2006-08-08 41 1 7 SENATE 0 0 2006-08-08 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Paul Calvert) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 BILLS S484 1 Debate resumed from 11 May, on motion by Senator Abetz: That this bill be now read a second time. 1 12:31:00 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 0 Senator ABETZ —The last time this matter was before the Senate I had just started the summing-up speech for the second reading debate. For those who may be interested—I am not sure that all that many are—that was on 11 May 2006. The amendments in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 [2006] will ensure that Australians continue to have opportunities to see in Australia significant Indigenous cultural heritage objects that are owned by institutions overseas. The amendments will encourage international cultural exchanges. They will remove an uncertainty that would discourage overseas institutions from ever allowing items from their collections to be exhibited in Australia. The amendments to the act will also provide for the repeal of the Victoria-specific provisions of the act, including the scheme for Victoria alone that is set out in part IIA of the act. In 1987 the act was extended to include provisions that would apply only in Victoria, at the request of the Victorian government of the day. These provisions now prevent new Victorian legislation for Aboriginal heritage protection coming into effect. The Victorian government wrote to the Australian government in 2005 to explore how this obstacle could be removed. All other states and territories have legislation to protect this heritage. The amendments remove the obstacle to Victorian legislation and allow a sensible sharing of roles and responsibilities for the protection of cultural heritage in Victoria. The proposal is sensible for the Australian government and for Victoria, and for more comprehensive and coordinated administration of Aboriginal cultural heritage in Australia. Following repeal of the Victoria-specific provisions the Australian government legislation will provide the same level of protection in Victoria that it provides for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage in other parts of Australia. Senators Carr, Bartlett and Siewert all made the point that this bill does not fully address the recommendations made by the Evatt report. The government stands by its commitment to introduce improved legislation in this area in line with many of the Evatt report recommendations. In addition, Senator Siewert proposed several amendments to the bill. Senator Siewert’s first amendment seeks to exempt some instruments in this bill from the sunsetting provisions of the Legislative Instruments Act by amending the Legislative Instruments Act. This amendment is not needed because the exemption that Senator Siewert is referring to has been sought through regulations to the Legislative Instruments Act. The Department of the Environment and Heritage has already asked the Attorney-General’s Department to include declarations under sections 10 and 12 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 in regulations to the Legislative Instruments Act so that these will be exempted from the sunsetting provisions. This is the preferred approach to exempting instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act. The second amendment proposed by Senator Siewert seeks to provide a review of the repeal of part IIA of the act. This would in effect amount to a review of the Victorian government legislation. A review of the effectiveness of the repeal would not serve a substantial purpose. As mentioned earlier, on repeal of the Victorian provisions the act will apply in the same way to Victoria as it does to the other states and territories. Justice Elizabeth Evatt reported on a broader review of Indigenous heritage protection in August 1996, and the government sees this as a much more sensible approach. The government will continue to consult with Indigenous groups and other stakeholders about Indigenous heritage protection. I indicate to honourable senators that my friend and colleague Senator Chris Ellison will be doing the committee stages of the bill, for which I thank him. Having said that, I urge all honourable senators to support the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 2 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 2 12:36:00 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG Leader of the Australian Greens 0 0 Senator BOB BROWN —This is an important bill and it brings to light again the responsibility we have for protecting the Indigenous art of this great nation. Amongst other things, the bill moves to ensure a certificate can be issued to owners of Australian Indigenous art pieces overseas, if that art is brought to Australia to be put on show, to have the artwork returned overseas because the owners are concerned that it would be confiscated in Australia and returned to Indigenous owners. This will simply mean that the artworks are available for Australians to see. With my colleague Senator Siewert I have recently been to the Burrup Peninsula near Karratha in north-west Western Australia. It brought home to me the extraordinary richness of the Aboriginal art heritage in Australia. One thing I was not prepared for, though, was to find myself, as an Australian who thought he had a fairly good awareness of that richness, in what is arguably the world’s greatest rock art site. I had no idea that on this peninsula, which is some 22 kilometres long, and on the 40 or so islands which are next to it—in fact, the peninsula was an island until the bridge was put across in 1962—there are some 500,000 to one million rock art depictions, or petroglyphs. When you get onto the hilltops, which are strewn with boulders, and accustom yourself to looking for the magnificent, creative human heritage that is there, these rock artworks seem to be everywhere. I cannot describe them with anything like the justice they deserve but, helped by experts from the local communities as well as the National Trust of Western Australia, I was able to at least understand the magnificence of the complicated depictions of human faces, which I would have thought had some relationship to the Mayan or Aztec periods, except that they came thousands of years later. These Aboriginal artworks preceded them by millennia. These artworks may be 20,000 to 40,000 years old, and they are still sitting on the Burrup Peninsula. Other works which span the era of these Aboriginal depictions in the rock—again, I am talking about hundreds of thousands of them in one confined area of this nation—include a number of Tasmanian tigers, or thylacines, which have been extinct on the mainland for thousands of years but were part of the world of the people living on the Burrup Peninsula during the last ice age when, far from being on the coastline, it was probably 80 kilometres inland, because the sea had receded as the ice built up at the poles. There are depictions of plains-wanderer birds just as I have seen them wandering on the Australian plains with their heads up—the statuesque walk that they have—and depictions of kangaroos and smaller marsupials. My host pointed out a kangaroo with spots on it and said, ‘We think this may be an extinct kangaroo which had spots on it like the thylacine.’ Of course, when you collect skeletons of extinct kangaroos, you do not see the coat, but here it is depicted on the rock by the people who lived with these creatures thousands of years ago. There are pictures of men, women and children and a magnificent depiction a couple of metres high of maybe a dozen men climbing on both sides of what looks to be a pole or a tree. There are depictions of whales and of nets catching what may be dugongs. You can see, as the seas came in and this piece of Australian geography moved from being inland to being closer to the shore—and now it is surrounded; what were the inland mountain tops are now the islands—that the rock art went from being of marsupials and inland birds to sea creatures: turtles, whales, fish and crabs. They are fantastic drawings by people who were representing their world on the rocks. We are told that they were made maybe thousands of years before the ancient drawings at Lascaux in France, which are World Heritage listed and draw so many visitors that they have had to re-create the cave next door so that the very presence of people breathing does not deteriorate the artworks. Here comes the killer punch: since 1962, Burrup Peninsula, or Dampier Island as it was, has been ‘developed’ for the export of iron ore by Hammersley and, more recently, to bring gas onshore from under the ocean for processing into liquid petroleum gas for export. This has entailed an industrial implant on the Burrup Peninsula, and it is my sorry duty to report to this parliament—unless I am wrong, it has never heard this before—that that has entailed the destruction of thousands of the rock artworks of millennia ago which ought to be World Heritage listed. I am told—I have spoken with Woodside, which proposes a large development further on the peninsula which cannot be had without the further mass destruction of these petroglyphs—that this is a process that is encouraged by the Western Australian government. In fact, because the Carpenter government in Western Australia and its antecedents have invested millions of dollars in infrastructure on the peninsula, work has to go ahead there. Here is the extraordinary thing: just down the way from Karratha, which is the town built for these developments—mercifully not on the Burrup Peninsula but a little way across on the mainland—is the Maitland industrial site where industry could be developed. There is some argument about gas coming ashore and whether it would involve the West Intercourse Island, which has rock art on it. I am told that it does not have to. The Maitland industrial site on the open plains where there are no rock art sites at all is empty. I am told that BHP has gone up the coast to Onslow for its new development and that this is not going to impact on what is the world’s greatest rock art site. In speaking with Mr Gary Gray from Woodside a couple of months ago after the Burrup Peninsula had been drawn to my attention, I asked about Woodside’s proposals and pointed to the alternatives. I have gained no response from Woodside which would indicate that they are going to take up the alternatives. In fact, I got the indication that the Western Australian government was so intent on making good its investment that it wanted Woodside to go onto the Burrup Peninsula and further desecrate this astonishing part of global human heritage. Gary Gray asked me if I would like to speak to Woodside’s board. I said, ‘Let me first go with Senator Siewert to see the place and then I would like to do so.’ Having come back, I have asked to see the board and suddenly their time is taken up at all their board meetings now until the end of this year and they cannot see me. I will appeal to them again to change their mind on that. It is incumbent on this parliament and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, to make sure that the Western Australian government’s dereliction of its duty to its state, to this nation and most of all to first Australians, which entails it promoting the further destruction of this World Heritage, is not allowed to proceed. The Howard government will have to make this decision if the Western Australian government is not good enough to do so. I am hoping to talk with Minister Campbell about this later in the week. Any modicum of commonsense, of pride in our nation or of respect for global human heritage would say that there is no way you can put in a liquid petroleum gas processing factory that would erode this astonishing repository of human heritage—all the more because there are good alternative sites which do not involve that destruction. This is destined to become not just a local issue but a national and an international issue. What would we say if we heard that the Blair government in Britain was to say of Stonehenge, which is a much younger and newer site than Burrup, ‘We will keep 60 per cent of it; you can knock off the right-hand 40 per cent’? This is what the Carpenter government is saying about Burrup. They are going to protect 60 per cent—that is, they are going to allow 40 per cent to be destroyed. What would we say about that applying to Stonehenge? The world would be in turmoil about it. What indeed would we say if the Mubarak government in Egypt suddenly declared that there were three big pyramids so one of them could go because they needed rock for building highways or dams? Of course, there would be huge international outcry about it. But in Western Australia, the world’s greatest rock art site—unless my attention is drawn to something better—is being treated in that fashion. The government says that 40 per cent can go and we can keep 60 per cent. I appeal to all senators and to the government, through the minister, to act urgently to acquaint themselves and ourselves with this extraordinary national heirloom so that we do not allow it to become an industrial site but rather protect it for this nation and for the world for all time. 4 12:51:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —I would like to express a view on behalf of the Labor Party on this amendment, which has been moved by the Australian Greens and seeks to have a review— 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Barnett)—Senator Carr, the amendment has not as yet been moved. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —Then what are we doing in the committee stage? 10000 TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Brown took the call and he has been speaking. I am sure that Senator Siewert will be seeking to move that amendment. 4 12:51:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I will be seeking to move that amendment but there are some points within the legislation, particularly relating to Senator Abetz’s comments just previously, that I would like to clarify before doing so. 10000 TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Carr, you can speak to the foreshadowed amendments and to the bill generally. 4 12:52:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —I will indicate the opposition’s position on this foreshadowed amendment, which seeks to establish a review in two years time of the operations and the effectiveness of the proposed transfer of administration of Aboriginal heritage in the state of Victoria to the Victorian government. I put that in the context in which the opposition has already expressed its profound disappointment at the inadequacy of this legislation. I put it in the context of a minister, Senator Ian Campbell, who again and again has demonstrated his incompetence, his dereliction of duty and his obsession with playing political games with these heritage questions. The biggest argument in favour of having this matter transferred to the Victorian government is the current minister, because of his fundamental failure to carry out his responsibilities. I have got no doubt that a great deal more will be said about that question. We were told three years ago that this piece of legislation was critical and urgent, that it was going to contain some new forms of a higher level of administrative instruments and that it would be put before the parliament. Yet it is only now being considered in this chamber. Three years to get to this stage! You have got to ask yourself: what is the level of political incompetence? How low will they go on that side of the chamber in dealing with so-called urgent matters? It is so urgent that it has taken three years to get to this point. 9X5 Ellison, Sen Chris Senator Ellison —The Victorian government sought this. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —The Victorian government sought the return of this regime, and it has taken you how long to get there? How long does it take you to do these basic tasks? You do not know what you are doing. You see political advantage in playing with these questions of Indigenous affairs. You believe there are votes in winding up opposition in the community and playing base political games with the fundamental questions about the cultural heritage of this country—heritage that belongs to all of us and should not be appropriated for the political interests of the government of the day. The legislation seeks to do some basic things about providing greater certainty for international cultural loan arrangements, which clearly we all support. It also seeks to transfer back to Victoria responsibility for the heritage administration for that state, which, given the request from the Victorian government, of course the opposition supports. But, equally, a review was undertaken 10 years ago and no action followed from this government, to the point now where the government has acted by putting forward a bill without proper consultation with Indigenous communities and without a proper process of involving people. It has organised it behind closed doors, seeking to extract maximum political advantage for its own direct, narrow interests. We have recommendations from the Senate committee which highlight the gross inadequacy of this bill and the failure of the government to fulfil its previous commitments to have consultation and to address all the recommendations of the Evatt report. What have you got? You have a situation where there is a partial examination of those recommendations, but a situation that will allow the sorry record of this government to be continued. There are opportunities here for the government to seek to continue to take political advantage of Indigenous people at the political whim of Senator Campbell to pursue his incompetent management of the National Heritage List. We heard time and time again what actions he was going to take. He is one of the greatest ‘gonna’ ministers that we have in the Commonwealth. He is always ‘gonna’ do something. If it is not parrots it is some other device, like mountain cattlemen, that he wishes to pursue for what he sees as his narrow political objectives. Is it any wonder that everyone now is awake to him? What we see here are the basic questions. For instance, think about Wave Hill. It is 31 years since the historic events at Wave Hill. It was the first example of the way the land rights movement developed in this country. It has been 31 years, and the minister says he will do lots of things but nothing happens. Think about the tent embassy site. No matter what you think about the specifics of the tent embassy, no-one can dispute its historic significance. I think I said 31 years; it is probably closer to 40 years now since the Wave Hill walk-off. And what is the government doing? Nothing; a lot of talk. But it will not act. You can think about 16 other sites on the World Heritage List where a similar pattern emerges. The government says it will do certain things, but nothing actually happens. We are being asked to consider the government’s attitude in a context where it is in fact returning the heritage administration to the government of Victoria. I know the minister, Mr Gavin Jennings. I have discussed this matter with him. In fact, I know how long ago the request was put in and how long it takes for this government to respond to these matters. I know the capabilities of that minister, and I know the attitudes of the Victorian government. Given those circumstances, I find it extraordinary that the Greens would seek to have a review in two years time of the operations of that new regime. I think it creates a historic anomaly. The Victorian government wants the matter fixed; it deserves an opportunity to have it fixed, and in my view the amendment is unnecessary. It is apparent to me that there is some confusion within the Greens, having regard to the arguments that I have seen relating to the amendment to review it in two years time. Given how long it has taken to get to this stage, I think that is inappropriate. It strikes me that there are many other substantive matters that were canvassed in the Evatt inquiry and that it would be timely for the Commonwealth to look again at having a comprehensive national review of the administration of Indigenous heritage protection, but it would not be appropriate to examine just one state. If we are going to look at the operation of the national Indigenous heritage program then it should occur right across the country. We should get a truly national picture, not the inappropriate, partial review which is suggested by this proposed amendment. I come back to the fundamental problem, and that is the gross inadequacy of this government when it comes to the question of national heritage, the appalling record of this minister and his blatant and repeated efforts to intervene in a politically partisan way to seek short-term partisan advantage at the expense of the national estate. He is doing this country a huge disservice. I might even suggest he is probably doing his own government a disservice —not that he would take advice from me on that score. Frankly, it is an extraordinary situation where the authority, the credibility and the integrity of the administration of national heritage in this country are put into such disrepute by such an incompetent, partisan and gullible minister. 6 13:01:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I would like to clarify a number of points before I move my amendments, if that is acceptable. WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator Kemp —Go for it. E5Z Siewert, Sen Rachel Senator SIEWERT —I will. Senator Abetz referred to a review of the act. I also draw attention to the government’s Environment budget overview 2006-07, where the government has apparently allocated funds and committed to a review of the act. I am seeking some further information as to the extent of that review, when it is going to start, the amount of resources that have been allocated, what the terms of reference are, how long it will take, what form it will take, who will be carrying it out, who will be consulted, how extensive the consultation process will be and whether it is intended to be a public review. I would very much appreciate those clarifications. As Senator Carr pointed out, the Evatt report looking into this matter is 10 years old. Former Senator Hill, when the changes were made to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in 2003, committed to a review and to comprehensive amendments to the act. Bear in mind that when this act was first brought in it was always seen as a stopgap act. In fact, it had a sunset clause which was removed when the act was not significantly amended previously. I am wondering if it is possible to get some outline of the extent of the review. 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Barnett)—Senator Siewert, do you wish to move your amendment now or are you seeking clarification? E5Z Siewert, Sen Rachel Senator SIEWERT —I was hoping that somebody from the government could outline the provisions of the review, seeing as it has been committed to in the budget papers and Senator Abetz made reference to it in his statement previously. 7 13:03:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —I will be able to provide some information on that, but before I do so I would like to respond to the very provocative comments by Senator Carr on a bill on which I have been advised there is a general consensus. There is a view that the Victorian government is pretty supportive of this, so Senator Carr decided to get up and launch—I would have to say, not without precedent in Senator Carr’s role—a pretty nasty attack on my colleague Senator Ian Campbell. I would make two points. The first is that I think Senator Campbell is an excellent minister for the environment and a great activist minister. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —What about your brother? WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —I will not say he is the best minister for the environment we have had because of course my brother, unlikely though it may be, may well be tuned in to this broadcast. Let me make the point that Senator Ian Campbell is doing a superb job in that portfolio and I think the activism of Senator Campbell is not always but generally welcomed by a significant number of people. The second point I would make is that the Victorian government spends a lot of time thinking about how it can spin an issue but one thing it is unable to do is actually get out and sell this concept of wind farms to local communities. As an observer of the scene, I would have to say that the Victorian government has had great trouble in selling the wind farm message. My lesson is that in politics it is always a big help to try to take the community with you—not try to impose things the way the Victorian government so often tries to do. I would urge the Victorian government, rather than indulging in abuse and getting Senator Carr in this chamber to launch an unprovoked attack— AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —Unprovoked? WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —Quite unprovoked. The debate on the bill, as I understand it, was going pretty smoothly, but we had an unprovoked attack from Senator Carr. It would be well worth the Victorian government thinking about how it can more effectively sell its message to local communities. The Bracks government is a government which, to my mind, is losing touch with the community. In fact, it lost touch a long time ago, but I think the wind farms issue has highlighted that. Senator Siewert, returning to your question, the information I have received from my advisers is that the government made a commitment to progress legislative reform of this act and remains committed to that. This bill is a step towards that reform. I am further advised—and this refers to one of the matters Senator Siewert raised—that consultation with respect to these reforms will continue with the Indigenous industry and governments. I think that should give Senator Siewert some comfort. I am further advised that the department has allocated resources to progress reform and consultation in the coming year. This is a consultative government. We have always been a government which has been prepared to get out and to talk to people. I think even Labor senators would concede that I have a reputation for being a consultative minister and one who listens. I hope, Senator Siewert, that that deals with your issues. 8 13:07:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I am sorry to disappoint you but no, it does not. There was specific reference to a review of the act in the budget papers, and Senator Abetz made specific reference to it. You could be mistaken, and maybe I am mistaken, in reading this particular budget document to imply that in fact there were specific plans to have a specific review of the act. I quote: The Australian Government will engage in further consultation with Indigenous groups on reforming this legislation to provide a new national scheme that will ensure protection of Indigenous areas and objects to the best contemporary standards. It goes on to state: The primary role of state and territory laws and the views of Indigenous people and other stakeholders will be central to this reform. Maybe I am mistaken but I think anybody interested in heritage and heritage protection would read that to mean that the government had specific plans to review this act—a review that is desperately needed. So I ask again: what process has the government put in place to carry out this review, since it does appear that there have been resources allocated for such a review? 8 13:09:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —Senator, I am not sure that raising your voice adds to the strength of your argument. The government indicated that it is reviewing the act. This is an internal government review but in the process of doing this my understanding is—and I am looking at my advisers to see whether the information I have given is correct—the government will of course be consulting, as I have attempted to underline to you, Senator Siewert. One of the reasons that this government has been able to get itself re-elected is that it does have a reputation for being a consultative government. It is a government that gets out and it listens. You may have given a different order to that sentence you have read. I think you may have had in mind a major, formal review or a major inquiry. I think that was not the intention, Senator. I hope I have clarified that for you. 8 13:10:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —You have, and hopefully the government will bear in mind its own words when we come to the land rights act, which is the next bill we will be considering, when it talks about listening to the community and consultative processes. Can I clarify what you have said, and that is that this is proposed to be an internal review—have I understood this correctly? 8 13:10:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —Let me add further clarity to that. I have had reconfirmed that, at this stage, this is an internal review. 8 13:10:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —You also said that there have been resources allocated in the budget. Could you tell me what those resources are? 8 13:11:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —Yes, I said that the department has allocated resources to progress reform and consultation in the coming year, and I am seeking some advice to see whether I can be more specific. Senator, there will be an additional staff position put on and that is being progressed at present. 9 13:11:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —Is it possible for you to outline what the internal review procedure will be and how you intend to consult stakeholders, states, territories et cetera ? 9 13:12:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —I do not think there is any secret or any rocket science in this. When you wish to consult you contact the relevant people and those contacts will be made, Senator. I do not know how much more specific you would like us to be, but there are a number of stakeholders—there are governments and there is the Indigenous sector involved—and I am assured by my advisers that the department will be contacting the relevant people to seek their input. 9 13:12:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —Could I ask, Mr Temporary Chairman, at what point are we actually going to have an amendment moved? This is entertaining and I appreciate that the government has such a poor record to defend here that its defences should be so weak. The minister says that he is a consultative minister. I note in the paper this morning that he said he personally was a consultative minister. I noticed this article in the paper this morning: Two peak visual arts bodies have attacked federal arts minister Rod Kemp for giving a $2 million artist training contract to the Australia Business Arts Foundation without a tender. 00AOP Marshall, Sen Gavin Senator Marshall —How much? AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —A $2 million contract without a tender to the Australia Business Arts Foundation. The article continues: So when the minister tells us he is going to have an internal review by one officer, a secret review by one officer after the fact, you would think that there is reason to be a little concerned. I do think there is a need for a national, comprehensive assessment of the administration of the Indigenous Heritage Program in this country, but not a secret, grubby, behind-closed-doors little arrangement which Senator Ian Campbell can manipulate to suit his particular, personal, Liberal Party vote-buying exercises. That is the real question that I think needs to be addressed here. The officers have taken a bit of a while to convey that information to the minister. He obviously has a hearing problem. Clearly, the message is that the plan here is a secret, behind-closed-doors review where you talk to people who you have determined in advance will give you the answers you want to hear. ‘Appropriate’ people does not mean everybody; it means the ones you want to get the answers from and who will give you the answers that you want to hear. We have a circumstance here where I think it would be appropriate that the amendment was either moved or withdrawn and we moved on. I think that, given the circumstances that the government has tried to put to the chamber, at the moment there is really no point in spending any more time on this because the government’s position is so pitiful. 9 13:15:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I am trying to get the detail of the review that is proposed, because I think it is so important. But I think Senator Carr has done quite a nice little summing up of the poor state of the review that will be undertaken. I seek the guidance of the chair, because Senator Abetz specifically addressed and made comments about one of my amendments. Before moving that amendment I would like further clarification of the government’s proposals to deal with the sunset clause. It is in fact my second amendment. Should I proceed with my first amendment and then seek clarification on my second amendment or should I seek that clarification first? 10 13:16:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —It is nice of you to seek the guidance of the government on whether or not you wish to move your amendments. I have to say that I have been in this chamber for a long time and you are the first senator who has ever asked for government guidance on this. E5Z Siewert, Sen Rachel Senator Siewert —Can I clarify? I said ‘the guidance of the chair’. 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Barnett)—Yes. The minister has the call. WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —Senator, the Greens like to adopt a more consultative, less hectoring approach. I was trying to be helpful. The advice that I have received in relation to the sunset clause is that sunsetting, as it is referred to, will only become a question in relation to those instruments that are still in effect in 10 years time. If still needed, an instrument’s effect can be extended. You look confused, Senator Siewert. I hope this is helping to clarify it for you. Also, instruments made under sections 10 and 12 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act have been identified by the Department of the Environment and Heritage as requiring an exemption from the sunsetting provisions. A request has been made to the Attorney-General’s Department to include those instruments in exemption regulations made for the purposes of section 54 of the LIA. 10 13:17:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —What I am seeking is an assurance. My understanding, from what you have just said—although it was slightly different from what Senator Abetz said—is that that will be dealt with. You did not clarify whether that will be dealt with by regulation. I understand that there will be a regulation when you are seeking advice from the Attorney-General. Senator Abetz said that that would be done by regulation. What I am seeking is an assurance that that regulation can override provisions in the Legislative Instruments Act to ensure that sections 10 and 12 of the heritage act will not automatically cease. 10 13:19:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —There is a request in to the Attorney-General’s to exempt those particular declarations by regulation. If that request is accepted it will proceed along those lines. 10 13:19:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I am sorry, but that does not allay my concerns about this provision, because I think it needs to be done by legislation. However, my understanding is that therefore it would have to come back after 10 years for re-clarification—or does the decision made by the minister in the first instance stand? 10 13:19:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —If it were exempted by regulation it would not have to come back. Does that clarify your position? E5Z Siewert, Sen Rachel Senator Siewert —That clarifies that particular angle of it. WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —I am glad we have scored at least a minor point. 10 13:20:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 4860: (1)    Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Public and independent review of the repeal of Part IIA of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 I highlighted during my speech in the second reading debate a number of concerns received from Aboriginal community members in Victoria about the adequacy of Indigenous consultation, the involvement of Indigenous communities in the drafting of the Victorian legislation and the manner in which it excludes some traditional owners and some Aboriginal organisations from decision making. It may in fact override their ongoing role as traditional custodians of their heritage. The Greens do believe that there should be uniformity of legislation across states and territories. However, we are concerned about the manner in which the Victorian legislation will meet expected standards. Bearing in mind the comments made by Senator Carr about the inadequacies of the federal act, I accept those, but I do not think two wrongs make a right. I am not confused about the Victorian legislation. There are strong community concerns about the adequacy of this legislation. We believe that, even though the federal legislation is in no way adequate, the federal government and the Commonwealth have a responsibility to ensure that adequate standards are met for heritage protection. We believe that if the Commonwealth is not prepared to hold off this legislation in order to check to see if the Victorian legislation is adequate, there should be a review of the legislation in two years. Therefore, we are proposing this amendment to have a look at whether the legislation does in fact meet minimum heritage protection standards. The amendment puts in place a requirement for a review. It also puts in place a review committee which includes people with expertise in Indigenous heritage, representatives from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and people with knowledge of Indigenous cultural systems. We believe that such a review would be useful in developing better heritage legislation at both state level and national level. 11 13:22:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —I will speak now, unless Senator Carr wants to speak on this amendment. 11 13:22:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —No. I will make my points on the next amendment. We are voting against this one. 11 13:23:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —Okay. In that case, this is a pleasant occasion when Senator Carr and I will be voting together against this particular amendment. 00AOP Marshall, Sen Gavin Senator Marshall interjecting— WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —We voted together on a number of very important things—the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank and the privatisation of Qantas. It was good to have Senator Carr’s very strong support for those privatisations. In fact, I actually supported Senator Carr; they were, of course, privatised by the Labor government. The point I am making is that this is not without precedent. But I can see why Senator Carr is not going to support Senator Siewert on this amendment. My advice is that this seeks to provide for review of part IIA of the act. This would, in effect, amount to a review of the Victorian government legislation. We do not think that a review of the effectiveness of the repeal would serve a substantial purpose. On repeal of the Victorian provisions, the act would apply in the same way to Victoria as it does to other states and territories. Senators may recall that Justice Elizabeth Evatt reported on a broader review of Indigenous heritage protection in August 1996, and the government sees this as a more sensible approach. I know that this was stressed in Senator Siewert’s general comments, and I can assure you that we will continue to consult with Indigenous groups and other stakeholders about Indigenous heritage protection. I urge senators to support the bill and not to amend the bill in the way that Senator Siewert is proposing. Question negatived. 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Barnett)—That is amendment (1). Is amendment (2) proceeding, Senator Siewert? 12 13:25:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —Yes, it is. I seek one further answer to a question before I move the amendment. What happens if the Attorney-General does not exempt sections 10 and 12? 12 13:25:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —That really is a matter for the Attorney-General. It would limit the power to make a declaration if those proposals were not accepted by the Attorney-General. If they are not accepted, I am sure that the Attorney-General will give very cogent and sensible reasons. The intention is to seek the assistance of the Attorney-General in this matter. 12 13:26:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —Thank you for the answer. I will be proceeding with this amendment, because that answer does not provide sufficient guarantee that declarations made under sections 12 and 13 will not be subject to the sunset clause. I therefore move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 4860:  (2)   Schedule 3, page 6 (after line 22), at the end of the Schedule, add: Legislative Instruments Act 2003 1A Instruments made under section 10 or section 12 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. This amendment would amend section 54, which provides that instruments made under sections 10 and 12 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act be exempt from the sunset clause. 12 13:26:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —I should clarify that if exemption is not granted, as we approach 10 years it is, of course, always open to people to seek an extension of the act. Happily, I do not think I will be here; I am not sure you will be here, Senator Siewert. Senator Carr will certainly have been finished off by Senator Conroy by that time. Nonetheless, I am sure that senators at that time will, if it is needed, very closely scrutinise the debate and look at the very wise advice that has been given to this chamber. Senator Siewert’s amendment seeks to exempt some instruments from the sunsetting provisions of the Legislative Instruments Act by amending the Legislative Instruments Act. This amendment is not needed. I am advised that the exemption that Senator Siewert is referring to has been sought through regulations to the Legislative Instruments Act. As I mentioned, the Department of the Environment and Heritage has already asked the Attorney-General’s Department to include declarations under sections 10 and 12 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 in regulations to the Legislative Instruments Act. So these will be exempted from the sunsetting provisions, which is the preferred approach to exempting instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act. We will not be supporting the amendment. 13 13:28:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —The opposition will be supporting this amendment, because we believe that there are legitimate concerns, which were raised first by the Central Land Council, regarding the impact of a sunset clause, which would effectively see an automatic ceasing of those declarations after 10 years. The minister says, ‘We are going to seek to change these things by regulation.’ He has already told us that this legislation is one step on a journey which appears to be of some 1,000 miles—a process which has now been some 10 years in the development. So it is a very tiny step that he is speaking of. It is more like a crawl than a step, I would suggest. We had the Evatt Foundation saying some 10 years ago that there needed to be certain action taken. We heard from the minister—I think it was Senator Hill at the time—that urgent action would be taken. Three years later we have this pretty inadequate, pretty miserable, piece of legislation before us which effectively leaves out a whole series of matters—and I will come back to that in a moment. It is clearly identified, and agreed, that if no action is taken there are declarations that will automatically cease after 10 years. We are supposed to rely upon the good word of this government and an incompetent minister who is obsessed with his own political fortunes and who seeks to use heritage legislation in such a way as to advance the political interests of the Liberal Party. We are supposed to accept assurances from the government that in these circumstances some other administrative actions will be taken. I think it is straightforward. There is an opportunity here for the government to put its money—and, more importantly, its votes—where its mouth is and to support this amendment. The Evatt inquiry in 1996 made some recommendations—for instance, respecting customary restrictions on information, including gender restricted information. There is nothing in these amendments dealing with that. Other recommendations included protection from disclosure contrary to customary law, restrictions including guidelines on the kind of information that courts can seek and exemptions from freedom of information laws. There is nothing in this legislation about that. Another recommendation was for guaranteed access rights to sites of recognised significance for those recognised as being allowed to do so under customary law. There is no action on that. There was a recommendation concerning minimum standards for state and territory cultural heritage laws, including automatic blanket protection for sites which clearly fall within those arrangements. There is no action on that. The establishment of an Aboriginal cultural heritage agency of Indigenous cultural heritage bodies controlled by Aboriginal members representative of Aboriginal communities with responsibility for site evaluation and administration was also recommended. There is no action on that. Of course there was an inclusion for the protection of aspects of Indigenous heritage, including intellectual property. That is something that this government is not interested in. There have been calls for the government to fulfil its previous commitment to consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities on a broad range of amendments to the act. We have already heard from the minister—they are going to consult after they have passed the legislation. It is clear that where the Commonwealth has direct responsibility in these matters no action is to be taken. This government has had tremendous opportunities through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act but we have only seen one declaration in 10 years. There has been limited involvement in Indigenous heritage issues with regard to the administration of heritage provisions of the other important legislative instrument available to the government, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This is despite the fact that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act has much greater capacity to protect Indigenous heritage than the EPBC Act. Under the EPBC Act the government places considerable emphasis on the national significance of any particular site. This government has interpreted that to mean that a particular Indigenous community is not eligible to have its views taken seriously unless it can be established that there is general agreement within the community that there should be protection of those Indigenous communities and their heritage sites. So there are areas of extreme importance which are not given any protection in terms of the National Heritage List until such time as the local powers that be agree. That puts a veto power into the hands of people who have demonstrated time and time again their hostility to the protection of national heritage. We are told that the answer to this problem is to rely on a secret review and the government’s goodwill to change this situation by way of regulation. If you had a decent minister or a government with a decent program actually committed to national heritage, you might be a little more tempted to take them at their word. But, given the appalling record of this minister—his incompetence; his blatant and repeated examples of taking partisan political views to protect the powers that be, particularly in the more remote parts of this country; working behind closed doors to stitch people up—you would have to say that those assurances are not worth a dob of glue. The government’s word on national heritage is not worth a dob of glue and we are told that we should rely upon them to come up with some shifty arrangement behind closed doors, some sneaky little deal, to protect this situation. Frankly, the Central Land Council has put its collective finger right on this. If nothing is done then there is an automatic cessation of declarations in 10 years. That exposes Indigenous people to the will, whims and chicanery of some of the worst shysters in this country, who are protected by the ministers on that front bench. 14 13:35:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —Again, that was a somewhat unfortunate rant by Senator Carr. 00AOT Webber, Sen Ruth Senator Webber —Never! He’s never unfortunate. WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator KEMP —I beg to differ. He is not Senator Faulkner—he is far brighter and more intelligent than Senator Faulkner, but that is not saying much, I have to say, from where we come from. I had to speak to Senator Siewert about this: the strength of the argument is not a function of the strength of the voice and the shouting that continues, nor is it a function of the abuse that can be levelled at a political opponent. I will say one thing about Senator Ian Campbell and Senator Carr: I know who my money would be on in a head-to-head debate. I have to say that Senator Campbell is more than capable of defending himself. He does it so well and so effectively. If I were in Senator Carr’s position, I would probably look around the chamber to see if Senator Campbell were here or not and then get up and abuse him. I think that is probably a bit of a tactic on your part, Senator Carr. It was a bit hard to distinguish whether in among all those comments there was anything of substance which a conscientious minister at the table should respond to. I will make a couple of points, which may have been made before but are worth stating in case someone was deluded by the rantings of Senator Carr. The government stands by its commitment to introduce improved legislation in this area in line with many of the Evatt report recommendations. The basic principle remains—and this is worth noting—that states and territories have the primary role in the protection of Indigenous cultural heritage and the implementation of standards for accreditation of state and territory laws. The government has consulted Indigenous stakeholders over the larger changes to the ATSIHP Act. I remind Senator Carr that Indigenous representatives were briefed on the proposed replacement in March 2004. In April 2004, the Prime Minister announced the new arrangements in Indigenous affairs. These were introduced on 1 July 2004 and implemented progressively over 2004-05. During this period, the government has progressed legislative reform through the current Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 [2006] to repeal the Victorian specific provisions, so the implication by Senator Carr that people were not bothering about this is not correct. After these amendments are finalised, consultations with Indigenous parties and other stakeholders will resume on the broader legislative change. Senator Carr was worried that there were so few declarations under this act. I remind Senator Carr that the primary responsibility belongs to the states and the territories. In a sense, the fact that few declarations have had to be made rather suggests to me that the states and the territories are accepting their primary role in the protection of Indigenous heritage. It is worth recording, Senator Carr, that the fact that few declarations have had to be made would indicate that the states are doing their jobs more effectively. The federal act is the fallback position. I would have to closely read the Hansard but I suspect that a fundamental misunderstanding of the act was apparent in Senator Carr’s comments. Let me leave it there. The government, I am sorry to inform you, Senator Siewert, will not be supporting your amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to. 13:44:00 The committee divided.       (The Chairman—Senator JJ Hogg) 33 Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. McLucas, J.E. Milne, C. Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. Polley, H. Ray, R.F. Sherry, N.J. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Webber, R. * Wong, P. Wortley, D. 35 Abetz, E. Adams, J. Barnett, G. Bernardi, C. Brandis, G.H. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Eggleston, A. * Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Humphries, G. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Kemp, C.R. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. 3 Campbell, G. Scullion, N.G. Evans, C.V. Boswell, R.L.D. Stott Despoja, N. Heffernan, W. * denotes teller Question negatived. 16 16 13:47:00 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 0 Senator KEMP —I move: That this bill be now read a third time. 16 13:48:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —One would have thought that this bill, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Bill 2005 [2006], could have been sorted out pretty quickly, but what we have found is a protracted process of review going back to Justice Elizabeth Evatt’s report of 1996. That report sought to examine the appropriateness of the current regimes with regard to Indigenous heritage matters and it made a series of recommendations. The government has received the report but has failed to act on it. The government has produced a piece of legislation which is, at best, extremely disappointing and which only partially implements the recommendations of the Evatt report. This legislation was spoken of in terms of urgency three years ago. It was introduced to this chamber last October and now, in August 2006, we see the final vote being taken. So you could hardly say that the government has rushed to implement this proposition or that this is a matter that has been at the forefront of the government’s interests. It reflects the appalling attitude this government has to Indigenous heritage questions. One saving grace is that the bill seeks to strengthen our commitments in terms of international borrowings of Indigenous heritage artefacts. I might say, though, that the government has been pretty slow on the uptake in terms of the return of artefacts from cultural institutions around the world. It is appropriate, though, that there be a strengthening of the legal regime with regard to borrowings from this time on. A second saving grace is that the bill returns to Victoria the responsibility to administer its own Aboriginal heritage protection regime. If I remember correctly, back in the 1980s, in the Lake Condah and Framlingham affairs, the upper house of the Victorian parliament—which of course was dominated by some of the most slimy shellbacks that we had been able to produce for many a generation—sought to protect particular landholders in those regions with a bid to block the legitimate aspirations of Indigenous people to protect extraordinarily important heritage sites. We had the situation where one of the rare examples of Indigenous people building stone dwellings and providing extensive farming and aquacultural facilities was not being protected because it suited some of the local identities not to give Indigenous people the respect and dignity they deserved by protecting those sites. WW4 Kemp, Sen Rod Senator Kemp —Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I have sought advice on an unfortunate comment that was made by Senator Carr with regard to members of another parliament, which I understand is contrary to standing orders. I do not propose at this stage to repeat what Senator Carr said and give further currency to it. Senator Carr ought to know exactly what I am talking about. That unfortunate comment should be withdrawn. 10000 Marshall, Gavin (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marshall)—Senator Carr, do you wish to speak on the point of order before I rule on it? AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —It is unusual that Senator Kemp should draw attention to anything that I have said. He seems to be rather thin-skinned these days. I was commenting on the actions of members of his own party in Victoria. I know he has been a victim of these very same degenerate elements, and I can understand why it is that he should be so sensitive to them. 10000 ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Carr, thank you. I will rule on the point of order. I ask you to withdraw the comments. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —I withdraw any unparliamentary remarks. I understand that he is on the way out and I appreciate that one has to be courteous to a person on whose parliamentary career the sun is clearly setting. I appreciate that. I do not wish to be unkind to him. I think he has been given a unique opportunity to serve the Commonwealth in various roles. He was of course—and I know he is sensitive about this matter too—shadow spokesperson for the environment in 1996, and we do not always agree but I do think that he was most unjustly dumped by Howard. I think it was most unfortunate and it was malicious. Frankly, we have seen what he has done, and I know that the Prime Minister has a distinct dislike for the Kemp brothers. I know that to be true. It is well known in Victoria that the— ZW4 Sherry, Sen Nick Senator Sherry —Wasn’t that the last time he appeared on The 7.30 Report? The high-rollers GST affair? AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —There was that problem he did have with articulating some of the more difficult aspects of government policy, and that was unkind— 10000 ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Carr, I remind you of the question before the chair. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator CARR —All I would like to say is that I understand that the minister is concerned to try his best to defend what is a pretty weak government position. He was in a position to know something of these matters, and I have no doubt that, if he had been allowed to fulfil the potential that he had in this area, he would have done a much better job than the current minister. That is what really worries me about this particular legislation. I need to express our deep reservations about the current minister being up to the task of administering this legislation. This is a grossly inadequate piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that has failed to live up to its potential in terms of what could have been done. The Evatt report provided the basis for the government to take determined action to improve the cultural heritage of Indigenous people in this country and to enrich the nation as a whole as a consequence. Unfortunately, the government has sought to use the administration of Indigenous cultural matters—as it has with the natural heritage question—in a most partisan and most directly political manner. It has sought to advantage what it sees as its support base to garner votes on the most spurious of grounds over a range of issues. But it has failed to use the powers available to it to genuinely protect the national estate and to genuinely take up its responsibilities and its international obligations, for fear of offending powerful interests who support the Liberal Party. We have seen a repeated pattern of the corrosion of proper administrative practice. I know there is some language that concerns some of the members on this question, but it strikes at the heart of the problem of public administration with this minister. That is why I say this is a missed opportunity. While we are supporting the legislation, we do so in the context of knowing just how grossly inadequate it is and what the circumstances could have been if there had been proper consultation and if the government had a bit of gumption with which to pursue these important cultural issues. What you have is a situation in which this government has been dragging the chain. It is now 10 long years since the Evatt report provided the basis for substantive legislative reform, and it is a tragedy that the government has missed this opportunity so comprehensively. It concerns me that the government’s neglect and its base politicisation of these questions have meant that, as a consequence, we as a nation are so much the poorer. National heritage is an important matter, and you would hope that the Prime Minister would take heed of the overriding concerns that are now being expressed about the administration of this portfolio by Senator Campbell. 18 13:58:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I express the Greens’ deep concern that the government is missing an opportunity to properly review this act. The government, in its budget papers, articulated what I thought was a commitment to reviewing the act. It has allocated the minimum amount of resources that it can. As we have repeatedly said in this chamber, the act is desperately in need of reform. A review was done in 1996 which clearly said there was a need for reform. Senator Hill committed to a review in 2003 and, if you read his words, I think it is fair to interpret that it was to be a comprehensive, public review. We are now getting a secret, internal review in which the government chooses whom to speak to. We, the community, do not find out what the stakeholders have said about this legislation. We do not know if it will be adequate. We do not know if it will be comprehensive. This government should rethink how it is going to approach this legislation and this review so as to deliver a comprehensive and adequate review that fully consults all stakeholders, that is public, that accepts public submissions and that enables the community to fully assess the full implications of this act. Debate interrupted. 18 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 18 14:00:00 18 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 Senator CONROY —My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to the collapse of Telstra’s plans to roll out a fibre to the node network. Does the minister accept that Australia needs a significant fibre broadband infrastructure investment to bring the country back into line with our international competitors? Isn’t it true that the reason for the collapse of these talks was, in the words of Telstra executive Phil Burgess, the government’s confused, inconsistent and ultimately counterproductive telecommunications policies? As the minister for communications, will the minister finally accept responsibility for Australia’s status as a broadband backwater and for the government’s complete lack of policy for turning this situation around? 19 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. I must say that I am disappointed that Telstra has pulled out of talks with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about the regulation of fibre to the node, which Telstra had proposed to roll out to five major cities. I think that is really the point, that there are a couple of furphies about the rollout of fibre. The first is, of course, that the fibre rollout would not have benefited all Australians, as has been claimed from time to time, but was only slated for major metropolitan cities, not even for big regional cities such as Wollongong and Newcastle. It would not even have been in Darwin under the current proposal. The reality is that the fibre proposal is certainly not the only game in town here. Telstra did cite the ACCC’s alleged unwillingness to recognise the actual costs of Telstra’s fibre to the node investment as a reason for this breakdown. In fact, when setting access prices, the regulatory regime is very clear that the ACCC is required by law to take into account the costs of the investment and the legitimate commercial interests of the infrastructure owner, including the investment risk faced by the owner, and the need to provide incentives for investment. The ACCC has assured the government that it has always been prepared to consider both fair and reasonable access terms, as indeed it is legally obliged to do. As to Senator Conroy’s suggestion that this proposal was only going to be rolled out to major centres, where there is already competition in any event, I think it is a real furphy that somehow or other Australia is placed in some kind of broadband impasse. Telstra could, for instance, start to use its longstanding investment in ADSL 2 Plus technology equipment in its exchanges which can deliver high-speed broadband to about 80 per cent of the population. It is important to note that several telecommunications experts estimate that at least 55 per cent of Australians already have access to very fast fixed broadband today, via either ADSL 2 Plus—and there are nine companies, nine competitors, who are rolling out ADSL 2 Plus—or over cable broadband. When Telstra switches on its ADSL 2 Plus network, which should be imminent, the number will of course rise exponentially. Where the competitive rollout of high-speed broadband will make a significant difference will be in relation to the government’s Broadband Connect policy: $1.1 billion earmarked to ensure that where Telstra would not have gone in any event with this fibre to the node rollout there will in fact be competitive infrastructure programs by some competitors. An expressions of interest proposal that has been put out by me has received 70 submissions, with some very innovative and quite exciting combinations of technologies designed to deliver these kinds of outcomes for rural and regional Australia, where under no circumstances would the fibre to the node proposal that Telstra had on the table have benefited all Australians. So the most important points are that not all Australians would have benefited under the fibre proposal, there are already multi-megabit speeds available in those markets and the government is getting on with delivering competition and solutions in rural and regional Australia. 19 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 Senator CONROY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of recently released national broadband targets which suggest that 80 per cent of Australians will need to have access to 10 megabits per second broadband by 2010 in order for the economy to remain internationally competitive? Doesn’t this document call for ‘significant and meaningful changes in attitude and leadership from the government and policymakers’? In light of the collapse of Telstra’s fibre to the node plans, when will the minister, in her confused broadband policies, change her attitude and provide the leadership that is needed for Australia to remain competitive? 20 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —What would of course help would be if Senator Conroy would stop trying to join some Greek chorus and actually understand what this is all about. The only thing that Labor have ever come up with is to try to piggyback on Telstra’s proposal and then raid the Communications Fund of $2 billion to try and get a leg-up to provide some assistance to rural and regional Australia. That has all fallen very flat now, hasn’t it? And of course we have not got anything from Labor. Their policy proposal, if you could call it that, is in absolute ruins. This government will get on to ensuring that there is equitable broadband for all Australians. 20 14:06:00 20 Mason, Sen Brett 84M Queensland LP 1 Senator MASON —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration and Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Minchin. Is the minister aware of recent statements by the OECD concerning the resilience of the Australian economy? Will the minister outline to the Senate some of the current threats to Australia’s continued prosperity and how the government is helping to further strengthen the Australian economy in light of those challenges? 20 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —I thank Senator Mason for that very good question. As Senator Mason said, the OECD—probably the most authoritative economic institution in the world—released its annual survey of Australia, which projected a very positive outlook for our economy, with growth expected to accelerate from 2.9 per cent this year to 3.7 per cent next year. If we achieve that, it would constitute a remarkable 16 years of uninterrupted economic growth in Australia. The OECD noted that, in terms of our GDP per capita, Australia’s ranking among OECD countries has improved to the point where it now surpasses all of the G7 economies except the United States—a remarkable outcome. Of course, that rise in GDP per capita represents real increases in the living standards of all Australians. Far from being merely fortunate, the OECD found that Australia had made its own luck by reforming the economy, getting the budget into surplus, eliminating Labor’s debt and creating an independent Reserve Bank. The OECD noted that these changes had made us more resilient as an economy to external shocks like the ones we have experienced—the Asian financial crisis, the US recession in 2001, the end of the house price boom in the eastern states and, of course, ongoing drought. If we are going to lock in the enormous prosperity that has been built up over the last 10 years, we have to be resilient in the face of ongoing international challenges. As a nation we face near record world oil prices, brought about in large part by exceptional demand coming out of China and India and, of course, by supply constraints evidenced by what was reported from Alaska today. Central banks across the world—US, Europe, Japan—have all been increasing interest rates to address the emerging threat of global inflation, and we have recently seen quite exceptional volatility in commodity markets and in equity markets here and abroad. We face, of course, the ongoing impact of the drought and of the devastating cyclone in the north of Queensland and the impact that had on the banana crop and therefore on fruit prices right across the country. With the Australian economy facing challenges like this, it is more vital than ever that we maintain the strong economic management which the coalition government has been delivering now for 10 years. Again, the OECD provides some guidance as to where we should be going. The OECD specifically describes the Work Choices package as a step in the right direction; it advocates reform of welfare to tighten eligibility for disability pensioners and sole parents, with the aim of increasing workforce participation in this country; it supports our efforts to make child care more affordable; and it describes the creation of the Future Fund and our decision to earmark it to address pension liabilities as ‘laudable’. In contrast, of course, in all these policy areas, the Labor Party have absolutely no constructive, positive policy alternatives; it is roll-back, roll-back, roll-back. All the Labor Party have are negative contributions. All they can talk about is either unravelling their dumb policies or unravelling our policies, which have created these circumstances. We know that Mr Beazley wants to rip up the very industrial relations laws that have made Australian workplaces able to compete on the world stage. He wants to go back to the bad old days when welfare was a way of life for those who did not want to work. He wants to raid the Future Fund for his short-term pork barrelling. The OECD report—a very good report, which I urge the Labor Party to read and learn from—confirms that Australia is on the right track under this coalition government. We are building one of the strongest, most resilient economies in the world. 21 14:11:00 21 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 Senator CARR —My question without notice is to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that, as part of the humiliating backdown over the Bald Hills wind farm that was forced on him in the Federal Court last Friday, he agreed that taxpayers would pay Wind Power’s legal costs? Isn’t it the case that an agreement to pay costs at such an early stage is nothing more than an unconditional surrender? Can the minister confirm that he was forced to raise the white flag so quickly because of the weakness of his case and the strong likelihood that he would lose? Couldn’t this whole saga have been avoided if in the first instance the minister had considered the wind farm proposal according to law rather than abusing his powers for political purposes? 21 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Thank you to Senator Carr for the question. It is rather amusing to have a member of the Victorian Labor Party accusing me of playing politics on this issue when that is all that his state Labor Party comrades have sought to do over recent weeks. What we do know—it is a fact that is before the courts—is that the proponents of the wind farm, of just over 50 wind turbines down at Gippsland, in fact approached me and said, ‘We would like to get this out of court and we would like the chance to make another submission to you.’ They asked for a number of other conditions, which I did not agree to. I said, ‘If you want me to receive another submission’— Opposition senators interjecting— H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —It is very hard, Mr President, to answer questions when Senator Carr’s comrades are yelling and screaming. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Senators on my left, there is too much noise. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —We agreed to receive a new submission. That is what was sought; that is what I agreed to. It will save taxpayers’ money. It will ensure that the proponents get a fair procedure, and that is what all Australians and all Australian companies are entitled to. What we do know is that, if Labor had their way when it comes to the construction of wind farms, for every two turbines that we build around the Gippsland region under our policies, you would have five wind turbines under Labor. That is the Latham Labor policy, and it has not been changed, so we do know that. We know that the people around Gippsland would end up with roughly 2½ times the number of turbines— AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —You’re still playing politics. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —We could ask Senator Carr when he asks his supplementary question to say whether he supports the decision of the Victorian Labor government to not allow to go ahead a wind farm at a place called Ballan, just north of Bald Hills, on the basis of a report that said that just over two wedge-tailed eagles would be killed, knowing full well that two wedge-tailed eagles would be killed by the Bald Hills wind farm. Will Senator Carr say that he stands by Mr Hulls? Does Senator Carr stand by Mr Hulls, the man who intends to tear down the old High Court building in Melbourne? The hypocrisy of federal Labor and the Victorian Labor Party— Opposition senators interjecting— 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections on my left. I ask you to come to order. AX5 Evans, Sen Chris Senator Chris Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I accept that the chamber was getting unruly but it is because Senator Campbell refuses to be relevant. He wants to discuss the Victorian High Court building when he has been asked a question about the court case on the parrot and the fact that he has accepted that the Commonwealth will have to meet the costs of his humiliating backdown. Can you draw his attention to the question? 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Senator Evans, I hear your point of order. The minister has one minute and 18 seconds to answer the question. I remind him of relevance and I remind him of the question. I also remind senators on my left to allow him to answer the question in some modicum of silence. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —The Labor Party like to talk about this as a backdown. I reiterate: the proponents to construct the wind turbines came to the Commonwealth and said that they would like to get this out of court, and we said that we thought that was a good idea for the taxpayer. They also asked that we pay their costs. Apparently, according to my legal advisers, that is the entirely normal thing that a government does. That is the advice of my legal advisers. It is probably the same advice that previous Labor governments got. The trouble with Labor on this issue is that they say that you cannot protect threatened species and build renewable energy. This government is seeking to do both. We are pumping billions of dollars into wind farms and hundreds of millions of dollars into solar and other renewables and we are protecting threatened species. We believe in a sophisticated approach to this; Labor just want to play politics. 22 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 Senator CARR —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister now confirm that, in its new submission, Wind Power will be given an opportunity to respond to the report prepared for the minister by Biosis? Isn’t this an admission that the minister’s April decision, which did not give Wind Power that opportunity, was fundamentally flawed and denied the company natural justice? In perverting the processes under environmental law, hasn’t the minister exposed taxpayers to costly legal action and a potential damages claim? 22 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —We can be thankful that Senator Carr is not the shadow Attorney-General. If he spoke to Wind Power or the proponents he would know that they were told of the Biosis report publicly—I told the world about that report. They knew I had received the report and they went to court and said, ‘We want to force you to make the decision. Please make the decision and hurry up and make it.’ So I made the decision. The fact is that Wind Power did not seek a copy of the report and by their very own actions, which will humiliate Senator Carr, made it impossible for them to see the report. Senator Carr should perhaps go and read the facts. The reality is that Labor are totally confused on climate change policy. They are all over the place. The only policy they have is a new carbon tax to slug every Australian extra money for their fuel and power bills. 23 14:18:00 23 Nash, Sen Fiona E5G New South Wales NATS 1 Senator NASH —My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. Will the minister update the Senate on plans to roll out high-speed internet to Australians in rural and regional areas? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 23 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator COONAN —I thank Senator Nash for the question and for her ongoing interest in delivering quality communications to rural and regional Australia. The government is aware that broadband can break down the barriers created by Australia’s vast land mass, revitalise regional communications and improve access to both services and information. That is why we have announced the most significant telecommunications funding package in Australia’s history, including a $1.1 billion Connect Australia funding package to enhance the rollout of infrastructure and $2 billion in the communications fund to ensure that Australians continue to enjoy new technologies into the future. As Senator Nash is no doubt aware, the government will use the substantial funding in the package it has allocated under Connect Australia to revitalise communications in the bush. As the first step, the government has conducted an expression of interest process under Connect Australia to test the feasibility of an infrastructure based approach, and I am delighted with the substantial and quality responses that have been received from industry. More than 70 submissions have been registered. Connect Australia will provide rural and regional Australia with large-scale and sustainable broadband infrastructure for the future but, most importantly, equitable broadband services. Importantly, these projects will be developed on top of the significant infrastructure based competition already occurring in competitive metropolitan and major regional markets. Around 80 per cent of Australian households can already access ADSL broadband services and the number is growing exponentially as carriers enable more and more exchanges with the backing of Connect Australia. All the talk today is of Telstra’s fibre to the node for capital cities but, of course, high-speed broadband platforms are already available in these areas. There is plenty of multi-megabit broadband capacity already available in the cities—at least nine service providers already offer ADSL 2 Plus broadband in capital cities and large regional centres. ADSL 2 Plus and cable broadband offer speeds many times greater than standard ADSL services. Speeds for this technology reach 12 to 18 megabits per second. Several experts estimate that around 55 per cent of Australians are already able to access very fast fixed broadband today via either ADSL 2 Plus or cable broadband. The government has of course been correct not to have relied entirely on Telstra for fast broadband because they have yet to switch on ADSL 2 Plus despite already installing this technology in many of their exchanges. I am asked about alternative policies. Labor’s broadband plan, borrowed from Telstra, does not even pass Senator Conroy’s ‘fraudband’ test. Without Telstra’s fibre to the node rollout, Labor’s proposal is missing the $4 billion investment at the heart of the policy. The middle is simply missing. It is a doughnut policy; it is a policy doughnut. It is probably a Krispy Kreme ALP policy, but this government will continue to focus on competitive, market-driven systems with a massive government investment to ensure that rural and regional Australians’ services are adequately taken care of. 24 14:22:00 24 Wortley, Sen Dana E6C South Australia ALP 0 Senator WORTLEY —My question is to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that his department told him in March that the impact of the Bald Hills wind farm on threatened and migratory species was ‘negligible’, and ‘acceptable’, and that ‘there does not appear to be direct evidence of any impact’? Is it true that on the basis of this advice the department recommended that the wind farm should be approved? Can the minister now explain why he subsequently claimed that he had blocked the project because of orange-bellied parrots? Was the department’s advice not clear enough for the minister, where it said that there was no evidence that the wind farm would have anything other than a ‘negligible’ impact on the parrots? What possible grounds could the minister have had for rejecting that scientifically based advice? 24 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I think these issues have been well canvassed, but just for the benefit of Senator Wortley, who is clearly interested in threatened species, the department not only advised on the impacts on orange-bellied parrots; it also gave what I thought was very wise advice by saying that it would be sensible and diligent to look at the cumulative impact of wind farm developments along that coast. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —Over 1,000 years, perhaps! H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Carr would be a tremendous source of power for any wind turbine placed in front of his mouth. Senator Wortley’s question is a very important one. The department did in fact advise that we do this cumulative impact assessment. The reason for that is that the coalition government brought into law a thing called the mandatory renewable energy target, which has seen the number of wind turbines, which was roughly 20 under the previous Labor federal regime, increase to 600 under this government. The Victorian government made a decision to ensure that you could not develop wind farms to the west of Port Phillip Bay along the Great Ocean Road, which forces wind farm developments into a relatively small stretch of coast in Gippsland. There have been a number of developments there. One wind farm may have negligible impacts on any species, but we know from Victorian government reports and from Australian government reports—and I make the point that the Victorian government’s own reports on the impacts on orange-bellied parrots have been kept secret to this day, and that Rob Hulls, the state minister, refuses to release the report; I have got a report that fell off the back of a truck that gives Mr Hulls the same advice that I received—that the cumulative impact of wind farms along that coast could be catastrophic for orange-bellied parrots. He not only chose to ignore that report; he chose to hide it for the last couple of years. I have written to Mr Hulls, asking him to make that report public. Senator Wortley would understand that the orange-bellied parrot is not the only threatened species in this area. All of the reports say that the species flies through this area regularly, on an annual basis. The bird flies through this area at a height where the blades can destroy it. Tasmanian senators will know that birdstrike, although it is a relatively new phenomenon for most Australians, occurs very rapidly. AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —One in 1,000 years is not rapid! 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Senator Carr, I will warn you in a moment. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Senator Carr says ‘one in 1,000 years’; I refer him to the Sunday newspapers in Tasmania that show strikes at the Woolnorth wind farm on the very endangered wedge-tailed eagle in northern Tasmania—originally predicted at one per year—are occurring at the rate of one per month. This is a species that is less threatened than the orange-bellied parrot. There are 130 breeding pairs versus 50. So my department, to conclude—I am sure a supplementary question will come up—did give us advice on cumulative impacts. The advice on cumulative impacts said quite clearly that the orange-bellied parrot is in such low numbers and at such risk of extinction that any further threats to it could hasten its extinction. That is the advice I relied on, and it is sound and thorough advice. 25 Wortley, Sen Dana E6C South Australia ALP 0 Senator WORTLEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What does the minister’s decision to abuse his legal powers on the basis of local politics rather than scientific evidence mean for other developers? Through his grossly political actions, hasn’t the minister totally undermined the integrity of the very laws that he is supposed to uphold? 25 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —You could only describe as hypocritical someone who supports the decision of Mr Hulls to stop a wind farm development in Ballan, less than 200 kilometres north of Bald Hills, but then criticises me for stopping one when the impacts on wedge-tailed eagles are almost identical. Mr Hulls looked at the impacts on wedge-tailed eagles of a wind farm in Ballan and decided to stop it; he looked at the same report in relation to Bald Hills and said it should go ahead. He is very inconsistent. I would be interested to know whether Senator Wortley supported this decision, by one who only a few months ago approved the biggest greenhouse gas emitting facility in the Southern Hemisphere—445 million tonnes of carbon per year. Victorian Labor are people who profess to care about the climate and climate change, but totally ignore—(Time expired) 25 14:29:00 25 Ferguson, Sen Alan EP5 South Australia LP 1 Senator FERGUSON —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Abetz. Is the minister aware of any new allegations of workers being dismissed as a result of the government’s workplace relations policy, Work Choices? If he is, I further ask: what is the government’s response to these allegations and is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 25 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator ABETZ —I thank Senator Ferguson for his enthusiastic commitment to job creation and fairness in the workplace. First of all, let me remind honourable senators that an extra 77,000 full-time jobs have been created since Work Choices came into being. So, rather than people being dismissed wholesale, they are being employed. I am aware of a number of alleged instances of Work Choices being used to unfairly dismiss people—allegations misrepresented and twisted by those on the other side and the unions for what they see as their cheap, short-term political gain. There was of course the Cowra abattoir issue, which was leapt upon by Labor and the unions but found by the independent umpire, the Office of Workplace Services, to be a genuine case of redundancy. Redundancy was an accepted concept in industrial relations well before Work Choices. In other words, nothing changed other than Labor’s attempt to spin. In fact, in five cases highlighted by the unions and the ALP in their advertising campaign, it was found once again by the independent umpire that the assertions made were wrong. I was asked if I was aware of any new allegations. I can see Senator Marshall getting a bit twitchy, and I know why. I am aware of a new allegation. It is the case of one Dianne Rich, allegedly unfairly dismissed by her employer as a result of evil Work Choices. This is what the employer said about the dismissal: ‘We have a bona fide redundancy here.’ Then, to make the point even stronger, he had to use an expletive. This person continued that he would not be backing down from his position that Ms Rich was losing her job because of a restructure. Let us have a ‘who said it?’ Who said all that? Who was the employer? None other than Senator Marshall’s mate Dean Mighell, the Victorian head of the Electrical Trades Union. Opposition senators interjecting— N26 Abetz, Sen Eric Senator ABETZ —I deliberately said that so that it gets on the record that Senator Marshall does not consider him to be a mate. That will make for interesting meetings! I am not going to comment on whether Ms Rich’s dismissal was justified for operational reasons because that is a matter for others. What this case demonstrates is Labor’s duplicity. It is a case of, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ When a Cowra abattoir unfortunately has to, for operational reasons, make people redundant, the union says, ‘No, you’re not to believe them, albeit that the Office of Workplace Services said it was a genuine case.’ But, if the Electrical Trades Union does it, it is all okay and it is all to be believed—exactly the same way as they say a union like the shoppies in South Australia can trade away penalty rates but individuals are not allowed to do it. The media union is allowed to trade away public holidays but individuals are not allowed to do it. It is a classic case of Labor once again saying, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ For the benefit of our nation we are willing to take the tough decisions for the long-term benefit of the workers in this country. Do you want to know the first thing workers actually want? It is a job. Under Labor, one million of our fellow Australians—(Time expired) 26 14:34:00 26 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 Senator MILNE —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Minchin. Given that the Prime Minister has recognised rising petrol prices as the greatest worry of his political life and has identified the global price of oil as the primary cause, can the minister indicate whether the government is aware of the concept of peak oil? If so, is it the view of the government that peak oil has already occurred or will occur in the coming decade and can the minister indicate on what advice he and the government rely for their conclusion about peak oil? 26 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —I am aware of the concept of peak oil—the sense that you will reach a point at which the world starts to effectively run out of oil supplies. But I think since oil was discovered and first used in the internal combustion engine there have been regular forecasts that the world is about to run out of oil. That has been going on for at least 100 years as far as I can recall from studying economic history. Of course, the extent to which there is exploration for and discovery of oil is a function of price. It is a fact that one of the reasons why currently demand is exceeding supply in relation to oil and high prices is that, remarkably, it was not that long ago that oil was $11 a barrel. That meant that there was a decline in exploration for oil and a significant decline in investment in refining of oil because the returns were not available. As a consequence of the increase in price, which is a result of the growth in demand for oil from China and India and the fact that there are the supply constraints caused by the consequences of previously unduly low oil prices, we are seeing increasing efforts to explore for oil and we certainly want to do all we can to encourage that in this country and of course around the world. There is much more investment in refining capacity occurring. If one allows the market to operate, as we advocate but the Greens never do, you will see supply respond to demand and price equilibrium restored. The other important thing, and I have said this before in relation to the price of oil, is that having a high price of oil is of course painful for ordinary Australians—we understand that. Despite the fact that the price of petrol in this country is probably the fourth lowest in the OECD it is still painful for Australian families. The relatively high prices do of course make much more commercially feasible alternative sources of transport fuels so that you are seeing, in this country and in others, a significant expansion in the investment in biofuels and alternative fuels. You are seeing significant growth in use of LPG. You are seeing significant investment by the car companies in hydrogen as a future fuel source and I suspect, personally, that the future of automotive transport does lie in hydrogen. That is the consequence of bringing on and having the sort of market that you have in oil at the moment. You are seeing those investments in those alternatives. We have seen an explosion in the production and purchase of hybrid vehicles like those of Toyota and Honda, so if you do allow the market to work you will get these responses. Of course, oil is a finite resource. At some point—who knows when, and nobody does know when—the last drop of oil will presumably be extracted, although one must take account of the fact that there are enormous reserves of shale oil in this world. There are significant deposits of shale oil in this country, which at a certain price will be commercially feasible to extract. At some point the world will need to move to an alternative source of transport fuel. The market will dictate that, as it does in most things. It dictated that we moved from the horse and buggy to the internal combustion engine and, no doubt, at some point it will dictate a move from oil to some alternative source of fuel. The key thing we want to encourage is a proper operating market and the proper incentives for the exploration and development of our fuel reserves and alternatives. (Time expired) 27 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 Senator MILNE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the minister’s answer that he does not believe that peak oil has occurred or will occur in the coming decade—that, rather, as he said, this might occur at some time in the future. How responsible does the minister believe it is for the government not to have advice about peak oil? Secondly, can the minister confirm that the government still takes advice from ABARE, which repeatedly said that the price of oil into the future will be $30 to $40 a barrel? I ask the minister: what will it take for the government to review this assumption being put forward by ABARE, and when will the government put policy initiatives in place that will begin to address Australia’s growing dependence on dwindling foreign supplies of oil? 27 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —The government receives advice from a range of quarters. We respect ABARE and we note their advice. It is not formally government policy. We do not project or seek to project, as a government, what the future oil price will be. There are a whole range of views about what might happen to the price of oil—there have always been—and some are right and some are wrong. As far as we are concerned, we are investing substantially in Australia’s biofuels industry as an alternative: $37 million in biofuel capital grants, $52 million in ethanol production grants. The industry has protection from Brazilian ethanol and it is excise free, so we are doing an enormous amount. But at the end of the day we, like every other country in the world, are subject to the prevailing world price of oil. 28 14:41:00 28 Adams, Sen Judith E4Q Western Australia LP 1 Senator ADAMS —My question is to the Minister for Ageing, Senator Santoro. Will the minister outline to the Senate the measures that the government is introducing to further safeguard older people in residential aged care homes from sexual and serious physical assault? Also, will the minister inform the Senate of the reaction to these measures? 28 Santoro, Sen Santo BOT Queensland LP Minister for Ageing 1 Senator SANTORO —I thank Senator Adams for her continued interest and support for what the government is doing in the area of aged care policies. I am pleased to announce that late last month I made public a $90 million package to further help protect and safeguard the welfare of our elderly citizens in government funded aged care facilities. Following instances of alleged and real abuse, sexual and physical, within Australia’s aged care facilities I committed that I would act as quickly as possible to make sure that the government did everything it possibly could in order to protect the elderly within our aged care facilities. The reforms I announced included the creation of a new aged care commissioner, rigorous complaints investigation procedures, a regime of compulsory reporting of abuse, and legislative protection for whistleblowers. This follows on from my announcements earlier on, in April, of compulsory police checks for all aged care workers and also a significant increase in random, unannounced inspections of aged care facilities that are funded by the Commonwealth government. The opposition, including and in particular Senator McLucas, may be interested to learn that the increased inspections have already begun. In a media release that Senator McLucas put out she suggested that perhaps they had not begun, but for the month of July 106 random and unannounced inspections were in fact conducted. These changes and the significant financial commitment of the federal government—a commitment that totals $90 million for the package I announced a couple of weeks ago and about $10 million for the package that I announced in April; that is, $100 million of new money outside of the budget cycle—demonstrate how seriously the government has taken the isolated but troubling revelations of abuse of our elderly within our aged care facilities. Senator Adams also asked the very reasonable question of what reaction there had been to the measures that had been announced. I am heartened to inform the Senate that they have been warmly welcomed. I will give the Senate a few instances. Catholic Health CEO Francis Sullivan stated: I think these measures will go a long way towards restoring confidence in the community that abuse will be addressed. Lillian Jeter from the Elder Abuse Prevention Association said, ‘This is great news.’ By the way, Mr President, I had a very constructive meeting with representatives of all the elder abuse organisations. The AMA president, Dr Haikerwal, said that the package will provide comfort to aged care residents and their families. The National Seniors Association chief executive, David Deans, said: This package provides for more vigilance as to who aged care operators can recruit to their staff. COTA Over 50s said the package ‘should lead to the creation of an environment which is much safer and responsive and which guards against such incidents occurring in the first place’. Even the Health Services Union agreed with what the government had done. Jeff Jackson from the union said, and I quote very specifically: We applaud the Howard Government for proposing what they intend to do. But the final word should really go to Senator McLucas. Standing in contrast to everybody else in the aged care sector, particularly the union, Senator McLucas said that it was ‘disappointing’ and that the new measures would ‘only be implemented as of April 2007’. I give to the Senate and particularly to Senator McLucas the same undertaking that I have been giving since I have been minister, and that is that I will continue to consult the sector, all the key stakeholders in the sector, so that we get the legislation that we will be putting through by April 2007 correct and so that we can be as effective as possible in looking after the elderly within our aged care facilities. 29 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President’s gallery of a member of the Malaysian parliament, Mr Razali bin Ibrahim MP. On behalf of all senators, I welcome you to Australia and particularly to our Senate. Honourable senators—Hear, hear! 29 14:45:00 Questions Without Notice 29 14:45:00 29 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 Senator FAULKNER —My question is directed to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that in September 2004, just prior to the last election, he issued a press release in which he stated: The people of Gippsland who are opposed to the Bald Hills wind project should carefully consider their vote if they want a say in the future of their local area with respect to wind farms ... Can the minister also confirm that after the election he tried to justify blocking Bald Hills on the grounds that ‘the special problem they’ve got here is that the state government have chosen to remove planning controls from local councils’? Don’t these statements show that the minister’s opposition to the Bald Hills wind farm had nothing to do with orange-bellied parrots and everything to do with marginal seat electioneering? Did the minister spend 450 days searching for an excuse to block the Bald Hills project—an excuse which eventually came in the form of a parrot? 29 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —The answer, broadly speaking, is no. Opposition senators interjecting— H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I have said in answer to another question from— Opposition senators interjecting— AW5 Carr, Sen Kim Senator Carr —It is just a dead duck. It is not a dead parrot; it is a dead duck. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Carr and other senators on my left, the minister has had nine seconds to speak and immediately we have this tirade from my left. I ask you to come to order and allow the minister to answer the question. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —In answer to a question from one of Senator Faulkner’s comrades I have said that the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage advised that we should get a report on cumulative impacts. That report identified four birds that would be at risk through wind farm development. They include wedge-tailed eagles. That is the species that Mr Hulls used to stop a wind farm at Ballan only a few months ago, even though the report that he relied on and the report that I relied on said that wedge-tailed eagles are in fact abundant and, although they will get killed by wind turbines, they are resilient enough and in large enough numbers not to be threatened by them. QD4 Brown, Sen Bob Senator Bob Brown —Not in Tasmania. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Not in Tasmania, Senator Brown. Before you joined us, I was advising the Senate that three wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania have been killed in the last three months—one a month, when the predictions that were done showed that only one a year would die. The Victorian government’s report said to Mr Hulls—this is the secret report he refuses to release—that you should take a conservative approach to these critically threatened species. The report also looked at the white-bellied sea eagle. It said that, yes, white-bellied sea eagles will get killed by these blades but, again, the species is abundant enough for that not to threaten that species any further. It also looked at the swift parrot and said that although swift parrots will be killed by these blades—and the prediction is that over 100 birds a year will be killed—they were resilient enough and abundant enough not to be threatened. In relation to the orange-bellied parrot, there are only 50 breeding pairs left in the world. It is a species that is described by the Victorian government’s own department, on its website, as being in as precarious a state as the Siberian tiger and the polar bear. This report said that wind farms would hasten the extinction of that species. We know that Labor have all sorts of problems on climate change policy. You have had a backflip from Mr Beazley in relation to climate change policy. We know that renewable energy can make a contribution to solving the issue of climate change. We know that wind power can make a contribution. My view, however, is that if you want to develop wind power successfully in Australia you ensure that local communities have a say in it. You do not do as Mr Hulls has done in Victoria and as Ms MacTiernan is doing in Western Australia: ride roughshod over the views of local communities. I think it is incredibly important that local communities have a say in this, particularly if, for every two wind turbines you see turning in Gippsland now you will see five under the Latham-Beazley policy of support for wind farms. That is a fact. It is not politics; it is a fact. Under the Latham-Beazley model you will get five wind turbines for every two under the Liberals’ policy. That is the reality. If Senator Faulkner wants to call that politics, he can call it what he wants, but that is a reality. The people of Gippsland are very concerned about their landscape. They are very concerned about their unique Australian flora and fauna. The reality is that you can save threatened species and have a climate change policy that stops the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. You can actually do both if you take a constructive approach and do not play politics with it, as Labor has done on this. 30 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 Senator FAULKNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that answer, Minister, can you confirm that in April this year you threatened to ‘unilaterally extend federal powers’ to allow you to veto wind farm proposals on the grounds of local opposition? Given the minister’s failure to get any state to agree to his national code, will the minister now carry out that threat? Minister, can you now explain to the Senate exactly what powers you will be unilaterally extending and what section of the Constitution you will be relying on? 31 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I have made it quite clear to the states that if you want to build a climate change policy that has wind as part of the renewables response to it, you cannot have state Labor governments continuing to ride roughshod over the views of local communities. You need to engage them. In Western Australia, the new Minister for the Environment, Mr McGowan, said at a recent meeting of environment ministers: ‘Sometimes you have got to roll over the local community’—as he sought to do in the town of Denmark in Western Australia, and as Mr Hulls has done in Gippsland. He said to local communities, ‘You cannot have a say.’ The approach is to build a set of guidelines to ensure that communities have a say in the future of their communities. We know that Labor is opposed to that. We know that, down in Gippsland, for every two wind turbines that will be built under this government, they will build five. And they will do it without any reference to the views of local communities. 31 14:53:00 31 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 Senator ALLISON —My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the minister advise the Senate about what the Prime Minister’s six-monthly review of the voluntary Biofuels Action Plan found? Isn’t it the case that the Prime Minister’s review last June found that the oil companies were not remotely likely to achieve their first year target of 124 megalitres? Isn’t it the case that once again the oil companies have thumbed their collective noses at the government about taking up renewable fuels? Isn’t it the case that ethanol and biodiesel producers already make well over 124 megalitres a year but that oil companies will not take it up? Will you now proceed to mandate ethanol and biodiesel? 31 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —I thank Senator Allison for that question. On 22 December 2005, the government released its Biofuels Action Plan, under which the major oil companies, major retailers and independents undertook to develop Australia’s biofuels industry. That plan shows that the industry expects to exceed the government’s biofuels production target of at least 350 megalitres by 2010. In 2006 there have been a number of announcements and new contracts have been signed, which shows that the industry is well on track to achieve our target. BP will produce 110 megalitres of biodiesel per annum by 2007, using new technology which, I am advised, is a world first—from the biological and renewable feedstock animal tallow. The BP renewable diesel is a biofuel, just like ordinary biodiesel and ethanol. The government will make the necessary legislative changes so that it receives the same effective tax treatment as normal biodiesel. BP will also supply 80 megalitres of ethanol in Western Australia from 2008. Australian Renewable Fuels has opened a 45-megalitre biodiesel plant in South Australia. Indeed, I was the presiding minister and officially opened that plant, and I had pleasure in so doing. I understand that Australian Renewable Fuels also plans to roll out a total of five biodiesel plants by 2007. The extent of investments to date, as I have outlined, does represent a major step in the development of Australia’s biofuels industry and does signal to consumers, producers and the financial sector a strong degree of commitment to the industry’s future. I think that the Biofuels Action Plan is on track. We are supporting this industry and we do want to see it develop as an alternative fuel source. It is never going to be the answer to Australia’s transport fuels, but it has a proper place in the mix, it is receiving government support, and the industry is now behind it. I was asked about the issue of mandating. No, it is not government policy to mandate the consumption of ethanol in the fuel mix. We are doing what we think is appropriate to provide the industry with the opportunity to market its products. It is the industry’s job to convince ordinary Australians that they should purchase this product. It is not for the government to mandate that Australians must put this particular product in their cars. The government does not share that view at all; we do not think that is the right path to go down, but we do want to set in place arrangements which ensure that this industry has the opportunity to find a place in the fuels mix in Australia, and we think we are doing what is appropriate with the resources available to the government. But, at the end of the day, it is for the industry to persuade consumers that they should consume this product. 32 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator ALLISON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate when the report will be made available so we can see progress so far? Is it not the case that the commitment by BP is for 2007 and the other reference was for 2008, yet the industry made a commitment to the government to achieve 124 megalitres this year? Isn’t it the case that forcing the oil companies to take up biofuels would drive down the price of petrol and diesel and that is why they are so reluctant? Minister, when will the Prime Minister have the courage to take on the oil companies and make petrol more affordable and our energy sources more secure? 32 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator MINCHIN —I will see what information I can provide in terms of the availability of the report and make sure that information is drawn to your attention. I think that the suggestion that the government should go around bullying the oil companies is fatuous and ridiculous. The oil companies are cooperating with us. The oil companies in this country should not receive the castigation of this parliament. The oil companies in this country do provide a great service to Australians. While Australians do not like high oil prices, they are experiencing the fourth lowest petrol prices in the developed world. We have a highly competitive retail industry in petrol, and we do have alternatives available in biodiesel, ethanol, LPG and other things. The main thing is to allow the government to work and not to go around bullying the oil companies, as the Democrats would suggest. 32 14:59:00 32 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’BRIEN —My question is to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Can the minister confirm that the Biosis report, on which he relied to block the Bald Hills wind farm, estimated that on average one theoretical orange-bellied parrot might be killed at the site every thousand years? Did the report conclude that theoretically only 15 parrots would even fly through the site each year? Isn’t it true that the report also noted that it had intentionally overestimated the risk posed by wind farms therefore overstating the likelihood of collisions? Doesn’t the Biosis report conclude that the very small combined impact of the 23 wind farms it studied should be offset by conservation measures? Why didn’t the minister heed that advice? 32 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Firstly, I thank Senator O’Brien for the question because it gives me the opportunity to, again, put to bed another myth that has been taken out of bed by Mr Hulls and his propaganda unit down in the Victorian government. We have the Victorian Labor Party, Senator Carr’s comrades, going around trying to convince people that they care about the environment, care about heritage, in the lead up to the Victorian election. The hypocrisy is really mind blowing. Here is a minister who received a report—this is the Victorian government Department of Sustainability and Environment report—that said that there was a significant risk to the extinction of this species. It said that they fly through the site. 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’Brien —Mr President, on a point of order: my question was about the actions of this minister in this parliament, not a minister in another parliament about another project. I ask you to draw the minister’s attention to the question. He is not being relevant to the question which was asked. He is therefore not answering the question as he is supposed to be doing under the standing orders. 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —I remind the minister he has nearly three minutes left to complete his answer, and I remind him of the question. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Thank you for the reminder, Mr President. What Senator O’Brien is clearly ignorant of is that, as part of the approvals process, we rely on an enormous number of reports. One of them was the Biosis report. Let us put the myth to bed. Senator O’Brien is obviously very keen to know the truth about this. The Biosis report did not say that at all. The Biosis report came to one conclusion. It said that if you build this wind farm it will have an impact on orange-bellied parrots. It will have an impact on wedge-tailed eagles, white-bellied sea eagles and swift parrots but, in relation to orange-bellied parrots, it would hasten their extinction. That is what the report said. Nowhere in that report did it say that the potential risk was one in 1,000. That is a statement that was put out by Mr Hulls. That was a statement put out by Senator Carr’s Labor Party comrade for political purposes. It is untrue, it is not based on that report and the people who wrote the report have said so. All we do know is that Labor has no cohesive climate change policy except that they have hung onto Senator Faulkner’s idea from back in 1995. Faced with what we now know was a significant challenge to the global and Australian environment from climate change, what was the one idea Senator Faulkner came up with as environment minister? His response to climate change was to bring in a carbon tax. Ten years later, 10 years in opposition, probably half-a-dozen shadow ministers for the environment since, what is Mr Beazley’s policy? A new carbon tax. The Labor Party has not moved from there, whereas the coalition has brought in a comprehensive environmental protection regime, a comprehensive climate change action program and billions of dollars of investment to support solar, wind power, geothermal and the sequestration of carbon, the capture of carbon. We have a comprehensive climate change program and also the most comprehensive protection regime under a very strong environment law which is aimed not only to protect threatened species—like parrots, like wedge-tailed eagles—but also to invest in their recovery. Over $1 million has been spent just on the orange-bellied parrot in the last 10 years, protecting its habitat and trying to build its resilience. What Labor would tell you is that you can continue to build five wind turbines for every two we build down in Gippsland and hang the impact on the environment. You should be able to do both. That is what we are trying to do. 33 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’BRIEN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister did not attempt to answer the substance of the question. Can the minister confirm that Bald Hills was one of 14 wind farms that were identified by Biosis as potentially being on the migration path of the orange-bellied parrot? Is it true that some of these wind farms were approved without conditions, even though they posed a greater risk to the orange-bellied parrot than Bald Hills? Can the minister also explain why he has approved without conditions 800 other wind turbines since becoming minister but blocked the Bald Hills proposal? Why was Bald Hills blocked and the other 800 turbines approved? 34 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —If he wants to be consistent, that is a question that Senator O’Brien should ask his comrade in Victoria Mr Hulls. He should say, ‘Why is it, Mr Hulls, that the Victorian Labor Party, on the basis of a report that said 2.7 wedge--tailed eagles will get killed a year, stopped a wind farm in a Labor electorate but approved one 200 miles away?’ The hypocrisy of Labor on this is absolutely palpable. They are totally inconsistent. They do not have a climate change policy. They do not have a threatened species policy. After 10 years in opposition, the only thing they have left is John Faulkner’s old idea of a carbon tax—to put up the price of fuel on Australian motorists, to put up energy prices in their homes. They should actually go back to the drawing board and stop playing politics with these important issues. JX4 Minchin, Sen Nick (Leader of the Government in the Senate) Senator Minchin —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 34 MISCELLANEOUS 34 15:06:00 PRESIDENT, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The PRESIDENT —Before moving to the take note debate, I would like to remind the Senate that this is the first sitting day since one of our distinguished senators marked his 25th anniversary in the chamber. Senator Robert Ray was elected at the 1980 election. His term commenced on 1 July 1981. He took his seat as a senator for Victoria on 18 August 1981. I should have told him I was going to say this and he would not have removed himself from the chamber. On behalf of all senators, I warmly congratulate Senator Robert Ray on his achievement and on his contribution to Australia. Honourable senators—Hear, hear! 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 34 34 15:07:00 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP Leader of the Opposition in the Senate 0 0 Senator CHRIS EVANS —I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the proposed wind farm at Bald Hills, Victoria. What we saw in question time today was the minister’s attempt to defend his complete public humiliation last Friday when confronted with a court process that called into question his totally politically charged decision to knock over a wind farm proposition. What we saw as a result of the court hearings was that the minister was forced to accept a settlement which said that he would reconsider his decision according to law, the clear implication being that the first decision was not determined according to law but was a decision made according to politics—base politics that the minister pursued. The minister today wanted to discuss the Victorian government, the WA government and something to do with the Supreme Court building in Victoria. He also discussed John Faulkner’s period as environment minister. Distinguished though it was, that did not seem to me to be all that relevant to the minister having to publicly explain why he put in a political fix, why he misused and abused his role as environment minister and why he sought to put political considerations in front of his obligations as a minister of the crown. The minister’s behaviour in relation to the Bald Hills application for a wind farm is a sorry tale. He spent 450 days in search of a dead parrot. Here are the numbers on this issue: the minister was told that you would get one dead parrot in 1,000 years and that in the 10,000 sightings made when surveying the area they had not found one orange-bellied parrot—they had sighted 10,000 birds but not one parrot. What we know is that although this application was denied he approved 800 other turbines around the coast. While 800 turbines were approved, the Bald Hills application was knocked over—and this is despite the fact that a lot of these turbines were in areas where there is a genuine risk to the orange-bellied parrot and where there have been sightings and are breeding grounds. What is at the heart of this is that for 450 days the minister refused to make a decision. Why? Because he was in search of an excuse. He was required under the act to make a decision within 30 days, but he took 450 days. From October 2004 until April this year he refused to make a decision. Why? Because he was looking for a justification to knock over the application. What do we know? We know that every piece of advice that he got said that there was no justification for knocking back the application. His department and the scientific advice all said one thing: ‘There is no basis for you to refuse this application.’ The best he could do was to dredge up a dead parrot and say, ‘There is some minute risk to a parrot, and that is my justification for knocking off this one application.’ He approved 800 other turbines on the basis of the same sort of advice. He did not even require some applications to come to him. But he intervened in this case to ensure that this application did not go ahead. Why? What was the only thing on the record that would support his decision? I give the minister credit for this, because he is honest in the sense that he honoured a political promise to the people of McMillan. He said before the election when writing to the electors that he would not allow that application to go ahead. Without any evidence and without any consideration for his role as minister he promised that it would be stopped. And you have to give him his dues: he did stop it. He put in the political fix. It took him 450 days to find the dead parrot to use as his excuse, but he finally found that and he hung the decision on that. What we know is: at the first whiff of court action, he was humiliated. He had to withdraw and pay the legal costs of the other side because his advice was that he did not have a case. Now he has had to commit to going back and reconsidering his decision. It is a humiliating backdown, and what it shows is that he is not fit to be the minister for the environment. No-one—not industry, not the environmental community—can have any confidence in the decision-making processes, because they know that he will put a political fix in front of proper decision making. 35 15:12:00 Johnston, Sen David 00AON Western Australia LP 1 0 Senator JOHNSTON —How quickly petrol prices and interest rates vanish from the Labor Party’s perspective when there is a little bit of cheap politics to engage in. There they are bleating about petrol prices and interest rates, and today’s question time focuses on the orange-bellied parrot. My goodness! The credentials of this minister render him as one of the best environment ministers that this country has ever seen. On the issue of whales alone, right around Western Australia there are people who make livings from whale watching and dolphin swimming. They are in electorates in regional Australia, electorates that the opposition does not know of or understand. In taking the stand that he has on so many environmental frontiers, he has assured the jobs of very many regional Australians in particular. He brings an energy and an enthusiasm to this portfolio, in utter and stark contrast to the environmental ministers in each of the states of our great country. I want to draw attention to the fact that in Western Australia we have a scandalous environmental situation. Indeed, it is very timely that Senator Evans has led this debate in taking note of answers to questions. Since 2001, when the Labor Party took over in Western Australia, 4.2 million litres of raw sewage have gone into the Swan River. Not one single charge has flowed from that. This is because the previous environmental minister had absolutely no idea. One thing I can say about Senator Ian Campbell that is very important is that he is responsive to people and communities. That is a concept that, sadly, the opposition have in recent times not come to terms with. Let me highlight how absolutely stupid the minister in Western Australia was. The minister had an EPA licence for the Midland brickworks. 3L6 Conroy, Sen Stephen Senator Conroy —What does this have to do with parrots? 00AON Johnston, Sen David Senator JOHNSTON —This illustrates how good Labor’s environmental credentials are. The minister failed to read the licence properly and allowed the Midland brickworks to emit hydrogen fluoride to a level five times greater than the licence permitted, because she applied the licence across the five kiln stacks instead of to the whole plant. Since 2004 the people of Midland have been exposed to this absolutely outrageous toxicity from the Midland brickworks because the Labor Party’s environmental minister in Western Australia could not read plain English. And the Labor Party have come in here today and said that Senator Campbell is in error! In Western Australia, under the EPA—which virtually controls and locks up the whole of Western Australia—it takes 13 to 18 months to issue an EPA licence to a local small Western Australian shire to make road alterations. To clean up the verge of a road, you have to have an EPA licence in Western Australia, and it takes the EPA 13 to 18 months to issue that licence. Let us have a look at the sorts of credentials the opposition bring to the table here. There is a raging debate throughout Australia with respect to the location of wind farms and turbines. One of the most important things that any federal minister can do is listen to community concerns and look at the environmental impact of those developments. Looking at what has happened in Western Australia, heaven help Australia if there were to be the same level of ineptitude, complete stupidity and gross incompetence replicated by having those on the opposite side of this chamber elected to government. It would be absolutely frightening. It would be a nightmare. Thank heavens for Senator Ian Campbell. 36 15:17:00 Conroy, Sen Stephen 3L6 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CONROY —I also rise to take note of Senator Ian Campbell’s contribution in question time today. If there were any remaining doubt that Senator Ian Campbell has disgracefully abused his position as Minister for the Environment and Heritage, that doubt was buried today under the pile of parrot droppings that the Senate has been subjected to. For months, Senator Campbell has spuriously claimed to be the defender of the orange-bellied parrot. Today, he effectively gave the Senate the bird. He denied the undeniable. He refused to accept that he has been caught out abusing his powers under environmental laws to protect a Liberal Party mate. The facts are now plain for the whole world to see. He has distorted the scientific evidence, he has squandered taxpayers’ money and he has undermined valuable investment in renewable energy. In the run-up to the 2004 election, the minister, Senator Campbell, made it clear that he would do all he could to protect Russell Broadbent, the endangered Liberal Party candidate for McMillan. Senator Campbell told the voters of McMillan that he had ‘undoubted powers’ to veto the wind farm. He made no mention at that time of the orange-bellied parrot. Nevertheless, Senator Campbell was confident that he would find some legal basis for intervening. He gave voters a nod and a wink—‘Elect Mr Broadbent and I’ll stop this project.’ The problem for Senator Campbell is that the law actually requires the minister to have a reason for intervening that stands up to scrutiny. The need to win a marginal seat for the coalition government just does not cut it. One of his advisers may have told Senator Campbell that he needed an excuse that would fly. Senator Campbell appears to have taken it literally. He latched on to the orange-bellied parrot. Following the election, Senator Campbell spent 16 months shopping around for some scientific evidence to back the decision he had already made to stop the wind farm. We now know that this evidence was very hard to come by. In December 2004 Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants told the minister ‘any impacts on bird populations appear to be negligible’. Of course, this was the wrong answer for Senator Campbell, so he commissioned another study, from a firm called Biosis. Biosis concluded that blocking the Bald Hills wind farm would have ‘extremely limited beneficial value to the conservation of the parrot’. Biosis modelling found that there could be one parrot killed by the wind turbines every 1,000 years—one parrot every 1,000 years. In March, the minister’s own department told him that the wind farm at Bald Hills posed a ‘negligible threat to the parrot’. The department states that ‘no orange-bellied parrot has been recorded there’, ‘there appears to be no suitable habitat on site’ and ‘it is not considered to be a major migration passage’. Despite the weight of evidence, Senator Campbell blocked the wind farm. Understandably, the backers of the wind farm instituted legal proceedings against the minister to overturn the decision. Last week, the minister had his day in court—and he was caught out. His parrots came home to roost. The court ordered that the minister’s decision should be set aside and that the minister reconsider the decision according to the law. It also ordered the Commonwealth to pay the costs of the proceedings. That is right: taxpayers will be asked to underwrite Senator Campbell’s blatant political favouritism. Senator Campbell talked today about these being consent orders. The Senate should have no doubt that the minister was well advised by the Australian Government Solicitor on this matter. Senator Campbell agreed to the consent orders because his lawyers knew that his case was doomed. This case has exposed the corrupt way that environmental law is administered by this minister. This minister’s administration of the portfolio is like something you could expect in a tin-pot Third World country—or from the Western Australia Liberal Party. If you are investing in wind farms in this country, you need not only an environmental impact statement but also a political impact study. It is about time that Senator Campbell paid the price for this. Senator Ian Campbell is not yet a dead parrot, but he is a very naughty boy! (Time expired) 37 15:22:00 Eggleston, Sen Alan 4L6 Western Australia LP 1 0 Senator EGGLESTON —Senator Conroy’s speech illustrated as nothing else could how desperate the ALP is to grasp and find some niche to attack the government with on its environmental record. The fact is that the Howard government has done more for the environment than any other government in this country’s history has and, in particular, has done more for the environment than that which occurred in the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments. Senator Faulkner, for example, was the minister for the environment and achieved almost nothing. Now, we have a government which has a fine record and has advanced the care of the environment in Australia across the board and made it a very high priority. First of all, this government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act— 5K4 Faulkner, Sen John Senator Faulkner —What about the orange-bellied parrot? 4L6 Eggleston, Sen Alan Senator EGGLESTON —You are looking for something, I know, Senator Faulkner. The ALP is desperate to find something, and they have latched on to the orange-bellied parrot, hoping that the rest of us will not take note of the fact that their record in environmental management was so absolutely dismal and amounted to nothing much at all to place on the record. First of all, the Howard government introduced the environment and biodiversity act, which, for the first time, gave the federal government a right to intervene in environmental issues. That has meant that it is now much easier for these big projects to be given an environmental assessment, which means that a broad range of environmental issues can be dealt with by the federal government before they get towards their conclusions. Previously, in many cases, the federal government could only be involved if the Foreign Investment Review Board provisions were invoked. The environment and biodiversity act was the first great achievement of the Howard government in the environment, but of course there have been many more. In particular, we turn to the Natural Heritage Trust, which, Mr Deputy President, you would know about because you are a man of great intelligence and have a great feeling for what the government has done in Queensland with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The Natural Heritage Trust committed $3 billion to the largest and most successful environmental restoration program in Australian history. The trust involves national, regional and local governments, and empowers community organisations in some 56 regions across the country to identify and solve local environment problems. Opposition senators interjecting— 4L6 Eggleston, Sen Alan Senator EGGLESTON —We have mentioned the parrot because we know that that is all you can latch on to. This government’s record on the environment is so impeccable, so strong, that all you poor people on the other side can do is latch on to the poor little orange-bellied parrot. When it comes to the question of climate change, the Howard government has an outstanding record by world standards. We are meeting our Kyoto targets, even though we regard the Kyoto agreement as a hollow agreement, a meaningless agreement, which will do almost nothing to reduce climate change problems secondary to greenhouse. The Kyoto agreement is something that we are not signing, but we are meeting its targets, and we have a very fine record in that area. Australia, under the Howard government, was the first and only government in the world at that stage to establish a national greenhouse office. 5K4 Faulkner, Sen John Senator Faulkner —Oh, sit down; you’re embarrassing yourself and your party. Just shut up! 4L6 Eggleston, Sen Alan Senator EGGLESTON —Senator Faulkner, I know you are embarrassed. I understand your embarrassment, and if you feel so embarrassed about the record of the ALP in government over their poor environmental record then perhaps you should leave the chamber. We have not only introduced the Natural Heritage Trust and looked after the greenhouse effect but we also have programs to manage ocean quality and protect the Great Barrier Reef. This government has a very fine and outstanding record of environmental control. We have introduced a mandatory renewable energy targets program. This government is impeccable in its record on the environment, and for you people to latch on to a small issue like the orange-bellied parrot just states how— (Time expired) 39 15:27:00 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 0 Senator FAULKNER —I have just heard the two worst speeches from Senator Eggleston and Senator Johnston, not even attempting to defend Senator Ian Campbell and his ministerial malpractice over the orange-bellied parrot. The orange-bellied parrot affair is not about environmental protection; it is about politics. The orange-bellied parrot affair is not about a threatened bird species; it is about McMillan, a threatened Liberal Party seat in Victoria. In pursuit of that political outcome that Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, sought, what have we seen? We have seen the environmental assessment processes of this country debauched by Senator Campbell. We have seen the minister reject his departmental advice, the professional advice, the expert advice, the scientific advice, that he received. We have seen Minister Campbell shopping around for new and different advices in the vain hope that he would eventually find one that suited his political objectives on this issue. We have seen a huge amount of public moneys wasted on unnecessary bureaucratic and legal wrangling. And of course, finally, we have seen the utter and complete humiliation of Senator Campbell. Senator Campbell, as environment minister of this country, is charged with very heavy responsibilities. He is charged with the protection of Australia’s environment and he is charged with ensuring that the use of our natural resources occurs in accordance with strict environmental guidelines. Senator Campbell, as we have heard, is the minister who likes the soft option. He likes grandstanding at the International Whaling Commission to stop the slaughter of whales. He is right about that; every single Australian agrees with him about that. It takes no political courage to stand up on that issue. But it does take political courage and political integrity to balance competing issues in marginal electorates, do what is best for your country and behave with ministerial propriety and integrity. You don’t just do what is best for your party; you have other responsibilities. Minister Campbell has failed that test comprehensively. It also takes political courage as an environment minister to stand up on tough issues like greenhouse and climate change—courage that Senator Campbell has never demonstrated. He has been missing in action on those most crucial global issues. There are no more important issues facing the world than those. What do we get from this minister traditionally? Temper tantrums, immature behaviour, puerile rants and raves, and political attacks. That is the modus operandi of Senator Campbell, and it is not good enough. What we have seen from Senator Campbell today is a yellow-bellied performance about the orange-bellied parrot. In any other government in the Western world this sort of performance would end with either a resignation or a sacking. We know the chances of Senator Campbell doing the proper and honourable thing here and the chances of Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, doing the proper and honourable thing in relation to this issue are as remote as the chance of one of Senator Campbell’s parrots in 1,000 years hitting a rotor blade at Bald Hills wind farm. That is the chance of them doing the right thing. But Senator Campbell should resign. This is a resigning offence and he should go. Question agreed to. 40 40 15:34:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —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 Milne today relating to petrol prices. All Australians should be seriously alarmed at the complete failure of leadership of the federal government on this matter of Australia’s future oil supply and the notion of peak oil. What has been clear for some time to me and other people who look at global energy is that the age of cheap, plentiful, easily accessible oil is over. Whether or not we have now reached peak oil or will reach it in the next decade—and there is certainly a growing consensus of opinion that that will be the case—the fact is we have gone past the period when oil can be found easily, pumped easily, refined and put onto the global market. We are now in a situation where the world has started using more oil than it found in 1981, and by 2005 only about one barrel of regular conventional oil was found for every five or six consumed. Oil has to be found before it can be produced. What we are seeing is a lot more money being spent on fewer and fewer discoveries and smaller and smaller fields. We are looking, as Colin Campbell has said, at the long, remorseless and relentless decline that is the other side of the oil peak. So what we heard Senator Minchin say today, that supply is a function of price, that if the price goes high enough then you will find oil, is a complete nonsense. Oil and gas are finite resources, and we are now in the age of decline. What we ought to be doing is recognising that Australia has to get off its dependence on oil as quickly as possible. We know that, for example, Australia currently imports about 25 per cent or more of its oil, and that is set to double by 2015. So within less than 10 years we are going to be importing more than 50 per cent of our oil—if it is available at all. We have to take into account that countries, not companies, own the oil around the world. Some 80 per cent of the oil is owned by the Saudis, the Russians, a lot of African countries and so on, and they might not necessarily want to sell it to us anyway because they have already entered into long-term supply contracts with countries such as China. The fact is the Saudis have exaggerated their reserves—we know that. We know that climate change is taking out production and refining facilities and we know there are geopolitical factors in play. Australia is in trouble because of its high dependence on oil. We have to rapidly shift to oil-proofing the country. That is why the Greens argued for an oil inquiry. That is why we argued that we should not have had tax cuts this year but should have spent the money on investing in public transport in our cities to start reducing Australia’s dependence on oil. Reducing our use of cars in the cities would be good for congestion, good for greenhouse and good because of oil prices. We argued for a mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standard. The Chinese have got one. It is no use signing up to an Australia-China free trade agreement when the cars we produce in Australia will not meet the mandatory Chinese fuel efficiency standard for a start. We need to offer incentives to get cars, business fleets and heavy vehicles onto natural gas and LPG as transitional fuels, and they are transitional fuels. We need to look at, as the Premier of Western Australia has said, setting ourselves an Australian reserve of gas. We are in an energy crisis here, and it is not something that the market will fix. ABARE has said that we can liquefy coal, but we cannot because of the climate change ramifications. The emissions from the tailpipe from liquid coal are the same as those of conventional oil, and we cannot live with that in a world threatened by climate change. We have to accept that Australia must do what Sweden has done and set a target to get ourselves off imported oil and become oil free, or as least dependent as possible, as quickly as possible and stop talking about short-term bandaids and recognise the biggest threat—the risk to the Australian economy from climate change and oil depletion—and do something about it. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 41 CONDOLENCES 41 41 15:38:00 PRESIDENT, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The PRESIDENT —It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 17 July 2006, of the Hon. Dr Reginald John David Turnbull, a senator for the state of Tasmania from 1962 to 1974. 41 15:38:00 Minchin, Sen Nick (Leader of the Government in the Senate) JX4 South Australia LP Leader of the Government in the Senate 1 0 Senator MINCHIN —by leave—I move: That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 17 July 2006, of the Honourable Dr Reginald John David (Spot) Turnbull, former senator for Tasmania, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Reginald John David Turnbull was born in Shanghai, China, in 1908. His family returned to Australia 10 years later, where he was educated first at Wesley College, Melbourne, and later studied medicine at the University of Melbourne. At the age of 28, Spot Turnbull, as he was widely known, opened a medical practice in Launceston, before enlisting in the Australia military force in 1942. He later served with the 2nd Australian Imperial Force and was a major with the 12th Australian Field Ambulance. Spot Turnbull entered the Tasmanian state parliament in 1946, beginning a long and distinguished political career. He served as Labor’s Minister for Health for 11 years and subsequently as his state’s Treasurer. His achievements in Tasmania included overseeing the introduction of fluoride to town water to improve dental health—a very worthy achievement—the introduction of compulsory X-rays to help fight tuberculosis, improvements to women’s health services and encouraging the establishment of the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Tasmania. In 1962, former Senator Turnbull entered the Senate to serve as Australia’s first Independent senator—a significant claim to fame in this place. He continued in this role until his retirement 12 years later, in 1974, except during the eight months from August 1969 when he led the Australia Party. He was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare from 1970 to 1971 and was a parliamentary adviser on the Australian delegations to the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York in 1970 and 1971. Aside from his contribution to the Tasmanian and Commonwealth parliaments, he was a Launceston City Council alderman and served as Mayor of Launceston from 1964 to 1966. Throughout his long political career, he remained a practising GP. I think it is fair to say that Spot Turnbull will be remembered as a politician with a commitment to helping people and, as I am reliably advised by Senator Ferris, who knew former Senator Turnbull, he was one of this Senate’s great characters. It was a life of great public service at all three levels of government—a relatively rare degree of service and achievement. On behalf of the government, I offer condolences to his wife, Nell, and his children, Shann, Hamish and Marsha. 42 15:41:00 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP Leader of the Opposition in the Senate 0 0 Senator CHRIS EVANS —On behalf of the opposition, I would like to support the motion of condolence moved by Senator Minchin following the death, on 17 July this year, of the Hon. Dr Reginald Turnbull, who I understand was better known as Spot. I inquired about the reasons, and apparently it was to do with some sort of facial spot, but it is a great Australian nickname. On behalf of all Labor senators, I would like to extend our sympathies to his widow, children, family and friends. Reginald Turnbull had a long and, dare I say it, controversial career in politics at the local, state and federal levels, including serving 12 years in the Senate as a representative of the state of Tasmania. As Senator Minchin said, interestingly he was born in Shanghai in 1908 and trained in medicine, a discipline he continued to practise throughout his long career in public life. During World War II, he served as a major with the 12th Australian Field Ambulance. In 1946, he was elected a Labor member for the seat of Bass in the Tasmanian House of Assembly. He remained in the House of Assembly for 15 years, until 1961. During his 15 years in state parliament, he served as the Minister for Health for more than 10 years and was responsible for the introduction of a variety of important health services. These included the introduction of fluoride to town water, the introduction of compulsory X-rays to fight tuberculosis and the establishment in Tasmania of the Royal Flying Doctor Service. For a time, he also served as Tasmanian Treasurer. I think it is fair to say that with his distinctive personal style he cut a highly controversial figure in the Tasmanian Labor Party and in public life more generally. After a decade in the Tasmanian cabinet and some considerable controversy, he was eventually estranged from Labor. I do not know what it is about Tasmania, but we seem to have a record of that. It is obviously a very independent group of people in Tasmania. Nonetheless, Reginald Turnbull was regarded and is remembered as an intelligent, committed and somewhat larger-than-life individual. He was a very popular man in his home state and gave many years to public life. He was elected to the Senate as an Independent in 1961 for a term commencing in 1962 and was re-elected in 1967. From 1959 to 1967, he served as an alderman on Launceston City Council, with a period as mayor between 1964 and 1966. Thus he balanced the dual roles of Independent senator and Mayor of Launceston for two years and continued to practise medicine. I dare say he was a very busy man. For a period of about eight months from August 1969 he was leader and sole representative in the federal parliament of the Australia Party. In the early days of the Senate standing committee system he was a member of the committee on health and welfare. As I understand it, he was also a parliamentary adviser to the Australian delegation to both the 25th and 27th sessions of the General Assembly of the UN in the early 1970s. He retired from the Senate in 1974. Despite his retirement he remained interested in politics and apparently even considered running for the seat of Bass in 1977. Dr Turnbull was married twice. His first wife, Elizabeth Turnbull, passed away in the 1980s. He is survived by his widow, Nell, and by his three children. He was clearly a person who made an enormous contribution to public life in this country and was, obviously, a very interesting character. To his family and friends in this time of mourning I extend the sympathies of all opposition senators. 43 15:45:00 Watson, Sen John VJ4 Tasmania LP 1 0 Senator WATSON —I wish to be associated with this condolence motion for former Senator Spot Turnbull. Spot Turnbull was a giant of a man—as a medical doctor, as an influential mayor of Launceston, as a distinguished minister in the state Labor government—Treasurer, and Minister for Health for 10 years—and as a senator in this place for three terms. Mr Kenneth von Bibra, a friend of the late senator, described him as a ‘larger than life character’. Spot Turnbull, as he was affectionately known, had a pioneering role in so many areas. I mention the Royal Flying Doctor Service, compulsory testing for tuberculosis, water fluoridisation, pap smears and so on. The state has indeed lost a pioneer and, as I said earlier, a giant of a man. I extend to his widow, his family and his friends my sympathy as a Tasmanian senator, and I thank God for his life. 43 15:46:00 PRESIDENT, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The PRESIDENT —I would like to add a few words of tribute to the motion of condolence for the late Hon. Dr Reginald Turnbull. Spot Turnbull was one of the most significant political figures in Tasmanian politics in the second half of the 20th century. He was an MHA for Bass from 1946 until 1961, when he resigned to successfully contest a Senate election. He was a gifted physician who contributed greatly to improvements in public health. He was Australia’s second Independent senator and served in the Senate for 13 years. He had previously been a Tasmanian Minister for Health and later Treasurer in the Cosgrove and Reece Labor governments. In local government, as has been said, Dr Turnbull was a popular and effective mayor of Launceston while serving as a senator. He was once described as the ‘stormy petrel’ of Tasmanian politics, and I think that would be a label Spot would have relished. He remained interested in politics throughout his long life and attended celebrations in Melbourne to mark the Centenary of Federation in 2001. He received a Centenary of Federation Medal for his parliamentary service. Following his 90th birthday, Spot indulged in a series of living wakes because he said he would not spend money on parties he could not attend. I thank Senator Julian McGauran for representing me and the Senate at Dr Turnbull’s funeral service in the chapel at Wesley College. My condolences go to his wife, Nell, herself the daughter of the great surgeon Sir John Ramsay, and to Spot’s three children, Dr Shann Turnbull, Dr Hamish Turnbull and Marsha, Lady Grimwade. I now invite honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their support for the motion. Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places. 43 PETITIONS 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 5F4 00AOP Senator Calvert Senator Marshall 348 43 To the honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 can mean children in detention again. Indefinite detention will return, and case managed mental health care is over. The Commonwealth Immigration Ombudsman will also lose oversight of asylum seekers when they are sent to a remote foreign island for processing. Your petitioners request that the Senate: Vote against the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006. 306 5F4 The President The President (from 306 citizens). 42 00AOP Senator Marshall Senator Marshall (from 42 citizens). 5F4 Senator Calvert 145 44 The internet is a great educational tool. However children can too easily access pictures of violent cruelty and extreme pornography on the internet. Labor wants a “clean feed” technology that can block access to these kinds of sites. To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate, the danger of children accessing internet pornography and other internet pages. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to make laws that: All internet service providers be required to offer a “clean feed” internet service to all households, schools and public libraries that blocks access to websites containing child pornography, acts of extreme violence and x-rated material. 145 5F4 The President The President (from 145 citizens). DT6 Senator Bartlett 14 44 To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned calls on the members of the Senate to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval for Australian Involvement in Overseas conflict) Bill introduced by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Andrew Bartlett and the Democrats’ Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja. Presently, the Prime Minister, through a Cabinet decision and the authority of the Defence Act, has the power to send Australian troops to an overseas conflict without the support of the United Nations, the Australian Parliament or the Australian people. The Howard Government has been the first Government in our history to go to war without majority Parliament support. It is time to take the decision to commit troops to overseas conflict out of the hands of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and place it with the Parliament. 14 DT6 Senator Bartlett Senator Bartlett (from 14 citizens). DT6 Senator Bartlett 133 44 To the Honourable Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled The petition of the undersigned draws attention to the important role played by the Staff Elected Director of the ABC board in providing vital firsthand knowledge of the day-to-day running of the national broadcaster. Your petitioners ask the Senate, in Parliament, to call on the Federal Government to commit to retaining this position, and to appointing the other ABC board members based on merit 133 DT6 Senator Bartlett Senator Bartlett (from 133 citizens). WW4 Senator Kemp 279 44 To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows: Witnesses, including an investigative journalist and a veteran military doctor have revealed that Falun Gong practitioners are being held in at least 36 concentration camps in China where they are routinely subject to the forced removals of their organs which are then sold for transplants and their bodies are then cremated to destroy all evidence. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate to initiate a resolution to: Call for the Australian Government to fully support the International Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG), and demand that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) immediately open the doors of all concentration camps, forced labour camps, hospitals, prisons and detention centres throughout the People’s Republic of China in order to allow independent teams to investigate the charges of illegal detention, torture and live organ removal for transplants. Demand that the CCP regime release all detained Falun Gong practitioners immediately. 279 WW4 Senator Kemp Senator Kemp (from 279 citizens). Petitions received. 45 NOTICES 45 45 15:49:00 Watson, Sen John VJ4 Tasmania LP 1 0 Senator WATSON —Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1, 2 and 3 standing in my name for eight sitting days after today, and notices of motion Nos 1, 4, 5 and 6 standing in my name for 11 sitting days after today. 45 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the President’s gallery of a member of the Russian Parliament, Mr Alexander Torshin, Vice-Chairman of the Federation Council. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators—Hear, hear! 45 NOTICES 45 Senator Stott Despoja to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— congratulates the following winners of the Australian Book Industry Awards, held in Sydney on 26 July 2006, on their literary achievement: Australian Publisher of the Year 2006: Allen & Unwin, Australian Independent Bookseller of the Year 2006: Riverbend Books, Australian Chain Bookseller of the Year 2006: Readings Carlton, Australian Book of the Year 2006: The Secret River by Kate Grenville, The Pixie O’Harris Award: Julie Watts, Australian Illustrated Book of the Year 2006: Italian Joy by Carla Coulson, Australian Biography of the Year 2006: Far From A Still Life: Margaret Olley by Meg Stewart, Australian General Non-Fiction Book of the Year 2006: The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change by Tim Flannery, Australian Book of the Year for Younger Children (age range 0 to 8 years) 2006: Little Fur: The Legend of Little Fur Book 1 by Isobelle Carmody, Australian Book of the Year for Older Children (age range 8 to 14 years) 2006: Does my Head Look Big in This? by Randa Abdel-Fattah, Australian Literary Fiction Book of the Year 2006: The Secret River by Kate Grenville, Australian General Fiction Book of the Year 2006: The Broken Shore by Peter Temple, Australian Newcomer of the Year (debut writer) 2006: A Man’s Got to Have a Hobby by William McInnes, Australian Export & Rights Development Award 2006: Allen & Unwin, Australian Marketing Campaign of the Year 2006: The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet by Dr Manny Noakes with Dr Peter Clifton, Australian Distributor of the Year 2006: Alliance Distribution Services, and Australian Small Publisher of the Year 2006: Scribe Publications; and acknowledges Mr John Marsden, who was awarded the Lloyd O’Neil Award for Services to the Australian Book Industry. Senator Stott Despoja to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate notes that 9 August 2006 marks the international day of action for the justice of the Japanese ‘Comfort Women’, who 61 years after the conclusion of World War II, are still yet to receive an apology or any official acknowledgment of the grave human rights abuses that were suffered at the hands of the Japanese military. Senators Stott Despoja, Humphries. Nettle and Payne to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes that: 11 July 2006 was the 15th anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations’ Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, 57 countries have signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol, including Australia, and while Australia has ratified the Second Optional Protocol, this Parliament has not yet adopted the Protocol into domestic law; reaffirms its opposition to capital punishment; and on a bipartisan level, calls for the Australian Government, the Federal Parliament and the parliaments of the states and territories to work together to adopt the Second Optional Protocol into domestic law with binding force over the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes that: on 7 September 2001, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly declared that the International Day of Peace should be observed annually on the fixed date of 21 September, as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has repeatedly urged member states of the UN to support the observance of a global ceasefire on the day, arguing that a global ceasefire would: provide a pause for reflection by the international community on the threats and challenges faced, offer mediators a building block towards a wider truce, as has been seen in nations such as Ghana and Zambia, encourage those involved in violent conflict to reconsider the wisdom of further violence, provide relief workers with a safe interlude for the provision of vital services and the supply of essential goods, allow freedom of movement and information, which is particularly beneficial to refugees and internally-displaced persons, and relieve those embroiled in violent conflict from the daily burden of fear for one’s own safety and the safety of others; supports the Australian organisations that intend to hold vigils, concerts and walks on 21 September 2006, in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Darwin and Brisbane; calls on the Government to actively support the observance of a ceasefire in Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq and the Solomon Islands on 21 September 2006 by ensuring that Australia’s armed forces: do not engage in hostilities for the duration of 21 September, unless provoked to do so in self-defence, promote the observance of a global ceasefire for the duration of 21 September, and promote the practice of non-violence for the duration of 21 September; and requests that the Government encourage other nation states to follow its lead. Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes that: The Secret River by author Ms Kate Grenville, has been awarded the Australian Literary Fiction Book of the Year 2006 and overall Australian Book of the Year 2006 in the Australian Book Industry Awards and the Commonwealth Writers Prize, and Far From a Still Life: Margaret Olley by author Ms Meg Stewart, has been awarded Australian Biography of the Year 2006; and congratulates Ms Grenville and Ms Stewart for their outstanding contributions to Australian literature. Senators Kemp and Lundy to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— congratulates the Australian Socceroos on their historic performance at the 2006 World Cup in Germany; also congratulates the outstanding results achieved by the Matildas recently on their qualification for the 2007 World Cup in China; congratulates the Football Federation of Australia for undertaking a comprehensive reform agenda in the sport of football, including the implementation of the recommendations of the Crawford report; acknowledges the important contribution of the Australian Sports Commission to the reform program and supports its development of young football players, particularly through the Australian Institute of Sport football program; and notes the commitment held by many Australians to football and supports the Commonwealth in its endeavours to support football in Australia. Senator Ian Campbell to move on the next day of sitting: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to environment and heritage, and for related purposes. Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Antarctic Seals and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Senator Brandis to move on the next day of sitting: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 be extended to 16 August 2006. Senator Stott Despoja to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes that: 8 August 2006 is the 18th anniversary of the Burmese military regime’s murderous suppression of the pro-democracy movement, while the pro-democracy uprising failed, international pressure placed on Rangoon led to the landmark 1990 parliamentary election, the lack of organised, sustained international pressure on Rangoon allowed the military junta to ignore the parliamentary election results, which saw a landslide victory for the pro-democracy National League for Democracy led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and this situation renewed military oppression in Burma which has lasted to this day, military repression in Burma has led to more than 500 000 documented Burmese political and economic refugees living in India, China and Thailand, while undocumented Burmese refugees living in Thailand are estimated to be in the millions, thousands of people have died and continue to die under the rule of the Burmese military, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and many hundreds of other political prisoners remain under detention within Burma; and calls on the Government to: urge the United Nations Security Council to pass a strong binding resolution addressing the urgent need for democratic reform and greater protection of human rights in Burma, and make representations to the Japanese, Chinese and Russian governments urging them to abandon any support they may have for the Burmese junta. Senator Stott Despoja to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate notes that: on 7 August 2006, Australian David Hicks commemorated his 31st birthday, his fifth in detention at Guantanamo Bay, where he has been held for four and a half years; the United States Supreme Court ruling in Hamden v Rumsfeld held that military commissions are ‘[in]consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States’ and thus ‘illegal’; in March 2006 the World Organization for Human Rights USA submitted a report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Torture, Arbitrary Detention, and other Major Human Rights Abuses by the United States: US Non-Compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in the Context of the ‘War on Terror’; this report highlights how the Government of the United States of America (US) has deliberately and systematically disregarded domestic American and international laws regarding human rights and civil liberties as the report makes the case that the US Government is in clear violation of the ICCPR, one of the fundamental protections against government-instigated oppression; and the findings of this report suggest that the US Government is intentionally worsening the situation of the remaining Guantanamo detainees, including Mr Hicks. Senators Chris Evans, Bartlett and Siewert to move on the next day of sitting contingent on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 being read a second time: That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that: The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 be divided into two bills, as follows: a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and for other purposes; and a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, to restrict certain entitlements of traditional Aboriginal land owners and for other purposes. The first bill consist of the enacting words, clauses 1, 2 and 3 and Schedule 1, all items except: item 46, section 19A; items 50 and 51; item 52, section 21A; item 65, section 28C; items 172 to 186; and item 192, subsections 67A(12) to (17) of the original bill, renumbered as necessary; and that the second bill consist of: Schedule 1, item 46, section 19A; items 50 and 51; item 52, section 21A; item 65, section 28C; items 172 to 186; and item 192, subsections 67A(12) to (17) of the original bill, renumbered as necessary. The following amendments be made to the second bill: title, insert the title as shown in paragraph (1)(b) of this order; after the title, insert the words of enactment; and after the words of enactment, insert the following clauses: 1 Short title This Act may be cited as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act (No. 2) 2006. 2 Commencement This Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. 3 Schedule(s) Each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms. That the bill as amended by this order be printed. Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes the horrible loss of life and injury that is occurring in Lebanon and Israel; and calls on the Government to call for an immediate ceasefire from all parties. Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting: That the Senate— notes that the report by the Edmund Rice Centre into returned Afghani asylum seekers found that: as many as nine men returned from Nauru may have been killed, and three children of people sent back from Nauru are confirmed as killed, and that many asylum seekers who were told by officials of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs that Afghanistan was safe, have faced renewed persecution and the dangers of on-going war upon return and that many of these people have been forced to flee again; and calls on the Government to: stop attacking the authors of the report, and investigate the claims made in the report. 49 The following items of business were postponed: Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for 9 August 2006, proposing the reference of matters to the Community Affairs References Committee, postponed till 15 August 2006. Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Crossin for 9 August 2006, proposing the reference of a matter to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 10 August 2006. 49 MATTERS OF URGENCY 49 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 8 August 2006, from Senator Carr: 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: The failure of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to follow due process in assessing the environmental impact of the Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria, thereby undermining the legitimacy of national environmental approval processes.” Yours sincerely Senator Kim Carr 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 15:53:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The failure of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Ian Campbell) to follow due process in assessing the environmental impact of the Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria, thereby undermining the legitimacy of national environmental approval processes. I move this motion because it is quite apparent that the Federal Court’s consent orders to set aside the minister’s veto of the $220 million Bald Hills project display the depths of the minister’s chicanery and dissembling. It was always a questionable decision, but it was quite apparent, as a result of that court decision, that the minister’s already confirmed track record of misusing his office has now been reinforced by way of judicial decision. The judicial decision was that the minister’s decision be set aside and that he reconsider the assessment of that project according to law. There was a clear and unarguable premise. It said the existing decision was inconsistent with the law. The humiliating backdown—that this minister had to consent to these orders—was based on the fact that he had corroded the evaluation and approval processes which are designed to protect our environment from absolute damage. This is a scandal that has been brewing for two years. It highlights the fact that, despite the minister’s taking 450 days to come up with a decision that he has now had to abandon, it was a decision made only after court action had been taken by Wind Power. They said that he had avoided his responsibilities to respond to their application within the 30-day procedural program. This decision took place in the lead-up to the 2004 election. The minister saw an opportunity to use his ministerial powers to give the Liberal Party an advantage in the marginal Victorian electorate of McMillan. I say this to the minister, and he is here in the chamber today: to his credit, he has always been up-front about that. A local newspaper, the Great Southern Star from Leongatha, provided us with the detail. It quotes the Liberal candidate as saying on 12 October 2004: ‘When Ian Campbell arrived, the whole complexion of the campaign changed for me. Senator Campbell gave a commitment to do everything within his power under the EPBC Act to veto the Bald Hills project.’ Clearly the minister has made a decision based on a prejudicial assumption of the scientific analysis required by the EPBC Act, which he had undertaken. Despite his lengthy efforts to find a scientist to support his claims, he has ignored it. Equally, he publicly announced his decision before any approval process was completed and advice provided. He was not making a ministerial decision based on environmental standards; he was making a political decision based on political imperatives, where the endangered species he was seeking to protect was a targeted marginal seat in Victoria. It is now abundantly clear what has occurred, so I will not rehearse all the arguments on this shabby and sordid process. I will concentrate on the fallout that arises from the minister’s remarkable backflip to the Federal Court. Justice Weinberg’s order of 4 August was a short one, and one sentence sums up Senator Campbell’s embarrassing retreat: ‘The court orders by consent that the decisions of the respondent, the minister, dated 3 April, be set aside.’ He then instructed that he reconsider the proposal ‘according to law’. You have to make a presumption there: if it was not made according to law, on what basis was the decision made on 3 April? The entire fabric of the minister’s arguments relating to Bald Hills wind farm has collapsed as a result of his decision to agree to those orders. He has to publicly admit that the decision on the Bald Hills wind farm was flawed from the beginning. I ask a simple question: how long will it take before the Prime Minister takes action to defend due process of law? How long can this minister stay in his job? I bet the Prime Minister is now saying, ‘I was right to hold off on his promotion.’ Why he stayed a parliamentary secretary for so many years has now been confirmed. The Prime Minister was wrong to appoint him to this job. There has been a dereliction of duty, and he ought to either resign now or be sacked. The theatre surrounding this decision was played out in a whole series of public arenas. What happened at the recent Senate estimates is one example. It is worth while revisiting what occurred at Senate estimates, because it sheds light on the actions of this minister. The minister put in a particularly hairy-chested performance on 25 May. He interrupted public servants, he insulted members of the committee, he did one of his temper tantrum routines, he shouted, he bellowed and he sought to deflect questioning away from issues about the probity of his own decisions. It was a demeaning performance—a performance so demeaning that members of the government made it clear to me that they were appalled at his behaviour. We saw the minister bobbing up and down like a jack-in-the-box with his nose growing ever longer after his attempts to evade and dissemble concerning his actions. It was a clear case of the politics of the absurd—the theatre of the absurd. We had continual interference, not just in the usual manner in which he sought to prevent officers of the department from answering legitimate questions but in dissembling to the committee about the way in which decisions had been made within this government. He told the committee: We put every single document on the table and every single bit of information. That, of course, was a very fine sentiment; the trouble is it just was not true. He did not provide all the relevant information. He failed to mention that he had been advised by his own department that the grounds to reject the Bald Hills wind farm did not exist, but he went ahead anyway. Similarly, he forgot to mention the formal recommendation that he received on 10 March this year from a first assistant secretary of the department, a Mr Gerard Early, that he approve the wind farm. Far from being open and transparent with the Senate, as he claimed, he was in fact concealing the very information that gave the lie to his decisions. The truth of the matter is that the minister committed himself to banning this wind farm way back in 2004 during the federal election. He made a political promise, and now his humiliation is that that political promise has been exposed for the lie that it was. He could not press ahead. He could not twist the approvals process to suit his purpose. The courts of this country know it, and it has been demonstrated before them that his actions were not in accordance with the law. The extent of his desperation to block this wind farm can be measured by the length of time he took to try to find a scientific opinion to defend his actions—450 days. In the end he could not do so. He was required to act within 30 days; he failed to do so. It took him 450 days, and in the end Wind Power, the proponents, forced his hand by taking legal action forcing him to act. He desperately sought scientific opinions to justify his action. He said here today that the Biosis report did not refer to one parrot dying every 1,000 years. We found before the Senate estimates committee that Ashley Stephens from the department of the environment in Victoria wrote to the senior zoologist who wrote the Biosis report, Mr Ian Smales, in an email on 7 April 2006. The correspondence from the senior zoologist to him on the same day said: To find the number of birds that might be killed at any one wind farm such as Bald Hills, was not the intent of our work and thus the scenario for a particular site–although it contributes to the cumulative impact assessment–is simply a scenario for the purposes of modelling. Ashley Stephens wrote back to Mr Smales and asked this simple question in regard to his reading of the report: For Bald Hills, if I multiply (1 - 0.9999392 from table 4 by the number 15 from table 3, I get 0.000912. this means about one mortality every 1,000 years. Is that right? The senior zoologist from the Biosis report—this is the scientific advice the minister is relying upon—said in an email on 13 April at 10.20 am back to a senior officer from the department of the environment in Victoria: Yes you’ve calculated correctly. Cheers, Ian These are documents that I have tabled. I seek now to refer once again to those documents and to two particular tables that appear in the Biosis report on page 27 and page 30. They make it perfectly clear what those reports are saying. The minister cannot even read the hand-picked scientific advice which he sought to use to justify his politically motivated decision to ban a $220 million wind farm on the presumption that there would be one death every 1,000 years. That is what the report says. The survey undertaken showed that there were 10,441 birds and 81 separate species sighted in the 12-month survey period, but not one orange-bellied parrot. The potential habitat was 20 kilometres away. Furthermore, the only sighting of an orange-bellied parrot was 40 kilometres away. That is what the department drew to the minister’s attention. The minister was told by his own department that the Bald Hills decision that he was going to take would in fact undermine the approval process for development in western Tasmania, Victoria, south-west New South Wales and of course south-east South Australia. This minister prostituted his statutory obligations to seek political advantage in the last federal election campaign in the marginal seat of McMillan. He has sought to protect not an endangered species of fauna but an endangered Liberal mate in the marginal seat of McMillan. The minister has effectively convinced no-one that his decision was based on any science other than political science. The only science this minister is interested in is the numbers in this parliament. It is unfortunate for him that no-one was persuaded—not in the government, not in the bureaucracy and not in the Federal Court. This minister should either resign or be sacked. What you have is that his decision has been set aside by the court and he has had to agree to it. He has had to agree that he will reconsider his own decision on the basis that he acts in accordance with the law, which he patently has failed to do up until this point. His own flawed logic has seen his decision in regard to a $220 million project squashed. We have seen the wilful misuse of the environmental modelling that was commissioned by him in a desperate bid to try to find a scientific fig leaf for the politically motivated decisions that he had already announced he was going to make. (Time expired) 52 16:08:00 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 0 Senator IAN CAMPBELL —Mr Acting Deputy President, you can always tell when Senator Carr’s arguments are either spurious or based on irrelevancies because the volume always increases massively. You could tell that by the end of that little 15-minute spray Senator Carr was going hoarse. That, if you need to measure the depth or quality of his arguments, is the ultimate test. When he is hoarse at the end of 15 minutes you know that the arguments are so hollow that he is either misleading you about it or seeking to exaggerate. The voice gets louder and louder and ultimately he ends up hoarse. In the time available to me I will make a couple of points. I am pleased to see on the list that Senator Brandis and Senator Scullion will be supporting the government’s case in relation to the motion that Senator Carr has moved. I am sure that Senator Brandis will address some of the legal issues. Senator Carr, in his normal way, has moved a motion against a minister and then wandered out of the chamber in his arrogant style, not prepared to listen to the argument. I think Senator Kemp actually put that to us earlier. He said that Senator Carr will always attack you if you are not in the chamber. Now he moves an attack, says that I should not have this job, and then wanders out of this chamber. 84N Ludwig, Sen Joe Senator Ludwig —It’s so he doesn’t stay here and interject and spoil your speech. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —It is probably a good thing, Senator Ludwig, but it does show a great contempt for the Senate when someone effectively moves a motion attacking a minister, yells and screams for 15 minutes, deceives the Senate and then skulks out of the chamber because he does not want to be corrected. Mr Acting Deputy President, can I firstly make the point that, as Senator Ludwig will know because he has actually had legal training, when you have a consent order from a court it is in fact an agreement. It was an agreement between the proponent, Wind Power Pty Ltd, and me that we would go to the court and suggest a process. It was fully agreed; there was no disagreement with the proponent. We would go to the court and say, ‘Right, this is a good way forward.’ The only attack that you could possibly make on the process is that Wind Power, the proponents, did not have access to the cumulative impact report. The only reason they did not have access to it is that they informed us that they wanted to take legal action to force me to make a decision. So instead of coming to us and saying, ‘Can we have a look at the report?’ they came to us and said, ‘Please make a decision.’ We made a decision. I think it is entirely appropriate that they have access to the report so they have had access to it since April. They have had a lot of access to it. They have said, and I have agreed, that we will look at another submission on this proposal. I think it is an incredibly sensible way to go forward. Senator Carr also said that the orange-bellied parrot had not been sighted at this particular location and that it did not even fly through it. ‘It has never been spotted’ I think were the words he used. The best thing that Senator Carr could do for this whole process is to get it out in the open. We have put all of the documents out there for the public to see. Senator Carr talked about the cumulative impact study, and that is a study of the impact on migratory species across that whole coastline. You would know from your own state, Mr Acting Deputy President, that these wind turbines do have significant impacts on birds. You have lost three endangered wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania in the last three months. We know that the Victorian Labor comrades of Senator Carr have played fast and loose with the truth on this issue, and they have hidden from the people of Victoria and from the people of Australia the information that puts the lie to what Senator Carr said in the Senate today. When the proposal came to my department the Victorian government sent up this huge wad of material in relation to the proposal. What they did not send up was this document which Mr Hulls still keeps secret from the Australian people. Senator Carr should read it. In fact, I will not even bother him with that effort because I know he struggles when it comes to effort, except when it comes to bellowing air through his lungs and vocal chords and making himself hoarse. But what did the report say to Mr Hulls? His own department, the Department of Sustainability and Environment of Victoria, says under the heading ‘orange-bellied parrot’: The Bald Hills wind farm proposal will increase the level of threat to the orange-bellied parrot. It was not in any of their documents. That stack is what they sent to Canberra. I would have loved to have been the courier who got the contract for that. This document was missing, though. We know why now: because Senator Carr and his comrades in Victoria wanted to cover it up and hide it from the people of Victoria. What does it go on to say? The department agrees that the orange-bellied parrot is unlikely to utilise the site. However— this is the bird that does not go anywhere near the site, does not go through the site—that is what Senator Carr said to the Senate— it is highly likely that the orange-bellied parrots commuting between habitat patches in South Gippsland will fly across the site. Their commuting flights are often at heights encompassed by the rotor swept area. That will be news to Senator Allison who, without any ill will, said in Senate estimates that these birds do not fly at those heights. 1M6 Allison, Sen Lyn Senator Allison interjecting— H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator IAN CAMPBELL —This is a submission made by Minister Hulls’s own department saying that the birds would in fact fly through the site and would go through the rotor-swept areas. Senator Allison interjects: ‘These birds are sensible; they know how to avoid them.’ There are three dead wedge-tailed eagles lying on the ground in northern Tasmania now, and here is a species with 50 breeding pairs left on the planet. It is worth making the point that if they were 50 blue whales and you stuck a rotor in their path there would be people marching in the streets. It is all right to have a bit of fun with a parrot. It does not really matter if it is an endangered parrot or an endangered eagle. These people who pretend they care about the environment say, ‘Let’s forget it.’ The report goes on to say: A conservative approach is therefore required— a conservative approach— which acknowledges that this proposed development will increase the cumulative risk to the species posed by the wind farm industry. As for other wind farms in Victoria that place this species at increased risk of extinction, the proponent should investigate compensatory habitat management activities off site. This is a very serious issue. It is one that the Victorian government’s own people recognise. It is one that the minister in Victoria has used to stop wind farms himself. He stopped one at Port Fairy only recently because of the impact on migratory birds. He pretends that for him to stop a wind farm because of one migratory bird is okay but for me to stop one because of another bird is not okay. It is gross hypocrisy, compounded by Senator Carr’s misleading of this chamber. (Time expired) 54 16:16:00 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD Leader of the Australian Democrats 0 0 Senator ALLISON —I join this debate on the urgency motion about Senator Ian Campbell and the process he used in assessing the environmental impact of the Bald Hills wind farm in Victoria. Since the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was established on 16 July 2000, 2,745 proposals have been referred to the minister—not this minister but the ministers before him. But only four applications—that is, less than 0.015 per cent—have ever been rejected. A significant number of the 2,745 projects involved threatened species. But it is painfully clear to us on this side of the chamber at least that this minister, like those who have gone before him, has been very reluctant indeed to use the EPBC Act to prevent projects from going ahead and has opted instead to utilise the option in the legislation of approving projects with conditions. It came as an enormous surprise to the wind industry and environment groups that the minister overturned the Victorian state decision and knocked back the Bald Hills wind farm. The minister’s decision was made even more surprising when it was revealed last week that he had ignored departmental advice to allow that wind farm to proceed. A government report entitled Wind farm collision risk for birds: cumulative risks for threatened and migratory species stated that wind farms, not specifically the Bald Hills wind farm, are not likely to have a major impact on the species in question—that is, the orange-bellied parrot, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, the swift parrot and the white-bellied sea eagle. Specifically on the orange-bellied parrot, the report says: The current and proposed levels of wind farms within its habitat do not significantly affect the chance of survival ...                   …         …         … ... the species has a very high probability of going extinct within 50 years in the absence of any mortality due to wind turbine collisions.                   …         …         … ... such action— preventing wind turbines, that is— will have extremely limited beneficial value to conservation of the parrot without addressing very much greater adverse effects that are currently operating ... Those threats include the fragmentation and degradation of overwinter habitat by grazing, agriculture and urban development; competition with other seed-eating birds; foxes and feral cats; disease; and disorientation during migration caused by brightly lit fishing boats. Ironically, the orange-bellied parrot is also on the list of birds threatened because of climate change. The Bald Hills wind farm would significantly reduce greenhouse emissions—some 435,000 tonnes a year. There are far greater threats to the orange-bellied parrot than turbines, including global warming. A better outcome for the orange-bellied parrot, the Democrats say, would have been to approve the project with conditions. These could have included that the wind farm be required to minimise impact on habitat and that a percentage of the revenue from the wind farm or a specified dollar amount be put into creating more winter feeding habitats—which is a big problem for the bird—and securing current habitats. The CEO of the proposal is quoted as saying: We’d be more than happy to do whatever we could to make sure we didn’t have a negative impact on these parrots. As we have already heard today, the minister has conveniently used the EPBC Act to fulfil his pledge during the 2004 federal election campaign to stop the project, which is now located in the Liberal seat of McMillan. It is not hard to be cynical when we have the Treasurer and Prime Minister in waiting, Peter Costello, defending Senator Ian Campbell’s decision by saying that wind farms ‘look ugly’. Federal agriculture minister Peter McGauran argued that wind power is a fraud and would devalue farming land. The minister even said that the information about wind farms on the AGO’s website should be removed. Given that only 0.015 per cent of applications have been knocked back by the minister since 2000, given that the department advised the minister to allow the wind farm to go ahead and given that the minister could easily have approved the project, like so many others, with conditions that would have been a win for the parrot, we can only conclude that the minister has set out to undermine the legitimacy of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. (Time expired) 56 16:21:00 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator O’BRIEN —We are debating today a motion which reflects on the shameful behaviour of this minister, based purely on the politics of a marginal seat, in exercising his powers as a minister of the Crown under an act of this parliament. This is the minister who, through his Liberal Party candidate for McMillan, promised a small group of wind farm opponents that a vote for the Liberals in the last election would result in the wind farm being blocked. That is the reality. That is on the public record. This was a matter which involved a political promise by the candidate and this was a minister who was involved in delivering on that promise, come what may. The minister spent 450 days casting around for an excuse, any excuse, to set aside this project—any vague or flimsy reason that he could come up with to deliver on a promise made to a small number of constituents in the seat of McMillan. All the advice from his own department told him that he had no grounds to block the proposal. This was reported in an article in the Age quite recently. The article talks about a briefing paper which was delivered to Senator Ian Campbell, dated 20 March this year, from the Department of the Environment and Heritage, signed off by first assistant secretary Gerard Early—so it was at a very high level in the department. The paper recommended that the wind farm be approved with standard conditions to minimise risks to endangered birds. In other words, it recommended the sorts of conditions which were imposed on other wind farms approved by this government and, indeed, by this very minister. Mr Early advised the minister that more drastic measures, such as vetoing the development, would be inconsistent with previous government decisions and ‘would have ramifications for all coastal development in western Tasmania—your state, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett—in Victoria, in southern New South Wales and in south-eastern South Australia’. I will touch on those very serious ramifications in this contribution. This minister knew better than very senior officers in his department, and he rejected their very sensible advice. He had commissioned advice from Biosis, and from Biosis he got something that he thought approached what he wanted. He jumped on it, without much thought, it would appear, because the rest is history. Windpower took the matter to the Federal Court, as you would expect in these very shabby circumstances, and the minister’s house of cards collapsed. The minister continued his inane commentary on the matter, in opposition to the court case, and, when his own department’s advice was revealed, what did he say? The Age quotes him as saying: I get advice from my department on all issues on a daily basis, I don’t always accept it. The bottom line is, if you want a ‘Yes Minister’ in action I’m the wrong guy to be your minister … It was a very good decision, I stand by it and I’d make it again tomorrow. That reminded me not of Yes, Minister but Michael Palin of Monty Python fame. Who could forget that famous and very relevant sketch where John Cleese complained about a dead parrot. What did Michael Palin say: ‘Norwegian Blue—beautiful plumage!’ That is akin to this mantra about the orange-bellied parrot, which frankly was not endangered at all. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator Ian Campbell interjecting— 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’BRIEN —Senator Faulkner earlier talked about this sort of puerile behaviour—this infantile behaviour by this minister. We are seeing another example of it today; he cannot contain himself. He was heard by me in silence, but of course he is not prepared to do that when he is being shown up in public. He is prepared to engage in this kind of theatrics. Senator Ian Campbell continued with his version of the dead parrot sketch for about another week, and then he had to capitulate. And that capitulation was very public. The capitulation is to settle the case on terms which the applicant says were ‘the most we could have received from this application’, and that is: forcing the minister to say that he would actually consider the application according to law. What a concession to make! He makes the concession that, on this occasion, he will consider the application in accordance with the law. At the same time, he will commit the Commonwealth, the taxpayer, to paying the legal costs of the applicant—costs which have been incurred because of the improper actions of this minister in consistently pursuing a political objective rather than the objective which is laid down in the legislation, which is a proper environmental approach to the problem. I asked the minister a question in question time, and he assiduously avoided answering it, because it is true that wind farms have been approved by this minister even though they pose a greater risk to the orange-bellied parrot than Bald Hills would. There is nothing worse for a minister than to be exposed on arrogant inconsistency in the pursuit of so-called ministerial duties. The minister has been exposed on the basis that there was a political objective which had to be achieved, and the minister cast around and found the flimsiest of excuses to give effect to it. It is, of course, true—and again the minister would not own up to this fact—that the very report he relied upon noted that it had intentionally overestimated the risks posed by wind farms and therefore overstated the likelihood of collisions. Did the minister tell that to the public when he made his announcements about the orange-bellied parrot? Of course not. He wanted the public to believe that he was the minister in shining armour defending the orange-bellied parrot from a risk which, frankly—as Senator Carr has demonstrated—would arise once in a thousand years— H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator Ian Campbell —That is simply not true and Senator Carr knows it. 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’BRIEN —It is absolutely true, and Senator Carr has documented the information— 008W7 Brandis, Sen George Senator Brandis interjecting— 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’BRIEN —Senator Brandis, you will get your chance in a minute, if you can hold your tongue for a second or two. If I had some protection from the chair, it would be helpful. 10000 Barnett, Sen Guy (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Barnett)—Order! Senator O’Brien has the call. 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’BRIEN —What we have seen is not something that is funny. We could think that it is funny. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator Ian Campbell —You were just quoting Monty Python, you goose. 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’BRIEN —That is right. I was quoting something because the minister has been pilloried in the press. I must say I was greatly amused by the cartoon in Saturday’s Australian. It has the minister walking out on a gangplank. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator Ian Campbell —I thought it was quite clever too. 8O6 O’Brien, Sen Kerry Senator O’BRIEN —It is a very clever cartoon. I hope you get a copy for your office, Minister. It will be your parting gift from this portfolio, I suspect. The serious part about this is why applicants would want to bring a matter before this minister when he has demonstrated that he is not capable of properly applying the law. He will apply what he considers is to the political advantage of his party. Why would applicants who want to build this country’s infrastructure, infrastructure that this country needs, go to this minister when he has demonstrated that he will be so inconsistent and that he will not give a fair hearing to applicants, as demonstrated by the different treatment that he has given to wind farms in this portfolio? And it is not just him; it is his whole government. He has departed from a consistent approach, the consistent approach that was recommended by his own department—the advice that he has said that he had rejected. This minister shows developers that they cannot rely on him. This is the minister who now cannot have any credibility in making any decision on this matter. He cannot have any credibility on this matter when it comes back before him and he cannot have any credibility on any other project. (Time expired) 58 16:31:00 Brandis, Sen George 008W7 Queensland LP 1 0 Senator BRANDIS —On Sunday, 7 December 2003, Mr Mark Latham was sitting at home in Sydney. Mr Latham had five days earlier been elected to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. He wrote a long, reflective essay to himself about the challenges he faced as the leader of the Australian Labor Party and how he was going to get it into shape to face a federal election in the ensuing year. He wrote down a list—you can read it on page 254 of his published diaries—of the challenges facing the Australian Labor Party that he had to address. One thing he put on his list was this: ‘We have got to get some decent senators.’ Addressing the trade unions, he says: ... if they want people like me to take unionism seriously, they need to give us better Senators and stop sending their rejects to Canberra. After that lamentable, embarrassing, ignorant pair of performances by Senator Carr and Senator O’Brien, I cannot help feeling a bit of retrospective sympathy for Mr Mark Latham. What these two gentlemen have demonstrated—and it must be remembered that these two would be ministers in a federal Labor government were the Australian people so injudicious as to elect one—is a lamentable ignorance of elementary legal principles. Neither of them are lawyers. I see my friend Senator Kirk over there, who is a very good lawyer—and, therefore, about to be booted out of the caucus by the Labor Party. She would not need to have this explained to her, but they do, so let us take it simply. First of all, much is made by Senator Carr and Senator O’Brien of the terms of a consent order in the Federal Court last Friday. It is a consent order which resolved by agreement litigation between Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth. Much is made of the use in the consent order of the language ‘that the matter be remitted to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.’ Senator Carr and Senator O’Brien seem to be unaware of the fact that that is a totally formulaic expression. In any consent order that disposes of litigation on an agreed basis, those words will appear in a case of this kind. It is utterly formulaic and has absolutely nothing to do with the determination on the merits. There was no determination on the merits in the consent order last Friday, contrary to what Senator Carr and Senator O’Brien would have you believe. Perhaps they themselves misunderstand. This is a very simple case. What has occurred is that a party seeking to develop a wind farm in a particular locality in South Gippsland has made an application and the minister was given certain advice by his department that the application be approved subject to some conditions. The minister chose not to adopt that advice at the time but rather to commission a further survey. I think we have got a glimpse into what a future Labor government would be like with Senator Carr and Senator O’Brien as ministers in it. Not only would no departmental advice ever be called into question, but these ministers—were they ever to become ministers—would think there was something wrong or insidious or corrupt about a minister failing to rubber-stamp departmental advice. So I think we have got a glimpse of what sort of quality of ministers they would be. Nevertheless Senator Ian Campbell, like a good minister should, applied an independent mind to the department’s recommendation. He commissioned a further study by a reputable scientific expert, Biosis. The particular issue with which Senator Campbell was concerned was not the effect on a given species just of this wind farm but of the cumulative effect on a range of species of the development of a number of wind farms across the coast of southern Gippsland. That is why he commissioned a report, being a minister who was on top of his department, not merely an automaton always following the department’s advice. He commissioned a study into something he was not satisfied the department had sufficiently turned its mind to—that is, the cumulative effect of all of these wind farms on migratory bird species. The report by Biosis came back to the minister. Let me read again, although Senator Campbell has read it once, the relevant conclusion: Given that the Orange-bellied Parrot is predicted to have an extremely high probability of extinction in its current situation, almost any negative impact on the species could be sufficient to tip the balance against its continued existence. In this context it may be argued that any avoidable deleterious effect—even the very minor predicted impacts of turbine collisions—should be prevented. In the study that Biosis did, they predicted the death of perhaps one orange-bellied parrot per year by impact with the turbines. That might not sound very many until you realise that this species, which is on the endangered species list, is so scarce and so rare that there are only 50 breeding pairs left in the world. I am sure that if we changed the species and were talking about somewhat more famous animals, like the great white pandas or the white tigers, and we were told that there were only 50 breeding pairs left in the world and somebody asked the question, ‘Is it an unacceptable level of risk to kill one of the remaining 50 breeding pairs a year?’ most people with an ounce of environmental sensitivity would say: ‘Of course we can’t have that. According to the best scientific modelling and projections, that’s one per cent of all that are left in the world being eliminated every year.’ But because it is the humble orange-bellied parrot and because it lends itself to the asinine parody in which Senator O’Brien sought to engage—this Pythonesque burlesque that he tried and could not even accomplish on a sleepy afternoon in the Australian Senate—it is not treated with respect. This is a serious environmental issue. There are 50 breeding pairs of this species left in the world. The scientific report says that the chances are you will kill one a year. That is our best estimate. So what does the minister do? He does what he is required to do under section 133 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The act provides certain specific tests that have to be applied to endangered species in considering applications to approve anything that might impinge upon them. In particular, section 18(3) of the act provides that in relation to endangered species: A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the endangered category; or (b) is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the endangered category. I do not think that you would need to be very intelligent to work out that, if you only have 50 breeding pairs of a particular species left in the world and you have a scientific report that tells you that a particular proposal is likely to kill one a year, that is likely to have a significant impact on that endangered species. Senator Campbell, on the basis of the best science available to him, refused the proposal under section 133(7) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and in doing so adhered to the statutory obligation provided for by section 136(2), which says: In considering those matters, the Minister must take into account:                   …         …         … (e) any other information the Minister has on the relevant impacts of the action. That includes the Biosis report. The minister did the right thing. Senator Campbell, I hope you are not paying this barrister that you have briefed in the Federal Court proceedings too much, because it is not going to be a very hard case for him to win, to show that you applied the statutory criteria accurately and in accordance with the science. To top it all off, what we know now that we did not know before, and what Senator Campbell did not know at the time he made this decision on 5 April this year, is that the Victorian government, which had supplied documentation to Senator Campbell on this very topic, had concealed from him one highly relevant fact: a report by its own Department of Sustainability and Environment that reached the same conclusion. (Time expired) 60 16:41:00 Milne, Sen Christine KA5 Tasmania TG 0 0 Senator MILNE —I rise today to say that I believe that Senator Campbell has finally exposed the complete lack of merit in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. When the government introduced this, the majority of the conservation movement across the country said that it was completely flawed legislation because it relied almost entirely on the discretion of the minister to determine the fate of any development project that was referred to the minister. It was only the WWF, the Humane Society, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and the Queensland Conservation Council who stood with the federal minister of the day and made wild claims that it was the biggest win for the environment in 25 years. Several years later, what we have seen is that the EPBC Act stands condemned. The activities of the minister in relation to the orange-bellied parrot demonstrate why, because it depends entirely on the whim of the minister whether he is going to apply the act appropriately or otherwise. That has always been the case. I inform the minister that when Senator Hill was the minister for the environment he ruled out any consideration of cumulative impacts on orange-bellied parrots as a result of wind farms. If you have a look at his decision then, he said that he was not going to look at the cumulative impacts at all. I have heard a whole lot of hypocrisy from people around this chamber talking about their desperate concern for critically endangered species. When it was determined that the detention centre was to be put on Christmas Island I did not hear the same sort of passionate outcry for the Abbott’s booby. When it was decided to exempt logging of old-growth forests in Tasmania from any consideration with regard to the proposed pulp mill, did I hear an outcry from either the Liberal Party or the Labor Party about the green and gold frog, which was vulnerable under the EPBC Act? What about the wedge-tailed eagle? It is endangered. We have heard a lot about the wedge-tailed eagle. The assessment from Forestry Tasmania says that they will be wiped out in the north-east if the logging continues there for the pulp mill. What about the swift parrot, the spotted-tailed quoll, the eastern barred bandicoot and other vulnerable species? The swift parrot is endangered. All of those are listed in the documents put out by the pulp mill proponents as being impacted by this pulp mill—and that is without consideration of the forests. And yet I do not hear a whimper from anywhere in this chamber. That, apparently, is okay. At the discretion of the minister, some species can be wiped out. With others, he takes a passionate interest in them, and the passionate interest has got to do with marginal seats in Victoria. Everybody in the country knows that. In Western Australia, they also know that the decision in relation to one particular wind farm proposal was to out-redneck a local sitting member, Wilson Tuckey. We also had the Treasurer saying that he would not want a wind farm in his backyard. We are facing a global catastrophe with global warming and climate change. We need the desperate roll-out of renewable energy everywhere we can get it, and we need biodiversity protection to be taken seriously and consistently. We do not need ministers grandstanding and making political decisions because they can under a completely flawed act. Under the EPBC Act there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of referrals to federal ministers since it came in, and only two or three have ever been stopped. Here is a challenge for you, Minister: Ralph’s Bay and the critically endangered spotted handfish. I want you to take the same decision on the spotted handfish as you took on the orange-bellied parrot. People in Ralph’s Bay will be watching to see if you do, because that is one of the last habitats of the spotted handfish. Let us have exactly the same process applied. You will get any number of reports telling you that the spotted handfish is critically endangered. Let us stop the Walker marina development right now on the basis of the spotted handfish. We do not even have a recovery plan funded, Minister. That is the level of concern the Commonwealth has for the spotted handfish. As I have indicated, the wedge-tailed eagle in the north-east of Tasmania is also endangered, as the native forests go down in order to feed a pulp mill after a decision by the Commonwealth to exempt those forests from any assessment. How can you have an environmental impact assessment of a pulp mill that is going to use millions of tonnes of native forests every year, locked in for 30 years, and say, ‘I’m not going to look at the environmental impact on the forests’? The EPBC Act has been shown to be poor legislation. It should be repealed. What we need out of this orange-bellied parrot fiasco is new legislation which takes away from the minister the discretion that the minister currently has under the act that makes a mockery of environmental protection. (Time expired) 61 16:46:00 Scullion, Sen Nigel 00AOM Northern Territory CLP 1 0 Senator SCULLION —I rise to speak on this urgency motion. I must say that, having heard the debate, I think the urgency is not so much about wind farms or indeed parrots but appears to be something to do with the Victorian Labor Party trying to divert attention from something—but we will get to that in a moment. I have to congratulate my well-informed colleague Senator Brandis on the way he has dealt with the issues of due process. I think we have comprehensively debunked any conspiracy theory that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has somehow stepped outside of the process. I think that theory has been completely debunked. What has been a consistent theme in the argument from those opposite is that somehow the minister should be accused of this evil of having no consistency. From all the information that is before me, all I can see that the minister has refused to do is be pressured to make a fundamental decision about protecting the environment. He has sought to find that very delicate balance between development and the environment and has said, ‘I am not going to make that decision until I have considered the most recent and most comprehensive information at hand.’ You have to take this job seriously. It has been a fair amount of time since those opposite have perhaps had that opportunity, but I would remind them that they should look very carefully at the actions of this minister. He has a very proud history of delivering consistent decisions. Those decisions have to be made after very carefully balancing development with environmental protection. It is not an easy task. You have to do it very carefully. This government and this minister have demonstrated that they have been able to do that for some time. I will cite a couple of well-known recovery plans. In the context of, say, a windmill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act does not simply look at the footprint that the windmill makes on the ground and what plants will no longer exist there because we have stuck a great windmill there but it also looks at the wider implications. In another context, this government has said, ‘You not only need a plan to manage mullet or sharks; you also need to look at the wider impact.’ Of course, that is exactly what this minister is doing. In the case of the dugong recovery plan, this government did not namby-pamby around this area. Yes, there were a lot of people who got their noses out of joint and, yes, there were a lot of developers who said, ‘That’s inappropriate,’ or ‘That’s not right,’ but we put in specific legislation to ensure that there were dugong protected areas. That is consistent with the approach we are taking today. The turtle recovery plan was, again, absolutely consistent with the decisions that the minister has made. The development of the turtle recovery plan was carried out only after the minister had received the best possible information on turtles, particularly with respect to their interaction with the fishing industry, and how we could enable them to recover. The industry developed turtle excluding devices—devices that are now recognised as some of the best innovations around the world and which are now in bycatch-reducing devices. The industry put in a supplementary submission and came back to the minister and said, ‘Now can we continue?’ They had in fact ameliorated any of the potential damage that may have been caused by their activities. But if we are looking for a real comparison, we can look at the albatross recovery plan. Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett, coming from Tasmania, you would appreciate this. The albatross is an iconic species. Everybody knows that albatrosses are threatened and endangered. But, in terms of the comparison between the orange-breasted parrot and the albatross, there are thousands of albatrosses and there are no parrots. The parrots are in such perilous circumstances. With the albatrosses, we said, ‘There is simply no acceptable bycatch—none.’ We gave the tuna industry time to come back with another submission. We said, ‘If you want, you can come back with another submission on how you go about it and not how many birds you kill.’ They went away and developed tori poles and down-shooting devices and eventually said, ‘Night setting only. We are going to operate at a time when albatrosses cannot negatively interact’—and the minister said, ‘Crack on.’ That is exactly what happened, Senator Carr. Their submission took these matters into consideration. For your information, Senator Carr, the orange-breasted parrot could possibly be called a coastal parrot. You may or may not be aware that it travels only about two kilometres from the coast. As has already been said here today, it is at most risk when it is flying and moving between habitats. So perhaps they could consider spatially where they are putting the wind farm. The minister is not standing in the way of these things. Quite rightly, he has looked at the very best scientific advice. I am quite sure that, if someone comes up with a plan that can ameliorate those challenges, he would be supportive. There has been a lot of derision and there have been a lot of Monty Python jokes—poorly done—but we have made a very long-term commitment to this animal. This is part of a 10-year recovery plan. This is not something that has dropped out of the air. It is not an attempt to dupe people in this place, as those opposite would have us believe. In fact, the people who have been doing the duping are those on the other side. We keep hearing from Senator Carr: ‘One in a thousand years’, ‘Be afraid’, ‘This is ridiculous’ and ‘Obviously it is a political conspiracy.’ I will quote straight from a document that was addressed to the authors of the report, Biosis. The question asked was basically: ‘Is this valid? Should we take this part of the report to mean one in a thousand?’ The document states: To find the number of birds that might be killed at any one wind farm such as Bald Hills, was not the intent of our work and thus the scenario for a particular site—although it contributes to the cumulative impact assessment—is simply a scenario for the purposes of modelling. That debunks the one in 1,000 theory clearly and utterly. If you have heard that, take it from your mind because it is utter rubbish. H15 Campbell, Sen Ian Senator Ian Campbell —It is one a year. 00AOM Scullion, Sen Nigel Senator SCULLION —It is one a year. What the report does state is: Given that the Orange-bellied Parrot is predicted to have an extremely high probability of extinction in its current situation, almost any negative impact on the species could be sufficient to tip the balance against its continued existence. In this context it may be argued that any avoidable deleterious effect - even the very minor predicted impacts of turbine collisions - should be prevented. It is unequivocal. I understand that. It says: ‘Do not have wind farms where these birds are unless you have some other mitigating device,’ which obviously has not been put forward in this first submission. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (That the motion (Senator Carr’s) be agreed to.) be agreed to. 16:58:00 The Senate divided.            (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Calvert) 34 Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Brown, B.J. Brown, C.L. Carr, K.J. Conroy, S.M. Crossin, P.M. Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G. Hogg, J.J. Hurley, A. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. * Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. McEwen, A. Milne, C. Moore, C. Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. Polley, H. Ray, R.F. Sherry, N.J. Siewert, R. Stephens, U. Sterle, G. Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. Wong, P. Wortley, D. 37 Abetz, E. Adams, J. Barnett, G. Bernardi, C. Boswell, R.L.D. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.M. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P. Heffernan, W. Johnston, D. Joyce, B. Kemp, C.R. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. Nash, F. Parry, S. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Ronaldson, M. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. * Troeth, J.M. Trood, R. Watson, J.O.W. 2 Campbell, G. Humphries, G. McLucas, J.E. Vanstone, A.E. * denotes teller Question negatived. 64 DOCUMENTS 64 10000 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today’s Order of Business at item 12, which were presented to the Deputy President and temporary chairs of committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised. Ordered that the committee reports be printed. Committee related documents and reports Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee––Additional information––Additional and Budget Estimates for 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 (11 volumes) (received 7 July 2006) Economics Legislation Committee––Erratum––Report––Provisions of the Fuel Tax Bill 2006 and the Fuel Tax (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006 (received 14 July 2006) Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee––Additional information––Reports––Public Service Bill 1997 and a related bill, and Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 (received 28 July 2006) Community Affairs Legislation Committee––Report, together with Hansard record of proceedings and documents received by the committee––Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 (received 1 August 2006) Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee––Report, together with documents received by the committee––Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006 (received 1 August 2006) Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee––Report, together with documents received by the committee––Customs Legislation Amendment (Modernising Import Controls and Other Measures) Bill 2006 (received 1 August 2006) Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee––Report, together with documents received by the committee––Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 2006 (received 1 August 2006) Government documents Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MSBS) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (DFRDB)—Report on long-term costs carried out by the Australian Government Actuary using data to 30 June 2005 (received 26 June 2006) Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedule for the period July to December 2005 (received 26 June 2006) Family Law Council––Relocation––Report to the Attorney-General (received 11 July 2006) Productivity Commission––Report––No. 37—Conservation of Australia’s historic heritage places (received 21 July 2006) Reports of the Auditor-General Audit report No. 49 of 2005-06—Performance Audit—Job Placement and Matching Services: Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (received 26 June 2006) Audit report No. 50 of 2005-06—Performance Audit—Arrangements to manage and account for aid funds provided under the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development: Australian Agency for International Development, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (received 27 June 2006) Audit report No. 51 of 2005-06—Performance Audit—Implementation of the parliamentary resolutions arising from the review by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner of aspects of the administration of the Parliament: Department of Parliamentary Services (received 28 June 2006) Audit report No. 52 of 2005-06—Performance Audit—Management of selected Telstra Social Bonus 2 and telecommunications service inquiry response programs: Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (received 29 June 2006) Return to order Statement of compliance with the continuing order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended on 3 December 1998, relating to indexed lists of files is tabled by the Department of Health and Ageing (received 30 June 2006) 65 COMMITTEES 65 65 65 17:03:00 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 0 Senator FAULKNER —by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I am only going to speak very briefly to this. This is an extremely unusual matter before the chamber, and I do not think it should pass without attention being drawn to it. We have a situation where two documents of additional information—one dating from 24 September 1997 in relation to the Public Service Bill 1997 and another relating to the enrolment of new electors at the 1996 federal election close of rolls, which was received on 23 June 1998—have today been tabled before the Senate. It does not take a great deal of analysis to realise that this material ordinarily would have come before the Senate the best part of a decade ago. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Secretary of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Mr Alistair Sands, who is so competent that he managed to find these reports the best part of 10 years after they should have been brought before the Senate. I assume that Mr Sands was tidying up the office—and, of course, these well predate his time as the committee secretary—and that this material was found in some old files. I think the secretary of the committee was reviewing files due for destruction and discovered these two items of evidence that obviously should be preserved for the full record but had not been tabled before the Senate. They now, of course, form part of the official records as of today. The first one, in relation to the Public Service Bill 1997, is a letter from the then, and still, Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans. This was received on 26 September 1997 by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee and enclosed a report of what is described as the corporate links subcommittee of the Department of the Senate, which relates to staff concerns arising from the Parliamentary Service Bill and associated legislation. Some senators would know I took a very active role in the debate on that legislation at the time. Interestingly enough, this report is referred to in the report of the committee, but it was never published. It is also interesting to note that the corporate links subcommittee report that we are dealing with today was for a committee that no longer exists. It was an internal staff committee that some time prior to the turn of the century ceased to exist. That is an unusual situation, as is the second item, which relates to evidence from the Senate with regard to an inquiry by the committee into the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998. The secretary, Mr Sands—as I said, this was very diligent and good work from him—wanted to make sure that the records of the Senate were complete. It is a worthy objective, and I am pleased we have been able to achieve it, but this material needs to be tabled to do so. Effectively, that is happening today to complete the records of the Senate and to complete the records of evidence. The only other point I want to make in relation to this very unusual, and I suggest unprecedented, tabling today is that the AEC material that is now being included formally in Senate records relates to the enrolment of new electors in the 1996 federal election and the close of rolls. It was signed by the then Acting Deputy Electoral Commissioner, Mr Dacey, who I note is still a very senior official with the Australian Electoral Commission. It was also signed by Mr Jim Doyle, the acting director of enrolment. This material was presented by the Australian Electoral Commission at a time when it was strongly of the view that the electoral rolls should not be closed on the day that an election is called. The Electoral Commission provided this parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters with consistent advice over very many years about the closure of the rolls, the impact of any proposals to change those close-of-roll arrangements and the numbers of people who would be disenfranchised if that were to occur. The interesting element of this letter is that it gives details about those new enrolees, a breakdown of those details and the impact early closure of the rolls would have had on them. Since that time, but only very recently of course, we have seen the Australian Electoral Commission change its view in relation to the consistent advice it has provided over very many years about the early closure of the rolls. We still have not got to the bottom of why it has changed its views, but it is now consistent with the Howard government’s legislative changes. These were dealt with in our last session, and I think they remain some of the most significant and reprehensible legislative changes that have ever been passed in the Australian parliament. But this interesting artefact is something that I thought was valuable to draw to the Senate’s attention. It points out a number of things. It points out the competence of our Senate committee secretaries. I give a pat on the back on this occasion to Mr Sands for finding this material. It graphically points out the fact that the Australian Electoral Commission has changed its previously consistent approach over decades in relation to early closure of the rolls. It also shows the number of people who would have been impacted by early closure of the rolls in 1996. Question agreed to. 66 MISCELLANEOUS 66 66 17:13:00 Carr, Sen Kim AW5 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator CARR —by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The Conservation of Australia’s historical heritage places report was received on 21 July 2006. I advise the Senate that I believe this to be a very disappointing document. If fully implemented, its recommendations would accelerate the loss of heritage places in Australia, including many of our major regional and state buildings, many of which are places of particular significance. This is, unfortunately, very much a partial document delivering what looks suspiciously like predetermined outcomes. Accordingly, I think it is very short sighted. I am particularly concerned about the debate relating to public versus private interests, as is represented in this report. This is a report that gives an overwhelming priority to the perceived short-term interests of private property owners to the detriment of the long-term interests of the community at large. It underestimates the value of heritage conservation as a public good by seeking to corral that sense of public value to property and sites already in public hands. By downplaying the significance of the environmental, social and economic benefits of heritage conservation, the report fatally compromises the value of its own recommendations. The commission also enters the debate over compensation and its alternative of incentives within a clear system of developmental controls. The Productivity Commission comes down decisively in favour of compensation, applied in conjunction with voluntary agreements. The commission proposes a series of regressive alternatives. It seeks an ad hoc and ultimately ineffective means to manage the protection of heritage places. There is no doubt that all processes can be and are improved over time, but this preference by the commission for compensation is ultimately self-defeating. In all Australian jurisdictions, compensation as a means of management has been considered and rejected. The same is true in heritage and planning processes right across the Western world. It is proposing here an antiquated, obsolete and ahistorical approach to heritage protection and one not in keeping with world best practice. It is one that goes against all the things the Productivity Commission claims are the core values it pursues. These recommendations, if implemented, would undermine a sustainable system of heritage management in this country. The commission now uses incentives for owners of heritage places but within an orderly system of listing of heritage development control. If the commission’s recommendations became practice, it could mean that the value of cultural heritage itself would be undermined. When debating the question of private loss against the wider public interest, the Productivity Commission finds in favour of private owners. I am concerned that in doing so the Productivity Commission, through this report, plays down the extent and level of public support for heritage conservation and heritage listing of sites and places of significance. There are many varied surveys, including those undertaken by survey groups such as Allen Consulting, which consistently report a high level of public support for and appreciation of heritage protection. The Australian public is nowhere near as negative, aggressive or reactionary on these questions as some of these so-called economic rationalists in the Productivity Commission would like to believe. The evidence just does not support the predetermined positions that they have taken on these matters. I am concerned that this report contains the appearance of predetermined or preconceived notions of what is in the public interest and, in doing so, has taken the view that the ultimate test of government is to protect private interests. The commission not only effectively marginalises the majority of submissions it received in favouring the principles of the current system but has remained blind to its own errors in its analysis. In the course of the consultation period, a number of heritage councils drew to the commission’s attention errors of fact and of interpretation in relation to the use of voluntary agreements in the United States. Those arrangements are not as the commission represents them. Despite this being drawn to their attention, those submissions have been ignored by the authors of this report. It is my concern that this report is fundamentally flawed. Its principal recommendations on fundamental changes to heritage management protocols should be rejected by government. The net effect of the recommendations is that the voice of heritage, which is an important community voice, would effectively be drowned out. That is the underlying presumption of this report. If implemented, the changes that are proposed in this report would direct us down a one-way street to destruction. If these changes are implemented, national assets will be lost in so many cases. It is a matter of deep concern that a publicly funded body such as the Productivity Commission could devote so much time and energy to producing such a shoddy document. Question agreed to. 68 DOCUMENTS 68 10000 Kirk, Linda   (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Kirk)—On behalf of the President, I present the report of the 37th Conference of Australian and Pacific Presiding Officers and Clerks, which was held in Perth, Western Australia, from 2 to 7 July 2006. 68 10000 Kirk, Linda   (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Kirk)—On behalf of the President, I table Senate-related documents as follows: Business of the Senate: 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2006 Questions on Notice summary: 16 November 2004 to 30 June 2006 Work of Committees: Financial year statistics: 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006; and half-year statistics: 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2006. Ordered that the Work of Committees document be printed. 68 COMMITTEES 68 68 68 17:21:00 Crossin, Sen Trish 7Y6 Northern Territory ALP 0 0 Senator CROSSIN —On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs References Committee, Senator Moore, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into petrol sniffing in Aboriginal communities and seek leave to move a motion in relation to that document. Leave granted. 7Y6 Crossin, Sen Trish Senator CROSSIN —I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I stand here this afternoon to provide some comments about a letter that has been received by the Community Affairs References Committee in relation to its inquiry into petrol sniffing in Aboriginal communities. The letter was to the committee by Mr Gregory Andrews, the now Assistant Secretary of the Communities Engagement Branch of the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination. It corrects the record on two matters that were mentioned in evidence during the Senate’s inquiry into petrol sniffing and on evidence that he gave on 27 April this year. The comments I want to go to refer to the way in which this whole sad and sorry saga has been dealt with since that day. I will begin by saying that it became evident to me in the last two months that the Senate had been misled by Mr Andrews. In fact, on 18 July I put out a press release calling on him to correct the record. I understand and accept that he did and I want to thank him publicly for doing that. In this job I find that public servants who choose to mislead the Senate are not helpful, nor do they do their minister or their government any service by being dishonest in their evidence. But I do believe there is one section of his evidence that to this day has not been corrected, and we have not had any evidence to lead us to believe that the statement he made was in any way correct. I also note that he gave that statement on the ABC’s Lateline program—and I will get to the matters of that television show and the reporter, Mr Tony Jones, in a moment. On 27 April Mr Andrews suggested that people were being raped and bashed and were killing other people and themselves. He went on to say that young people were hanging themselves off the church steeple on Sundays and that their mothers were having to cut them down. Since 27 April, I have travelled to Mutitjulu and have had a meeting with at least 30 members of that community. They are distressed, dismayed and horrified at the comments that have been made about their community. They have not had a chance to reply to these allegations and, at this stage, those allegations are completely unsubstantiated. There is no evidence at all that people have hung themselves off the church steeple. There may well be evidence that kids in that community have tried to commit suicide. Community members are certainly shocked and dismayed and they were extremely upset when they told me that no mothers had had to cut their children down off the church steeple. So why do we have public servants making these sorts of accusations? I think we really need to take note here, with this letter that has emanated out of a whole flurry of activity at the ABC, of the role of the media in this sad and sorry saga. We now know that Mr Andrews was interviewed on Lateline as a former youth worker. In a letter posted today on the Crikey website, I notice that Tony Jones himself has written to clear himself of accusations against Lateline, which he says amount to a conspiracy theory. But let us just put the question of a conspiracy theory to one side. Tony Jones admits in his letter that Mr Andrews being described as a former youth worker was in fact an unfortunate misjudgement, although a minor one. I notice, though, that Lateline was still happy enough to interview a whole swag of people in relation to petrol sniffing in that community and that only one of those people—that is, against a whole swag of people who had been associated with but were not involved with, did not live with and were not other Indigenous people in that community—was a senior traditional owner from that community. That is pretty one-sided reporting, I would say. I myself was a bit shocked and horrified when I saw the string of accusations being made on the Lateline show. I understand ‘a story is a story’ for some reporters, but I have to say that in my estimation the creditability and the high professionalism enjoyed in this country by Lateline have been severely diminished. We now know that two weeks ago—a couple of months after these allegations had been made—the Northern Territory Police department issued a statement to say that 200 to 300 people had been interviewed in relation to the allegations at Mutitjulu and that they had not found enough evidence to charge anybody with any crime. I notice, Tony Jones, that you did not actually repeat that or seek to qualify the unsubstantiated accusations on your show. The Northern Territory Police’s press release suggested that they had viewed hundreds of people and had not yet come up with any evidence. Where is the balance in the reporting here? Where is the attempt to get out to the community and to provide another side to the story? I think poor Greg Andrews is the messenger who has been shot here. It is unfortunate that this whole saga—as well as his misrepresentation of the activities of his department during Senate estimates—has come to light through his interview on Lateline. Why hasn’t Lateline reported the lack of spending on and commitment to petrol sniffing by the federal government? Why didn’t Lateline then seek to do a story on the outcome of the petrol sniffing inquiry? Why has it not revealed to the rest of this country that only three communities are involved in the 10-point plan—Docker River, Imampa and Mutitjulu—compared with the many other communities in the Northern Territory that want some action taken in relation to petrol sniffing? Why has it not revealed that any money this government has spent out there has been from the Aboriginals Benefit Account—that is, from Indigenous people’s own money derived from the royalties of mining? Not one new cent of the federal government’s money has been spent at Mutitjulu. Why hasn’t Lateline revealed to the rest of this country that any programs funded at Mutitjulu operate on a six-month or one-year funding basis and not on a three-, four- or five-year funding basis, which would enable some consistency and some quality outcomes rather than poor people struggling to deal with these problems and having to stop every four or five months to rewrite grant submissions? Why hasn’t Lateline revealed that these are short-term funded programs, that there is a serious lack of youth workers and youth programs in this community and that there are community people out there who want action taken? Unsubstantiated accusations either by public servants or through shows such as Lateline do nothing to assist or arrest the strife and the dysfunctionality in these communities. Why won’t Lateline take its cameras out and give us a half-hour show on the success of the Mount Theo program or the Papunya program, given that there are no kids sniffing in those communities now? That has happened not thanks to the actions of this federal government but thanks to the actions of Indigenous people. In my mind, the ABC, courtesy of Lateline and Mr Tony Jones, has seriously eroded the creditability of Indigenous people. I do not step aside from the fact that, if there are people out there doing as Tony Jones, Lateline and Mr Andrews suggest, they should be charged, locked up, sent to think about their actions and punished for their actions. We know that the paedophile they are talking about no longer lives in that region and has gone back to South Australia, but we and the police do not have any other evidence on which to base an arrest, a questioning, a holding or a charge. What are we doing to support the police in their actions to try to get to the bottom of this? What we tend to do is see on national television wild accusations which are unsubstantiated but then not qualified by the ABC. I seriously think that the reporting behaviour of this show needs investigating. I am grossly disappointed by the lack of impartiality of the ABC in relation to this, and I do not believe that their behaviour in the last two months has done anything to try and arrest the gross dysfunctionality in some of these communities or the lack of attention to petrol sniffing in this country. 70 17:31:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I was also a member of the committee conducting the inquiry that this information relates to. I should also say that I am chair of a separate committee, the Senate environment committee, which happened to be at Uluru Katajuta National Park on the night of one of the Lateline reports into this issue—a report which included allegations or comments regarding the actions or apparent inactions of Parks Australia with regard to some allegations. I also want to speak on the issue whilst it is before the Senate. I think it is an impossibly difficult issue to deal with, frankly. There are aspects of the way this story was handled by Lateline that I think are less than ideal. You can get into allegation and counterallegation, point to different aspects of transcripts and end up going down a range of different rabbit burrows and it will not really prove anything. I think we all need to remember when we are debating these sorts of issues that the key thing we need to keep our eye on is what is best for Indigenous Australians. Clearly, the suggestions that were made that there was a paedophile ring have been demonstrated to be grossly overstated if not completely incorrect. Certainly there was the strong inference in the reporting that the alleged paedophile was still in the community at the time the reports were made, when in fact he was no longer in the community and, from all the evidence I have seen, was pressured or chased out of that community some time earlier. That still raises the questions of why is it up to a community and, to some extent, organisations like Parks Australia to use various forms of pressure et cetera with regard to somebody who had very serious allegations made about them. The statement released by the head of Parks Australia, Mr Cochrane, around the time of the Lateline stories shows quite clearly that Parks Australia reported the allegations to the police. That was the appropriate thing to do, of course. Given the very crucial and very basic fundamental aspect of justice that somebody is innocent until proven guilty, obviously the person in that circumstance could not just be summarily dismissed from their job until the allegation had been investigated. However, in the meantime significant changes were made to restrict the activities of that person to try to ensure there was a reduced prospect of any untoward actions. The Territory police, having investigated the allegations, did not find any grounds for charging anybody. We can all see how that would put an organisation or an employer in a difficult position. Serious allegations are referred to police, the police investigate them and no action is taken. What do you do? That is always a difficult scenario. I do not think any of us can just get up and pronounce with certitude and high and mighty judgement how to deal with those situations. You have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis at the community level. I think that is basically what the community did. Frankly, I think the mainstream media, including the ABC, and mainstream politics, including us, simply do not operate in such a way as to deal effectively with some of the very serious challenges that Indigenous communities have to face. I think our records show that we have not exactly covered ourselves in glory in trying to deal with these issues. But I would also emphasise that we have to guard against double standards and against each of us, from our different perspectives, using scenarios that arise purely to advance our own political, ideological or philosophical barrow of the day. It is very easy to do that—in fact, sometimes it is quite hard not to do it. But I think we need to try to step back and look at the bigger picture—the long-term picture—and recognise the wider damage that can be done by just running away from an issue without looking at the broader consequences. Let us not also forget, of course, that many people, and particularly women in Indigenous communities, are crying out for more support and more help in dealing with violence and abuse towards adults and children in their communities. It is an incredibly difficult issue, and it is one that we have to try to deal with a bit more sensitively. That is why running off with wild allegations and using them to follow up with very public and very punitive actions is not normally a terribly constructive way to go. I also note the contrast between this and the way we tend to act with regard to allegations of child abuse, including child sexual assault, in the broader community. There was a report on the front page of my hometown newspaper, the Courier-Mail, a week or so ago about many thousands of child abuse and neglect allegations that had not been followed up by the state Labor government. In saying that, I know there are some reasons for that situation. But the fact is that, even if many allegations of child abuse had not been properly investigated because of resource constraints, the Queensland government did not have the federal government coming in and cutting off their funding and sending in an administrator, like happened in Mutitjulu. We have not had any widespread allegations that Queenslanders, as a society, are not able to function and cannot look after themselves or that we need to mainstream and deal with Queensland from Canberra. We have not had widespread smearing of the entire Queensland community such that the whole society is dysfunctional because of the quite widespread amount of child abuse, neglect and assault that occurs. We know that it is a difficult issue, and we know it is an issue that occurs throughout the entire Australian community. Whilst there is evidence that it is more widespread in some—and I emphasise ‘some’—Indigenous communities, the fact is that child abuse and child sexual assault are quite widespread across our community. It is a very difficult issue to deal with. From my background as a social worker and from knowing people who have worked in child protection, you are in an impossible position. If you go in and remove a child, you are accused of taking children away from their families, traumatising them and ripping them away from their support networks. If you leave them alone and more abuse happens, you are accused of leaving them to suffer lifelong damage. It is an impossible choice, and that is when you are operating outside the glare of the public spotlight, the media spotlight and the political spotlight. In the spotlight it becomes 50 times more difficult. In saying all that, I am not being helpful in providing an answer because I am not sure that you can provide an easy answer. Every situation has to be dealt with on its merits, but we need to recognise the need for sensitivity in these issues across the board and the need, as much as possible, to deal with these sorts of issues outside the glare of the public spotlight. We need to do that without using it as an excuse to sweep the issues under the carpet. We cannot resolve difficult and major issues at the community level whilst there is a whopping great spotlight on them and everybody is trying to look at every single situation to see how it fits the political battles of the moment. We have to try to find a way to move outside of that. I do not think there is any doubt that that is the way the story on Mutitjulu ended up. It galloped along and ended up overblowing the situation. There is no doubt that there are serious difficulties in that community—the community itself acknowledges that. It wants support in working through them. At the end of the day, you can have many politicians—all of us—making all our pronouncements, statements of outrage and big headlines in the newspapers, but that will all die down and the people at the community level will still have to deal with the situation. They want long-term support in dealing with that and enabling them to deal with that. We might go in there genuinely to try to help, but sometime or other we will be leaving and they will still be there. They are the ones who need the support. In this circumstance, the community have clearly been left in a situation where they feel like they have been punished many times over and perhaps exaggerated perceptions have been created about that situation. There is a wide range of circumstances and a wide range of reasons as to why things are as they are in that community, and that is a subject for another day. Certainly this whole episode is a reminder of how easy it is to let one small thing blow up out of proportion and cause more harm than good. It is a reminder of how we need to be careful in dealing with these issues. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 73 73 73 17:41:00 Nash, Sen Fiona E5G New South Wales NATS 1 0 Senator NASH —On behalf of the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, Senator Ian Macdonald, I present further volumes of the Hansard record of proceedings of the committee’s inquiry on the review of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002. 73 73 10000 Kirk, Linda   (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Kirk)—The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking to vary the membership of a committee. Senator VANSTONE (South Australia —Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) 17:42:00 —by leave—I move: That Senator Stott Despoja be discharged from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. Question agreed to. 73 BILLS R2536 73 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Senator VANSTONE (South Australia —Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) 17:43:00 —I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. 73 73 17:43:00 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 0 Senator VANSTONE —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2006 This bill is an omnibus bill that amends several pieces of intellectual property legislation. The bill amends the Patents Act 1990 to implement part of the Government’s response to two reports into the intellectual property system, and to broaden the patent ‘springboarding’ scheme for generic pharmaceuticals. The bill also amends the Trade Marks Act 1995 to provide the Registrar of Trade Marks with the power to revoke trade marks which have been registered as a result of administrative errors or oversights. It will also simplify the process for making documents relating to trade marks more readily available to the public. The bill also makes a number of other minor amendments to the Patents and Trade Marks Acts, and to the Designs Act 2003, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987. The bill implements several recommendations of a report by the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, entitled “Review of the Intellectual Property Legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement”, which is commonly known as the “Ergas report”. The bill also implements a further recommendation of a report by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, commonly known as ACIP, entitled “Review of Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights”. The Ergas report focussed on achieving an appropriate balance between intellectual property policy and competition policy. The ACIP report addressed issues concerning the enforcement of patent rights. By implementing these recommendations, the Government will increase the strength of granted patents, and will ensure that third parties are not adversely affected by the grant of patent rights. Some of the recommendations of these reports have already been implemented by the Government, in the Patents Amendment Act 2001 and the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2003. Several of the outstanding recommendations of these reports are implemented in this bill. The bill implements one recommendation of the Ergas report by amending the ‘prior use’ defence to patent infringement, which protects a person who was exploiting a product, method or process covered by a patent before the patent was filed. This provision balances the rights of the prior user and the person who is subsequently granted the patent. This amendment clarifies the operation of this defence to infringement, and overcomes some deficiencies in the drafting of the current provision. The bill implements another recommendation of the Ergas Report by amending the Patents Act to add a new ground on which a compulsory licence to use a patent may be granted. Under the existing provisions of the Patents Act, a compulsory licence to use a patent may be granted if the patent owner is not meeting the reasonable requirements of the public in respect of the patented invention. This amendment to the Patents Act will retain this existing test for the grant of a compulsory licence, and will add an additional provision, making the compulsory licensing of patents subject to a competition test. The bill implements a recommendation of the ACIP report by amending the Patents Act to specifically prescribe that a court can award exemplary damages in patent infringement actions, for example, in the case of flagrant or wilful infringement of a patent. This will be in addition to the currently prescribed remedies of an account of profits or damages to recover losses caused by infringement. This is intended to serve as a deterrent against flagrant and wilful infringement of patents, which will in turn strengthen patent rights. This will also bring the Patents Act into line with the Designs Act and the Copyright Act 1968, under which exemplary damages may also be awarded. The bill also implements a wider ‘springboarding’ scheme for generic pharmaceuticals than is currently provided under the Patents Act. Springboarding is a colloquial term that refers to using the subject matter of a patent to collect the data required to obtain regulatory approval of a generic version of the patented drug, when the patent is still in force. This allows generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to establish that their generic pharmaceutical product is bioequivalent to the original product before the patent expires and have it ready for the market upon patent expiry. Previously, the Patents Act contained a limited provision that only allowed springboarding on pharmaceutical patents that had received an extension of patent term. Consequently, Australia’s springboarding provisions have been more limited than those in competitor countries. Without this amendment, generic pharmaceutical companies would be pushed into undertaking research and development work offshore and then bringing their product into Australia upon patent expiry. This amendment corrects this investment disincentive without impacting on the current market environment. The new provision allows springboarding as an exception to patent infringement on any pharmaceutical patent at any time, for purposes solely in connection with gaining regulatory approval of a pharmaceutical product in Australia or another territory, to the extent allowed by Australia’s international obligations. Under the amended provisions, generic pharmaceutical companies would not be able to manufacture quantities of the product for export, set up to manufacture quantities prior to patent expiry or stockpile quantities for later sale while the patent is still in force, as these activities would be inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations in relation to the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which is commonly known as the TRIPS Agreement. The objective of this change to the springboarding provisions is to encourage generic pharmaceutical development in Australia, consistent with the National Medicines Policy objective of maintaining a responsible and viable medicines industry. The bill also amends the Trade Marks Act to allow the Registrar of Trade Marks to revoke the registration of trade marks in circumstances in which the trade mark should not have been registered in the first place. This provision would be used, for example, when a trade mark is registered as a result of an error or oversight on the part of the Trade Marks Office while assessing an application for registration of a trade mark. While such errors are rare, they do occur from time to time. They have the potential to cause confusion in the marketplace, and to give the owner of the trade mark that was registered in error some benefits to which they are not legitimately entitled under the Trade Marks Act. This situation does not serve the interests of owners of other registered trade marks who are affected by incorrectly registered trade marks, nor of the public generally. The amendments will provide a quick and simple way for the Trade Marks Office to have administrative errors and oversights of this nature rectified, which will be more efficient than having to seek redress in the courts. The provisions balance the rights of the owner of the registered trade mark by limiting the time and circumstances in which the Registrar is able to revoke the mark. They will achieve this by specifying factors the Registrar of Trade Marks will have to take into account when deciding whether to revoke a registration, and by allowing the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks to be appealed to the Federal Court. The bill also amends the Trade Marks Act to make the majority of documents held by the Trade Marks Office that relate to applications for registration of trade marks publicly available and easily accessible. Members of the public frequently find it necessary to access such documents for a variety of reasons. The most common reason is in the case of a party that is considering opposing the registration of a particular trade mark. There is a strong public interest in keeping invalid trade marks off the Register of Trade Marks, so there is a public interest in ensuring that oppositions of this nature proceed quickly and efficiently. The amendment will also have the effect of increasing the transparency of the functions of the Trade Marks Office. This amendment will provide a quick and efficient system of accessing relevant documents on trade mark files, which will increase the efficiency of the administration of the trade marks system. Businesses frequently have to file commercially sensitive information when seeking registration of trade marks. The amendments will also enable the Trade Marks Office to accept information of this nature in confidence, to ensure that the new system for access of trade marks documents will protect the interest of persons supplying sensitive information to the Trade Marks Office. This bill also makes a number of other minor and technical amendments to the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Designs Act, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act, including clarifying the effect of the Patent, Trade Marks, Designs and Plant Breeder’s Rights Offices not being open for business, for example, due to an emergency situation such as a bushfire. The amendments will allow a prescribed person to declare that the offices are not open for business in such circumstances. These amendments ensure that parties doing business with these Offices are not adversely affected by closures of these Offices. The bill also makes some technical amendments to the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act to increase the efficiency of the administration of the plant breeder’s rights system, and to facilitate integration of the administration of the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act within IP Australia. The amendments in this bill will result in stronger registered intellectual property rights and improve the administration of the intellectual property system. The bill reflects the Government’s commitment to encouraging innovation and providing Australia with a strong intellectual property system that meets the needs of Australians. Debate (on motion by Senator Vanstone) adjourned. 76 BILLS R2564 76 Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendment made by the Senate to the bill. 76 BILLS R2522 76 BILLS R2568 76 BILLS R2569 76 BILLS R2565 76 BILLS R2566 76 BILLS R2538 76 BILLS R2540 76 BILLS R2484 76 BILLS R2551 76 BILLS R2550 76 BILLS R2549 76 BILLS R2548 76 BILLS R2547 76 BILLS S496 76 BILLS R2518 76 BILLS R2525 76 BILLS R2552 76 BILLS R2553 76 BILLS R2555 76 BILLS R2554 76 BILLS R2562 77 BILLS R2575 77 BILLS R2571 77 BILLS R2531 77 BILLS R2561 77 BILLS R2567 77 BILLS R2546 77 BILLS R2541 77 BILLS R2543 77 BILLS R2529 77 BILLS R2564 77 BILLS R2563 77 BILLS R2512 77 Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General and Her Excellency the Deputy of the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate of assent to the bills. 77 BILLS S484 77 Debate resumed. 77 17:45:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —I will briefly conclude my remarks. I was at the stage of saying that I am extremely disappointed that the government are not having a public review of the act. It is extremely depressing and disappointing that it is an internal review, where they will choose who they consult with, where they do not take public submissions and where, presumably, we the community will not know the outcomes of the review of this extremely important legislation. The government also did not provide time lines for this review: when it is taking place, how long it will take, when it is due for reporting and when we will actually see amendments to the act. I think they have missed a significant opportunity to do a proper, full and thorough review of this act when it so desperately needs it. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 77 BILLS R2578 77 Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Senator Coonan: That this bill be now read a second time. 77 17:46:00 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP Leader of the Opposition in the Senate 0 0 Senator CHRIS EVANS —I wish to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. In 1995, David Mowaljarlai, an Aboriginal elder from West Kimberley, said: ... I don’t own the land, but the land owns me. That is the strong thing in Aborigine law and culture. It’s about the land. I’m only a servant, we all Aborigines are servants, we serve nature. That’s why it’s so important for us, because the land owns us. That is regarded as one of the definitive statements about Aboriginal relationship to land. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which is being discussed today, was the first and strongest legal recognition of the profound connection that Indigenous people have to their country and the communal nature of landownership in traditional Aboriginal law and culture. It recognised that relationship by granting a form of freehold title. It represented the most significant set of rights won by Aboriginal people after two centuries of European settlement. It returned about 50 per cent of the land area of the Northern Territory to its traditional owners. It went some way towards correcting a historical injustice and extending our legal system to recognise a non-European, communal ownership structure and the historical truth of Aboriginal rights on this land before European settlement. Australians can be rightly proud of the land rights act and the bipartisan spirit in which it was enacted. With the bill before us, the government will seek to radically reshape that land rights regime and, I think, in doing so it will debase its symbolic value. The bill diminishes the rights of traditional owners over their asset: the land. It fundamentally seeks to alter the principle of communal landownership, which is at the heart of the land rights regime. The government has taken this step without proper negotiation with traditional owners and without their consent. It is hard to imagine that any other group of Australians would have their property rights treated in this way. The government is rejecting the tests set from the first days of the land rights regime—the tests that those rights should not be diminished without negotiation or the consent of traditional owners. It is squandering the opportunity to develop a negotiated package of reforms which recognise Aboriginal cultural principles and encourage appropriate economic development on Aboriginal land. The government’s actions demonstrate a lack of respect for Indigenous people and their culture. It represents yet another paternalistic attempt to tell Aboriginal people what is good for them. Labor is proud that the land rights act had its origins in a Labor government and that we remain absolutely committed to the spirit and substance of the act. The act had its roots in the Woodward report, commissioned by the Whitlam government in 1973. Justice Woodward identified various aims of recognising Aboriginal land rights, including: The doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation.                   …         …         … The provision of land holdings as a first essential for people who are economically depressed and who have at present no real opportunity of achieving a normal Australian standard of living. The preservation, where possible, of the spiritual link with his own land which gives each Aboriginal his sense of identity and which lies at the heart of his spiritual beliefs. The need for justice, the need to recognise the spiritual link to land and the need to provide an economic resource for Indigenous people are as strong today as they were 30 years ago. With bipartisan commitment to land rights, the Labor legislation that lapsed at the election of 1975 was adopted and passed in almost original form by the Fraser coalition government. In the debate, the then Liberal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Ian Viner, noted: ‘affinity with the land is fundamental to Aborigines’ sense of identity’. From the outset, a difficult test was set for those who might try to amend the act. The test began with Woodward, who stressed the importance of it. He said: … ensuring that none of these interests or rights are further whittled away without consent, except in those cases where the national interest positively demands it—and then only on terms of just compensation. That is, not without consent and only on the basis of a strong national interest. This is a tough test and it is a test that the Howard government’s bill, which we are debating today, has failed. There was no proper negotiation, no consent and no argument of strong national interest. That approach and test was reaffirmed by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in 1999. It was a restatement, if you like, of the Woodward test. The bipartisan report, Unlocking the Future, stated: The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (‘the Act’) not be amended without: traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory first understanding the nature and purpose of any amendments and as a group giving their consent; and any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views. Again, this is a test that the Howard government has failed in relation to this bill. The failure to properly consult, negotiate with and afford basic respect to Aboriginal people in framing and pursuing these changes has engendered broad opposition to the bill. Not a single non-government submission to the very brief Senate inquiry that we were allowed was satisfied with either the bill’s content or the way it had been brought forward. Traditional owners, land councils, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, the Law Council of Australia and the Minerals Council of Australia all had reservations about the bill. The government is on its own in unilaterally reshaping the land rights regime. Labor is committed to reforms which assist Aboriginal people in gaining maximum benefit from their land. Likewise, we as a party have always promoted the benefit of homeownership and have helped Australians to realise that dream for over a century. We will consider positively any proposal which assists Indigenous Australians to realise the economic potential of their land but we will do so in accord with other strongly held values. Aboriginal land belongs to Aboriginal people and changes to land tenure on their land need to be negotiated with them and to have their consent. Reforms must be respectful of and appropriate to the principles of Aboriginal communal ownership and ensure the security of their title to Aboriginal land. To diminish their ownership rights as this bill seeks to do must be considered very carefully. Reform is a delicate and nuanced process but one which is achievable with a commitment to negotiation and consent and respect for Indigenous culture. Aboriginal people, I have found, are very committed to appropriate economic development and they want better services and economic opportunities in their towns. In partnerships with mining interests, they are finding ways to maximise economic development on their communal land. More than 200 Indigenous land use agreements across Australia have helped achieve economic outcomes for traditional landowners and facilitate smoother leasing arrangements. Labor supports the normalisation of services in townships and communities, and the capacity for Aboriginal homeownership and commercial enterprises in those communities. In spite of the government’s rhetoric, these things can happen under the current ownership system but Labor also accepts that improvements can be made and some new leasing arrangements could promote more efficient development and increase economic activity—for example, the transaction costs in securing a sublease on Aboriginal land can be high in terms of both money and the time it takes. We accept that this can delay development and we are committed to a constructive solution. We share common goals. There are traditional landowner groups who want to find a model that will streamline leasing and encourage economic activity yet preserve their role as decision makers and financial beneficiaries of development on their lands. Traditional owners in north-east Arnhem Land, Wadeye and Yarrabah in Queensland are talking about long-term leases, but their models reflect their interests as ongoing landholders, not government interests. They are rightly suspicious of a government which will not supply adequate hospitals and schools but argues that taking over their property rights is the solution to their disadvantage. Ironically, elements of this bill are testament to the effective outcomes that can be generated through consultation and negotiation. The bill includes a number of mining and exploration provisions which seek to streamline economic development opportunities on Aboriginal land. These are a response to concerns raised by mining interests and traditional owners and are in accord with the joint submission of the land councils and the Northern Territory government to the Commonwealth. They are the product of negotiation, have the consent and support of traditional owners and therefore receive Labor’s bipartisan support. Labor is moving an amendment to split this bill so we can expedite the passage of those negotiated mining and exploration provisions and seek to further negotiate tenure reforms which are respectful of Aboriginal ownership traditions and encourage appropriate development on Aboriginal land. The Howard government’s changes proposed in this bill fall well short of Aboriginal people’s aspirations. The government seeks to characterise the debate as a conflict between land rights and economic development. It promotes a simplistic political paradigm in which Aboriginal people have to choose one or the other—protection of their land rights or the benefits of economic development. For Minister Brough, it is even more simple: he equates it to a choice between homeownership and communism. All other considerations are excluded by this simplistic and erroneous assertion. You can have private homeownership under his plan or continue to live in ‘communist communities’, as he describes them. That is the extent of the respect he shows for Aboriginal law and culture by characterising that observance and that heritage as communism. There is ample evidence overseas of how communal land tenure and economic development can work successfully together. The government says that leasing arrangements under communal tenure are too time-consuming and represent a significant deterrent to investors and infrastructure development. Their answer is that the ownership rights of Aboriginal people therefore need to be diluted. Labor says: there are better answers. To the Howard government, land rights are a blockage that needs to be cleared away. For them this is not a policy debate but the continuation of an ideological battle—a rejection of a rights based approach—and what they now call a practical approach. The commitment the coalition showed to land rights in the Fraser years seems a long time ago. They argue that because land rights have not delivered an end to Indigenous disadvantage they are somehow part of the problem. For Indigenous people and for Labor, economic development and land rights are not mutually exclusive. They are not ends to be chosen between. It is not a choice between economic development and communal ownership; it is a debate about how we best promote economic development on Aboriginal land. Land rights are a basic legal ownership framework within which we can develop solutions to the particular challenges facing Indigenous communities and landowners. The government is presenting Aboriginal people with very difficult choices. In the hope of a decent economic chance and opportunities for homeownership, they are asked to trade off control of their land, which could effectively be for four generations, given the appalling mortality rates of Indigenous people. No other Australian landowner would receive such an ultimatum from the government and no other Australian landowner would be expected to tolerate such interference in their property rights. The government’s defence of this criticism is that the scheme they are proposing is voluntary, and that should provide us all with enough reassurance. But these statements that the leasing scheme would be voluntary have been seriously undermined by the minister’s own approach in recent months. Minister Brough and the government are using their powerful position to coerce communities into signing up to the leasing proposal. On two occasions it sought to link a total of $60 million in education and housing funds to an Aboriginal agreement to enter into a 99-year lease with the government. In a media release on 19 June 2006, Minister Brough stated: Around fifty houses will be built and real jobs provided, if the community is safe and signs up to full school attendance, a no-drugs no-violence policy and agree to a 99 year lease. You will get the houses if you sign up for the lease. This casts serious doubt on any assurances that the scheme is voluntary and raises concerns as to whether Aboriginal people are now being required to bargain away their land rights to secure basic services to which they are entitled as a right of citizenship. Any amendment to the land rights regime needs to be intellectually sound and well thought out. Two recent government concessions on this bill are a clear indication that the original proposals were flawed and that the government is making it up on the run. The government has backed away from the five per cent cap proposal on rental income and the condition that Aboriginal people could not negotiate for any pecuniary interest aside from rent. I understand that as late as a couple of hours ago more amendments were circulated. These changes are an acknowledgment that the government’s proposals in their original form were flawed and were not supported by Aboriginal people, whom we would have seen refuse to take up the scheme. The government is madly churning to try and ensure that it is able to implement the scheme given the hurdle it has in terms of Aboriginal agreement. But with the minister fixing up the holes in his policy as he goes, it is clear the plan has not been thought through and that the weaknesses stem in part from the failure to negotiate and seek Aboriginal consent. The government simply asserts that this bill will facilitate homeownership and be a panacea for the entrenched disadvantage faced by Indigenous Australians. Of course, no evidence is produced to support that claim. It has floundered to provide answers to the important questions. How will Indigenous people, with some of the lowest incomes in the country, be able to service large mortgages? How will homeownership be achievable in the most remote regions of Australia where construction costs are high and incomes are low? What will happen to the traditional lands of those who default? Will this scheme see much Aboriginal land divested from its traditional owners, as was the case in Canada and the USA with their experiments? We are asked to take the government’s assertions and this bill on trust. This bill is desperately lacking detail and the Senate should not be and cannot be expected to pass legislation with so much important detail unseen—detail that goes to the very heart of Indigenous ownership and control of their land. The government has been unable to indicate how the Northern Territory or Commonwealth government entities holding a 99-year headlease will be formulated or how they will work. Yet their formulation is critical to the degree of traditional owner representation and influence over future developments on their land—a key consideration for them and for Labor. The government has likewise been unable to indicate whether traditional owners will have to pay rent to these entities in order to lease back land that they already own. Labor cannot accept these changes when it is clear that so little has been thought through and when there are so many critical flaws in the policy. The bill also includes a range of measures pertaining to land councils and their funding and independence and to the minister’s interference in the role of land councils. Labor has serious concerns about a number of those measures. However, they are consistent with the Howard government’s history of sidelining Indigenous voices and undermining Indigenous organisations. They do nothing for Aboriginal people and they look very much like the government is again seeking to tell Aboriginal people what to do rather than holding a meaningful discussion with them about the way forward. Some of the proposals in this legislation give the minister unheard-of powers and seriously undermine Indigenous control over their property. This is a government which is strong on the rhetoric of traditional values of courtesy and respect—respect for elders and respect for property rights. It is a government which uses the rhetoric of small government to limit its interference in the rights of individuals to conduct their lives as they see fit. Why do these same values not apply when it comes to its dealings with Indigenous people? It is time the Howard government showed Aboriginal people some respect, showed elders some respect and showed some respect for Indigenous property rights. If the government cannot bring itself to show some respect for Aboriginal culture and connection to the land, then it should at least respect Aboriginal people’s right to be dealt with as citizens. The land rights act was the first and most substantial legal instrument of its kind and, as such, is one of huge symbolic and practical importance to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. The act is a demonstration that we can work to do justice in the shadow of injustice and that our legal system is expansive enough to accommodate different cultural and legal systems and principles. It conferred significant landholdings on traditional owners which are available for their economic opportunities. But the government’s failure to respect Aboriginal cultural principles, negotiate with the owners of the land or get their consent in pursuing the changes contained in this bill show a shocking level of disrespect for Indigenous people. The government is arguing that land rights have not provided the economic benefit to eliminate Indigenous disadvantage and is therefore seeking to construct a Hobson’s choice for Indigenous people—choose between your rights to land and your rights to economic development. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of traditional owners and the government to devise land tenure arrangements which streamline development without fundamentally undermining Indigenous ownership and control of the land. Labor urges the government to go back and negotiate with Aboriginal people and talk with them, not at them. Then I am certain we will have a much better result than that proposed in this bill. The bill is an affront to Aboriginal Australians and to the bipartisanship that we should be seeking to gain in dealing with land rights legislation. I urge the Senate not to accept the bill in its current form. 83 18:06:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —The Democrats do not support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 as it stands. There are components within it that have been developed through ongoing consultation with Indigenous peoples in the Northern Territory and with other stakeholders over a prolonged period of time, particularly with regard to the area of mining. Those components are the ones that clearly have the support of traditional owners and land councils and are the ones that we will not oppose. But there are other components of this legislation which, despite all the talk of nine years of consultation, did not appear in any form until late last year or earlier this year. Some of the other components of the legislation actually go in the other direction, to findings of various reports that were brought down as part of previous consultations. So let us once and for all, from the start, put aside any farcical deception that this legislation has been the subject of ongoing consultation at the community level for the last nine years. Some components of it have been, but there are key, vital components that have not. We only have to look at the evidence given to the disgracefully short Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the legislation—by one of the few Indigenous voices at traditional owner level who were able to give their views—to see quite clearly that traditional owners are not aware of some of the components of this legislation, are not supportive of other components and have not been consulted on them. If we look at the Senate committee transcript of that single day of hearings in Darwin, we see that the officers from the federal government’s Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination made it quite clear that they had not spoken to traditional owners about some of the newer key, crucial and controversial components of the legislation; they admitted that up-front. They had spoken to the land councils, not to consult them but to inform them as to what the government was proposing, and left it at that. This is from the part of our government that is now responsible for overseeing all activities in the area of Indigenous policy. If there were any one group of people in the entire armoury of the federal bureaucracy who should know the importance of meaningful consultation with traditional owners, particularly on matters that directly affect them, it would have to be the people at the top of the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination. But they did not do that consultation—they openly admitted that—and from what I could see they did not see any reason why they should have. I drew the attention of the Senate committee and the officers of the OIPC to the submission from the government’s own Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner which in part went to public commitments by this government in the domestic and international arenas with regard to the rights of Indigenous peoples—principles they had agreed to follow with regard to dealing with Indigenous peoples on issues and decisions that directly affected them. The core of those is the principle of free and informed consent by Indigenous peoples to legislative changes that directly affect their rights. The response from the OIPC officer—I think he was one of those who stayed in Canberra; he could not even be bothered to travel to appear before the committee in Darwin but gave evidence by phone—was, ‘Well, the concept of free and informed consent is a bit fuzzy around the edges.’ Like many legal concepts, international or domestic, it is fuzzy around the edges. But the fact that something is fuzzy around the edges should not be used as an excuse when it is quite clear what the heart of it involves. And it is quite clear that what this government did was not make any effort at all to give effect to any free and informed consent. How can there be free and informed consent when there is not even any informing in the first place? It does not matter how fuzzy the definition is; that is right outside any definition of free and informed consent. So we have yet another example of lots of lofty-sounding rhetoric from this government, trying to fool people into thinking that they are doing things the right way, that they have some genuine commitment to these basic principles. But, when you look at the reality of what they do on the ground, there is not even a pretence of following these principles; they are treated with total disdain, complete contempt. Unfortunately, that is not just disdain and contempt for a nice-sounding principle; it is disdain and contempt for the Indigenous peoples themselves, for the traditional owners. I find that extremely offensive and very distressing. When the previous minister announced by way of a media conference, towards the end of last year, this new idea about township leases, I spoke on that subject in the Senate. She did not give a ministerial statement in the Senate, because that is out of fashion. Important matters affecting the public are now announced via a media doorstop interview outside. Ministers very rarely bother to announce them through statements in the parliament now, thus making it more difficult to debate them. But, when I did speak on the matter a couple of times towards the end of last year, I spoke quite specifically about the need for direct engagement and consultation with the people who are affected, the people at the community level. No matter how fantastically brilliant the government thinks these changes are, if they are not going to involve the peoples whose land is affected, whose rights are directly affected; if they are not going to talk to them and treat them with respect, dignity and basic courtesy; if they are just going to impose it on them as another brilliant idea from Canberra, then the chances of it working are dramatically reduced. Of course, that is exactly what has happened. Not even the slightest effort was made. What that says to me is not that the government did not think about it—of course they would have thought about it. What it quite clearly says is that there is no genuine commitment to try to make these changes work. If there were, there would be genuine engagement with the people who these changes affect. That is not a political or ideological point; that is just basic common sense. If you want a community to work with changes and to make those changes work effectively, then you work with them. You do not just drop it on them from a hundred miles above and then try to convince them afterwards that it is a fabulous thing that is going to be good for them, particularly not when it is something as fundamental as this, and particularly given our extremely sad and sorry history with regard to the dispossession of Aboriginal people. It seems the latest form of conservative political correctness these days is that you are not allowed to talk about Indigenous history. You are not allowed to talk about symbolism or rights because we all have to be practical, and if you talk about history you are looking backwards, and we have got to look forward; we cannot be trapped in the past. I agree that we cannot be trapped in the past, but there is no way we can walk effectively into the future unless we honestly acknowledge how we got to where we are today. And there has been no honest acknowledgement of how we have got to where we are. That is part of why changes like these can be made with such contempt and such dismissiveness, not just towards the Senate and the parliament—we in the Senate are getting used to being treated with contempt—but, far more importantly and far more unforgivably, towards Indigenous people. That, to me, is the core problem with this legislation. I have stated publicly a number of times that, even though I have concerns with the specifics of some aspects of the legislation, if the traditional owners, or a reasonable proportion of them, were to make it clear that they were broadly supportive of these changes going through then I would vote for them anyway because this law is, first and foremost, a law regarding the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. If they are supportive of it then that is their business. But the evidence is quite clear, even from the very limited Senate inquiry that we had, that they are not supportive of it. I should emphasise and put on the record that this legislation first appeared at the end of May—less than 2½ months ago. The initial indication from the government when requests were first made to refer it to a Senate committee was that that could not happen, because it had to pass by the end of June. The initial insistence from the government and from the minister was that this had to be pushed through within less than a month. With some strong urgings—urgings that it was in the government’s interest, let alone basic due process and decency—there was agreement to hold the briefest possible Senate committee inquiry. I sometimes wonder these days whether Senate committee inquiries that are impossibly short just give the government a fig leaf to make it look like they have engaged in consultation when they have not. I note that a number of people, including important witnesses such as Oxfam Australia, did not put in submissions to the inquiry, because they did not have time, in the extremely short time frame available, to put in meaningful submissions. The committee did not have time to take evidence from some of the people we would have liked to have had evidence from. The report of the committee, which included government members, categorically stated that there was insufficient time for the committee to properly scrutinise the legislation. With legislation as fundamental as this you cannot get a more basic description of contempt than that. The Senate committee members, including the government members, openly stated that there was insufficient time to scrutinise it. How contemptuous can you get? And it is not just traditional owners that we were not able to hear from. Other important bodies I would have liked to have had more evidence from included, particularly, the Minerals Council of Australia. When you have the mining industry in the Territory lining up with Indigenous people in the Territory in expressing concerns about some of these changes then you know something is deeply wrong. If you look at the detail of the changes, you can see why. There is a consistent pattern coming out, with many different pieces of legislation in a wide range of areas being forced through the Senate, of more power being centralised in the hands of the national government. We have heard a number of federal government ministers in recent times speaking more and more frequently about the need to get more and more power into the hands of federal government. Whatever the area is, it seems that the government’s solution is to give more power to themselves. That is what they have done in the area of Indigenous affairs; we have already seen it in a wide range of other areas. In the administration of Indigenous issues, under the guise of so-called mainstreaming, we have had the government taking full control. Even though all the rhetoric is of opening up more opportunities for economic development for Indigenous people, creating more flexibility and generating opportunities for enterprise, what you see when you look at the detail is more control for the minister. That is why the Minerals Council are also concerned about some of these changes. Indeed, even where you had amendments recommended by the land councils, by the Northern Territory government and by the minerals industry, the government did not make some of those changes in particular areas, because that would have meant them relinquishing control and giving more control and power to the land councils, the traditional owners and industry to work it out amongst themselves. You would have thought that a government like this, with all their ideological rhetoric, would be all for any opportunity for government to get out of the way and allow Aboriginal people and industry to figure it all out for themselves without red tape, without bureaucracy and without government interference. If you look at all of the contentious changes in this legislation, you see that they all have one thing in common: they either give more power to the minister and the government or they take power away from Aboriginal Australians. Sometimes they do both in one measure. When you look at that you see a pattern, and that is why it is not sufficient for the minister to give vague assurances that there will be no coercion of Aboriginal people to sign up to 99-year leases on their townships—that it will all be voluntary. He can say that now, but once the legislation is passed there is no way of preventing people from being coerced in all sorts of ways into leases that they would rather not enter into. If you look at some of the other changes in the legislation, you see changes that increase the minister’s control over the budgets of the land councils. Previously, there was a legislative minimum that land councils had to receive each year. They had a guaranteed floor that they knew they would receive each year in funding. That is now to be taken away. What other possible reason could there be for that, other than for the federal minister to have more power, more influence and more ability to provide implicit threats to the land councils? If they do not do the right thing then their budgets can be diminished. Anybody that suggests that does not and would not happen is either a fool or a liar. It happens time and time again. It is not a practice solely the province of the current federal government; it is the practice of governments state and federal, Labor and Liberal, over a long period of time. It seems to have got worse, I might say, in recent times, at both state and federal levels; it is a practice that we all know happens. If this legislation goes through, it will be a clear example of where there is a major weapon in the back pocket of the minister. The minister will be able to require the land councils to do what he wants and to inflict punishment if that does not happen. In addition to that, the minister now gets power to be able to override a land council’s refusal to delegate powers and functions. Supposedly, there is more flexibility because the land council can delegate more easily, and that is good, and they can also decide that they do not want to and keep the decision with themselves. But under this legislation they can have that overridden from left field by the minister. We have the potential for the minister to be able, against the land council’s wishes, to more easily establish smaller land councils. These are the sorts of provisions that were opposed and have been opposed by the Minerals Council for the simple reason that it will increase uncertainty. It will mean the potential for dealing with different people and different bodies making different decisions about the same situation. This legislation has the real prospect, which perhaps in some respects could please some environmentalists, of making it more difficult to establish mining in the Northern Territory. It actually increases the potential complexity and the prospect of bureaucratic interference. The other aspect which I think really does need emphasising is: who will be paying for any 99-year leases that occur over townships? Remember, this is the government’s brand new idea. The government have not consulted with traditional owners and it has not been part of the long reconsideration of this act to have a 99-year headlease over a township. Yet any rents payable to traditional owners who agree to lease their land will come not from the lessee, like the Northern Territory government, for example, but from the existing pool of money already set aside for Aboriginal people which has been directly derived from mining royalties on Aboriginal land. Frankly, every time I look at this I think there must be a mistake. They could not be so brazen as to say under the guise of providing economic opportunity for Aboriginal people, ‘You can rent your land to somebody else for 99 years and the money to pay for that rent will come from your own money that has already been set aside.’ Not a single new cent will be provided to assist in the so-called economic development for Aboriginal people under this act if any of these leases are agreed to. The money will come from funds already set aside for the benefit of Aboriginal people and derived directly from mining royalties from their own land. So, to pay for leases, the government is now going to dip into that set amount of money already there and meant to be used for Aboriginal people. There are a range of other aspects that need some questioning in the committee stage. One of the downsides of not having time for proper committee inquiries is that in the committee stage of debate we have to ask the questions on the floor of the chamber. The government might think that it saves time by having short committee inquiries but it actually chews up the time of the Senate as a whole. I will explore some of those other matters later. 87 18:26:00 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 0 Senator SIEWERT —The Greens believe that elements of these amendments are bad legislation. We are concerned that some of the amendments contained in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 will have significant impacts on Aboriginal communities. These are the biggest changes in over 20 years to what is considered in Australia to be landmark legislation that covers a large proportion of Aboriginal controlled land in this country—up to 50 per cent of the Northern Territory. Yet it is being rushed through the Senate with undue haste, causing significant community confusion and concern. The government claims that there has been sufficient community consultation going back over a number of years on this bill. This is disingenuous. While it is true that there has been consultation on some of it, there has not been on the controversial elements. It is telling to note that on the aspects of the bill that have had proper stakeholder input there is little controversy and broad community support. I was interested to note today when we were talking about the heritage protection bill in this place that Senator Kemp made the point that the government will be consulting. He said: One of the reasons that this government has been able to get itself re-elected is that it does have a reputation for being a consultative government. It is a government that gets out and it listens. It has not consulted on this issue. Let me state here very clearly that as far as these sections of the bill are concerned—those amendments arising from the joint submission made by the four land councils and the NT government in 2003 and designed to improve the workability of the legislation as it relates to mining agreements—the community supports them and we support them. As far as the other newer proposed changes are concerned—those that have not had proper community consultation and around which there is significant community concern—we do not support them. We believe that they need to go back to the community and the government needs to get it right. There are a number of unintended consequences of this legislation which will create disincentives for economic development and homeownership in Aboriginal communities and make it more difficult and costly to resolve issues and develop agreements. Ultimately, they will prove counterproductive to the stated aims of this legislation. To this end we are proposing that the bill be split to allow further development and consultation on those elements of the bill that are contentious and those that have not been adequately discussed. Let us move into law immediately those sections of the bill on which there is broad agreement and defer the newer parts for further work and further community consultation. We strongly support the idea that problems associated with economic opportunities in Aboriginal lands urgently need to be addressed and we strongly support moves that remove disincentives to investment and enterprise development that benefit Aboriginal communities. We support moves to streamline processes and get rid of unnecessary red tape, but not if they disadvantage Aboriginal communities. We support increased positive incentives to encourage business and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people. If the government is genuine about economic development for Aboriginal communities then it needs to take time to address these issues effectively, talk to the experts in Indigenous development and look at what has and has not worked both here and overseas. If the government is genuinely concerned about creating real jobs and homeownership for its Aboriginal citizens then it will not push through these ill-informed changes in their current form. Instead, it will present a package of amendments, projects and programs to address economic development. Given how wrongheaded these amendments are and the government’s apparent unwillingness to support deferring this legislation, I must question the government’s motives to rush this legislation through. The ultimate aim of this legislation may be to diminish the power of land councils, destabilise government structures, increase the power of the minister and take away control from traditional owners so that outsiders can come in and exploit their land and resources. It is interesting to note that remote Aboriginal communities that are not on Aboriginal land face many of the same problems and constraints as those communities where land rights have been granted, yet the government is not moving to deal with these issues. The issue of facilitating economic development on Aboriginal land, particularly in relation to developing enterprise and employment opportunities for remote Aboriginal communities, is an extremely important one that requires a considered and concerted approach. We are pleased to see that the government is now demonstrating a willingness to address this issue, but the current approach will not prove effective. The main impediment to economic development in Aboriginal communities is not the issue of land tenure and private leases. Housing access, rather than individual house ownership, is an issue. There are many more pressing issues that need addressing. Constraints to economic development include the incredible remoteness, transaction costs, transport costs, limited opportunities, small population sizes with no economies of scale, the lack of equity in terms of low income and low rates of employment and, in particular, the lack of education, training and infrastructure. These are all issues that constrain economic development. I note with interest a report that has just been released by Reconciliation Australia which looks at Indigenous community governance. It is a research project and it also looks at socioeconomic development. It points out that common factors for successful socioeconomic development include: ... strong visionary leadership; strong culturally-based institutions of governance; sound, stable management and professional staff support; strategic networking with public or private sector partners to engage with the wider economy; having infrastructure substantially in place; having access to relevant training and mentoring opportunities; and hard-headed strategic planning and review procedures. It goes on to say: While improved governance can strengthen economic development, given the rapidly growing Indigenous population there is an urgent need to increase investments in infrastructure and essential services if current levels of socioeconomic development are not to stagnate or go backwards. The majority equity that Aboriginal communities have to use to promote economic development is their land. The way that land rights and native title work in Australia makes that much more difficult because, unlike in other countries, communities are not granted full freehold lease title, which greatly limits the amount by which they can benefit from resource exploitation, such as mining. The Northern Territory has very restrictive tenure arrangements over community living areas that basically mean that Aboriginal people cannot undertake economic development opportunities in Aboriginal town sites. If the Commonwealth and the Territory believe that tenure is the main impediment to economic development, why are they not fixing these issues? Why are they only looking at these issues on Aboriginal land? What Aboriginal people need is the ability to enter into joint ventures, to enter directly into these enterprises and to develop their equity. However, at the moment they are restrained in their ability to bring money to the table. A number of aspects of this legislation are cause for concern—for example, the provision to create 99-year headleases, under the new section 19A. We believe this will not result in either an increase in private homeownership or more enterprise being developed in townships on Aboriginal land. At the same time, this may have a number of unintended consequences that undermine the prospects for economic development. The community is very concerned that headleasing and subleasing provisions could mean that traditional owners relinquish control and cannot prevent inappropriate commercial development on subleased land—for example, liquor outlets subleased in dry communities. Unless traditional owners are convinced that there are provisions to ensure that economic benefits to them are safeguarded, this uncertainty will act as a disincentive to grant any such leases. It is arguable that there is no need to introduce this new headleasing scheme because private leases are already available under the existing section 19. This has already happened with the Alice-to-Darwin railway and with the gas-processing plant near Wadeye. The reason individual private leases for housing are not already happening is an issue of demand, not of the difficulty of the process. Most people in Aboriginal communities simply do not have the income to buy their own homes, even if they want to, nor do they have the money to maintain them. As I said previously, the issue is to do with access to housing. If the issue is the complexity of developing leases under the current section 19 provisions then the government should simply look at streamlining the existing section, rather than develop a whole new 99-year headlease scheme which vests control in an outside entity. The Northern Territory government entity that controls the subleases remains totally unknown. The Northern Territory legislation has not been drafted and there is no information available on the powers and composition of this entity or how it will operate. Is it to be a not-for-profit entity? If not, where do the sublease profits go? If the rental for the headlease is fixed, can the entity make a profit from the sublease? What say do the traditional owners then have in the approval of the subleases? Under the fixed terms of the 99-year lease, traditional owners lose control for four generations. This could mean that they lose the chance to respond to future opportunities when the situation on the ground changes and some real opportunities for economic development emerge. It is unclear whether this means that the rent remains fixed as well. Traditional owners are concerned that they may lose control over townships on their land to community residents from other cultural groups. It is the land councils who will be negotiating the conditions of the lease. When this is taken in combination with the provisions creating new land councils—where 55 per cent of members live nearby and are not necessarily the traditional owners of the land—and delegating the functions of a land council to Aboriginal corporations, who are not necessarily working in the best interests of the traditional owners, this creates a problem. It could mean that a group of residents who are not the traditional owners of the land on which a town site is located could effectively be taking control of a township lease. The government has asserted that these headleases will be purely voluntary. However, the committee inquiry heard evidence of at least two cases where communities have been required to sign on to headleases in exchange for the delivery of what are arguably basic and essential services. On Elcho Island, I understand that Minister Brough has sent an open letter to the community, giving them two months to sign on to a headlease if they want funding for 50 so-called additional houses to meet chronic unmet need. Given the severe housing shortage on Elcho Island, the provision of adequate housing is an essential service—not, as the minister claims, a discretionary one. Then we look at the Tiwi Islands and the secondary boarding school. The OIPC have argued that this is not an essential service, but a discretionary extra, because it will be a private boarding school. This is despite the fact that there is an urgent need for secondary schooling on the Tiwi Islands and the government has a long record of providing resources for private school infrastructure elsewhere with no strings attached. The Department of Education, Science and Training stated clearly in Senate estimates, when cross-examined by Senator Crossin, that the $10 million was conditional on signing the headlease. Housing and education are essential government services that most Australians take for granted. Federal, state and territory governments have been failing in their obligation to deliver these services to Aboriginal communities for decades. Where the provision of essential services is woefully inadequate, it is disingenuous to claim that requiring Aboriginal communities to sign away their rights in exchange for ‘extra’ services is a voluntary decision. This amounts to coercion. What this government is effectively doing is selling to Aboriginal communities the services we take for granted as our rights as citizens. It is doing this by requiring them to sign away control over their communities and by using ABA moneys to pay for town-planning services which are normally provided by local government. We have similar concerns about the delegation of land council powers. These provisions are highly likely to undermine the stability and workability of the land councils and to promote dispute and litigation. There is a very big difference between enabling the land councils to delegate some of their responsibilities to regional bodies to make it quicker and easier to deal with local and regional issues and what is proposed in this bill. Proposed sections 28B and 28C are a radical departure from the normal administrative rules relating to delegation of powers. Proposed section 28B means that once a delegation is made it cannot be varied or revoked by the land council, except at the request of the delegate or on the say-so of the minister. The minister can unilaterally grant a variation or rescind it by written direction to the land council—whether they want it or not. Proposed section 28C means that the minister can delegate powers if a land council refuses to do so. This is not delegation; this is a mechanism to strip and reallocate the core functions given to land councils under the act. Proposed section 28D means that while a delegation is in force a land council cannot exercise its functions regarding that subregion. However, at the same time the land council must provide the corporation with the powers that have been delegated to it and facilities and assistance to perform the delegated functions. There will be an increased demand on limited resources combined with confusion and inefficiency brought about by the duplication of services. The council is still ultimately responsible for its statutory obligations but may no longer be in a position to carry them out. This is madness. It is clearly politics of divide and conquer. We expect that it will increase conflict and litigation. We believe that this will diminish the potential for economic development in remote communities. It will scare off partners or investors, not encourage them. These provisions are not about simply enabling more efficient and effective decision making about regional issues at the regional level. Giving the minister the power to override land councils subverts their existing governance and accountability arrangements for no appreciable gain. We believe that if the government is serious about fast-tracking development it should drop altogether the proposed provisions under sections 28C, 28D, 28E and 28F. Then we come to the establishment of new land councils. Some well-thought-out and sensible recommendations on how to create new land councils were provided in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs Unlocking the future, in 1999. It is ridiculous that the government has ignored these recommendations and effectively gone back to the approach of the discredited Reeves report—of which the committee report was universally critical—and is seeking, for ideological reasons, to effectively dismantle the two large land councils by other means. At the same time as this plan for breaking up the land councils is going ahead, there has been an ongoing process under native title to create larger native title representative bodies because of the obvious benefits in terms of capacity, resources and economies of scale. We do not believe that a 55 per cent vote represents a substantial majority, and we believe that having such a low threshold increases the likelihood of internal conflict and instability. Because the bill specifies only 55 per cent of ‘people living nearby’, we are concerned that traditional owners could be sidelined and disempowered by Aboriginal people from other cultural groups who do not have rights and responsibilities for that area of the land. Then we come to the use of the Aboriginals Benefit Account. We do not believe that the use of the Aboriginals Benefit Account to fund the new leasing arrangements is appropriate, and we support the concerns of the Minerals Council of Australia—it is very unusual for the Greens to support concerns of the Minerals Council of Australia—that the ABA moneys are increasingly being seen as a substitute for government funding of basic social services. We are concerned that, by effectively taking over administration of ABA funds, the government is undermining the fund’s role in encouraging and supporting economic development initiatives. It is simply outrageous that ABA money is being used to fund changes that the communities do not want and do not support. We also have concerns about the termination of non-contiguous claims to intertidal zones, riverbeds and banks, and we believe that further work is required to resolve this issue in a satisfactory manner. I want to very quickly touch on the issue of the Senate inquiry and committee report. We were extremely disappointed at the limited time allowed for the Senate inquiry, which gave stakeholders a very short space of time to put in submissions, and the fact that there was only a one-day inquiry. The committee listed a number of substantial issues with the bill; however, its final recommendation that the legislation should go ahead and further community consultation should be allowed after the act has been put in place `is inappropriate. It is not the way to deal with substantive issues of this kind. Because these changes will have such unintended consequences, we believe that just going back to communities after the fact to deal with the changes in this legislation will be impossible. This legislation needs to be split. The elements that do not have community support and that will have such unintended consequences, such as the impacts on communities, land councils and traditional owners, should be withdrawn and should go out for community consultation. If the government is genuine about promoting economic development in Aboriginal communities, it needs to come back with a fully consulted and considered package that genuinely addresses the fundamental constraints to economic development in Aboriginal communities. Subleasing and promoting individual homeownership and a miraculous belief that that will therefore deal with all the economic problems in Aboriginal communities is, to my mind, wrongheaded. This bill needs to be split. 92 18:46:00 Humphries, Sen Gary KO6 Australian Capital Territory LP 1 0 Senator HUMPHRIES —I am happy to rise in my place today to indicate my support for the legislation on the table, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. Indicating one’s view about this legislation does rather depend on whether you see the possible shortcomings in it or the potential that it holds. For my part, I believe this legislation should properly be characterised as a bill which offers an enormous opportunity for growth, empowerment and economic development for at least certain parts of the Aboriginal communities of the Northern Territory. This legislation in particular addresses the fact that there have been 30 years or so of land claims in the Northern Territory, resulting in approximately half of the land area of the Northern Territory being Indigenous-owned but, in that period, relatively little economic exploitation for the benefit of Aboriginal people, traditional owners, of the land that has come into their legal ownership under these reforms, which were enacted in 1976 by the Fraser government. I believe anybody who observes the state of Aboriginal Australia today needs to acknowledge that part of the solution to the very many problems faced by Indigenous Australians is to give them greater access to economic power and the capacity to fund and resource solutions to the problems that they face. I see—and, of course, the federal government sees and, to a large extent, the Northern Territory government sees—the reforms in this legislation as being part and parcel of the program to give Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory greater economic clout, greater capacity to exploit their most valuable resource, which, in many ways, is the land that is traditionally theirs. These are the most comprehensive reforms to Aboriginal land rights legislation since it was introduced in 1976. I believe it does allow for greater economic returns on land which have not been fully identified, understood and, certainly, exploited. In many ways, we need to change the paradigm which operates in communities in the Northern Territory. It is a paradigm which could be said to have let down Aboriginal people. I believe that the dynamics and considerations that apply in the rest of Australia—issues such as home ownership and the capacity to secure access to resources that will be an ongoing source of economic wealth—are equally to be exploited within the context of Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. These changes will make it easier for Aboriginal people to own their own homes and for businesses to operate in the Northern Territory on Aboriginal land in the way that they operate in other parts of Australia. Debate interrupted. 93 DOCUMENTS 10000 Brandis, George (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brandis)—Order! It being 6.50 pm, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government documents. 93 93 18:51:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This document is the 2004-05 annual report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, ATSIS, which was an executive agency of the Commonwealth within what was then the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. It was established on 1 July 2003 as an interim measure and a means of implementing what the government called a separation of powers within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. It was staffed largely through the transfer of ATSIC staff. ATSIS was abolished, along with ATSIC, in 2005. This report covers the final period of ATSIS, the closure period, until March 2005. As the report says, the abolition of ATSIC and the administrative arrangements to disperse ATSIS programs, functions and staff to other agencies were undertaken by the current federal government as a move to what they called a whole-of-government approach. This report deals with the winding down or closure period. In that context, it is probably not massively enlightening in terms of the overall scenario of the administration of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But I want to take the opportunity to look at the process that has followed on from the winding up of ATSIS, particularly this move to the so-called whole-of-government approach. I will not revisit the debate we have just had about the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination and their role with regard to the land rights legislation. I want to talk about another example of what has occurred with the government’s move to this whole-of-government approach and the winding up of bodies like ATSIS, which was not without its flaws. A couple of weeks ago, I travelled to a number of Aboriginal communities in the Cape York area of Queensland, including Mapoon, Napranum, Hopevale and Wudja Wudjil, as well as a couple over in the gulf—in particular, Burketown and the Yarrabah community near Cairns. Predominantly, I went to listen to people and to hear what issues they believed were important in each of those different communities. Every community is different, despite the fact that we tend to take a one-size-fits-all approach to debates about and policies for Indigenous affairs. Even in just that one region of far North Queensland there are big differences between the communities. One thing that came out very clearly was the very damaging effect on these communities as a direct consequence of the government’s changes to the Community Development Employment Project, CDEP. What has happened to a number of those communities, most notably Mapoon and Napranum out of the ones that I visited, is that the contract for the administration of CDEP has been taken away from the councils that had been running them for a long period of time and been given to an outside service provider, a Job Network agency, which now has to run the CDEP program. Councils like Mapoon are widely recognised as operating very effectively with a very small number of people—there are around about 300 in that community, I believe, with about half of them being under 18. That council manages to run services over a much wider area than your average local government does. Yet they had their CDEP funding taken away from them with about a week’s notice, with it given to a service provider from out of town who did not even have programs ready to run. The bizarre scenario for that community is that it actually had people operating under a no work, no pay situation for a number of years suddenly being told that they all had to go on holidays because the new service provider did not have programs ready. The brilliant whole-of-government approach of the federal government has led to sit-down money being paid on cape communities. What a fantastic reform! That is the sort of brain surgery we have had from some of the brilliant people now running this whole-of-government approach in Canberra. It is a reminder of how we are going back and repeating the same mistakes again. What we need are people who are willing to work on the ground rather than just pursue their ideological agendas and ignore the consequences. This is one more example of where the consequences on the ground go in the opposite direction to the rhetoric. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 95 95 18:56:00 Sherry, Sen Nick ZW4 Tasmania ALP 0 0 Senator SHERRY —I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This report, which was tabled out of sitting, is a report by the Australian Government Actuary. For those who are not familiar with the work of an actuary, an actuary is a highly skilled and trained mathematician who is responsible for combing sets of social and economic indicators and assumptions over a forward period—10, 20, 30 or 40 years—with mathematical formulas and calculating costs through to the long-term future. Actuarial work is an extremely demanding science. It is certainly an occupation that I have considerable respect for. It is quite possible to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy costs into the long-term future. The Australian Government Actuary in our system is a relatively small unit of about half-a-dozen people located within Treasury. However, it is not statutorily independent. One Labor policy that has been announced in this area is to make the Australian Government Actuary statutorily independent. As a consequence of that, it will not be able to be directed with respect to its work. The statutorily independent Government Actuary will under the Labor policy be charged with independently reporting on and analysing not just superannuation schemes but a range of other things. It is modelled on the UK government actuary. It will have a much more important, central and independent role, for example, in the calculation of the Intergenerational Report, which we have heard a great deal on recently. That report is a general projection of costs across a whole range of government outlays through to 2042. This specific report is interesting in the context of the Future Fund, which we have again heard a great deal about in recent times. The Government Actuary has updated, as at 30 June 2005, the actual and projected Commonwealth outlays through to the years 2044-45. It is done every three years. Because circumstances can change, it is important to have as accurate as possible actuarial projections of what is likely to occur through to the year 2044-45 The two military schemes, together with the now closed public sector defined benefit funds and a number of much smaller schemes—the parliamentary schemes, the judges scheme and the Governor-General scheme—make up a series of liabilities that will require funding through to the year 2044-45. What I found interesting about this Australian Government Actuary report was the way in which the projected liabilities have been updated and will in fact change. On page 7 of the report the present value of unfunded liabilities is updated. On the last occasion, as at 30 June 2002, there was some $27.1 billion of liabilities as a consequence of the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme. The three-year update shows that the liabilities then calculated have been updated to $32.1 billion. That is an increase of approximately $5 billion in terms of the actuarial projected upgrade. That in itself sounds like a significant figure—a $5 billion increase in liabilities—however, as a percentage of gross domestic product, of the total value of the economy, the liability has declined, because economic growth is growing faster than the liabilities. The projected percentage of GDP on 30 June 2002 was 3.8 per cent. It in fact declined to 3.6 per cent as at 30 June 2005. Question agreed to. 96 96 19:02:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This report is historic in its own way. It is the final annual report of ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which wound up on 23 March last year—flowing on from the report that I was just speaking about, the annual report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services, ATSIS. I note that the description sounds almost like an obituary: ‘ATSIC, 1990-2005’—perhaps we could add ‘rest in peace’. I can certainly say from some of the feedback that I am getting from Indigenous communities that there has not been a lot of peace with regard to what has happened since the abolition of ATSIC. The report talks about how in 2002 the government began a wide-ranging review of ATSIC which found that many Indigenous people were ‘uncomfortable’ with a government imposed structure and preferred to ‘deal at a community level as directly as possible with funding bodies’. I certainly do not dispute that finding. Of course, if we look at the reality, what has happened is that government is more remote than ever and funding bodies are also more remote than ever from Indigenous communities. This was a million-dollar review. A million dollars of taxpayers’ money was spent. Former minister Bob Collins, well-known Indigenous leader Jackie Huggins and a third person went around the country reviewing the operations of ATSIC and brought down a report about what should happen. What did the government do? It ignored the whole lot and abolished ATSIC—with the encouragement, unfortunately, of the opposition. Indeed, in some respects, the lead was shown by the then Labor leader, Mark Latham. As this report states, the government’s response included abolishing ATSIC and ATSIS based on ‘governments coordinating their efforts’ and ‘real engagement with Indigenous people at the local and regional level’. This is another example of the government making very lovely sounding statements about real engagement with Indigenous people at the local and regional level. But what have we seen since then? We have seen far greater disengagement. ATSIC got a lot of bad press—and some of it was very deserved. I have to say that it is an area where Aboriginal people were badly let down by some of their leaders. But that should not obscure the fact—and the original government review of this did not obscure this fact—that there was a lot of good work being done at a regional level. Good work does not get the headlines; scandal and controversy do. The expertise and mechanisms for—to use the government’s own term—‘real engagement at the local and regional level’ that were there with ATSIC have been lost, and that is coming through time and time again. What has also been lost is representation for Indigenous people in public debates at the local level, the regional level and the national level. That is something that needs to be addressed. It is a need which the government has been quite happy to leave unaddressed. I turn again to the changes to the Community Development Employment Projects program, CDEP—changes made in Canberra by bureaucrats within DEWR, based upon an ideology about shifting people into real jobs, with no care at all, no interest and no awareness of the reality of life in remote areas, let alone life in remote Indigenous communities, and I again mention, for example, those communities on the cape. What we have instead, to quote Mr Lee Robertson, the CEO of Hopevale council, north of Cooktown, is a ‘nightmare for Cape York’s Aboriginal communities’. I draw attention to an article in the Cairns Post of 3 August where the CEO of Hopevale called for a crisis meeting between all of the cape’s affected councils and senior DEWR officials on profound problems arising from changes to the CDEP program. Mr Robertson was backed by the CEO from Lockhart River, who said that his council could not and would not administer the CDEP program under the unworkable conditions imposed since 1 July. To quote Mr Buckland, the CEO of Lockhart River Council: ‘We spent two years trying to build up this no work, no pay ethic and now it is all out the window.’ As I said earlier, we also have the example of Mapoon council and the absurd situation where sit-down money—which everybody agrees is a bad idea—which had not been in place, has now been put in place through badly thought out programs, stupidly administered by bureaucrats who think they know best and who are already instituting the new paternalism policy of Mr Abbott when it comes to a whole-of-government approach. Some of the quotes in the Cairns Post article should be ringing alarm bells for this government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 97 97 19:07:00 Bartlett, Sen Andrew DT6 Queensland AD 0 0 Senator BARTLETT —I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. These documents both relate to agreements between the government of Australia and the government of the People’s Republic of China on the transfer of nuclear material and cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. According to the summary page given: ‘The agreements seek to cover the transfer of nuclear material and nuclear cooperation, including the transfer of nuclear-related material, equipment or technology. The purpose of the agreements is to establish between Australia and China appropriate nuclear safeguards and a physical protection regime for Australian uranium and nuclear material derived from it supplied to China. These agreements will allow for the supply of Australian uranium to China’s nuclear power program and establish strict safeguard arrangements and conditions to ensure such supplies are used exclusively for peaceful purposes.’ Whether or not they do that is a matter of opinion. I will not express an opinion on that at the moment because one of the reasons I am speaking on them is to draw public attention to the fact that they have been tabled and that they will automatically be the subject of an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, a committee in this parliament which serves a useful function in examining some of these agreements. This is an area of great public interest and of great public and global significance. I encourage those in the public arena who have an interest in this issue to follow this debate and participate, if they wish, in the inquiry that will be undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. As an aside to the debate, without going straight to its heart, I think the issue of the human rights record of China does need to be taken into consideration when we are considering undertaking major trade and treaty agreements, including on nuclear material. No country in the world is pure when it comes to human rights, but I think it is an eminently defendable statement to say that the human rights record of China is on the poorer end of the spectrum. There are very serious human rights abuses in the way the government of China operates. The fact that there are enormous trade opportunities with that government should not be used as a reason to sweep those human rights abuses under the carpet. There is a wider debate that needs to be had amongst the global community about disarmament and nuclear proliferation. One of the greater concerns I have, beyond an agreement with any one specific country, is the issue of disarmament. The word ‘disarmament’ seems to have disappeared from the political lexicon in recent times. Despite all the talk of concerns about weapons of mass destruction that was thrown around the place a few years ago to justify military action in Iraq, there is very little political will or desire amongst many governments on the global stage to pursue the reduction of weapons of mass destruction. We might want to stop them getting into the hands of a particular bunch of people, but there does not seem to be any great desire anymore to reduce the overall numbers of weapons. I suggest that the fewer weapons there are in total, the lower the chance there is of any of them falling into what might be perceived as the wrong hands. I think we need to re-energise the whole global disarmament debate—not just about nuclear weapons, but about weaponry of all sorts. As we are seeing in the Middle East at the moment, continuing supplies of weaponry from all sides are contributing a lot to continual escalation of conflict and, frankly, increase the risk that it might widen to a scale that could well bite all of us in very nasty ways. So there are big debates that I believe we need to re-energise. This is just one part of it, but it is a part of it that I hope the public do participate in. Question agreed to. 98 ADJOURNMENT 10000 Moore, Claire (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Moore)—Order! There being no further consideration of documents, I propose the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. 98 98 19:13:00 Ray, Sen Robert UI4 Victoria ALP 0 0 Senator ROBERT RAY —Tonight I wish to raise a few issues with regard to sports broadcasting. The first one refers to Caroline Wilson’s article 10 days ago that raised the question of AFL broadcasting rights with regard to radio. That article explained that there are likely to be A and B packages, and that only commercial stations could afford the A package. That raises the prospect of the ABC having to take the B package, in other words, to broadcast the less crucial games at the worst times. I think that would be an appalling development. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been dealing with football for over 70 years in a broadcast sense. It has its own niche market. It is crucial to broadcasting to every element in Australia, unlike commercial radio, and overseas. If it were placed in the position where it could only get a B package, no doubt it would give long-term consideration to withdrawing from football broadcasting. It does 11½ hours on a Saturday and six hours on a Sunday. It is not just about service delivery. It is about the culture of the game. This is about developing and integrating football into Australian society. I think that if it were cut out of the loop just for a few extra dollars, it would be a tragedy. Since the article, there has been the normal revolt by ABC viewers. But I have to say that, in reaction to it, I heard last Friday on the morning breakfast show Andrew Demetriou saying that he did not think it was going to happen. He has been a very capable administrator, so I will not pursue this any further tonight, on the basis that I think he will solve it. There is a role for government in this, though. It is not just about saying, ‘We fund the ABC,’ and leaving it at that. It is almost a community service obligation for the AFL to see that football reaches everyone in Australia—people with a whole different set of tastes. I just hope that will be resolved. While I am on the question of sports broadcasting, anyone who has travelled internationally will have realised how important cricket is in the subcontinent and that Australia is more famous in the subcontinent for cricket than for any other subject. The average Pakistani or Indian could tell you who the Australian cricket captain is; they would struggle to tell you who the Prime Minister or the Treasurer of Australia is. It is something by which we are judged by a very large proportion of the population of this globe. It was with massive disappointment that this morning I saw the crass and racist comments made by Dean Jones. They were appalling comments. Here you have an Australian broadcaster going to the subcontinent and to South Africa and talking about a terrorist taking a catch. It just happened to be the one Islamic member of the South African cricket side—a devout and religious person who always adheres to his religious principles, to the point at which he does not have the beer logo on his uniform because he is Islamic. But what do we have? An Australian face in the subcontinent—the one Australian commentator who is there—saying, ‘A terrorist has just taken a catch.’ The South African cricketer was called that simply because he is a faithful adherent to the Islamic religion. Maybe a bit of my prejudice is coming through here, too. I regard Dean Jones as the worst cricket commentator that I have ever heard in 50 years of following cricket. People around this building will know of my previous complaints after listening to his inept, inaccurate and racist broadcasts—his utter incompetence. You do not hear it so much now because Foxtel does not carry many of the subcontinental games. Foxtel tends to broadcast cricket out of England—as it does at the moment—New Zealand and South Africa. It is not just because of a lack of interest; it is because of broadcast quality pictures and a range of things. But what we are now facing is that there are a hundred million Muslims in India; the overwhelming population of Bangladesh is Islamic, as is that of Pakistan; and there are quite a few Muslims in Sri Lanka. They all heard that comment. Dean Jones has apologised. He said that he did not mean for the comment to go to air, just like Mel Gibson did not mean for his public comments in Los Angeles two weeks ago to become public, but they have become public. I just hope that Australian broadcasters note the reaction out of the subcontinent and never employ Dean Jones again, because he does not deserve it. He does not deserve to be employed in cricket commentary anywhere around the globe. I was somewhat critical of Michael Slater’s cricket broadcast three or four years ago. Here is a role model for Dean Jones. Here is a broadcaster who was pretty average three or four years ago, but, month by month, he improved. He set himself the task of becoming a top-class cricket commentator. He achieved that and is being employed by Channel 9 this year—a well-deserved reward for his effort. So Dean Jones has gone down one path, down a dead-end path, and Michael Slater has had all those opportunities opened up to him by hard work and dedication. The third matter related to sports broadcasting that I want to express great disappointment in is the fact that the International Olympic Committee is caving in to the NBC network’s demands about the scheduling of Olympic events. This is a total disgrace. Having swimming finals at 10 o’clock in the morning, going against what has been basically a tradition over 100 years, just to satisfy about five per cent of the Olympic audience worldwide is a total disgrace. Do you know why I really hate it? Because it belittles the United States and people’s view of the United States. I like the United States. I admire their political system and where they fit in the world—where they stand in terms of foreign affairs, defence and security matters. But the one thing that I hate is seeing the United States trying to impose their cultural values on everyone else. Diversity is good. We should not have to allow one American TV network to totally reconfigure the Olympic Games. Imagine how they would have felt—for example, when they had the Atlanta Olympics or the Los Angeles Olympics—if the rest of the world said, ‘We’re sorry, we want to have the swimming finals or the gymnastic finals at nine o’clock or 10 o’clock in the morning to suit the rest of the world.’ They would have gone absolutely haywire over such as suggestion, but that is what we are left with. We are left with a situation where the International Olympic Committee, which is supposed to be independent, is simply going to respond to the one network that pays the most money. That is not the Olympic ideal and it will belittle the Olympic movement. The final point I want to make on sports broadcasting refers to the communications package. I want to go to one very minor element. Foxtel’s sports coverage is always divided into two these days. If it is live, they put ‘live’ on the screen. If it is a live soccer match from wherever in England, you will see ‘live’ on the screen—that is the case whether it is live cricket, golf or whatever—so that the general public know whether they are watching a replay or a live broadcast. I commend Foxtel on that. What an advancement! But none of the commercial channels, or free-to-air channels, follow suit. Quite often it is deceptive broadcasting. You do not know whether you are watching something live or on delay. Even Foxtel footy has ‘live’ on the screen if it is coming direct, but the commercial networks do not do that. This has been at its worst in the coverage of the Olympic Games where, because of their soft packaging, if you like, you never know what is live unless you happen to be listening to ABC radio. The worst instance of all was the coverage of the equestrian event in Barcelona in 1992, where Channel 7, two hours after we had won two gold medals, broadcast the equestrian event as though it was live. Incidentally, the commentators claimed that we had won one gold medal, for the individual event; they had not realised that we had won the team event. I know it is a minor issue, but in any rewriting of communications policy it would be nice to write that in: to request, as part of their public duty, that commercial networks show that the broadcast is either live or not. It would help everyone to know whether the networks are, if you like, ‘cheating and packaging’ rather than bringing live broadcasts to the public—a public that deserves live broadcasts. 10000 Moore, Claire (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Moore)—Thank you, Senator Ray, on the day the Senate has noted your 25th anniversary in this place. 100 100 19:22:00 Macdonald, Sen Ian YW4 Queensland LP 1 0 Senator IAN MACDONALD —I congratulate Senator Ray on his 25 years in this place. Some may say—I can imagine Senator Ray would be the first to say it—that he needs to have his head read for staying in this place for that long. But he has made a marvellous contribution over the years—not always a contribution I have agreed with—and has become one of the most respected of all senators here. His voice is very often listened to regardless of what topic he is on about, and the speech he has just given is very clear evidence of that. I would have hoped that other Labor figures around the countryside might have followed the lead set by people like Senator Ray. Regrettably, this has not occurred in the city of Townsville where I have my base. Last week, our Prime Minister came to Townsville with a marvellous announcement for our community. The Jezzine Barracks at Kissing Point in Townsville has been a very significant site for many years. It is steeped in military history. It has supported troops garrisoned in the city of Townsville for many decades from before the Second World War, and during the Second World War it was a very significant area. In recent times the Reserve brigades have been at Kissing Point and Jezzine Barracks, but it became obvious to the Department of Defence that that was not the appropriate place and that they should be moved over to Laverack Barracks. That decision made some time ago is to be implemented in the not-too-distant future. It, of course, left the question of: what happens to the land at Jezzine Barracks at Kissing Point? It is a very valuable piece of land. Some valuers have estimated that it might be worth $50 million; others have said it could be worth double that. The Commonwealth and the Defence bureaucracy, naturally enough, thought that with defence moving out of the area it would be a good opportunity to subdivide this very valuable piece of land—leaving aside the military museum and the forts on the actual point—and get a bit of money in for the taxpayers to help subsidise some defence commitments over the next decade or so. This decision resulted in community agitation led, I might say, by the member for Herbert, Mr Peter Lindsay, about retaining that particular piece of land in the community’s hands rather than private developers subdividing it. There has been a lot of talk about this over quite a number of months—stretching into years, in fact. Many proposals have been put, a lot of requests have been made and there has been a lot of uncertainty about what might happen. But all of that was put to rest last Tuesday, a week ago, when the Prime Minister came to Townsville and announced that the government had decided to gift the Jezzine Barracks to the Townsville City Council for community use and heritage—87 per cent of the land, including the forts area, the point area, most of the old parade ground would go to the community. The defence department would retain Jezzine House as the residence for the senior military commander in Townsville, and the 31st Royal Queensland Regiment Precinct would house a relocated Army history museum. The community is very happy with the proposal. Jezzine House and the senior military commander are part of the community. This arrangement where, effectively, the whole of this land was given to the community was one that many in the community had been seeking and which the Prime Minister, at the urging of the member for Herbert, Peter Lindsay, and I, was able to put into place. I should also recognise the contribution that the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Senator Sandy Macdonald, made in this decision. But the good news does not stop there: in addition to that, the Prime Minister announced that the Commonwealth government would spend some $4 million relocating the museum, repairing the forward area and P1 huts, and undertaking the remediation of contamination and subdivision works. In addition to that, the Prime Minister also announced that the Commonwealth government would provide $10 million in cash to a trust to be established to oversee the provision of funding for the development of the site in accordance with the wishes of the community and the heritage listing requirements. That community trust will be established by the defence department but, once established, it will operate independently of the Commonwealth government. The trustees are going to include a cross-section of the local community with government, military, heritage and Indigenous representatives. The Prime Minister said the Commonwealth government will give the trust the $10 million needed to upgrade the site to make it into an attractive place for the general public to visit and be able to see through some of the heritage areas. The $10 million was given on the condition that the Townsville City Council, who have been agitating for this land for a long time, provided a matching $10 million. In discussions that Peter Lindsay and I have had with the mayor—whilst it was never agreed in exact words—it was always a wink and a nod that the council would put money into it. The Townsville City Council is meeting tonight, and I hope that it will confirm that it will match the $10 million. The good news does not stop there. The Prime Minister went further and said the Commonwealth would provide an additional $10 million on the condition that the Queensland state government also provided $10 million to that particular new facility. That is a total of $40 million to go into making Kissing Point and the old Jezzine Barracks site an extension of the Townsville Strand and really turn it into a world-class area where people will visit to see the old fort and the military museum and simply enjoy the ambience and remember what happened there. In the speech I made at the Prime Minister’s announcement I particularly recognised Mr George Roberts, a very significant Townsville person—a former deputy mayor and a former leading solicitor—and very much involved in community activities. He is now aged 93. He is a man with passion. Even at the age of 93, he was out there in support and even went so far as to carry a placard not long ago to try and ensure that Jezzine Barracks was given to the community. The disappointing fact of all of this was that although the Labor Mayor of Townsville, Councillor Tony Mooney—not a bad fellow—was invited, he refused to turn up. He sent along some other councillor to what was really the most significant announcement to be made in Townsville for many years. Since that time, he has behaved fairly petulantly; hence my comment before that Labor politicians should follow Senator Ray’s distinguished contribution and the way he behaves in all sorts of situations. Regrettably, the mayor did not turn up, which seemed to me to be a spoilt-boy approach. Also, while the Liberal Party at the state level has committed a new incoming coalition government to match the federal government’s $10 million, so far as I am aware we have not yet heard a peep from the state Labor government. So I certainly hope that that does not mean that the $10 million state contribution and the $10 million matching Commonwealth contribution will not be available. And I certainly hope that tonight the Townsville City Council will agree to match the $10 million. I am disappointed at Mayor Mooney’s advertisement in Saturday’s paper. Again, it is spoilt-boy tactics at the expense of the Townsville ratepayer. I urge Mayor Mooney and the Townsville City Council to get behind this project and to back Peter Lindsay and the government in what could be a magnificent thing for Townsville and indeed for Australia. 102 102 19:33:00 Murray, Sen Andrew 3M6 Western Australia AD 0 0 Senator MURRAY —My adjournment speech tonight concerns the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement, which provides the national framework for the delivery, funding and development of disability services. I was particularly pleased to learn that the funding for and operation of this agreement is to be subject to a Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry. This is not before time. Just from reading the Australian National Audit Office report No. 14 2005-06 on the administration of this agreement, the need for an inquiry becomes evident. For instance, paragraph 18 of the report summary notes that currently the national disability administrators are not even close to developing effective reporting measures of the agreement’s activities and outcomes. Paragraph 19 comments that the deficiencies in performance information inhibit improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. Paragraph 38 claims that there is uncertainty as to whether financial statement auditors have tested agreement expenditure. Paragraph 39 notes that the agreement does not include financial incentives or sanctions. Paragraph 42 then states that there should be better assurance mechanisms in place to improve quality assurance processes nationally. Indeed, a reading of this report can only lead to one conclusion and that is this: there are no adequate measures to determine whether or not the disability agreement is meeting its objectives, nor are there sufficient accountability and transparency mechanisms to determine whether or not the quality of life for disabled persons is satisfactory, let alone getting better. I must admit that I was not surprised by the report’s claim about how agencies in receipt of funding are vague in how they actually account for their expenditure. For some years now, I have been trying to follow up allegations of financial impropriety made against a major recipient of disability funding in Victoria under this Commonwealth-state agreement. Those allegations concern St John of God Services and its parent body in New South Wales, the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. I say that I am trying to follow up allegations because I have been obstructed by ministerial obfuscation. These allegations appeared in the press and were also made to the Senate inquiry into institutional care. They raise serious questions of probity and suggest a rip-off of men with intellectual disability in the way their pensions were being siphoned off and how those moneys were being used. For instance, in the Weekend Australian on 8 December 2001, investigative journalist Richard Yallop reported that residents were being charged $344 a month to live in houses that were 80 per cent Commonwealth funded. With five or six residents in each house, the order was therefore receiving between $1,800 and $2,100 a month in rent for each house—steep rentals indeed for outer suburban homes at that time. Also, when Yarra View Farm, a residential institution for disabled men run by the Brothers of St John, was sold in 1994 for $2.7 million, parents and relatives were upset at how these moneys were used. They had no issue with the way those moneys were used to buy a nursery in Victoria because it provided employment for 50 disabled residents, but they did take issue with the remainder of those moneys going to the Hospitaller Order of St John of God in Sydney. It was felt this money should have stayed in Victoria for the benefit of the order’s disabled clients. The manager of the order’s new nursery then left in 1997 because he struggled to make it break even. He was charged an annual rent of $60,000 by the order’s parent company in Sydney, even though it owned the nursery freehold. He also had to pay more than $100,000 a year into the Victorian order’s employment placement agency. With the nursery receiving a $9,000 Commonwealth grant for each employee, the then manager felt the money should remain in the nursery. Yallop wrote of how the 2001 financial reports showed that the order’s Victorian operation was receiving over $9 million a year under the Commonwealth-state disability agreement. Those financial reports also show that the Victorian order had a surplus of $1.5 million, of which $1 million was transferred to its parent company in Sydney to be placed in an investment account—invested for whose benefit, we do not know. I raised some of these matters with the Australian National Audit Office in March 2004. I received a comprehensive response and was assured my concerns would be duly noted. Hopefully, some of the criticisms in audit report No. 14 had those matters I raised in mind. Furthermore, in addition to questionable financial behaviours, particularly appalling physical and sexual crimes committed by the order’s religious members on its residents were also reported on by Mr Yallop in his article. Aptly titled ‘House of horror’, it says: Years after allegations that some Brothers of St John buggered some young males entrusted to their care, no one has been charged, taxpayers’ money is still flowing in and the hush up continues. In a follow-up story in the Australian on 13 June 2002, Mr Yallop reported how a class action had then resulted in this Catholic order having to pay out a record $3.6 million to 24 disabled victims of abuse. This payout was not the first; others had already been compensated. It is not clear how many, because all the compensation agreements had confidentiality clauses. The order’s history of abuse is quite startling. Yallop states that, between 1957 and 1974, sexual assaults were allegedly perpetrated by five brothers at the order’s Victorian homes in Cheltenham and Yarra View. Leaping ahead to the early 1990s, Yallop goes on to state that a lay manager actually alerted the Victorian Department of Community Services that he had concerns about a brother’s behaviour. The brother denied the abuse and the manager was reprimanded. It sounds a familiar story. One year later, the newly appointed Executive Officer of St John of God Services Victoria spoke up. No action was taken and she left soon after. The following year, the manager of the order’s nursery, where many of the residents worked, raised his concerns about the inappropriate treatment of the disabled men. He was also reprimanded. Then, back in 1997, a layman running the order’s Victorian services became the first to report the abuse allegations to the police. Nonetheless, taxpayers’ money continued to flow into the St John of God Services, a religious charity with tax-exempt status—and it continues to this day. Currently, the order boasts that it supports over 500 people with disabilities across three metropolitan regions of Melbourne. Hopefully, they are all safe from marauding members of this religious order. Of course, I do not attribute marauding instincts to all members of the order, because that would be entirely wrong. I am quite sure that many members of the order are honourable people. But how can this order continue to be a main service provider for the disabled if it might still provide a safe harbour for some predators? Have they all been checked and cleared? That is my question. If the aged need better protection—and we heard that discussed today at question time—you can be sure the disabled do too. When Broken Rites Victoria, an organisation that assists victims of abuse by the religious, expressed this view to the then relevant Victorian minister, the response of that minister’s adviser was apparently, ‘It is all just too hard.’ Since 2002, I have raised these issues of alleged financial impropriety and alleged sexual assault of the disabled three times by way of questions on notice to the respective ministers. However, their answers have been nothing short of poor, contemptuous, dismissive and uncaring. The test of any government is the way it provides for the most vulnerable in society. This government often fails that test—and fails it dismally. I look forward to the report of the Senate inquiry into the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement. I trust that it will lead to the introduction of much needed accountability and transparency regulations and processes. These are absolutely vital to minimise any serious contraventions of the intent of this agreement. I also trust that, just as the federal government has unveiled new measures to protect the aged residents of nursing homes from sexual and physical assaults—and I want to compliment Minister Santoro on those—so too will similar reforms be forthcoming for our vulnerable disabled citizens. 105 105 19:42:00 Webber, Sen Ruth 00AOT Western Australia ALP 0 0 Senator WEBBER —I rise tonight to speak about the passing of a great Western Australian and Labor Party member, the Hon. Tom Butler. It is fitting that I speak about him in this place, as very often the things that were important to Tom—or Tommy, as many called him—were debated vigorously and passionately right here. While sad, his passing should not be marked purely by sorrow. He was a man of significant accomplishment, a man whose achievements were buoyed by a fundamental sense of optimism and a genuine love of the people he represented. Accordingly, the West Australian branch of the Labor Party should not let grief obfuscate the tremendous work Tom undertook for the community over the years. Tom first became involved in the labour movement through his time as a painter. He started his apprenticeship in 1945 and worked as a tradesman until 1963, when he became a union organiser with the Painters and Decorators Union. As early as 1955 he held office at a branch level within the Labor Party. Like many great Labor stalwarts, I know that Tom carried his experience as a worker with him throughout his career. Like the strongest of Labor advocates, his bedrock was his own experience; his political nous came from a strong sense of empathy. However, those of my colleagues who knew Tom would agree that this empathy did not get in the way of Tom’s tough political instincts. When I first moved to Western Australia—from Canberra, of all places—in 1986, Tom was president of the state branch at the time. State executive meetings back then were far more volatile than they are today. I remember my first few meetings in my new home state. Tom’s fortitude in chairing those meetings—for 10 years, no less—demonstrated his ability to dig in when the situation required it. Indeed, I remember, as I am sure both the Labor leader here and the Leader of the Opposition do, one particular volatile meeting where a member disagreed with one of Tom’s rulings and decided to throw a chair at him. It is difficult to talk about Tommy without talking about the political aspect of his life. For Tom, as for many of us, devotion to political goals was very much entwined with who he was. Tom did not treat his obligations as a unionist or parliamentarian as just a day job. Tom’s political progression is a testament to the close bonds between the union movement and the Labor Party. Tom remained an organiser with the painters and decorators until 1971, when he became secretary of that union. A Labor member of the WA state parliament, now president of the WA upper house, Nick Griffiths, told a story about Tom recently. Nick recalled that, at various times, Tom was required at ALP national executive meetings. During the 1970s, those meetings were often frequented by people of the calibre of Whitlam and Hawke. At the end of one of Tom’s first meetings at the highest level, one of the two future prime ministers inquired about who this Tom fellow was. This in itself is not indicative of Tom but, as Nick recalls, it was Tom himself who told the story—an act of quiet humility and humour that was very much indicative of the man. Tom held the position of secretary of his union until 1983, when he became an advisor to the then state Minister for Industrial Relations, Peter Dowding. It is fitting that Tom worked in such a role, as the issue of industrial relations was a primary passion of his. In 1986, Tom was elected to the WA upper house as the member for North-East Metropolitan Province and, later, the East Metropolitan Region. Both of those electorates contained some of the most working-class areas of metropolitan Perth at that time, so Tom felt right at home working as a parliamentarian. Indeed, as he said in his first speech in state parliament: I can think of no better training ground for a member of Parliament than to serve as a trade union official, because a union official serves a demanding constituency and deals on a daily basis with a multitude of problems which go far beyond what we would normally define as industrial in nature. Tom was right insofar as, thematically, his work did not change; he was simply charged with caring for a far larger group of people in his new role. It granted him the opportunity to help different groups of people, particularly those below the legal working age. He spent considerable time and effort ensuring that community services like the Lockridge youth service could get off the ground and stay viable for years to come. Tom’s work is indeed proof of his belief in giving working-class kids every opportunity to improve their station in life. Politically, Tom was someone to be reckoned with. He sidestepped rigid factionalism in the ALP after its embryonic phase in the early 1980s. I am sure people on both sides of this chamber can appreciate the skill and strength required to progress successfully in politics without those rigid formal arrangements. In modern Western Australian politics, some similarly independent members of parliament come to mind, including our current premier, Alan Carpenter. Clearly, Tom’s chosen path is one opted for by the most savvy of politicians. Ideologically, Tom’s views on industrial relations are far more important today than ever before. I have no concern about politicising a speech regarding Tom’s passing, as Tom himself would be sorely disappointed if I did not take the opportunity to chastise the Prime Minister for his attitude towards the union movement. Unions are facing their biggest challenge in Australian history. The government has made a point of removing basic safeguards that people like Tom fought their whole lives to codify in law. Those of us who knew Tom recall his passion for workers’ rights fondly, and harness the same passion ourselves to continue fighting the blind determination and obsession of conservative parties and unscrupulous businesses. Tom was a successful unionist and politician for the same reason he was a well-liked person. He understood that people have to overcome challenges every day. Tom empathised with hardworking, everyday people, who often struggle to make ends meet at home. His determination and compassion are sentiments which both lie very close to the heart of the ALP as an organisation. I extend my deepest sympathies to Tom’s family, and assure them that his contributions to the community will never be forgotten. As I said earlier, I believe Tom should be remembered for his actions. Therefore I thought I would leave the last word to Tom, and quote once more from his first speech in the WA state parliament. He said: Rank and file unionists see their elected representatives as a source of advice and assistance on all matters, as our constituents view us, their elected parliamentary representatives. In making the transition, therefore, from an official of the Painters and Decorators Union to the member for a large, predominantly “working class” electorate, I am extending and building upon a lifetime’s work. It was a lifetime well lived. 107 107 19:50:00 Bishop, Sen Mark 2L6 Western Australia ALP 0 0 Senator MARK BISHOP —Madame Acting Deputy President, I rise this evening to deliver a three-week deadline to the Howard government. I am calling on the government to settle outstanding ex gratia claims for hundreds of sick and dying Air Force workers; I am giving the government until 1 September to do this. Personnel who worked as desealer-resealers on the F111 aircraft have been left in limbo over their claims. These workers suffer a raft of illnesses, which they contracted after scraping toxic fuel from the aircrafts’ tanks; it was a dirty job. Now, the government is doing the dirty on them over the payments. It is refusing to process hundreds of their claims, 10 months after announcing a $21 million ex gratia package. Meanwhile, many of these workers are forced to live hand to mouth. The illnesses they suffer have left many unable to work. Some have even died. We cannot wait any longer. Indeed, it has been a five-year wait to get this far. So why the wait? Let us look at the facts. Close on 35 years ago, hundreds of RAAF workers were employed as desealer-resealers. Their job was to clean out and make safe the fuel tanks of the Air Force’s F111 fighter aircraft. Most of this work was carried out at Amberley Air Base in Queensland. For years, civilian and RAAF personnel worked eight-hour shifts. They scrubbed inside the tight confines of a fuel tank, cleaning out—without any protective equipment—up to 200 toxic chemicals. This sludge was then taken to nearby pits where firefighters burnt it. It was gruelling work and hundreds of desealer-resealers were forced to work under huge canvas hangars. The hangars were to protect the F111s from the elements, but nothing protected the workers. These chemicals were so toxic they would burn through the canvas hangars and the workers had to regularly change their cover. It was not long before they started experiencing all sorts of ailments. To this day, desealer-resealers suffer from memory loss, respiratory problems, skin conditions and a loss of cognitive skills. Sick and dying workers lobbied this government until finally it was forced to act. It commissioned two studies into the desealer-resealer participants’ health. These confirmed workers’ worst fears and backed up findings from a defence board of inquiry that the desealer-resealers were suffering permanent, long-term health effects associated with their work. So last year, the government was forced to act. It set up a one-off, tax-free ex gratia payment. It fell short of making any apology to these workers. Instead it set up a convoluted scheme whereby ground crews exposed to the toxic chemicals for up to 29 days could claim a payment of $10,000 while those exposed for 30 days or more were offered $40,000. A day’s work means the difference of $30,000! More than 1,000 former desealer-resealers are claiming the ex gratia payment, but 10 long months later and hundreds of these workers are still waiting for their claim to be processed. Again, I ask: why has it taken so long? Let us look at some of the claims that remain outstanding. I will give one example for each week of my deadline to the government. Here is the first one. As I stated earlier, one of the chores for these poor workers was to dispose of the toxic chemicals. This nasty task was left to the firefighters and instructors. They carried out their business around huge pits where they burnt off the chemicals. Whilst the instructors trained firefighters in this task, the firefighters carried out the work. All were exposed to the deadly chemicals. So why are dozens of instructors and firefighters still waiting for their claims to be processed? The rules of eligibility state quite clearly: Firefighters whose usual place of duty was a Unit at RAAF Base Amberley and who spent at least 60 cumulative working days actively involved in the burning of by-products from the F-111 DSRS process during the period 1976 to 1994. A simple qualifying test, yet many firefighters and instructors miss out. Unfortunately, they continue to suffer and some die. Here is another example of government inertia over workers’ claims. These workers are commonly known as the rag hangars, those who worked under the huge canvas hangars protecting the aircraft. You would think that this group of desealers would be first cab off the rank to be granted the ex gratia payment. But I am told that many of these are also still waiting and, worse, some have been rejected outright. Why? Apparently, some of these workers were told they had ‘insufficient documentary evidence’ to successfully prosecute their claim. It is not enough to show that all the illnesses were associated with the work. It is also not enough that some had statutory declarations detailing when and where they worked and signed by independent witnesses. Here is my final example of the government’s mishandling of this hapless ex gratia scheme. Many of the RAAF workers seeking this one-off payment worked in the sealant mixing hut. This was next to the deseal hangar. These workers now face mounting medical bills to pay for costly treatment. Yet again, the government has so far failed to honour its 10-month-old promise to give these people an ex gratia payment. Many simply do not know whether their claim has been accepted or rejected. I concentrate on the ex gratia payment because these poor patient people face a minefield should they seek compensation. That is a battle many will attempt and I am unsure whether they will have the stamina—indeed the health—to succeed. I am also unsure whether the government will pity their plight and make long-term compensation more accessible. We are going to have to wait and see. Tonight, I have shown how this government has sullied its reputation by playing dirty with workers who have paid a high price for their work. This ex gratia scheme stank from the minute the government announced it. It is as murky as mud. I am giving the government three weeks to come clean and finally, after nearly a whole year’s wait, process the claims of these desealer-resealers. I cannot wait for another life to be lost. 108 108 19:59:00 Forshaw, Sen Michael 656 New South Wales ALP 0 0 Senator FORSHAW —Tonight I rise to pay tribute to one of Engadine’s most loyal and active citizens. Engadine is a suburb of the Sutherland Shire, where I live. On 14 April this year Wesley Adams passed away. Wesley Adams, or Wes, as he was affectionately known throughout the community, was a pioneer in Engadine. Back in 1964 Engadine was a growing suburb on the edge of the Royal National Park. It was on the outskirts of the Sutherland Shire. Many young couples, often themselves the children of residents from other parts of the shire, such as Cronulla, moved to Engadine, built their first homes there and had families there. The Sutherland Shire is like that. With its famous beaches, the Royal and Heathcote national parks, recreational facilities and an easygoing lifestyle, generation after generation of shire residents stay. It is often ungenerously said that the only time that people from the shire travel over the Georges River or the Woronora River is when they go on holiday. In Engadine in 1964 Wesley Adams established the local community newspaper, known as the Engadine District News. For the past 42 years, up until his passing in April, he ran that newspaper almost single-handedly. As was said in a tribute in the Engadine District News following his death: For over 40 years Wes was CEO, General Manager, Editor-in-Chief, Graphic Reproducer, Graphic Designer, Compositor, Printer and Distributor of the Engadine District News. The Engadine District News is a fortnightly publication delivered free to thousands of households in Engadine and the surrounding suburbs of Yarrawarrah, Woronora Heights, Heathcote and Waterfall. Whilst our letterboxes these days are always full of junk mail, advertising propaganda, in that part of the shire the one publication that local people always read is the Engadine District News. It is never thrown out; people keep it and read it over the ensuing fortnight. It is particularly valued by young children and the families of the area because they might get the pleasant surprise of getting the newspaper, opening it up and reading the sporting results or the achievements of the local school and finding their own name published there. This 12-page publication was entirely the work of Wes and his family. It is always packed full of community news, particularly from the various local sporting clubs, the schools, the churches and the community organisations, such as Lions, Toastmasters, senior citizens, the local musical society, the Scouts and many others. Wes Adams was an active member of the local chamber of commerce for all those years and he used his local community newspaper to promote small business, which is so vital to this community. Essentially, the shire is a community based on small businesses. With the exception of the refinery and the reactor, there are very few large employers or businesses in that area. The local businesses in turn were keen and queued up to advertise in the Engadine District News, which of course provided the revenue to sustain its publication over all those years. I know I speak on behalf of other colleagues, such as my state colleagues and the federal member for Hughes, Danna Vale, when I say that local politicians and councillors were always given an opportunity to publicise their achievements and express their criticisms and their points of view in the Engadine District News. One thing you could be sure of was that if you gave Wes a media release he would publish it, unless it had a defamatory comment in it or it was an attack upon the community itself. Wes was scrupulously fair and independent. He expected only one thing in return from contributors and that was that they demonstrated pride in their suburb and their district and they did everything that they could to promote it. Wes was always prepared to express his own opinion without fear or favour when he felt the local community was being disadvantaged by some unfair bureaucratic decision, whether it be by federal, state or local government. It was always interesting to read, in edition after edition of the paper, about some major issue that was affecting the community. Wes would have his view, then others would write in and express their views. It was good to watch this interchange. It was a clear example of promoting community debate and ensuring it was widely disseminated through the newspaper. Wes was a devoted family man with a strong commitment to family values. Many people, particularly those in our profession of politics, talk a lot about family values. Wes practised them in a quiet way. He never sought any public honour or recognition. He personally sponsored many sporting clubs, particularly sporting teams of young people. Cricket was a particular passion, and it is fitting that, after his passing, the Engadine Dragons Cricket Club established a memorial trophy in Wes’s honour. The trophy will be awarded each year to the young cricketer in the district who best reflects the values of endeavour, fair play, teamwork and sportsmanship—values that Wes was always speaking out on in his newspaper. Wes passed away after a long battle with cancer. For the past 10 years he suffered with this crippling illness, but he continued to work—with the support of his family and friends—to get his newspaper out. In addition to having cancer, he had for many years a disability in one arm. So he had to produce the newspaper under those difficult circumstances as well. I am not sure whether Wes would have appreciated this—because he had a healthy cynicism about politics—but I do think it is appropriate to place on the record of this parliament his service to the community. I extend my sympathies to Wes’s wife, Gwen; to their children, Geoffrey, Jennifer, Wendy and Kathy; and to their grandchildren. They and their local community have certainly lost a great man—a person who truly made a difference and improved the lives of his fellow citizens. Whilst Wes has, sadly, passed away, his contribution to the community will continue on through the Engadine District News as his family continues to publish his beloved newspaper. 110 20:08:00 Senate adjourned at 8.08 pm 110 DOCUMENTS 110 The following government documents were tabled: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Report for the period 1 July 2004 to 23 March 2005. [Final report] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services—Report for 2004-05. [Final report] Australian Law Reform Commission—Report—No. 103—Same crime, same time: Sentencing of federal offenders, April 2006. Customs Act 1901—Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958—Permissions granted under regulation 7 for the period 1 January to 30 June 2006. Spam Act 2003—Review of the operation of the Act—Report, June 2006. Health Insurance Act 1973—Medical Training Review Panel—Biennial review of the Medicare provider number legislation—Record of proceedings of special meeting on 24 February 2006. Treaties— Bilateral—Text, together with national interest analysis and annexures— Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Transfer of Nuclear Material, done at Canberra on 3 April 2006 and Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Canberra on 3 April 2006. Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan to replace the Delineated and Recorded Japanese Nuclear Fuel Cycle Program. Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Singapore to amend Annex 2C and Annex 2D of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) to ensure compliance with changes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System to come into effect on 1 January 2007 [and] Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America to amend Annex 4-A and Annex 5-A of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) to ensure compliance with changes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System to come into effect on 1 January 2007. Multilateral—Text, together with national interest analysis and annexures—International Health Regulations (2005) (Geneva, 23 May 2005). 111 The following documents were tabled by the Clerk: [Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number] A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act—Determination of the Guaranteed Minimum Amount for 2005-06 [F2006L02015]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act— A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Child Care Benefit—Activities counting towards activity requirements) Determination 2006 [F2006L02027]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Child Care Benefit—Children in respect of whom no-one is eligible) Determination 2006 [F2006L02031]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Child Care Benefit—Circumstances in which activity requirements do not apply) Determination 2006 [F2006L02024]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Child Care Benefit—Eligible Hours of Care) Determination 2006 [F2006L02028]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Child Care Benefit—Individuals who must meet activity requirements) Determination 2006 [F2006L02025]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Child Care Benefit—Recognised Work or Work Related Commitments) Determination 2006 [F2006L02026]*. A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act— A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) (Child Care Benefit—Record Keeping) Rules 2006 [F2006L02036]*. Child Care Benefit (Allocation of Child Care Places) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02029]*. Child Care Benefit (Eligibility of Child Care Services for Approval and Continued Approval) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02030]*. A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act—A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Exempt Taxes, Fees and Charges) Determination 2006 [F2006L02017]*. Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 145—Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Regulations 2006 [F2006L01941]*. Aged Care Act— Aged Care (Amount of flexible care subsidy—multi-purpose services) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02407]*. Aged Care (Residential Care Subsidy—Amount of Respite Supplement) Determination 2006 [F2006L02156]*. Aged Care (Residential Care Subsidy—Amount of Viability Supplement) Determination 2006 [F2006L02154]*. Determinations of conditions of allocation— ACA Ch. 2 No. 1/2006 [F2006L02449]*. Aged Care (Conditions of Allocation—Extra Service Places) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02369]*. Determinations of rates of financial assistance— Adjusted Subsidy Reduction—ACA Ch. 3 No. 7/2006 [F2006L02131]*. Basic Subsidy—ACA Ch. 3 No. 1/2006 [F2006L02125]*. Charge Exempt Resident Supplement—ACA Ch. 3 No. 11/2006 [F2006L02137]*. Community Care Subsidy—ACA Ch. 3 No. 9/2006 [F2006L02135]*. Concessional Resident Supplement—ACA Ch. 3 No. 2/2006 [F2006L02127]*. Enteral Feeding Supplement—ACA Ch. 3 No. 5/2006 [F2006L02129]*. Flexible care subsidy— Extended Aged Care at Home—ACA Ch. 3 No. 10/2006 [F2006L02136]*. Extended Aged Care at Home—Dementia—ACA 22 Ch. 3 No. 14/2006 [F2006L02151]*. Retirement Villages Care Pilot—ACA Ch. 3 No. 12/2006 [F2006L02140]*. Oxygen Supplement—ACA Ch. 3 No. 4/2006 [F2006L02128]*. Pensioner Supplement—ACA Ch. 3 No. 8/2006 [F2006L02134]*. Transitional Supplement—ACA Ch. 3 No. 6/2006 [F2006L02130]*. Residential Care Subsidy Amendment Principles 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02203]*. Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2003-2004—Determinations to Reduce Appropriations Upon Request—Determinations Nos— 8 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02170]*. 18 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02178]*. Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2003-2004 and Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2004-2005—Determinations to Reduce Appropriations Upon Request—Determinations Nos— 12 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02185]*. 16 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02172]*. Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2003-2004 and Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2004-2005—Determination to Reduce Appropriation Upon Request—Determination No. 13 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02180]*. Appropriation Act (No. 4) 2003-2004—Determination to Reduce Appropriation Upon Request—Determination No. 7 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02169]*. Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2004-2005—Determination to Reduce Appropriation Upon Request—Determination No. 11 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02191]*. Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2004-2005 and Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2004-2005—Determination to Reduce Appropriation Upon Request—Determination No. 14 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02188]*. Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2004-2005 and Appropriation Act (No. 4) 2004-2005—Determination to Reduce Appropriation Upon Request—Determination No. 19 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02176]*. Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006—Determinations to Reduce Appropriation Upon Request—Determinations Nos— 9 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02189]*. 17 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02182]*. Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2005-2006—Determinations to Reduce Appropriations Upon Request—Determinations Nos— 10 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02190]*. 15 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02187]*. Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2005-2006—Advances to the Finance Minister—Determinations Nos— 17 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02275]*. 18 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02286]*. Australian Communications and Media Authority Act— Radiocommunications (Charges) Determination 2006 [F2006L01973]*. Telecommunications (Charges) Determination 2006 [F2006L01968]*. Telecommunications (Facility Installation Permit—Application Charge) Determination 2006 [F2006L01971]*. Telecommunications (Facility Installation Permit—Public Inquiry Charges) Determination 2006 [F2006L01963]*. Telecommunications (Freephone and Local Rate Numbers Auctions—Registration Charge) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01974]*. Telecommunications (Nominated Carrier Declaration Application Charge) Determination 2006 [F2006L01975]*. Telecommunications (Submarine Cable Permit—Application Charge) Determination 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01967]*. Australian Crime Commission Act—Australian Crime Commission Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1)—Commencement Instrument [F2006L01970]*. Australian Passports Act—Australian Passports Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02002]*. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act— Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Commonwealth Costs) Determination 2006 [F2006L02162]*. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Confidentiality) Determinations Nos— 8 of 2006—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2006L02034]*. 9 of 2006—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2006L02401]*. Australian Research Council Act— Determination No. 30—Approval of expenditure on research programs under section 51—Linkage International Awards (Round 12), dated 11 April 2006; Federation Fellowships, dated 26 April 2006; Special Research Initiatives (Thinking Systems), dated 4 July 2006; and Linkage International Materials World Networks, dated 4 July 2006. Discovery Indigenous Researchers Development—Funding Rules for Funding commencing in 2007 [F2006L02374]*. Discovery Projects—Funding Rules for Funding commencing in 2007 [F2006L02375]*. Federation Fellowships—Funding Rules for Funding commencing in 2006 [F2006L02377]*. Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities—Funding Rules for Funding commencing in— 2006 [F2006L02379]*. 2007 [F2006L02373]*. Linkage International—Funding Rules for Proposals for Submission in 2006 [F2006L02380]*. Linkage Learned Academies Special Projects—Funding Rules for funding commencing in 2006 [F2006L02378]*. Linkage Projects—Funding Rules for Funding commencing in 2007 [F2006L02376]*. Special Research Initiatives—Funding Rules for Funding commencing in 2006 [F2006L02371]*. Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Determination 2006 [F2006L02164]*. Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Imposition Determination 2006 [F2006L02157]*. Banking Act— Banking Exemption No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L02060]*. Banking (Prudential Standards) Determination No. 9 of 2006—Variations [F2006L02109]*. Bankruptcy Act— Bankruptcy (Fees and Remuneration) Determination 2006 [F2006L02010]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 137—Bankruptcy Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01854]*. Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act—Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) (Amount of Charge Payable) Determination 2006 [F2006L02008]*. Broadcasting Services Act—Explanatory statements— Broadcasting Services (Anti-terrorism Requirements for Open Narrowcasting Television Services) Standard 2006 [F2006L00870] [in substitution for explanatory statement tabled with instrument on 29 March 2006]. Broadcasting Services (Anti-terrorism Requirements for Subscription Television Narrowcasting Services) Standard 2006 [F2006L00871] [in substitution for explanatory statement tabled with instrument on 27 March 2006]. Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 198—Building and Construction Industry Improvement (Accreditation Scheme) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02452]*. Child Support (Assessment) Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 146—Child Support (Assessment) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01936]*. 147—Child Support (Assessment) (Overseas-related Maintenance Obligations) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01938]*. 148—Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01939]*. Christmas Island Act—Utilities and Services Ordinance—Christmas Islands Water and Sewerage Services Fees and Charges Determination No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L02246]*. Civil Aviation Act— Civil Aviation Regulations— Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2006 [F2006L02063]*. Civil Aviation Order 40.7 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2006 [F2006L02072]*. Civil Aviation Order 43.1 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2006 [F2006L01957]*. Instruments Nos— CASA 172/06—Instructions amendment—use of RNAV (GNSS) approaches by RNP capable aircraft [F2006L01493]*. CASA 189/06—Direction—carriage of cabin attendant in hot air balloon [F2006L01725]*. CASA 190/06—Direction—carriage of cabin attendants in hot air balloons [F2006L01726]*. CASA 191/06—Direction—carriage of cabin attendants in hot air balloons [F2006L01727]*. CASA 192/06—Direction—carriage of cabin attendants in hot air balloons [F2006L01728]*. CASA 193/06—Direction—carriage of cabin attendants in hot air balloons [F2006L01729]*. CASA 245/06—Instructions—use of RNAV (GNSS) approaches by RNP capable aircraft [F2006L01492]*. CASA 247/06—Permission—for acrobatic flight over a place, flight over a public gathering and low flight; and Approval—for an air display [F2006L02153]*. CASA EX07/06—Exemption—solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with RAA at Cambridge Airport [F2006L00635]*. CASA EX25/06—Exemption—solo flight training using ultralight aeroplanes registered with Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated at Launceston Airport [F2006L01782]*. CASA EX26/06—Exemption—from take-off minima inside and outside Australian territory [F2006L01958]*. CASA EX27/06—Exemption—time-in-service recording on maintenance release; and Determination—non-application of part of Civil Aviation Order 100.5 [F2006L02368]*. CASA EX29/06—Exemption—use of mobile phones and other electronic devices when loading fuel [F2006L02454]*. CASA EX30/06—Exemption—refuelling with passengers on board [F2006L02287]*. CASA EX31/06—Exemption—from take-off minima inside Australian territory [F2006L02482]*. CASA EX35/06—Exemption—of authorised flying instructors employed by Singapore Flying College Pte Ltd [F2006L02532]*. CASA EX36/06—Permission and exemption—dangerous goods and loose articles [F2006L02533]*. Civil Aviation Safety Regulations— Airworthiness Directives—Part— 105— AD/A320/169 Amdt 1—Fuel Tank Electrical Bonding [F2006L02530]*. AD/A320/193—Auxiliary Power Unit Starter and Air Intake System [F2006L02288]*. AD/A330/26 Amdt 1—Spoiler Servo-Controls Life Limitations [F2006L02529]*. AD/A330/57—Engine—Icing Conditions during Descent—Operational Procedure [F2006L02370]*. AD/A330/58—Belly Fairing Heat Shields [F2006L02528]*. AD/A330/59—Electronic Instrument System Software Upgrade [F2006L02527]*. AD/AC/100—Aileron Inboard and Centre Hinge Support Structure [F2006L02497]*. AD/AMD 10/22 Amdt 1—Overwing Emergency Exit [F2006L02213]*. AD/AMD 50/17 Amdt 1—Overwing Emergency Exit [F2006L02212]*. AD/AMD 50/35—Flight Controls —Trailing Edge Flaps Rotating Rods [F2006L02253]*. AD/AMD 50/36—Segregation of ADS/IRS Wiring [F2006L02252]*. AD/AS 355/76 Amdt 1—Hoist Hooks [F2006L02496]*. AD/AS 355/84—Stabilisers—Upper and Lower Vertical Fin Spars [F2006L02495]*. AD/AS 355/91—Upper and Lower Fins of Stabilisers [F2006L02494]*. AD/B717/19—Cargo Door Pan Upper and Lower Stop Pad Support Fittings [F2006L02211]*. AD/B727/99 Amdt 4—No. 3 Cargo Door Frame [F2006L02210]*. AD/B727/204—Outboard Aileron Balance Tab and Rudder Tab Vibration [F2006L02493]*. AD/B737/37 Amdt 1—Fuselage Lap Joints BS259 to BS1016 [F2006L02492]*. AD/B737/175 Amdt 1—Elevator Tab—2 [F2006L02207]*. AD/B737/285 Amdt 1—State of Design Airworthiness Directives [F2006L02526]*. AD/B737/288—Driessen Galleys [F2006L02248]*. AD/B737/289—Fuel Shutoff Valve Wiring and Conduit Assemblies [F2006L02239]*. AD/B737/290—P5 Panel [F2006L02238]*. AD/B737/291—Auxiliary Fuel Tank Float Switch [F2006L02525]*. AD/B737/292—Elevator Rear Spar Web at Tab Hinge Bracket [F2006L02491]*. AD/B747/85 Amdt 3—Corrosion Prevention and Control Program [F2006L02490]*. AD/B747/261 Amdt 1—Fuselage Station 800 Frame [F2006L02206]*. AD/B747/346—Driessen Galleys [F2006L02250]*. AD/B747/347—Horizontal Stabilizer Drive Mechanism [F2006L02237]*. AD/B747/348—Outboard Strut Spring Beam Midpivot Bolt and Midpivot Bolt Access Door [F2006L02205]*. AD/B747/349—Crew Oxygen Cylinder Support [F2006L02204]*. AD/B747/350—Centre Overhead Stowage Bins [F2006L02202]*. AD/B767/122 Amdt 1—Off-Wing Escape Slide Compartment Door Latches and Disconnect Housings [F2006L02201]*. AD/B767/168 Amdt 1—Flap System Linkage—Inspection [F2006L02236]*. AD/B767/224—Driessen Galleys [F2006L02249]*. AD/B767/225—Outboard Overhead Stowage Bins [F2006L02200]*. AD/B767/226—Rudder and Elevator Vibration [F2006L02199]*. AD/BAe 146/121—Lift Spoiler Actuator Life Limits [F2006L02235]*. AD/BAe 146/122—Nose Landing Gear Axle Spacer [F2006L02234]*. AD/BAe 146/123—Lift Spoiler Actuator Corrosion [F2006L02233]*. AD/BAe 146/124—Three-Phase Circuit Breakers [F2006L02232]*. AD/BAe 146/125—Centre Fuselage Top Aft Longeron at Rib ‘0’ [F2006L02498]*. AD/BEECH 90/86 Amdt 2—Rudder Trim Tab [F2006L02489]*. AD/BEECH 200/73—Main Landing Gear Actuator Nut [F2006L02522]*. AD/BELL 206/163—Vertical Stabiliser Supports and Vertical Stabiliser [F2006L02488]*. AD/BN-2/84 Amdt 2—Pitot/Static Pressure Head [F2006L02231]*. AD/CESSNA 180/31 Amdt 5—Aft Tailcone Assembly [F2006L02198]*. AD/CESSNA 208/20 Amdt 1—Flight into Icing Conditions [F2006L02224]*. AD/CONVAIR/25—Main Landing Gear Piston and Axle Assembly [F2006L02227]*. AD/DAUPHIN/69 Amdt 1—Hoist Hooks [F2006L02486]*. AD/DAUPHIN/81 Amdt 2—Tail Rotor Blade Sleeve [F2006L02485]*. AD/DAUPHIN/86—Starflex Star Arm End Bushes [F2006L01896]*. AD/DHC-6/74—State of Design Airworthiness Directives [F2006L02519]*. AD/DHC-8/101 Amdt 1—Fire Bottle Electrical Connectors [F2006L02226]*. AD/DHC-8/124—Airworthiness Limitation Items [F2006L02197]*. AD/DHC-8/125—Main Landing Gear Shock Strut Piston [F2006L02225]*. AD/DHC-8/126—Spoiler Cable Disconnect Sensing System [F2006L02289]*. AD/DHC-8/127—Airworthiness Limitation Items [F2006L02484]*. AD/DHC-8/128—Wing Root Electrical Wire Chafing [F2006L02518]*. AD/ECUREUIL/94 Amdt 1—Hoist Hooks [F2006L02481]*. AD/ECUREUIL/95 Amdt 1—Engine Controls—Twist Grip Solenoid [F2006L02290]*. AD/ECUREUIL/107 Amdt 1—Stabilisers—Upper and Lower Vertical Fin Spars [F2006L02480]*. AD/ECUREUIL/119 Amdt 1—Engine Controls—Twist Grip Assembly [F2006L02223]*. AD/ECUREUIL/120—Engine Controls—Twist Grip Assembly [F2006L02404]*. AD/F50/95—Passenger Service Units [F2006L02513]*. AD/F50/96—Bottom Skin Chine Line [F2006L02483]*. AD/F100/79—Passenger Service Unit [F2006L02516]*. AD/F100/80—Anti-Collision and Strobe Lights [F2006L02515]*. AD/F100/81—Autopilot Disconnect Unit [F2006L02500]*. AD/F406/16—Avionics Bus Circuit Breaker Switches [F2006L02218]*. AD/F2000/16—Flight Controls—Trailing Edge Flaps Rotating Rods [F2006L02222]*. AD/F2000/17—Fuel Line Cracking [F2006L02219]*. AD/F2000/18—Segregation of ADC/IRS Wiring [F2006L02221]*. AD/F2000/19—Overwing Emergency Exit [F2006L02196]*. AD/GAZELLE/28 Amdt 1—Hoist Hooks [F2006L02477]*. AD/HS 125/179—UAM 100 Current Limiters [F2006L01960]*. AD/HS 125/180—DA-A Panel Bus Bars [F2006L02217]*. AD/SC7/13 Amdt 5—Fatigue Life Limitations [F2006L02311]*. AD/S-PUMA/52 Amdt 1—Hoist Hooks [F2006L02476]*. AD/TB10/1 Amdt 4—Airworthiness Limitations [F2006L02195]*. AD/TBM 700/45—Nose Landing Gear Actuator Hinge Pin [F2006L02437]*. 106— AD/AL 250/89—Gas Producer Rotor Tie Bolt [F2006L02499]*. AD/AL501/7—Third Stage Turbine Blade Failures [F2006L02254]*. AD/CF6/10 Amdt 1—Fuel Manifold [F2006L02229]*. AD/CF6/36 Amdt 1—Forward Engine Mount Assembly [F2006L02487]*. AD/CON/60 Amdt 1—Fuel Injection Supply Lines [F2006L02520]*. AD/LYC/90 Amdt 1—Fuel Injection Supply Lines [F2006L02502]*. AD/LYC/113 Amdt 2—ECi Cylinder Assemblies [F2006L02216]*. AD/RB211/36—High Pressure Turbine Cooling Air Holes [F2006L02501]*. AD/T53/22—Engine Fuel Pump Spline Failure [F2006L02214]*. 107— AD/EMY/34—Emergency Evacuation Slide/Raft—Pressure Relief Valves [F2006L02478]*. AD/PHS/24—Propeller System Actuator Yoke Arms [F2006L02215]*. Instrument CASA EX37/06—Exemption—validation flight checks [F2006L02534]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 184—Civil Aviation Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02309]*. 185—Civil Aviation Safety Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02115]*. Class Rulings— CR 2006/52 and CR 2006/57-CR 2006/72. Notice of Withdrawal—CR 2006/5. Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Utilities and Services Ordinance—Cocos (Keeling) Islands Water and Sewerage Services Fees and Charges Determination No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L02117]*. Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act— Notice under paragraph 45(1)(b)—Acquisition of shares in Spire Innovations Pty Ltd. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 150—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02014]*. Corporations Act— ASIC Class Orders— [CO 06/330] [F2006L01955]*. [CO 06/441] [F2006L02124]*. [CO 06/495] [F2006L01961]*. [CO 06/538] [F2006L02194]*. [CO 06/602] [F2006L02503]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 190—Supreme Court (Corporations) Repeal Rules 2006 [F2006L02399]*. Crimes (Overseas) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 138—Crimes (Overseas) (Declared Foreign Countries) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01823]*. Criminal Code Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 178—Criminal Code Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01551]*. Criminology Research Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 179—Criminology Research Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02334]. Currency Act—Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01863]*. Customs Act— CEO Determination No. 2 of 2006—Customs Act (Strength of Alcoholic Beverages) Determination [F2006L02209]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 170—Customs Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01978]*. 171—Customs Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L02018]*. 180—Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02315]*. 195—Customs (Prohibited Exports) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02432]*. Tariff Concession Orders— 0602383 [F2006L02465]*. 0602847 [F2006L01931]*. 0602905 [F2006L01911]*. 0603534 [F2006L02466]*. 0604677 [F2006L02467]*. 0604835 [F2006L01913]*. 0604881 [F2006L01914]*. 0604915 [F2006L01915]*. 0605044 [F2006L01916]*. 0605221 [F2006L02410]*. 0605222 [F2006L01917]*. 0605440 [F2006L01918]*. 0605446 [F2006L01852]*. 0605456 [F2006L01829]*. 0605477 [F2006L01922]*. 0605620 [F2006L01923]*. 0605621 [F2006L01924]*. 0605623 [F2006L01925]*. 0605624 [F2006L01926]*. 0605625 [F2006L01905]*. 0605626 [F2006L01906]*. 0605627 [F2006L01904]*. 0605628 [F2006L01927]*. 0605629 [F2006L01928]*. 0605646 [F2006L01902]*. 0605754 [F2006L02088]*. 0605756 [F2006L02316]*. 0605757 [F2006L02089]*. 0605758 [F2006L01929]*. 0605760 [F2006L02090]*. 0605851 [F2006L02091]*. 0605853 [F2006L02092]*. 0605940 [F2006L02093]*. 0606017 [F2006L01930]*. 0606018 [F2006L01908]*. 0606019 [F2006L02094]*. 0606037 [F2006L02095]*. 0606051 [F2006L02096]*. 0606095 [F2006L02138]*. 0606119 [F2006L02097]*. 0606133 [F2006L02139]*. 0606141 [F2006L02263]*. 0606142 [F2006L02264]*. 0606143 [F2006L02265]*. 0606144 [F2006L02362]*. 0606161 [F2006L02141]*. 0606171 [F2006L02142]*. 0606172 [F2006L02143]*. 0606173 [F2006L02144]*. 0606193 [F2006L02098]*. 0606197 [F2006L02145]*. 0606198 [F2006L02146]*. 0606243 [F2006L02147]*. 0606244 [F2006L02266]*. 0606245 [F2006L02267]*. 0606246 [F2006L02149]*. 0606247 [F2006L02354]*. 0606248 [F2006L02268]*. 0606249 [F2006L02240]*. 0606250 [F2006L02269]*. 0606251 [F2006L02270]*. 0606252 [F2006L02271]*. 0606253 [F2006L02272]*. 0606254 [F2006L02247]*. 0606348 [F2006L02245]*. 0606365 [F2006L02317]*. 0606366 [F2006L02150]*. 0606371 [F2006L02273]*. 0606372 [F2006L02274]*. 0606373 [F2006L02244]*. 0606375 [F2006L02243]*. 0606376 [F2006L02242]*. 0606439 [F2006L02241]*. 0606688 [F2006L02285]*. 0606689 [F2006L02284]*. 0606712 [F2006L02356]*. 0606714 [F2006L02276]*. 0606749 [F2006L02283]*. 0606830 [F2006L02320]*. 0606832 [F2006L02440]*. 0606833 [F2006L02321]*. 0606834 [F2006L02282]*. 0606835 [F2006L02322]*. 0606837 [F2006L02323]*. 0606863 [F2006L02324]*. 0606864 [F2006L02325]*. 0606865 [F2006L02326]*. 0606866 [F2006L02281]*. 0606867 [F2006L02366]*. 0606868 [F2006L02327]*. 0606869 [F2006L02367]*. 0606954 [F2006L02328]*. 0606955 [F2006L02329]*. 0606983 [F2006L02330]*. 0606985 [F2006L02360]*. 0606986 [F2006L02363]*. 0606987 [F2006L02364]*. 0606991 [F2006L02353]*. 0606993 [F2006L02280]*. 0606995 [F2006L02365]*. 0606997 [F2006L02331]*. 0606998 [F2006L02332]*. 0607044 [F2006L02361]*. 0607045 [F2006L02414]*. 0607155 [F2006L02413]*. 0607162 [F2006L02384]*. 0607164 [F2006L02333]*. 0607165 [F2006L02358]*. 0607233 [F2006L02359]*. 0607234 [F2006L02408]*. 0607260 [F2006L02385]*. 0607261 [F2006L02386]*. 0607262 [F2006L02387]*. 0607264 [F2006L02417]*. 0607297 [F2006L02357]*. 0607298 [F2006L02411]*. 0607299 [F2006L02388]*. 0607300 [F2006L02389]*. 0607301 [F2006L02355]*. 0607539 [F2006L02412]*. 0607542 [F2006L02455]*. 0607550 [F2006L02390]*. 0607586 [F2006L02418]*. 0607588 [F2006L02443]*. 0607590 [F2006L02416]*. 0607741 [F2006L02415]*. 0607766 [F2006L02442]*. 0607777 [F2006L02456]*. 0607779 [F2006L02446]*. 0607808 [F2006L02457]*. 0607955 [F2006L02458]*. 0607959 [F2006L02459]*. 0607961 [F2006L02391]*. 0607962 [F2006L02544]*. 0607963 [F2006L02392]*. 0607964 [F2006L02444]*. 0608003 [F2006L02393]*. 0608015 [F2006L02543]*. 0608062 [F2006L02445]*. 0608063 [F2006L02460]*. 0608075 [F2006L02447]*. 0608077 [F2006L02461]*. 0608150 [F2006L02548]*. 0608152 [F2006L02549]*. 0608154 [F2006L02547]*. 0608169 [F2006L02462]*. 0608186 [F2006L02546]*. 0608223 [F2006L02438]*. 0608226 [F2006L02441]*. 0608230 [F2006L02551]*. 0608231 [F2006L02439]*. 0608287 [F2006L02463]*. 0608335 [F2006L02552]*. 0608336 [F2006L02553]*. 0608337 [F2006L02554]*. 0608339 [F2006L02464]*. Tariff Concession Revocation Instruments— 53/2006 [F2006L02279]*. 54/2006 [F2006L02278]*. 55/2006 [F2006L02394]*. 56/2006 [F2006L02395]*. 57/2006 [F2006L02468]*. 58/2006 [F2006L02469]*. 59/2006 [F2006L02470]*. Defence Act—Determination under section 58H—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 4 of 2006—Flying and Flight Duties Allowance. Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 141—Cadet Forces Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01935]*. 142—Defence (Inquiry) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01947]*. Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act— Energy Efficiency Opportunities Regulations—Formats for documents lodged under the regulations [F2006L02381]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 160—Energy Efficiency Opportunities Regulations 2006 [F2006L01895]*. 201—Energy Efficiency Opportunities Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02382]*. Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 172—Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02009]*. Excise Act— Excise (Alcoholic strength of excisable beverages) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02165]*. Excise (Blending exemptions) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02163]*. Excise By-Law (Amendment) 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02160]*. Excise By-Law (Revocation) 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02184]*. Excise (Class of persons—educational institutions) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02174]*. Excise (Class of persons—government institutions) Determination 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02175]*. Excise (Class of persons—health care practitioners) Determination 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L02179]*. Excise (Class of persons—medical institutions) Determination 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L02177]*. Excise (Class of persons—veterinary practitioners) Determination 2006 (No. 5) [F2006L02181]*. Excise concessional spirit approvals guidelines 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02183]*. Excise (Denatured spirits) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02159]*. Excise (Volume—excisable beverages) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02171]*. Excise (Volume—recycled waste oil) Determination 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02173]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 173—Excise Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02012]*. 174—Excise Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L02021]*. Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 175—Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Regulations 2006 [F2006L02020]*. Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations— Export Control (Animals) Amendment Order 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02383]*. Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L01964]*. Export Market Development Grants Act—Determination 2/2006—Determination of the Initial Payment Ceiling Amount for Grant Year 2005-06. Family Law Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 139—Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01899]*. 177—Family Law Amendment Rules 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02230]*. Federal Court of Australia Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 203—Federal Court Amendment Rules 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02508]*. 204—Federal Court (Corporations) Amendment Rules 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02509]*. Financial Management and Accountability Act— Adjustments of Appropriations on Change of Agency Functions—Directions Nos— 21 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02255]*. 22 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02193]*. 23 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02256]*. 24 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02257]*. 25 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02258]*. 26 of 2005-2006 [F2006L02259]*. 1 of 2006-2007 [F2006L02261]*. 2 of 2006-2007 [F2006L02262]*. 3 of 2006-2007 [F2006L02260]*. 4 of 2006-2007 [F2006L02343]*. Financial Management and Accountability Determinations— 2006/14—Other Trust Moneys—Office of Workplace Services Special Account Establishment 2006 [F2006L02397]*. 2006/32—Australia-Japan Foundation Special Account Establishment 2006 [F2006L02292]*. Financial Management and Accountability Net Appropriation Agreement (Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources) Variation (2006) [F2006L01995]*. Net Appropriation Agreements for— Australian Institute of Family Studies [F2006L02291]*. Australian Trade Commission [F2006L02396]*. Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [F2006L01894]*. Office of Workplace Services [F2006L01965]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 151—Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L01993]*. 152—Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 5) [F2006L02019]*. 153—Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 6) [F2006L02011]*. 154—Financial Management and Accountability Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 7) [F2006L02016]*. Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act— Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Determinations Nos— 61 of 2006—Reporting Standard LOLRS 800.2 Claim Data: Public and Product Liability and Professional Indemnity Insurance [F2006L02100]*. 62 of 2006—Reporting Standard GRS 800.2 Claim Data: Public and Product Liability and Professional Indemnity Insurance [F2006L02099]*. Financial Sector (Collection of Data) (Reporting Standard) Determinations Nos— 1 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 110.0 Capital Adequacy [F2006L02033]*. 2 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 112.1 Capital Adequacy—On Balance Sheet Risk Weighting Schedule [F2006L02035]*. 3 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 112.2 Off Balance Sheet Business [F2006L02038]*. 4 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 113.0 Market Risk [F2006L02039]*. 5 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 113.1 Repricing Analysis [F2006L02040]*. 6 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 210.0 Statement of High Quality Liquid Assets Calculation (Licensed ADI) [F2006L02042]*. 7 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 220.0 Impaired Facilities [F2006L02043]*. 8 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 220.3 Prescribed Provisioning [F2006L02045]*. 9 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 220.5 Movements in Provisions for Impairment [F2006L02046]*. 10 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 221.0 Large Exposures [F2006L02048]*. 11 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 222.0 Exposures to Related Entities [F2006L02049]*. 12 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 230.0 Commercial Property [F2006L02051]*. 13 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 231.1a International Exposures: Locational (Assets) Part 1 [F2006L02053]*. 14 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 231.1b International Exposures: Locational (Liabilities) Part 1 [F2006L02056]*. 15 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 231.2 International Exposures: Locational Part 2 [F2006L02057]*. 16 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 231.3a International Exposures: Consolidated (Domestic Entity) [F2006L02061]*. 17 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 231.3b International Exposures: Consolidated (Foreign Entity) [F2006L02065]*. 18 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 Statement of Financial Position (Domestic Books) [F2006L02066]*. 19 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.1 Debt Securities Held [F2006L02067]*. 20 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.2 Equity Securities Held [F2006L02069]*. 21 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.3 Debt Securities on Issue [F2006L02071]*. 22 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.4 Bill Acceptances and Endorsements [F2006L02074]*. 23 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.5 Securities Subject to Repurchase and Resale and Stock Lending and Borrowing [F2006L02075]*. 24 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.7 Deposits and Loans Classified by State and Territory [F2006L02076]*. 25 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 320.9 Intra-Group Receivables and Payables [F2006L02077]*. 26 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 321.0 Statement of Financial Position (Offshore Operations) [F2006L02080]*. 27 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 322.0 Statement of Financial Position (Consolidated) [F2006L02081]*. 28 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 323.0 Statement of Financial Position (Licensed ADI) [F2006L02083]*. 29 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 325.0 International Operations [F2006L02101]*. 30 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 326.0 Offshore Banking Units [F2006L02103]*. 31 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 330.0 Statement of Financial Performance [F2006L02105]*. 32 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 330.1 Interest Income and Interest Expense [F2006L02108]*. 33 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 330.2 Other Operating Income [F2006L02110]*. 34 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 330.3 Other Operating Expenses [F2006L02111]*. 35 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 331.0 Selected Revenue and Expenses [F2006L02112]*. 36 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 332.0 Statement of Economic Activity [F2006L02114]*. 37 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 391.0 Commercial Finance [F2006L02118]*. 38 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 392.0 Housing Finance [F2006L02120]*. 39 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 393.0 Lease Finance [F2006L02121]*. 40 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 394.0 Personal Finance [F2006L02102]*. 41 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 395.0 Business Finance [F2006L02104]*. 42 of 2006—Reporting Standard ARS 396.0 Points of Presence [F2006L02106]*. 43 of 2006—Revocation of former reporting standard applying to ADIs [F2006L02107]*. 44 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 231.1a International Exposures: Locational (Assets) Part 1 [F2006L02041]*. 45 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 231.1b International Exposures: Locational (Liabilities) Part 1 [F2006L02044]*. 46 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 231.2 International Exposures: Locational Part 2 [F2006L02050]*. 47 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 231.3a International Exposures: Consolidated (Domestic Entity) [F2006L02052]*. 48 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 231.3b International Exposures: Consolidated (Foreign Entity) [F2006L02055]*. 49 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 320.0 Statement of Financial Position [F2006L02058]*. 50 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 320.1 Debt Securities Held [F2006L02059]*. 51 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 320.2 Equity Securities Held [F2006L02062]*. 52 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 320.3 Debt Securities on Issue [F2006L02068]*. 53 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 320.4 Bill Acceptances [F2006L02070]*. 54 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 320.5 Securities Subject to Repurchase and Resale and Stock Lending and Borrowing [F2006L02073]*. 55 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 331.0 Selected Revenues and Expenses [F2006L02078]*. 56 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 332.0 Statement of Economic Activity [F2006L02079]*. 57 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 391.0 Commercial Finance [F2006L02082]*. 58 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 392.0 Housing Finance [F2006L02084]*. 59 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 393.0 Lease Finance [F2006L02085]*. 60 of 2006—Reporting Standard RRS 394.0 Personal Finance [F2006L02087]*. Fisheries Management Act— Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2005— Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Amendment Direction No. 1 of 2006—Daylight Fishing Closure [F2006L02423]*. Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Direction No. 1 of 2006—Daylight Fishing Closures [F2006L02340]*. Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995— Gear Determination No. NPFGD 03 [F2006L02448]*. NPF Direction No. 96—Second Season Closures [F2006L02421]*. NPF Direction No. 98—Gear Trials [F2006L02422]*. NPF Direction No. 99—Prohibition on Trawling [F2006L02425]*. Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02436]*. 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 (B) [F2006L02350]*. Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan 1995—Southern Bluefin Tuna Final Total Allowable Catch Determination 2005-06 [F2006L02192]*. Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 165—Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01868]*. Fuel Tax Act— Fuel Tax (Fuel Blends) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02186]*. Fuel Tax (Fuel Blends) Determination 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02471]*. Road User Charge Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01879]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 176—Fuel Tax Regulations 2006 [F2006L02007]*. General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Determination 2006 [F2006L02166]*. Goods and Services Tax Determination GSTD 2006/5. Goods and Services Tax Ruling—Addendum—GSTR 2000/20. Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act—Provision of Information (Bulk Payment Agreements) Determination 2006 [F2006L02450]*. Health Insurance Act— Declaration of Quality Assurance Activity—QAA No. 2/2006 [F2006L01990]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 199—Health Insurance (Professional Services Review) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02427]*. Hearing Services Administration Act—Hearing Services (Eligible Persons) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02451]*. Higher Education Support Act— Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines—Amendment No. 6 [F2006L02398]*. Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 6 of 2006)—Nature Care College Pty Limited [F2006L02251]*. Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 7 of 2006)—ITC Education Ltd trading as Wollongong University College [F2006L02348]*. Higher Education Provider Approval (No. 8 of 2006)—JMC Pty. Limited trading as The JMC Academy [F2006L02403]*. Immigration (Education) Act— English Courses and Citizenship Courses held for Holders of Certain Temporary Visas [F2006L01847]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 157—Immigration (Education) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01878]*. Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 166—Income Tax Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01834]*. 167—Income Tax Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L01864]*. 187—Income Tax Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L02313]*. Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, Taxation Administration Act and Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Lodgment of returns for the year of income ended 30 June 2006 [F2006L02006]*. Income Tax Assessment Act 1997— Income Tax (Effective Life of Depreciating Assets) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01901]*. Income Tax (Effective Life of Depreciating Assets) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L01903]*. Record keeping requirements for foreign general insurers carrying on business in Australia through a permanent establishment 2006: 2006/LBI/FSIG1 [F2006L01985]*. Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 155—Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01791]*. Interstate Road Transport Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 162—Interstate Road Transport Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01944]*. Interstate Road Transport Charge Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 163—Interstate Road Transport Charge Regulations 2006 [F2006L01945]*. Legislative Instruments Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 196—Legislative Instruments Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02426]*. Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Determination 2006 [F2006L02155]*. Luxury Car Tax Determination LCTD 2006/1. Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 186—Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02347]*. 202—Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02475]*. Medical Indemnity Act— Premium Support Amendment Scheme 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01954]*. Premium Support (Medical Indemnity Provider) Scheme 2006 [F2006L01959]*. Migration Act— Migration Agents Regulations—MARA Notices— MN26-06b of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Private Study of Audio, Video or Written Material) [F2006L02126]*. MN26-06c of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2006L02123]*. MN26-06f of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Miscellaneous Activities) [F2006L02122]*. MN26-06g of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Pro Bono Activities) [F2006L02119]*. MN31-06b of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Private Study of Audio, Video or Written Material) [F2006L02541]*. MN31-06c of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2006L02542]*. MN31-06f of 2006—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development—Miscellaneous Activities) [F2006L02545]*. Migration Regulations—Instruments— IMMI 06/014—Working Holiday Maker Visa—Definitions of ‘Seasonal Work’ and ‘Regional Australia’ [F2006L01844]*. IMMI 06/029—Organisations that may sponsor Short Stay Business Visitors [F2006L02208]*. IMMI 06/032—Addresses for Applications for Parent (Migrant) (Class AX) Visas [F2006L01867]*. IMMI 06/033—Addresses for Applications for Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) Visas [F2006L01873]*. IMMI 06/034—Addresses for Applications for Contributory Parent (Temporary) (Class UT) Visas [F2006L01866]*. IMMI 06/035—Residential Postcodes, Skilled Occupations, Relevant Assessing Authorities and Points [F2006L01840]*. IMMI 06/036—Minimum Salary Levels and Occupations for the Business Long Stay Visa [F2006L01855]*. IMMI 06/037—Fees for Assessment of a Person’s Qualifications and Experience [F2006L01846]*. IMMI 06/038—Places and Currencies for Paying of Fees [F2006L01842]*. IMMI 06/039—Payment of Visa Application Charges and Fees in Foreign Currencies [F2006L01841]*. IMMI 06/040—Post Office Box and Courier Addresses [F2006L01836]*. IMMI 06/048—States and Territories with English Language Training Arrangements [F2006L01865]*. IMMI 06/054—Payment of Visa Application Charges and Fees in Foreign Currencies [F2006L02342]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 158—Migration Agents Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01877]*. 159—Migration Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L01876]*. Statements for period 1 January to 30 June 2006 under section— 33 [7]. 48B [39]. 91L [4]. 91Q [2]. 195A [3]. 197AB [12]. 345. 351 [112]. 417 [146]. Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act— Explanatory statement—Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Members) Determination 2006 [F2006L00984] [in substitution for explanatory statement tabled with instrument on 9 May 2006]. Instrument No. M18 of 2006—Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Determination of Rate of Interest) Determination 2006 [F2006L02319]*. Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Non-warlike Service) Determination 2006 [F2006L02003]*. Miscellaneous Taxation Rulings— Addendum—MT 2024. Notices of Withdrawal—MT 2014, MT 2015, MT 2018 and MT 2020. Motor Vehicle Standards Act— Motor Vehicle Standards (Approval to Place Used Import Plates) Guidelines 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01870]*. Motor Vehicle Standards (Used Imported Vehicle Report) Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02037]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 46/00—Headlamps) 2006 [F2006L02294]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 50/00—Front Fog Lamps) 2006 [F2006L02296]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 52/00—Rear Fog Lamps) 2006 [F2006L02304]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 53/00—Front and Rear Position Lamps, Stop Lamps, Direction Indicators and Rear Registration Plate Lamps for L-Group Vehicles) 2006 [F2006L02303]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 55/00—Headlamps for Motor Cycles) 2006 [F2006L02302]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 57/00—Special Requirements for L-Group Vehicles) 2006 [F2006L02301]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 60/00—Centre High Mounted Stop Lamp) 2006 [F2006L02300]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 63/00—Trailers Designed for Use in Road Trains) 2006 [F2006L02299]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 64/00—Heavy Goods Vehicles Designed for Use in Road Trains and B-Doubles) 2006 [F2006L02298]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 65/00—Maximum Road Speed Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses) 2006 [F2006L02297]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 66/00—Seat Strength, Seat Anchorage Strength and Padding in Omnibuses) 2006 [F2006L02312]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 67/00—Installation of Lighting and Light Signalling Devices on Three-Wheeled Vehicles) 2006 [F2006L02310]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 74/00—Side Marker Lamps) 2006 [F2006L02308]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 75/00—Headlamp Cleaners) 2006 [F2006L02307]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 76/00—Daytime Running Lamps) 2006 [F2006L02306]*. Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 77/00—Gas Discharge Headlamps) 2006 [F2006L02305]*. National Health Act— Arrangements Nos— PB 36 of 2006—Highly Specialised Drugs Program [F2006L02507]*. PB 37 of 2006—Chemotherapy Pharmaceuticals Access Program [F2006L02510]*. PB 38 of 2006—Special Authority Program [F2006L02511]*. Declarations Nos— PB 30 of 2006 [F2006L02514]*. PB 31 of 2006 [F2006L02506]*. Determinations— HIB 17/2006 [F2006L02032]*. No. PB 32 of 2006 [F2006L02512]*. No. PB 33 of 2006 [F2006L02505]*. No. PB 34 of 2006 [F2006L02523]*. No. PB 35 of 2006 [F2006L02521]*. PSO 3/2006 [F2006L01988]*. PSO 4/2006 [F2006L01989]*. Under paragraph 98B(1)(a), dated 23 June 2006 [F2006L01956]*. Under subsection 84C(7), dated 14 June 2006 [F2006L02228]*. National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 [F2006L01949]*. Pharmaceutical Benefits Amendment Determination under paragraph 98B(1)(a) No. 1 [F2006L02453]*. Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 168—National Health Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01920]*. 200—National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02405]*. National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 197—National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02424]*. National Transport Commission Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 164—National Transport Commission (Model Legislation—Intelligent Access Program) Regulations 2006 [F2006L01758]*. Navigation Act—Marine Orders Nos— 8 of 2006—High-speed craft [F2006L02428]*. 9 of 2006—International Safety Management Code [F2006L02429]*. Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act— Approved Code of Practice for the Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods [F2006L02336]*. Occupational Health and Safety (Definition of Employee) Notice 2006 (3) [F2006L02339]*. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Fees Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 161—Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Fees Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01856]*. Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 191—Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L02431]*. Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 136—Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 3) [F2006L01872]*. 192—Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L02430]*. Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 193—Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 4) [F2006L02472]*. 194—Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 5) [F2006L02434]*. Privacy Act— Approval of the Biometrics Institute Privacy Code [F2006L02406]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 140—Privacy (Private Sector) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01942]*. Proceeds of Crime Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2006 Nos— 181—Proceeds of Crime Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02345]*. 182—Proceeds of Crime Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L02344]*. Product Rulings— Addenda— PR 2003/7, PR 2003/23, PR 2003/25, PR 2003/29 and PR 2003/41. PR 2004/27, PR 2004/31, PR 2004/47, PR 2004/63, PR 2004/65, PR 2004/70 and PR 2004/75. PR 2005/7, PR 2005/8 and PR 2005/116. Notices of Withdrawal— PR 2004/117. PR 2005/65, PR 2005/86 and PR 2005/87. PR 2006/17, PR 2006/37-PR 2006/40, PR 2006/70 and PR 2006/110. PR 2006/111-PR 2006/122. Product Stewardship (Oil) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 144—Product Stewardship (Oil) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01835]*. Public Service Act— Public Service Classification Amendment Rules 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01950]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 183—Public Service Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02346]*. Radiocommunications Act— Australian Radiofrequency Spectrum Plan Variation 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02419]*. Radiocommunications (Low Interference Potential Devices) Class Licence Variation 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02420]*. Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations— 2006/10: Judicial and Related Offices—Remuneration and Allowances [F2006L01932]*. 2006/11: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office and Members of Parliament [F2006L01940]*. 2006/12: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-Time Public Office [F2006L01943]*. 2006/13: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Full-Time Public Office [F2006L01946]*. Retirement Savings Accounts Act— Retirement Savings Account Modification Declaration No. 1 of 2006 [F2006L02133]*. Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 188—Retirement Savings Accounts Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02314]*. Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Determination 2006 [F2006L02161]*. Royal Commissions Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 169—Royal Commissions Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01948]*. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Definition of Employee) Notice 2006 (3) [F2006L02341]*. Social Security Act— Social Security (Means Test Treatment of Private Trusts—Excluded Trusts) Declaration 2006 [F2006L01987]*. Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (FaCSIA) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01986]*. Social Security (International Agreements) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 149—Social Security (International Agreements) Act 1999 Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01934]*. Superannuation Act 1976—Superannuation (CSS) Productivity Contribution (2006-2007) Declaration 2006 [F2006L01984]*. Superannuation Act 1990— Superannuation (PSS) Maximum Benefits (2006-2007) Determination 2006 [F2006L01972]*. Superannuation (PSS) Productivity Contribution (2006-2007) Determination 2006 [F2006L01982]*. Twenty-seventh Amending Deed to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme Trust Deed [F2006L01969]*. Superannuation Act 2005—First Amending Deed to the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan [F2006L02524]*. Superannuation Determination—Addendum—SD 2004/1. Superannuation Guarantee Determination SGD 2006/2. Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act— Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 189—Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L02318]*. Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Modification Declarations Nos— 2 of 2006 [F2006L02132]*. 3 of 2006 [F2006L02152]*. Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act— Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) (2006-2007 Continuing Contributions) Declaration 2006 [F2006L01996]*. Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) (2006-2007 First Interest Factor) Declaration 2006 [F2006L01997]*. Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) (2006-2007 Second Interest Factor) Declaration 2006 [F2006L01998]*. Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) (Approved Funds) Declaration 2006 [F2006L01999]*. Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) (Penalty Interest) Amendment Determination 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01991]*. Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Act—Superannuation Supervisory Levy Imposition Determination 2006 [F2006L02167]*. Taxation Administration Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 156—Taxation Administration Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01858]*. Taxation Determinations— Addendum—TD 2006/23. Notice of Withdrawal—TD 98/3. TD 2006/43-TD 2006/49. Taxation Rulings— Addenda— TR 2001/2. TR 2004/6 and TR 2004/14. Erratum—TR 2003/7. Notice of Withdrawal—TR 2000/18. TR 2006/4-TR 2006/7. Telecommunications Act— Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Amendment Notice 2006 (No. 2) [F2006L01983]*. Telecommunications Technical Standard (Requirements for connection to an air interface of a Telecommunications Network—Part 1: General AS/ACIF S042.1:1999) 2006 [F2006L01980]*. Telecommunications Technical Standard (Requirements for connection to an air interface of a Telecommunications Network—Part 1: General—AS/ACIF S042.1:2006) 2006 [F2006L01977]*. Telecommunications Technical Standard (Requirements for connection to an air interface of a telecommunications network—Part 2: CDMA (IS–95) AS/ACIF S042.2:1999) 2006 [F2006L01976]*. Telecommunications Technical Standard (Requirements for customer cabling products AS/ACIF S008:2006) 2006 [F2006L01981]*. Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act—Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Direction No. 1 of 1999 (Amendment No. 1 of 2006) [F2006L02351]*. Therapeutic Goods Act—Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2006 [F2006L02372]*. Tradesmen’s Rights Regulations Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 143—Tradespersons’ Rights (Cost Recovery) Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 1) [F2006L01853]*. Veterans’ Entitlements Act— Determination of Non-warlike Service—Operation ASTUTE [F2006L02013]*. Determination under section 46L(1) No. R17/2006 [F2006L02113]*. Statement of Principles concerning— Malignant neoplasm of the breast No. 27 of 2006 [F2006L01881]*. Malignant neoplasm of the breast No. 28 of 2006 [F2006L01884]*. Osteoporosis No. 29 of 2006 [F2006L01885]*. Osteoporosis No. 30 of 2006 [F2006L01886]*. Retinal vascular occlusive disease No. 33 of 2006 [F2006L01890]*. Retinal vascular occlusive disease No. 34 of 2006 [F2006L01891]*. Seborrhoeic keratosis No. 31 of 2006 [F2006L01888]*. Seborrhoeic keratosis No. 32 of 2006 [F2006L01889]*. Veterans’ Entitlements (Counselling and Psychiatric Assessment—Former Dependants of Vietnam Veterans) Determination 2006 No. R16 [F2006L02168]*. Governor-General’s Proclamation—Commencement of Provisions of an Act Australian Trade Commission Legislation Amendment Act 2006—Part 1 of Schedule 1—1 July 2006 [F2006L01897]*. *       Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument. 134 Answers to Questions on Notice The following answers to questions were circulated: 134 134 471 134 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG 0 Senator Bob Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, upon notice, on 17 March 2005: With reference to Gunns’ proposed pulp mill at Bell Bay in Tasmania: From January 2002 to date, what communications have there been between the Minister, the Minister’s staff or department and Gunns Ltd relating to the proposed pulp mill, and in each case: what was the date of the communication; what was the nature of the communication; who was involved in the communication; and what was the purpose and content of the communication. What conditions apply to the Government’s offer of $5 million assistance for the pulp mill; and (b)when is the money likely to be made available. 134 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: I and my Department have met with representatives of Gunns Ltd. The date and subject of these meetings are confidential between Gunns Ltd and myself. and (b) This is a matter for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 134 134 551 134 Bishop, Sen Mark 2L6 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Mark Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 20 April 2005: For each of the past 3 financial years, including 2004-2005 to date, what amount was spent by the Department on: (a) hospitality extended by the Minister; and (b) supporting ministerial travel overseas by way of: (i) accompanying officers, (ii) briefing, and (iii) hospitality and other support by way of itinerary preparation and travel bookings. For each of the next three financial years, what is the projected amount to be spent by the Department on: (a) hospitality directed and/or hosted by the Minister; and (b) the projected amount to be spent by the Department on international ministerial travel. 134 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: 2002-03, $4 274.49 2003-04, $17 181.64 2004-05, $5 386.90 The preparation of an answer to this question would involve a significant diversion of resources and I do not consider that the additional work can be justified. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or another member of the Repatriation Commission has accompanied the Minister. Departmental records do not quantify expenditure related to briefing and itinerary preparation. The Minister’s travel bookings are made by the Minister’s office and funded through the Department of Finance and Administration. This amount cannot be estimated as it is dependent on the Minister’s program each year. Nil. The Minister’s travel is funded through the Department of Finance and Administration. 135 135 596 and 609 135 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, 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. 135 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The Minister for Education, Science and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Parts of your questions were answered in response to questions from Senator Carr. The additional information you requested is at Attachment A (current to 4 May 2005) and copies of the responses to Senator Carr’s related questions E1013_04, E864_05 and E860_05 are at Attachments B, C and D respectively. Attachment A Financial Year Let PRN Group Name of the Consultant Contract Description Contract Value (GST incl) Recommended Procurement Method Actual Procurement Method Exemption Grounds Exemption Justification Was the survey released publicly? 2003/2004 5309 Strategic Analysis & Evaluation Group The Social Research Centre Pty Ltd Surveys of Employer & New Apprentice Satisfaction with New Apprenticeships Centres $660,286.00 Open Tender Open Tender N/a N/a Yes, released on the web at www.newapprenticeships.gov.au 2004/2005 6038 Strategic Analysis & Evaluation Group Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Post Programme Monitoring of employment and education outcomes arising from assistance programmes $146,000.00 Minimum of 1 Written Quote Minimum of 1 Written Quote N/a N/a No 2003/2004 5244 Indigenous & Transitions Group Colmar Bruton Social Research Conduct a mail-out paper-based survey to evaluate usage of The Real Game Series kits in school and non-school organisations $50,412.00 Minimum of 1 Written Quote Minimum of 1 Written Quote N/a N/a Yes, released on the web at http://www.realgame.gov.au/links.htm 2002/2003 2771 Science Howard Partners Pty Ltd Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the CRC programme $183,773.00 Open Tender Open Tender N/a N/a Yes 2003/2004 PO number 45023544 Schools Outcomes Group Centrelink / Market Solution Pty Ltd AIC Customer Satisfaction Survey $38,500.00 Minimum of 1 Written Quote Minimum of 1 Written Quote N/a N/a No ATTACHMENT B EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING SENATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 2003-2004 ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING Outcome:              All Output Group:       All DEST Question No. E1013_04 Senator Carr provided in writing. Question: Did DEST conduct any surveys of attitudes towards programmes run by their department in 1997 1996‑97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 to date? Answer: Surveys DEST contracts Centrelink to conduct an Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) Scheme Customer Satisfaction Survey to measure customer satisfaction. One Customer Satisfaction Survey (in September 2003) was conducted during the periods framed by question E1013_04. An independent evaluation of the CRC Programme carried out by Howard Partners included a survey (conducted by ORIMA Research Pty Ltd) of current CRCs, businesses associated with CRCs and businesses that have no association with CRCs, but are engaged in Research and Development. The survey sought feedback on these organisations' experiences with key elements of the CRC Programme. The survey results were incorporated into the final Evaluation Report by Howard Partners, published on the CRC web site in August 2003 (at www.crc.gov.au ) ATTACHMENT C EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING SENATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 2004-2005 ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING Outcome:              All Output Group:       All DEST Question No. E864_05 & E818_05 (Request for updates) Senator Carr provided in writing. Refers to DEST Question Nos. E1013_04 & E860_05 Question: Did DEST conduct any surveys of attitudes towards programmes run by their department in 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 to date? Answer: Attitudinal Information Surveys In answer to Question E860_05 DEST provided a full list of all surveys undertaken in the period February 2004 to February 2005. This answer was an update of information provided in answer to earlier questions. Surveys listed in that answer which may also contain attitudinal information include: •     Employer and New Apprenticeship satisfaction survey; •     Post Programme Monitoring Survey of the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Programme; •     Career Planning Programme (Post Programme Monitoring Survey); and •     The Real Game Series. ATTACHMENT D EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TRAINING SENATE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 2004-2005 ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING Outcome:               All Output Group:       All DEST Question No. E860_05 & E818_05 (Request for updates) Senator Carr provided in writing. Refers to DEST Question No. E1007_04. Question: On what programmes administered by DEST were surveys conducted? What were the findings of these surveys? Answer: On what programmes administered by DEST were surveys conducted. The following attachment provides details on surveys conducted on programmes administered by the Department. The key findings for each survey have been listed. The surveys were conducted between February 2004 and February 2005. Attachment A Year Programme Key Findings 2004  Job Guide User Surveys 86% of the respondent students expressed a preference for the Job Guide as the most useful or second most useful formal career resource.  70% of other users (including parents and career advisers) expressed over-all satisfaction with the Job Guide website.  41% of students reported having undertaken vocational subjects at school, and 31% reported having considered part-time New Apprenticeship at school. Significant percentages of students expressed a lack of awareness, or interest in, vocational education and training and school career guidance programmes. A little more than half of the students (51%) had participated in work experience or work placement, and over three-quarters of them (77%) had participated in some paid or voluntary work activity. 2003-04 The Effect of Study Costs on Decisions to Study at TAFE TAFE study cost were amongst the most important factors in deciding whether to study at TAFE. Nearly 70% of current or past TAFE students regarded study costs as 'important' or 'very important'. The most significant costs for students surveyed were course fees, material fees and textbooks. The costs of study was more frequently viewed as 'important' or 'very important' by persons studying for personal rather than job-related reasons. The costs of study was more frequently viewed as 'important' or 'very important' by respondents from New South Wales than by respondents from other States. 2003-04 & 2004-05 Employer and New Apprenticeship satisfaction survey A hard copy of the National Report of the 2004 Survey of New Apprentice and Employer Satisfaction with New Apprenticeships Centres (the Report) is attached. The Report’s findings are used to monitor New Apprenticeships Centres’ performance against a Key Performance Indicator in the New Apprenticeships Support Services contract which sets a benchmark of 80% employer and New Apprentice satisfaction with the services provided by New Apprenticeships Centres.     The Report, which was finalised in December 2004, has not been released to the public. This is to ensure that survey outcomes for individual New Apprenticeships Centres are not readily identifiable by competing New Apprenticeships Centres in those regions where there are two or less New Apprenticeships Centres contracted to deliver New Apprenticeships Support Services. However, the Department will be publishing information on the New Apprenticeships website regarding satisfaction with New Apprenticeships Centres against the 80% benchmark to indicate whether the benchmark was met or not met against each New Apprenticeships Support Services contracts.     The summary of the findings of the Report are not published in the ANTA Annual Report. The ANTA Annual Report reports on the findings of the Student outcomes survey which identifies how well the TAFE system helps students achieve their goals. The Student outcomes survey is conducted annually by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research. 2003-04 & 2004-05 Survey of longer term outcomes of new apprenticeships Key findings are included in the report 'Skills at Work' - refer Senate Hansard of 17 March 2005 - 'Return to Order - New Apprenticeship Outcomes' 2003-04 Survey of short term outcomes of new apprenticeships Key findings are included in the report 'Skills at Work' 2004-2005 Post Programme Monitoring Survey of the the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Programme Over half of the survey respondents had positive outcomes from the programme - went on to further education/training or gained employment. Over 80% of participants registered their satisfaction with the programme 2004-05 Longitudinal Survey of Australian Youth (LSAY) In 2004, information was sought from 3 cohorts of LSAY as part of the annual tracking of these cohorts. Information sought focused on socio-economic background, and education and labour market participation. Results are published in various topic-oriented reports. 2003-04 National Survey of Research Commercialisation Years 2001-002 The survey provides a number of measures of the commercialisation activity carried out by publicly funded research organisations in 2001 and 2002, including universities, CSIRO, medical research institutes, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.     The survey showed that while Australia's performance in commercialising research is good and generally improving,     our research institutions still have some way to go to be fully competitive internationally.     It showed that Australia needs to build on its strong research science earn innovation base so as to reap even greater returns from its investment in research.     It also showed that a small number of organisations accounted for the bulk of the commercialisation activity. 2004 National School Drug Education Strategy The report on the Implementation review of resources developed under the National School Drug Education Strategy (NSDES) was conducted during 2004. It included a survey of drug education consultants, principals and teachers to assess the dissemination and implementation mechanisms and the uptake and use of the NSDES resources. The report noted that the take up of resources had been somewhat limited but this was considered acceptable as the research was conducted soon after distribution of most of the resources. It also found that the materials: . were perceived to be of high quality; to be relevant to both the general approach adopted in the jurisdictions to drug education and to the needs of students; to be age-appropriate; and to be user-friendly for both teachers and students. . aligned well with the existing drug education curriculum. The emphasis on promoting student well-being and resilience also accords well with current emphases and priorities in most jurisdictions. . are likely to have a positive impact on students’ knowledge about drugs, ability to make positive decisions, and likelihood of seeking help if needed. 2004 Career Planning Programme 79% of respondents indicated that the Programme was useful to them. (Post Programme Monitoring Survey) 87% of respondents indicated an increase in self-knowledge about the needs in a job or a career.   85% of respondents indicated that they had increased knowledge of how to research career information.   77% of respondents indicated that they had increased confidence in their ability to take a planned approach to career or job paths. 2004 The Real Game Series The majority of users incorporate The Real Game into their curriculum (70%), while one-quarter (25%) use it as an extra activity. When incorporated, the Game is commonly delivered in Careers, Society and History or English classes, although some staff also delivered sessions in Mathematics or Economics classes. User perceptions of The Real Game were very positive. They gave an average rating of 7.8 out of 10 for participant enjoyment of the Game, and 78% rated the Game as “effective” or “extremely effective” as a resource for the organisation. 77% of users noticed at least one of the listed positive outcomes for their participants, including 57% who noticed that students were most likely to develop career plans and personal portfolios. Almost half (47%) also noticed improved attitudes and behaviour among Real Game participants.     A copy of the report can be found at http://www.realgame.dest.gov.au 2004-05 Youth Allowance, ABSTUDY and Austudy (Report on Qualitative Research into Study Related Debt) Knowledge of available payments was generally high however knowledge of alternative payments for part-time study was poor; Understanding of payment qualifications and requirements was poor including knowledge of income test and study income bank understanding; Knowledge of notification obligations was high. Most agreed that they were reasonable and necessary; Face to face contact in their dealings with Centrelink was preferred; and Knowledge of review and appeal rights was generally low. 2004-05 ABSTUDY  The Guide is a very good reference to intermediaries and non-specialist staff. (Information Product Testing)  Integration of the Handbook and Guide should not be considered;    A stand alone overview of the product is not required for the customers;    Awareness of ABSTUDY is extremely high; and    Face to face contact in their dealings with Centrelink was preferred. 142 142 712 142 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year since 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: What overseas travel was undertaken by the Minister; (b) what was the purpose of the Minister’s visit; (c) when did the Minister depart Australia; (d) who travelled with the Minister; and (e) when did the Minister return to Australia. Who did the Minister meet during the visit; and (b) what were the times and dates of each meeting. On how many of these trips was the Minister accompanied by a business delegation; and (b) can details be provided of any delegation accompanying the Minister. Who met the costs of travel and other expenses associated with the trip. What total travel and associated expenses, if any, were met by the department in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s staff; and (d) departmental and/or agency staff. What were the costs per expenditure item for: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff, including but not limited to: (i) fares, (ii) allowances, (iii) accommodation, (iv) hospitality, (v) insurance, and (vi) other costs. What were the costs per expenditure item for each departmental and/or agency officer, including but not necessarily limited to: (a) fares; (b) allowances; (c) accommodation; (d) hospitality; (e) insurance; and (f) other costs. What was the total cost of air charters used by the Minister or his/her office or department; and (b) 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 respective costs. 142 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: Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. To provide specific details of the times and dates of each meeting would involve detailed research and time which I am not prepared to authorise. The Treasurer has not been accompanied by a business delegation on any overseas trips between 2000-01 and 2004-05. Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. The Treasury is responsible for all costs associated with portfolio related hospitality and for those costs that are not covered under the entitlements framework of the Department of Finance and Administration. (Ministers of State entitlement handbook July 2004). Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. The following table details the costs for each departmental officer. Trip No. Country Officer 7(a) Air fare 7(b) Allowances 7(c ) Accommodation 7(d) Hosp 7(e) Ins 7(f) other g7costs 1 France Mr O’Brien Dr Henry Ms Furnell $9,162.00 $9,903.08 $7,162.48 $1,606.61 $1,869.56 $2,723.01 $4,818.28 $4,285.45 $453.00 nil nil nil nil nil nil $357.06 nil nil 2 Indonesia/ Brunei Dr Henry Mr Legg Mr Joske VIP aircraft $2,695.90 $2,695.90 $1,1861.30 $870.66 $1,928.95 $1,117.89 $1,209.04 $3,097.02 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil $61.06 nil 3 USA Dr Henry $15,140.44 $1,754.86 $924.85 nil nil nil 4 USA Dr Parkinson Ms Mrakvocic $14,157.23 $11,596.78 $1,602.74 $923.02 $10,771.42 $3,935.83 nil nil nil nil $4,408.92 nil 5 China Dr Parkinson Mr Legg Mr Joske $4,288.02 na * na * $1,538.22 $1,294.81 $1,117.10 $2,404.46 $412.54 0.00 nil nil nil nil nil nil $542.87 $41.27 nil 6 Canada Dr Parkinson $12,402.45 $526.33 $872.41 nil nil nil 7 Vanuatu Dr Parkinson Mr Sewell nil nil $807.62 $750.71 $586.72 $672 nil nil nil 8 Mexico Dr Parkinson Mr Joske Mr Legg $12,414.03 $9,466.33 $11,789.57 $931.85 $3,691.84 $1,566.35 $2,300.93 $2,874.17 $3,544.51 nil nil nil nil nil nil $208.29 $551.88 $771.53 9 USA/UK Dr Parkinson $22,277.83 $2,446.03 $8,511.72 nil nil $398.42 10 India Mr O’Brien $7,596.34 $416.10 $1,359.32 nil nil $364.43 11 New Zealand Dr Henry $2,944.79 $385.35 $880 nil nil $289.54 12 Turkey/ France Dr Parkinson (France only) $12,435.41 $789.34 $3,482.68 nil nil $336.66 13 Thailand Dr Smith Dr Henry Mr Joske $5,513.84 $7,742.32 $4,169.98 $550.01 $528.88 $495.93 $1,539.10 $1,050.00 $1,426.45 nil nil nil nil nil nil $52.67 nil $57.25 14 Middle East Ms Murphy Mr McKissack $5,048.00 $5,048.00 $978.74 $888.00 $2,518.66 $2,518.97 nil nil nil nil $558.15 $49.56 15 Mexico Ms Ingram $7,389.74 $2,310.73 $6,356.30 nil nil $177.87 16 USA Dr Henry Mr McKissack $13,390.35 $10,326.64 $1,595.00 $997.03 $2,240.00 $2,584.20 nil nil $359.83 17 New Zealand Dr Perkins Mr Sewell $497.50 $1,429.02 $300.86 $400.47 $244.74 $341.22 nil nil nil nil $3.67 $16.00 18 Chile Dr Parkinson $6,512.48 $499.79 $354.23 nil nil $122.31 19 USA Dr Parkinson $11,936.92 $1,179.46 $3,300.40 nil nil $307.49 20 Germany Dr Parkinson $13,179.46 $734.73 $1,407.26 nil nil $930.49 21 New Zealand Dr Henry Ms Wijeyewardene $2,646.78 $2,334.29 $352.50 $173.31 $500.00 $397.12 nil nil nil nil nil 55.88 22 Indonesia/ South Korea Dr Parkinson Dr de Brouwer Ms Welch Mr Pyne $19,846.24 $7,715.66 $6,490.27 $3,164.06 $2,450.48 $2,128.67 $1,362.77 $1,103.65 $4,168.28 $3,145.93 $2,255.70 $2,024.20 nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil $2,098.40 $270.91 nil $49.11 23 China Dr Parkinson Ms Welsh $8,014.20 $4,455.64 $1,041.77 $414.98 $2,042.15 $584.66 nil nil nil nil $48.10 nil * Airfares: specific details of airfare costs are not available due to the collapse of Ansett, who were our travel service provider at that time. Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. 144 144 719 144 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year since 2000–2001 to 2004-2005 to date: What overseas travel was undertaken by the Minister; (b) what was the purpose of the Minister’s visit; (c) when did the Minister depart Australia; (d) who travelled with the Minister; and (e) when did the Minister return to Australia. Who did the Minister meet during the visit; and (b) what were the times and dates of each meeting. On how many of these trips was the Minister accompanied by a business delegation; and (b) can details be provided of any delegation accompanying the Minister. Who met the cost of travel and other expenses associated with the trip. What total travel and associated expenses, if any, were met by the department in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s staff; and (d) departmental and/or agency staff. What were the costs per expenditure item for: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff, including but not necessarily limited to: (i) fares, (ii) allowances, (iii) accommodation, (iv) hospitality, (v) insurance, and (vi) other costs. What were the costs per expenditure item for each departmental and/or agency officer, including but not necessarily limited to: (a) fares; (b) allowances; (c) accommodation; (d) hospitality; (e) insurance; and (f) other costs. What was the total cost of air charters used by the Minister or his/her office or department; and (b) 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 respective costs. 144 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator Abetz —The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Special Minister of State to respond. Trip#1 Date Time Participants Singapore 19-Oct-00 0900 HE Mr Murray McLean, High Commissioner 19-Oct-00 1000 HE Dr John Chen Seow Phun, Singapore Minister for State 19-Oct-00 1115 HE Mr Chandra Das, Chairman NTUC Fairprice 19-Oct-00 1230 Agri-food Veterinary Authority Senior Officials 20-Oct-00 0900 Mrs Toh Guek Hong, Austrade 20-Oct-00 1100 Mr Owen Price, Chairman, Dairy Farm Group - South Asia 20-Oct-00 1230 HE Mr Murray McLean, High Commissioner to Singapore 20-Oct-00 1900 Confederation of Australian Pork Exporters France 22-Oct-00 1930 HE Mr Jean Glavaney, French Agriculture Minister 23-Oct-00 0900 Australian exhibitors at SIAL 23-Oct-00 1500 Mr Yves Salmon, President French Farmers’ Union Germany 24-Oct-00 1200 HE Mr Wolfgang Birthler, Minister for Protection of the Environment, Agriculture and Area Planning 24-Oct-00 1330 Mr Dietmar Schulze, State Secretary, Ministry for Protection of the Environment, Agriculture and Area Planning 24-Oct-00 1700 Mr Karl Durbeck, Vice President, Federation of German Wholesale & Trade Food 25-Oct-00 0930 Dr Heiko Steffans, President of the Working Group of the German Consumers Association 25-Oct-00 1145 HE Mr Karl-Heinz Funker, Federal Minister for Agriculture 25-Oct-00 1230 Hon Peter Carstensen, Chairman of Bundestag Committee on Nutrition, Agriculture and Forestry 25-Oct-00 1430 Mr Gerd Sonnleitner, President, German Farmers Union 25-Oct-00 1600 Representatives of Berlin Technical University Biotechnology Centre 26-Oct-00 1040 Australian exhibitors at the Hannover EXPO 27-Oct-00 0945 Presenters at Seminar on Sustainable Livestock Production Trip#2 Date Participants 09-Mar-01 Hon Richard Amery MP, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Land and Water Conservation, NSW Hon Keith Hamilton MP, Minister for Agriculture, Victoria Hon Sherryl Garbutt MLA, Minister for Environment and Conservation, Victoria Hon Henry Palaszczuk MP, Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities, Queensland Hon Kim Chance MLC, Minister for Agriculture, WA Hon Rob Kerin MP, Minister for Primary Industries, Natural Resources and Development, SA Hon Mark Brindal MP, Minister for Water Resources, SA Hon David Llewellyn MHA, Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Tas Hon Jim Sutton MP, Minister for Agriculture, New Zealand Trip#3 Date Time Participants 10-Dec-01 1230 Washington-based Cairns Group representatives 10-Dec-01 1500 Mr Charles Conner, Special Assistant to the President for Agricultural Trade 10-Dec-01 1630 Hon Ann Veneman, Secretary for Agriculture 11-Dec-01 1500 Sen. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee 11-Dec-01 1800 Members of the Australia-America Association 12-Dec-01 0900 Sen. Richard Lugar, Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee 12-Dec-01 1130 Rep. Charles Stenholm, House Agriculture Committee 12-Dec-01 1800 Ron Harvey, Australian Consul General 13-Dec-01 0930 Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation Trip#4 Date Time Participants Japan 27-Jan-02 2005 Mr John Montgomery, Austrade Mr John Kellert, Deputy Consul-General Mr Bob Calder, Minister Counsellor (Agriculture) Mr Allen Grant, Minister Counsellor (Agriculture)-designate 28-Jan-02 1215 Mr Mayumi, MD, Japan Spinners Association Mr Minoru Asada Mr Atsushi Hamai 28-Jan-02 1400 Mr Nakai, President, Nippon Keori Kaisha Ltd Mr Tomita, Chairman of Japan Wool Industry Conference 28-Jan-02 1500 Mr Shimuzu, Director, Nippon Meat Packers Mr Shichijo, Deputy GM, Imported Products, Nippon Meat Packers Mr David Mc Nally, Export Manager, BE Campbell Australia 28-Jan-02 1615 Mr Zushi, President, Minami Nippon Meat Packers Inc Mr Miyatani, President, World Commerce Inc 28-Jan-02 1800 Mr Richard Brooks, MD, Meat and Livestock Australia 29-Jan-02 0900 Mr Toda, President, Nishinihon Kawayo Co 29-Jan-02 1115 Mr Tsukamoto, President, Rokko Butter 29-Jan-02 1700 Mr Tsutomu Takebe, Minister for Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries 29-Jan-02 1900 Japanese food importers and Australian business owners in Japan 30-Jan-02 0530 Tokyo Metropolitan Government Officials at Tsukiji Fish Markets 30-Jan-02 0800 Representatives of the Australian New Zealand Chamber of Commerce in Japan at Australian Embassy 30-Jan-02 1000 Chairman and Chief Executives of JA Zenchu (Peak Body of Japanese Agricultural Cooperatives) 30-Jan-02 1215 Japanese Minister for Health, Labour and Welfare 30-Jan-02 1300 Mr Toshikatsu Matsuoka, LDP Politician South Korea 30-Jan-02 1950 Dr Mark Schipp, Counsellor (Agriculture) & Embassy Officials 31-Jan-02 1000 Mr Kim Dong-Tae, Minister for Agriculture and Forestry 31-Jan-02 1500 Mr Yu Sam-Nam, Minister for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 31-Jan-02 1830 MAF and MMAF Officials and Australian agricultural industry representatives 01-Feb-02 0750 Forestry Tasmania delegation visiting Korea 01-Feb-02 0800 Breakfast Meeting of the Australia New Zealand Chamber of Commerce in Korea 01-Feb-02 1030 Mr Hwang Doo-Yun, Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade 01-Feb-02 1500 Chair of the National Assembly Agriculture, Forestry, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Committee The Philippines 02-Feb-02 1400 Representatives of Nestle Philippines dairy establishment 03-Feb-02 0900 Representatives of the International Rice Research Institute 03-Feb-02 1500 Mr Martin Gomez, President, Cattle Feedlotters Association of The Philippines 03-Feb-02 1930 Mr Leonardo Montemayor, Philippines Secretary for Agriculture 04-Feb-02 1000 Secretary Leonardo Montemayor 04-Feb-02 1230 Mr Paul Dominguez, Presidential Advisor on Regional Development 04-Feb-02 1430 Mr Luis “Cito” Lorenzo, Presidential Advisor on Agricultural Employment) 04-Feb-02 1600 Mr Angelito Sarmiento, Presidential Advisor on Agricultural Modernisation 04-Feb-02 1930 Secretary Montemayor 05-Feb-02 0800 Mr Bill Mason, President of the Australia-New Zealand Chamber of Commerce – Philippines, and representatives of the Australian business community in the Philippines 05-Feb-02 1045 Congressman Alfredo Maranon, Chair, House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture 05-Feb-02 1130 Senator Manuel Villar, Chair, Senate Committee on Agriculture Trip#5 Date Time Participants Indonesia 06-Jun-02 1100 Mr Ross Dalton 06-Jun-02 1200 Mr Jim Moseley, Undersecretary USDA 06-Jun-02 1245 HE Mr Bungaran Saragih, Indonesian Minister for Agriculture 06-Jun-02 1400 Roundtable participants Italy 07-Jun-02 2325 Mr Murray Cobban, Ambassador of Australia; Mr Brett Hughes, Counsellor (Agriculture); Ms Adele Manili, Protocol Officer 10-Jun-02 0815 Participants of World Food Summit at FAO Headquarters 11-Jun-02 0800 HE Mr Lyle Vanclief, Canadian Minister for Agriculture and Agrifood and HE Mr Jim Sutton, New Zealand Agriculture Minister 11-Jun-02 1100 Hon Ann Veneman, US Secretary of Agriculture 11-Jun-02 1400 HE Mr Shri Ajit Singhe, Indian Agriculture Minister 11-Jun-02 1500 HE Mr Gonzalo Gonzalez, Uruguayan Agriculture Minister 11-Jun-02 1600 HE Ms Angela Thoko Didiza, South African Agriculture Minister 11-Jun-02 1700 HE Mr Leonardo Montemayor, Philippines Agriculture Minister 11-Jun-02 1900 heads of delegation meeting 12-Jun-02 0800 HE Mr Chucheep Harnsawar, Thai Deputy Minister of Agriculture 12-Jun-02 0915 HE Mr Du Qinglin, Chinese Agriculture Minister Sweden 13-Jun-02 0730 Mr Stephen Brady, Ambassador of Australia and Mr Darren Brown, First Secretary 13-Jun-02 0930 Representatives of Uppsala Agricultural University 13-Jun-02 1330 HE Ms Margareta Winberg, Swedish Minister for Agriculture 13-Jun-02 1645 Mr Thomas Johansson, Vice President of Swedish Farmer’s Federation Denmark 14-Jun-02 0900 Representatives of Danish Bacon and Meat Council 14-Jun-02 1100 HE Ms Mariann Fischer Boel, Danish Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Minister 14-Jun-02 1415 Representatives of Danish Agricultural Council Trip#6 Date Time Participants 25-Jul-02 1730 HE Mr Tsutomu Takebe, Japanese Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 25-Jul-02 1815 Hon Ann Veneman, US Secretary of Agriculture 25-Jul-02 1900 QUINT Ministers: Tsutomu Takebe, Japanese Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Ann Veneman, US Secretary of Agriculture; Dr Franz Fischler, EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Affairs; and HE Mr Lyle Vanclief, Canadian Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food. 26-Jul-02 0900 QUINT Ministers 26-Jul-02 1300 HE Mr Lyle Vanclief 26-Jul-02 1630 QUINT Ministers 26-Jul-02 1845 Dr Franz Fischler 27-Jul-02 0900 QUINT Ministers Trip#7 Date Time Participants 10-Mar-03 1730 HE Mrs Megawati Soekarnoputri, President of Indonesia 11-Mar-03 0830 Ministerial Forum members 11-Mar-03 1440 Meeting with private sector representatives 11-Mar-03 1600 Prof Bungaram Saragih, Minister for Agriculture Trip#8 Date Time Participants Chile 30-Jun-03 1600 HE Mr Cristian Barros, Minister for Foreign Affairs 30-Jun-03 1700 HE Mr Jorge Rodriguez, Chilean Minister for Economy 30-Jun-03 1930 HE Mr Jaime Campos, Chilean Minister for Agriculture Uruguay 01-Jul-03 1255 Ms Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador of Australia, Kirsty McNeil, Third Secretary 01-Jul-03 1600 Dr Jorge Battle, President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, and HE Mr Didier Opertti, Foreign Minister 01-Jul-03 1700 Dr Gonzalo Gonzalez, Uruguayan Minister for Livestock, Agriculture & Fisheries, and Vice Minister Martin Aguirrezabala 01-Jul-03 1900 Representatives of Rugby Business Club Australia 01-Jul-03 2030 Dr Gonzalo Gonzalez 02-Jul-03 1000 Representatives of Uruguayan beef industry. 02-Jul-03 1100 Representatives of Uruguayan wool industry. Argentina 02-Jul-03 1545 Mr Radek Divis, First Secretary 02-Jul-03 1700 HE Mr Miguel Campos, Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food; Claudio Sabsay, Undersecretary for Agriculture; and Mr Gustavo Idigoras, Director of Agri-food Markets 02-Jul-03 1830 Official Launch of Rugby Business Club Australia 02-Jul-03 2100 Minister Campos; Mr Claudio Sabsay; Dr Bernardo Cané, President of SENASA; Dr Carlos Veugen, President of INTA 03-Jul-03 0900 Governor Felipe Solá 03-Jul-03 1215 Owners of Cabaña San Patricio del Este La Emma beef farm 03-Jul-03 1730 Representatives of Argentine Rural Society 03-Jul-03 2030 Representatives of Argentinean Wine Industry 04-Jul-03 0930 Representatives of the Argentinean Beef Industry 04-Jul-03 1100 Representatives of the Argentinean Wool industry 04-Jul-03 1230 Representatives of Australian investors in Argentinean agriculture 04-Jul-03 1500 Representatives of Argentinean Grain Producers 04-Jul-03 1600 He Mr Martin Redrado, Argentine Secretary for Trade and International Economic Negotiations 04-Jul-03 1730 HE Mr Robert Lavagna, Minister for the Economy Brazil 06-Jul-03 1035 Mr John Sullivan, Ambassador of Australia & Rowena Thompson, Second Secretary 06-Jul-03 0930 Representatives of Fazenda Felicicade Dairy Farm 07-Jul-03 1245 President of the Parliamentary Front for Agriculture and President of the Congress’ Agricultural Committee 07-Jul-03 1030 HE Mr Samuel Pinheiro Guimaraes, Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs 07-Jul-03 1130 Dr Roberto Rodrigues, Brazilian Minister for Agriculture, Livestock and Supply, and Brazilian quarantine agency officials 07-Jul-03 1300 Ambassador John Sullivan and senior officials 07-Jul-03 1530 Dr Marcio Fortes Almeida, Acting Minister for Development, Industry and Foreign Trade 07-Jul-03 2045 Mr Gerard Seeber, Austrade Trade Commissioner 08-Jul-03 0900 Mr Felico Cintra, Director Superintendent Ester Sugar and Ethanol, Mr Edecio Daolio, Industrial Manager Ester Sugar and Ethanol 08-Jul-03 1430 Mr Antonio Gomes, Exec Director of Industrial Operations, Citrosuco, Mr Sergio Luis Moretti, Operations Manager, Citrosuco Mexico 09-Jul-03 1800 Graeme Wilson, Ambassador of Australia, Peter Rennert, First Secretary 09-Jul-03 2030 Ambassador Wilson, Mr Graeme Barty (Austrade Board Member), Mr Javier Mata (Managing Director, Fares Trading Americas), Mr Francisco Hinterholzer (President, ACANZMEX – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico Business Council) 10-Jul-03 1000 HE Dr Luis Ernesto Derbez, Mexican Foreign Minister 10-Jul-03 1130 Mr Manuel Angel Nunez, Governor of Mexican State of Hidalgo 10-Jul-03 2000 Colegio de Postgraduados and Fares Trading Americas 11-Jul-03 0930 HE Dr Julio Frenk, Mexican Health Minister 11-Jul-03 1100 HE Mr Javier Usabiaga Arroyo, Mexican Agriculture Minister 11-Jul-03 1315 TGT Farm Project Trip#9 Date Time Participants 31-Aug-03 1900 Australian and Chinese agribusiness representatives 01-Sep-03 0720 Austcham representatives 01-Sep-03 1130 Mr Tang Dengjie, Shanghai Vice Mayor of Agriculture 01-Sep-03 1400 Representatives of Australian Company Ausda 01-Sep-03 2140 Yvonne Chan, Austrade Chengdu Representative and Deputy Consul-General, Guangzhou 02-Sep-03 0910 Representatives of the Tongwei aquaculture enterprise 02-Sep-03 1100 Representatives of the Tongwei International Cattle Breeding Centre 02-Sep-03 1800 Representatives of the Sichuan Provincial Government 03-Sep-03 1100 Dr Alan Thomas, Ambassador of Australia 03-Sep-03 1400 Representatives of the Global Foundation Group 03-Sep-03 1430 Ministry of Commerce officials 04-Sep-03 1000 Australia-China Agricultural Innovation Forum 04-Sep-03 1445 Vice Minister Ge Zhirong, AQSIQ 04-Sep-03 1845 Chinese business leaders with agricultural interests in Australia 04-Sep-03 0930 Mr Lu Fuyuan, Chinese Minister of Commerce 05-Sep-03 1100 Mr Li Yucai, Vice Minister for Forestry 05-Sep-03 1400 Mr Zhou Mingchen, Chairman China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation (COFCO) 05-Sep-03 1700 Dr Chen Lijun, Vice General Manager Beijing San Yuan Foods Co. Trip#10 Date Time Participants UAE 27-Apr-04 0545 Mr John Tileman, Ambassador of Australia 27-Apr-04 0915 Director General of Dubai Municipality 27-Apr-04 1100 Under Secretary Al Shariqi, Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries 27-Apr-04 AM HE Mr Saeed bin Mohammed Al Raqbani, UAE Agriculture Minister Egypt 27-Apr-04 1700 Mr Robert Newton, Ambassador of Australia, Mr Bruce Lendon, Counsellor, Mr Nick Moger, AFP. 27-Apr-04 1830 Prof Hassan Aidaros, Chairman, General Organisation for Veterinary Services 27-Apr-04 1930 HE Dr Hassan Khedr, Egyptian Minister of Supply & Internal Trade 28-Apr-04 0930 Mr Mahmoud El-Shorbagi, Chairman Five Star Flour Mills 28-Apr-04 1130 Mr Captain Ossama Al-Sharif, President and CEO, Sokhna Port Development Co 28-Apr-04 1830 Professor Hassan Aidaros, Chairman GOVS 29-Apr-04 0900 HE Dr Youssef Wali, Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Land Reclamation 29-Apr-04 1100 HE Dr Youssef Boutros Ghali, Egyptian Minister of Foreign Trade 29-Apr-04 PM Mostafa Roushdy, Chairman of Medi Trading Company 29-Apr-04 1930 Ambassador Newton and Egyptian Ministers 30-Apr-04 1200 Ambassador Newton and Mr Bruce Lendon (Counsellor) UAE 30-Apr-04 1930 NFIS Function 01-May-04 0900 Ambassador Tileman 01-May-04   Representatives of Barakat Juice Processing Factory 01-May-04   Representatives of Emirates Livestock Feedlot Saudi Arabia 02-May-04 AM HE Dr Hashim bin Abdullah Al Yamani, Saudi Minister for Commerce and Industry 02-May-04 AM HE Dr Fahd Ibn Abdul Rahman Balghaneim, Saudi Minister for Agriculture 02-May-04 AM Dr Abdul Rahman Al Attiyah, GCC Secretary-General 03-May-04 1000 Sheik Fahad Salem Al Ali Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti General Manager of the Public Authority for Agricultural Affairs and Fishing Resources 03-May-04 AM Rasheed S. Y. Al-Tabtabaei, Undersecretary Ministry of Commerce & Industry Saudi Arabia Jordan 04-May-04 0830 HE Mr Said Darwazeh, Jordanian Minister for Health 04-May-04 0930 Representatives of Animal Husbandry Division of Agriculture Research Institute 04-May-04 1200 HE Mr Faisal Fayez, Jordanian Prime Minister 04-May-04 1300 HE Dr Hazim El-Naser, Jordanian Minister for Agriculture; Prof Awni Taimeh, Secretary General, Jordanian Ministry of Agriculture Israel 04-May-04 1930 Mr Tim George, Ambassador Mr Leon Kempler, Chairman AICC 05-May-04 0930 Prof Moshe Shachak, Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion Uni 05-May-04 1015 Prof Yosi Mizrahi, Institute of Agriculture, Ben-Gurion University 05-May-04 1345 Mr Yankele Moskovitz, Regional Manager Ramat-Henegev Region Dr Moshe Sagi, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Dr Ze-ev Wiesman, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 06-May-04 0800 Dr Eli Putievsky, Director Volcani Institute 06-May-04 1000 HE Mr Yisrael Katz, Israeli Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development Trip#11 Date Time Participants 11-Dec-04 0900 CER Ministerial Forum Participants Hon Mark Vaile, Australian Minister for Trade Hon Ian Macfarlane, Australian Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources Hon Jim Sutton, NZ Minister for Trade Negotiations & Minister for Agriculture Hon Margaret Wilson, NZ Attorney-General and Minister for Commerce Hon Jim Anderton, NZ Minister for Economic Development Trip#12 Date Time Participants UAE 27-Apr-05 0545 Mr Noel Campbell, Ambassador of Australia, Dr Kiran Johar, Agriculture Consul 27-Apr-05 1200 HE Dr Saeed bin Mohammed Al Raqbani, UAE Minister for Agriculture 27-Apr-05 1930 Ambassador Campbell and Consul Johar 28-Apr-05 0900 Representatives of the Dubai Flower Centre 28-Apr-05 1315 Mr Stewart Routledge, GRM International Eritrea 28-Apr-05 2155 Hon Arefaine Berhe, Eritrean Minister for Agriculture Dr Andeab, Director General Afro-Asian Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs George Aitken, Australian High Commisioner Kenya accredited to Eritrea Brett Aldam, First Secretary 29-Apr-05 1000 HE Mr Isias Afwerki, President of Eritrea 29-Apr-05 1050 Hon Ali Said Abdella, Eritrean Minister for Foreign Affairs 29-Apr-05 1120 Hon Arefaine Berhe, Eritrean Minister for Agriculture 29-Apr-05 1430 Representatives of Halhale Research Station 30-Apr-05 1900 Eritrean Ministers for Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, Mines and Energy and Eritrean Senior Officials and Australian Consultants 01-May-05 0800 Hon Arefaine Berhe, Ertitrean Minister for Agriculture Dr Andeab, Director-General Afro Asian Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs George Atkin, Australian High Commissioner Kenya accredited to Eritrea Brett Aldam, First Secretary, Australian High Commission, Kenya Kuwait 02-May-05 1515 Dr Ralph King, Ambassador of Australia HE Sheikh Fahad Salem Al-Ali Sabah, Chairman and Director General, Kuwait Public Authority of Agriculture and Fish Resources - PAAF 03-May-05 0900 Fahad Salem Al-Ali Al-Sabah, Chairman and DG of the Kuwait Public Authority of Agriculture and Fish Resources Saudi Arabia 03-May-05 1800 Mr Ian Biggs, Australian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Mr Mohammed Ashiha, Assistant Deputy Minister for Animal Resources 04-May-05 1000 Deputy Secretary of the Gulf Cooperation Council 04-May-05 1100 HE Dr Hashim bin Abdullah bin Hashim, Minister of Commerce and Industry, Saudi Arabia 04-May-05 1200 HE Dr Fahd bin Abdul Rahman Balgunaim, Minister for Agriculture, Saudi Arabia Jordan 05-May-05 1000 HE Dr Yousef Shreiqi, Minister for Agriculture, Jordan 05-May-05 1200 HE Dr Adnan Badran, Prime Minister, Jordan The Minister was accompanied by a business delegation on five of the twelve trips undertaken between 2000–2001 and 2004-2005. Trip #3 Mr Peter Corish, President, National Farmers Federation Mr Keith Perrett, President, Grains Council of Australia Mr Peter Lavery, Chairman, Australian Dairy Industry Council Trade Committee Mr Lyall Howard, Deputy Director, National Farmers Federation Trip #7 Dr John Rich, Executive Director, Austasia Pty Ltd Ms Rebecca Ong, Meat and Livestock Australia Mr John Campbell, General Manager, Manildra Australia Trip #9 Mr David Aarons, Managing Director, Link International Distributors Mr Ross Allen, General Manager, Trade, National Food Industry Strategy Mr Mark Cown, Australian Citrus Growers Association Dr Martin Cole, A/g Chief Executive Officer, Food Science Australia Mr Peter Core, Director, Australian Center for International Agricultural Research Prof Ron Duncan, Executive Director, Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance Dr Stephen FitzGerald, The Asia and Australia Institute Mr Phil Goode, Dairy Australia Mr Mike Hayward, Meat and Livestock Australia Mr Nicholas Hunt, Elders International Mr Allen Jenkin, Ironbark Citrus and Grapes Mr Owen Keates, Aus-NZ Chapter, Supply Chain Council Mr Gerry Lawson, Ricegrowers Cooperative Limited Mr Andre Leu, Australian Lychee Growers Association Ms Sonia Leung, Meat and Livestock Australia Mr David Oates, Craig Mostyn and Company Ms Sonia Pressler-McHugh, 2PH Farms Mr Kevin Shiell, Chief Executive Officer, Livecorp Mr Bob Sinclair-Wadham, Boer Goat Breeders Association of Australia Dr Jason Wan, Food Science Australia Mr Robert Wang, ACIL Ms Vivian Wei Wang, Elders International Mr John Webster, Managing Director, Horticulture Australia Mr Stephen Winter, Horticulture Australia Trip #10 Mr Phil Goode, Dairy Australia Mr Gavin Gibson, Chief Executive Officer, Pulse Australia Ltd Mr Todd Lees, Australian Wheat Board (UAE & Saudi Arabia only) Mr Nick Gomersall, Australian Wheat Board (Egypt only) Trip #11 Mr Ken Robertson, Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council (A3P) Ms Belinda Robinson, A3P Mr Tim Johnston, A3P Mr Richard Stanton, A3P Mr Ross Paterson, Australia New Zealand Business Council Ms Jo Doolan, Australia New Zealand Business Council Mr Chris McKay, Australia New Zealand Business Council Mr Bruce McLean, Carter Holt Harvey Mr Bruce Chapman, Carter Holt Harvey Mr John Maasland, Carter Holt Harvey Mr Peter Springford, Carter Holt Harvey Mr John Blakey, Carter Holt Harvey Special Minister of State to respond. , (b), (c)      See answer to Question on Notice 687. The information required to prepare a response to this part is not readily available. Obtaining the information would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. Special Minister of State to respond. The information required to prepare a response to this part is not readily available. Obtaining the information would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. , (c), (d)* and (f) (b) (c)** (f) Officer Trip Allowances Accommodation Other Costs ANDERSON Victoria Trip #7 $487.24 $1,045.80 $109.56 BOWEN Bruce Trip #1 $1,289.67 $3,929.98 $110.24 BURNS Craig Trip #8 $963.01 $3,709.41 $836.36 DAVIS Gary Trip #9 $476.56 $235.04 $75.27 GORRIE Geoff Trip #2 $345.54 $1,026.12 $57.91 GRAHAM John Trip #2 $340.14 $1,026.12 $24.72 HEARN Simon Trip #3 $752.13 $1,438.87 $35.43 Trip #4 $1,108.15 $3,375.90 $99.98 Trip #5 $834.82 $5,065.02 $210.50 HEWITT Joanna Trip #11 $360.00 $754.43 $0.00 Trip #12 $2,000.00 $3,014.00 LILLEY Judith Trip #2 $398.37 $820.90 $72.94 MCKERGOW Fiona Trip #5 $1,157.26 $4,951.92 $566.26 MORRIS Paul Trip #6 $688.92 $961.11 $20.90 Trip #7 $120.05 $377.64 $72.21 Trip #9 $397.80 $249.77 $132.28 Trip #10 $694.90 $3,334.00 $226.55 Trip #12 $638.29 $3,517.50 $97.73 MURRAY Gardner Trip #2 $452.14 $1,026.12 $24.88 QUINLIVAN Daryl Trip #7 $317.19 $697.20 $49.20 ROBERTSON Debra Trip #2 $437.18 $820.90 $47.10 STANTON Meryl Trip # 2 $360.23 $354.00 $39.64 Trip #9 $466.89 $0.00 $17.40 TAYLOR Michael Trip #1 $3,040.45 $5,095.84 $101.70 Trip #2 $440.87 $1,026.12 $14.93 Trip #3 $1,096.76 $2,203.85 $1,313.37 Trip #4 $1,920.15 $3,186.79 $285.14 Trip #5 $1,690.00 $5,261.73 $581.77 Trip #6 $1,080.00 $915.34 $0.00 Trip #8 $5,495.00 $7,566.05 $1,281.93 Trip #10 $1,435.00 $3,503.56 $513.20 THOMPSON Ian Trip #2 $331.48 $1,026.12 $28.61 WITHERS William Trip #7 $109.14 $346.64 $29.77 Trip #9 $496.24 $0.00 $125.05 WONDER Bernard Trip #2 $352.82 $1,026.12 $415.15 The amounts shown are based on actual acquitted costs. Answers to questions (7)(b), (c) and (f) refer to Departmental officials who actually accompanied the Minister on the overseas travel. The answers do not include details of Departmental officers who were attending meetings and/or other functions as representatives of the Department at which the Minister was also present. *Any additional expenses, including hospitality (item d), not reflected in the actual acquitted costs (such as credit card purchases, taxes etc) have not been provided as this would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. ** The amounts shown here are based on quotations for accommodation booked by travel providers to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Actual figures have not been provided as this would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records, due to the number of officers travelling and the number of trips involved, and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. However, the Department has no reason to believe that the actual amounts paid for accommodation for departmental officers vary significantly from the amounts quoted. The information required to prepare a response to this part is not readily available. Obtaining the information would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. Special Minister of State to respond. 155 155 723 155 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year since 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: What overseas travel was undertaken by the Minister; (b) what was the purpose of the Minister’s visit; (c) when did the Minister depart Australia; (d) who travelled with the Minister; and (e) when did the Minister return to Australia. Who did the Minister meet during the visit; and (b) what were the times and dates of each meeting. On how many of these trips was the Minister accompanied by a business delegation; and (b) can details be provided of any delegation accompanying the Minister. Who met the cost of travel and other expenses associated with the trip. What total travel and associated expenses, if any, were met by the department in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s staff; and (d) departmental and/or agency staff. What were the costs per expenditure item for: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff, including but not necessarily limited to: (i) fares, (ii) allowances, (iii) accommodation, (iv) hospitality, (v) insurance, and (vi) other costs. What were the costs per expenditure item for each departmental and/or agency officer, including but not necessarily limited to: (a) fares; (b) allowances; (c) accommodation; (d) hospitality; (e) insurance; and (f) other costs. What was the total cost of air charters used by the Minister or his/her office or department; and (b) 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 respective costs. 156 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: , (6) and (8) will be provided by the Special Minister of State on behalf of all ministers. , (5) and (7) are provided below. Note: Information has only been provided in relation to overseas travel undertaken by the Minister during the period from November 2001 to June 2005 in his current capacity as the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. and (b) Details of the dates of the Minister’s meetings and engagements during overseas trips from November 2001 to June 2005 are provided below. To provide details of the times of each of these meetings would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. China (1-7 April 2002) Shenzhen Development Planning Commission Dr Youjun, Mayor of Shenzhen Mr Ruihua, Governor of Guangdong Open inaugural session, Australia-China bilateral resources dialogue Mr Guangwei, Chairman, Chinese National Tourism Administration Mr Qi, Mayor of Beijing Mr Peiyan, Chairman, State Development Planning Commission Mr Fengshan, Minister for Land and Resources Working lunch with Mr Liucheng, President, Chinese National Offshore Oil Company President of Shougang Steel Japan (22-25 May 2002) Visit to Toyota Motomachi Assembly Plant and Toyota Kaikan Exhibition Hall Mr Okada, Toyota Motor Corporation Visit to Mitsubishi Motors Mr Eckrodt, Executive Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors and Mr Torok, Senior Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors Mr Imai, Chairman, Nippon Steel Mr Murofushi, Chairman, Itochu Corporation and Chairman of a study group of Japanese business leaders under the Japan-Australia Business Cooperation Committee Mr Hiranuma, Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry Mr Cho, President, Toyota Motor Corporation Russia, United Kingdom, France, Mexico (8-25 July 2002) Mr Ivanov, Foreign Minister Mr Koptev, General Director, Russian Aviation and Space Agency Mr Gordeyev, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Prikhodko, Deputy Head of International Relations, Department of the Presidential Administration Mr Klebanov, Minister for Industry, Science and Technology Dr Buchanan, Group Financial Officer and Board Member, BP Mr Wilson, Executive Chairman, Rio Tinto and Mr Clifford, Chief Executive, Rio Tinto Sanofi-Synthelabo (a pharmaceutical company) Mme Fontaine, French Minister for Industry Mr Dufour, Executive Vice President and Member of the Executive Committee, Air Liquide Mr Priddle, Executive Director, International Energy Agency Ambassador Lombard, CEO, Delegation aux Investissements Internationalux Mr Couvaras, CEO, Sasol Chevron Interview with Mr Keating, Editor, Euromoney Magazine Mr Alexander, Chief Executive, GTL Resources Attend Fifth Meeting of APEC Energy Ministers organised by Mexico on behalf of APEC Mr Bautista, Minister for Trade, Mexico Mr Ayub, Director General, Federal Electricity Commission, Mexico Ms Banot, Energy Vice Minister for Chile Mr Abraham, US Secretary of Energy Mr Martens, Minister for Energy, Mexico United States (16-22 December 2003) Mr Brinded, Managing Director, Shell International Mr Olsen, Chairman, ExxonMobil Australia Mr Gass, President, Chevron Texaco Global Gas Mr Alexander, Managing Director for Gas, Power and Renewables, BP Attend LNG ministerial summit Mr Abraham, US Secretary of Energy Mr Trice, Senior Vice President, Business Development, Lockheed Martin Meeting with Sempra Energy United States (4-13 June 2004) Mr Bishop, CEO, Silicon Graphics Ms Smith, Vice President, Scientific Affairs, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Attend Ministerial country seminar on biotechnology (New Zealand and Australia) Dr Gillings, Chairman and CEO, Quintiles Transnational Corporation BIO 2004 Board of Directors and BIO 2004 Steering Committee Exhibition Dr Gringeri, Vice President, Scientific Outreach, Amgen Inc. Mr Anstice, President, Human Health Division, Merck and Co. Inc. Dr Slaoui, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Business Development, GlaxoSmithKline Ministerial Roundtable of Australian Federal and State Political Leaders Host “One Australia” event Dr Harrison, Head, Global Search and Evaluation Europe, Novartis Launch of Nature Australian biotechnology supplement Attend Australian and New Zealand wine exhibition Mr Thompson, Vice President, Corporate Strategy and Business Development, Eli Lily Address to the Forbes Dinner “The future is here in Australia” Mr Kirkland, President, Overseas Petroleum, Chevron Texaco Mr Boyd, Commissioner, California Energy Commission Mr Chrisman, Secretary for Resources, California Mr Carolan, The Boeing Company, Seattle Dr Mackey, Senior Vice President, Pfizer Global Research and Development New Zealand (10-12 December 2004) Attend Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement with New Zealand (ANZCERTA) Ministerial Forum United States, Mexico, Korea (15-24 January 2005) Mr Gass, President, Chevron Texaco Global Gas Roundtable with companies and government on Mexico’s energy sector Mr Harley, President, Natural Gas Australia Asia, BHP Billiton Mr Voelte, Chief Executive and Managing Director, Woodside Petroleum Ms Jordan, Director, California Coastal Protection Network Attend BHP Trade and Investment Seminar and give speech at “Energy for the Future” breakout session for business leaders and senior government officials Mr Tagliapietra, Secretary of Economic Development, Baja, California Ms Walto, Government and Public Affairs, Chevron Texaco Mr Travis, Shell Trading Visit to Sempra LNG Terminal Site Meeting with the press Speech at Forbes Dinner Dr Fenton, Executive Vice President of Operations, Amgen Inc. Mr Ramkumar, Deputy, Program Integration, Northrop Grumman Mr Tamminen, California Cabinet Secretary and Mr Chrisman, California Secretary for Resources Dr Hee-boem, Minister for Commerce, Industry and Energy, South Korea Mr Kang-Hyun, Chairman, President and CEO, Korea Gas Corporation United Kingdom, France, Austria (22 April - 7 May 2005) Attend the Editor-in-Chief Economist Magazine dinner Lord Sainsbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation Ms McDonald, President, Gas and Power, BHP Billiton Mr Bennett, Founder and CEO of Radicle Projects Mr Delay, Chief Executive, Carbon Trust and Dr Mallaburn, Head of Government and International Affairs, Carbon Trust Professor Evans, Director, Cardiff School of Biosciences and Vice Provost of Wales College of Medicine, Biology, Health and Life Science Ms Cook, Executive Director, Gas and Power and Managing Director of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, Shell Sir Digly Jones, Director General, Confederation of British Industry Mr Bregier, President, Eurocopter Mr Lepienne, Executive Vice President, Sanofi Aventis Mr Bovis, Managing Director, Amaris Mr Nakagawa, Japanese Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry Chair the International Energy Agency Ministerial meeting Mr Bodman, US Energy Secretary Media doorstep conference on International Energy Agency Joint working lunch with OECD Finance/Economic Ministers Joint press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Mr Xiaoqiang, Vice Chairman, National Development and Reform Commission, China Mr Barragan, Secretary for Energy, Mexico Mr Sokolov, Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy, International Atomic Energy Agency Dr Shihab-Eldin, Director, Research Division of OPEC (A/g for the Secretary General) United States (16-24 June 2005) Mr Smith, Vice President of Raytheon Company and President of Raytheon’s Integrated Defence Systems and Mr Fisher, Managing Director of Raytheon Australia Working dinner with businesses and professionals hosted by Consul-General Ms Minner, Governor of Delaware Attend BIO 2005 Ministerial Seminar with Ministers from Canada, France and Hungary and Mr Da Silva, Director of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers, European Commission Meeting with New Zealand Minister for Transport, Industry and Regional Development Public officials reception on biotechnology Visit to Australian National Pavilion “The future is here”, Pennsylvania Convention Center Media interview Mr Moules, Vice President, Strategic Pricing and Contract Management, GlaxoSmithKline Mr Costa, Vice President, International Policy and Government Affairs and Deputy General Counsel, Bristol Myers Squibb Roundtable meeting with Australian Premiers, Chief Ministers and Ministers Australian and New Zealand biotechnology alliance event Mr Burbage, Executive Vice President, Joint Strike Fighter Program, Lockheed Martin Dinner and speech to US energy industry executives The Minister was not accompanied by any business delegations on his overseas trips during the period from November 2001 to June 2005. to (c) Travel and associated expenses for the Minister, the Minister’s family and the Minister’s staff (in respect of overseas trips undertaken by the Minister during the period from November 2001 to June 2005) were met by the Department of Finance and Administration. Some minor miscellaneous expenses were met by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (for example, in relation to cars, hotel faxes, dinner functions and conference rooms). More detailed information on these expenses is not readily available, and would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to compile. The total travel and associated expenses in respect of Departmental officers who accompanied the Minister on his overseas trips during the period from November 2001 to June 2005 were approximately $127,580. These costs were met by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources. to (f) A breakdown of costs in respect of Departmental officers who accompanied the Minister on his overseas trips during the period from November 2001 to June 2005 is provided below. Expenditure Item Amount Airfares $89,234 Accommodation $25,234 Allowances $10,687 Hospitality $2,342 Other costs $83 Total $127,580 160 160 728 160 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year since 2000–2001 to 2004-2005 to date: What overseas travel was undertaken by the Minister; (b) what was the purpose of the Minister’s visit; (c) when did the Minister depart Australia; (d) who travelled with the Minister; and (e) when did the Minister return to Australia. Who did the Minister meet during the visit; and (b) what were the times and dates of each meeting. On how many of these trips was the Minister accompanied by a business delegation; and (b) can details be provided of any delegation accompanying the Minister. Who met the cost of travel and other expenses associated with the trip. What total travel and associated expenses, if any, were met by the department in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s staff; and (d) departmental and/or agency staff. What were the costs per expenditure item for: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff, including but not necessarily limited to: (i) fares, (ii) allowances, (iii) accommodation, (iv) hospitality, (v) insurance, and (vi) other costs. What were the costs per expenditure item for each departmental and/or agency officer, including but not necessarily limited to: (a) fares; (b) allowances; (c) accommodation; (d) hospitality; (e) insurance; and (f) other costs. What was the total cost of air charters used by the Minister or his/her office or department; and (b) 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 respective costs. 161 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator Abetz —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Special Minister of State to respond. Trip #1 Date Time Participants Paris/France 3-Jun-03 1400 Meeting with Pan European Forest Certification Council Chairman, Secretary-General and French National Secretary 4-Jun-03 1000 Professor Guy Duhamel, Ichthyology Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History 4-Jun-03 1230 Rt Hon Simon Upton (Chair, OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development) 4-Jun-03 1300 Lunch – hosted by Ambassador Ian Forsyth. Participants included: Mr Phil Connole Mr Daryl Quinlivan Mr William Fisher Mr Richard Sisson Mr Simon Upton Mr Vangelis Vitalis, Chief Adviser to the Chair of the OECD Round Table on Sustainable Development Mr Carl-Christian Schmidt, Head, Fisheries Division, Directorate for Food, Agriculture & Fisheries, OECD 4-Jun-03 1530 Briefing with Ambassador William Fisher, Australian Ambassador to France 4-Jun-03 1630 Madam Brigitte Girardin (Minister for Overseas Territories) 5-Jun-03 1200 Lunch and Briefing with Ambassador William Fisher 5-Jun-03 1600 Mr Dominique Bussereau, Secretary of State for Transport and Sea 5-Jun-03 1930 Dinner – Hosted by Rt Hon Simon Upton 6-Jun-03 0930 OECD Round Table meeting on Sustainable Development 6-Jun-03 1400 OECD Luncheon Trip #2 Date Time Participants Italy and UK Rome 28-Nov-03 1600 Briefing with Paul Morris and David Ingham – DAFF 28-Nov-03 1830 Briefing on Conference programme with Ambassador Cobban 28-Nov-03 1930 Informal dinner with NZ Trade Minister Sutton and Delegations 29-Nov-03 1000 Opening – Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons 29-Nov-03 1100 McDougall Memorial Lecture by Malaysian Ex-Prime Minister Dr Mahatir 29-Nov-03 1130 Deliver response to McDougall Memorial Lecture 29-Nov-03 1230 Formal lunch hosted by FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf in honour of Ex-Prime Minister Mahatir 29-Nov-03 Zhang Baowen, Vice Minister, Ministry of Agriculture, China 29-Nov-03 1730 Host cocktail function with NZ Minister Sutton for South West Pacific Regional Group 29-Nov-03 1830 Host Cairns Group Ministerial reception 30-Nov-03 1200 Lunch with Michael Taylor, Secretary, DAFF 30-Nov-03 2030 Dinner hosted by NZ Minister Sutton – Directions for WTO Negotiations and Prospects for the Dec. WTO General Council Meeting 1-Dec-03 1300 Working lunch with Ichiro Nomura Director-General of FAOFisheries Department 1-Dec-03 Helmut Angula, Minister for Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, Namibia 1-Dec-03 1500 Bilateral Meeting - Lyle Vanclief, Minister for Agriculture and Agri-food, Canada 1-Dec-03 1600 Bilateral Meeting – Austrian Minister Proll 1-Dec-03 1700 Bilateral Meeting - Virachai Virameteekul, Vice Minister for Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand Pinit Korsiepron, Deputy Executive Director of the NationalBureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards, Thailand 1-Dec-03 1830 Bilateral Meeting - Franz Fischler, Commissioner, Directorateof Fisheries, European Union 1-Dec-03 2030 Formal dinner hosted by Canadian Minister Vanclief 2-Dec-03 1300 Working lunch with Deputy Director-General David Harcharikand Assistant Director-General of FAO Forestry Department, Hosny El-Lakany 2-Dec-03 1530 Bilateral Meeting - Luis Lorenzo, Secretary of Agriculture, Philippines 2-Dec-03 1630 Bilateral Meeting – Bungaran Saargih, Minister for Agriculture, Indonesia 2-Dec-03 1730 Ministerial Roundtable – Developments in WTO Negotiationsfor Agriculture 2-Dec-03 1930 Formal Reception hosted by the Chair of the FAO Conference – All Ministers/HOD attending the FAO Conference 3-Dec-03 1030 Bilateral Meeting - Angela Didiza, Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, South Africa 3-Dec-03 1115 Bilateral Meeting – Sang-Man Huh, Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, South Korea 3-Dec-03 1230 Formal lunch hosted by Kuwaiti Minister of Agriculture for all Ministers attending the FAO Conference 4-Dec-03 1030 Elliot Morley MP – Minister for Environment and Agri- Environment 4-Dec-03 a/noon Meeting with Deputy High Commission to United Kingdom and inspect War Memorial, Hyde Park. Bill Tweddell Numerous Jim Sutton, Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, NZ. Trip #3 Date Time Participants Mauritius and La Reunion Island Mauritius 21-Jan-04 1000 Captain Toi (Director General, Mauritius Ports Authority) 21-Jan-04 1100 Hon Paul Berenger (Prime Minister) 21-Jan-04 1230 Hon Sylvio Michel (Minister for Fisheries) La Reunion 21-Jan-04 1930 Official Dinner – Mr G Friederici (Prefect of Reunion) and French Government Officials 22-Jan-04 1230 Lunch with Regional Mayors 22-Jan-04 1630 Aquaculture Briefing with Industry Representatives 22-Jan-04 2000 Official Dinner – Hosted by Minister Girardin and French Government Officials 23-Jan- 04 0830 Breakfast on board the Navy Frigate "Jules Verne", participants included: • Minister Girardin (French Minister of Overseas Departments);. • Senior Administrator of the TAAF; • Mr G Friederici (Prefect of Reunion; Head of Government); and • representatives from the Maritime Police, Navy Command of the southern Indian Ocean (COMAR), Regional Office of Maritime Affairs (DRAM), La Reunion Organisation for Maritime Assistance (COSRU), Radarsat project industry and the fishing industry Visit of the vessel "Osiris" at the docks in the company of the Commander of the vessel and a representative from DRAM 23-Jan- 04 1300 Lunch – Minister Girardin 23-Jan- 04 1500 TAAF Senior Administrator and Fishing Industry Representatives Trip #4 Date Time Participants Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia Federated States of Micronesia 8-Dec-04 0900 Forum Fisheries Committee Ministerial Meeting 8-Dec-04 1300 Forum Fisheries Committee Ministerial Meeting lunch 8-Dec-04 1830 Cocktail Function for the Forum Fisheries Committee Ministers 9-Dec-04 0900 Inaugural session of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 9-Dec-04 1300 Host a lunch for invited Commission delegates, including Forum Fisheries Agency members 9-Dec-04 1830 Evening function for Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission delegates 10 Dec 04 0900 Bilateral Meetings: • General Philippe Morillon, Member of the European Parliament • Mr Tione Bugotu, Permanent Secretary, Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources • The Hon Maulupekotofa Tuita, Tongan Minister for Fisheries • The Hon Bill Vakaafi Motufoou, Niuean Minister for Fisheries • The Hon Phillip Field, New Zealand Minister of State and Associate Minister for Pacific Island Affairs 10-Dec-04 1300 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Lunch Trip #5 Date Time Participants France and Italy Paris 9-Mar-05 1200 Veronique Ingram (OECD Ambassador) and Departmental officials - Lunch 9-Mar-05 1330 Ministerially-led task force on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on the High Seas (High Seas TaskForce) 9-Mar-05 2000 Official Dinner for High Seas Task Force – His Excellency Mr Adrian Macey, Permanent Representative of NZ to OECD 10-Mar-05 0830 Penny Wensley AO (Australian Ambassador to France) 10-Mar-05 0930 Mrs Brigitte Girardin (Minister for Overseas France) 10-Mar-05 1230 Mr Dominique Bussereau (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and Rural Affairs) 10-Mar-05 1315 Lunch with senior French officials hosted by Penny Wensley (Ambassador to France) 10-Mar-05 1530 Dr Kristian Parker (Member of Board of Trustees, Oak Fountain) 10-Mar-05 1830 Informal drinks function with Madam Girardin, hosted by Ambassador to France, Penny Wensley 10-Mar-05 2000 Informal dinner with Frank Meere (HSTF), Richard Sisson (Counsellor), Sachi Wimmer (DAFF) and Phil Connole Rome 11-Mar-05 1230 Mr Peter Woolcott (Ambassador to Italy) and Departmental officials – working lunch 11-Mar-05 1330 Mr Ichiero Nomura (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department, FAO) 11-Mar-05 1430 Meeting with Uruguay Delegation, including Mr Daniel Montiel, National Director General for Aquatic Resources 11-Mar-05 1500 Mr David Benson-Pope (Minister for Fisheries, NZ) 11-Mar-05 1530 Mr M. Hosny El-Lakany (Assistant Director-General, Forestry Department, FAO) 11-Mar-05 1600 He Saeed Al Ragabani (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, United Arab Eremites (UAE) 11-Mar-05 1630 Dr Jacques Diouf (Director-General FAO) 11-Mar-05 1830 High Seas Task Force presentation and informal discussions – Hosted by Sir Ivor Roberts KCMG, British Ambassador to Rome 12-Mar-05 0855 Ms Jeanne Dambendzet, Congo Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’elevage et de la peche 12-Mar-05 0915 FAO Ministerial Meeting on Fisheries 12-Mar-05 1145 Mr Freddy Numberi, Indonesian Minister for Marine Affairs and Fisheries 12-Mar-05 1215 Mr Keo-don Oh, Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Korea 12-Mar-05 1230 Lunch for Ministers organised by DG Diouf (FAO) 12-Mar-05 1500 Chair FAO Illegal Fisheries Session 12-Mar-05 2000 Informal reception at FAO – hosted by Senator Macdonald 13-Mar-05 1200 Informal lunch with Ambassador, Commonwealth and Victorian State Government FAO delegates. Trip #6 Date Time Participants St Johns, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada 1-May-05 0645 Arrive London – Met by Liz Lindores, Manager, Visits and Client Services 1-May-05 0940 Informal meeting with the Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom His Excellency the Honourable Richard lston. 1-May-05 1430 Arrive at St. John’s. Met by Ms Judy Dwyer, Canadian Liaison Officer and Mr Glenn Hurry (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 1-May-05 1600 Bilateral Meeting with the Hon John Efford, Canadian Minister for Natural Resources. 1 May 05 1730 Bilateral Meeting with Joe Borg, Commissioner, Directorate of Fisheries, European Union and Edward John Spencer, Commission de l'Union Européenne 1-May-05 1830 Conference Opening. Keynote speaker: The Rt. Hon. Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada, opened the deliberations.Other speakers included: • The Honourable Geoff Regan, Canada’s Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, • The Hon. John Efford, Canada’ s Minister of Natural Resources, T • The Honourable Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and • The Hon. Trevor Taylor, Newfoundland and Labrador’s Minister of Fisheries. 2-May-05 0830 Opening of Conference. Keynote speaker: The Hon Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Chair of the Ministerial Round Table. 2-May-05 0915 Round Table of Invited Ministers, participants included: • CANADA; The Honourable Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and The Honourable Trevor Taylor, Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Newfoundland and Labrador • CHILE; Mr. Felipe Sandoval Precht, Fisheries Undersecretary • IVORY COAST; Mr. Kobenan Kouassi Adjoumani, Minister of Animal Production and Fishing Resources • HOME RULE GOVERNMENT OF THE FAROE ISLANDS (DENMARK); The Honourable Bjørn Kalsø, Minister of Fisheries • EUROPEAN UNION; Dr. Joe Borg, Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs • ICELAND; His Excellency Árni M. Mathiesen, Minister of Fisheries • INDONESIA; Dr. Sumpeno Putro, Deputy Minister for Institution Capacity Building and Marketing, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fishing • JAPAN; Mr. Yoshinori Oguchi, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries • KENYA; The Honourable Suleiman R. Shakombo, MP, Assistant Minister for Fisheries Development • MOROCCO; L’Honorable Mohand Laenser, Ministre de l'Agriculture, du Développement Rural et des Pêches Maritimes • NAMIBIA; The Honourable Dr. Abraham Iyambo, Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources • NORWAY; Mr. Jørn Aksel Krog, Secretary General, Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs • PAPUA NEW GUINEA; The Honourable Ben Semri, Minister for Fisheries • SOUTH AFRICA; Ms. Rejoice T. Mabudafhasi, Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism • TONGA; The Honourable Tuita, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food • TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO; The Honourable Jarrette Narine, Minister of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources • TUVALU; The Honourable Samuelu. P. Teo, Minister of Natural Resources, Lands and Survey • UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2-May-05 1230 Lunch hosted by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Keynote speaker: The Hon Trevor Taylor, Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2-May-05 1400 Ministerial Roundtable (as above). 2-May-05 1500 Report of the Ministerial Roundtable to the Conference Participants. 2-May-05 1530 Joint Media Conference with Ministers. 2-May-05 1900 Dinner hosted by the Government of Canada.Keynote speaker: The Hon Geoff Regan, Minister for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Chair of the Ministerial Roundtable, delivered by Murray Mitchell and speech by Mr Michael Lodge from the High Seas Task Force. 3-May-05 0830 Plenary – Joint Conference Chairs, High Seas Conference 3-May-05 1030 Bilateral meeting with the Hon Dr William T Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, USA, and David Balton, US Department of States. 3-May-05 1830 Conference Dinner. 4-May-05 1230 Luncheon hosted jointly by Senator Macdonald and the Australian High Commission Residence.Guests: Mr Larry Bagnell, Parliamentary Secretary for Natural Resources; Senator Willie Adams; Senator Elizabeth Hubley; Mr Brian Emmett; Assistant Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada; Dr Kamel Newal 4-May-05 1330 Bilateral meeting with the Hon Geoff Regan, Minister for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, High Commissioner attending, Houses of Commons. 4-May-05 1600 Meeting with the Shadow Minister for Fisheries and Oceans, Mr Loyola Hearn, House of Commons. 4-May-05 1730 Attend the Official Opening Reception by the Rt Hon Paul Martin of the new Canadian War Museum’s inaugural exhibition. High Commissioner to accompany. Party to be met by Dr Rabinovitch, President of the Museum of Civilization Corp, and Dr Geurts, Director and CEO Canadian War Museum. 5-May-05 1830 Dinner with Gary Drobnack. 6-May-05 0815 Rich Hanson, COO, Weyerhaeuser Company and Bill Corbin,Executive VP, Industrial Wood Products & International, Weyerhaeuser Company 6-May-05 0915 Site visits: Rochester Seed Orchard (Christine Dean, Mike Pfaff); Longview Plant site; St. Helens Tree Farm. Trip #7 Date Time Participants Majuro, Republic of Marshall Islands 9 June 05 0900 Forum Fisheries Committee 59th Meeting Ministerial Meeting • Cook Islands – Hon. Tupou Faireka, Minister for Marine Resources. • Federated States of Micronesia – Lorin Robert, Deputy Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs • Fiji – Hon. Kosini Yabaki, Minister for Fisheries and Forests • Kiribati – Raikon Turnoa, Senior Fisheries Officer, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources • Marshall Islands – H.E. Kesai Note, President of the Marshall Islands • Nauru – Hon. Godfrey Thorna, Minister for Fisheries and Marine Resources • New Zealand – Hon. Taito Philip Field, Minister of State • Niue – Hon. B.V Motufoou, Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries • Palau – Hon. Fritz Koshiba, Minister for Resources and Development • Papua New Guinea – H.E Parai Tarnei, Papua New Guinea High Commissioner • Samoa – Terry Toomata, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade • Soloman Islands – Hon. Paul Maenu’u, Minister for Fisheries and Marine Resources 9 June 05 0730 The Hon Phillip Field, New Zealand Minister of State and Associate Minister for Pacific Island Affairs 9 June 05 1230 H.E Parai Tamei, Papua New Guinea High Commissioner to the Solomon Islands and (b) I have not led any formal business delegation on any of my overseas trips. Australian businesses may have been present at events I have attended overseas but were attending these events in their own capacity. Special Minister of State to respond. , (b) and (c) See answer to Question on Notice 696. The information required to prepare a response to this part is not readily available. Obtaining the information would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. Special Minister of State to respond. The information required to prepare a response to this part is not readily available. Obtaining the information would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. , (c), (d)* and (f) (b) (c) (f) Officer Trip Allowances Accommodation Other Costs QUINLIVAN, Daryl Trip #1 $558.18 $2396.08 $78.29 ANDERSON, Victoria Trip #2 $910.83 $1014.88 $236.88 WIMMER, Sachiko Trip #3 $359.86 $506.37 $16.27 INNES, Jacinta Trip #4 $246.51 $272.48 $11.95 WIMMER, Sachiko Trip #5 $754.52 $84.81 WONDER, Bernard Trip #7 $145.51 $7.50 INNES, Jacinta Trip #7 $233.46 $236.25 $45.25 The amounts shown are based on actual acquitted costs. *Any additional expenses, including hospitality (item d), not reflected in the actual acquitted costs (such as credit card purchases, taxes etc) have not been provided as this would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. Answers to questions (7)(b), (c) and (f) refer to Departmental officials who accompanied the Minister on the overseas travel. The answers do not include details of Departmental officers who were attending meetings and/or other functions as representatives of the Department at which the Minister was also present. The information required to prepare a response to this part is not readily available. Obtaining the information would require undertaking extensive analysis of departmental records and I am not prepared to authorise the resources to undertake this task. Special Minister of State to respond. 169 169 732 169 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year since 2000-01 to 2004-05 to date: What overseas travel was undertaken by the Minister; (b) what was the purpose of the Minister’s visit; (c) when did the Minister depart Australia; (d) who travelled with the Minister; and (e) when did the Minister return to Australia. Who did the Minister meet during the visit; and (b) what were the times and dates of each meeting. On how many of these trips was the Minister accompanied by a business delegation; and (b) can details be provided of any delegation accompanying the Minister. Who met the cost of travel and other expenses associated with the trip. What total travel and associated expenses, if any, were met by the department in relation to: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; (c) the Minister’s staff; and (d) departmental and/or agency staff. What were the costs per expenditure item for: (a) the Minister; (b) the Minister’s family; and (c) the Minister’s staff, including but not necessarily limited to: (i) fares, (ii) allowances, (iii) accommodation, (iv) hospitality, (v) insurance, and (vi) other costs. What were the costs per expenditure item for each departmental and/or agency officer, including but not necessarily limited to: (a) fares; (b) allowances; (c) accommodation; (d) hospitality; (e) insurance; and (f) other costs. What was the total cost of air charters used by the Minister or his/her office or department; and (b) 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 respective costs. 170 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator Coonan —The Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. The very detailed information sought by the honourable member’s question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of time and money to do so. The very detailed information sought by the honourable member’s question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of time and money to do so. Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. The very detailed information sought by the honourable member’s question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of time and money to do so. Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. No Treasury official accompanied the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer on any overseas trips between the specified period. Please refer to the answer provided by the Special Minister of State in response to Question on Notice 733 recorded in Hansard on 7 February 2006 on page 204. 170 170 751 and 762 170 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 2005: For each financial year from 2000-01 to 2002-03 can the following information relating to advertising be provided: What advertising campaigns were commenced; and (b) for what programs. In relation to each campaign: (a) what was its total cost, including a breakdown of advertising cost for: (i) television placements, (ii) radio placements, (iii) newspaper placements, (iv) mail outs with brochures, and (v) research on advertising; and (b) what was the commencement and cessation date for each aspect of the campaign placement. For each campaign: (a) on which television stations did the advertising campaign screen, (b) on which radio stations did the advertising campaign feature; and (c) in which newspapers did the advertising campaign feature. Which: (a) creative agency or agencies; and (b) research agency or agencies, were engaged for the campaign. In the event of a mail out, what database was used to select the addresses – the Australian Taxation Office database, the electoral database or other. What appropriations did 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) in which financial year will these appropriations be made; (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 departmental or administered item, what is the relevant line item in the relevant Portfolio Budget Statement for that item. Was a request made of the Minster 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. Did the Minister for Finance and Administration issue a drawing right as referred to in paragraph (7); 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. 171 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: to (9) The table at Attachment A below provides a detailed response to the questions asked about advertising campaigns conducted by my Department from 2000-01 to 2002-03. Ref No Q.1(a) - advertising campaigns Q.1(b) – program Q.2(a) - total cost Q.2(a)(i) - television placements Q.2(a)(ii) - radio placements Q.2(a)(iii) – Newspaper placements Q.2(a)(iv) -mail out Q.2(a) (v) - research Q.2(b) – start date Q.2(b) - finish date Q.3(a) - television stations Q.3(b) - radio stations Q.3(c) - newspapers 1 2002/2003 - 6 month campaign advertising the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA). Output 1.1   $15085 -website   $ -   $ -   $ -   $ -   $ - 14-Oct-02 14-Apr-03 not applicable not applicable not applicable 2 Employer Awareness Campaign - commenced in 1992 to ensure that employers and labour suppliers are fully informed in relation to their obligations. Output 1.3   $142024 -advertising in industry year books, journals, etc   $ -   $ -   $ -   $ -   $ - 01-Jul-00 Ongoing. not applicable not applicable not applicable 3 Immigration Dob-in Line Output 1.3   $ 63,922   $ -   $ -   $ 63,922   $ -   $ - 01-Feb-04 The Immigration Dob-In Line is ongoing. Advertisements following on from a Minister’s press release were run in a range of newspapers in Feb - March 2004. Information relating to the Dob-In Line is now included in the Employer Awareness Campaign. not applicable not applicable • Australian Financial Review • The Australian • The NT News • The Daily Telegraph • The Sydney Morning Herald • The Melbourne Age • Melbourne Herald Sun • The Brisbane Courier Mail • The Adelaide Advertiser • The West Australian • The Hobart Mercury • The Canberra Times • The Launceston Examiner • The Alice Spring News 4 2001 Harmony Day Campaign Output2.4   $ 426,863   $ 279,923   $ 75,900   $ -   $ 71,040   $ - 01-Jun-00 01-Apr-01 not applicable Majority in Australia not applicable 5 Total advertising for Promotion of Citizenship campaign Output 2.3   $ 428,000 Further details of the expenditure breakdown for these years is not readily available. Mitchell Media, our former advertising agency may have been able to provide the details, but we no longer have any contractual arrangements with them. To research these details from departmental records would be resource and time intensive. 01-Jul-00 30-Nov-00 SBS TV, Metropolitan, Regional (all states and territories) Regional and metropolitan not applicable 6 National Radio Campaign to promote Settlement information on the internet. Output 2.1   $ 95,091   $ 6,545   $ 88,546   $ -   $ -   $ - 03-Sep-01 05-Jun-02 not applicable SBS not applicable 7 2002 Harmony Day Campaign Output 2.4   $ 433,274   $ -   $ 5,055   $ -   $ 138,656   $ - 01-Jun-01 01-Apr-02 Channel 9 Channel 10 Channel 7 (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth) Majority in Australia not applicable 8 Total advertising for Promotion of Citizenship campaign Output 2.3   $ 3,507,000 Further details of the expenditure breakdown for these years is not readily available. Mitchell Media, our former advertising agency may have been able to provide the details, but we no longer have any contractual arrangements with them. To research these details from departmental records would be resource and time intensive. 01-Jul-01 30-Jun-02 SBS TV, Metropolitan, Regional (all states and territories) Regional and metropolitan not applicable 9 2003 Harmony Day Campaign Output 2.4   $ 378,679   $ -   $ -   $ -   $ 84,760   $ - 01-Jun-02 01-Apr-03 Network Ten Majority in Australia not applicable 10 Promotion of Australian Citizenship Output 2.3   $ 1,031,000 $861,000 $20,000 $150,000   $ -   $ - 01-Aug-03 01-Nov-03 SBS TV, Metropolitan, Regional, Foxtel NESB NESB, Metropolitan, Regional 183 183 888 183 Evans, Sen Chris AX5 Western Australia ALP 0 Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 6 May 2005: For each of the financial years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 to date, can details be provided of all privately or commercially sponsored travel, including cost and sponsor for: the Minister; the Minister’s family; the Minister’s personal staff; and officers of the Minister’s department. 183 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator Abetz —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: The Department of Human Services was established on 26 October 2004. Senator Abetz has provided an answer on behalf of all Ministers. Senator Abetz has provided an answer on behalf of all Ministers. The policy on sponsored travel is that proposals for sponsored travel should not be accepted by staff and are to be referred to a specified senior department official for consideration. For the period 26 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, the Department of Human Services holds no records of private or commercially sponsored travel. The policy on sponsored travel is that proposals for sponsored travel should not be accepted by staff and are to be referred to a specified senior department official for consideration. For the period 26 October 2004 to 30 June 2005, the Department of Human Services holds no records of private or commercially sponsored travel. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 3 hours at an estimated cost of $203. 183 183 1031 183 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 19 July 2005: What are the most recent figures available for expenditure on the Medicare Safety Net: (a) in total; and (b) by electorate. How many people have registered for the Medicare Safety Net: (a) in total; and (b) by electorate. How many people have reached the Medicare Safety Net threshold: (a) in total; and (b) by electorate. Can information be provided on: (a) when, by electorate, the next Medicare Safety Net data will be publicly available; (b) how frequently Medicare Safety Net data will be publicly available; and (c) how frequently, by electorate, Medicare Safety Net data will be publicly available. 183 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: Expenditure under the Medicare Safety Nets for claims processed by Medicare Australia in the 12 months ending 31 December 2005 totalled $280.6 million. The most recent published statistics by electorate (2004 boundaries) on expenditure under the Medicare Safety Nets had regard to claims processed by Medicare Australia in the 12 months ending December 2005, and is available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ wcms/publishing.nsf/content/806CCFA33986AAE2CA256F9B001FBF82/$File/safety%20net%202005.pdf . At 30 April 2006 there were 4,106,542 families registered for the Medicare Safety Nets. This information is not available by electorate. The most recent published statistics on the number of people that reached Medicare Safety Net thresholds have regard to substantiated claims for the 12 months ending 31 December 2005. During the date of processing period 1 January to 31 December 2005, 2,089,474 people reached thresholds under the Medicare Safety Nets. A table with statistics on Medicare Safety Nets by electorate for the 2005 Calendar Year is available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/content/ 806CCFA33986A-AE2CA256F9B001FBF82/$File/safety%20net%202005.pdf . This data provides details on the number of families and singles qualifying for the Medicare safety nets and those who have received safety net benefits. It is expected that statistics on the Medicare Safety Nets by electorate will next be published in early 2007, covering calendar year 2006. Total expenditure on Medicare Safety Nets will be published by financial year in the Department’s Annual Report. It is expected that total expenditure on the Medicare Safety Nets will also be published early each calendar year in respect of the previous calendar year. It is expected that statistics on Medicare Safety Nets by electorate will be published early each calendar year in respect of the previous calendar year. 184 184 1100 184 Faulkner, Sen John 5K4 New South Wales ALP 0 Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 August 2005: With reference to the Super Choice 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. As of 17 August 2005, how many phone calls had the Super Choice Infoline (13 28 64) received. 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 paragraph (8) 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. 185 Coonan, Sen Helen 2M6 New South Wales LP Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 1 Senator Coonan —The Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: As this question deals with matters of taxation administration, I asked the Commissioner of Taxation for advice: For each of the financial years, 2004-05 and 2005-06 The costs of this advertising campaign are: 2004/05 - $19,030,945 (incl GST); 2005/06 - $3,101,881 (incl GST) expended to 31 January 2006. Breakdown of these advertising costs for: Television (TV) placements 2004/ 05 - $5,936,877 (incl GST) 2005/ 06 - $764,814 (incl GST) expended to 31 January 2006. Radio placements 2004/ 05 - $1,789,590 (incl GST) 2005/ 06 - $1,147,109 (incl GST) expended to 31 January 2006. Newspaper & magazine placements 2004/ 05 - $3,205,504 (incl GST) 2005/ 06 - $608,179 (incl GST) expended to 31 January 2006. Printing and mail outs 2004/ 05 - $3,625,063 (incl GST) 2005/ 06 - $42,750 (incl GST) expended to 31 January 2006. Research 2004/ 05 - $682,715 (incl GST) 2005/ 06 - $99,095 (incl GST) expended to 31 January 2006. The campaign commenced in mid April and ended in late August. The TV advertisements commenced on 24 April 2005 and ended on 30 July 2005. Agencies engaged: The creative agency engaged is Campaign Palace. The research agency engaged is DBM Consultants. Mailouts: The campaign included two mail outs, both to employers, as well as tax and superannuation professionals. Australian Taxation Office databases were used for the mail outs. 76,378 calls had been received as at 17 August 2005. Appropriations: The Australian Taxation Office will use the appropriations made to it under the 2004-05 and 2005-06 appropriation bills. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2004-05 included an amount of $14.6 million and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005‑06 included an amount of $18.6 million for the implementation of superannuation choice and the associated advertising campaign. The appropriations for the superannuation choice campaign were made in the 2004-05 and 2005-06 financial years. See response to 7 a. Appropriations made under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2004-05 and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005-06 for the superannuation choice campaign are departmental in nature. The appropriation made under Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2004-05 of $14.6 million is recognised in the Australian Taxation Office’s Budgeted Statement of Financial Performance. Specifically, the $14.6 million appropriation forms part of the “revenues from government” line item shown in Table 3.1 on page 142 of the 2004-05 Treasury Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements. The appropriation made under Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2005-06 of $18.6 million is recognised in the Australian Taxation Office’s Budgeted Statement of Financial Performance. Specifically, the $18.6 million appropriation forms part of the “revenues from government” line item shown in Table 5.1 on page 236 of the 2005-06 Treasury Portfolio Budget Statements. Both of these amounts and future appropriations for superannuation choice implementation are also shown in Table 1.1 on page 129 of the 2004-05 Treasury Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements. to (10) No. 186 186 1171 186 Wong, Sen Penny 00AOU South Australia ALP 0 Senator Wong asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, upon notice, on Friday, 9 September 2005: For the years 1996 to 2005 can figures be provided disaggregated by (a) state and territory; (b) tertiary education institution; and (c) by federal electorate, for the number and proportion of those who, having completed year 12, went on to (i) higher education; and (ii) technical and further education or other vocational education and training programs, in their first year out of school. 186 Vanstone, Sen Amanda 7E4 South Australia LP Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 1 Senator Vanstone —The Minister for Education, Science and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Data by federal electorate are not available. Data on the number of Year 12 completers who commenced at a higher education institution is available from the public higher education statistics collections, specifically Students: Selected Higher Education Statistics. These may be found at http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/statistics/publications_higher_education_statistics_collections.htm for the years 1997 to 2004 and from the hard copy publications for previous years. Equivalent information at institutional level for vocational and technical education is not available. These data fall under protocols between the National Centre for Vocational Education Research and the States and Territories which govern the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information System (AVETMIS) collections. Data by State and Territory for the years 1997 to 2004 is shown in Table 1 below for Year 12 completers commencing higher education, and in Table 2 below for Year 12 completers commencing vocational and technical education. Interpretation is subject to the caveats in the notes to the tables. Note that the results in Tables 1 and 2 cannot be directly added. Some students may have enrolled in both higher education and vocational and technical education courses. Also, Table 1 is based on State or Territory of the student’s home residence, while Table 2 is based on State or Territory of the provider. Table 1 Number and proportion of Year 12 completers commencing higher education at bachelor level or below in the year after completing Year 12 or in the same year, by State and Territory of home residence, by year in which the higher education course commenced 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 State No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % NSW 20 185 36.4 21 209 38.9 22 413 34.3 22 724 39.5 21 012 36.1 21 224 36.4 19 697 32.6 18 668 28.9 VIC 20 171 46.6 20 460 45.5 19 661 45.1 19 103 43.0 18 492 41.2 18 461 39.3 17 698 36.6 17 219 35.6 QLD 12 095 37.4 12 161 36.4 12 421 35.7 11 964 32.7 12 579 32.9 13 722 36.2 12 774 32.8 12 502 32.1 SA 4 802 39.5 5 023 40.3 5 557 42.4 4 518 33.5 5 234 37.9 5 398 38.0 4 992 34.4 4 897 34.0 WA 6 416 41.4 6 132 44.4 6 414 38.3 6 187 36.4 5 971 34.0 6 193 34.9 5 800 31.6 5 765 30.6 TAS 1 436 31.3 1 541 30.1 1 573 31.9 1 523 29.0 1 453 27.9 1 608 32.6 1 510 30.4 1 536 26.4 NT 181 17.4 241 22.7 77 4.3 284 12.5 282 34.2 288 34.0 282 22.8 235 27.9 ACT 1 369 35.1 1 461 34.0 1 349 33.3 1 304 33.9 1 163 29.7 1 200 31.8 826 21.5 1 224 31.7 unknown 796 623 541 550 410 393 346 371 AUS 67 453 39.9 68 851 40.4 70 008 37.6 68 154 37.5 66 604 36.3 68 484 36.9 63 921 33.4 62 423 31.8 Notes: a. The number of Year 12 completers commencing higher education in any year is the number of domestic students from the Higher Education Statistics Collection whose postcode could be coded to a State or Territory. The percentage is of the number of students from State and Territory Board of Studies data who received a Year 12 certificate in the year before and whose postcode could be coded to a State or Territory. b. The data in the unknown line refers to students with postcodes that could not be allocated to a State or Territory. c. For smaller jurisdictions, allocation uncertainties can have significant effect, for example for the Northern Territory in 1999. d. For the Australian total, all valid Australian postcodes are taken into account. e. Data for 1996 is not available on a comparable basis to that for later years. Table 2 Number and Proportion of Year 12 Completers enrolled in vocational and technical education programs in the year after leaving school or in the same year, by State and Territory of the provider, by year in which the vocational and technical education course commenced. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 State No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % NSW 21 568 38.9 21 794 40.0 24 368 37.3 27 802 48.4 24 703 42.4 24 261 41.7 27 172 45.0 26 267 40.7 VIC 18 902 43.7 17 981 40.0 19 893 45.6 20 455 46.0 18 220 40.5 22 237 47.3 21 488 44.5 21 909 45.3 QLD 8 1481 25.2 12 685 38.0 14 097 40.5 13 726 37.5 14 077 36.8 13 151 34.7 13 065 33.6 12 009 30.9 SA 3 248 26.7 3 054 24.5 3 664 27.9 3 939 29.2 3 477 25.2 3 853 27.2 3 842 26.5 3 507 24.3 WA 6 869 44.4 6 012 43.5 4 914 29.4 7 834 46.1 7 671 43.7 7 826 44.2 7 794 42.5 8 007 42.5 TAS 954 20.8 989 19.3 929 18.9 1 002 19.1 1 122 21.6 925 18.8 1 181 23.8 1 424 24.5 NT 506 48.6 341 32.1 460 25.5 395 17.3 392 47.5 370 43.6 393 31.8 352 41.9 ACT 1 537 39.4 954 22.2 932 23.0 887 23.1 909 23.2 697 18.5 759 19.8 865 22.4 AUS 61 732 36.5 63 810 37.5 69 256 37.2 76 039 41.9 70 570 38.5 73 321 39.5 75 694 39.6 74 340 37.9 Notes: a. The number of Year 12 completers commencing vocational and technical education in any year is the number of domestic students from the AVETMIS Collection whose postcode could be coded to a State or Territory. The percentage is of the number of students from State and Territory Board of Studies data who received a Year 12 certificate in the year before and whose postcode could be coded to a State or Territory. b. For the Australian total, all valid Australian postcodes are taken into account. c. For smaller jurisdictions, allocation uncertainties can have significant effect, for example for the Northern Territory in 2000. d. Students with incomplete information on the level of schooling completed and/or year of completion of Year 12 were pro rated across Year 12 completers and non-completers using proportions derived from students whose records had full information. e. Data for 1996 is not available on a comparable basis to that for later years. 188 188 1407 188 Siewert, Sen Rachel E5Z Western Australia AG 0 Senator Siewert asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 1 December 2005: How many Indonesian fishing boats have been: (a) seen by authorities in Australian waters; (b) intercepted and turned away from Australian waters; c) seized in Australian waters; and (d) approached by authorities but avoided interception in Australian waters. How many patrols have been conducted in Australian waters How many vessels are involved in intercepting illegal fishing boats; (b) what are the specifications of these vessels; and (c) in what ports are they based. 188 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: As Senator Siewert has not identified a timeframe applicable to her questions, the response to her questions is for activity during financial year 2004-05. A new $388.9 million plan to combat illegal foreign fishing in northern Australian waters, announced as part of the Howard Government’s 2006-07 Federal Budget, brings the Howard Government’s total commitment to fighting illegal fishing to well over half a billion dollars. Under an integrated whole-of-government plan, the Australian Customs Service, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of Defence, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will be provided with the resources to more than double the number of illegal foreign fishing boats that are apprehended each year. During the year 2004-05, Coastwatch, Defence aircraft and Defence surface vessels reported a total of 12,489 sightings of fishing vessels in the Australia’s Fishing Zone/Exclusive Economic Zone. This figure does not however, represent the actual number of vessels fishing illegally as, in areas of concentrated aerial surveillance, the same vessel may be sighted and counted by multiple flights. Customs and Defence: 178. 203. 2. Customs patrols are multi tasked to conduct standing tasks and investigate and respond to tactical taskings by JOPC. The number and duration of Customs patrols is operational information and cannot be provided publicly. The number of patrols conducted by Defence is operational information and cannot be provided publicly. Customs operates a fleet of eight Bay Class Australian Customs Vessels (ACVs), which contribute approximately 2400 sea days per year. ACVs are deployed to undertake border security operations inside the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone which include identifying and responding to illegal foreign fishing vessels, people smuggling, quarantine risks or vessels suspected of carrying narcotics; and providing a full response capability when patrolling our offshore oil and gas rigs. Defence (RAN) also contribute 1800 sea days per year to this activity. ACVs have an overall length of 38 metres and are surveyed under the Uniform Shipping Laws Code to class 2B standards with a 200 nautical mile offshore capability. ACVs have a range of service speed of 1000 nautical miles @ 20 knots and operate with a nominal crew of ten officers to meet specific operational requirements. Each ACV is fitted with two 6.4 metre tenders purpose built for high-speed interception and rescue. Each ACV is fitted with one deck mounted FN Herstal 7.62mm Mag 58 General Support Machine Guns deck-mounted weapons. There are 15 Fremantle Patrol Boats which are 42 metres in length and have a speed of 30 knots. They operate with a crew of 24 and are fitted with one general purpose 40/60 mm Bofors gun and two 50 calibre Browning machine guns. The ACVs are not home ported as such but are deployed on a prioritised basis in response to Government agency tasking requirements. 189 189 1456 189 Nettle, Sen Kerry 00AOR New South Wales AG 0 Senator Nettle asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19 December 2005: With reference to detainees in the Baxter Detention Centre: For the past 5 years, by month, how many asylum seekers have been admitted to the Glenside Hospital. Of these detainees who were hospitalised: how long had each of them been detained before they were hospitalised; how many were found to be genuine refugees; how many were granted Bridging Visas or Temporary Protection Visas; and how many were granted Pending Removal Visas. 189 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: Baxter Immigration Detention Facility (BIDF) has been in existence since September 2002. I can provide figures for detainees transferred to Glenside Hospital since BIDF commenced operations in September 2002. During this period, 53 detainees who were in Baxter Immigration Detention Facility were admitted to Glenside Hospital. Month admitted to Glenside Hospital Number of detainees per month Jul-02 2 01-Feb-03 1 04-Mar-03 1 29-May-03 1 Oct-03 1 Nov-03 2 02-Jul-04 1 Dec-04 1 Jan-05 1 Mar-05 1 Apr-05 4 May-05 2 Jun-05 2 Jul-05 10 Aug-05 6 Sep-05 5 Oct-05 2 Nov-05 1 Dec-05 3 Jan-06 3 Feb-06 1 Mar-06 2 These 53 were detained in Baxter IDF for the following periods before transferring to Glenside Hospital. Time period Number of detainees Less than 1 month 3 2-6 months 5 6-12 months 7 1-2 years 10 2 years plus 28 Of the 53 detainees, the following were subsequently granted visas: 20 were granted permanent Protection Visas, Global Humanitarian Visas; 17 were granted either a Temporary Protection Visa or Bridging Visa; and 7 were granted a Removal Pending Bridging Visa. 190 190 1475 190 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 January 2006: What rules apply to partners or family members of senior departmental officers, or senior officials employed in government agencies, travelling at government expense. What process is used to assess whether the travel costs of partners or family members of senior departmental officers or senior officials are met by the Government. Who undertakes such an assessment; and (b) who approves funding for family travel. 190 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: I am advised that each Government department and agency is responsible for determining its own policy in relation to domestic and overseas travel. In relation to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I am advised that: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Chief Executive’s Instructions contain no entitlement for the partner or family members of a departmental employee to travel at government expense. There has also been an Overseas Condition of Service Determination (Number 2002/1) by the Chief Executive that removes access to spouse-accompanied travel for short-term missions or trips. Departmental employees on long-term postings are entitled to overseas conditions of service in accordance with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Human Resources Manual. Refer to response to Question (1). Refer to response to Question (1). Refer to response to Question (1). 191 191 1493 191 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 18 January 2006: What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Bass. When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. For each of the financial years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004‑05, what funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Bass. For the 2005-06 financial year, what funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants. For the 2005-06 financial year, what funding has been approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Bass. 191 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 department administers a wide range of health and aged care programs which may be relevant to community organisations, businesses and/or individuals in the electorate of Bass. Information on these programs can be found on the department’s website at www.health.gov.au. Information on these programs can be found on the department’s website at www.health.gov.au. The department reports electorate information on a calendar year basis, attached is standard information available for the electorate of Bass for 2005 and some information for 2004. Information for the 2002-03 financial year is not available*. Attached is standard information available by electorate for Bass. The department reports electorate information on a calendar year basis and this information includes data for 2005*. The department is unable to answer this question as this information is not readily available in an aggregated format by electorate. Attached is standard information available by electorate for Bass*. * Attachment is available from the Senate Table Office. 191 191 1494 and 1504 191 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 18 January 2006: What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Bass. When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. For each of the financial years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004‑05, what funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Bass. For the 2005-06 financial year, what funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants. For the 2005-06 financial year, what funding has been approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Bass. 192 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: The Family Relationship Services Program The Family Relationship Services Program (FRSP) provides assistance to the people living in the Federal Electorate of Bass. The names of the sub-programs funded under the FRSP by the Attorney-General’s Department are Family Relationship Counselling (funded jointly with the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), Family Relationship Mediation, Contact Orders Program, conciliation services, Children’s Contact Services Program and Regional Primary Dispute Resolution. Financial support for marriage guidance commenced through the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959. In 1959, 19 voluntary organisations were funded by the Government through the Attorney‑General’s Department to provide marriage guidance, aimed at keeping marriages stable and healthy. This was the first step towards a comprehensive Commonwealth family services program. The Family Law Act 1975 replaced the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959. Government funding for marriage counselling was then provided for under the Family Law Act. Family Relationship Mediation was first funded as a pilot in 1985 and developed into the Family Mediation sub-program in 1989. The Contact Orders Program was originally piloted in 1999. Ongoing funds for this program were allocated in the 2003‑04 Budget. Conciliation services were originally funded in 2001. This service replaced the pre-filing voluntary counselling work formerly undertaken by the Family Court of Australia. In 1996 the Government allocated resources for the first 10 children’s contact services. This was expanded in 1999 and again in 2001. In 2001-02 Primary Dispute Resolution projects were funded in 33 regional centres across Australia for a 12 month period. Following a review of these projects ongoing funding was provided in the 2002-03 Budget for Primary Dispute Resolution Services for people in high need rural and regional areas with family law issues. Details are provided below of the funding provided under the FRSP to assist community organisations in Tasmania deliver the sub-programs funded by the Attorney-General’s Department. There is no information available to determine what funding is allocated directly to the services located in the Federal electorate of Bass. 2002–03, $1.236m. 2003–04, $1.363m. 2004-05, $1.802m. For the 2005-06 financial year $39.4m has been appropriated for the FRSP through the 2005-06 Budget process. For the 2005-06 financial year $2.027m has been approved under the FRSP to assist community organisations in Tasmania deliver the sub-programs funded by the Attorney‑General’s Department. There is no information available to determine what funding is allocated directly to the services located in the Federal electorate of Bass. No funding has been approved for individuals under the FRSP. The funding is paid to organisations by the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on behalf of the Attorney-General’s Department, through a business partnership agreement. Legal Aid Program The Attorney‑General’s Department administers the Legal Aid Program through which the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania is funded to provide legal assistance for matters arising under Commonwealth laws. The Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania has a regional office located at 64 Cameron Street, Launceston 7250, through which individuals and organisations in the Federal Electorate of Bass can apply for legal assistance. The Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania commenced delivery of legal assistance in Launceston on 1 January 1991. The current legal aid agreement between the Australian Government and the State of Tasmania commenced on 5 April 2005. Funding provided by the Australian Government to the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania, in each financial year was: 2002–03, $3.880m. 2003–04, $3.934m. 2005–06, $4.812m. Some of these funds will have been used to provide legal assistance to individuals living in the Federal Electorate of Bass. $148.6m has been appropriated for the Legal Aid Program for 2005–06. $4.917m is the amount to be paid in 2005–06 to the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania under the legal aid agreement with the Tasmanian Government. Some of these funds will have been allocated by the Commission to assist individuals in the Federal Electorate of Bass. Financial Assistance Program The Attorney‑General’s Department administers schemes for the provision of financial assistance for legal and associated costs. These schemes exist to provide legal or financial assistance in cases where legal aid is not generally available from legal aid commissions and where the circumstances give rise to a special Commonwealth interest. People and organisations in the electorate of Bass can apply for assistance directly from the Australian Government under these schemes. It has been a long‑standing practice, endorsed by successive Attorneys‑General, to treat applications for financial assistance in confidence and not to provide information in relation to individual applications. Community Legal Services Program The Department provides funding to the Launceston Community Legal Centre to assist people living in the Federal Electorate of Bass. Funding was first provided to the Launceston Community Legal Centre operating under its previous name, Northern Community Legal Service, in 1984. Funding for the Launceston Community Legal Centre in each financial year was: 2002–03, $232,895. 2003–04, $238,252. 2005–06, $243,017. $23.633m has been appropriated for the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program in 2005–06. The Launceston Community Legal Service will receive $248,364 in funding through the Commonwealth Community Legal Services Program in 2005–06. Legal Aid for Indigenous Australians The Attorney-General’s Department administers the Indigenous Legal Aid Program. Services in the electorate of Bass are currently provided by Tasmanian Aboriginal Council Inc based in Hobart and operating out of its Launceston office. In January 2006, a request for tender was released for the provision of legal aid services to Indigenous Australians in Tasmania from 1 July 2006. The Commonwealth has provided funding for Indigenous legal aid since 1973. The Indigenous Legal Aid Program provides funding to Tasmanian Aboriginal Council Inc to supply Indigenous legal aid services throughout Tasmania. Individuals or organisations located in the electorate of Bass may receive grants of legal assistance from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Council Inc if they meet the eligibility requirements for that assistance. Privacy guidelines prevent the disclosure of information in relation to the recipients of legal aid grants and statistical information on the provision of grants of legal assistance is not collected on the basis of electoral divisions. Funding of $48.319m has been appropriated for the provision of Indigenous legal aid throughout Australia in 2005–06. Funding of $1.288m has been approved for the provision of Indigenous legal aid services in Tasmania for the 2005–06 financial year. Individuals or organisations located in the electorate of Bass may receive grants of legal assistance from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Council Inc if they meet the eligibility requirements for that assistance. Emergency Management Australia Through the Australian Government’s Working Together to Manage Emergencies initiative, the Attorney-General’s Department administers the Local Grants Scheme (LGS) and the National Emergency Volunteer Support Fund (NEVSF) which offer grants to local governments and volunteer emergency response and recovery agencies nationally. Delivery of the grants commenced in 2004-05. No funding was provided through the grants for the people of Bass in 2002-03, 2003-04 or 2004-05. For the 2005-06 financial year, $14.4m has been appropriated for these grants nationally. The electorate of Bass received funding for two projects (Launceston Surf Life Saving Club and Salvation Army Emergency Services, Launceston) with a combined value of $4,380 through the NEVSF in 2005-06. In addition, the electorate of Bass will be included as part of 11 State-wide projects funded in Tasmania to provide support to local governments and volunteer agencies. The combined value of the State-wide projects is $548,332. 194 194 1513 194 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 18 January 2006: What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Bass. When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. For each of the financial years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004‑05, what funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Bass. For the 2005-06 financial year, what funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants. For the 2005-06 financial year, what funding has been approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Bass. 195 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: (3) (1) (2) 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 (4) * (5)** Long Tan Bursary 2001 Nil $6 000 Nil Funding is available for 30 Bursaries at $6 000 each nationally Nil Veteran & Community Grants (formerly Joint Venture Scheme) 1985 (JVS) 2000 (V&C) $34 778 $20 724 $35 801 $2.896m nationally $19 126 Building Excellence in Support and Training (BEST) Grants 1999 Nil Nil $12 075 $3.547m nationally $13 200 Saluting Their Service Commemorations program 1996 $4 000 $500 $16 286 $2.135m nationally $14 160 * Funding is not allocated to specific electorates ** Figures provided for 2005-06 to January 2006 when question was asked. 195 195 1533 195 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 18 January 2006: For each financial year since 2001-02, what grants or payments has the Minister’s department, or have agencies for which the Minister is responsible, made to City View Christian Church Inc. (formerly known as Crusade Centre Inc.) based in Launceston, Tasmania. 195 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator Abetz —The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: For each financial year since 2001-02, the Minister’s department and agencies for which the Minister is responsible have made no grants or payments to City View Christian Church Inc. (formerly known as Crusade Centre Inc.) based in Launceston, Tasmania. 195 195 1535 195 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 18 January 2006: For each financial year since 2001-02, what grants or payments has the Minister’s department, or have agencies for which the Minister is responsible, made to City View Christian Church Inc. (formerly known as Crusade Centre Inc.) based in Launceston, Tasmania. 195 Abetz, Sen Eric N26 Tasmania LP Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation 1 Senator Abetz —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: For each financial year since 2001-02, the Minister’s department and agencies for which the Minister is responsible have made no grants or payments to City View Christian Church Inc. (formerly known as Crusade Centre Inc.) based in Launceston, Tasmania. 196 196 1556 196 Brown, Sen Bob QD4 Tasmania AG 0 Senator Bob Brown asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 January 2006: Over the past 5 years, how much money have Australian companies spent on ‘facilitation’ payments. What is the estimated cost to Australian taxpayers of providing tax deductibility for ‘facilitation’ payments. Following the concerns relating to Australia’s laws raised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), will the Treasurer commit to introducing laws banning the tax deductibility of ‘facilitation’ payments in the next parliamentary sitting period. Will the Treasurer adopt the OECD’s recommendation and push for stronger whistleblower protection laws to protect Australian public servants based overseas who detect instances of bribery. 196 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: The Commissioner of Taxation advises that the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has no data on facilitation payments made by Australian companies. See (1). The OECD’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions came into force in Australia on 17 December 1999. The making of facilitation payments is not an offence for the purposes of the Convention. Australia’s tax laws in relation to bribery are consistent with the OECD’s Convention. The OECD Working Group on Bribery examined the Convention’s application in Australia, and the ATO, which administers the income tax law, cooperated with the OECD in formulating its report. The OECD ‘…welcomed improvements announced by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to more effectively prevent and detect bribe payments to foreign public officials and ensure that the tax deduction for facilitation payments is not misused.’ In relation to the alignment of the definition of facilitation payments in the income tax law and Criminal Code, the OECD noted that, ‘The ATO believes that the definition of “routine government action” under [the income tax law], which is identical to the definition under [the Criminal Code], is sufficient support to restrict facilitation payments to those of a minor nature. It is the position of the ATO that due to the definition of “routine government actions” of a minor nature, as specified under the Income Tax Act, it is not possible that a payment in order to obtain such an action could be anything but “minor”.’ In relation to the Criminal Code requirement to keep records of facilitation payments, and the general record-keeping requirements of the income tax law, the OECD report states that, ‘Pursuant to the [income tax law], a person carrying on a business is required to keep records that explain all transactions and other acts engaged in by the person that are relevant for any purpose of the Act. The records to be kept include any documents relevant for ascertaining income and expenditure as well as documents that contain particulars of any elections, estimates, etc., made by the person under the Act. The ATO believes that the minimum information required by ATO staff to understand the essential features of transactions relating to income and expenditure is the date, amount and character of the transactions. In some circumstances a tax officer will need further information, such as the purpose of the transactions and the relationships between the parties to the transactions. In addition, the ATO submits that pursuant to a Taxation Ruling and a Practice Statement of the ATO, the general recordkeeping requirements for obtaining a tax deduction cover in essence all the requirements under [the Criminal Code], except the necessity of obtaining the signature of the foreign public official.’ The Deputy Commissioner in charge of serious non-compliance at the ATO indicated at the recent Senate Estimates hearings that, in practice, the income tax law and the Criminal Code have the same requirements. The Deputy Commissioner said, ‘Our view is that the policy intent is reflected in the wording. In terms of our legislation, it is about a tax deduction and whether or not that is allowable. The Crimes Act is about a criminal matter. You might expect there to be more precision in that wording. So we do not believe there is any particular issue in that.’ Australia will respond to the OECD Working Group on Bribery in October 2006 on how the report’s recommendations have been addressed. The Attorney-General has carriage of responding to the OECD report. This matter falls outside the Treasury portfolio. 197 197 1572 197 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 2 February 2006: Can the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) provide detailed justification, in terms of cost recovery, for each of its fees listed on the website. Has an evaluation been made of the impact of these fees on trends in general aviation activity in Australia; if so, can a copy be provided; if not, why not. How many Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) applications by general aviation pilots have been rejected. What is the security or other rationale behind general aviation operators requiring three separate photo identifications (IDs) (for example, a Flight Crew Licence, Aviation Identification (AVID) and ASIC) all of which contain the same information. What is the security rationale behind general aviation pilots requiring photo IDs but not passengers. What has been the cost of the security measures, announced in 2005, at each remote airfield. Is the work complete; if not, what has yet to be done. What was done at each of these locations and how does it improve security. Are ASICs required to be produced at all remote airfields; if not, at which airfields are they not required and why. 197 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The Acting Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: CASA can provide detailed justification of its fee structure as a whole. The final prices in the fees regulations are based on average cost of activities, and in the case of fixed fees, provide for the average time required to complete a service. A statement on the level of cost recovery impact on segments of the aviation industry was prepared for CASA. The report prepared by Allen Consulting shows the impact in dollar terms to sectors. A copy of the paper is provided. An Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) issuing body is required to notify DOTARS of rejected ASIC applications. This notification needs to detail the reasons behind an individual being refused an ASIC but does not include the applicant’s status (eg General Aviation (GA) pilot, Commercial pilot, baggage handler etc). For this reason it is not possible to state the number of GA pilots refused the issue of an ASIC. Under the current aviation security regime, all pilots licensed by CASA, operating aircraft in Australian territory must have a current AVID or ASIC or have applied for an aviation security status check. CASA issues a new photographic licence along with the ASIC or AVID when the background checking is successfully completed. Only those pilots who require access to a secure area of a security controlled airport need an ASIC, which has more stringent criteria than for an AVID. The background checking undertaken as part of the issue of photographic licences prior to 10 March 2005 does not meet the requirements for a current aviation security status check. Passengers do not require photo IDs as they are under the direct supervision of the airport operator and/or the ASIC holding pilot. The Australian Government provided $35 million to implement a range of basic security measures under the Regional Airport Funding Program (RAFP), and committed $48 million under the Securing our Regional Skies package. Due to the confidentiality requirements regarding individual airport Transport Security Programs, as set out in Part 2, Subpart 2.06 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, a disaggregated figure for each airport cannot be provided. See part (6). Implementation schedules for security works funded through the RAFP vary at each airport, and are dependent on a range of factors including the type and scale of works to be completed, the availability of trades-people and seasonal factors. The Securing our Regional Skies initiatives commenced in August 2004, and are scheduled to take place over a 4 year period. See part (6). Each airport, as part of undertaking a security risk assessment and developing a Transport Security Program, was required to identify specific enhancements to security infrastructure to assist in mitigating local risks. The security measures being undertaken by each airport are based on the size and scale of the airport and the type of aircraft that service the region. These measures can include, but are not limited to, fencing, lighting, closed-circuit TV and alarm systems. ASICs are required to be displayed at all security controlled airports that have regular public transport (RPT) services. A remote airfield can lodge a written request with the Secretary of DOTARS to vary their ASIC Program. If approved, this allows an airport to "switch off" the requirement to display an ASIC, and limits the ASIC display times to two hours before the scheduled arrival of an RPT service until two hours after the actual departure time of an RPT service. 198 198 1582 198 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 15 February 2006: On what dates has the Australian Government Secretaries’ Group on Indigenous Affairs met. At which of these meetings, if any, has the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services been absent. 198 Minchin, Sen Nick JX4 South Australia LP Minister for Finance and Administration 1 Senator Minchin —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: I am advised that the Secretaries Group on Indigenous Affairs meets regularly in the course of transacting business for which it is responsible. It is normal practice for delegates to be sent for particular meetings where a Secretary is unable to attend. 199 199 1623 199 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 16 March 2006: Is the Minister aware that an alternative exists for the conventional Pap smear, that is the Thin Prep Pap Test. What information is the Minister aware of on the comparative effectiveness of the two methods for detecting cervical abnormalities. What information is the Minister aware of on the clinical benefits of the Thin Prep Pap Test, such as increased disease detection, reduction of equivocal diagnoses and the ability to perform additional tests on the same vial, for example HPV, Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea. Does the Minister have any data on levels of community awareness of this alternative to the conventional Pap smear. What is the average financial out of pocket cost for a conventional Pap smear in comparison to the Thin Prep Pap Test. What funding is the Government providing to assist women with access to this alternative Pap test. 199 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: Yes. The findings of an evidence based evaluation by the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) in 2002 found there was insufficient evidence pertaining to liquid based cytology for cervical screening, including ThinPrep, compared with conventional Pap smear to support public funding for these tests. The subject of the MSAC review was for cervical cancer screening. MSAC has not received an application to assess the evidence relating to the use of ThinPrep for other diagnoses. No. No data are available about the out-of-pocket costs associated with the ThinPrep test because the Commonwealth does not fund the test. If a patient chooses to have the ThinPrep test, the patient bears the full cost of the test. For the conventional pap smear test in 2004/05 85% of Medicare claims were bulk billed. For the remaining 15% of claims which were patient billed, the average out of pocket cost was $8.49. In October 2002, the then Minister accepted the findings of MSAC that there was insufficient evidence to support public funding for liquid based cytology. 199 199 1671 199 O’Brien, Sen Kerry 8O6 Tasmania ALP 0 Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 29 March 2006: With reference to the abandoned vessel Jian Seng: On what date was the: (a) Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA); (b) Office of Transport Security; (c) Minister’s office; and (d) Minister, informed that the vessel was adrift in the Gulf of Carpentaria. In each case: (a) what was the source of the information; and (b) what was the location of the vessel at that time. On what date was an alert about the unlit and unmanned Jian Seng issued to vessels in its vicinity. What was the form of the alert. What was the location of the vessel at this time. How did AMSA manage the potential risk to the marine environment posed by this adrift vessel. On what date did AMSA assume responsibility for control of the vessel. What was the location of the vessel at this time. What emergency towage arrangements were put in place. On what date did the vessel arrive at Weipa. Was the vessel anchored outside or inside Weipa Harbour; if outside, why. (a) Which agencies inspected the vessel; (b) on what dates; and (c) for what purposes. (a) Was the hull inspected for exotic marine pests; and (b) how was this inspection conducted. On what date was the vessel permitted entry to Weipa Harbour. What role, if any, have agencies other than AMSA, including but not necessarily limited to AusSar and Marine Safety Queensland, played in: (a) the minimisation of risk to the marine environment and other vessels; and (b) the recovery of the vessel. What is the vessel’s home port and registry. What disaggregated costs have been borne by the department and its agencies in relation to the identification and management of the vessel. (a) On what date was the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) number of the vessel identified; and (b) what is the IMO number. 200 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: AMSA was informed on 24 March 2006. The Office of Transport Security was informed on 24 March 2006. The Minister’s office was informed on 24 March 2006. AMSA and the Office of Transport Security were informed by the Australian Customs Service (Coastwatch). The Office of Transport Security and AMSA informed the Minister’s office. The Minister was advised by his office. The vessel was reported to be drifting about 80 nautical miles south west of the port of Weipa and about nine nautical miles off the coast when AMSA was informed. The Office of Transport Security gave a position of Latitude 13 49.50 S Longitude 141 19.53 E when it was informed by Coastwatch. These two positions are close by. AMSA issued an alert to shipping on the afternoon of 24 March 2006. AMSA issued the standard alert as a “maritime safety information message” over the maritime safety communications network. The vessel was drifting roughly parallel with the coast in a south westerly direction away from the port of Weipa. AMSA made arrangements with Maritime Safety Queensland on 24 March 2006 under the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and other Hazardous and Noxious Substances to have environment protection resources on stand-by at Thursday Island. In the event, the resources were not required. The Australian Customs Service advised AMSA in the morning of 25 March 2006 that the vessel appeared to have been abandoned and was derelict with a quantity of oily water aboard. AMSA assumed responsibility for recovering the vessel in view of it being assessed as a potential navigation hazard and risk to the marine environment. AMSA arranged with a towage operator to have a tug sent from Weipa to take the vessel in tow and in the interim for the towage operator to contract for a local barge to be sent from Karumba to attend the vessel and ensure it remained offshore. The barge arrived at the vessel in the morning of 26 March 2006 when the Australian Customs Service vessel Storm Bay departed from the vessel’s location. In the morning of 26 March 2006, the vessel was still drifting around 115 nautical miles south west of the port of Weipa about 26 nautical miles offshore, roughly parallel with the coast. AMSA agreed in the morning of 25 March 2006 with Adsteam Marine Ltd for a tugboat from Weipa to recover the vessel and tow it to Weipa. In the interim, AMSA agreed with Adsteam Marine Ltd contracting a local barge from Karumba to attend to the vessel and ensure it remained offshore from the morning of 26 March 2006 until the tug arrived in the morning of 27 March 2006. The vessel arrived offshore from Weipa on 28 March 2006. The vessel was held offshore outside the Weipa Port Limits while relevant agencies assessed customs, quarantine, safety and environmental issues. It was then anchored in Albatross Bay, inside the Weipa Port Limits, but around nine nautical miles away from the Weipa ship berths and clear of any shipping channels. (a)   Australian Customs Service and AMSA inspected the vessel. ustralian Customs Service inspected on 25 March 2006 and AMSA on 29 March. Australian Customs Service boarded the vessel under the Customs Act 1901 to assess its status in terms of the risk to the border including whether the vessel had been abandoned and was derelict and AMSA to assess the condition of the vessel in relation to its safety and the potential pollutants aboard. (a)   Yes. The hull was inspected for exotic pests; and (b)   Marine divers inspected the vessel’s hull and took an underwater video of the hull, which was provided to the Queensland Environment Protection Authority. On 28 March 2006, the vessel was permitted to anchor within the Weipa Port Limits around nine nautical miles from the shipping berths at the Port of Weipa. (a) and (b)-AMSA’s Rescue Coordination Centre (Australian Search and Rescue) was advised by Coastwatch about the vessel on 24 March 2006, issued the alert to shipping on 24 March 2006 and monitored the vessel’s position from 24 March 2006 until completion of the vessel’s tow to Weipa on 27 March 2006. AMSA consulted with Maritime Safety Queensland during the recovery and towage operation and in the management of the vessel at Weipa and in arranging to have environment protection resources on standby at Thursday Island under the National Plan. AMSA consulted with the Ports Corporation of Queensland, which administers the port of Weipa, in relation to the recovery of the vessel and its management at Weipa. AMSA consulted with the Queensland Environment Protection Authority, the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority about issues involving the vessel in relation to the protection of the marine environment. These are unknown at this time. AMSA’s costs have not been finalised at this time but are estimated to total around $300,000 for the recovery, towage and holding of the vessel at Weipa and an additional estimated $550,000 to have the vessel cleaned of pollutants, materials and debris and then towed and disposed of by sinking at a permitted site in the Coral Sea. These are unknown at this time. 202 202 1693 202 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 11 April 2006: With reference to the recent statements by the Prime Minister about the removal of discrimination against same-sex couples, and to the then Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan’s, second reading speech on 22 June 2004 in relation to proposed interdependency provisions in Commonwealth superannuation schemes: What was the result of the review conducted by ministers responsible for the Commonwealth superannuation schemes, to ‘ensure consistency with these interdependency amendments’. When is it anticipated that legislation ensuring this ‘consistency’ will be introduced in the Parliament. 202 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: (1) - (2) Refer to answer provided to question 1692 (Official Hansard, 14 June 2006, page 198). 202 202 1703 202 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 21 April 2006: Is the Minister aware of the United Kingdom (UK) study of ‘Sex and relationship education for 13‑16 year olds: Evidence from England’ conducted by the RIPPLE Study Team and reported in Sex Education, Volume 6, No.1, February 2006. Is the Minister aware that the UK Government has, in recent years, focused on the need to improve sex and relationship education (SRE) in schools in order to reduce the rates of teenage pregnancies and the number of young people contracting sexually-transmitted infections (STIs). Given the similar rates of teenage pregnancy and STIs in Australia, does the Minister share the UK Government’s policy objective on this issue. Is the Minister aware that UK studies have thus far shown that: often little time is allocated for the delivery of SRE, it is delivered too late for many students and tends to have an overly biological focus; SRE has failed to address affective issues around emotions and relationships, attitudes and skills development; lack of time available for planning and delivery of SRE; and lack of teachers’ confidence and commitment, embarrassment and lack of training, and difficulties with implementing and monitoring a cross-curricular approach. Does the Minister consider that these may also be issues in Australia. When was the last time a study was conducted into SRE in Australian schools. What plans does the Minister have to: commission research into SRE; discuss teenage pregnancy, STIs and/or SRE with state and territory health and education ministers; and reduce the current rates of teenage pregnancies and teenage STIs. 203 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: Yes, I have recently been provided with a copy of the ‘Sex and relationship education for 13-16 year olds: Evidence from England’ study. Yes, my department monitors international activities and research undertaken on a range of health issues, including sex and relationship education in schools. Commonwealth Government policy supports approaches to sex and relationship education that address sexual and reproductive health in a holistic and developmentally appropriate way, and that include the provision of information and assistance for delaying sexual activity until it can be undertaken in safe and informed circumstances. to (d) Yes, I have recently been provided with the complete report of the ‘Sex and relationship education for 13 – 16 year olds’ study. The Commonwealth Government provides sexual and reproductive health education and advice through a number of programs and mechanisms, and supports initiatives that serve to improve sexual health and relationship education, and that offer encouragement to young people to engage in safe sex practices. In doing so, the Commonwealth Government acknowledges the importance of full, sensible and effective sex education and recognises the importance of such education being implemented in consultation with parents. Under current arrangements, curriculum planning, development and training as well as resources for school-based programs, including those relating to sex and relationships education, are determined by the relevant state or territory government and non-government education authorities and individual schools. The ‘Secondary Students and Sexual Health Survey’ was last conducted in 2002. The Department of Health and Ageing funded the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society to undertake this national survey, which examined the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of Australian secondary school students toward HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections. At this point there are no plans to commission further research into sex and relationship education. Where the need arises, the Department of Health and Ageing will consult with state and territory health and education agencies concerning these issues. The Department of Health and Ageing will continue to fund family planning and sexual and reproductive health activities, either through the Public Health Outcome Funding Agreements with states and territories, or directly through a range of prevention programs on HIV/AIDS and sexually transmissible infections. The Commonwealth Government is also spending $12.5 million over four years (2005 – 2009) to conduct a pilot testing project for Chlamydia which will include testing, surveillance and awareness raising activities. 203 203 1708 203 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 21 April 2006: What environmental taxes on cars, petrol, wood and other products have recently been imposed by China. Were these environmental taxes negotiated as part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate; if not, how do they relate to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. To what extent is China using market-based mechanisms to address greenhouse abatement and/or avoidance. To what extent is each of the other parties to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, including Australia, using market-based mechanisms to address greenhouse abatement and/or avoidance. To what extent is China using the expansion of nuclear power to address greenhouse abatement and/or avoidance by 2020. Does, or will, nuclear power expansion form part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate; if so, can details be provided. Is it still the case that Australia’s greenhouse emissions are expected to increase by more than 20 per cent above 1990 levels by 2020; if not, what is the anticipated increase. How does Australia’s increase above 1990 levels by 2020 compare with each of the other countries in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Does the Government accept that to avoid dangerous climate change, global greenhouse emission reductions must be within the range of 15 per cent to 30 per cent by 2020; if not, what percentage reduction does the Government consider necessary. (a) Is it the case that China plans to expand renewable energy to 15 per cent of power generated by 2020; and (b) was this decision part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate agreement; if so, what were the commitments of other parties to the agreement with respect to renewable energy. 204 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: , (3), (5) and (10) These matters relate to the Chinese Government’s policy on energy and climate change, and it would not be appropriate for an Australian Minister to offer views on, or an interpretation of, China’s domestic policies in these areas. The honourable senator may wish to seek answers on these matters directly from the Chinese Government. No. Any relationship between China’s domestic policies and the Asia‑Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is a matter for the Chinese Government to comment on. The Australian Government has introduced market-based mechanisms as a component of its comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These measures include the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) and the Greenhouse Friendly product certification scheme. The Australian Government considers it premature to introduce a carbon trading scheme (or other measure which imposes economy-wide costs) at this time, given that Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto target and there is not yet a comprehensive global approach to climate change. Without an effective global response, such action could harm Australia’s competitiveness while delivering uncertain environmental benefits. However, if an effective global response is in prospect, the Government would consider the introduction of market-based measures. Information relating to any market-based mechanisms that are being used by other Asia-Pacific Partnership countries may be found in those Parties’ National Communications under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (www.unfccc.int). Nuclear energy is listed in the Asia-Pacific Partnership Vision Statement as a potential area for collaboration. Nuclear energy is not, however, an area covered by the initial eight public-private sector Taskforces established under the Partnership. Australia remains on track to meet its Kyoto target. The most recent projections released in November 2005 show that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2008 to 2012 are expected to be 108 per cent of 1990 levels – which is right on the mark. These projections also show a potential increase of greenhouse gas emissions of 22 per cent above 1990 levels by 2020. Only developed country Parties are required to report future greenhouse gas projections to the UNFCCC. These estimates are provided in National Communications. The National Communications for the US and Japan are available on the UNFCCC website (www.unfccc.int). The projected increase in emissions is 43 per cent for the US (from 2000 to 2020) and 6 per cent for Japan (from 1990 to 2010). China, India and the Republic of Korea are not required to report projections under the Convention, although Korea has reported a projected increase in emissions of 70 per cent (from 2000 to 2020). This information is in its latest National Communication which is also available on the UNFCCC website. The Government accepts that significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions will be needed by the end of the century. Analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that reductions of 60 per cent of annual global emissions are required by 2100 to avoid more than doubling pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As Australia is not a major contributor of global greenhouse gas emissions (just over 1.46%), we realise that it is meaningless for Australia to make these cuts alone. I will be leading Australia’s largest ever renewable energy and energy efficiency trade mission to China in October to help Australian renewable energy industry interests establish high-level contacts with business and government representatives in China. This Ministerial-led trade mission will also demonstrate the seriousness and extent of Australia’s interests and capabilities in this area. 205 205 1709 205 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 21 April 2006: With reference to the answer to the question on notice No. 1115 (Senate Hansard , 8 November 2005, p.144), which stated ‘The Visions Statement for the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate explicitly includes wind power as one of the areas for collaboration by partner countries. However, no decisions have yet been made on specific implementation measures or arrangements. These issues will be discussed at the initial ministerial meeting of partner countries, which will be held in Australia in November 2005’: What were the results of that meeting of partner countries with regard to renewable energy. Have the industry development mechanisms to accelerate the generation of wind power, as proposed by the Global Wind Energy Council, been agreed to; if not, why. Have Australia’s commitments to renewables been affected by the decision to invoke the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) on the Bald Hills Wind Farm; if so, how. Can details be provided on progress with the states and territories through the Ministerial Council on Energy to reduce regulatory and technical impediments to renewable energy uptake, with a particular focus on wind energy. What share of: (a) total renewable energy; and (b) total energy, does the Government anticipate will be generated by wind by: (i) 2010, (ii) 2015, and (iii) 2020. What share of the renewable energy market does the Government consider will be captured by Australia’s renewable energy industry in: (i) 2010, (ii) 2015, and (iii) 2020 ; (b) what would this mean in terms of investment and export incomes and jobs in Australia; and (c) if no projection has been made, why not. What is the current estimate of greenhouse gas emission abatement and/or avoidance for each of the following Federal Government programs and by when will this be achieved: $14 million Wind Energy Forecasting Capability; $20 million Advanced Electricity Storage Technologies Program; and $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative. Can a progress report on each of these programs be provided. Can a progress report be provided on the Program Guidelines for the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, a draft of which was released in June 2005. What are the criteria to assess technologies to be funded under the Low Emissions Technology Fund. What is the process to assess technologies. What is the timeframe for implementation of the Low Emissions Technology Fund. (a) What projects have been funded so far; and (b) can details be provided of the timeframe for emissions abatement and/or avoidance. Would the development of nuclear power qualify for the Low Emissions Technology Fund. Has there been an application under the Low Emissions Technology Fund for development related to nuclear power; if so, can details be provided. 206 Campbell, Sen Ian H15 Western Australia LP Minister for the Environment and Heritage 1 Senator Ian Campbell —The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: The inaugural Ministerial meeting of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate held in Sydney in January 2006, agreed a Work Plan that established a set of eight initial government/industry Task Forces including the Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Task Force. Australia co-chairs this Task Force. As a clear demonstration of Australia’s commitment to the success of the Partnership, the Prime Minister announced an additional investment of $100 million over five years to support Australia’s involvement in clean development projects, capacity building activities and our on-going role in the Partnership. In recognition of the significant commitment to the development of renewable resources announced in Australia's 2004 Energy Statement, 25 per cent of this $100 million investment will be specifically earmarked for renewable energy projects. The first meeting of the Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Task Force was held in California in April 2006. The Task Force will develop an action plan by 31 August 2006 outlining practical actions to develop, demonstrate, pilot and deploy the most promising renewable energy and distributed generation technologies and applications in partner countries. The Australian Government appreciates the contribution of renewable energy industry groups such as the Global Wind Energy Council to ongoing policy discussions. Such proposals help to inform considerations in the broader context of Australia’s sustainable energy policy environment. However it is a matter for individual partner countries to determine how mechanisms such as those proposed by the Global Wind Energy Council are implemented. The decision on Bald Hills wind project was made in accordance with my statutory responsibilities under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to consider the impact of the project on matters of national environmental significance. The Renewable and Distributed Generation Working Group (RDGWG) has been established by the Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE) to provide strategic advice on policy directions for removing impediments to and promoting the commercial uptake of renewable and distributed generation technologies in the Australian electricity market. The RDGWG released a discussion paper regarding "Impediments to the Uptake of Renewable and Distributed Generation" and a draft Code of Practice for Embedded Generation on 22 February 2006 and is currently reviewing submissions from stakeholders in response. A sub-group under RDGWG, the Wind Energy Policy Working Group was set up to consider issues associated with the entry of wind energy generation into the electricity market. The Wind Energy Technical Advisory Group, established by the National Electricity Market Management Company to assist with technical aspects of policy formulation relating to wind generation, reported on a number of issues to the Standing Committee of Officials under the MCE that need to be addressed in anticipation of wind generation playing a more significant role in the National Electricity Market. MCE requested that the National Electricity Market Management Company develop appropriate arrangements for the management of wind energy output during periods of network constraint. Further details regarding progress with the states and territories through the MCE to reduce regulatory and technical impediments to renewable energy uptake can be found on the MCE website at http://www.mce.gov.au. and (b) Based on energy projections in the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics report "Australian energy: national and state projections to 2029-30", published in October 2005: in 2009-10, wind's share of total renewable energy will be 4.3 percent and its share of total energy consumption will be 0.2 percent; in 2014-15, wind's share of total renewable energy will be 6 percent and its share of total energy consumption will be 0.3 percent; in 2019-20, wind's share of total renewable energy will be 5.6 percent and its share of total energy consumption will be 0.3 percent. No projections have been made of Australian renewables share of future world energy markets. (b) Estimates are not presented relating to investment, export income and jobs. (c) Such predictions would be of limited value as the potential renewable energy market relies on variables such as the specific policies and measures that other governments may put in place, the willingness of the market to pay a premium for high priced electricity, and the technology cost reductions over the period. to (c) These measures were not designed as direct abatement measures. They address barriers to the higher uptake of renewable energy-based electricity generation into Australia's electricity supply system from intermittent sources such as wind and solar, and support research and development, proof-of-concept and early-stage commercialisation of renewable energy technologies which possess high commercial and greenhouse gas abatement potential. Wind Energy Forecasting Capability – This measure to assist the development and installation of software and systems to allow accurate wind forecasting is well advanced. System implementation arrangements have been finalised and procurement activities will commence in the second half of 2006. Advanced Electricity Storage Technology – This measure to identify and promote strategically important advanced storage technologies is well progressed. Expressions of Interest closed on 13 April 2006 with twenty-four submissions received. Renewable Energy Development Initiative – This measure has completed its first funding round with $23 million in grants awarded to ten Australian renewable energy projects. The second round of funding has closed and successful applicants will be announced later this year. The Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund Statement of Opportunities and Draft Programme Guidelines were finalised and released in October 2005 as the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund Policy Framework. The document is available at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/demonstrationfund/index.html. The criteria were published in the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund Policy Framework which is available at http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/demonstrationfund/index.html. The customer information guidelines document provides information about the Fund, how to apply, what applicants, technologies and projects are eligible and other relevant information. This document is available at http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/library/LETDF_Customer_Information_Guide_v120051018035035.pdf. Round one of the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund was launched on 11 October 2005 and applications closed on 31 March 2006. Applications are currently being assessed against eligibility, technical and financial criteria. An Expert Panel of eminent business people and technology experts will assess the merit of eligible applications against the round one merit criteria. The Fund will operate over the period 2005-06 to 2019-20, with the first competitive funding round in 2005-06. Subsequent funding rounds in 2008-09 and 2012-13 are anticipated, subject to the outcome of round one. (a) No projects have been funded so far. Round one grant announcements are expected in the first quarter of 2006-07. (b)Technologies supported by the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund must be commercially available by the period 2020-30 and have the potential to lower Australia’s energy sector greenhouse gas emissions signature by at least two per cent per annum from 2030 at a realistic uptake rate. The Government has decided to establish a Taskforce to review uranium mining, processing and the contribution of nuclear energy in Australia in the long term which will contribute to a wide ranging public debate on Australia’s future energy needs and the broad range of emerging energy technologies. At present this question is hypothetical. No applications relating to nuclear power were received. 208 208 1725 208 Allison, Sen Lyn 1M6 Victoria AD 0 Senator Allison asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 8 May 2006: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 149 ( Senate Hansard , 8 February 2005, p. 229): Are Medicare benefits now available for HIV antibody testing. What actions, if any, has the Government taken to address the anomaly between funding arrangements for HIV antibody testing and testing for other blood-borne and sexually-transmitted diseases under Medicare. Can the figures for the past 10 years of the annual number of new HIV diagnoses in Australia be provided. 208 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: Yes. HIV testing was added to the Medicare Benefits Schedule on 1 November 2005, and came into effect on 1 January 2006. Therefore, HIV testing is now included on the Medicare Benefit Schedule along with testing for other blood borne and sexually transmissible infections. New HIV diagnoses (adjusted for multiple reporting) in Australia Year Number of new diagnoses 1995 890 1996 887 1997 722 1998 652 1999 685 2000 656 2001 690 2002 826 2003 780 2004 818 Source: HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections in Australia, Annual Surveillance Report 2005, and HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections in Australia, Annual Surveillance Report 2004. The number of new HIV diagnoses in Australia in 2005 will be available in August 2006. 209 209 1764 209 Kirk, Sen Linda 00AOO South Australia ALP 0 Senator Kirk asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, upon notice, on 10 May 2006: Does the Child Support Agency (CSA) have the authority to access tax file numbers from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) or Commissioner of Taxation; if so, what is the relevant legislation and/or determination that grants this authority. Has the CSA accessed tax file numbers from the ATO or Commissioner of Taxation; if so, how many tax file numbers were accessed in the 2003-04 and 2004-05 financial years. If tax file numbers have been accessed, did the CSA get the permission of the individuals concerned in every instance; if not, how many tax file numbers were accessed without permission. Has the Government received representations on behalf of child support payers claiming that the CSA has accessed tax file numbers from the Commissioner of Taxation without the proper authorisation from payers; if so: (a) has a response been provided; and (b) if a response has been provided, can details of that response be provided. Was advice sought or obtained within the past 12 months with respect to the use of tax file numbers in the administration of child support legislation. If the advice was sought, in what capacity was it sought. Has advice been received. Is the advice privileged in any way. Can the following information be provided: (a) a copy of the advice; and (b) the memorandum or brief requesting the advice. 209 Kemp, Sen Rod WW4 Victoria LP Minister for the Arts and Sport 1 Senator Kemp —The Minister for Human Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: CSA does have that authority. The relevant legislation is: •       Sections 16A – 16C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988; •       Sections 150B – 150D of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989; and •       Paragraph 202(ga) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Yes. CSA cannot provide any information as to the source of the TFN input as such data is not recorded by CSA. No. CSA is not required to, and does not, seek permission of individuals before attempting to obtain their TFN from the ATO. CSA does not record if permission is sought. Yes. Yes. Yes. CSA has responded with advice that CSA is not required to ask an individual for permission to obtain their TFN before obtaining it from the ATO. Yes. It was obtained for the purpose of ongoing legal proceedings. Yes. It retains privilege as the legal actions for which the advice was sought are still afoot. No. No. Both documents retain legal privilege. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes at an estimated cost of $301. 210 210 1767 210 Ludwig, Sen Joe 84N Queensland ALP 0 Senator Ludwig asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 10 May 2006: Can a list be provided of the Minister’s accepted public speaking engagements for 2006, in Australia and overseas, in his capacity as Minister for Justice and Customs. 210 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 public speaking engagements I have undertaken to date in 2006 are by their nature public and that information is already publicly available. In respect to any proposed public speaking engagements it is not appropriate for me to outline these as in addition to any security considerations, such engagements remain subject to change.