20 6011 <20 6012 <20 6014 <20 6015 <20 6016 <20 6017 <20 6018 32 6019 <20 6020 <20 6021 22 6022 <20 6023 <20 6024 <20 6025 45 6026 28 6027 65 6028 30 6030 89 6031 21 6033 <20 6035 <20 6036 <20 6037 <20 6050 <20 6051 <20 6052 <20 6053 <20 6054 64 6055 22 6056 108 6057 22 6058 33 6059 <20 6060 23 6061 93 6062 38 6063 28 6064 95 6065 48 6066 56 6067 <20 6069 25 6070 <20 6071 <20 6073 <20 6074 <20 6076 20 6081 <20 6082 <20 6083 <20 6084 <20 6100 <20 6101 22 6102 22 6103 26 6104 32 6105 42 6107 66 6108 43 6109 38 6110 106 6111 50 6112 123 6121 <20 6122 <20 6123 <20 6124 <20 6126 <20 6147 37 6148 20 6149 <20 6150 <20 6151 <20 6152 30 6153 <20 6154 <20 6155 30 6156 33 6157 20 6158 <20 6159 <20 6160 <20 6162 <20 6163 89 6164 79 6166 <20 6167 64 6168 73 6169 99 6170 <20 6171 <20 6172 32 6173 <20 6174 <20 6175 <20 6176 <20 6207 <20 6208 <20 6210 140 6213 <20 6215 <20 6218 <20 6220 <20 6224 <20 6225 42 6227 <20 6230 68 6232 <20 6233 <20 6237 <20 6239 <20 6244 <20 6253 <20 6254 <20 6255 <20 6258 <20 6260 <20 6262 <20 6271 <20 6275 <20 6280 25 6281 <20 6282 <20 6284 <20 6285 <20 6286 <20 6290 <20 6302 <20 6304 <20 6306 <20 6308 <20 6311 <20 6312 <20 6313 <20 6315 <20 6317 <20 6321 <20 6324 <20 6326 <20 6327 <20 6328 <20 6330 53 6333 <20 6335 <20 6348 <20 6350 <20 6357 <20 6365 <20 6372 <20 6375 <20 6383 <20 6390 <20 6392 <20 6395 <20 6401 20 6410 <20 6415 <20 6418 <20 6426 <20 6429 <20 6430 26 6432 23 6433 <20 6438 <20 6440 <20 6442 <20 6443 <20 6450 <20 6460 <20 6479 <20 6485 <20 6490 <20 6501 <20 6502 <20 6503 <20 6510 <20 6516 <20 6519 <20 6522 <20 6525 <20 6528 <20 6530 63 6532 <20 6535 <20 6536 <20 6556 <20 6560 <20 6562 <20 6566 <20 6603 <20 6606 <20 6608 <20 6609 <20 6642 <20 6646 <20 6701 <20 6707 <20 6710 <20 6714 <20 6718 <20 6720 <20 6721 <20 6722 21 6725 <20 6726 <20 6728 <20 6740 <20 6743 <20 6751 <20 6753 <20 6754 <20 6760 <20 6765 <20 6770 <20 Total 3,457 Note: All cells that have a value of less than 20 have been changed to display “<20”. This rule has been employed for privacy reasons. Data is current as at 23 September 2005. 166 166 1273 166 Ludwig, Sen Joe 84N Queensland ALP 0 Senator Ludwig asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 4 October 2005: Can a copy be provided of the Integrated Cargo System’s Current Issues Register as at 10 September 2005. 166 Ellison, Sen Chris 9X5 Western Australia LP Minister for Justice and Customs 1 Senator Ellison —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: A list was published by Customs to Software Developers for changes made in the 14 September 2005 release of the system. A copy of the list is available from the Senate Table Office. 166 166 1275 and 1276 166 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, upon notice, on 5 October 2005: Since 21 June 2004, how many road accidents have occurred in Australia. How many of these accidents resulted in one or more fatalities. How many of these accidents resulted in one or more persons suffering some form of permanent injury. What is the estimated total cost of these accidents. 166 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The ATSB only collects data on road accidents involving fatalities and serious injuries. From 22 June 2004 to 31 August 2005, there were 1730 fatal road crashes in Australia resulting in 1913 fatalities. Data on persons seriously injured in road crashes are currently available up to June 2003 only. The ATSB has no data on levels of impairment due to injury in a road crash. The ATSB has no data on the cost of these road accidents. Only estimates of annual costs of road crashes are available. The latest available estimate is $15 billion for 1996 (1996 dollars) by the Bureau of Transport Economics. 166 166 1307 166 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 12 October 2005: What Australian clinical guidelines exist for the prevention, screening, early detection and treatment of gynaecological cancers, including ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, uterine cancer and vulval cancer; and (b) what Australian consumer education materials exist regarding these cancers. What has the Government done to raise the level of public awareness of gynaecological cancers such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and vulval cancer, to the same level as cervical cancer. What funding is the Government providing to support research into the development of a screening test for ovarian cancer. 166 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator Santoro —The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The following Australian guidelines exist for gynaecological cancers. Ovarian Cancer The Clinical practice guidelines for the management of women with epithelial ovarian cancer were developed by the National Breast Cancer Centre (NBCC) and the Australian Cancer Network and were approved in 2004 by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The NBCC has also recently developed and disseminated a resource, Assessment of symptoms that may be ovarian cancer that provides general practitioners with a step-by-step process to follow in the investigation of symptoms. Cervical Cancer The National Cervical Screening Program has developed the Screening to prevent cervical cancer - Guidelines for the management of asymptomatic women with screen-detected abnormalities which were approved by the NHMRC in 2005. These replace the previous guidelines which were developed in 1994. The guidelines have been developed to assist women and health professionals to achieve the best outcomes in the management of abnormal Pap smear results. The guidelines address the current state of cervical cancer in Australia, the natural history of the disease and terminology for cervical cytology; management of squamous abnormalities, glandular abnormalities and special clinical circumstances; and psychosocial, economic and implementation issues. There are no national guidelines for the prevention, screening, early detection and treatment of uterine and vulval cancers. In 2005, the NBCC developed a national consumer guide for women with ovarian cancer. The guide contains information about epithelial ovarian cancer, from diagnosis through to treatment and palliative care. It also includes personal perspectives from women with ovarian cancer and examples of questions women may wish to ask their doctor. The guide was developed by a multidisciplinary working group with input from women with ovarian cancer, their partners and carers. The NBCC has also developed fact sheets about ovarian cancer and a website www.ovariancancerprogram.org.au to provide information to health professionals and consumers. Copies of resources, such as the guidelines and consumer guide, are available for download from the website or free of charge from the NBCC. The National Cervical Screening Program distributes a range of national resources including: - a national brochure Early Detection is the Best Protection; - a language brochure When did you last have a Pap smear? which is produced in English and 29 other languages; and - a booklet A guide for women with an abnormal Pap smear - Pap smear results. The state and territory programs also produce a range of local level education materials, including materials for Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse groups of women and women with a disability. These materials are currently being updated in line with the NHMRC Screening to prevent cervical cancer - Guidelines for the management of asymptomatic women with screen-detected abnormalities. A range of information links for consumers on gynaecological cancers including ovarian, cervical, uterine and vulval cancers are provided through the Australian Government’s information portal, HealthInsite. The state and territory cancer councils also have a range of consumer materials on gynaecological cancers including ovarian, cervical, uterine and vulval cancers, many of which are available on their websites. The Australian Government established the NBCC, Australia’s peak body for breast and ovarian cancer control, in 1995. In the 2003-04 Budget the Australian Government committed a further $8.4 million over four years to continue the work of the NBCC. The NBCC has worked to raise the awareness of ovarian cancer through a number of national forums for consumers and clinicians, and through its electronic newsletter Ovarian e-upd@te. The NBCC works collaboratively with OvCa Australia, the key consumer advocacy group, to raise awareness. The Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week activities in February 2005 included the launch of the consumer guide. For Awareness Week in 2006, OvCa Australia and the NBCC will collaborate to conduct a national forum for women with ovarian cancer, their partners and family. There have been no specific activities to raise the level of public awareness of uterine and vulval cancers. The Australian Government has not provided specific funding for research into the development of a screening test for ovarian cancer. A randomised controlled trial of ovarian cancer screening is currently underway in the United Kingdom which will answer important questions about whether early detection of ovarian cancer can reduce mortality. The Australian Government has provided over $14 million through the NHMRC for research into ovarian cancer since 2000. This included funding in 2003 for a randomised trial of a decision aid for women at increased risk for ovarian cancer. Under the Strengthening Cancer Care initiative, funding of $17.6 million over four years has been allocated for a dedicated cancer research budget. Initial research priorities identified for funding include early detection of breast and ovarian cancers as well as improving screening programs to ensure that patients can be identified and treated appropriately and that screening services are effective. 166 166 1332 166 Bishop, Sen Mark 2L6 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Mark Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 October 2005: Which consultancy firm was selected by the department to act as quantity surveyor or head contractor for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation Rationalisation Project at the Fisherman’s Bend site in Melbourne. What consultancy firm or individual was contracted by the department to provide initial advice and costings for the Fisherman’s Bend project prior to second phase approval. What were the selection criteria for the firm that acted in the capacity of quantity surveyor or head contractor; (b) how many firms were considered for the project; and (c) what tendering process was followed for the selection of the successful firm. With reference to the report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Defence Science and Technology Organisation rationalisation project, Melbourne (5th report of 2000), tabled on 22 June 2000, in which it was reported that non-construction fees comprised one-quarter of the total project costs of the $56.171 million: (a) what was the amount of consultancy fees agreed for the head contractor at the commencement of the project; (b) to date, what has been the total amount of management fees paid to the head contractor; and (c) what fees payable to the head contractor are outstanding at this time. Has the rationalisation of facilities at the Fisherman’s Bend site been completed; and (b) when did the new facilities become fully operational. How many Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) staff members are now stationed at the Fisherman’s Bend site. How many staff members from the DSTO Maribyrnong facility have been transferred to the Fisherman’s Bend site; and (b) when will the DSTO site at Maribyrnong cease operations. What other departmental sites currently house DSTO operations. 166 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Defence engaged Connell Wagner Pty Ltd as the Project Consultant to provide project management services that included advice on cost planning. Defence engaged Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd to act as the Managing Contractor to be responsible for planning, design, construction and commissioning of the project in accordance with the contract. Defence engaged Connell Wagner Pty Ltd as the Project Consultant to provide initial advice including cost planning. The selection criteria for the Project Consultant were: key personnel that were to be used on the project; and task appreciation and methodology for the work involved in the project. The selection criteria for the Managing Contractor were: prior performance; task appreciation and methodology; management proposals; and personnel and capacity to perform the work. Eleven companies, all of whom were members of the Project Services Consultancy Panel (PSCP), were invited to register an Expression of Interest in the Project Consultant role; and eleven major construction companies (not members of the PSCP) registered an Expression of Interest in undertaking the role of Managing Contractor. A two-stage tender process was followed in the selection of both the Project Consultant and the Managing Contractor. The contracted amount for the Managing Contractor at the commencement of the project was $6.7million. At 31 October 2005, an amount of $7.2 million has been paid to the Managing Contractor. This reflects approved variations of an additional $0.5 million. $35,000. Not all facilities are completed. For those facilities that are operational, July 2003 and August 2004. Approximately 650. Fifty. It is planned to cease operations in September 2007. Edinburgh SA, Pyrmont and HMAS Kuttabul NSW, Russell and Fern Hill Park ACT, HMAS Stirling WA, Scottsdale TAS, Innisfail QLD, as well as Staff Officers located at Robertson Barracks NT, Enoggera and Lavarack Barracks QLD, Victoria Barracks and RAAF Williamtown NSW, and Puckapunyal VIC. 166 166 1357 166 Hutchins, Sen Steve 84P New South Wales ALP 0 Senator Hutchins asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 November 2005: What safeguards will the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission employ to ensure that, if it approves the National Australia Bank’s (NAB) proposed 25 per cent equity stake in Cash Services Australia (CSA): (a) the NAB will not be able to restructure CSA’s operations in an anti-competitive manner; and (b) the NAB does not become a customer of CSA after any anti‑competitive restructures that may be made in the future. What arrangements, other than seeking undertakings, will be used to restrain NAB from seeking involvement in the day‑to‑day operations of CSA. What arrangements will be made to ensure that the NAB does not engage in other anti‑competitive practices on behalf of the other major banks in the cash‑in‑transit industry through an equity stake in CSA. 166 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: On 25 November 2005, the ACCC announced that it would not oppose the acquisition by NAB of 25% equity in CSA. Conditional on acceptance of court-enforceable undertakings from CSA relating to the acquisition and re-supply of armoured carriers services, the treatment of confidential information and the participation of CSA in the wholesale cash market, as well as a written commitment by NAB that it would not acquire armoured carrier services from CSA without first giving the ACCC six weeks notice of its intention. The ACCC’s decision followed market inquiries regarding the proposed acquisition and the offered undertakings. The decision of the Commission (like any merger clearance decision) is based on the information provided to it by the parties being correct and complete, and the ACCC reserves the right to reopen merger investigations where it transpires that this is not the case. Pursuant to the undertaking, CSA will not accept NAB as a member for the purposes of acquiring armoured carrier services without first giving the ACCC four weeks notice. Furthermore, NAB has submitted to the ACCC that it does not currently intend to acquire armoured carrier services from CSA. In evidencing its position, NAB has provided the ACCC with a written commitment that, prior to acquiring armoured carrier services from CSA, it will provide the ACCC with six weeks notice. Advanced notice to the ACCC allows it to conduct an initial investigation and form a preliminary view. Court-enforceable undertakings, pursuant to section 87B of the Trade Practices Act, are the instrument by which ACCC competition concerns can be resolved. The undertaking provides that the shareholders will not have any participation in the day-to-day operation of CSA. CSA is operated by an independent manager who is overseen by the board which includes an independent Chairman. Accordingly, involvement in the day-to-day operations of CSA by any of the shareholders including NAB would be contrary to the undertaking. Furthermore, the compliance of CSA with the undertaking is subject to an annual audit by an independent person. This audit is provided to the ACCC so that the ACCC is able to monitor compliance by CSA and its shareholders. The ACCC has not considered a proposal that involves NAB acting on behalf of the other major banks. However, were NAB or any other major bank to engage in conduct that may be anti-competitive, the ACCC would investigate such alleged conduct and act, as appropriate. 166 166 1359 166 Bishop, Sen Mark 2L6 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Mark Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 November 2005: For each of the past 5 years, how many independent probity supervisors have been appointed by the department and for which tender processes. What was the name and position of each probity supervisor; (b) what was the cost of each appointment; and (c) what was the term of each appointment. In each case, who appointed the probity supervisor. 166 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: and (3) The information sought in the honourable senator’s questions is not available in a complete form as Defence does not hold a central repository of this information. However, the following information is provided. Tender Process/Project Name of Probity Supervisor Position of Probity Supervisor Cost of Appointment Term of Appointment Who Authorised Appointment JP 2048 Ph 4A/4B – LHD Project Harry Dunstall – Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser 2004/05: $6,109 2005/06: $13,452 No Fixed term of appointment – Advice sought on a case by case basis and governed by the ADAS Probity Plan Project Manager Amphibious Deployment And Sustainment JP 2088 Ph1 – Special Forces Air Droppable RHIBS Harry Dunstall – Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser 2004/05: $6,192 2005/06: Nil (No expenditure prior to this date) No Fixed term of appointment – Advice sought on a case-by-case basis and governed by the ADAS Probity Plan Project Manager Amphibious Deployment And Sustainment SEA 1654 Ph2A Harry Dunstall – Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser 2004/05: $17,472 2005/06: Nil No Fixed term of appointment – Advice sought on a case by case basis and governed by the ADAS Probity Plan Appointment made prior to creation of Amphibious Deployment And Sustainment. Appointment made by Director General Major Surface Ships on advice from Director Contractor Maritime Systems Support) LAND 121 Phase 3A Ms Lynette Lenaz – Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) Probity Adviser There is no fixed cost, with the project paying the standard hourly rate for AGS services as determined by the standing offer for legal services. This includes capacity for discrete costing of sub-tasks where they can be adequately defined. The term of the appointment is for the project life, though the agreement may be terminated in accordance with standing offer standing offer arrangements Project Authority Land 134 RFP Probity Assessment Bill Conley and Sarah Ross Smith, Blake Dawson Waldron Probity Adviser $16,500 29 October 2001 – 26 November 2001 Project Authority Land 134 RFT Bill Conley and Sarah Ross Smith, Blake Dawson Waldron Probity Adviser $40,039 31 May 2002 – 25 September 2002 Project Authority AASSPO IMS Project John Berg, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $140,000 July 2002 – January 2006 Amphibious and Afloat Support Systems Program Office Sustainment Manager SEA 1430 Phase 3 (Survey Motor Launch Hydrographic Suite Upgrade) George Marques Partner, Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $23,000 May 2003 – December 2004 Director General Minor War Vessels SEA 1439 Phase 1 - Replacement Combat System Project Brian O’Callaghan, Senior Associate, Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $50,000 For 6 months in 2000 SEA 1439 Phase 1 Project Manager SEA 1429 - Heavy Weight Torpedo Project Linda Richardson Senior Government Solicitor, AGS Probity Adviser $9,000 December 2000 – October 2001 Deputy Director Undersea Weapons Group SEA 1439 PH 4A - Replacement Combat System Project Ian Warfield, Senior Associate, Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $45,000 April 2004 – November 2004 Project Director Replacement Combat System (Submarines) SEA1439PH4B Submarine Inertial Navigation System Chris Appleby, Special Counsel, Clayton Utz Probity Adviser $56,000 July 2003 – November 2003 Director General Submarine Branch SEA1439PH4B Plotting Table Chris Appleby, Special Counsel, Clayton Utz Probity Adviser $17,000 August 2003 – September 2003 Director General Submarine Branch SEA 1439 PH 4A - Replacement Combat System Project George Marques, Partner, Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $27,000 July 2004 – October 2004 Project Director Replacement Combat System (Submarines) SEA1439PH4B Improvements to COLLINS Class Sensors Chris Appleby Special Counsel, Clayton Utz Probity Adviser $150,000 May 2004 and ongoing Director General Submarine Branch SEA1114 New Submarine Project – Auxiliary Sea Water hose Replacement Chris Appleby Special Counsel, Clayton Utz Probity Adviser $83,000 Dec 2004 and ongoing Director General Submarine Branch SEA 1439 PH 4A - Replacement Combat System Project George Marques, Partner, Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $14,000 November 2004 – February 2005 Project Director Replacement Combat System (Submarines) SEA1439PH3B Improvements to COLLINS Class Platforms – Extension of Life Capability (ROV for SERS) Chris Appleby Special Counsel, Clayton Utz Probity Adviser $37,000 December 2004 and ongoing Director General Submarine Branch ANZAC Ship Alliance Mick Allworth Client Service Partner, KPMG Probity Adviser Data not available 2001 and ongoing Project Authority SEA 1444 Armidale Class Patrol Boat Harry Dunstall, Australian Government Solicitor Ad hoc adviser Data not available Mid 2001 – December 2003 Director General Minor War Vessels AIR 5402 Air Refueller Capability Harry Dunstall, Australian Government Solicitor Ad hoc advisor $43,688 25 September 2003 – 3 June 2005 Project Director F111 Engines Business Unit (EBU) Commercialisation Mr Gary Power Australian Government Solicitors (AGS) Probity Adviser $7,700 One month Defence Materiel Organisation General Counsel Division RFP F404 F/A-18 Hornet Engine Through Life Support Clayton Utz Probity Adviser $12,000 3 weeks General Counsel Division AP-3C Accord Lynette Lenaz, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $126,235.84 2004/05 Director Project Management Unit AP-3C Accord Kenneth Eagle and Lynette Lenaz, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $84,049.72 July 2005 to October 2005 Sustainment Finance Manager AIR 9000 Phase 2 RFP 4 July 2003 – 10 December 2003 Garth Cooke, Australian Government Solicitor   Probity Adviser $5,800 5 days Project Director AIR 9000 Phase 2 RFP 4 July 2003 – 10 December 2003 Harry Dunstall, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $54,800 77days Project Director AIR 9000 Phase 2 RFP 4 July 2003 – 10 December 2003 John Scala, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $280 1 day Project Director AIR 9000 Phase 2 RFP 4 July 2003 – 10 December 2003 Linda Richardson, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $4,288 21 days Project Director AIR 9000 Phase 2 RFP 4 July 2003 – 10 December 2003 Peter Kidd, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $250 1 day Project Director AIR 9000 Phase 2 RFP 4 July 2003 – 10 December 2003 Stefan Jerga, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $3,002 6 days Project Director AIR 9000 Parallel Neg ODRP 12 January 2004 – 30 June 2004 Clare Derix, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $70,292 54 days Project Director AIR 9000 Parallel Neg ODRP 12 January 2004 – 30 June 2004 Garth Cooke, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $144,814 84 days Project Director AIR 9000 Parallel Neg ODRP 12 January 2004 – 30 June 2004 Harry Dunstall, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $39, 846 77 days Project Director AIR 9000 Parallel Neg ODRP 12 January 2004 – 30 June 2004 Linda Richardson, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $460.50 2 days Project Director AIR 9000 Parallel Neg ODRP 12 January 2004 – 30 June 2004 Nicolette Buddle, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $166.50 2 days Project Director AIR 9000 Parallel Neg ODRP 12 January 2004 – 30 June 2004 Matthew Bowd, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $4,623 6 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Clare Derix, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $5,980 12 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Garth Cooke, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $40, 772 45 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Harry Dunstall, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $5,295 20 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Linda Richardson, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $1,026 3 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 John Scala, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $2,120 2 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Matthew Bowd, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $769 1 day Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Henry Addison, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $704 2 days Project Director AIR 9000 Negotiations 1 July 2004 – 18 May 2005 Tom Howe, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $360 1 day Project Director AWD Phases 1A and 1B Mick Allworth, KPMG Probity Adviser Original Contract C218530NS: $50,000 1 July 2002 – 30 June 2005 Air Warfare Destroyer Systems Program Office Director 11 July 2005 – value increase of $25,000 (total $75,000) Air Warfare Destroyer Business Manager Decrease of $52,936.36 Air Warfare Destroyer Business Manager AWD Phase 1C: to provide Probity Adviser services re development, evaluation and conduct of Phase 1C; and evaluation and negotiation of Phase 2 Mick Allworth, KPMG Client Service Partner, KPMG Probity Adviser Original Contract 604410NS: $165,000 14 October 2004 – 30 June 2005 Air Warfare Destroyer Commercial Director (Liability Approver) Air Warfare Destroyer Program Manager Air Warfare Destroyer Commercial Manager 5 May 2005 increase by $200,000 (total: $365,000) Extended to 30 September 2005 22 July 2005 increase by $215,000 (total $580,000) (30/6/05-30/9/05) 26 September 2005 no increase in contract value Extended to 30 November 2005 (30/9/05-30/11/05) 28 November 2005 no increase in contract value Extended to 31 January 2005 (30/11/05-31/01/06) JNT 2072 Phase One Robert Watson, Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $92,163.86 13 January 2005 – 14 December 2005 Director Battlespace Communications Systems Program Office Plan Chess RFT Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $32,595 1 June 2005 – 31 July 2005 Director Battlespace Communications Systems Program Office Plan Chess ODA Deed Phillips Fox Probity Adviser $21,000.00 1 October 2005 – 31 October 2005 Director Battlespace Communications Systems Program Office TIEIO Services Contract Garth Cooke, Australian Government Solicitor Probity Adviser $10,957.50 3 months Commercial Director Electronic Systems Integration Branch Joint Project (JP) 2070 Project DJIMINDI – Replacement Lightweight Torpedo Project Mr Michael Allworth Chairman of Partners KPMG Probity Supervisor $139,258.36   7 July 2000 – 3 November 2005 Director Undersea Weapons Group and Director General Submarine Mulwala Redevelopment Project – Design and Construction Tender (issued by ADI Limited) Mr Georges Marques Mr Ian Warfield Phillips Fox Probity Supervisors $59,022.83 Approx 11 months: October 2003 – August 2004 Director Mulwala Redevelopment Project – SEA4000 Air Warfare Destroyer and JP2048 Amphibious Ships Sir Lawrence Street Probity Adviser $220,000 January 2005 – ongoing (400 hours capped) Secretary of Defence Notes F404 Engine Through Life Support: Clayton Utz provided probity advice and advice on Intellectual Property Issues associated with the Request for Proposal. The total cost of the appointment was $12,000 and therefore the cost associated with probity would be approximately half the total cost. P3 Orion Accord: The terms of the AGS engagement was for provide both probity and legal advice. The records do not show a breakdown between the two. (General Counsel Note: Instructions for external Legal Service providers are now required to go through General Counsel Division. It is now required of all external legal providers to make the distinction on their invoices whether the invoice is for Legal or probity advice.) 166 166 1370 166 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 21 November 2005: With reference to the assessment of grants announced by the Prime Minister on 22 August 2005 under the Community Partnership Stream of the National Community Crime Prevention Programme: Has Hillsong Emerge Ltd lodged two applications under the same scheme in the same round, one entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project and another entitled Blacktown and Riverstone Community Partnership. Have both applications proposed a similar range of local initiatives (e.g. sporting events and life skills workshops), aimed primarily at the Sudanese and Indigenous communities in the Blacktown and Riverstone areas. Has the application of the winning bid sought a grant of $414 479. Has the second application entitled Blacktown and Riverstone Community Partnership, sought a grant of $498 620. Were both applications assessed under the Greater Western Sydney region component of the National Community Crime Prevention Programme. Can a detailed description of the assessment process of grant applications under the Greater Western Sydney region component of the National Community Crime Prevention Programme be provided. What criteria are applied to assess applications; and (b) do these criteria include the level of local support for the proposal. In assessing and approving these applications, does the department or an independent assessor provide recommendations to the Minister who formally approves the grants. Who approved the grants announced by the Prime Minister on 22 August 2005; and (b) were the grants approved in accordance with the recommendations of the department or an independent assessor. With reference to the application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project, does its budget include the following administrative items with a total cost of $229 300 over the 3 years of the project: (a) project coordinator wages and superannuation; (b) contract management; (c) administration and reception; (d) information technology and communications; (e) insurance; (f) audit; and (g) evaluation. What is the proportion of the administrative items listed in (10) above to the total grant and what is the normal proportion. With reference to the application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project, does its budget include funding for courses run by Hillsong Emerge Ltd at the cost of $1 000 a course, including ‘Shine’ courses. Does the application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project include the following performance indicators: (a) the number of people participating in each event; (b) the number of people participating in each excursion; and (c) the number of young people engaged in conversation. In relation to (13) above, are there any specified performance targets; if not, how will performance indicators be assessed. (a) On what basis was the application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project approved ahead of other applications in the same round; and (b) was the amount sought for the grant a factor in the consideration of the applications. Did Ms Louise Markus have any contact with the department in relation to these two applications: (a) as an employee of Hillsong Emerge Ltd; and (b) as an individual. With reference to the Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project, how much funding has already been provided to Hillsong Emerge Ltd. Were claims made by the Riverstone Aboriginal Community Association (RACA) that Hillsong Emerge Ltd attached a letter of support from RACA, intended for the application entitled Blacktown and Riverstone Community Partnership to its second application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project. Does the application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project include a commitment from the RACA to contribute facilities to the project. Is it the case that RACA had no knowledge of the application entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project. Is the Minister aware of any media reports of the concerns of RACA. (a) What action has the department taken to investigate the concerns of RACA in relation to the Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project applications claims; and (b) what further action is planned. Can the Minister confirm that the Chief Executive Officer of Hillsong Emerge Ltd, Mr Leigh Coleman, provided a written undertaking to representatives of RACA on 22 September 2005 to support RACA receiving $280 000 over the 3 years of the grant awarded to Hillsong Emerge Ltd under the National Community Crime Prevention Programme. What discretion does Hillsong Emerge Ltd have under the grant entitled Hillsong Emerge Ltd—Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project, to offer $280 000 in grant funding to RACA. What action has been taken to investigate the undertaking by Hillsong Emerge Ltd to provide $280 000 in grant funding to RACA. 166 Ellison, Sen Chris 9X5 Western Australia LP Minister for Justice and Customs 1 Senator Ellison —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Yes. The first application that was submitted was subsequently withdrawn by Hillsong Emerge Ltd. The Department has withdrawn the offer of grant for the second project. Yes, the two applications detailed similar activities. Funding of $414,479 for Hillsong Emerge Ltd - Greater Blacktown Community Partnership Youth project was announced on 22 August 2005. It is not appropriate for me to provide the details requested about individual applications which were unsuccessful or withdrawn by the applicant. The application that was withdrawn by Hillsong Emerge Ltd was not assessed. The successful application was assessed under the Greater Western Sydney component. Details of the assessment process are set out in the NCCPP Funding Guidelines which are available at www.crimeprevention.gov.au. Copies of the guidelines were provided in response to House of Representatives Question No. 2241 which Mr Price asked 6 September 2005. The criteria used to assess all applications are available in the NCCPP Funding Guidelines that are published at www.crimeprevention.gov.au. See (6) above. Yes. The Department undertakes an initial assessment of all applications received to ensure they meet the criteria for funding and comply with the guidelines. Applications are then assessed by an Advisory Group which includes representatives from justice and community service agencies, and from the community sector. The Advisory Group provides recommendations to the Minister for Justice and Customs who decides whether an application will be successful and funded. The Minister for Justice and Customs. Both the Department and the Advisory Group made recommendations on the grants. As advice to the Minister is confidential, it is not appropriate to disclose the content of that advice. (a, b, c and d) Funding allocations for specific budget items for each grant project are settled in the Funding Agreement. No Funding Agreement was concluded with Hillsong Emerge Ltd. See (10) above. Proposed budgets for all multi-year grants are reviewed by the Department of Finance and Administration. See (10) above. (a)   Performance indicators, project outcomes and milestones form part of the funding agreement which are negotiated between the Department and the grantee. No Funding Agreement was concluded with Hillsong Emerge Ltd. (b)   See (13a) above. (c)   See (13a) above. See (13a) above. (a)   All applications are assessed on the merits of the project as detailed in the application and based on the assessment criteria, details of which have been provided in response to question 6. (b)   Yes, in as much as all applications must comply with the NCCPP funding guidelines. (a)   No. Mrs Markus did provide a letter of support for the successful project in her capacity as the local member for Greenway. (b)   No. See (16 a) above. None. I am aware of the accusations reported in the media. Yes. Questions about RACA’s knowledge of the applications submitted to the NCCPP are more appropriately directed to that organisation. Yes. (a)   The Department at the invitation of Hillsong Emerge Ltd. attended a meeting on 22 October 2005 with all six of the partners involved in the application for the proposed project including RACA, to discuss options for finalising the funding agreement. The Department wrote to Hillsong Emerge Ltd. on 12 December 2005, requesting details of how the partnership proposed for the project, would operate. Hillsong Emerge Ltd. was also contacted by phone and email on 24 January 2005. On 1 February 2006 the Department wrote to Hillsong Emerge Ltd. advising them the offer has been withdrawn. (b)   None. I am advised that such a letter was written by Mr Coleman, of Hillsong Emerge Ltd. to RACA. Not applicable. (See response to questions 4 and 10). No action has been taken. 166 166 1387 166 Ludwig, Sen Joe 84N Queensland ALP 0 Senator Ludwig asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 24 November 2005 What agencies currently have access to the data stored by the Integrated Cargo System (ICS). Which agencies will get access to the data stored in the ICS. For each of the agencies in (1) and (2) above, indicate: (a) why access has been provided; (b) when was or when will access be provided; and (c) what data stored on the system will be accessible. What is the process of accessing data from the ICS (that is, will it be automatically available, or will a request be needed for processing, etc). What safeguards are in place to protect commercial‑in‑confidence information. Are there any plans to link data stored by the ICS with other data‑collection and collation services utilised with other agencies, for example, the document verification system being developed by the Attorney-General’s Department; if so, when will that level of functionality become available; if not, why not. 166 Ellison, Sen Chris 9X5 Western Australia LP Minister for Justice and Customs 1 Senator Ellison —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Any Commonwealth or State/Territory Government agency may request data from the ICS from Customs. Generally, the CEO of Customs or his delegate may authorise the disclosure of ICS data under section 16 of the Customs Administration Act 1985 pursuant to such requests. Customs has authorised in accordance with section 16 of the Customs Administration Act 1985 regular ongoing disclosures of data to the following agencies: - Australian Bureau of Statistics - Australian Quarantine Inspection Service - Australian Taxation Office - Department of Industry Tourism and Resources - Treasury. See answer to question (1). For each agency in (1) and (2) above: - Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) For each agency in (1) and (2) above: - Australian Bureau of Statistics Information is extracted from the ICS database on a daily and monthly basis and transferred automatically by electronic transfer - Australian Quarantine Inspection Service Real time interface between Customs and AQIS - Australian Taxation Office Information is extracted from the ICS database on a monthly basis and transferred automatically by electronic transfer - Department of Industry Tourism and Resources Information is extracted from the ICS database on a monthly basis and transferred automatically by electronic transfer - Treasury Information is consolidated in the Customs financial system and automatically transferred daily by electronic transfer Generally, the disclosure of ICS information, including commercial-in-confidence information to Commonwealth and State/Territory Government agencies is prohibited unless authorised by the CEO of Customs or his delegate in accordance with section 16 of the Customs Administration Act 1985. Before such a disclosure can be authorised, the CEO of Customs or his delegate must be satisfied that: - the information disclosed will be used for the purposes of the recipient agency’s functions - the recipient agency has undertaken to not use or further disclose the information disclosed except for the purposes for which it was disclosed or otherwise required or authorised under law - for disclosures of personal information, the disclosure is for a permissible purpose set out in subsection 16(9) of the Customs Administration Act 1985. In addition, information classified as commercial-in-confidence must be handled in accordance with the Commonwealth Protective Security Manual and the Australian Government Information and Communications Security Manual (ACSI 33). Data is encrypted and secure transmission processes are used to ensure security and privacy. As outlined in question (1) any agency may request data. Customs is planning to link the ICS with data from the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) electronic data system for motor vehicle import permits (known as the Imported Vehicles Approval System, IVAS). This will allow electronic acquittal against import entries. Under the Motor Vehicles Standards Act, there is a requirement that the Customs release is conditioned by the sighting of the DOTARS permit. Timeframes have not been established yet for this project. 166 166 1393 166 Ludwig, Sen Joe 84N Queensland ALP 0 Senator Ludwig asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 2005: How many Temporary Business Long Stay (457) and Temporary Business Short Stay (456) visas have been granted each year since 1996. For each year since 1996: (a) what were the top 10 originating countries which granted Temporary Business Long Stay 457 visas; and (b) how many and what was the overall percentage for each country. How many 457 and 456 visas granted were: (a) onshore; and (b) offshore. How many successful applicants for 457 visas, in percentage terms, were in each occupational classification (Australian Standards Classification Occupations group). 166 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: The total number of visa grants for subclass 457 Business (Long Stay) and subclass 456 Business (Short Stay) from the period 1996-97 through to 2004-05 were: Financial Year Subclass 457 Business (Long Stay) Visa Grants Subclass 456 Business (Short Stay) Visa Grants 1996-97 24,000 275,996(*) 1997-98 33,000 131,291 1998-99 33,000 104,882 1999-00 34,965 114,052 2000-01 40,493 124,121 2001-02 37,597 133,890 2002-03 42,363 126,768 2003-04 40,633 147,702 2004-05 49,855 174,617 Note:  Some applicants are issued with multiple entry subclass 456 Business (Short Stay) visas which can enable repeat visits to Australia over many years as long as each visit is not for more than 3 months. (*)   The introduction of the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) in September 1996 provided short stay business visitors the option (i.e. through the then new subclasses 956 and 977) of obtaining a visa for Australia at the time they purchased their airline ticket offshore. This is largely the reason for the significant reduction in subclass 456 Business (Short Stay) visa grants between 1996-97 and 1997-98 onwards. The introduction of the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) in September 1996 provided short stay business visitors the option (i.e. through the then new subclasses 956 and 977) of obtaining a visa for Australia at the time they purchased their airline ticket offshore. This is largely the reason for the significant reduction in subclass 456 Business (Short Stay) visa grants between 1996-97 and 1997-98 onwards. The top 10 originating countries from which applicants were granted subclass 457 Business (Long Stay) visas from the period 1996-97 through to 2004-05 were: 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 Rank Country (*) Grants % Country (*) Grants % Country (*) Grants % 1 UK 5,581 23% UK 7,525 23% UK 7,795 24% 2 USA 3,592 15% USA 4,129 13% USA 3,542 11% 3 Japan 2,802 12% Japan 2,679 8% Japan 2,519 8% 4 South Africa 1,286 5% China 2,361 7% South Africa 2,470 7% 5 China 1,257 5% South Africa 2,035 6% China 1,938 6% 6 Canada 1,034 4% Korea 1,376 4% India 1,913 6% 7 Taiwan 821 3% Canada 1,299 4% Korea 1,302 4% 8 Korea 717 3% India 1,149 3% Canada 1,090 3% 9 India 651 3% Ireland 809 2% Ireland 860 3% 10 Germany 557 2% Taiwan 1,193 4% Germany 820 2% 10 + Other 5,703 24% Other 8,447 26% Other 8,750 27% Total   24,000 100%   33,000 100%   33,000 100%   1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Rank Country (*) Grants % Country (*) Grants % Country (*) Grants % 1 UK 8,075 23% UK 9,398 23% UK 10,719 29% 2 USA 3,508 10% India 3,364 8% India 3,109 8% 3 India 2,751 8% USA 3,091 8% USA 2,761 7% 4 South Africa 2,391 7% Japan 2,331 6% South Africa 2,564 7% 5 Japan 2,271 6% South Africa 2,453 6% Japan 2,491 7% 6 China 1,533 4% China 1,676 4% Ireland 1,657 4% 7 Ireland 1,140 3% Ireland 1,482 4% Korea 1,650 4% 8 Canada 1,148 3% Canada 1,209 3% China 1,391 4% 9 Indonesia 1,033 3% Korea 1,160 3% Canada 1,087 3% 10 France 849 2% France 916 2% France 940 2% 10 + Other 10,267 29% Other 13,414 33% Other 9,228 25% Total   34,965 100%   40,493 100%   37,597 100%   2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Rank Country (*) Grants % Country (*) Grants % Country (*) Grants % 1 UK 13,288 31% UK 12,354 30% UK 13,138 26% 2 India 3,728 9% India 3,883 10% India 4,949 10% 3 USA 2,981 7% USA 2,853 7% USA 2,935 6% 4 South Africa 2,634 6% South Africa 2,046 5% South Africa 2,898 6% 5 Japan 2,359 6% Japan 2,012 5% Japan 2,040 4% 6 Ireland 1,688 4% Ireland 1,863 5% China 2,056 4% 7 China 1,443 3% China 1,484 4% Ireland 1,771 4% 8 Korea 1,380 3% Canada 1,341 3% Canada 1,355 3% 9 Canada 1,165 3% Germany 1,254 3% Germany 1,350 3% 10 Germany 1,083 3% Philippines 1,124 3% Philippines 1,113 2% 10 + Other 10,614 25% Other 10,420 26% Other 16,250 33% Total   42,363 100%   40,633 100%   49,855 100% 166 166 1397 166 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG 0 Senator Bob Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 2005: Is the Government aware that, on 11 May and 25 May 2005, the Papuan MP, Mrs Ferdinanda Yetipai Ibo, received death threats by text message indicating that her movements were being monitored and that she would become like Theys Eluay (the Papuan leader who was assassinated by Indonesian security forces in November 2001). Given the nature of the death threats and Mrs Yetipai Ibo’s speech to the Indonesian Parliament in May 2005 advocating dialogue on peaceful solutions to human rights issues, has representation been made to the Indonesian Government concerning this particular case; if not, why not. 166 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator Coonan —The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the honourable senator’s question: Yes. Mrs Ibo is a regular contact of the Australian Government through our Embassy in Jakarta and has not requested any specific action from the Australian Government. The Australian Government continues to urge the Indonesian Government to investigate suspected abuses in Papua and ensure that the human rights of all Indonesians are respected.