2006-06-19
41
1
6
REPS
0
0
2006-06-19
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
1
Delegation Reports
Delegation Visit to the Republic of South Africa and the 114th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly Nairobi
1
1
12:31:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I present the reports of the Australian parliamentary delegation bilateral visit to the Republic of South Africa from 28 April to 4 May 2006 and the 114th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly held in Nairobi from 5 to 12 May 2006. It is a great privilege to be able to represent this parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conferences and also at the bilateral visits that accompany those conferences. This was a particularly productive and successful delegation. I am grateful to members of the delegation, including the deputy leader of the delegation, the member for Fowler, who will speak on the bilateral visit to South Africa. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Mrs Kay Hull, the member for Riverina, and I am delighted to inform the House that my colleague was elected unanimously by the Asia-Pacific geopolitical group to the position of Titular Member of the Coordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians. This is an outstanding outcome, and I congratulate and thank Kay for her dedication to the task of representing women’s issues on behalf of the Australian delegation, as she has done at these last three assemblies. I must say that this builds on the work of previous delegates such as Mr Somlyay and Mrs Vamvakinou, and Senators Ferris, McKiernan and Chapman. The delegation that went to Nairobi participated constructively and enthusiastically, and I think we did great justice to the work of previous people from this House who have previously attended the work of the IPU assembly.
My contribution today will focus on the work of the delegation at the 114th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Nairobi in May this year. One of the debates conducted at the IPU is the general debate, which this year had the theme of promoting democracy and helping to build democratic institutions. I think we in Australia can see just how important that is in the region around us. I participated in this debate and spoke on the role of the Australian government in encouraging and promoting good governance in the Asia-Pacific region. We do have an excellent track record there.
The IPU also has three standing committees which debate and draft a resolution on an issue of importance. Mrs Irwin, the member for Fowler, participated in the First Standing Committee (Peace and International Security) debate on ‘The role of parliaments in strengthening control of trafficking in small arms and light weapons and their ammunition’. Senator Marshall participated in the Second Standing Committee (Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade) debate on ‘The role of parliaments in environmental management and in combating global degradation of the environment’. The member for Riverina and the member for Fowler participated in the Third Standing Committee (Democracy and Human Rights) debate on ‘How parliaments can and must promote effective ways of combating violence against women in all fields’.
The IPU is known for the work that it does in relation to women parliamentarians and, as I said, we were all delighted at the member for Riverina being elected to the Coordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians. One of the main areas of interest for this IPU conference included a topical panel discussion on HIV-AIDS, which all delegates took the opportunity to attend, which included an excellent contribution from Mr Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy for HIV-AIDS in Africa, who focused on the devastating impact of AIDS on children in Africa. It was a very sobering panel discussion. The meeting of the IPU also allows delegates to hold informal meetings, and we met with Mr Amir Dossal.
In conclusion, may I commend my fellow delegates for their work at this IPU assembly, which is recorded in detail in the report I have just tabled, and may I also place on record our thanks to those people in this parliament, in DFAT, Jeremy Kruse in particular, in the AFP, Brendan O’Hearn, our secretary, Neil Bessell, and the high commissioners and their staff at our overseas post who made our work that much easier. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)
2
12:36:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—I am pleased to follow the member for Pearce on her tabling of the report on the IPU conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, and the bilateral visit by the delegation to the Republic of South Africa. I firstly congratulate the member for Pearce on her leadership of the delegation and on the fine work she has been doing in enhancing Australia’s profile within the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I congratulate my fellow delegate the member for Riverina. Congratulations, Kay, on the wonderful lobby job that you did. I also congratulate my colleague and comrade Senator Gavin Marshall. I congratulate my other colleagues on their excellent contributions to the proceedings of the IPU conference.
I want to focus on what was a most important bilateral delegation to South Africa. As members would be aware, South Africa has undergone significant change in the decade since the end of apartheid. One pleasing aspect of the visit was the recognition given to Australia and the trade union movement for our support for the case to bring about the changes to the apartheid regime in South Africa. We were reminded of that on our arrival at Richards Bay, where we were greeted by about 20 people demonstrating against industrial relations laws in Australia. But in spite of our record of support in the dark days of apartheid and since, and despite the strong sporting links, there is a level of misunderstanding between the two countries. I would hope that our visit and other initiatives will bring about a better understanding of each country’s role in world affairs.
South Africa has a significant trade relationship with Australia, and the delegation had the opportunity to visit the destination of our largest volume of exports at the BHP Billiton aluminium smelter at Richards Bay. South Africa imports over $600 million worth of Australian aluminium each year. In return, Australia imports motor vehicles, including BMWs and Toyota cars. Total trade between the two countries has been growing at over 10 per cent a year over the past five years. Economic growth has been rapid, with annual growth of six per cent, but unemployment remains very high, with rates of over 25 per cent.
In many ways, post-apartheid South Africa has been a success. The two dark spots on the record are the alarming rates of HIV-AIDS and the very high rates of violent crime. Both have the potential to impede economic growth.
In the field of government, the parliament and the executive are dominated by the African National Congress. The delegation met with members of the South African Parliament, including the Deputy Speaker, the ANC Deputy Chief Whip, the Committee of Foreign Affairs Deputy Chair, the Trade and Industry Committee Chair, Douglas Gibson, the Chief Opposition Whip and other opposition members and Ms P Hollander, the Deputy Chair of the National Council of Provinces. The meetings were valuable in gaining an understanding of the South African system of government and the handling of current issues. The delegation made a visit to Robin Island, where Nelson Mandela was held for most of his 27 years of imprisonment. It was a very moving experience, as our guide had been a former political prisoner on the island himself.
We also visited the Kalkfontein township on the outskirts of Capetown. We spoke with residents of the poor but tidy township and visited a day care centre and the newly constructed school, which is also used for a health care program run by medical students from the University of Stellenbosch. We later met with students at the university campus. The delegation was greatly impressed by the program and has promised assistance on our return to Australia.
In conclusion, the visit was of value to us all in giving us an appreciation of the challenges facing the people of South Africa, the influence of its recent history on its outlook in the region of southern Africa and the economic potential of the country.
Can I add my thanks to Phillip Green, Australia’s High Commissioner, and his excellent staff for their assistance and company on the visit. Can I also thank Neil Bessel for his tireless assistance to this delegation and to many over the past years.
COMMITTEES
3
Committees
National Capital and External Territories Committee
3
Report
3
3
12:41:00
Causley, Ian, MP
4K6
Page
NATS
1
0
Mr CAUSLEY
—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report entitled Current and future governance arrangements for the Indian Ocean Territories.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
4K6
Causley, Ian, MP
Mr CAUSLEY
—It is a pleasure to present the abovementioned report and speak on it in the House this afternoon. I note that the honourable member for Lingiari will speak as well. He attended the meetings we had with the territories, and it is his electorate, so I am sure he will be very interested in the arrangements. The report is part of a program of inquiries that the committee has undertaken in recent years with regard to governance and related issues in Australia’s external territories. In this report, we have turned our attention to pressing issues of governance and accountability confronting the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I am pleased to advise the House that this is a unanimous report, making 13 recommendations.
The evidence presented to the committee during our inquiry drew us to several conclusions. Firstly, there needs to be greater accountability and transparency in decision making by government in relation to the Indian Ocean Territories. Seemingly trivial decisions taken from a great distance in Canberra can have a disproportionately large impact upon these small and isolated communities. The people in those territories need to know why decisions which affect their future are being taken, how those decisions are being made, and how problems will be redressed. Moreover, they need to know that their voices will be heard by governments and departments in Perth and Canberra. There also needs to be greater consultation between government, departments and residents in the Indian Ocean Territories. The level and quality of consultation currently depends on interpersonal relationships between islanders and departmental staff. The committee has received evidence that those relationships have not always been effective in promoting good communications between community and government. There needs to be a formal consultation process put in place, mandated by legislation, to bring community and government together for their mutual benefit. This is especially true of the processes surrounding the application of Western Australian laws in the Indian Ocean Territories and the implementation of service delivery arrangements.
The report also makes a number of recommendations in regard to specific economic issues. The committee has recommended that in future all Commonwealth land released for private development on Christmas Island should be sold at market rates. This is to prevent releases of free land from undermining the property market. The committee has also called for an investigation of the cost of sea freight to and from the territories and the abolition of customs and quarantine charges on freight travelling between the territories and the mainland. It is hoped that this will remove imposts on economic activity. The committee has called for increases in the number of flights between the territories and the mainland, and the opening of international routes, to promote tourism and increase economic activity. Perhaps most significantly, the committee has recommended that the government review its decision to block the licensing of the Christmas Island casino with a view to reissuing the licence.
The committee’s report also addresses wider issues of governance. The options canvassed include maintaining current governance arrangements with some refinement, incorporation of the Indian Ocean Territories into Western Australia and some form of limited self-government. The committee has not shown a preference for any of these options. Rather, it has taken the view that the virtues and drawbacks of all should be considered by the Australian government in conjunction with the community of the Indian Ocean Territories and that the community should be given the chance to make an informed decision on its own behalf as to how the Indian Ocean Territories should be governed in the future. Whatever alterations to the system of governance ultimately result from this inquiry, however, they should be the result of a realistic appreciation of what can be achieved.
I would like to express, on behalf of the committee, our gratitude to all those who participated in the inquiry and to the staff of the secretariat. I have great pleasure in commending the report to the House.
4
12:45:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—I thank the member for Page for his presentation and also for presenting the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories to the chamber. I thank the secretariat, as the member for Page has done, for the way in which it helped us to carry out this inquiry. I want to particularly commend the other members of the committee. We were able to reach a unanimous position on the report and its recommendations and I commend members of the committee for the bipartisan way in which they approached this work.
I especially welcome the report because the Indian Ocean Territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are part of my electorate of Lingiari. I first started working with the communities at the end of 1987. That long-term relationship has provided me with a unique opportunity to have an insight into the cultures and lifestyle of, the level of services available to and the needs of these communities. I have been able to observe the establishment and consolidation of local government in both jurisdictions. Amongst the islanders there is great interest in the issue of governance. The submissions by the shire councils on both islands and the submission by the Christmas Island Chamber of Commerce have given important insights into their views as to the Commonwealth managing the affairs of the islands through its Department of Transport and Regional Services and the service delivery agreements with Western Australian agencies. The islands clearly want a more informed and cooperative dialogue with the Commonwealth and more input into service delivery regardless of whom ultimately delivers the service.
I know that this report will be read by both island communities with a great deal of interest and even, dare I say, eager anticipation. I believe the islanders will welcome the recommendations as they provide a basis on which to move forward by addressing the root causes of many of the islanders’ frustrations. Most importantly, as the member for Page has indicated, there needs to be greater accountability and transparency in decision making by government in relation to the Indian Ocean Territories.
At the public hearings on both Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the message was given to the committee loud and clear that the communities want to be involved in decision making and want to work toward greater autonomy as their experience and capacity for control and responsibility increases. The communities want to work with the Commonwealth in a constructive way to achieve this greater autonomy in a sustainable manner. They want increasing opportunities to be involved in decision making and be responsible themselves for the direction of affairs in the Indian Ocean Territories. As the member for Page has said, they do not want to see decisions taken by people in places as far away as Perth or Canberra.
It should be remembered that, although the Cocos and Christmas Island communities share similar colonial histories, each has its own identity, areas of interest and levels of skills in governance. It is wrong for political and bureaucratic masters to assume, from the comfort of the Perth or Canberra offices of DOTARS, that what is good for Christmas Island will necessarily be good for Cocos and vice versa. The report highlights the dilemma of moving forward governance of the IOT as an entity while ensuring that each islander’s needs are addressed and their ideas heard.
Given my experience of these communities, I know that the greatest continuous frustration that the islanders have—and they have had this since I have been involved with them—is their incapacity to be able to influence the decisions that are taken for them or on their behalf and the things that are done to them, not with them. It is about time we recognised, as this report does, the frustrations that they have experienced and the need for government to take a far more involved approach. I also want to make particular reference to an example of that. It concerns the recommendation by the committee:
... that the Australian Government review the decision to block the licensing of a casino on Christmas Island, in consultation with the Christmas Island community, with a view to reissuing a casino licence, at the earliest opportunity.
While we do not have time to canvass all the areas involved in this particular issue, it is clear that the decision by the government to pre-emptively prevent any application for a casino licence on that island has cost the island community millions of dollars in income and certainly hundreds of jobs. The decision was very short sighted, politically expedient and inappropriate, and the government should review it.
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
6
Report
6
6
12:50:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present with pleasure the committee’s report entitled Improving the superannuation savings of people under 40, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
MP6
Baird, Bruce, MP
Mr BAIRD
—by leave—I particularly commend the efforts of members of the committee in looking at this issue. I commend them for the very hard work that they provided and their skill in writing the various papers for the committee. By 2042 Australia’s population is projected to comprise significantly more people aged over 60. This will coincide with the retirement of the majority of Australians currently aged under 40. Given the high costs associated with an ageing population, it is vital that the future retirement income needs of this age group be considered now. Australians under 40 will be the first to benefit from a fully mature superannuation guarantee system spanning most of their working lives. The SG was introduced in 1992 and was fully phased in by 2001 to its current rate of nine per cent. It was designed to jointly reduce the future fiscal burden of providing age pensions to a growing ageing population and to enable more people to fund their retirement at a standard of living higher than the age pension.
The inquiry into improving the superannuation savings of people under age 40 has enabled the exploration of many issues, including whether a superannuation savings gap exists in this age group; the fundamentals of Australia’s retirement income system; whether the superannuation regulatory framework requires change; superannuation literacy; incentives; and system improvements.
The inquiry found that, unlike previous generations, the under-40s age group believe in the concept of self-funded retirement and accept their compulsory contribution to a superannuation funded retirement. However, the lifestyle expected in retirement by many under 40s far exceeds that which could be funded from SG savings alone. At their current rate of contributions, most under 40s would not meet their retirement income expectations without the aid of a part-pension or additional funding from other sources. Additional voluntary savings would be required to bridge this ‘expectations gap’.
The inquiry considered three major aspects of the superannuation regime: preservation, the adequacy of the compulsory superannuation system, and the earnings threshold to qualify for access to the compulsory system. The underlying principle of superannuation is that contributions may not be accessed until a certain age or event. This principle of preservation allows incremental savings to compound over time. The committee found that preservation of superannuation should not be eroded by schemes allowing early access to superannuation. Additionally, superannuation taxation concessions are provided by government to encourage savings for retirement purposes only, not for pre-retirement expenditure.
The adequacy of the SG rate, now set at nine per cent, was found to depend largely on whether the compulsory system is intended to provide self-sufficiency in retirement. Australia’s retirement income system is based on three pillars: the age pension, the SG, and other personal contributions to retirement savings. Given this framework, the goal of self-sufficiency in retirement is ultimately the goal of the individual. In addition, increased superannuation savings will reduce future government spending.
To bridge some of the ‘expectations gap’, the committee recommended that when a new employee commences work they are automatically placed in a ‘voluntary’ contribution arrangement, which they could chose to opt out of at any time. This contribution scheme would initially be set at three per cent. Overseas experience in similar schemes has shown people are inclined to inertia and do not opt out.
The ability to accumulate superannuation depends on an individual maintaining ongoing, full-time employment over a working life, in a position earning above the SG threshold—currently $450 a month. A person earning less than the monthly threshold is not legislatively entitled to the SG. The committee believes retaining the threshold at its current rate of $450 or lower will ensure, over an extended period of time, that more multiple-casual job employees will gain superannuation coverage with negligible impact on business compliance costs.
The report identified that there is a need to better inform and educate Australians about superannuation. Self-employed women and multiple casual job workers were found to be particularly disadvantaged in their ability to accrue superannuation. The committee addressed that in the report as well. The inquiry revealed that a fully mature SG system will be enjoyed by most under 40s for their full working life. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)
7
12:55:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—The genesis of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration inquiry into improving the superannuation savings of people under 40 was a concern that superannuation is not considered an attractive option by Australians under the age of 40. There was also a concern that, while there is a compulsory component for superannuation, where there is discretion, under 40s tended to prefer either to spend their money on consumption or to put it into other savings vehicles.
The committee therefore had a look at the idea—which has been floated on many occasions—of allowing some of the superannuation savings to be used as a deposit on a home or on alternatives such as learning accounts and so on. But the committee came to the conclusion—and one that I strongly support—that superannuation is a savings vehicle designed for retirement, and to access those superannuation funds before retirement would effectively defeat the purpose of superannuation. The committee very wisely found that the preservation of superannuation should not be eroded by schemes that allow early access to superannuation. It also noted that superannuation tax concessions are very large. They are provided by government to encourage savings only for retirement income purposes, not for expenditure either on consumption or savings in other forms before retirement.
The second major issue was the adequacy of the superannuation guarantee rate of nine per cent. The committee found that the question as to whether it was adequate to provide a reasonable income after retirement depended in part on whether you formed the view that superannuation should be the only post-retirement income or whether there could also be access to the age pension. We agreed that there could be access to the age pension, but one of the real problems about the adequacy of nine per cent is that it requires people to start with the nine per cent when they first start working and to work continuously throughout their working lives. If that did not happen then there were real problems with adequacy.
We were then looking at what possibilities might be available to boost contributions above that nine per cent so that we could achieve adequacy. That is where we came up with quite a novel scheme: when new employees commence work, they are automatically placed in a voluntary arrangement where they can choose to opt out at any time. It would not be compulsory, but we recognise that most people, through inertia, would say: ‘I’m in the scheme. I won’t bother filling out the paperwork to opt out, even though I have a right to opt out.’ We felt that that might increase the superannuation contributions and, therefore, the adequacy of retirement incomes.
We had a long debate about the threshold at which the superannuation guarantee applies. It is currently $450 per month. We received representation from some employers that that should be lifted. We believe that it should, at the very least, stay at $450 a month or be lowered. I thank the coalition members of the committee for agreeing not to entertain the idea of lifting that. People who have a lot of casual jobs might not earn $450 a month and therefore would miss out on their superannuation contributions from employers—which were, as one committee member pointed out, in lieu of a wage rise. That is how it came about. Good on the committee members for agreeing not to increase it but perhaps even to reduce it.
The most vulnerable in terms of adequacy are women and multiple casual job workers. We came up with a number of recommendations to improve adequacy for women, including relaxing the current co-contribution arrangements a little, and a suggestion that paid maternity leave also be subject to the superannuation guarantee. After all, again, that is in lieu of wages and, ordinarily, if you are earning those wages you would attract the superannuation guarantee. I also think the maternity payment should be subject to the superannuation guarantee. Can I finish by saying this report was prepared in a spirit of bipartisanship. I pay tribute to each and every committee member for achieving a very good outcome.
Mr GEORGIOU
(Kooyong)
13:00:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—In accordance with sessional order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
MAIN COMMITTEE
8
Miscellaneous
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
8
Reference
8
Mr GEORGIOU
(Kooyong)
13:01:00
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
8
Committees
Science and Innovation Committee
8
Report
8
8
13:01:00
Georgiou, Petro, MP
HM5
Kooyong
LP
1
0
Mr GEORGIOU
—On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, I am pleased to present the committee’s report entitled Pathways to technological innovation, together with the minutes of the proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
HM5
Georgiou, Petro, MP
Mr GEORGIOU
—by leave—The findings of the committee reflect the complexity of measuring innovation success and the multitude of pathways that innovation may take. The committee found that many successful innovators experienced a smooth pathway to developing their product and finding markets. These are the success stories and it was heartening to see the calibre of Australian innovation and the strength of the government’s innovation support framework.
However, this is not the total story. It was apparent that, while some pathways to innovation are well developed and relatively unimpeded for the Australian entrepreneur or innovating business or research organisation, other pathways are less well formed and a number of adjustments to the innovation support framework are possible. The report makes 18 recommendations to target these adjustments and to facilitate the pathways that are less well formed or less well supported, and I will touch on some of them. The recommendations address the need to better promote the assistance that is available from the Australian government and ensure that cross-portfolio cooperation is working effectively and providing a more seamless service to researchers and innovators.
The recommendations also address impediments to innovation and to the commercialisation of innovation in publicly funded research institutes. The committee made recommendations to increase staff mobility across universities, research agencies and businesses so that barriers to collaboration can be addressed and innovative researchers can be better recognised and rewarded.
A key recommendation concerns the establishment of a funded proof of concept scheme for university research projects. This proposed scheme would provide three to one matched Australian government and university funding to stimulate innovation with high potential for commercial outcomes. At this early stage of innovation, there is limited access to angel investment. Lead times and risks make it prohibitive for universities to bear the whole cost. By sharing the risk through a matched funded proof of concept scheme, we can ensure that our good ideas, our scientific breakthroughs and our innovative approaches have greater opportunities to be tested and their feasibility for the marketplace determined.
The inquiry identified the need for government to provide more support for businesses to engage in later stage commercialisation activities, such as market identification. The committee recommended more transparency in reporting on government procurement strategies to boost the government procurement of technological innovation from Australian SMEs. Another important area of concern for Australian businesses and researchers was protection of intellectual property and the proper working of the intellectual property system. The committee advanced a number of recommendations in this area. Fostering a culture of entrepreneurship is a critical step to early innovation and pathways. It is a task that is challenging to government. Formulating a program by which government might foster such a cultural shift and engender a more entrepreneurial culture requires the expertise of educators and a more facile tongue than mine is occasionally. Accordingly, the government has recommended that a whole-of-government task force be established to investigate a suite of appropriate policy and program measures to foster a national culture of entrepreneurship.
Today, innovation is recognised as the multitude of pathways that encompass all types of basic research, new technologies and improvements in business. Through implementation of the recommendations of this report, the committee anticipates that some pathways to innovation will be made easier, thereby strengthening Australia’s growth and global competitiveness.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the many individuals, businesses and organisations who provided evidence to this inquiry. I would like to thank the committee secretariat, in particular Dr Alison Clegg and Dr Anna Dacre, for their work on the report. Members of the committee demonstrated considerable commitment to working together in a non-partisan fashion. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)
10
13:06:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—I very much support the presentation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation report Pathways to technological innovation. In the report the committee has attempted to drill down into the underlying issues affecting innovation—in particular, the make-up of an environment conducive to innovation, the culture of support, the development of new ideas in this country and any impediments. The inquiry looked for ways to assist the strengthening of our pathways to make it easier to commercialise innovation. I was very happy to be part of this inquiry. There was very much a genuine and positive effort made by all members, culminating in the unanimous report that the member for Kooyong has just presented to the House.
The inquiry received over 100 submissions and conducted 10 public hearings, receiving evidence from witnesses from industry, technology development, innovation and academia. I congratulate the member for Kooyong. Once more he has demonstrated himself as being a very fair and inclusive committee chair, and I am very proud to be part of the committee. I am speaking today in part on behalf of the member for Franklin, Harry Quick, who is the deputy chair of the committee but who, unfortunately, has taken very ill and has not yet returned to the parliament.
This inquiry received the total cooperation of all members, who participated very fully with a dedication to the cause. It would be remiss of me if I did not join the chair in commending the efforts of the committee secretary, Dr Anna Dacre, and her team, consisting of Dr Alison Clegg, Lea Hill, Rachelle Mitchell, Emma Martin and Daniel Miletic. Their dedication, professionalism and good humour was very much appreciated by the committee members.
I will comment further on the report in the Main Committee later today, but at this stage it is worth while mentioning that this report attempts to identify not only the need to develop an entrepreneurial culture in Australia but also the ways that can occur and the impediments that need to be addressed so those ideas can be developed. Innovation is the development of ideas and technology transfers through to the actual process of commercialisation. Therefore, innovation must be considered a natural development, not simply a lucky strike, if I could use that expression.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Kooyong wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr GEORGIOU
(Kooyong)
13:10:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.
MAIN COMMITTEE
10
Miscellaneous
Science and Innovation Committee
10
Reference
10
Mr GEORGIOU
(Kooyong)
13:10:00
—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
Question agreed to.
TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
11
Bills
R2573
First Reading
11
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Katter.
11
13:10:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—This bill is exactly the same bill that was drawn up by the government. I emphasise to government members that we are talking about exactly the same document with the exception that, as did the Senate, we have deleted those clauses that made it easier for takeovers to occur in this country. I will say a few words on that in due course. The bill seeks to do what the government has failed to do, which is support the family businesses of Australia. It also seeks to avoid the very thing to which this government has succumbed by being held prisoner by those at the big end of town.
The present government, and the previous Hawke-Keating governments, have demonstrated through every one of their legislative and administrative initiatives that they see it as their responsibility to impair and undermine the ability of small family businesses to bargain with big business. My parents owned small businesses in North and western Queensland. My cousin just held a reunion for my family’s old department store in Charters Towers, where 200 former employees attended the celebrations, 25 years after the business was forced to close its doors to make way for the big corporate chains.
I am in a position to see when it comes to small business how the government is long on rhetoric but short on action. Let me give one classic example. The Fraser-Anthony government—a much maligned government, but the history books will be very kind to this government—introduced, amongst many other pieces of legislation, legislation restricting oil company ownership of petrol outlets throughout Australia to only 425. Whilst there were some 15,000 or 16,000 service station operators and outlets at the time, entities were restricted to owning only 400. I doubt whether there would be 400 now that are not directly or indirectly owned and controlled by the oil companies.
That shows the difference between the Fraser-Anthony government and the Hawke-Keating and current coalition governments and the way owner operated business and the competitive marketplace are treated. People on this side and that side of the House preach to us about competition—wonderful! We moved from having some 15,000 or 16,000 privately owned petrol station owners and outlets throughout Australia to now having virtually none. As far as finding ethanol outlets is concerned, we are flat out finding 200 independent operators left in this country.
I am in a position to see how the government is long on rhetoric but short on action when it comes to protecting small business from the predatory, untrammelled rapaciousness—to use the words of Hilaire Belloc—of big business.
Let me remind members of the history of this issue. Last year this House passed legislation to amend the Trade Practices Act. One of the provisions of that legislation made it easier for small businesses to combine and negotiate with big business. This provision is of importance to people ranging from sugar farmers to panel beaters to tow truck operators to newsagents to IGA store owners to pharmacists to petrol retailers—to name but a few.
This legislation will not, I must emphasize, make any qualitative change and will admittedly make only a very small quantitative change. The initiators, the inventors, the real entrepreneurial class in this country, may get some slight glimmer of hope. However, they might, somewhere in the future, see the re-creation of Australia as a land of opportunity, hope and excitement. It is very sad when people sing ‘wealth for toil’ in our national anthem and they burst out laughing. It really would be a joke to say that we have wealth for toil in this country. Instead, we have a land of predatory, mindless machine economic cannibals manned by the most intellectually barren, petty minded and self-interested people in our society. This is economic rationalism.
Another provision changed the rules for approving mergers, making mergers even easier than they are currently. Given that 98 per cent of mergers are already approved, people may well ask— (Time expired)
Bill read a first time.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
SNOWY HYDRO CORPORATISATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
12
Bills
R2580
First Reading
12
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs Hull.
12
13:16:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—Three weeks ago I gave notice that I would present the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment Bill 2006, purely in desperation, to try to protect the assets of Australians due to the New South Wales, Victorian and Commonwealth governments forecasting the sale of their holdings of Snowy Hydro Ltd. I now congratulate the people of Australia on convincing the Prime Minister that the New South Wales and Victorian Labor governments’ decision to sell the Snowy Hydro Ltd was arrogant, ill-informed and flawed. It is for this reason that I am continuing with this private member’s bill, even though the Snowy Hydro Scheme sale has been withdrawn. I believe that there is a desperate need for this legislation to be in place, regardless of the fact that the sale will no longer proceed. There is no such provision in the act currently. I believe that this must be in legislation. It is clearly commonsense to put a safety net into legislation in the event that, if this issue is raised in the future and legislation is put through the houses of parliament, and the Australian people are not aware of it, there at least will be some protection with ownership capped at 10 per cent and a total of 35 per cent foreign ownership.
I repeat: I oppose the sale of Snowy Hydro Ltd. I oppose it now. I will oppose it forever into the future—no deal, now way, not now, not ever. I would like to go even further and have the Snowy Hydro Scheme listed on our national heritage register to ensure that no New South Wales and Victorian strong and majority shareholding governments can in future go forward and take the Snowy Hydro Ltd to a sale at any stage. I will continue to put my efforts into this additional action. However, I still think that the bill that I have presented today is a very sensible piece of legislation to put in place.
Whilst we are speaking of this issue, I will speak of the congratulations that I owe the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, on hearing the thoughts and concerns of the Australian people, decided to withdraw the Commonwealth’s 13 per cent ownership from the sale that it had agreed to with New South Wales and Victorian Labor government premiers. I commend the Prime Minister on his ability to read the people and to recognise that this was not in their interests, nor were the Australian people accepting of this sale.
It was interesting to see the leadership shown by the Prime Minister, which I believe was true leadership in the face of adversity and in the face of people then questioning the Prime Minister on backflipping. It was interesting to see how the Premier of the New South Wales Labor government, Premier Iemma, immediately withdrew the New South Wales government holding from the sale, then followed very closely thereafter by the Victorian government, Premier Bracks. This was entirely because the New South Wales Premier, who has never been to an election by the people as Premier, clearly was not prepared to go to an election in New South Wales on a platform of the sale of the Snowy Hydro Scheme without the Commonwealth to fall back on, to blame. It is clear that the leadership shown by the Prime Minister was not demonstrated by Premier Iemma nor Premier Bracks and that they were not prepared to do this up front and put it to the people. My concern is that again they will try this. (Time expired)
Bill read a first time.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
13
Private Members' Business
Law and Cultural Practices
13
13
13:21:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
0
Mr KEENAN
—I move:
That this House reaffirms that
:
-
every Australian is entitled to the full protection of Australian law;
-
cultural practices in any community do not lessen that protection; and
-
human rights override cultural rights.
My seat of Stirling is a fantastic reflection of the Australian way in that it is the most culturally diverse seat in Western Australia. Every major immigrant population is represented, from the early migrants of the post World War II era from northern and southern Europe through to the later arrivals from Vietnam and China and now the newest arrivals from Africa and the Middle East who are benefiting from Australia’s generous humanitarian program—a program that is unrivalled across the globe in its generosity. All of the world’s major religions have places of worship in Stirling, from those of the various Christian faiths to Sunni and Shiah mosques, Hindu and Buddhist temples and a Jewish synagogue.
I enjoy attending the frequent citizenship ceremonies that are held by the City of Stirling, where a glance across the crowd gives you a very good indication that Australia’s newest citizens are coming from every corner of the globe. I appreciate this diversity and I believe it is one of our nation’s greatest strengths. It enhances the country economically, socially and culturally. One of the things I make clear when I address the new citizens at those citizenship ceremonies is that, from that night, they will share exactly the same rights and responsibilities as every other Australian citizen. We do not have differing levels of citizenship in this country: the newest Australian citizen, who meets the criteria to take out citizenship and does so, is no more or less a citizen than someone who was born here and whose family goes back generations.
But this practice, where all Australians are equal before the law and are entitled equally to its protection, is being diminished by the practice of taking cultural rights into account within our legal framework. There has been an insidious infiltration of the idea that a person’s cultural background can be used as an excuse to mitigate particular criminal actions. This is nowhere more evident than in the treatment of Aboriginal Australians. It seems that in the minds of some the protection of Australian law does not equally apply to everyone.
There is no more disturbing example of where this can lead than the completely inadequate sentence handed down to an Aboriginal man in the Northern Territory who was convicted of physically and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl who had been promised to him as his bride. The judge, taking into account cultural practice, sentenced the man to a mere four months in jail. This judge later admitted that he was wrong, and I do not wish to personalise this particular motion as being against him, but I read in the media reports of this incident that he had children of a similar age and I doubt that he would consider that to be an appropriate sentence if it were one of them who had been so viciously assaulted.
I understand the difficulties that arise when traditional Aboriginal culture collides with Western society, but we absolutely must not accept that practices that injure or harm young people are any more acceptable in the Aboriginal culture than they would be in our own. For us to do that would be to say that a 14-year-old Aboriginal girl is not entitled to the same protection of Australian law as we would expect for the children of any one of us in this place. We would completely shame ourselves if we were to do that.
One of the reasons behind our system of justice is that it deters people from committing crimes. Lenient sentencing that is prepared to take into account cultural factors therefore sends a signal that the protection available to members of that community is not the same as the protection that is offered to others. If our legal system sends that signal that it is prepared to judge people based on their background, then the message will obviously be received that these crimes are somehow less horrifying.
This practice is not just restricted to Aboriginal communities. In recent trials in New South Wales for vicious gang rapes, counsel for the defence argued that the rapists’ backgrounds lessened their responsibility for committing these crimes. We cannot have a two-speed legal system in Australia without saying that the protection that that system offers is lessened because of somebody’s background. It is a straightforward principle that I have heard affirmed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that human rights trump cultural rights, and it is a straightforward principle that we in this parliament need to strongly say that we support today. We must say very strongly that all Australians are entitled to the complete protection of Australian law. (Time expired)
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Is the motion seconded?
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
14
13:27:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—No-one in this House condones violence and everybody in this House would say clearly that under our legal system lawyers will plead and judges and juries will rule. But, hearing the member for Stirling speak to the motion, I am still not quite sure why this motion has been brought into the House. That the House reaffirms ‘that every Australian is entitled to the full protection of the law’ is unexceptional. Indeed, who could disagree? That is why I invite the member to consider that the Senate last week voted to hold an inquiry into the practice of state and territory governments withholding the wages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers—and I am assuming the member includes those actions within the contemplation of this motion. Is the member referring to the provision of sufficient police resources in communities that are under stress—
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan
—Yes, absolutely.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—and that experience above average levels of criminal activity that requires policing? I hear the member say yes. In that case, good. To that extent, citizens of, for example, Wadeye have the right to levels of policing comparable with those of any other community—something that has been conspicuously absent over the entire period of the Northern Territory’s CLP government and also, regrettably, up until today.
The motion also calls on the House to affirm that ‘cultural practice in any community does not lessen that protection’. Where is the evidence that it does any such thing? I refer the member to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory case of the Queen v James Goutjawuy Gondarra to enable the member to get some first-hand knowledge of how cultural practice can increase and not lessen that protection. In that case the accused was additionally subject to the cultural law processes and practices of his elders and, as a consequence of that, showed remorse and prospective signs of rehabilitation. It is in these cases that cultural practice is a boon and an additional benefit to the legal system, not a deficiency.
I think there has been some confusion over how the law actually operates, and I invite the member for Stirling to contemplate that there is really no such thing as a customary law defence, as has been bandied about recently and which has so energised those whose perceptions have controlled their capacity to reason. I remind the member that the question concerning cultural observation in any case before our courts relates to mitigating circumstances, which in the case of an assault could include provocation, the mental state of the accused and elements of a cultural nature. There is no cultural context, for example, that sanctions child abuse. That fact has been made eminently clear by Aboriginal leaders, men and women across the country in recent times.
The final part of this motion reads that this House reaffirms that ‘human rights override cultural rights’. This is a confusing wording. Did the member advance any instance of cultural rights overriding human rights? Is the member proposing that we should have some form of recognition of human rights in our Constitution—I would be pleased to hear that from a government member opposite—or that we would enact migration laws which specifically upheld human rights as enumerated in the international declaration of human rights and associated instruments? If that is the intent of the member’s motion, then bring it on.
Human rights include the right to practise culture. If the member is concerned at the recent terrible stories of assault in Indigenous communities—as I and many others are, and as the people living in those communities are—then he should reflect on what it is that has brought us to this current state. Speaker after speaker at a forum today in the parliament, entitled ‘Ending violence in Indigenous communities’, made the point time and time again that it is rights and culture that need to be strong. Petrol sniffing, youth suicide and child abuse are products of recent history, symptoms of a bigger problem. They in no way represent Indigenous culture, any more than dropping millions of litres of napalm on Cambodian villagers in the Vietnam War represented Western culture. These actions represent cultural breakdown, and members are confused if they believe the situation can be better comprehended and responded to by lodging motions of this kind in this House.
15
13:31:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am pleased to rise to second the motion of the member for Stirling:
That this House reaffirms that
:
-
every Australian is entitled to the full protection of Australian law;
-
cultural practices in any community do not lessen that protection; and
-
human rights override cultural rights.
Being a liberal democracy, Australia is founded on one fundamental keystone. That keystone is that all Australians are equal before the law, irrespective. And that message is one that has been at the centre of Australian democracy for well over 100 years.
Of concern to both me as the member for Moncrieff and the member for Stirling has been recent practice, although not reflected on statute books and although perhaps not incorporated into Commonwealth precedent—though increasingly that would appear to be the case—whereby cultural diversity is increasingly used as a mitigating factor with respect to criminal activity. Despite comments by the member for Kingsford Smith that, in some instances, cultural relativity is a factor that imposes a harsher penalty, we as a parliament are not in the business of creating laws that are based upon some kind of quantification of whether or not cultural relativity makes an offender more or less likely to be punished in a particular way. All parliaments in this country must hold true one central tenet: that all Australians are equal before the law, irrespective—full stop.
Cultural relativities do not hold a place in modern Australia. It is simply unacceptable that Aboriginal Australians have been subject to the most heinous sexual abuse and crimes for which perpetrators are sentenced to four months. It is unacceptable that there have been Australian women subjected to criminal activity because in some way it is implied that cultural factors are an influencing factor in whether or not they are subject to particular abuse or, for example, rape. It is unacceptable, and we all, as Australians, must draw a line in the sand and say value diversity does not have a home in Australia.
A key part of Australia’s background has been this unification of all people irrespective of cultural background, where there is not value diversity. Problems arise, however, when value diversity is thrust forward as some kind of enlightened diversification between cultures and as something that must be embraced and incorporated into modern Australian society if we are truly going to be a kind of showcase to the world of how multiculturalism works. Multiculturalism is certainly not predicated upon value diversity. Alain Finkielkraut in his work, The Undoing of Thought, said:
Is there a culture where there is corporal punishment for delinquency ... where female circumcision is practised, where mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy authorised? Multiculturalism requires that we respect all these practices ... In a world which has lost its transcendental significance, cultural identity serves to sanction those barbarous traditions which God is no longer in a position to endorse. Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness.
I do not agree with the thrust of all of his remarks, but I certainly agree with the central tenet that antiquity and cultural distinctiveness are not grounds for saying that we are a more enlightened society. It is not a ground for saying to the Australian people that we will accept past practices, be they Indigenous Australian past practices or religious past practices such as female genital mutilation, for example. All of these are in breach of fundamental human rights—human rights which, in a liberal democracy, ensure that the individual and not the state is the supreme being when it comes to society. What we witness in Australia is an erosion where individuals in certain communities—and the member for Kingsford Smith touched on this with respect to Wadeye—feel the loss of that protection of the rule of law and the consequence is an erosion of society itself. It is unacceptable, and I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)
16
13:36:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Let us be clear: this is not a debate about politics and the rule of law; this is a debate about wedge politics. It is also a clear endeavour by backbenchers in the Howard government to demonise Aboriginal communities and their leadership. I think it is time for all members of this House to recognise the serious problems which confront Aboriginal communities, particularly given the cases of abuse that have been highlighted in recent months. I think it is about time some people stop kidding that we all should not be shocked by what is occurring in Aboriginal communities because of the neglect by the Howard government over the last 10 years.
Let us remember that crimes occur across all sections of the Australian community, whether they are white or black. Let us also remember there is no equality before the law because it relates to your ability to hire counsel at great cost to be properly represented before the courts in Australia. It is time the Howard government stopped pointing the finger. Members of this House need to be reminded that the state of Aboriginal communities is because of neglect by the Howard government over the last 10 years. Let us think about neglect of health, neglect of education, neglect of training and neglect in housing. Think about the problems in Wadeye where there is an average of 20 people per house. The Howard government has failed to put money into improving housing in the Wadeye community. That is the cause of concern in the black community and that is what we ought to be debating today—solutions to real problems on the ground. But you are not interested in solutions to real problems. You are not interested in the litany of facts that show the failures of the Howard government.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member will address his comments through the chair and call members by their title.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Let us start with health. According to the Australian Medical Association, in 1999-2000 the life expectancy of Indigenous men was 56.3 years, as opposed to 77 years for non-Indigenous men. For women, the difference was 62.8 years, as opposed to 82.4 years. This means effectively that non-Indigenous men have a life expectancy of between 45 per cent and 50 per cent greater than Indigenous men. Let us talk about chronic disease amongst Indigenous Australians.
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Stirling!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—Let us go to a report by the Centre for Remote Health—a joint venture between Flinders University and Charles Darwin University. It has shown, for example, that between 1979 and 1995 one-fifth of all deaths amongst Indigenous people related to five chronic health diseases: kidney and renal disease—
E0J
Keenan, Michael, MP
Mr Keenan interjecting—
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Stirling is warned!
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—diabetes; high blood pressure and hypertension; heart attack and related heart diseases; and chronic obstructive airways diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. What is the Howard government doing about something of general benefit to Aboriginal people and their communities? Let us go to the issue of people with diabetes. In remote localities there are likely to be twice as many as in other localities.
Let us go to the issue of education, which the backbench members did not want to touch on today. Young Indigenous students are twice as likely as non-Indigenous students to have left school before completing year 10 and are half as likely to complete year 12. Indigenous Australians are less than a quarter as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to go to university. Moreover, the number of Indigenous students attending university has declined since 1999. For the first time since the 1990s, there has been a decline in the number of Indigenous students in vocational education at a time when we have an absolute shortage of tradespeople in Australia. Where does the Indigenous community live? In remote Australia, where we need tradespeople to assist with the development of the mining industry, the agricultural industry and the tourism industry.
Let us talk about the real criminals in Australia—those in government who failed to do something about assisting our Indigenous community. I simply say: let us have a debate about the root causes of crime. That is not what this debate is about. Legal responses do not address the reasons behind addictions that can fuel this kind of abuse. The Howard government is failing to recognise that the neglect of Aboriginal communities is creating a pool of young, unemployed, drug dependent men turning to crime—in some cases, horrific crimes. Put resources into solving problems at the source of the problem. If we invest in the communities, invest in health, invest in housing, invest in education and create some real employment in the communities, then we will reduce the crime rates. The crime rates, interestingly, are not that different in some of the suburbs in the electorates we represent where we have the same problems—no educational opportunities and no employment opportunities. Stop running away from the problem—(Time expired)
18
13:42:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
0
Mrs MIRABELLA
—I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Stirling, which was very ably supported by the member for Moncrieff. The member for Batman talks about wedge politics. The reality is that I know that the member for Batman, in his heart of hearts, is a decent man. He knows more than many in the Labor Party that there are social problems out there and that there are problems because we have failed to accept that there is one law for all Australians. But it is the lunatics in his own party who prevent him, a decent member of parliament, a decent man of decent Labor stock, from addressing the real problems. He knows that those latte sipping, middle-class members who have never got their fingers dirty working as traditional Labor members have in the past do not really understand these problems and he knows they are the ones preventing his party from truly removing the dregs of the middle class that represent the members opposite, as Kim Beazley Sr said. Let us get back to the cream of the working class, Member for Batman.
The first point of the member’s motion is very clear and emphatic. It is about endorsing the rule of law in Australia. The crowning sentiment of Federation was one people and one destiny—a noble and fine sentiment. A century on, we remain one of a handful of nations in the world where the flame of democracy has burned continuously and continues to burn brightly. The member for Stirling has suggested that cultural practices do not lessen an individual’s right to protection under Australian law. It is very hard for the cultural dieticians to accept this, but giving all cultural practices a green light is code for giving the go-ahead for the excesses of customary law. For some in Indigenous Australia, this means the sanctioned rape of women and young children. In some sections of the Islamic community, it means a degraded contempt for women, even perhaps the sanctioning of such barbaric acts as female genital mutilation.
The horrendous case of the 55-year-old Aboriginal elder who bashed and raped a 14-year-old girl because Indigenous customary law stated that she was his promised wife is and has been at the forefront of this debate in recent times. When the elder received one month’s jail for this offence, the Northern Territory Chief Justice, Brian Martin, who handed down the original sentence, admitted that judges and magistrates do get it wrong sometimes and that is what appeal courts are for. That is cold comfort for the 14-year-old girl in question, and that is why members of this fine and noble institution have a right and a responsibility to debate these issues and bring them out into the open. We should not leave it to the timidity of judges who are afraid of being accused of being racist because they uphold one law for all Australians. The left-leaning intelligentsia do not want to talk about these aspects of the debate; they find them rather confronting.
Among the 10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted. The time for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
19
Statements by Members
Migration
19
19
13:45:00
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
0
0
Mr BURKE
—Tomorrow, of all days, is World Refugee Day. The theme for World Refugee Day this year is hope. In the Senate shortly will be presented some 12,000 signatures on petitions, which I have here with me. They have been collected in the local parishes of Christian churches over the last weekend and the weekend before. More are still flowing in and added to that is 32,000 signatures that came from the ‘GetUp!’ petition. There is a very simple message that tens of thousands of Australians are sending to this parliament. They want the immigration laws of Australia to be determined by members of this parliament and not under pressure from anywhere else. There is one concession that matters—and I recognise that many people on the other side of the chamber are involved in negotiating for concessions at the moment. Everybody who has signed these petitions wants one concession and one concession alone and that is for the bill to be stopped. Just as the Senate inquiry unanimously recommended, there is one way you can deliver on the decency that every member of this parliament believed in only 12 months ago and that is the vote which Labor will be exercising to vote no at every stage.
Mr Jim Raptis
19
19
13:46:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
0
Mrs MAY
—Last month I had the honour of attending and speaking at a very special service and commemorative luncheon at the Greek Orthodox Church of St Anna on the Gold Coast. It was the 30th anniversary of the construction of the Greek community centre and original Greek Orthodox Church in our city—a milestone for the Greek community who came together to pay tribute to and honour the pioneers of the Greek community, to acknowledge their achievements.
The vision and commitment of the early pioneers of the Greek community has meant that their community has grown strongly over the past 30 years with services from child care to respite supporting these wonderful migrants. It has meant that the Gold Coast has enjoyed wonderful food, wine and Greek culture each year with the Greek festival—a wonderful celebration of everything Greek. Our Gold Coast Greek community has made a wonderful contribution to the rich tapestry that makes our city what it is today.
During the celebrations, Mr Jim Raptis, the honorary Greek consul, was presented with the cross of St Andrew, the highest award that is given to laity by the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, in honour of his community contributions over many years. Jim, along with his wife, Helen, has made an enormous contribution to our city. Their generosity to the community is well known and, of course, the Raptis Group has left a lasting legacy with signature buildings that line the landscape of our city. To Jim and Helen and all the Greek pioneers who have helped shape the identity of our city: I thank you on behalf or our city. Well done.
Dental Health
20
20
01:48:00
Elliot, Justine, MP
DZW
Richmond
ALP
0
0
Mrs ELLIOT
—I rise today to present more petitions in relation to the very urgent need for the Howard government to restore funding for dental health. I have 1,000 signatures here today. This is a very urgent issue, particularly in my electorate, where 25 per cent of the population is aged over 65 years. It is an issue that people raise with me every day. In yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph I saw a major article in relation to this issue. One in three people in New South Wales cannot afford dental care, with some patients waiting up to 10 years for treatment. Lengthy waiting lists have forced some patients to pull out their own teeth with pliers and repair dentures with superglue. This is an outrageous situation in this day and age and the Howard government must restore federal funding to dental care so that people can access the dental treatment they desperately need.
It is in the Constitution that it is the responsibility of the federal government. It is their responsibility and they must come to the table and provide that funding because poor dental health also affects your entire body and can lead to other ailments. Locals, who speak to me all the time about their concerns, are waiting years, are not able to eat properly, are in constant pain and are extremely embarrassed. As people are growing elderly and have a whole variety of health concerns, the care of their teeth is a major one. These petitions, and the others I have lodged, urgently call upon the Howard government to restore that federal funding. It is their responsibility and they must adhere to that straightaway and make sure that funding is restored.
Gold Coast Mobility Office
20
20
13:49:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
0
Mr CIOBO
—On Friday last week I had the opportunity to visit the Gold Coast Mobility Office, which is coordinated by Judene Wallace. The Gold Coast Mobility Office plays a very important and crucial task in Gold Coast city, and that is the coordination of public transport between various private providers. It is funded under the HACC program, the Home and Community Care program, which is a program jointly funded by state and federal governments. The federal government contributes approximately 60 per cent of the funding and the state government approximately 40 per cent.
The team at the Gold Coast Mobility Office do an outstanding job of ensuring that the elderly population of the Gold Coast have access to public transport. This is primarily delivered through a very inventive yet perhaps almost commonsense approach to the delivery of this kind of public transport service. Primarily it is delivered by Judene Wallace and the team through the coordination of timetables by private operators. There are a number of respite care providers as well as aged care facilities, each of which has private capacity in buses which they provide for the residents. The problem in the past has been that many of these private operators do not use this bus capacity, for example, for many hours of the day. So the Gold Coast Mobility Office simply coordinates the various timetables of the respite care centres as well as of the aged care facilities to provide public transport to elderly residents to help them get to hospitals, shops and other kinds of appointments, such as with doctors. I commend the service to the House. (Time expired)
Ranka Cotic
Jim Strachan
21
Mrs
21
13:51:00
Corcoran, Ann, MP
009CW
Isaacs
ALP
0
0
Ms CORCORAN
—I would like to pay my respects to two people in Isaacs who have recently died. The first is Ranka Cotic, who was a member of the Chelsea branch of the ALP. Ranka was 74 years old and she died a week or so ago. Ranka lost her husband, Tom, a few years ago and I do not think she ever really quite recovered from that loss. Ranka had not been able to physically contribute to Labor Party politics in recent years but she was a true, loyal and very strong supporter of the Labor Party, and all that we stand for, for many years. I offer my condolences to the Cotic family.
The second person is Jim Strachan, who was a member of the Noble Park branch of the Labor Party. Jim joined the party in 1941 and I am assuming he was 14 years old, although I suspect he might have been just 13 years old, at the time. He became a life member of the party many years ago. He was a very strong and loyal supporter of the party for very many years. He had not enjoyed good health for some time, but he still attended branch meetings as recently as earlier this year. I would like to pass on my condolences to Jim’s wife, Pat, and to his family.
Investing in Our Schools Program
21
21
13:52:00
Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP
00ANF
Dobell
LP
1
0
Mr TICEHURST
—The Australian government recognises the importance of providing schools with facilities that will enhance the education and wellbeing of students. It is very disappointing that the New South Wales government does not feel the same way. I was absolutely disgusted to learn over the weekend that the New South Wales government has charged 80 schools up to $650,000 for advice and management of maintenance projects funded by the Commonwealth government under the Investing in Our Schools program. In most cases, the schools sought federal grants after failing to secure funding from the state government for things like airconditioning, electrical upgrades and work on essential services.
Narara Valley High School, in my electorate of Dobell, paid a whopping $15,675 of its $110,000 grant to the department to manage upgrades to the school’s kitchen. The Australian government introduced this program to counter Labor’s disregard for our local state schools, which they are primarily responsible for funding. The program is about getting more resources into our public school system, not about the state earning some extra cash on the side to the detriment of hardworking local school communities.
I visit many schools on many occasions, and they are all in need of quality equipment and infrastructure. I call on state Labor to put an end to this ridiculous cash grabbing that is hurting our schools and their students. It might also look at its dental responsibilities, as the member for Richmond mentioned earlier.
Make Poverty History Campaign
21
21
13:53:00
Jenkins, Harry, MP
HH4
Scullin
ALP
0
0
Mr JENKINS
—Today, on behalf of Parade College Bundoora, I present a Make Poverty History banner. The banner is 13 metres long. This has been organised by the winner of their Community Action Award last year, Mervin Ng, who is a VCE student. About doing this project, Mervin said:
As such Parade College joined the global community and its commitment to honouring the Millennium Goals to Make Poverty History.
I congratulate Mervin and the school community. It has 1,500 signatures from 1,400 students and 100 staff. I seek leave of the House to table the banner as a document.
Leave granted.
HH4
Jenkins, Harry, MP
Mr JENKINS
—I thank the House. I congratulate Parade. This initiative, alongside their community action and social justice programs, is an example to the people of Australia of the commitment we can make to projects such as Make Poverty History.
Mr Abu Bakar Bashir
22
22
13:54:00
Baird, Bruce, MP
MP6
Cook
LP
1
0
Mr BAIRD
—I wish to express my concern at the recent release from prison in Indonesia of Mr Abu Bakar Bashir. After receiving a very modest 30-month sentence for his role in the 2002 Bali bombings, he has been freed after only 26 months, vowing to continue to fight to uphold Islamic sharia.
On 12 October 2002, six people from my electorate lost their lives to terrorism. I went to a number of their funerals, and we were extremely saddened in my electorate. They were, like the 196 others who perished in the attack, going about their lives and enjoying their vacations when all was abruptly brought to an end by Jemaah Islamiah operatives. The close friends and family of those from my electorate and across Australia who lost their lives are deeply distressed and concerned about the release of the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah on Wednesday of last week.
Only days after Abu Bakar Bashir returned to his boarding school where he preaches and practises, he has already renewed his campaign to impose Islamic sharia law on Indonesia and has also made comments specifically about our Prime Minister. I find it very disturbing that a man who continues to pose such a real and proven threat to the citizens of Indonesia and, indeed, to our people is allowed to walk the streets. More worrying than that is the fact that Bashir is even allowed to continue to preach his ways to the children and followers in his boarding school. A man convicted of conspiracy over terrorist acts, conducted in the name of his religion, should not be allowed to preach his ways. (Time expired)
Adelaide Electorate: General Practitioners
22
22
13:56:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I rise today to present a further 1,086 signatures on my petition calling on the Minister for Health and Ageing to grant an exemption under section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act and allow a doctor to practise at the Nailsworth surgery in my electorate. The doctor shortage which is crippling our nation’s health system is no longer confined to regional and rural Australia. It is hitting metropolitan areas, such as the one that I represent, and hitting them hard.
Surgeries such as the Nailsworth surgery in my electorate are victim to the government’s absurd policy of determining need based on postcodes, not on people. I and the people who have signed this petition call on the minister for health to recognise the health needs of people in my community, to grant an exemption and to provide some long-term solutions to help ease the doctor shortage. I have risen to speak on this matter on several previous occasions and I will continue to do so until the minister for health starts taking the health needs of Adelaide seriously.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament.
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the doctor shortage affecting our community an in particular the devastating impact it is having on the Nailsworth Surgery.
Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:
-
call on the Minister for Health to grant an exemption under Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act (1973)
-
urgently consider long-term solutions to ease the pressing issue of doctor shortages in this country; and
-
to fight for a quality, accessible health system for all Australians
from 1,086 citizens.
City of Greater Geelong Council
23
23
13:57:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
0
Mr McARTHUR
—I rise today to speak on the report into the City of Greater Geelong Council by Merv Whelan, Inspector of Municipal Administration. Mr Whelan was commissioned to investigate campaign donations received by City of Greater Geelong councillors for the November 2004 council elections. The terms of reference provided to Mr Whelan were constrained, but a number of important discoveries were made which should be recorded on the parliamentary record.
A brief background to this issue is that the Labor Party in Geelong conspired to elect a number of party hacks to the council for political purposes. Labor councillor David Saunderson, who worked for the upper house Geelong Labor MP John Eren, collected moneys from respected businessmen to allocate to various council candidates. The majority of these candidates were unknown to the donors.
Mr Whelan has recommended that David Saunderson be prosecuted for failing to disclose campaign donations in excess of $500. Councillor Peter McMullin, the current Mayor of Geelong City, originally denied receiving campaign donations. Councillor McMullin, who was the ALP candidate for Corangamite in 2004, has a credibility problem, because Mr Whelan found he effectively received a $5,000 loan for his election campaign from the Saunderson fund, which Councillor McMullin later repaid in full.
Further investigation is required into Mr McMullin’s involvement in the matter and that of John Eren, the upper house member, who allowed his staffer to collect the money and meet with candidates in his office. I call on the Victorian government to fully investigate this local Labor scandal— (Time expired)
Lucas Heights Reactor
23
23
13:59:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Last Wednesday, the Minister for Education, Science and Training made a statement that there has been no impact at all upon the health of workers at Lucas Heights or the surrounding community and that the matter is under control. On Thursday, Mr Speaker, you asked me to leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). I was becoming very concerned at the time for the member for Hughes, as not a peep was heard from her. Lucas Heights is in her electorate and I felt, and I still do, that you have a right to know of anything that happens in your electorate and to advise your constituents accordingly. The community has cause for concern over a series of Lucas Heights reactor leaks. The public has the right to be informed about operations at the research reactor. There were four incidents in a week, although minor as the minister states.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
23
Ministerial Arrangements
23
14:00:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of this week. He is travelling to Europe for bilateral discussions and will also co-chair the eighth Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum in Bali. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. I also inform the House that the Minister for Education, Science and Training will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. She is attending the Australian-American leadership dialogue in Washington. The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education will answer questions on her behalf relating to education, science and training, and the Minister for Workforce Participation will respond to questions relating to women’s issues. Likewise, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer will be absent. He is also attending the Australian-American leadership dialogue. The Treasurer will answer questions on his behalf. And, finally, the Minister for Small Business and Tourism will be absent from question time. She is attending the Australian Tourism Expo in Adelaide. The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources will answer questions on her behalf.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
24
14:01:00
Questions Without Notice
Workplace Relations
24
14:01:00
24
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that, of the 20 MPIs and censure debates on the subject of industrial relations moved since October 2005 in this House, he has participated in none of them? Is the Prime Minister also aware of the following exchange with the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell, yesterday? Journalist: ‘So would you encourage Mr Beazley’s debate on this to take place?’ Cardinal Pell: ‘Debate is always, always useful.’ Given that the Prime Minister has not had the courage to debate me on industrial relations, one on one, in this House, will the Prime Minister now agree to have an industrial relations debate with me in the car park of the Coffs Harbour Spotlight store?
24
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I think the most appropriate way to reply to him is to say that, in the last 30 years, on both sides no Prime Minister has attended more question times for longer periods of time and answered more questions than I have.
Workplace Relations
24
24
14:03:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
Mr BAKER
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of misleading claims being made about the operation of the new workplace relations system? If so, what is the extent of these claims?
24
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for Braddon for his question. The answer is yes. The latest example appears to have been the member for Perth in relation to a company called Esselte, and I seek the permission of the House to take the House through some of the detail of this. Last Thursday in this place the member for Perth, brandishing what was purported to be an AWA, asked the following question:
Isn’t it the case that this AWA leaves a full-time employee—
of Esselte—
working a Saturday shift $65 a week, or $10,140 over three years, worse off?
That was the claim. According to a statement from the company, released today, the facts are different from those suggested by the member for Perth. Amongst other things this is what the company had to say:
The management of Esselte understands that the $65 pay cut allegation was raised in connection with Saturday work. Esselte does not regularly work any of its employees on a Saturday.
It went on to say:
Esselte has never engaged a person to work their regular hours on a Saturday.
So, on the basis of the member for Perth’s claim, that particular claim is false. Further, Esselte said:
At certain times of the year, due to increases in warehouse volumes, the existing full-time warehouse staff are asked to work Saturdays on an as-required basis. This Saturday work is voluntary and has always been in addition to the employee’s week hours and is worked at overtime rates of pay.
The AWA that was offered to Esselte staff increased the minimum hourly rate to $18.39 an hour, compared with the collective agreement of $17.39 an hour, and also compared with the relevant award, which had a rate of $13.78 an hour. On the basis of a calculation along the lines of that made by the member for Perth of an employee working 38 ordinary hours and three hours overtime, they would actually be $27 a week better off, not $65 a week worse off, and $4,000 better off over the three-year period.
I understand that the agreement offered included increases in wages, increases in some allowances and an increase in sick leave provisions. On Saturday, one of Australia’s most respected union figures, Mr Joe de Bruyn, had something to say about people taking liberties with the truth in the industrial relations debate. That was referring to Spotlight; it may well also have referred to Esselte.
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for O’Connor is warned!
Workplace Relations
25
25
14:07:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer and I also refer him to a letter to the editor of the Australian newspaper by Mr de Bruyn:
I am writing to express my deep concern at the misrepresentation of my views in the Australian ... At no stage during the interview with you did I say that Labor Party spokespersons had ‘taken a lot of liberties with the facts’ in their statement on the Spotlight AWAs.
9V5
Pyne, Chris, MP
Mr Pyne interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Sturt is warned.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I also refer the Prime Minister to the following exchange with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program yesterday:
LAURIE OAKES: You quote Joe de Bruyn as an authority. I mean, he said that Mrs Harris wasn’t losing $90 a week, but she would certainly lose money ... She would certainly lose money ... he said that ... those who worked across the weekend five days full time-would lose $95 a week. Everybody else would lose some money a week under the Spotlight agreement. That is pretty devastating, isn’t it?
JOHN HOWARD: … I can’t—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Would the member for Perth please come to his question?
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I am.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Perth will come to his question.
Honourable members interjecting—
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—If I am uninterrupted, I will be able to. The exchange continued:
JOHN HOWARD: … I can’t in relation to every individual case, I can’t pretend to know all of the facts.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Perth is debating an issue. He will come to his question.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Prime Minister, isn’t it the case that what Spotlight employees lose under the 2c-an-hour AWA may vary, but whether it is $40, $60 or $80 a week they have got one thing in common—they all lose?
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, during the course of that diatribe—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will come to her point of order.
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—you warned him, and asked him to come back to his question. He then did not—in the face of your ruling. He is totally out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar is aware that I called for the member for Perth to come to his question. He then came to his question.
26
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In answer to the member for Perth, let me simply say this: Joe de Bruyn pinned you, and nothing you can say alters that fact.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Perth has asked his question.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—I would like the member for Perth to address the case. I would like the member for Perth to explain to the House how it is that he can get up and make an allegation that somebody is $65 a week worse off when, with a bit of research based on what the company has said, that person is in fact $27 a week better off. That kind of misrepresentation is of a piece with the misrepresentation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was trying to establish that Teys Bros were deliberately refusing to give Aussie workers a job, when in reality they had not only advertised but also gone to the union and asked the union to provide some Australian workers, and the union could not do so. What the opposition is doing on this issue is deliberately distorting the facts in order to create fear and hostility in the community.
83L
Gillard, Julia, MP
Ms Gillard
—You know all about that!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—They always do that. They did it with the GST and it failed. They are doing it with this. I reckon they are going to fail on this as well.
Trade
26
26
14:11:00
Secker, Patrick, MP
848
Barker
LP
1
Mr SECKER
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the threat to Australia’s trade performance and wider economy posed by Labor’s plan to hand control of Australia’s workforce to the union movement?
26
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Barker for his question. The member for Barker would recognise the significance of productivity growth to our competitiveness in the international marketplace. Our competitive edge relies very heavily on productivity growth. We have had productivity growth over the last 10 or so years in the Australian economy, and it has helped us achieve $177 billion worth of exports last year—very relevant in the member’s electorate of Barker.
The policy being proposed by the Australian Labor Party to rip up Australian workplace agreements would clearly undermine all those productivity gains, as a result of which we have enjoyed growth in our economy. They would be unbelievably irresponsible policies if they were to be implemented. We have heard many comments from different industries that are supporting the current government’s position on industrial relations. The mining industry alone says it will take a $6.6 billion hit to productivity every year if it cannot use AWAs. The mining industry is leading Australia’s export growth. The agriculture sector, which competes with the mining sector for employment and employees, says that its ability to keep good people in its industry would seriously suffer if it could not use AWAs to match employment opportunities with employee wishes.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to roll back the industrial relations system in Australia to the bad old days, when the union movement held the country to ransom. We all remember these great examples in our industrial relations history. We remember the days when our minerals exports were brought to a halt over strikes about what type of ice-cream was sold in a canteen on a mine site. That took place in Robe River. We remember the days when export abattoirs like Mudginberri were shut down by the unions even after the employer had won the case in the Industrial Relations Commission.
Labor’s way of running the economy in the 1980s was no way to run the economy. Our economy then was about a quarter of the size it is now. The government and the Treasurer will deliver an economy in the next 12 months worth about a trillion dollars. Labor’s industrial relations policy is no way to take that forward. It would completely undermine productivity in the workplace and therefore undermine growth in the economy.
I will finish with a quote from Access Economics, back in 2004, about the preferred economic model of the Australian Labor Party. Access Economics had a close look at Labor’s industrial relations policy back then and concluded:
The likely outcome is lower productivity growth and less accurate matching of wages and productivity at the enterprise level.
For our economy to continue to grow and expand we have to be able to compete and we have to be competitive at home and abroad.
Workplace Relations
27
27
14:14:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. It follows the one previously asked on this side of the House and the one before on his side of the House. Is the Prime Minister aware of the concluding paragraph of Joe de Bruyn’s letter to the Australian, which analyses the actual situation and potential situation of Ms Harris under her previous terms of employment and that which she was offered, in which Mr de Bruyn concludes:
In view of the facts as stated above, the claims made about the Spotlight AWA have actually understated the potential impact on Ms Harris had she accepted the company’s proposal, as the Prime Minister has suggested.
I also refer the Prime Minister to a press conference called by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on Saturday to boast about a pay cut of less than $90 for Spotlight worker Annette Harris. Can the Prime Minister inform the House what size of pay cut he believes is good for working Australians? Is it $40, $60 or $80 a week?
27
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In answer to the honourable member’s question, I thought the news conference delivered by my colleague on Saturday was a very good news conference. He is, along with other members of this government, a great believer in wage increases. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition what I think is a good wage increase, not wage cut. A good wage increase is about 16.8 per cent in real terms over 10 years. That is a very good one. I will tell you what is a bad real wage increase: 1.3 per cent over 13 years, because that is the real comparison. Can I finally say—again—that Mr de Bruyn is a union figure for whom I have considerable respect. I think he is a very good man. We do not agree on everything, but he is a very fair man and that is why he was disturbed by the way in which some of the Leader of the Opposition’s frontbench colleagues were distorting the truth.
Birth Rate
27
27
14:16:00
Smith, Anthony, MP
00APG
Casey
LP
1
Mr ANTHONY SMITH
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House of recent trends in the birth rate of Australia? Is an increase in the birth rate positive for Australia’s future?
27
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Casey for his question and look forward to his own contribution to the birth rate next month—and we thank him for doing his duty. There are reports in today’s newspapers that 1 July 2004 was a record day for the number of births in Australia, which was the day of course that the maternity payment, or baby bonus, was introduced. Medical advice is that no-one should delay the delivery of a child, which would put either the mother’s or the child’s health at risk. But 1 July 2004 was the day that the maternity payment, or baby bonus, was introduced and it was in the sum of $3,000. Since then the sum has been indexed and increased and currently stands at $3,166, and on 1 July the maternity payment, or baby bonus, will be increasing to $4,000 for children that are born after that date. The government has also announced another increase—on 1 July 2008, when the maternity payment, or baby bonus, will increase to $5,000.
Whether it is the introduction of the baby bonus, whether it is the $600 increase in the family tax benefit—remember that payment that ‘did not exist’: it seems to be paid to millions of Australians—whether it is the changes in the taper rate for family tax benefit or whether it is the record number of child-care places that are being delivered under this government, the good news is that for calendar year 2004 Australia recorded the highest number of births in 12 years, the highest since 1992. In fact, for the year ended 31 December 2005 there were 261,400 births in Australia, a 2.4 per cent increase on 2004.
It seems that many Australians are taking up the challenge to have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country, and that is a positive thing for Australia. It is a positive thing for Australia because it represents confidence in our future. It is a positive thing for Australia because with an ageing of the population an increase in the fertility rate over the long term—not in the short term but over the long term—will do something to deflect the problems of the ageing of the population in 2040, 2050 and beyond. So the family-friendly policies of this government are helping millions of Australian families. There is a welcome pick-up in the birth rate in Australia and we would encourage many more Australians to benefit from this government’s family-friendly policies.
Workplace Relations
28
28
14:20:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments on Sunday by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, about the government’s industrial relations changes:
I don’t like, particularly like the new IR laws because I’m frightened they could be used to force down minimum wages.
Given that the government submissions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission over the last 10 years would have seen the minimum wage reduced by $2,600 a year—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that it is outside of the standing orders to put up a prop. You can anticipate that the member for Perth, in his question, will be displaying a prop.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Boothby will resume his seat. All members are well aware that I have made it very clear I do not expect the member for Perth to abuse the forms of the House. I call the member for Perth and ask him to come back to his question.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: if the member for Perth will not be abusing the forms of the House, he can leave the prop at his seat.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Boothy will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Given that the government submissions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission over the last 10 years would have seen the minimum wage reduced by $2,600 a year—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Perth has the call and he will get straight to his question.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Will the Prime Minister guarantee Archbishop Pell that the minimum wage will not be reduced in real terms?
29
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I did see the remarks attributed to His Eminence, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, last night on television. Let me say that I do not entertain the concerns expressed by the Cardinal. The basis of that is that this government has been a good friend of the low paid in this country. I might say that measured by some of the principles of both more broadly Christian social justice and more specifically Catholic social justice, this government has been a good friend of the low paid in the Australian community. In fact, more Australians have jobs under this government than was the case 10 years ago.
It is true that the rich have got richer in this country over the last 10 years, but they have not got richer at the expense of the poor. Most of the studies that have been carried out produce evidence on some occasions—indeed, to the great surprise of the researchers—that the low paid enjoy a higher relative increase in their position than people in the middle and at the upper end. Any fair analysis of our family benefits system will reveal that low-paid, single-income families, including single parents, have, relatively speaking, been the best endowed of all as a result of the family tax benefit and welfare policies that have been introduced.
I remind all of those who follow this debate that, when we introduced our industrial relations reforms 10 years ago, people said that all sorts of terrible things were going to occur. They have not occurred. In fact, we have seen real wages go up by 16.8 per cent, we have seen unemployment fall to a 30-year low and we have seen 1.8 million new jobs created. It is my confident prediction that, just as the doomsaying of the Labor Party 10 years ago was proved wrong, so the doomsaying of the Labor Party in 2006 will by 2016, and through the 10 years to then, also be proved wrong.
Workplace Relations
29
29
14:24:00
McArthur, Stewart, MP
VH4
Corangamite
LP
1
Mr McARTHUR
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister update the House on the protections available to employees under Work Choices? Are there any alternative policies?
29
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
Mr ANDREWS
—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question and his interest in this subject. I can inform him and the House that there are significant protections available for workers in Australia under the Work Choices legislation—in particular, the significant increase in funding to the Office of Workplace Services in this regard.
It is interesting in this light that the ACTU have been using workers in their advertising that they claim to be victims of Work Choices. The reality is that the Office of Workplace Services has power to enforce compliance with the Workplace Relations Act. It has staff trained, and additional staff who have been brought on board, to do that and who have been appointed as workplace inspectors. They have power to go into workplaces, to require the production of documents and the giving of evidence about a range of matters and to take action on behalf of employees against employers where they find that there is a need to do so.
Despite the ads that have been run, the very interesting thing to note is that the unions have not referred a single one of the people featured in these advertisements to the Office of Workplace Services. Not only that, the ACTU on its website does not refer workers who have a complaint to the Office of Workplace Services, despite the fact that significant resources are there for workers to make a complaint if they believe they have been hard done by.
The Labor Party and the unions claim that they have the interest of workers at heart. If that were true, they would stop playing politics with these people and refer these cases to the Office of Workplace Services. There is no clearer indication that this is simply a matter of the unions and the Labor Party playing politics. If they did have the interests of these workers at heart, they would refer them to the Office of Workplace Services, where a proper investigation could be carried out.
Workplace Relations
30
30
14:27:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr MELHAM
—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to comments on Sunday by the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, who said of the government’s industrial relations changes: ‘I’m not in favour of anything that will drive down the minimum wage, especially when some of the top wages are so enormous.’ I also refer to comments made by the chair of the low pay commission, Professor Ian Harper, on 31 May when he said that the government’s legislation ‘pushes’ the low pay commission to reduce the value of the minimum wage in real terms. Will the Prime Minister guarantee Archbishop Pell that the minimum wage will not be reduced in real terms?
30
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Mr Speaker, through you to the member for Banks, there is no low pay commission that I am aware of. I am very happy to engage with the member for Banks on these matters. He is a hardworking member and a good member. Let me simply say, though: don’t be deluded into asking questions—
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Hotham is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—based on false assertions. I would say to the member for Banks, by all means engage in vigorous debate, but do not be lured by the tactics committee into making false statements; otherwise, Joe de Bruyn will have a go at you as well. That is what will happen. And if Joe gets amongst some of the branches in Banks you never know what might happen, because he does not have a bad track record. I have made this remark before and I will say it again: people ask me for guarantees—my guarantee is my record. My record is of somebody who has led a government that has presided over huge increases in real wages and who has presided over the introduction of a tax and welfare system which I think, compared with the tax and welfare systems of other governments, has been far closer to the aspirations of Christian and specifically Catholic social justice than have been the programs of other governments. I am very proud of that record. I always welcome the contributions to public debate made by that very eminent, ecclesiastical figure, Cardinal George Pell, for whom I have great regard.
Indigenous Communities
30
30
14:29:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
Mr TOLLNER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister explain to the House how the government is proposing to make it easier for people, particularly Indigenous Australians, to own homes and businesses in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory? What has been the reaction to these proposals?
30
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
Mr BROUGH
—I thank the member for Solomon for his question and his obvious interest in this issue. He is obviously acutely aware that the unfortunate reality is that for decades many Indigenous Australians, particularly but not exclusively in the Territory, have been locked out of owning their own home, a right that the rest of us enjoy. They have also been locked out of being able to own their own businesses in the place where they live. This of course has led to them living in what many people would now recognise as little communist enclaves, where money comes in—they cannot own anything, they cannot run a business, they cannot own their own home—and where someone else determines who owns the house.
This government has before the House the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill, which, amongst other things, will provide for 99-year lease-backs of town centres to allow a headlease to be provided to the Northern Territory government and for Aboriginal people, for the first time, to be able to own their own property in these places, build their own home, build their own businesses and build their own future for themselves and their families.
I am asked about comments and people’s views. I can inform the member for Solomon that last month I went to Nguiu in the Tiwi Islands and spoke with the people about a 99-year lease-back of the township of Nguiu so they could benefit from this legislation. They signed a heads of agreement there. They saw it as a new beginning for their people and their children so that they could join in the market economy like other Australians. Over the weekend I went back to the Territory. I went to Galiwinku and sat down with the traditional owners and said to them, ‘This is what the Commonwealth is proposing to do.’ We talked through the many issues of a headlease. Can I tell the House how excited they were and how engaged they were in the opportunity for the first time of being able to own something of their own. It is not understood by many people that many of the Aboriginal people who live in Galiwinku are not traditional owners. They do not have the rights of a traditional owner in the place where they currently reside because they were displaced from their own lands many years ago.
I then travelled on Sunday to Wadeye, an area which has been in the press quite a bit. I sat down with some of the leaders in some of the remote communities, such as Wudapuli, which is an outstation, and spoke about how they could also own their own homes in the land that they wish to occupy, where their children could go to school and where they could have the rights of other Australians. They, too, embraced this idea.
In the political arena, we have had eminent people like the National President of the ALP, Warren Mundine, warmly welcoming these initiatives and I appreciate his support. We also have in the Northern Territory the Hon. Elliott McAdam, Minister for Housing, who, in the Sunday Territorian, said:
Not everyone in Aboriginal communities is going to be in a position to own their own home, but the important thing is that people will now have a choice.
And he is right. This legislation is about providing a choice to Aboriginal people that has been denied to them through collective ownership up to this day. Unfortunately, there are still some people—not all of them, I might add—whose spokesman, Senator Chris Evans, on 13 June made a statement—
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to page 102 of standing and sessional orders, relating to anticipation. The legislation to which the minister is referring is not only on the Notice Paper but scheduled for debate immediately after question time.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Fraser may be aware that that part of the standing orders has been suspended.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Mr Speaker, I am referring to the amended one on page 102 which is the—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I hear what the honourable member for Fraser says, but part of the standing order has been suspended.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr BROUGH
—It is sad that the honourable member opposite does not want to hear what his own party has to say about this particular issue. This consultation has gone on for nine years, and the only people who seem to continually have their head in the sand are some of those who sit opposite. And I deliberately use the word ‘some’ because some people, like the President of the ALP, see that in the past it has failed and a new way is needed and that being part of the market economy and having the right to own your own home should apply right across Australia. But the Labor Party, in a statement on 13 June, said, ‘Labor will not support the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill in its current form.’ The most controversial part of the bill includes the 99-year leasing provisions. There is nothing controversial about giving Aboriginal Australians the same rights the rest of us have and have had for a very long time. I ask the federal Australian Labor Party to support their Territorian colleagues, get their head out of the sand and support Australian Aboriginals having the same rights as the rest of us.
Workplace Relations
32
32
14:36:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the recent Federal Court case involving a Landscape Direct employee, employed under the relevant award, who commenced performing duties as an acting site supervisor in January 2004. Is the Prime Minister aware that, after the employee had started acting in the higher position and his job performance was regarded as excellent, his employer offered to make the role permanent but only if an AWA was signed? Is the Prime Minister aware that the Federal Court found that it was lawful under his laws to require an employee to go on to an AWA for the purpose of getting a promotion? Why is the Prime Minister allowing AWAs to block promotions and therefore scuttle the hopes and aspirations of Australian employees?
32
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have seen a report of that case and I might make the observation—
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr Adams interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Lyons is warned!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—that it appears to have been a decision made in relation to matters that occurred under the law that operated before Work Choices was introduced. In accordance with my well-established practice—a practice the wisdom of which has been borne out on at least three or four occasions over the last week—I will examine the detail of the case. I will examine the detail of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and have something further to say about it, because I think I am justified in saying, on the track record of the member for Perth and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, you cannot always believe what the opposition say at question time with their questions.
Transport Infrastructure: New South Wales
32
32
14:37:00
Hartsuyker, Luke, MP
00AMM
Cowper
NATS
1
Mr HARTSUYKER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister update the House on the government’s support for better transport infrastructure in New South Wales? Are there any alternative policies?
33
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr TRUSS
—I thank the member for Cowper and acknowledge his tremendous interest in this issue and his undying determination to have something done about upgrading the Pacific Highway through his own electorate and through the whole of coastal northern New South Wales. I know he will be particularly pleased that, at long last, a contract was let at the end of last month for the Bonville deviation. That is a part of the $4.9 billion that this government is making available to New South Wales over the five years of AusLink. This includes close to $3 billion for major land transport construction projects—a 171 per cent increase on what was available over the previous five years. That is starting to make a real difference. Of course, on budget night there was $800 million provided for the Hume Highway in addition to what had previously been included in AusLink and another $160 million for the Pacific Highway. The details of those projects will be announced very shortly.
The reality is that this government is getting on with the job in New South Wales of trying to do something about upgrading the state’s road system. We do not get a lot of cooperation from the state government, who can find all sorts of reasons why projects should be delayed. There are any number of examples. I know the honourable member for Riverina talks often about the Coolac bypass, where, a year after tenders closed, work still has not started.
I was really interested in the New South Wales budget handed down the other week, which actually listed 10 projects under AusLink which it described as being ‘jointly funded by the New South Wales and Commonwealth governments’. Of these 10 projects, six are in fact 100 per cent funded by the Australian government, with not a cent required of New South Wales and not a cent provided. The other four may require a 20 per cent or 50 per cent contribution from New South Wales, but the money included in the New South Wales budget was only the Commonwealth share. The New South Wales share of the money was left out altogether.
That is the kind of approach and the lack of cooperation that we so often get from New South Wales when it comes to dealing with road-upgrading projects—the black, green and red tape, the bureaucratic inertia and the policy analysis mean that the money piles up and projects do not get built. So it was really refreshing over the weekend to hear the New South Wales coalition state that, when they are elected to government after the next election in New South Wales, they will commit to work cooperatively with the federal government to get on with the task. They are going to stop the blaming and they are going to work constructively. What a refreshing change it will be to have a government that wants to work with the Commonwealth government to make sure that these vital road projects in New South Wales are actually built.
Fuel Prices
33
33
14:41:00
Gibbons, Steve, MP
83X
Bendigo
ALP
0
Mr GIBBONS
—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his refusal on 8 June to give the ACCC further powers to scrutinise petrol prices. Why won’t the government get serious and act on the crippling and unexplained spikes in petrol prices, particularly on long weekends, by writing to the ACCC chairman to initiate formal monitoring of petrol prices under part VIIA section 95G of the Trade Practices Act? Why does the Prime Minister keep telling us that the ACCC has ‘all the power in the world’ when it is obvious to everyone that it does not?
33
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I say in reply to the member for Bendigo: it is not correct to say that we do not have monitoring. We do have monitoring and there was, in fact, monitoring that was carried out in the lead-up to the Queen’s Birthday weekend. That monitoring produced the outcome that was consistent with monitoring of similar events on other occasions, and that is that the discounting of the retail price which takes place during the week because of the higher volume demands at the weekend disappears. That results in the alteration in the price.
I know, as the member for Bendigo knows and I think everybody in this country knows, that the price of petrol is painfully high. It is, however, of no help to sensible debate and no help to the hard-pressed Australian motorist for false claims to be made and false dawns to be offered in relation to how you can cut the price. It is due overwhelmingly to the high price of crude oil. If there had been a solution, that solution would have been lighted upon and implemented with enormous enthusiasm long before now. But I can assure the member for Bendigo that, if there are other productive things that can be done in relation to price monitoring, the government stands ready to do so.
Fuel Prices
34
34
14:43:00
Wood, Jason, MP
E0F
La Trobe
LP
1
Mr WOOD
—My question is also to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the government’s actions affecting GST and reductions in fuel excise?
34
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I thank the member for La Trobe for his very important question. It is a very relevant question in the light of an article that appeared on the front page of the Melbourne Herald Sun today, apparently based on a claim made by the member for Wills, which in turn was in part informed by some research carried out by the Parliamentary Library. In essence, what was claimed in the article was that, since the introduction of the GST, some $10 billion in GST revenue has been collected yet only about $4.6 billion has been forgone in excise; whereas the government claimed in 2001 that, when introducing the GST, it would adjust the excise so as to ensure that there was no additional revenue collected.
The claim being made is false. It is false because, in the calculations that have been made, no allowance has been made for the two discretionary reductions in fuel excise that were made in 2000 and 2001. There was a reduction in excise of 6.7c per litre on the introduction of the GST and there was a further reduction of 1.5c in March 2001, which produces a combined reduction of 8.2c a litre. In addition to that, the abolition of fuel excise indexation in March 2001 has resulted in cumulative savings in relation to excise of something in the order of $1.4 billion.
So when you carry all of that together, when you allow for the two discretionary reductions and the removal of the excise, you have a situation where the excise forgone is about $11.5 billion. The estimate in the Herald article of GST is $10 billion. So, on the basis of that, there has been no overcollection, and in fact the government has kept faith with its commitment that the introduction of the GST would not result in an increase in the overall tax collected on petrol.
I end my answer by making, in any event, the observation that if people, including the member for Wills, believe that too much GST is being collected from petrol, they might like to drop down to Treasury Place—not the Commonwealth end of Treasury Place but the Victorian government end of Treasury Place—and have a word with Mr Bracks about coughing up some of that $1.5 billion extra that the states appear to have got.
Rural Health Services
34
34
14:46:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing and relates to the shortage of doctors in country Australia and recent discussions with the University of New England and the University of Newcastle with regard to the establishment of a medical school in New England. Given the success of the University of Newcastle’s University Department of Rural Health, headquartered in Tamworth, and the New South Wales government’s announcement today that they will fund teaching upgrades at the Tamworth and Armidale hospitals if the Commonwealth provides 80 places for medical students, will the minister inform the House of progress made in relation to those discussions on this crucial matter for country Australians?
35
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for New England for his question. This is a matter which is being brought to my attention not just by this question in this House but also by the member for Gwydir, who has made regular representations to me on this. I have also had some discussions on this with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New England, the former head of the National Health and Medical Research Council. I think they have put in a good application. The government is certainly considering it. The information about the latest developments from the New South Wales government is interesting and constructive. I think that this is something that would be a positive for rural health.
I should point out in conclusion to the member for New England that the policies which the government has already put in place have, around Australia, if not necessarily in every rural community, produced an increase in the number of GPs of over 20 per cent since 1996.
Defence Air Capability
35
35
14:48:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
1
Mrs GASH
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House on recent steps that the government has taken to improve the Australian Defence Force air capability?
35
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. It is a very important day for the people of Gilmore, as it is for Australians. This morning the Prime Minister announced on behalf of the government that the government will acquire 34 further multirole helicopters, the so-called MRH90 helicopters. These will add to the 12 that the government decided to purchase in August 2004. These 46 helicopters will replace the Black Hawk helicopters. They will also replace the Sea King helicopters. The first of them will arrive at HMAS Albatross in the electorate of Gilmore in 2010.
This is a well-developed helicopter at a cost, ultimately, of $2.7 billion for these 34 and $1½ billion for the earlier 12. More than $4 billion is being invested in seeing that the next generation of air capability in Australia delivers Australia with good air combat capability to support special services, to provide helicopter air lift, to support our activities currently being done by the Sea King in rescuing people at sea and other important things and to support the civilian community in Australia.
This package includes $1.2 billion in specific support to Australian industry in terms of composite construction, aerospace avionics, software development and engine production. The first two will come from France in December next year. The next three will come the following year, and the first of those will be off the Australian production line in Brisbane. There will be 350 Australian jobs supported directly by this decision. It is yet more evidence of the two things the government has been determined to do in defence: to provide very strong political will for the defence and security of Australia and to see that Australia runs a very strong economy so Australia is in a position to be able to afford to protect itself, its borders and its interests in the region and throughout the world.
Electorate Offices
36
36
14:51:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
0
Ms KING
—My question is to the Special Minister of State. Can the minister advise the House whether it is appropriate for coalition senators to regularly relocate their electorate offices to maximise electorate returns for coalition candidates in House of Representatives elections?
36
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
Mr NAIRN
—I thank the member for her question. Changes take place with all members of parliament and senators quite regularly, actually. In fact, since becoming Special Minister of State I have been quite surprised at the number of changes that take place with respect to electorate offices, and it happens right across the board. Circumstances change, electorates change, responsibilities change—
A government member—Senators change.
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr NAIRN
—and senators change—exactly. Senators change as well. I think members on both sides make decisions and ask for changes to be made quite specifically to provide a much better service to their constituents, and I commend all members and senators for doing that.
Indigenous Health
36
36
14:53:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
1
Mr HAASE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House of action the government is taking to combat substance abuse amongst Indigenous Australians?
36
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for the question and I know how concerned he is to try to ensure better living conditions for people in the remote Indigenous communities in his electorate. I think it is important to keep the House informed on this issue because of the great public interest that it has generated. But it is important to dwell not just on the extent of addiction but also on the determination of local Indigenous people to make a difference, because they can see how these substances are poisoning their kids.
In the recent budget the government did commit $55 million to combat petrol sniffing and other substance abuse in Indigenous townships and settlements. This includes $20 million that has been earmarked to roll out the unsniffable Opal petrol to an additional 33 sites, including 15 roadhouses that are close to Indigenous townships. That will take to 92 the total number of sites around Australia where unsniffable Opal petrol is available. The budget commitment also includes $15 million to support community patrols and community justice groups and also youth recreation programs, because it is important to make sniffing less attractive as well as harder to do.
All of this can work. For instance, I am advised that since Opal was put into the Papunya community the number of petrol sniffers has dropped from about 60 to almost zero, according to the community council chairman. But there are quite a few problems in this area. I have recently been advised that kava abuse is now a problem in up to eight Aboriginal townships in Arnhem Land. The government is currently working with the Northern Territory to try to address this issue. Unfortunately, there are no magic bullets here. Alienation and directionlessness do not dissipate overnight. But the government is determined to make the investments necessary. The government will not hesitate to make the investments necessary where we think there are programs which are reasonably capable of making a difference.
Electorate Offices
36
36
14:56:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—My question is to the Special Minister of State and I refer the minister to his previous answer. I draw the minister’s attention to the March issue of the Liberal Party’s Goldstein News, which contains a report from Liberal Senator Mitch Fifield in these terms: ‘Prior to the last election, I moved my office to Warragul to help Russell Broadbent win the seat of McMillan—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the standing orders and the Practice clearly state that members across the way may not refer to material which relates to parties. It is quite out of order and his question—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I am listening closely to the member for Bruce. He has not completed his question.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr GRIFFIN
—As I said: ‘Prior to the last election, I moved my office to Warragul to help Russell Broadbent win the seat of McMillan. Within Victoria, we are now within striking distance of a number of lower house seats. To that end, I have just moved into a new office in the Labor seat of Isaacs, adjacent to Holt.’
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would refer you to page 538 and 539 of the Practice.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. As I have already said to the member for Mackellar, I am listening carefully to the member for Bruce. He has not completed his question. I call the member for Bruce and ask him to come to his question.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr GRIFFIN
—Minister, what have these moves cost Australian taxpayers? What action will the minister take in response to Senator Fifield’s boast that he has twice relocated his electorate office to serve the interests of Liberal party candidates? Or does he maintain, as he said earlier, that it is all about better servicing his community?
37
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
Mr NAIRN
—I thank the member for Bruce for his question. I notice the Labor Party have not given the current member for Isaacs much support, which will be to the great detriment of the Labor Party, I think, because I think she has been a good member. She was certainly a very good Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation when I chaired it. But, as I said, circumstances do change and it is necessary for members and senators to relocate their electorate offices. We try to get the best deal that we can. The individual members and senators work closely with the department to get the best deal. We try to minimise the amount of excess rent sometimes when things have to change, and this happens—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Gellibrand!
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr NAIRN
—I can probably trot out the names of a few Labor members and senators and what it has cost to relocate their offices—
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gellibrand is warned!
OK6
Nairn, Gary, MP
Mr NAIRN
—if the member would like. I do not have the exact dollar figure for that right here at the moment, but I am very happy to get the actual dollar figures and come back to the parliament—and I might provide a few dollar figures of other changes as well.
National Security
37
37
14:59:00
Draper, Trish, MP
0L6
Makin
LP
1
Mrs DRAPER
—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General advise the House of developments in the continuing need for counter-terrorism legislation?
37
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question, because there is continuing interest in the situation of national security. Last week I tabled a report on the Security Legislation Review Committee that was chaired by a retired judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Simon Sheller. The committee was established to review the operation, effectiveness and implication of the package of measures that were implemented in 2002. That report recognised that the current level of threat to Australia and Australian interests from terrorist activity justified the continuing need for our strong counter-terrorism laws. As the Age editorial today correctly points out, the report also found that there had been no excessive or improper use of Australia’s counter-terrorism laws.
Of course the government will consider very carefully the recommendations of the review, but we have formed a preliminary view on several key issues. It is appropriate that I should outline what those matters were, as I did last Friday. We believe very firmly that the listing of terrorist organisations is open and transparent as a process with sufficient safeguards and with parliamentary oversight. The power has been used on some 19 occasions, and I was satisfied at the time, and I remain satisfied, that each of the 19 organisations meet the criteria for listing. Based on advice from our intelligence organisations, each of them is assessed to have engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering a terrorist act. I might say it has nothing to do with any religious faith or cause which members or adherents might have.
The government believes concern expressed by the committee about the offensive association is also unfounded. The idea that it interferes with ordinary family, religious or legal communication ignores the fact that provisions in the law now explicitly exempt associations with close family members and associations for the purpose of religious worship and for the provision of humanitarian advice and legal advice. The government does remain committed to engaging with the community on security issues explaining the legislation to all members of the community. We will continue to denounce terrorism and all those who support it or promote it directly or by association.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PRIVILEGE
38
Privilege
38
15:03:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
0
Mr PRICE
—I rise on a matter of privilege. I recently undertook to send through Australia Post’s Nepean business centre 20,987 invitations to the screening of a documentary film, The Men Who Saved Australia, to be introduced by Major-General Ian Flawith and cohosted by me and the Rooty Hill RSL sub-branch. I have received an invoice from Australia Post dated 30 May 2006 which claims that they have all been delivered. I have received a couple of complaints in my office about the failure of some of my constituents to receive this invitation. I did make inquiries at Australia Post and initially felt that the problem may have been relatively minor. I have now been advised that between 3,000 and 5,000 of these unaddressed mail items were shredded, apparently at local management direction, and, furthermore, management have claimed when challenged by other Australia Post staff that I had provided these items in excess of the required number. This is not correct, as these are batched in my office and the required numbers were advised by Australia Post.
The mail items were collected from my office on Monday, 29 May 2006, with the delivery period being from 5 to 9 June 2006. Furthermore, I understand that some of the delivery staff were not provided with sufficient material to complete their deliveries. I understand that the shredded material was in locked security bins at Nepean delivery centre, and I was concerned that any subsequent approach to Australia Post would result in their removal. I contacted the office of the Commissioner of Federal Police requesting that the matter be investigated prior to any of the physical evidence being removed. I have been made aware that the security bins have now been removed. As I have had no response from the Federal Police, I am unable to advise whether or not the physical evidence has been intercepted by them.
I believe that tampering with mail is a serious offence of itself. I am at a loss to understand why, apparently, management of Australia Post’s Nepean centre would wish to tamper with invitations to view this documentary. I consider it to be un-Australian. Every Australian must have confidence that their mail will be processed and delivered. Mail is one of the important ways for members of the House to communicate with their constituents. Any tampering with mail is a direct and significant interference with a member’s ability to do their job.
Accordingly, I would ask that you consider these matters that I have raised and, in particular, the actions complained of and whether or not they amount to improper interference with free performance of my duties as a member. I table the invitation, the invoice from Australia Post, the map of the distribution area and also my request to Australia Post for the delivery of these items.
39
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Chief Opposition Whip. He raises a serious matter. I will look at it closely and make further investigations.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
39
Questions to the Speaker
Shell Questacon Science Circus
39
39
15:06:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
0
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—Mr Speaker, you will be aware, as I think you attended the function as well, that last Thursday in the Great Hall we saw the celebration of the 21st birthday of Questacon’s science circus—a very successful program sponsored by the government as well as by private enterprise. I became aware that they had attempted to have the science circus vehicle parked at the front of the House to add some media and other interest to the event but were told apparently that that was not able to happen. I was wondering, Mr Speaker, if you could find out what the problem was that stopped the Questacon vehicle from being parked out the front. It would have added quite a deal to the celebrations of their program.
39
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Canberra. I will give her a detailed answer rather than try to give a short answer now.
Parliament House: Signage
39
39
15:07:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
Mr KERR
—Mr Speaker, on quite a different matter, I wonder whether you might make an inquiry and report to the House on the reason for the sign which appears in the area where parliamentarians assembled this morning to respond to the fire drill. It is towards the city end of this building and says that photography is prohibited. It struck me as an extraordinary sign to have on Parliament House, a building which is probably the most photographed symbol of the nation and where photographs depicting this building in great detail are for sale and on public display in our bookshop. I wonder whether you might make some inquiries. It was the first time I had seen that sign, but it is a large and prominent one and it certainly disturbed me. I am not aware of any direction that you have given that would prohibit the public from taking photographs of this building.
39
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Denison and I will certainly make some inquiries and report back as appropriate.
PETITIONS
40
Petitions
10000
The Clerk
The Clerk
—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:
Human Rights: Falun Gong
HK5
ZJ6
ET4
SE4
009CW
83V
7K6
8T4
HM5
00AMP
CK6
00AMX
MH4
00AMN
IK6
WN6
VH4
VU5
0J4
0V5
ZT4
YU5
00ANF
E0F
Mr Andrews
Mr Barresi
Mr Bevis
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
Ms Corcoran
Dr Emerson
Mr Entsch
Mr Laurie Ferguson
Mr Georgiou
Ms Grierson
Mr Hardgrave
Mr Johnson
Mr Jull
Ms Ley
Mr Lloyd
Mr Ian Macfarlane
Mr McArthur
Mr Griffin
Mr Ruddock
Mr Slipper
Mr Somlyay
Mr Tanner
Mr Ticehurst
Mr Wood
7058
40
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament:
The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
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. The bodies are quickly cremated to destroy all evidence.
YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE 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.
67
HK5
Mr Andrews
Mr Andrews (from 67 citizens)
205
ZJ6
Mr Barresi
Mr Barresi (from 205 citizens)
2052
ET4
Mr Bevis
Mr Bevis (from 2,052 citizens)
225
SE4
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (from 225 citizens)
120
009CW
Ms Corcoran
Ms Corcoran (from 120 citizens)
92
83V
Dr Emerson
Dr Emerson (from 92 citizens)
87
7K6
Mr Entsch
Mr Entsch (from 87 citizens)
502
8T4
Mr Laurie Ferguson
Mr Laurie Ferguson (from 502 citizens)
142
HM5
Mr Georgiou
Mr Georgiou (from 142 citizens)
92
00AMP
Ms Grierson
Ms Grierson (from 92 citizens)
400
CK6
Mr Hardgrave
Mr Hardgrave (from 400 citizens)
180
00AMX
Mr Johnson
Mr Johnson (from 180 citizens)
38
MH4
Mr Jull
Mr Jull (from 38 citizens)
278
00AMN
Ms Ley
Ms Ley (from 278 citizens)
258
IK6
Mr Lloyd
Mr Lloyd (from 258 citizens)
611
WN6
Mr Ian Macfarlane
Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 611 citizens)
40
VH4
Mr McArthur
Mr McArthur (from 40 citizens)
360
VU5
Mr Griffin
Mr Griffin (from 360 citizens)
552
0J4
Mr Ruddock
Mr Ruddock (from 552 citizens)
122
0V5
Mr Slipper
Mr Slipper (from 122 citizens)
407
ZT4
Mr Somlyay
Mr Somlyay (from 407 citizens)
58
YU5
Mr Tanner
Mr Tanner (from 58 citizens)
152
00ANF
Mr Ticehurst
Mr Ticehurst (from 152 citizens)
18
E0F
Mr Wood
Mr Wood (from 18 citizens)
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
DZS
Mr Bowen
1165
40
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House a treatment available for some types of Breast Cancer.
-
Some breast cancers test positive for a growth factor or protein called Her2. This Her2 tells breast cancer cells how to grow.
-
A drug called HERCEPTIN stops Her2 from working, so the breast cancer cells stop growing.
-
This means that Herceptin would help greatly in further reducing risk of future recurrence of breast cancer.
-
However, Herceptin is NOT supplied on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for all stages of breast cancer and incurs a cost of $66,000 for 1 year of treatment.
-
This cost is prohibitive, meaning women either do not use this treatment, or they suffer tremendous financial hardships on top of their cancer struggle.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House to include the drug Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) for use by women at any stage of breast cancer who test positive to Her2.
1165
DZS
Mr Bowen
Mr Bowen (from 1,165 citizens)
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
83D
Mr Murphy
7771
41
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:
The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House a treatment available for some types of Breast Cancer.
-
Some breast cancers test positive for a growth factor or protein called Her2, which tells breast cancer cells how to grow.
-
A drug called HERCEPTIN stops HER2 from working, so the breast cancer cells stop growing.
-
This means HERCEPTIN would help greatly in increasing breast cancer survival rates and reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrence.
-
However, HERCEPTIN is not listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for all stages of breast cancer.
As a result, the cost of HERCEPTIN is too prohibitive, meaning women either do not use this treatment, or they suffer tremendous financial hardships on top of their cancer struggle.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House to ensure the drug HERCEPTIN is immediately placed on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme or subsidised when approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for use by women at any stage of breast cancer who test positive to HER2.
7771
83D
Mr Murphy
Mr Murphy (from 7,771 citizens)
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
QI4
Mr Price
5721
41
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House a treatment available for some types of Breast Cancer.
-
Some breast cancers test positive for a protein known as HER2. This protein is linked to the growth and reformation of breast cancer.
-
Cancer sufferers exhibiting this particular protein generally have a worse outlook than those who test HER2 negative.
-
The drug HERCEPTIN targets HER2 and aides in growth retardation.
-
The drug has resulted in significant improvements in survival, disease progression and the quality of life for women suffering from breast cancer.
-
Currently costing $66,000 for a single year of treatment the drug is out of reach for most suffers of this insidious condition..
Your petitioners therefore request the House to include the drug Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) for use by women at all stages of breast cancer who test positive to the Her2 protein.
5721
QI4
Mr Price
Mr Price (from 5,721 citizens)
Work Choices Legislation
83V
WN6
Dr Emerson
Mr Ian Macfarlane
4495
41
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament:
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the adverse impacts of the Work Choice legislation on the working class Australians and their families.
Your petitioners therefore request the House to repeal this legislation and replace it with fair and just laws for Australian workers and their families?
4067
83V
Dr Emerson
Dr Emerson (from 4,067 citizens)
428
WN6
Mr Ian Macfarlane
Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 428 citizens)
Higher Education
00AMP
Ms Grierson
24
41
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:
The petition of the citizens of Australia points out to the House that the Howard Government has:
-
nearly doubled the average HECS fees since 1996;
-
allowed universities, such as the University of Newcastle, to increase HECS fees by a further 25 per cent from 2005 ;
-
introduced full fee degrees costing as much as $210,000 so that more than a third of Australian undergraduates can buy their way into university ahead of students with better marks;
-
turned away 20,000 qualified university applicants each year by failing to fund enough places; and
-
cut $5 billion in Commonwealth investment in universities.
Your petitioners therefore request the House to:
-
immediately legislate to stop the Howard Government’s 25 per cent HECS hikes;
-
abolish full fee paying undergraduate places for Australian students;
-
create 20,000 extra university places every year; and
-
ensure high quality university education by properly indexing university grants.
24
00AMP
Ms Grierson
Ms Grierson (from 24 citizens)
Energy Australia Stadium
00AMP
Ms Grierson
30
42
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
-
The proposal by the Hunter International Sports Centre Trust to the Federal and NSW Governments to redevelop Energy Australia Stadium at a cost of $44 million.
-
The fact that in June 2002 the NSW Government handed over a cheque for $23.6 million to meet its share of the redevelopment proposal.
We therefore pray that the House urges the Federal Government to now contribute its share of the funding as a matter of urgency to transform the Stadium in Newcastle into a first class sporting venue.
30
00AMP
Ms Grierson
Ms Grierson (from 30 citizens)
Human Rights: Falun Dafa
83N
Ms Hall
10
42
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that:
The DPI Certificates Signed by Mr Downer Help the Chinese Communist Party to Persecute Falun Gong in Australia
-
On March 16th, 2002, the day before Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan paid a visit to Australia, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, signed a “certificate” to limit Falun Gong practitioners peaceful appeal activities in front of the Chinese Embassy, by utilizing his foreign minister’s privileges under pressure from (CCP ) Jiang Zemin’s regime. The reason given was that Falun Gong’s banners of “stop killing”, “stop torture”, “the World Needs Truthfulness, Benevolence and Forbearance” and exercise music “would impair, the dignity of the, mission or of the residence of the head, of another diplomatic agent, of the mission and that its removal would be an appropriate step to prevent the impairment or the continuation of the Impairment of the Chinese Embassy.” Mr Downer has signed these “certificates” which are only valid for 30 days, every month for 3 years, to continuously restrict Falun Gong practitioners peaceful appeal in front of the Chinese Embassy. This is a malignant case in which the CCP extends its policy of “Annihilating” Falun Gong to overseas countries. Falun Gong practitioners have tried many times to directly communicate with Mr. Downer, to no avail.
-
It is Beijing dictating to Australia now, instead of Australia dictating to Beijing about human rights violations. Such behaviour by Mr. Downer is damaging the rights of Australia citizen, and directly affects the foundations of a democratic country and our nation’s policy of freedom of speech. It is in fact impairing the dignity of Australians. At the same time, it is helping the Chinese Communist Party to further persecute Chinese people, because the message that Mr. Downer sends to China, by issuing these certificates, is that “the Australia Government supports the persecution”.
-
In this democratic country, we have the right to expose, and protest against, the genocide committed by the CCP; we have the right to condemn this dictatorial abuse of people’s rights, and of killing and torturing of innocent people, simply because these people’s belief is different to the communist ideology of violent revolution.
-
We are seeking justice through the legal system of this country, to restore our freedom of expression, and to expose the genocide in China. We sincerely hope fellow Australians can come together to uphold the rights and dignity that we treasure deeply in our hearts.
YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST MR. DOWNER TO DISCONTINUE THE DPI CERTIFICATES AND REQUEST THE CCP TO:
-
End This Monumental Human Rights Tragedy From Continuing in China And Around The Globe By Releasing All Falun Gong Practitioners Imprisoned For Their Spiritual Beliefs, Including Those Family Members Of Australian Citizens And Residents Currently Detained;
-
To Stop This Persecution Extend To Australia.
10
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 10 citizens)
Mammograms
83N
Ms Hall
410
43
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that free mammograms are not accessible by breast cancer survivors despite the increased risk of breast cancer. Access to free mammograms is also being denied to women over 70 years of age in some parts of Australia. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that mammograms are free to all women in Australia regardless of age or medical history.
410
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 410 citizens)
Shortland Electorate: General Practitioners
83N
Ms Hall
48
43
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
Request that the House take immediate action to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas.
Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that the greatest effort is made, as soon as possible, to address the chronic shortage of doctors in the Lake Macquarie and Hunter areas.
48
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 48 citizens)
Medicare: Belmont Office
83N
Ms Hall
104
43
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
We the undersigned request that the Government re-open a Medicare Office at Belmont as there is no Medicare Office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of General Practitioners bulkbilling.
The closure of Belmont Medicare Office by the Howard Government has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.
Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.
104
83N
Ms Hall
Ms Hall (from 104 citizens)
Tariffs
WN6
Mr Ian Macfarlane
17
43
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House
that with more than 10 per cent of Australians out of work, the concept of a level playing field and zero tariffs is rejected by Australian families who can see no evidence of benefit but substantial losses from the arguments put by economic rationalists.
Your petitioners therefore request the House to
-
act to ensure that Australia maintains a viable processing industry based on our rural industries and that tariffs remain in place as long as other nations use non-tariff measures, tariff protection, etc.;
-
stop imports of goods that are supported by subsidies and other non-tariff or. dumping measures to Australia; and
-
restore profitability to our farms and factories, employment opportunities to our of citizens and to provide a future for our youth.
17
WN6
Mr Ian Macfarlane
Mr Ian Macfarlane (from 17 citizens)
Medicare: Ocean Grove
VH4
Mr McArthur
592
44
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.
The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House to the cost and inconvenience experienced by residents of Ocean Grove and the Bellarine Peninsula who are required to travel to Geelong or Waurn Ponds to visit a Medicare office. The petitioners therefore request the House to make provision for a Medicare office to be established in Ocean Grove for the convenience of Bellarine Peninsula residents.
592
VH4
Mr McArthur
Mr McArthur (from 592 citizens)
Fuel Prices
00AN3
Mr Brendan O’Connor
1232
44
To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the increasing hardships experienced by older people, especially those on fixed incomes, due to the current escalating price of petrol.
We believe that Older Australians and people on low incomes should not bear a disproportionate burden of the impacts of escalating petrol prices passed on to citizens through food, fuel and service cost increases.
The petitioners call on the House to ensure that the Commonwealth Government:
-
Takes immediate measures to protect the living standards of older people and pensioners.
-
Puts in place greater safety nets to protect vulnerable people in our community against passed on cost increases to daily essentials including food, transport medical and community support services;
-
Reviews and increases pensions in line with the rising cost of living standards.
-
Improves the availability and accessibility of public and community transport systems.
1232
00AN3
Mr Brendan O’Connor
Mr Brendan O’Connor (from 1,232 citizens)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
44
Private Members' Business
Work Choices Legislation
44
44
15:11:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—I move:
That this House:
-
recalls and records the solemn commitment given by the Prime Minister to Alan Jones on Radio 2GB on 4 August 2005 that “I mean some people are going to have to work public holidays…it would be absurd and unfair and unreasonable if somebody has to work on a public holiday that that person isn’t compensated by being paid whatever it is, the double time or the time and a half…those arrangements are going to continue…”;
-
notes that appropriate compensation includes things like penalty rates and public holiday leave loadings;
-
notes that since the Government’s extreme industrial relations changes commenced on 27 March 2006, a single sentence in an Agreement can remove all entitlements to public holiday pay, penalty rates and overtime pay, and that the Government’s own statistics show:
-
64 per cent of assessed AWAs have removed penalty rates;
-
63 per cent have removed leave loadings;
-
52 per cent have removed shiftwork loadings; and
-
41 per cent did not contain gazetted public holidays;
-
affirms its support for the Prime Minister’s August 2005 commitment that employees should receive adequate compensation for working on public holidays; and
-
calls on the Government to immediately restore adequate compensation for Australian employees who work on public holidays, thereby holding the Prime Minister to his solemn promise to Alan Jones and the Australian people.
This will be the 21st time by motion, by censure motion and by MPI that this chamber will have debated issues relating to the industrial relations system introduced by the government, at the Prime Minister’s behest, in which the Prime Minister has not participated. He has squibbed every single debate in this chamber since this legislation was introduced. As the nation has had an opportunity to see the full impact of his handiwork, he has been unprepared in open debate in this chamber to explain himself and explain what he is up to. Quite frankly, for a major piece of legislation on the part of a government, I cannot recollect a set of circumstances where a Prime Minister has been so reluctant to debate its detail after its point of entry and implementation. Prime ministers have usually deigned to come into this chamber at least once or twice to defend the principal handiwork of their government. The Prime Minister has not chosen to do so and he is too cowardly to face us outside, so it needs to be comprehended thoroughly by all members of this chamber and all Australians.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition would help if he withdrew that accusation.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr BEAZLEY
—I withdraw. The Prime Minister thinks so little of his legislation that he is unprepared to face me or, for that matter, anyone else in this place in debate. This motion goes to the heart of family life. It goes to the heart of what makes family life sustainable economically, spiritually and morally—the capacity for ordinary family members to enjoy each other’s company free of the burdens of work and other distractions on at least some occasions in the course of the year. This motion establishes clearly the right of people to enjoy Christmas holidays, Easter holidays, Australia Day and Anzac Day—the various public holidays of significance that have been designated by state and federal governments over the years. I challenge every member opposite to support this motion. They will be given the opportunity to do so. I want them to show to their constituents how seriously they regard their access to those holidays.
There are two ways in which the government legislation attacked the capacity of Australians to enjoy those holidays, some of which are of immense spiritual and moral significance to individual members of Australian society as well as to the decency of family life. The first was to create, in the general terms of their legislation, a condition which said that a worker needed a reason for a public holiday. He had to have a reason to take Christmas off, a reason to take Easter off and a reason to take off Anzac Day. Most Australians assume they have it as a right.
The second way the Prime Minister attacked this position was to remove from the legislation the certainty that, if you did work on those holidays, you would be able to access penalty rates to do so. There are two reasons for that. The first reason is that penalty rates exist for working on those holidays as a deterrent to employers to engage people needlessly over those periods. It puts a question mark in the mind of the employer. The second reason of course is that, for some period of family life, most people in society need the capacity to earn those penalty rates in order to be able to pay their mortgages and afford the other aspects of family life.
The position of this government attacks family life at its very core. The Prime Minister talks about barbecue stoppers, and there is no doubt his industrial legislation is that. But this is more than a barbecue stopper; this is an axe taken to the kitchen table of family life. That is what this is. We will continually oblige Liberal and National Party members to declare themselves in this place on those issues right up until the next election. So they might as well do it now.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
46
15:16:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
0
Mr BARRESI
—The motion moved by the member for Brand needs to be totally rejected this afternoon. The Leader of the Opposition is asking this House to take note of what the Prime Minister has said recently on workplace relations. What we really should be doing is taking note of what the member for Brand and others opposite have said on industrial relations. For months the ALP has been saying that the Work Choices legislation is extreme and damaging to our nation. In fact, the only thing that has been extreme is the ALP’s language. We have had extreme language, similar to what has taken place and been stated in this chamber for the last 10 years, as to how this nation and the Australian workers will be disadvantaged as a result of our industrial relations policy changes.
The member for Brand beats his chest and tells the Australian people, ‘I will rip up these laws.’ We heard him say this. But what we have not heard the Leader of the Opposition tell us is what he is offering as an alternative—until, of course, the other day. Then out of the blue, without any consultation with his own backbench and his own shadow ministers, he said: ‘My alternative is that we are going to return to the bad old days. We are going to return to the days of a regulated labour market. We are going to return to the days when awards regulated every minute of every worker’s day. We are going to return to the days when individual aspiration was stifled.’ The member for Brand stands up at various opportunities and says that our policies and AWAs stifle the aspirational voters of this country. The only thing that will stifle aspiration is a return to those days when we had a regulated labour market. If the member for Brand has any doubt about this, he only has to go down to the Fremantle docks in the electorate of Fremantle. I know it quite well; I grew up there. All he has to do is go down to Austal and see the opportunities that are being created in those dockyards and the various employment growths that have taken place. Westpoll itself has said that the people of Western Australia recognise that AWAs have been good for the state, and, in fact, during the time of this government being in power we have seen the unemployment rate of WA go down into figures which have been absolutely unheard of—below the four per cent mark.
What we are seeing, through the member for Brand’s claims that he will rip up AWAs, is a Labor Party that wants to return this country to record unemployment. We see a Labor Party that wants us to return to massive interest rates and a recession. The only way that the member for Brand can guarantee through legislation that no worker will be worse off if he rips up AWAs is if there is a massive increase in unemployment. There will be job losses as a result of what he is trying to do. There are people out there who have signed agreements to suit their individual circumstances.
The member for Brand’s position will be to return to the days when the economy of this country goes down the gurgler once again with record unemployment and, with it, increasing interest rates. We need to ask ourselves: why is the member for Brand asking us to return to an outdated era? Is it that he simply wants to secure his own employment? That is about the only job that is going to be secured through his policy change—his own position. As the Australian newspaper claimed on Friday last week, Labor’s prime interest is to promote collective bargaining in the workplace in which unions would have bargaining rights.
I say to all the small business people out there: if you have any concerns about the industrial relations system through the Work Choices legislation we have introduced, think about what the ALP’s alternative position is. They are basically saying that, through law, they will be guaranteeing that every union official will come into your building and be able to negotiate on behalf of the workforce, whether or not they are unionised. That is what a return to collective bargaining means. There is this whole concept of good faith bargaining. It is a great little term that is being used. We are going to have a highly regulated labour force. (Time expired)
47
15:21:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—It is a great pity that the Prime Minister is not in the chamber to defend the policies which have wreaked havoc on ordinary working people and the policies which are in breach of commitments that the Prime Minister has made. It is a pity he is not here, because I want to refer to some of those commitments that are on the public record. I quote from the transcript of an interview with the Prime Minister on the Alan Jones show back in August last year. It is true that this interview occurred before the details of the legislation were introduced, but there is no doubt in my mind—and there should not be any doubt in the minds of the members opposite—about what the words mean. The Prime Minister often claims that his word is his bond; let us listen to what he said. In answer to a question from Alan Jones about whether overtime was going to be absorbed into ordinary rates of pay, he said:
... this Government is not going to introduce any policy that is going to result in a cut in the take-home pay or living standards of the Australian workforce.
Mr Jones said:
My point to you is this, and I’m trusting you understand this, that if that overtime were to become ordinary time, take-home pay could fall dramatically.
The Prime Minister answered:
But I think people should wait until the legislation comes out. I think people should wait until the legislation is in operation and they will find that so many of these allegations are wrong.
Mr Jones then went on to talk about the impact of individual contracts. He said:
Now they are saying, the critics, the conditions therefore of the five—
minimum standards—
don’t include public holidays or meal breaks, so they are going to be negotiable. One union says the changes would make working on public holidays and through lunchbreaks open to bargaining between workers and bosses.
What did the PM say then? He said:
... I have said that the existing arrangements concerning meal breaks and public holidays will continue.
… … …
And it would be absurd and unfair and unreasonable if somebody has to work on a public holiday that that person isn’t compensated by being paid whatever it is, the double time or the time and a half.
… … …
I just want to make the general comment that those arrangements are going to continue.
That gives you the flavour of the interview and of the kinds of commitments that were made in principle, in good faith one would have assumed, to the listening audience of the Alan Jones program in August last year.
We all know the reality is totally different, and official figures put the lie to the Prime Minister’s claims. We know for a fact, from an analysis of 250 AWAs lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate, that nearly one in five AWAs excluded all award conditions and replaced them with the barest of the five minimum legislated standards. We know that two-thirds of them scrapped leave loadings and penalty rates. We know that more than half removed shift allowances and around one-third modified overtime loadings and rest breaks. Forty per cent had dropped gazetted public holidays in face of the fact that in my state of New South Wales public holidays have been legislated in an act since 1912. So Alan Jones was absolutely right in pressing the Prime Minister on the impact of AWAs on the wages and conditions of workers. Take-home pay is being cut, and the government’s own official statistics show that. And where is the Prime Minister to defend the previously made commitments on these issues?
Let me take his commitment that existing arrangements concerning meal breaks and public holidays would continue. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out the importance that is attached to public holidays by the Australian community. We know for a fact that current arrangements are not continuing. Look at the Spotlight AWA, about which there has been considerable publicity. What does it show? It shows no penalty rates for Saturday or Sunday work and no penalty rates for public holidays; so, currently, if a worker on the Spotlight AWA works on a public holiday, they get $14.30 an hour compared to the award of $35.70 an hour. It is an absolute shame, and the only compensation is a day off in lieu at ordinary rates. There is no overtime, no paid rest breaks, no annual leave loading and no meal, uniform or first aid allowances. And members opposite want to try and claim that the wages and conditions of workers are not being affected by this regressive and unfair industrial relations legislation. (Time expired)
48
15:26:00
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
TK6
Boothby
LP
1
0
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—This week we have seen that the opposition claims on Spotlight and on Esselte have not stacked up, but let us recap some of the other claims made by the Leader of the Opposition about the government’s workplace relations reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has said that under these reforms there will be more divorce. He has said that the weekend barbecue is about to become a thing of the past. He has said that neighbour will be set against neighbour in a dog-eat-dog world. These claims are not credible. They belong in the rubbish bin along with the claims made by the member for Perth back in 1995. They have not eventuated.
The topic of today’s motion is looking at a sample of four per cent of AWAs which were lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate, but the Leader of the Opposition has quoted selectively from these. He has failed to say that 84 per cent of the agreements in the sample had a greater rate of pay than under the award. What are Australian workplace agreements? They are agreements between employee and employer. They are selective to the enterprise and to the business. They must meet minimum standards—the Australian Fair Pay and Condition standard. No employee can be forced to sign an AWA; no employee can be terminated for refusing to sign an AWA. The most recent ABS survey showed that employees on AWAs earn, on average, 13 per cent more than employees covered by certified agreements and 100 per cent more than those on award rates.
The opposition fails to recognise the important changes that have occurred in the Australian workplace over the last 20 years. Whereas in the mid-1980s half of workers were members of trade unions, now just 22.4 per cent of the workplace are members of unions. In the private sector, only 16.8 per cent of people are members of unions. In the years from 1998 to 2004, the number of self-employed persons grew by a quarter of a million and trade union membership declined by 200,000 persons. There are now more independent contractors than union members.
When we look at the performance of the Australian economy under the government’s initial workplace relations reforms, we now see in the employment figures for May that the unemployment rate has fallen below five per cent for the first time since November 1976. But, at the same time, the participation rate rose. That means that more people were looking for work. The number of people employed increased by 56,000—all full-time jobs—and 38,000 of those were women; 1.8 million new jobs have been created since March 1996; and real wages are up by 16.8 per cent.
What has happened over the last 10 years is that a strong economy has led to shortages of skilled and unskilled labour. This means that workers are now in a very strong bargaining position. Workplace relations reform to introduce flexibility into the workplace so that we could get improvements in the economy was something that was always too hard for the Australian Labor Party. That is understandable. It is their history. It is their background. It is their training. The trade union movement has this vicelike grip on the Australian Labor Party. We have exhibit A, the member for Hotham, and exhibit B, the member for Throsby, the previous speaker. The problem is that there are now almost a million people on AWAs.
JH5
George, Jennie, MP
Ms George
—There are not; that is not true.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr SOUTHCOTT
—It is—almost a million people on AWAs. There is no greater authority on this than the Leader of the Opposition, who said, ‘There will be a million AWAs in place when we come into office and you can’t wander around cancelling contracts.’ Exactly! This is a promise that the Labor Party is unable to deliver on. We have seen workers in Western Australia and in Queensland in a whole range of industries who like their AWAs and who want to stay on their AWAs. If we look at my own state of South Australia, we find there are 2,000 people on AWAs at Olympic Dam. Roxby Downs has one of the highest income rates of any postcode in South Australia. There are over 9,000 people on AWAs in the electorate of Boothby. I think this is a big mistake by the Labor Party. This is a mistake akin to the ‘troops home by Christmas’ promise by Mark Latham.
The problem here is that the government has a very different vision of Australia from that of the opposition. We have an optimistic view of employers and employees and the way they can work cooperatively for mutual benefit. That is a view shared by the vast majority of aspirational Australians. It is a view shared by the vast majority of workers. We believe that workers should have choice, that they should have freedom to choose. AWAs are a very important strand of the workplace arrangements in this country, which will lead to further improvements in the economy.
49
15:31:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—I honestly wish that government members would come into this place and make it quite clear what the agenda of this Work Choices legislation is, because they skip around and contradict themselves constantly. Indeed, so does the Prime Minister, so it is little wonder that he does not want to have a direct debate on the issue.
The reality is that the government tell us over and over again that for the last 10 years everything has been just great. They talk about the unemployment rate and they talk about the growth in, and strength of, the economy. Then, in complete contradiction to their own case, they tell us that, therefore, there is a need for radical change to take away all of the protections and opportunities that gave the Australian population of workers an opportunity to enjoy and participate in the fruits of that economic growth. For families the reality is that this bill will pose a situation—
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr Barresi
—Bill? What bill?
DZP
Bird, Sharon, MP
Ms BIRD
—I take the correction from the member. This legislation and its impacts will directly affect the capacity of families to meet their obligations to each other, not just their obligations to the workforce. I come from a long family line of coalminers, and there are still many working in the coalmining industry. I have to say at this point that they were still all on enterprise agreements when I last spoke to them, but they are very well paid and doing very well, given the growth in the mining and minerals sectors in recent years. When I speak to them, these are the sorts of comments I get. Firstly, most of them have wives doing part-time work, often in the retail or hospitality industries. They are concerned about the capacity of their wives to continue earning an income without being required to be available at any time that suits the employer. The reality for many women in the workplace, particularly in the retail and hospitality industries, is that they do work part-time hours. They manage that work in combination with their commitments to their families by relying on having regular and notified working hours.
Since this legislation came into practice we are seeing women being asked to sign on to AWAs where they must be available for the entire operating hours of the business. The reality for those women is that they cannot then meet the commitments they have to their families and they have to choose—this is where the real choice is in that legislation—between working and not working. If you talk to women in the retail and hospitality industries you will find ample evidence that that is exactly what they are facing.
They also have teenage or young adult children. I do not know what world the members opposite live in, but I have a 17-year-old and a 22-year-old and I regularly speak to people in those age groups. Their experiences in the workforce in the last 10 years, in their initial attempts to get work, have not been good. There was already a great deal of exploitation of young workers under the previous changes that took place.
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr Barresi interjecting—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott interjecting—
DZP
Bird, Sharon, MP
Ms BIRD
—Members opposite might want to interject, but I suggest that they get out and talk to some young people about the fairly disgraceful practices that have occurred. I can tell members opposite that the practice—
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott
—At least they’ve got a job.
DZP
Bird, Sharon, MP
Ms BIRD
—At least they’ve got a job! You run that in your electorate. I dare you to run that in your electorate when you have a young person in a family who goes to work for a business for two weeks and is then told: ‘That’s work experience and it won’t be paid. Thanks very much but we’ve decided you’re not suitable; see you later, we’ll get somebody else in,’ to do two weeks work for no pay. And then you have the young person who genuinely thinks they have been signed up for a traineeship or an apprenticeship and then discovers that in fact there is no paperwork and after working the month over Christmas is told, ‘We no longer think you’ve got enough experience to be an apprentice, see you later.’ These are examples I have had in my electorate office. You talk to families whose kids are going through those experiences and you tell them, ‘Any job’s better than no job.’ I tell you what: you will get a pretty rude and abrupt response to that. The reality of Work Choices is that it works fine if you have power. If you do not, you will find yourself well and truly exploited.
TK6
Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP
Dr Southcott interjecting—
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I ask the honourable member for Boothby to bring himself to some sense of decorum in the House.
51
15:37:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—On behalf of the Howard government I am pleased to speak to the motion before the House. The member for Cunningham asked what our agenda was. Let me tell her, on behalf of the government: our agenda is about national prosperity. Our agenda is about creating jobs for Australians. Our agenda is about giving opportunities to young people throughout the length and breadth of this great country. It is about creating opportunities for all Australians to maximise their talents so that they can provide better opportunities for their families. I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion and put it where it belongs—in the bottom drawer.
This motion reflects the verbosity of the Leader of the Opposition—a lot of hot air and bluster. It is important that we come to the facts. What are the facts? The level of unemployment is at 4.9 per cent, a 30-year historic low. This is in a climate where participation rates are increasing. Since the Howard government came to office, 1.8 million new jobs have been created, real wages have increased by some 16.8 per cent over a decade and 56,000 Australian jobs have been created in one month alone. We have nil national government debt, amounting to savings of $8 billion-plus in interest rates alone. We have had 15 years of uninterrupted economic growth. That is what this government stands for. That is what the Howard government’s agenda is all about.
By contrast, let us look at the record of the Leader of the Opposition. We all know the important position he held when he was in the Keating government; he was finance minister. During Labor’s 13-year term in office, inflation was at 5.52 per cent, interest rates peaked at 17 per cent and the unemployment rate peaked at 11 per cent. One million Australians were out of a job during Labor’s tenure of office. I say to anybody listening to this debate in the parliament today, to the young Australians here, to the school children visiting our parliament: think about your future and the one million people who were out of a job during the Hawke-Keating years. That is something Australians should never forget. Certainly the people of the electorate of Ryan will be reminded time and time again by me, as their federal member, that if they want job security, if they want permanency of employment, the last thing they want is a Labor government. The very last thing they want is a Beazley Labor government, because with that they will get record levels of unemployment again.
The Beazley leadership group is trying to scare the Australian people again. We saw that with the debates in previous years. The most prominent was the tax reform debate, when the Labor Party used all its muscle to scare the Australian people. We all know how important the tax reforms have turned out to be, how significant they have been in stimulating economic activity and producing very low levels of unemployment in this country.
In terms of the statement by the Leader of the Opposition about getting rid of AWAs, there was an own goal on the weekend when a very prominent Labor Party union official, Mr Joe de Bruyn, expressed his great reservations when he said:
There’s certainly been a lot of liberties with the facts.
I say ‘Hear, hear!’ to Joe de Bruyn—someone highly respected in the labour movement and the union movement. It was very much an own goal on the part of the federal opposition. What is this motion all about? It is trying to scare the Australian people. Let me turn to some of the significant comments coming from the business community. I refer to none other than the Business Council of Australia’s President, Mr Michael Chaney, someone who is highly respected, with a track record of credibility and probity in the business community, someone who knows what he is talking about. I would rather back Mr Chaney’s comments and views than those of the federal Labor leader. Mr Chaney says:
The existence of AWAs has created a more innovative environment to progress agreements more generally in the workplace. The fact is that independent research shows that workplace reform, including the introduction of AWAs, has delivered significant opportunities for Australians.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Marriage
52
52
3.42 pm
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
1
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I move:
That this House:
-
recognise and honour marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman;
-
celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society; and
-
encourage the Australian Government to enact policies that promote and strengthen marriage in our society.
I am delighted to speak on this motion. In 2004 some 111,000 marriages were registered in Australia. This compares with 106,400 marriages registered in 2003, and some 108,700 marriages registered in 1984. The number of marriages registered has consistently increased since the 2001 low of 103,000. In 2004 the Howard government sponsored an amendment to the Marriage Act which inserted a formal definition of marriage, that definition being that ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. I spoke in this House at the time of that amendment of my very strong support for this definition and of marriage in general.
Again today in the parliament, in the House of Representatives as the federal member for Ryan, I want to place on record once again my firm position on this matter. I believe that marriage must be the legal and emotional union between a man and a woman, entered into freely and voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the efforts of the ACT government to undermine the institution of marriage by seeking to pass its own bill were a cause of grave alarm. Last week, the Executive Council advised the Governor-General, Michael Jeffrey, to issue a disallowance motion of the ACT’s Civil Unions Act 2006, in accordance with section 35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. In the government’s view, the ACT’s Civil Unions Act represented a serious affront to the institution of marriage.
I strongly share these views of the federal government. In my opinion, if a civil union is to be treated under the law for all intents and purposes the same as a marriage, and is afforded the same practical elements, then it is essentially a marriage. The ACT Civil Unions Act not only gave civil unions the same legal and practical rights as marriage, but in the same breath failed to give same-sex couples the same responsibilities as married couples. But whereas marriage is a lifelong union, not easily broken, civil unions under the ACT act could be broken simply by sending a letter to the Registrar-General and not withdrawing it within a mere one month. This is an absurd position to take. It highlights the conceptual flaws and inconsistencies within the ACT bill.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that marriage must be promoted and protected by society and governments alike. Marriage is one of society’s most fundamental institutions. Marriage is a bedrock institution. I view marriage as an institution on which the very continuity, strength and stability of our society rests. This is because marriage is connected to the procreation of children and the raising of families. Children come from marriage, and families stem from marriage. Damage the institution of marriage and you damage society at large. Diminish the institution of marriage and you diminish society at large. Undermine the institution of marriage and you undermine the foundations of family life. International evidence, such as the experience of Spain, has shown us that once same-sex marriage is allowed the institution of marriage is significantly eroded to the point where a child raised in a household with a mother and father becomes the exception rather than the norm. Assault the institution of marriage and you assault the fabric of our community and our society as we know it today. We do not want the Spanish experience exported to Australian shores.
It follows that, if marriage is an unchallenged expression of commitment, trust, loyalty and love in a union between a man and a woman, marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples. Moves by this government to protect marriage as a fundamental institution of Australian society should not be viewed as in any way discriminating against the gay and lesbian community. In fact, the Howard government has been a strong supporter of removing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation from within the law and in the workplace.
One of the very sad things about our modern world is that many marriages break down and couples feel they need to leave each other and carve out separate lives. We can all think of the many reasons that contribute to the breakdown of marriages. If marriage breakdown is not sad and regrettable of itself, then certainly one of the terrible consequences of marriage breakdowns is that where there are children involved it is invariably the children who suffer all kinds of losses and hurts. Many single parents who raise their children do an amazing job and they should receive our admiration and help. But given the facts that marriages break down and that most single parents do a wonderful job rearing their children, surely we must all agree that the best environment for the rearing of children is one that has both a mother and a father.
I repeat that society and governments must do all they can to promote such an environment where a mother and a father can raise a family with all the support that they need. I want to thank the Howard government for all its measures to strengthen marriage. I will continue to encourage it to make the protection and preservation of marriage a high priority. This would certainly receive the widespread support of the majority of the Australian community. As the federal member for Ryan, I know it would certainly receive the overwhelming support of my electorate.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the motion seconded?
83B
May, Margaret, MP
Mrs May
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
54
15:47:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the member for Ryan’s motion about marriage and I actually feel somewhat more than half qualified to do so. On 22 May I celebrated with my wife our 30th wedding anniversary. Bernadette and I have been married for 30 years and over those three decades she has been not only my wife but the mother of our three children and the very proud grandmother of three—soon to be four as of 1 July, I think it is. Over that whole period—since school actually—Bernadette has been my best friend. As a matter of fact, when we got married Bernadette was 19 and I was 20, so we have actually grown up together. So I do feel very strongly about the institution of marriage and its impact on families. That is why I welcome the opportunity to speak here today.
By and large, families are underpinned by successful marriages, but I want to say how regrettable it is that every year we have in excess of 50,000 divorces. That is more than one in three marriages unfortunately ending up on the rocks. Whilst we have supportive facilities such as relationship centres and good counselling and family support services, they have one thing in common: they are there to help pick up the pieces after the deleterious effects of modern life have wreaked carnage on modern marriages and, as a consequence, significantly affected families.
As secretary of the caucus industrial relations task force, I have recently had the opportunity to visit many locations throughout the country. One of the things that were continually raised with task force members was the actual and perceived impacts that the industrial relations changes will have or are likely to have on families. Over the last three decades we have seen continual stresses on families as a consequence of changing working hours, particularly after the introduction of non-standard working hours. In 2002 the Prime Minister said that balancing family life and work was a priority of his government. As a matter of fact, he went on to describe that issue as ‘a barbecue stopper’. I know that term has been used once or twice today, but that is the way that he described the issue in 2002. I also note that at a recent breakfast Pru Goward, the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, described balancing work and family life as an ‘epic struggle’—and clearly it is. That is why we are so concerned about the impact of these harsh industrial relations laws not only on individuals but also on families. Like the member for Ryan, I would be equally concerned about what they will do to marriages. We should be providing, as the motion says, positive policies to underpin and support the institution of marriage. I am all for that. We should be doing that. We should be looking at a set of policy frameworks that help support marriages and a diminution of the current divorce rate that we are experiencing. It is not something that we need to be very flash about in terms of how we position the words around it; it has to be something that we do.
If we are looking at track records, let us look at the one on Work Choices. This is something that we are poles apart on, given what is proposed. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not just Chris Hayes who stands up to say this. Family after family visited the industrial relations task force to complain about the impacts that the industrial relations legislation will have on them, their relationship with their family and their being available for their family. People are very concerned about the likely impact this legislation will have on successful family life into the future.
I commend the member for Ryan for moving the motion. I think he has provided a service to the parliament and, therefore, I hope that he will join me in looking at a set of industrial frameworks that would support families into the future—(Time expired)
55
15:52:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
0
Mrs MAY
—I commend the member for Ryan for introducing this private member’s motion to recognise and honour marriage as being the exclusive union between a man and a woman. I hope that this country continues to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it does not venture down the path of another social experiment that could in time see it pay an enormous price that will have huge social ramifications in the future, particularly on children.
This government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society, and this commitment to the traditional definition of marriage was reaffirmed with bipartisan support in this parliament in 2004. As the motion before the House today says: as a nation we need to ‘celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society’—and celebrate we can. The number of registered marriages in this country is increasing. The statistics may surprise some, but in fact all states and territories have recorded increases in the number of registered marriages. In Western Australia that number has increased by 11 per cent, and in the ACT it has increased by 10 per cent. New South Wales and Victoria recorded the smallest increases at only two per cent—but still an increase.
The institution of marriage between a man and a woman is supported by Australian society, and we must protect that institution. The increase in the number of marriages within our society clearly demonstrates the acceptance of the institution as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, made voluntarily and entered into for life. The institution of marriage between a man and a woman has been the accepted norm for centuries; it has stood the test of time. It has been the vehicle by which children have been raised and nurtured. It is the vehicle that has protected and guaranteed our society’s future and, in my view, it will be the vehicle that will see communities both here and around the world continue to grow and prosper.
In my view, the status of marriage between a man and a woman should not be compromised. Same-sex relationships or, indeed, unions should not have the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman. The two relationships are different by their very nature and, because they are different, they need to be treated differently. The ACT Civil Unions Act 2006 provided in section 5(2):
... a civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage.
How can a civil union be different from a marriage on one hand, yet be treated the same as a marriage on the other? One glaring difference with the proposal by the ACT government was the termination of a civil union. Under the proposal, a civil union could be terminated by just giving written notice to the Registrar-General. If it was not withdrawn within a month, the civil union was over. It would seem to me that the value of a civil union under the proposed act was certainly not strengthened or, indeed, in any way resembled a marriage under the Marriage Act if two people could end a union with a letter.
Not all marriages are made in heaven and, sadly, human failings and faults often see marriages ending. Some of those end acrimoniously with children often paying a very high emotional price of a messy separation that ends in divorce. Instead of moving to new social experiments that would end in more heartache and disaster, we need to put in place strong measures to assist and help couples and families meet the responsibilities that marriage brings, particularly once children become part of the family unit.
This government has been active over the past 10 years in ensuring that marriages have the best environment, both economically and socially, to enable husbands and wives to build strong family units that will survive the test of time and the enormous responsibilities and challenges that are faced over long periods of time.
In the last budget, brought down only weeks ago, the Treasurer announced further measures that demonstrate the commitment of the government to supporting families and the choices they make. Helping families has been one of the highest priorities of this government. Major initiatives in the budget will ensure that our economic prosperity continues well into the future. That strong economic base will assist families by keeping interest rates low, by keeping inflation low, by keeping unemployment low and by ensuring that, with a disciplined approach to our economy, families in this country will benefit and prosper. Specific services, such as early intervention and the funding of relationship centres around the country, will give couples the education and skills training they need to build strong relationships for the long term.
A healthy family environment means a healthy and strong society for our country. Strong family relationships build strong communities. We need to continue supporting these types of services to assist children, young people and adults and to continue sustaining safe, supportive and nurturing family relationships—and there is no better place for nurturing than within the institution of marriage. I commend the motion to the House.
56
15:57:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—I support the motion moved by the member for Ryan, which extols the virtues of marriage. What is marriage? For the purposes of the House, marriage is one of the Commonwealth government’s powers of enumerated jurisdiction, enshrined in our Commonwealth Constitution under section 51. It is right and proper, therefore, that we discuss this power.
Marriage is a natural bond between man and woman, recognised in the vast majority of cultures, whether Christian or otherwise. This universal recognition largely reflects the natural law, in that nature ordains the natural procreative function of man and woman. Marriage is therefore an essential part of the foundation and stability of the family. The institutions of family and society are the essence of what is known as the ‘common good’ from which all public interest derives.
Marriage is the natural relationship of the two different sexes. Nature reveals that this relationship is one of complementarity. Man and woman are both biologically and emotionally different. That is why they are intrinsically different creatures. Marriage mutually perfects the other so that they become one. Together, man and woman complement each other, ultimately and naturally bringing children into the world.
Marriage is a reality that exists at every level—biological, physical and spiritual. It is in the act of marriage that the spiritual reality of the joining of man and woman is given moral and legal approval. Again, this reality is recognised by the majority of people across all cultures and religions. This reality is a natural reality that is seen by the great majority of cultures worldwide. Marriage is a reality that is truly unique to the monogamous, heterosexual realm.
‘Marriage’ is well defined in section 5 of the Commonwealth Marriage Act and section 5 of the Family Law Act as ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others’. This definition is the only valid recognition of our civil laws which correctly reflects the natural law and moral law. You do not have to be a Catholic to reach that conclusion. You do not even have to be a Christian to reach that conclusion. In fact, you do not even have to believe in anything to draw that conclusion. Therefore, the word ‘marriage’ cannot be used to describe any form of relationship other than the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This is so because there is no way to produce children naturally other than by a man and a woman. Technology and legal redefinition attempt to overcome this fact, but there is no other natural means by which the propagation of the species can occur.
We parliamentarians act and speak in the public interest. That is our role. It is therefore necessary for us to defend the common good. Nature speaks of the procreative function. No technocentric, cultural or ideological position or solution can substitute the way in which nature ordains the procreative function of a man and woman joined in marriage. We cannot barter or negotiate with nature; it is absolute.
This House of parliament cannot repeal the law of gravity, even if it passes a law that says it is repealed. You do not have to be a religious adherent to believe that marriage is a cornerstone of Australia’s functional society. Functional healthy societies are those that support marriage of one man to one woman for life. The case is good, therefore, for laws to support marriage and positively discriminate in favour of marriage. Laws that favour marriage make good economic, social and political sense. Our duty towards the common good compels us to draft laws that recognise, promote and protect marriage. The family unit depends on the healthy support of marriage. Marriage is therefore the primary unit of a functional society. It is for the common good of Australia that laws are made that reflect positive support for the family and for marriage, for marriage and the family are inseparable. You cannot have functional families without laws that support marriage or vice versa. That is why our family laws and marriage laws were amended recently to give long awaited recognition to the statutory definition of ‘marriage’ as being ‘the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’.
That said, we are all let down by those who are naive enough to mask their support for marriage and who employ it as a weapon to attack the many other relationships in our society. Such attacks are unconscionable, unnecessary and unjustified. In concluding, I am therefore pleased to support this motion and an institution that has well served our society and countless other societies for many thousands of years.
57
16:02:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
0
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—I am proud to have listened today to the earlier contributions from both sides of the House and to also add my support to the member for Ryan’s private member’s motion—that is, to recognise and honour marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, to celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society and to encourage the Australian government to continue with policies that promote and strengthen marriage.
I can speak with fewer years experience than other members but, nonetheless, 11 years of personal experience of the joys of being married, during which our family has been created and developed. It has provided each one of us with a sense of our place in the world and certainly a knowledge of each of our personal identities and an alliance with each other. The Australian government does an excellent job communicating and upholding the fundamental importance of marriage in our society. Like other institutions, it suffers from human frailty on occasion. Nonetheless, marriage remains time honoured and well proven for social cohesion and the welfare of children.
On this side of the House, we do this in part by reiterating the importance of all children having the opportunity, wherever possible, to be raised with the care and affection of their mother and father. It is for these reasons that the government has always maintained the view—and I support this view—that, while the law should be respectful of the private life choices that people make for themselves, same-sex relationships cannot be given the same status as marriage.
We have heard much talk in the past few weeks about civil unions and the Crown’s recent overturning of the ACT’s radical civil union laws. The ACT government’s behaviour on this issue has been appalling, out of step with mainstream Australia and deliberately provocative in offending marriage as it is defined in legislation. We as law makers all have a duty to protect the rights of every one of our citizens. At the same time, there are institutions in this country that warrant and deserve defending and, in this case, that is the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
It would indeed be unreasonable for a person to say, on the basis of what has happened in recent weeks, that any member of the federal government is being homophobic, but there is no proactive discrimination occurring here. Australia does not set out to make life difficult for individuals on the basis of their private lives, and it would be wrong if any government did. All men and women in Australia are equal under our Constitution and our laws. I concede that there is different treatment under the law for different relationships. But this is not about discrimination against the individual and it is not designed to be. It sensibly distinguishes between marriage and other relationships and it should not be seen as discrimination or an infringement of rights. It is not.
Our legal system does not treat people differently on the basis of their sex lives, and that is why we are so fortunate to live in the best country in the world and a very successful democracy. As individual people, homosexual men and women have exactly the same legal rights as you or I. I am not alone when I stand here today and say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. If the ACT government had had its way then its same-sex civil union proposal would have simply meant marriage by another name. Marriage is the responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth made its stand clear when it objected to the ACT’s legislation. It was not satisfied with the ACT government’s response to the objections raised.
I express in passing my disappointment that many in the Labor Party have been exposed for their fascination with left-wing politics and their frank departure from supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. I further express my disappointment that no fewer than four ALP senators were effectively prevented from expressing their views on this matter when it came before the Senate. We all have a duty to defend what we believe is right and good, and we would do well to remind ourselves of the old values, which served us well in the past, continue to serve us well today and will serve us well into the future. With all of its imperfections, we owe it to ourselves and to the future of our functional and harmonious society to defend a wonderful human institution. I commend the motion to the House.
59
16:07:00
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
0
0
Dr EMERSON
—I wish to anchor my remarks on this debate in a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled To have and to hold—strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships. I acknowledge the role of Joe de Bruyn in pointing out this report to me, because it was presented to the parliament in June 1998, before I was elected. The government members of the inquiry included Minister Andrews, Minister McGauran, the member for Flinders and the member for Canning. Labor members included the member for Barton, the member for Blaxland, the member for Denison, the member for Banks, the member for Chifley and the member for Wills.
I list those names because those members of parliament who contributed to this report did so in a bipartisan spirit, handed down a bipartisan report and demonstrated as eminent members of parliament that the issue of marriage does enjoy bipartisan support in this parliament and should be above politics. I was disappointed, therefore, with the remarks of the previous speaker, who sought to politicise this debate. Marriage is much too important an institution to be politicised in this way.
The report to which I have referred was about strengthening and supporting marital arrangements and preventing marital distress and consequent breakdown of marriages. The report found that international research shows that marriage benefits personal health and wellbeing. Yet, as my colleague the member for Werriwa has pointed out, every year there are 50,000 divorces and one in three marriages ends in divorce.
Marriage breakdown of course increases the prevalence of sole parent households. Research conducted by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling shows that sole parent families constitute one-quarter of all families nowadays but account for one-half of the poorest 20 per cent of families. What I am saying is that sole parent households are grossly overrepresented amongst the poorest families in our community. So we should be doing what we reasonably can to avoid mothers being deserted and placed in a situation in which three-quarters of a million children now live—that is, in sole parent households. The 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 took forward the common-law understanding of marriage to enshrine it in the legislation in these terms:
The union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Labor fully agrees with that, and that is why we supported this legislation. It is important to preserve the uniqueness of marriage, but I point out that the Work Choices legislation puts unnecessary extra pressure on families. This was the Prime Minister’s barbecue stopper. Several years ago the Prime Minister argued that the biggest issue—the barbecue stopping issue—in our society is the need to strike a better balance between work and family life. What has the government done about achieving a better balance? It has taken us backwards through the Work Choices legislation by imposing extra pressures on families to work irregular hours, to lose penalty rates and, overall, to be in a situation where they have less control of their lives and less time for nurturing marriage.
I refer to comments made on the weekend by His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, who was asked about the industrial relations laws. He said: ‘I don’t particularly like the new IR laws because I am frightened they could force down minimum wages and, if that was the effect, I’d be very disappointed.’ He went on to say: ‘It’s yet to be seen how they will work out, but I am apprehensive.’ I do not want to politicise Cardinal Pell’s intervention, but he makes a very valid point. We do support the institution of marriage, but we do want to see a better balance between work and family life.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
60
Grievance Debate
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Mr Stanley Major
Prostate Cancer: Be a Man Campaign
60
60
16:12:00
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
0
Ms HOARE
—I rise to pay tribute to a very dear friend of mine who, sadly, passed away on 31 May. When Stan Major’s funeral arrangements were being made, his family asked me whether I would make a tribute at the service for the celebration of his life. As I said, Stan Major was a very good friend to me and my family, and I would like to read onto the record the tribute that I had the honour to present at his passing:
It is a very special privilege for me to have been asked to speak at this celebration of the life of our dear friend and colleague Stanley Major and I thank my dear friend Dorothy and the family for allowing me to do so.
I am pleased that Dot and the family have chosen to call this service a celebration of Stan’s life because there is much to celebrate about it.
Stan lived a full life but it is always tragic to see someone with his qualities taken from us. We really cannot afford to lose the Stan Majors of the world. I sometimes feel that there are fewer and fewer remaining. Fortunately Stan and Dot have a large family and through their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren the qualities of Stan Major can be assisted to live on.
Stan Major’s life was one of basic human decency, of personal integrity, commitment, loyalty, friendship and love. There was always that clear but indefinable bond between Stan and Dot. They shared their lives, provided mutual security and personally rejoiced in their extended family. They were always like two peas in a pod.
Stan was a very proud man. He gave a very brave commitment during the Second World War and spent most of that time in New Guinea. His war service and his pride in it demonstrated his wider commitment to Australia and to peace. From this service he has continued as a strong, proud and active member of the RSL sub-branch, another facet of Stan’s life that he devoted himself to and was proud of.
As I have said, and we all know, Stan Major was a very proud man. He was proud of his family, he was proud of his working life, he was proud of his background and upbringing, he was proud of his war service. He was a proud member of the Wangi RSL sub-branch and he was a proud member of the Australian Labor Party. Stan Major had every reason to be a proud man.
Stan was a Life Member of the Labor Party. That commitment was based on and motivated by his belief that humankind was capable of creating a better world in which people of all races and creeds are treated equally and with dignity and provided the opportunity to develop their talents and live secure and fulfilling lives.
Stan never sought to gain anything personally from his membership of the Labor Party. He never stood for public office, because his concern was always for what the Labor Party could do for Australia and the Australian people.
I want to leave a very special message with Stan and Dot’s four daughters and sons in law, nine grandchildren and six great-grandchildren: forever into the future you can be proud of Stan and proud to have been part of his family. You can always proudly proclaim that Stan Major was your father, grandfather or great-grandfather.
The deepest personal sympathy of both myself and Reg is extended to Dot and all members of the family. As your present feeling of great loss begins to ease you will all be able to take increasing comfort from the knowledge that Stan Major was so highly regarded and respected.
As I said, we have all lost a very dear friend and I thank the House for allowing me to read the tribute into Hansard.
I want to go on to talk about something that affects a lot of us: prostate cancer. Last year saw the launch of the Be a Man campaign by the Prostate Cancer Foundation. Along with probably many of our colleagues I attended a launch of this campaign. There were various launches held right around the country. I know that there were launches in Brisbane, in Sydney and in Western Australia, with the Western Australian Premier. We had ours in Newcastle on Wednesday, 7 June.
Members on both sides of the House have survived prostate cancer. As we know now, if detected early, the survival rate of men who have had prostate cancer is very high. The Be a Man campaign is all about making men aware—making men know about prostate cancer, making men know where their prostate is and using early detection, testing and screening to ensure that the death rates from prostate cancer start to decrease. The Prostate Cancer Foundation website has a list of the facts about prostate cancer. I want to share those with everybody in this place:
Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of death from cancer, after lung cancer.
Approximately 10,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year in Australia.
2,600 men per year die from prostate cancer in Australia each year. Therefore approximately 9,500 men with prostate cancer die of some other cause. Most of these men are in the older age group—over 70 years of age.
Although men’s awareness of prostate cancer has increased over the past two years, only approximately 15% of men are appropriately tested with a combination of PSA and Digital Rectal Examination—
And, as I said:
Early, curable prostate cancer is without symptoms.
It can be difficult to differentiate between aggressive cancers and those with a more slow growing history.
One of the misconceptions about prostate cancer is that there are symptoms that men expect to have if they think they should be tested for prostate cancer—problems urinating, pain and those types of symptoms, which usually force a man to think about that part of his body. Unfortunately, those kinds of symptoms do not develop until the tumour in the prostate has reached a fairly advanced stage—and, as I said, when it does reach that advanced stage, the diagnosis is not good.
There were lots of people involved with the launch of the campaign. All of these people gave their time freely. The campaign has been supported by a great many people in our society. The line-up of the main launches included actors Magda Szubanski and Sandy Gore; singer Marcia Hines; Australian Idol host Andrew G; Australian singing legend Marty Rhone; Minister Jim Lloyd, the member for Robertson; shadow minister Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley; leading jockey Darren Beadman; star AFL footballer and Indigenous representative Michael Long; former Australian test cricketer Gavin Robertson; former AMA president Professor Kerryn Phelps; and leading urologists Professor Tony Costello, Professor Phillip Stricker and Dr Andre Lalak. In our area we are very lucky to have Professor Jim Denham, who is a leading person in his field. He conducts lots of clinical trials and is leading this push in our area to raise awareness of prostate cancer. (Time expired)
Alcohol Taxation
61
61
16:22:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I would like to take the opportunity to touch on an issue related to the taxation arrangements for premixed drinks, or RTDs. This ties in with the recently debated Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006 and I would like to add my thoughts to this matter. My colleague the member for Page covered the issue in depth in a contribution during the previous debate and I would like to expand on his thoughts.
I believe that the Commonwealth should consider giving RTDs access to the 1.5 per cent excise-free threshold which applies to all beer products as well as the reduced excise rates that apply to packaged and draught low- and mid-strength beers. Not only would this correct an anomaly in the existing taxation arrangements; it would also further encourage the consumption of lower alcohol content beverages and could well improve drinking behaviours within the community. RTD manufacturers would also have some further encouragement to produce lower alcohol products due to the associated reduction in tax costs. As the member for Page outlined in his contribution, this could bring substantial benefits to both the national and local economies.
I note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee has just recommended to the government that it consider the long-term adoption of a volumetric tax system for all alcohol products and that the government apply the same tax and excise treatment to low- and mid-strength ready-to-drink, RTD, alcohol products as is applied to similar strength beer products. While I applaud the committee’s recommendations, there are a number of pertinent matters I would like to raise in support of these proposals. The National Alcohol Strategy 2006-2009, which was recently endorsed by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, also highlighted the need to focus on price related mechanisms to reduce the consumption of alcohol at harmful levels. Tax equivalence between low- and mid-strength RTDs and packaged beer would undoubtedly help achieve this goal.
Other national health bodies such as the National Drug Research Institute and the Australian Medical Association have also endorsed the need for incentives to produce lower alcohol products. Indeed, a report by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists on strategies to reduce the misuse of alcohol stated that Australia’s taxation of alcohol since the introduction of the GST has ‘failed to tax the alcohol content of drinks in order to maintain incentives for drinkers to choose low-alcohol varieties and to create disincentives for heavy drinkers to choose cheap bulk drinks’.
We know what the medical experts think, we know what commomsense says and we know what the Australian distillers want, so what does it all mean to the bottom line? What is the revenue impact of extending the taxation arrangements for low- and mid-strength beer to RTDs? You will be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the spirits industry estimates the cost of low- and mid-strength RTD equivalence to packaged beer to be less than $2 million per annum. Bear in mind that when this arrangement was made in respect of beer by the Labor government in its 1988 budget the net revenue effect was a $400 million loss to revenue. So we are talking about a very minor impact upon the fiscal bottom line.
Another aspect to consider is the impact a simple change to taxation arrangements might have on public safety. We frequently see public education campaigns focusing on responsible drinking—and I applaud those campaigns—but how can we put their ideals into practice? Road safety is one of the most important issues confronting the Australian people. Since the time of the invention of the car, 160,000 Australians have been killed in road accidents. In economic terms, the cost of road trauma is currently estimated at about $15 billion a year. In an effort to allay the cost, the government has invested huge sums of money to create safer vehicles, safer roads and better driver behaviour. Perhaps we should also consider encouraging the production and consumption of low- and mid-strength alcohol products such as RTDs, which represent around 11 per cent of the Australian alcohol market.
Something else to consider is the possibility that by encouraging manufacturers to increase the production of RTDs in Australia by way of a fairer taxation environment we might actually help reduce the national road toll. I know it sounds like a preposterous proposition, but it is backed up by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s Community Attitudes to Road Safety survey of 2005, which says in part: ‘There is evidence that the price of alcoholic beverages and the price differentials between low-alcohol and high-alcohol beverages both have effects on alcohol consumption, which impacts on road safety. Addressing pricing issues may therefore be a useful strategy to consider in the context of server intervention programs.’
The survey goes on to say that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that mid-range low-alcohol beers appeal to people who would otherwise drink regular strength beer. It also reported that, since the introduction of lower legal blood alcohol limits and the intensive anti-drink-driving enforcement strategies, the market share of low-alcohol beers has increased to around one-quarter of all beer sold. That is not me, the member for Hinkler, speaking; that is the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
According to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, alcohol is associated with 30 per cent of all car accidents and road deaths and is the leading cause of death amongst young men aged between 15 and 24 years of age. The foundation also reports that men and women aged 15 to 24 years are involved in over one-half—that is, 52 per cent—of all serious alcohol related road injuries.
Interestingly, while we all know that the legal blood alcohol concentration limit for drivers is 0.05 per cent, statistics show that many consumers have difficulty judging that amount when they are drinking and judging when they might reasonably have reached their limit. While more than half—around 54 per cent—of beer drinkers accurately identified the number of standard drinks in a stubby or a can of full strength beer, 66 per cent of wine drinkers continue to underestimate the number of standard drinks contained in a bottle of wine. The beauty of RTDs is that consumers know exactly how much alcohol is contained in the drink. RTDs have a consistent, known, reliable and measured quantity of alcohol and are obviously a more responsible way to drink. This brings me to another point: RTDs are all too often demonised for targeting young and underage people. This is a totally incorrect assumption, one easily made by critics and one they never seek to justify. In several ways, RTDs actually help reduce the risk of dangerous alcohol consumption.
The National Drug Strategy Household Survey of 2001 provided some very interesting results, including the fact that male teenagers, aged 14 to 19 years, drinking at low, risky or high levels of harm in the short or long term most commonly drink regular strength beer. Female teenagers in the low-risk category drink pre-mixed drinks—and I ask you to note that—but female teenagers, aged 14 to 19 years, drinking at risky or high-risk levels in the short and long term, commonly drink bottled spirits and liqueurs. Quite obviously, if you get an RDT at a measured strength, people are going to drink more responsibly.
The Department of Health and Ageing also came up with similar information from four tracking studies it conducted between 2000 and 2002. Some of the key facts to emerge from those studies are that beer is the most popular drink amongst higher risk male drinkers, RTDs are not significantly preferred by higher risk female drinkers and RTDs are the most popular drink of low-risk female drinkers. They are three areas in which we can look at this. These results clearly defy the common assumptions that RTDs target young people. (Time expired)
Do Not Call Register Legislation
64
64
16:32:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
0
0
Ms BURKE
—I am not here to grieve today; I am here to crow. I am here to absolutely crow about a piece of legislation the government was forced to introduce last week. Sadly, I could not be here last week because of a terrible cold—and it still has not gone away, so bear with me.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce
—Ah, are you better?
83S
Burke, Anna, MP
Ms BURKE
—No, I am not. Labor first announced its policy for a national Do Not Call Register to protect Australians from invasive telemarketing calls in 2004. The then Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts dismissed our policy, saying it would not work. How times have changed! But it has been an uphill battle to get the Howard government to do something about the problem of unwanted telemarketing calls. I have long been campaigning for a national Do Not Call Register, so it gives me immense pleasure to support the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006, although it is long overdue.
Over six months ago I tried to legislate for a Do Not Call List because my constituents, along with millions of other Australians across the country, were fed up with being hassled by telemarketers. They were crying out for help—and it is no wonder. Last year Australian telemarketers made a total of 1,065 billion calls, so on average Australians received 53 telemarketing calls each week. This figure does not include the millions of calls from overseas call centres, usually on behalf of Australian companies. A rough calculation reveals that Australians are spending around half an hour each week fielding these calls. Australians are losing an entire day each year to telemarketers, so in effect we now have only 364 days in a year. That is why there was very much a sense of astonishment in the community that the federal government was doing nothing to protect their privacy. While state governments have been very proactive on this front, only legislation at the national level could have a meaningful impact. People kept on asking me: ‘If the government can legislate against spam, why does it refuse to legislate against telemarketers?’
When burglars invade your home you call the police. When termites invade your home you call the pest exterminators. But when telemarketers invade your home there is no-one to call and nothing you can do. This is why, in response to the anger and frustration of Australians, I introduced a private member’s bill in federal parliament in October last year to establish a Do Not Call List. Under my proposal, a register would have been established under the auspices of a federal department to allow people to opt out of receiving unwanted telemarketing calls. It banned telemarketers from calling people on public holidays and Sundays, and on any other day between midnight and 9 am or between 8 pm and midnight. It set out a penalty system that would ensure that companies which breached the list would receive hefty fines as both a deterrent and punishment. The legislation also protected Australians from receiving unwanted telemarketing calls from overseas. A similar list is working successfully in the US, where more than 100 million households have registered.
I wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to give bipartisan support to my bill to ensure that Australians were given some peace and quiet in their own homes. But instead the government chose to play politics and refused to allow a vote on this bill—and they are constantly saying that we play oppositional politics! So, as I remarked to my colleagues recently, I got a strange sense of deja vu last week when the member for Gippsland rose to speak on the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006. It all sounded very familiar.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and it is a great victory for both Labor and, more importantly, the community that has been pressuring the Howard government to actually adopt a national do not call register. Had the government allowed a vote on my private member’s bill six months ago, we would have a register up and running today. The day before my private member’s bill was set to be debated, the minister tried desperately to get in on the act, announcing a discussion paper on the need for a Do Not Call List. There was not much to discuss—it was just more waylaying from the government. The community overwhelmingly supported the establishment of the register and did not need a discussion paper to tell them that.
Over the last few months, I have been inundated with calls, emails and letters from people all over Australia—thousands, in fact—in support of my campaign to stop unwanted telemarketing calls. Most people I have spoken to about this issue are astounded that we live in an age where we no longer have privacy in our own homes. As I have said on many occasions, your home is no longer your castle; it is a telemarketing paradise. This is an issue that affects all sectors of our community. Australians love to shop, but they like to choose when and where they shop. For most of the community, telemarketing is just a nuisance.
In this busy day and age families get such little time together, so the few hours each day we do get are precious; they should not be spoiled by direct marketers. I do not think there is a single family out there who has not experienced the witching hour. My family are in the gallery today and they know this situation. It is incredibly frustrating when you are trying to feed your kids, get them in the bath and off to bed when the phone is ringing and someone is trying to sell you something that you do not want and that is too good to be true. Before the member for Gippsland accuses me of plagiarism, I point out to him that I have used the phrase ‘the witching hour’ on numerous occasions and so have the community out there.
I have had emails from new mothers who are extremely distressed by the fact that, whenever they sit down to feed the baby or put them in the cot, a telemarketer calls. Unwanted calls are not just annoying; for many people they can be extremely intimidating. Many elderly and frail people become quite frightened and confused. A gentleman from Queensland emailed me about his experience. He wrote:
My wife and I are retirees, and recently my wife was rather sick, and on several occasions we were interrupted by many of these calls while she was resting up ... I am most very angry that nothing has been done to stop these people before now, and consideration isn’t given to people who may be in bed on shift work, elderly people that may be sick or having trouble in getting to the phone and, in a nutshell, I feel it should be stopped and heavy penalties imposed for those that continue to do it. Even though we are not in your area, we give you our full support and wish you every success and hope you can get something done in the very near future.
I have no doubt that he and the other thousands of people who have been in contact with me will welcome Labor’s success in pressuring the government to act on this issue. So too will a Melbourne woman who sent me a particularly poignant email in relation to her elderly mother’s plight. She wrote:
A lot of people who are at home during the day (when a lot of cold calling occurs) are quite vulnerable and therefore susceptible to the sometimes aggressive tactics of telephone marketing. I use an example of my mother who has Alzheimer’s Disease and is still able to live in her home—just. When someone calls to ask her for information or tell her she ‘needs’ to buy this product, she doesn’t have the mental capacity to deal with the call in a rational way and can become upset and confused. She has been convinced to accept deals which aren’t in her best interest. I am her sole carer and caring for someone with a dementia related disease is difficult enough without outside factors making it harder.
There are thousands of other families out there who are gravely concerned that their elderly relatives are being taken advantage of by the hard-sell tactics of direct marketers.
People are resorting to adopting silent numbers, but this comes at an extra cost. It is my belief that privacy should be a right, not a privilege that you pay for. Others choose to block incoming overseas phone calls, but what if you have relatives overseas who need to be in touch? Remarkably, I have had emails from people who are now screening their calls on their answering machine. There are other extreme lengths to which people will go to avoid these pesky calls. One woman emailed me and said:
Although I am not in your constituency, I support with gusto your move to introduce this bill. Almost nightly we receive at least one call from some such telemarketer. It has reached the stage where we have told friends and family not to call us between 5.30 pm and 9 pm (telemarketer peak call times). We do not answer the phone at that time.
There are people too afraid to answer their own phones in their homes. This is a joke. A national Do Not Call Register is very welcome, but also long overdue and should be introduced now; we should not be waiting another six months to see it introduced.
Previously, the Howard government has said it would not establish a Do Not Call Register because it would result in job losses. The previous communications minister said it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, but the evidence from the US shows that this is nothing more than a furphy. An article in the Advertising Age said:
... early indications are that the industry is evolving, rather than facing extinction: many telemarketers appear to have survived by broadening their businesses.
According to Manpower Inc:
The ‘do not call’ registry didn’t decrease the demand for personnel; it just shifted the work employees had to do.
In Tasmania, sometimes referred to as the call centre capital of Australia, there has been overwhelming support for the Do Not Call Register. This is because most of the firms handle inbound calls, but the register will actually help outbound telemarketers to better target consumers. They will not have to waste time contacting people who are just not interested.
It will benefit the hardworking employees in Australian call centres who are at the receiving end of sometimes rude and abusive behaviour. I have gone to lengths to make sure that people are always polite to people who work at these telemarketing centres. They are doing a fairly tough job for, on the whole, low wages. I do not support in any way, shape, size or form abusing them, but I can understand why some people do elect to take their frustration out on the person on the other end of the phone. I do not encourage it. These people are merely doing a job, but the reality is that some people are so fed up that they are taking their tempers out on these people.
I have to admit that recently, after the third phone call I had from a hotel I stayed in six years ago, I answered with the response, ‘You do realise I am pushing for a do not call register to stop these phone calls.’ The person on the end of the phone said, ‘So do you want me to take your phone number off?’ I said, ‘Yes. I’ve said that now on about 12 occasions. It is a silent number and I really would like you to go away.’ I think we need to not take it out on them but establish a system whereby we as individuals say, ‘No, I respect my castle, I respect my time with my family and I want it returned to me. I want to elect who calls me at home and I want to take my phone number out of your hands.’
I want to congratulate the Australian Direct Marketing Association, which has created its own register over the years and led the charge to ensure that its industry has a regulated regime. But it does not stop the pesky calls from India and Singapore. Hopefully, this legislation will. (Time expired)
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities
67
67
16:43:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I grieve for the people of Australia and, in particular, for those in my own state of Victoria because the Labor Party’s social engineers are at it again. Once again the Victorian people are going to be the guinea pigs in the ALP’s social laboratory. This time, the Victorian Labor government seems determined to go even further than it ever has before. It is going to attempt to perpetrate the most insidious assault upon people’s rights that this nation has ever seen. I refer, of course, to the Victorian government’s Orwellian ‘charter of human rights and responsibilities’. I believe that this Trojan horse will, if it is allowed inside this nation, work to subvert the powers of our elected legislators throughout the land and empower the unelected in their place. As such, this insidious charter is a monstrous attack on Australia’s democratic tradition. This is not just a Victorian issue. It is a matter of concern for all Australians.
Professor George Williams, who was one of the Victorian Labor government’s chosen consultants for this project, has been quite up front about the scope of this charter and about the intentions of those who are behind it. In December last year he wrote that he saw this charter as:
... a model that New South Wales could follow, along with the 2004 ACT Human Rights Act.
I am so appalled by this attempted subversion of Australian democracy by the Bracks Labor government that I am seeking advice as to what avenues are available to this federal parliament to invalidate the legislation if Premier Bracks manages to ram it through the Victorian parliament before the forthcoming state election. I am currently investigating what powers exist under the Constitution to protect the people of Victoria and, ultimately, the people of Australia, from the excesses of the sociopathic socialists in the states.
Social engineering is nothing new to Labor, but this move is more extreme and more dangerous than any of their other crazy ideas. This Bracks legislation is the creature of the ultraliberal and neo-Marxist elements that influence the course of ALP governments. It is steeped in political correctness. It is a monster created by those who think they have the right to dictate the manner in which Australians should live their lives. Nobody should be in any doubt that the charter currently before the Victorian parliament is a major part of a premeditated national push—orchestrated by the Left of the ALP—to introduce similar legislation into every state and territory of the Commonwealth.
Compared to the Victorian charter, the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 was like a movie trailer—the sneak preview that gave us a glimpse of the blockbuster horror movie that was coming our way. Make no mistake: all of these assorted acts, charters and other pieces of legislation are a serious attempt to impose Big Brother political correctness on every Australian. This is about dictating to every Australian how they should live their lives. This appalling legislation is about usurping the values upon which our nation was built and has thrived. It is about enshrining in law a philosophy that is utter anathema to the great bulk of Australians. This is about the all-powerful state having control over every individual, every day of their lives.
It may be 17 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the ghosts of Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin still haunt the ALP. And just as the ALP was tainted by communism in the 1950s and 1960s, today the ALP is infected by left-wing political correctness. While Labor is currently trying to introduce these subversive measures at a state level, spare a thought for what we could get if the federal government fell into their hands. History shows that the federal ALP comrades have been just as enthusiastic about such repressive measures as their state colleagues. So the Bracks Labor government is sending us a sharp reminder of the past and an urgent warning for the future. If we want to know quite clearly what the federal Labor Party has in mind for the people of Australia, I do not think we should bother asking this Leader of the Opposition. He has difficulty making his position clear on anything. Rather, I suggest we look at Labor’s plan, as detailed in chapter 7 of the ALP National Platform and Constitution 2004. This is the same platform that Latham took to the last election. See, Labor leaders change, but Labor itself never changes.
Let us take a look at Labor’s blueprint for government. Chapter 7 makes many grandiose statements about the need to protect human rights. It tells us Labor will seek to incorporate what it describes as Australia’s international human rights obligations into domestic law. It tells us Labor will introduce a legislative charter of citizenship and aspirations, which also has an Orwellian ring about it, but it does not go into details. What it does not tell us is whether or not a federal Labor government would follow the lead of its comrades in the states and territories and introduce some sort of bill of rights. Given the alarm currently on display in Victoria, it is essential the federal Leader of the Opposition comes clean with the Australian people on his plans for such legislation and how it will affect Australians’ lives.
One of the biggest question marks hanging over the Victorian charter is why it is being introduced at all. The human rights of not one single Australian is under threat. I have not seen hundreds of thousands of Victorians marching in the streets, demanding Labor defend their basic rights. Human rights in any state have been far from a barbecue stopper issue. With the advent of Labor’s bill of rights, I would suggest that is about to change forever. Labor’s legislation is clearly designed to undermine the supremacy of the parliament as the ultimate law-making body. The Victorian charter will lead to a US style situation where laws will be made by unelected judges as they interpret legislation according to what they construe as the meaning of the charter.
We will soon see a situation where a majority in both houses of parliament will not be enough to govern. A majority on the state Supreme Court will also be necessary. We will replicate the problems faced by our American cousins who now regard any legislative change as being dictated more by the US Supreme Court than the congress. In anyone’s language, this must devalue our democratic processes and, indeed, the parliament itself. In Labor’s human rights utopia, Australia will see a massive rights enforcement industry spring up almost immediately, with faceless bureaucrats dictating whose rights are to be protected and under what circumstances. Not surprisingly, Labor’s civil libertarian lawyer mates are rubbing their hands together with glee at the windfall the legislation will lavish upon them.
Respected commentator Janet Albrechtsen recently used her column in the Australian newspaper to point out the ramifications of the charter as it applies to the Aboriginal community. Ms Albrechtsen went as far as describing section 19 of the bill as:
... a licence for more aboriginal children to be abused in the name of culture.
I am sure every member of this House has been both sickened and enraged by revelations of domestic violence and child abuse by some in the name of Aboriginal culture. Clearly, it is an evil we should all be aiming to eradicate. The introduction of legislation which even remotely might facilitate such monstrous behaviour is to be condemned by every right-thinking Australian.
It is incumbent upon the opposition leader in this place to decisively wash his hands of any such possibility. As we know, the ALP holds the rights of criminals in higher regard than those of victims. The charter will send our society further spiralling into the sad malaise where victims of crime are treated as second-class citizens. Prominent Queen’s Counsels Peter Faris and Philip Dunn have warned the bill of rights would throw Victoria’s courts into chaos with people testing laws against the charter. They have quite unambiguously stated that criminals will not only have greater opportunity to abuse the justice system and walk free if they are not tried quickly enough, but will even have greater rights to stand for parliament.
As I alluded to earlier, social engineering is a nationwide Labor disease. This legislation introduces a terminal aspect. We have already witnessed the Victorian Racial and Religious Vilification Act in action, where two Christian ministers have been dragged before the courts for the crime of preaching. I assure the House, that will pale into insignificance compared with the impact this charter will have on the lives of each and every individual living in the state of Victoria.
This charter is bad legislation. What makes it bad is obvious. It is unnecessary, and unnecessary legislation is always bad. It seeks to replace the values on which our nation has been built; it undermines the parliament as the final arbiter of law making; it bestows power on an unelected and unaccountable judiciary, which the Constitution declares Australia is never meant to have; it undermines the criminal justice system; it will further alienate the legal system from Australians; it will entrench in law the cultural defence aspect; and it enforces Labor’s calculated and underhanded social engineering program.
When I was elected to this parliament I committed to serving the people of Aston and the community to the best of my ability. I remain steadfast in that. In order to maintain that commitment, I must take a stand on this issue. Let me make my position very clear, perfectly clear, to every Labor Premier throughout Australia: keep your hands off the rights of Australians. Submit your charters and your so-called bills of rights to the people. Ask the people to make their judgment or face the prospect of action in this parliament to render that legislation inoperable. (Time expired)
Non-Government Organisations
70
70
16:53:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—I raise the recently published discussion paper by UNSW visiting fellow Joan Staples entitled NGOs out in the cold: the Howard government policy towards NGOs. It is part of the Democratic Audit of Australia project at the ANU. Joan Staples details that, since coming to power, the Howard government has significantly undermined the traditional model underlying the relationship between government and non-government organisations, that government policies and practices have essentially pressured many NGOs into silence and that the traditional role played by the sector revolved around helping shape public advocacy. It was an integral part of a healthy and functioning democracy. Likewise, the activism of the NGO, or civil society groups as they are also known in some countries, has been a reflection of society itself. These groups include local resident groups, community legal centres, health awareness groups, environmental and consumer groups, sporting associations and ethnic communities. Clearly, the diversity of these groups reflects the richness of the society. They have consistently been a source of ideas on the society we hope we might become and of the aspirations and ideas that should be contested and debated.
In 1991, five years before the Howard government assumed power, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs brought down a report in which it commented on the role of NGOs. It said:
An integral part of the consultative and lobbying role of these organisations is to disagree with government policy where this is necessary in order to represent the interests of their constituents.
Upon coming to power, John Howard referred to these groups as ‘single issue groups’, ‘special interests’ and ‘elites’. He promised that his government would be owned by no special interests, defend no special privileges and be accountable only to the Australian people.
Recent appointments to the ABC board in the last week, where three people are associated with one particular journal, and the back scratching we just heard from the member for Aston who had the absolute hide to describe one of those appointees, Janet Albrechtsen, as a respected commentator, show the mutual self-interest of the Howard government and its conservative elements. Of course, there is a massive gap between what Howard said and the reality of the interest groups that his government is beholden to.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Reid will refer to members by their title.
8T4
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—Indeed, his government has from day one been hijacked by elite special interest groups, such as various employer federations and business lobbies, but most particularly by well-heeled right-wing think tanks. The Prime Minister’s current attack on the rights and conditions of Australian workers is but a recent example of the agenda of the constituency he seeks to represent. This has been coupled with a decline in consumer protection, unchecked increases in the cost of traditional services such as banking, a welter of unconscionable conduct by some business elements and the winding down of the rights of the most disadvantaged members of the community. The period of Labor government during the seventies, eighties and nineties was a time of unprecedented dynamic intellectual debate about how to assist the most disadvantaged. This was done with significant government funding of poorly represented groups.
According to Joan Staples, the Prime Minister’s assumption of power saw the NGO sector experience an intense period of defunding. Most of the defunded groups were victimised due to their criticism of government policies, which negatively impacted on their constituencies. These groups represented some of the poorest and most unrepresented members of the community. They included the Australian Federation of Pensioners and Superannuants, the National Shelter, the Association of Civilian Widows and the Australian Youth Action Coalition. The Howard government also defunded the Consumer Federation of Australia, which until then had acted as the peak national consumer advocacy body. Earlier this year, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia was left with only a few days funding. The government has silenced remaining groups by making them sign up to clauses which restrict them from speaking to the media. NGOs which exist outside of any government funding also came under intense attack in the form of the charities bill, which according to some green groups and community organisations has imposed a severe limitation on the ability of self-funded non-government organisations to engage in any critical action or advocacy.
In Howard’s Australia, NGOs are left to merely compete for dollars to provide essential welfare services and government is absolved of the responsibility. Accordingly, the Democratic Audit of Australia argues that the democratic process has been undermined by a combination of government mechanisms, including defunding, as well as a proactive campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the non-government sector.
While the Prime Minister proclaims that he does not govern for any sectional or small-target interest groups, he seems content to rely on the advice of the neoliberal think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. The Australian Financial Review reported in 2002 that the influence of neoliberal think tanks is being increasingly recognised in this country. According to Wilson Da Silva:
It is hard to overestimate the influence conservative think tanks have had on the political agenda of Australia.
They have been prominent supporters of the government and key protagonists who have criticised elements seen to be opposed to a market view of the state. The main ideological protagonist in this struggle is the IPA. The Democratic Audit of Australia report argues that the IPA has adopted a policy focusing on:
… undermining the standing of its adversaries through generating and disseminating negative messages about their role in democracies, their motives and their integrity.
The institute’s program to discredit the work of non-government organisations begins by trading in extreme language. I think the previous speaker, the member for Aston, typified that problem. If Kim Jong Il and the North Korean Workers Party ever need a propagandist for their unit, he would certainly be fitted for that. I will provide his phone number. Joan Staples lists some of the language that is being used by the IPA against its opponents:
... ‘cashed up NGOs’, ‘a dictatorship of the articulate’—
not the proletariat. The IPA is concerned by the ‘dictatorship of the articulate’—
a ‘tyranny of the articulate’ and a ‘tyranny of the minorities’ ... ‘mail-order memberships of the wealthy left, content to buy their activism and get on with their consumer lifestyle’.
The IPA’s protracted and virulent campaign against NGOs would under normal circumstances rule it out as an objective source for any inquiry. Yet, to great astonishment and dismay and without the provision of a public tender or announcement, the Howard government appointed the IPA and its non-government organisation unit director Gary Johns to conduct a study into the relationship between Australian government departments and NGOs. According to Radio National’s Background Briefing program, the institute’s website declares that it does not accept government funding; yet, in an astounding turn of hypocrisy, it accepted $50,000 of taxpayer funding without any tender or transparency. I thank the Democratic Audit of Australia and Joan Staples for their valuable work.
On another front, the IPA has been a virulent critic of APHEDA and other charitable and religious organisations for their work in West Papua, alleging that they are whipping up hostility for the Indonesian regime and showing too much concern for the rights of the indigenous people there. It is quite interesting to note that, before the government decided to do a U-turn and kowtow to Indonesian political pressure, the condition of people in West Papua was such that 30-odd of them were given immediate refugee status in this country. The conditions there must be so bad that their cases did not really require much review. This contrasts very strongly with the postponement over a decade of consideration of hundreds of Timorese cases. Once again, whilst the government relies on the IPA to denigrate, to belittle and to besmirch non-government organisations that have a competing analysis of society, it certainly dropped them very swiftly following their analysis of APHEDA and other organisations that have been active on behalf of people in West Papua.
In conclusion, this paper by Joan Staples drives home the reality that there has been an attempt by this government to ensure that people are disciplined, pulled into line or de-funded if they have a critical view or if they are interested in defending people who are being marginalised and deprived of income. Other organisations are entangled in the process by their heavy dependence upon government funding to operate government charitable programs. I remember years ago in the Netherlands I met a bloke from the immigration department. I asked him: ‘Do you have much criticism of the immigration policy of this country? Are the churches and others active?’ He turned to me and said, ‘We have taken them prisoner.’ I did not really know what he meant. John Howard and this government have certainly understood what he meant.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! Member for Reid—
8T4
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—The Prime Minister and this government certainly know what that meant. Essentially, we have had a situation where a significant number of major players in this country have been brought on board. They are heavily dependent upon Job Network money to ensure their financial survival, and they have become more acquiescent to government policies.
New South Wales: State Government Funding
72
72
17:02:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
1
0
Mrs GASH
—Several years ago in this House the honourable member for O’Connor, in his ministerial portfolio at the time, raised the point of the relevance to Australia in this day and age of having state governments. It is a theme I picked up and canvassed throughout my electorate of Gilmore. The response was hardly surprising. The greater majority of respondents indicated that they thought the system of the three tiers of government was redundant. They said it did not suit the times and hardly reflected a system of government for Australia on the global stage. I agreed with them then and do more so now, particularly after seeing the details of this year’s New South Wales state budget. It is back in the red once again and no amount of creative accounting could disguise the fact. But that is apparently okay. In the Illawarra Mercury of 7 June Arthur Rorris of the South Coast Labour Council is quoted as saying that in his view—and I have to assume he is reflecting the prevailing Labor policy—there is ‘a ridiculous preoccupation with balanced budgets’. The state member for Kiama, with desperate aspirations to hold his redistributed seat, is also saying the budget is okay, even though commentators are unanimous in their opinion that it delivers very little to his constituency.
After years of cultivating the spin under the directorship of Bob Carr, the unfortunate Iemma government have been handed the poisoned chalice. I thought we were supposed to be working together for the benefit of our constituents, but this budget looks very much like a rearguard action by a government in danger of losing votes. I opened the Illawarra Mercury the next day and on pages 6 and 7 a huge banner headline proclaimed ‘Budget in the red but blue skies ahead’. Now, there is a supremely optimistic statement. Why am I reminded of the old Monty Python song Always Look on the Bright Side of Life? Incidentally, in the movie Life of Brian that song is sung by a choir of the crucified. Although the irony of that vision probably escapes many of the supporters of the New South Wales Labor government, the expectation that the Iemma government can contain a deficit to a single year requires a quantum leap of faith. The Sydney Morning Herald reports the response of Macquarie Bank’s Chief Economist Richard Gibbs:
“They haven’t got a hope in hell,” he said. “I just don’t think that will be realised.”
He also said:
A collapse in small business confidence in NSW, revealed in the Sensis Business Index earlier this week, did not bode well for the state ...
A preschool director from Wollongong who was commenting on the funding allocation for preschools summed up the position succinctly. She said, ‘They’re saying all the right things, but they haven’t backed it up with adequate funding to do what they say they’re going to do.’ That is the hallmark of the New South Wales Labor government. It is almost their personal anthem: just tell the folks what they want to hear. They hope that, by the time the election rolls around, all these unpleasant observations will have disappeared and they can then start sugar coating the electorate come February next year.
If it was not so pathetic it would have been amusing to hear tell how wonderful their budget is. The $15 million we gave to assist in remedial works along the Princes Highway, south of Nowra, has not been matched. It will sit idly, depreciating in value—like the money we gave them for Main Road 92—so that, when they finally get around to it, they can only produce a fraction of the intended outcome. Eight years after we gave $15 million, their budget has finally allocated $22 million of their $34 million for Main Road 92. It took them eight years to get there.
The South Coast Register reports that the member for Kiama, Matt Brown, who incidentally is the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Roads and the Minister for Transport, said, ‘Overall, I think the budget was good for Kiama and Shoalhaven.’ Really? This is a tourist destination, but I am informed by my colleague the Minister for Small Business and Tourism that funding allocation for tourism in New South Wales is a million dollars less than it was five years ago. So what is Mr Brown’s definition of ‘good’? Is it the fact that tourism funding is not down by $2 million? We ought to be grateful. Mr Brown went on to say, ‘Just recently, the state had its AA credit rating confirmed.’ In the Sydney Morning Herald, the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s warned, ‘Large and persistent operating deficits are not consistent with a AAA rating.’ Obviously, Mr Brown considers a second-class rating acceptable, which suggests that there may be more deficits to come in future New South Wales budgets.
The New South Wales government claims the budget will return to a modest surplus in 2007-08 and to healthy surpluses after that. However, the predictions of a turnaround are based on breaking with a 10-year history of government spending, which has grown at an average rate of 5.9 per cent per annum. Standard and Poor’s said:
There are some risks to the Government’s financial forecasts, in particular whether the Government, which has had difficulty with cost control, can deliver the promised program efficiencies.
Mr Brown must be the eternal optimist to make statements that are at odds with the prevailing view held by people who actually understand economics. Incidentally, the headline for that article reads ‘Spin now, pay for it later’. How apt a description of the opportunistic approach favoured by the New South Wales Labor government for the last 10 years.
Rail transport is another neglected area that concerns many residents in my electorate, about which the New South Wales government has done nothing. The rail system between Kiama and Bomaderry can best be described as fundamental and getting worse. Buses often replace trains and now, with the rescheduling of the timetable, it takes longer to get to your destination—and services are less frequent. In the Southern Highlands, it is a similar story. The Southern Highland News said:
... despite a $10 billion capital works program, the budget does not include any funding for any significant infrastructure projects for the Southern Highlands.
Even the proverbial blind Freddy can see how services are slowly but surely being downgraded as the costs of propping up the Carr Labor government for all those years are being realised—and this is despite the record collection of revenue from the GST, which has far exceeded all expectations. As soon as they got it, they blew it. Now it appears that they are resorting to blowing it even before they get it.
The reason I have grave concerns about the performance of the New South Wales Labor government is that they are dragging the rest of us down with them. No matter what we do at the federal level, the New South Wales government seem to mismanage the funds we give them. Whether it be for schools, hospitals, roads or police, no-one is safe. Even our local water supplies are under threat as the Shoalhaven River and aquifers in the Southern Highlands have been plundered to supplement Sydney supplies. Do they care? It seems not, because they keep on ignoring what the people in regional and rural communities are calling out for. Instead they focus on their metropolitan seats, where the bulk of the money is being spent. As the member for South Coast, Shelley Hancock, often says, there is more to New South Wales than Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong.
The division of responsibilities between federal and state governments is difficult to delineate and, for those who have little to do with government and the way it works, it is difficult to understand. As far as the average constituent is concerned, if there is a problem they do not care who owns it—they just want it fixed. To explain to someone that we give money for health, education and social services but often do not get a say in how it is spent is a concept few people comprehend. To then have parallel agencies administering these services is truly confounding.
To allow such a system to prevail does not make good sense. If the average Australian is confused by it all, how do overseas visitors see this arrangement? What I have witnessed in my electorate is a state government playing one against the other. Whenever there is a failing on the state government’s part they immediately resort to the ploy of blaming the federal government for not giving them enough money. But never do they offer to help the federal government by responding in areas such as social security, immigration, foreign affairs, trade and defence. They seem to prefer to adopt an adversarial role rather than a cooperative one.
We have seen in New South Wales evidence of what happens when the state government get more money. The commentators who have responded to this year’s New South Wales budget have seen through the tactic. The New South Wales government is in the red, and the belief that this is only a glitch for this year alone is wishful thinking. New South Wales is going downhill—thanks to the mismanagement of the New South Wales government, which has had their hands on the reins for over 10 years. It is time to either get rid of the state government altogether or put people in who genuinely act in the interests of the community they purport to represent. Either way, we should be looking towards the future. Clearly the system and quality of the state government we have today has exceeded its use-by date.
Workplace Relations
75
75
17:11:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—When the Howard government came to office, it said its main objective was to make Australians feel relaxed and comfortable. If there is one thing that you can say about the Australian people in 2006, it is that they do not feel relaxed and comfortable any more. Mr Deputy Speaker, you could say the same thing about members opposite: they certainly do not look too relaxed and comfortable these days, especially during question time. The reason for their worries is that the government’s extreme industrial relations laws are beginning to bite, and they are beginning to realise that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations have sold them a pup. No matter how hard they try to dress up the extreme industrial relations laws by saying they are good for the country, it all looks very much like they are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Just two months into the brave new world of these extreme industrial relations laws, the scoreboard does not look good for the government. We know from the figures dragged out of the government in Senate estimates that Australian workers are finding out day by day just what the brave new world of Work Choices means for them. We know that, in 100 per cent of all new Australian workplace agreements, at least one protected award condition has been excluded—that is, in every single AWA at least one protected condition has been excluded. We know that, in 16 per cent of AWAs, award standard conditions for that industry have been excluded. When it comes to specific conditions, we know that 64 per cent of AWAs remove leave loadings. So for someone on median earnings, that means about $600 a year will be lost. We know that 63 per cent of new AWAs remove penalty rates. As we saw with the case of the Spotlight employee Annette Harris, the effect of that was the loss of up to $90 a week. We now know that 52 per cent of new AWAs remove shift-work loading.
I cannot imagine that the workers who have signed on to those AWAs are all that happy about losing those conditions and, if the Spotlight case is anything to go by, all for the princely sum of just 2c an hour. Members opposite, like the member for Greenway, seem to think that the AWA bargaining process is an even-handed affair. She told the House in November last year:
The introduction of the AWA has allowed employers and employees to have a direct relationship with each other, giving credit to both their ability to express what they need and to work in cooperation in a way that is mutually beneficial.
Does the member for Greenway seriously believe that 100 per cent of workers who have signed an AWA since March have willingly given away at least one protected award condition? Does she seriously believe that 16 per cent gave away all award conditions? Does she seriously believe that 64 per cent willingly gave away their leave loading, that 63 per cent willingly gave away penalty rates and that 52 per cent willingly gave away shift-work loadings—and all that for 2c an hour? If the member for Greenway believes that, she must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. What is really happening in workplaces across Australia is something very different as businesses set about tearing up awards and cutting the pay and conditions of employees. And how do we know that? Because that is what their legal and business advisers are telling them to do.
In March this year Anthony Longland, a Freehills partner, told a law finance conference in Sydney that employers with low entry barriers should strongly consider using the opportunities for restructuring their employment arrangements available under Work Choices or have their competitors beat them to it. He went on to say that start-ups in low entry barrier industries could use the new employer greenfields agreements to set up employment arrangements that have no penalty rates, no shift allowances and extremely limited hours provisions. Longland told the conference:
They might be able to get a significant advantage over you in terms of labour costs ... There is a real responsibility ... on current employers in that sector to guard against that by looking to the opportunities available under the Work Choices legislation.
That is the writing on the wall for employers. Expert advice is to cut penalty rates, abolish allowances and take Australia back into the dark ages of industrial relations. As for the protection of workers’ rights, Longland told the conference that protected conditions under Work Choices were really ‘a smoke and mirrors’ exercise. The provisions were not really protected, because they could be forgone if they were significantly overridden by the terms of the agreement, and that is exactly what we have seen in the Spotlight case. It is exactly the opposite of the assurance given by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations last November when he told the House:
Work Choices will protect penalty rates and shift loadings in awards when new workplace agreements are negotiated.
In fewer than two months we are seeing the early results go up on the scoreboard. If they are anything to go by we can expect to see a wholesale roll-back of award standard conditions in the months, not years, ahead—like building workers in Western Sydney, whom I have spoken to, who are facing the loss of rain days and rostered days off and facing cuts to their sick leave. But government members in Western Sydney—and I am glad to see the member for Lindsay in the chamber this evening—are blind to what is happening right under their noses. It is no wonder the member for Lindsay and the member for Macarthur are silent on this issue.
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs IRWIN
—You are silent on this issue, member for Lindsay; I have not seen one speech that you have made on this. As for the Prime Minister’s claim that Work Choices will lead to more jobs, the experience in Western Sydney suggests the opposite. In the last year, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, unemployment in the Fairfield-Liverpool area has gone through the roof. It was 5.4 per cent last year and has now reached 8.6 per cent.
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss Jackie Kelly interjecting—
83Z
Irwin, Julia, MP
Mrs IRWIN
—So you think that is all right? In the last year, 21,000 jobs have been lost in the Fairfield-Liverpool area, which includes my electorate of Fowler. The worry for those with jobs in Fowler is that the Prime Minister is serious about solving the unemployment problem by reducing the wages and conditions of already low-paid workers. You can imagine how much more power employers will have when it comes to offering AWAs at lower pay and with little or no protection for long-accepted award conditions.
When this trend spreads to electorates like Greenway, Lindsay and Macarthur, the members for those electorates might not be so enthusiastic in their support for the government’s extreme—and they are extreme—industrial relations changes. In the months ahead, as thousands more workers have an AWA pushed across the desk with a pen to sign, they will realise that the only choices that apply in the government’s Work Choices laws are employers’ choices. There is no room for negotiation in the one-size-fits-all workplace agreement. As they see their income and working conditions erode in the months after they have signed their AWA, they will fully realise what they have lost.
Australian workplace agreements are nothing more than a tool for employers to cut labour costs. As we saw from the advice from Freehills, once one employer—one Spotlight—makes the move, all other employers will be forced to follow, and it will become a race to the bottom. Only Kim Beazley’s pledge to tear up workplace agreements can put a stop to that insanity. (Time expired)
New South Wales: State Government Funding
77
77
17:21:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
0
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—It is delightful to get the call from you Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, especially following the member for Fowler, who represents an electorate adjacent to my area. It is quite amazing: I have very happily represented the people of Lindsay for the last 10 years in this parliament. Often those on the other side throw stones, but I keep getting re-elected. I suppose that says that I do a good job in the representation of the people of Lindsay and the people of Western Sydney and that they like what we do.
This government has been at the forefront of all sorts of reform—gun reform, waterfront reform and tax reform, abolishing the wholesale sales tax system and introducing a goods and services across-the-board tax. We have seen superannuation reform and now we are seeing labour market reform—all while members, like the member for Fowler, go running around like Henny Penny saying repeatedly, ‘The sky is falling in.’ The sky has not fallen in.
After people in my electorate had heard from the member for Fowler and her colleagues about the terrible impact that this GST would have—it was going to be terrible—they came to my office saying, ‘I won’t be able to afford to eat.’ These constituents were genuine and in tears saying, ‘Love your government, love what you’ve done, but I won’t be able to afford to eat.’ As can be said in this current debate, it did not come to pass. The member for Fowler, when she talks about people in her electorate who are unemployed, should be aware that I have had people in my office, genuine people, who listen to what she says—goodness knows why—who say, ‘But, Jackie, we’re going to be working for 2c an hour and we won’t be able to afford our mortgage.’ All I can say to them is, ‘You listened to them on the GST, you listened to them on superannuation, you listened to them on the waterfront and what they said did not come to pass.’ They are Henny Pennys with no credibility. They so muddy the waters that people really do not get any information from them. When push comes to shove, those in my electorate back John Howard—and that is the danger for the opposition. When it comes to who to trust in this parliament, the people of Lindsay trust John Howard. That is the risk that the opposition run in this argument—the Henny Penny member for Fowler and her ilk.
My constituents remember 1996. They remember why they elected me the first time around—double-digit interest rates and double-digit unemployment. What was the unemployment rate in 1996 in Fowler? It was a lot higher than it is today. I would say that in the Fairfield area youth unemployment would have been around 30 per cent. I will go and check the 1996 figures in your electorate and I guarantee that they were probably double what they are today. Certainly, in Penrith, where I keep the council honest, we have sought and driven new businesses and the unemployment rate has gone down. The difference between Lindsay and Fowler would be that one has an active member who is interested in business and in driving outcomes and the other has a member who wants to lie back and do nothing.
Our government has paid off $96 billion in debt over the last 10 years; it has taken us 10 years to get that down. That is some $6 billion or $7 billion a year in interest payments that we no longer pay. The state government of New South Wales solely—just the state government—is about to go $17 billion into debt to pay for infrastructure that it should have been building over the last 10 years. I am speaking of infrastructure that is on time, useful, effective and on budget, not like the busway through Fairfield. Where can the unemployed catch a bus to on that busway? What an incredibly useless piece of infrastructure, on which they have spent money, which runs through the south of Sydney to the north and connects no-one. What an enormous waste of money.
The state government of New South Wales does not in believe public transport. It will not connect Parramatta and Epping; it cannot even make a case for that rail connection. It is not going to do another thing in rail. Bus services have continued to degenerate. The rail services are even further apart, even later and more costly. People in my electorate have two cars; they cannot rely on public transport. The New South Wales government blathers on about public transport, but the people in my electorate catch the car.
Let us say that the people in my electorate, which has about 45,000 homes, spend on average $100 a week—especially now—on fuel. On average, about $15 of that goes to the state in GST and excise. That is $15 a week from all of my 45,000 residences, which equals $33 million a year, that goes out of my electorate, out of my constituents’ pay cheques, to the state government in fuel taxes. Do they see it being spent on the roads in Lindsay? Not a chance. The only thing that happens on the roads in Lindsay is the federal government’s black spot funding. We have not seen $33 million worth of state government funding on our roads.
The state government will not even upgrade some serious road connections, such as the flood evacuation route at Windsor. When the state government reneged on the Warragamba Dam and said, ‘It’s too much to strengthen it and raise the wall; we’ll take the cheap option and build a spillway,’ it promised us a flood evacuation route. It said, ‘In order to save Sydney’s water supply, all you guys in Lindsay will get flooded, but you’ll be right; we’ll build this road to get you out.’ It has not even built the road. Luckily for the state government, we have an extraordinary drought happening at the moment. But the state government’s only solution to that drought is to pray for rain. It is not even a religious bunch. At least, if its members were in the National Party or Fred Nile’s party, I could believe that their prayers would have some effect. But that is the state government’s sole water policy—to pray for rain.
The state government has done nothing about any of the dams; it has welshed on those. It went for a desalination plant and then welshed on that. Now it is drilling around my electorate for aquifers that are somehow going to meet our needs. It has also welshed on the Warragamba Dam in deciding to put suction pumps lower down underneath the dam in order to get more water at the dam’s bottom that was not utilised previously.
None of these things has come to fruition. If you read the papers over the weekend, you will have seen that the state government has blown $1.8 billion in cost overruns on projects and some 230 projects have been delayed. These are roads, schools, hospitals, dam remediation, community health centres and security on ports. Security on ports? What about security on Warragamba Dam? Any old tradesman can drive up in a ute and get access to that dam. There is no security for one of our major drinking supplies.
For the Penrith railway station, the state government gave us the cheap option. There have been no upgrades on rail. The state government saved an enormous amount by putting in some shoddy half-station for Penrith. Instead of moving the ticketing booth to the top of the platform, it has left it down on the far side so that those on the north side have to travel all the way to the south side to get a ticket and then go back to board their train.
An increase in the number of beds at the Nepean Hospital has been pushed back three years. We have had an explosion in the number of people in our area, but we get one-half of the expenditure per capita that the inner city gets. The inner city gets twice as much for its hospital beds as Western Sydney gets. What is the member for Fowler doing about that? Is she saying to her state Labor colleagues, ‘Give us our fair share out in Western Sydney?’ No, she is saying: ‘Go on into the Royal North Shore. Go on into St Vincent’s, Concord and the Royal Women’s.’
Under Labor, 3,500 beds have gone from our hospital system, and the state Labor government does nothing about it. It promises on the never never, saying: ‘Yes, Nepean, we’ll give you a few extra beds for the population explosion you have had, but that will be in the next three years or in 2010. They are coming.’ Are you going to believe that? It is the same for Westmead’s bone marrow ward. Westmead is the key hospital that we all have to go to. From Katoomba to Bathurst, we come to Westmead, yet the state government has done nothing about reallocating resources to where half the population of Sydney live, and that is west of Westmead. We need some of those hospital resources. The member for Fowler says that she represents the people of Fairfield but does nothing about it.
It would not be a Jackie Kelly speech without a mention of child care. Peter Debnam gave a wonderful policy statement about what the state opposition would do on child care, and straightaway the state government tried to match it by saying, ‘We’ll now do something for child care.’ For 10 years they have let preschools wallow. A couple of the other states have done a good job in child care in preschools and have a robust preschool system. But coming into an election—again on the never never, on money he does not have—Mr Iemma has promised preschools. The New South Wales state government is not a government to be believed. At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, I urge the people of Lindsay to take their vote seriously and back whom they trust. (Time expired)
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:
That grievances be noted.
Question agreed to.
ROYAL COMMISSIONS AMENDMENT BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2574
CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (REFORM OF THE CHILD SUPPORT SCHEME—INITIAL MEASURES) BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2557
Assent
80
Messages from the Administrator reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (WELFARE TO WORK AND OTHER MEASURES) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2540
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2568
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2006 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2522
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2523
AGE DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2538
PLANT HEALTH AUSTRALIA (PLANT INDUSTRIES) FUNDING AMENDMENT BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2566
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FOREIGN FISHING OFFENCES) BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2565
ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2569
AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
80
Bills
R2521
Returned from the Senate
80
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (SUBSCRIPTION TELEVISION DRAMA AND COMMUNITY BROADCASTING LICENCES) BILL 2006
80
Bills
S496
First Reading
80
Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
80
Special Adjournment
Mr FARMER
(Macarthur
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training)
17:32:00
—I move:
That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 12.30 p.m., Tuesday, 20 June 2006, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting, and for government business to take precedence from 12.30 p.m. until 2 p.m. on that Tuesday.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
80
Business
80
17:33:00
Farmer, Patrick, MP
00AMO
Macarthur
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training
1
0
Mr FARMER
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable proceedings as specified below to occur during government business on Monday 19 June 2006:
-
in relation to proceedings on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006—at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 8.30p.m., whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the bill to be put without amendment or debate and any Government amendments that have been circulated for at least two hours shall be treated as if they have been moved together; and
-
any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
81
17:33:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
0
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
The House reaffirms the right of all members to assert their views on each and every bill that comes before the House and deplores, in particular, the Government’s determination to restrict debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006.
This is an outrage of process. This bill should be withdrawn and—
Mr FARMER
(Macarthur
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training)
17:34:00
—I move:
That the question be now put.
Question put.
17:38:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley)
77
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
57
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the motion (Mr Farmer’s) be agreed to.
17:45:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. IR Causley)
77
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Cadman, A.G.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, D.M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Ruddock, P.M.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
57
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Beazley, K.C.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
Windsor, A.H.C.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
83
Bills
R2578
Second Reading
83
Debate resumed from 31 May, on motion by Mr Brough:
That this bill be now read a second time.
83
17:47:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—We have just seen another travesty of democracy in this place with the government gagging the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. I know that Aboriginal people who are my constituents in the Northern Territory will be shocked and amazed that this government would not allow a proper debate for this very important piece of legislation—a historical debate, as it will be. I will move a second reading amendment at the end of this speech.
A week or so ago, I visited a number of Indigenous communities across the Top End of the Northern Territory. In each of these communities, I held meetings with traditional owners, council members and other individuals. Those meetings were held right through Arnhem Land. At those meetings, people expressed their frustration, their anguish, their concern and their hurt at the way the Commonwealth government has imposed its agenda for change without any reference to them and at the way they have been demonised by the media, largely at the behest of the government and without any opportunity to properly respond or have their voices heard. They are deeply concerned that the government feels absolutely no compulsion to sit down and talk with them, let alone to consult or negotiate with them; that the government shows them no compassion; that it shows no knowledge or understanding of their cultural values or priorities; and that it shows no knowledge or understanding of the cultural differences that exist across Indigenous Australia and of the different historical experiences that different communities have suffered.
David Martin, a fellow of the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University, has spoken about the ‘new direction’ in federal Indigenous affairs policy. This is quite a lengthy extract, but I think it gives a very good description of where we are in the context of debating Indigenous affairs policies in this country at the moment. He argued:
Much of the support for the new policies is predicated on the ... assumption that Indigenous people naturally desire the lifestyle and values which correlate with economic integration, or that if they don’t, a carrot and stick approach can be used to achieve it. However, the evidence shows that while many ... do indeed seek to take advantage of better economic opportunities, and while cultural change is a feature of all societies ... there is a widespread resistance amongst Indigenous people to what they see as attempts to assimilate them into the dominant society—
economically and socially. He went on to say:
... my unease is because the debate is conducted with such a vitriolic and unnecessary demonisation of what has gone before ... with a complete disregard for what I would see as the lessons of history in Aboriginal affairs; and most importantly with an all too common disregard for the diverse views, values, and aspirations of the Aboriginal people at whom the new policy apparatus and its ideological underpinnings are directed.
Except when the latest instance of horrific dysfunctionality in the Aboriginal world is brought forward to illustrate the need for profound change, or when the views of the new Aboriginal political elite are given prominence in the legitimating discourse around proposed policy directions, Aboriginal people themselves are conspicuously absent from the discussion ... the new policy frameworks ... are essentially empty vessels, if rather chipped and cracked ones, into which the new array of more socially functional values is to be poured.
From my own observations and experience I think that is a very apposite and fair comment on where we are currently, and it expresses the frustration felt by so many I have spoken to. It is important that there is an appreciation of this backdrop as we debate proposals to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which has now been operating for 30 years. The land rights act flowed as a direct result of the Woodward royal commission, initiated by the Whitlam government in 1973 to inquire and report into ‘the appropriate means to recognise and establish the traditional rights and interests of the Aborigines in and in relation to Land and to satisfy in other ways the reasonable aspirations of the Aborigines’ rights in or in relation to Land.’ It is worth reflecting for a moment on five things that Justice Woodward identified as the aims of recognising Aboriginal land rights. He said:
-
The doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation.
-
The promotion of social harmony and stability within the wider Australian community by removing, as far as possible, the legitimate causes of complaint of an important minority group within that community.
-
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 maintenance and, perhaps, improvement of Australia’s standing among the nations of the world by demonstrably fair treatment of an ethnic minority.
Justice Woodward said further:
These aims could be best achieved by:
-
Preserving and strengthening all Aboriginal interests in land and rights over land which exist today, particularly all those having spiritual importance.
-
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.
-
The provision of some basic compensation in the form of land for those Aborigines who have been irrevocably deprived of the rights and interests which they would otherwise have inherited from their ancestors, and who have obtained no sufficient compensating benefits from white society.
-
The further provision of land, to the limit which the wider community can afford, in those places where it will do most good, particularly in economic terms, to the largest number of Aborigines.
The Whitlam government drafted the land rights legislation, based on Justice Woodward’s report. The legislation was ultimately passed by the Fraser government after only marginal change. Today this act still reflects the values described by Woodward, despite the fact that it was reviewed by Justice Toohey in 1983 and substantially amended as a result. The Howard government commissioned a further review of the act in 1997 by John Reeves QC. The Reeves review was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in December 1998 for consideration and report. The standing committee reported in 1999, after extensive consultation and after considering written submissions. The committee overwhelmingly rejected the recommendations of the Reeves review. It is worth noting, however, that the Commonwealth government is yet to respond substantively to the standing committee’s report entitled Unlocking the Future. Significantly, the report was supported unanimously by the committee members from both sides of the parliament.
In the context of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 before us it is worth noting that the first and primary recommendation of Unlocking the Future is:
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.
Today we are considering proposals to amend the act, some of which could be seen to have been agreed by Aboriginal people in the Territory through the land councils as a result of a package of proposals to amend the land rights act agreed to with the Northern Territory government. In this sense, the package could be seen to have the consent of traditional owners. This package took a number of months to negotiate. Significantly, it has the support of the mining industry, whose principal interest was with proposals to amend part IV of the act, which deals with mining.
Most of the other amendments proposed have not been discussed, let alone negotiated, with traditional owners or other Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land or their representative organisations, the land councils. The process leading to the joint position agreed by the Northern Territory government and the land councils showed how parties working together, showing mutual respect, can arrive at a negotiated outcome. Unfortunately, the Northern Territory government stepped outside of this framework in developing and submitting to the Commonwealth proposals for amendments to section 19 of the act to accommodate a proposal for the leasing of Aboriginal townships. These proposals have been quickly picked up, holus-bolus, by the Commonwealth government and are a key feature and component of the package of amendments before us.
The failure of both the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government to seek informed consent for these and other proposals that did not form part of the package of agreed proposals is an indictment of the approach of both governments. While individual traditional owner groups or traditional owners may give their support to the proposals to amend section 19, I note that in the bill before us their consent would in any event be required for those lease proposals to proceed.
However, these proposals have been put into this legislation without any discussion or understanding of them by Aboriginal people, whether or not they are traditional owners, across the Northern Territory, let alone their agreement. I note also that the federal government is already using the proposals contained in these amendments as leverage in dealing with Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. In effect, they are making infrastructure and other resources to Indigenous communities conditional upon these communities entering into agreements, and presumably traditional owners also agreeing that they enter into lease arrangements, as envisaged by the legislation, as a condition of those resources being made available to the community.
We have seen this only last weekend, with the minister announcing comprehensive—and welcome—initiatives for additional housing and other infrastructure, including the presence of a police station for Galiwinku, while clearly indicating that in order to secure investment the community will need to agree to the new land leasing proposals. Instead of a partnership based on mutual respect and trust, it is one based on the power of the purse. The Commonwealth is imposing its will as to how Indigenous people use and deal with their land in order to obtain the benefits that other Australians see as their rights as citizens: access to reasonable housing, health, education and other services. Nowhere else in the Australian community would this sort of proposition be put, nor would it be accepted.
The minister may well argue that, on providing information, the traditional owners and communities accepted his proposals. This begs the question as to whether those Aboriginal Australians were given the option of considering other proposals or indeed other arguments. What the minister fails to clearly understand is the obligation of the relevant land councils to do whatever is necessary and appropriate to obtain the consent of traditional owners for any agreement to finally proceed. The minister apparently regards himself as exempt from any such requirement.
What is apparent is that the proposals to amend section 19 have not been well enough thought through and may have some serious downsides which should be brought to the attention of Aboriginal people. For example, the proposal includes the proposition of capping rental payments for developments on Aboriginal land leased to an NT government entity at five per cent of the improved capital value of the land. It is arguable that imposing a cap of five per cent in this way proposed by the legislation may well be racially discriminatory. In any event, no other owners of a freehold title or its equivalent have arbitrary limits imposed on the economic rent that they can negotiate for the use or sale of that land.
The proposed amendments also make provision for the surveying and administrative costs of introducing the leasing scheme to be made out of the Aboriginals Benefit Account—the mining royalty equivalents coming out of consolidated revenue for the use and benefit of Aboriginal Territorians. The Commonwealth government has earmarked $15 million from the ABA for the costs of surveying townships and administrative expenses. The Northern Territory government has estimated that the task of surveying one township alone will be $1 million, and up to $100 million in total. This amount of money could not be taken from the ABA without undermining its viability. However, beyond the Commonwealth’s failure to do the maths on this is the fact that the ABA is effectively being used to pay the rent and costs of the Northern Territory government on Aboriginal land. It is also true that the ABA is now being used as a slush fund for the Commonwealth minister’s own priorities—not necessarily the priorities of Indigenous Territorians who are supposed to be the ones making decisions about how this money will be spent.
Not only is this inherently unfair but also it raises the significant question of the NT and Commonwealth governments fettering the ability of Indigenous Australians from obtaining appropriate economic rent for the use of their land for residential and commercial purposes and ask them to pay full tote odds for that privilege through the ABA. Significantly, though, the fact remains that, even if you believe this is a good idea and is without flaws, there has been no extensive consultation with—and no prior consent given from—Indigenous communities or traditional owners about its impact, whatever the government might believe and whatever might be said to the minister. Notwithstanding these concerns, there is merit in developing a model which will provide Aboriginal Australians with the opportunity to purchase housing on communities. Of course, Labor is happy to support any Australian who aspires to buy their own home. However, the situation we are confronted with here is not about home purchase; it is about housing provision and the regularising of the arrangements between the housing providers and the traditional owners.
We should all be aware of the chronic housing shortage faced by Indigenous Australians across the continent, but particularly by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. In the Northern Territory alone, there is estimated to be a $1 billion housing shortfall, and I am told that nationally the figure is approaching $3 billion. This housing shortage goes to the question of poor health outcomes, poor educational outcomes and, ultimately, the lack of employment and life opportunities. It is a great indicator of the level of poverty being suffered by Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory and across this nation and it is an absolute indictment on successive governments at all levels.
In the context of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, there have been no attempts by the housing providers to regularise the arrangements for the provision of housing by seeking leases for the land on which the houses have been built. Historically, the Northern Territory government have relied on sections 14 and 15 of the act. These sections allow the Northern Territory government, where they have been using or occupying Aboriginal land before the enactment of the Aboriginal land rights act, to continue using that land for as long as they require. Where that use of land is for a community purpose—for housing, education or police—the use is rent free. Nor am I aware that there has been any request by any person for a lease of land to build for residential purposes.
This goes to the heart of the question, which is the need for governments to accept their responsibilities to negotiate with traditional owners over lease arrangements for residential purposes and to provide sufficient resources to address the housing crisis in Indigenous communities generally across Australia. While the government’s proposals for private home ownership may be attractive for a very small minority, the simple truth of the matter is that home ownership may not be an option for the bulk of Aboriginal Australians living in remote communities—if for no other reason than the fact that the average individual income for Indigenous people living in remote areas at the 2001 census was a measly $13,460.
While we acknowledge the government’s intention in relation to these issues, we say to them: this is not the main game and this is not the way to proceed. Nor is the main game the leasing of whole townships to a Northern Territory entity which will then have the responsibility for all dealings in that land, including the provision of subleases for commercial and other purposes, because in the end this could have the effect of alienating the Indigenous estate from effective Indigenous control.
It is also worth noting that the Northern Territory government does not need the amendments sought in this legislation to deal with Aboriginal townships not on Aboriginal land. The fact is they have the legislative authority to do this for communities such as Kalkaringi, Alpurrurulam, Apatula and others which are not on Aboriginal land yet they have not done so. You would have thought that if this move was of such significance for the feasibility of townships it would have been put in place at least as a pilot in these communities some time ago when there was no requirement for Commonwealth legislation. It is no surprise that that has not been the case.
I also note that just last week the Northern Territory government proposed a ‘new way’ of addressing the housing crisis on Aboriginal communities, involving community, government and private sector finance. I support that initiative. There needs to be a partnership between government, the private sector and Aboriginal communities if we are ever to address the chronic shortage of Indigenous housing. But the methods proposed by the Commonwealth government will not attain that objective. There are other models which do not require traditional owners giving up their right to control commercial development on their land and would provide ample capacity for dealing in residential property.
As with the leasing arrangements, the proposals in the legislation before us which go to the question of the creation of new land councils and delegations from current land councils, as well as the proposals for the funding of new land councils, have also not been the subject of any extensive discussion, consultation, negotiation or agreement with traditional owners, other Aboriginal people or the land councils in the Northern Territory. Together, they clearly undermine the integrity of the land rights act and arguably will be an impediment to the rational, orderly development of economic opportunities on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. These proposals are particularly pernicious in their treatment of land councils and are clearly designed to revisit the proposals in the Reeves review to establish new land councils—rejected by the HORSCATSIA inquiry.
Some of the other proposals which have not been negotiated with traditional owners but which are a major cause of concern relate to the establishment of these new land councils and the delegations. These proposals reflect another ideological obsession of the government to break down the authority of land councils and to limit their capacity to act as advocacy bodies for those Aboriginal Australians whom they have been set up to service and also represent. In many ways these proposals reflect much of what Reeves proposed and which was rejected by HORSCATSIA. They come as no surprise, and they demonstrate the inherent contradictions in the Commonwealth approach. On the one hand while, in the case of the proposals for the amendments to section 19, traditional owners’ consent is required, on the other hand this is not the case for the establishment of new land councils or the delegation of land council powers. In addition, the proposals designed to create a large number of land councils or to give other bodies land council-like powers and responsibilities clearly conflict with the government’s policies on representative bodies under the Native Title Act. In this case, the Commonwealth has sought to rationalise the number of such bodies in order to provide administrative efficiencies and limit the possibilities of inappropriate behaviour.
How is it then that the government has determined that it ought to facilitate proposals to break up the existing land councils in the Northern Territory? The proposals have a capricious intent and are designed to limit the capacity of land councils to act as effective advocacy bodies for Aboriginal Territorians. This intent is perhaps no better demonstrated than by the changes to funding for land councils that this bill proposes. At present, the land rights act guarantees that 40 per cent of available funds in the ABA be set aside for the administrative expenses of the four land councils. This bill proposes to remove that guarantee and determine funding for land councils on the basis of estimated workload. Removing the 40 per cent floor funding undermines the guarantee of independence and viability of the land councils and their ability to pursue the interests of traditional owners.
It is clear that the government’s proposals in relation to land councils are a potential disaster and will inevitably be viewed with some concern by those, particularly in the mining industry, who seek to develop economic opportunities on Aboriginal land. After 30 years they have certainty and confidence in dealing with the four land councils currently in existence. They know that these organisations have the competence, experience, knowledge and expertise to deal with them in an open, transparent and orderly fashion. You can imagine what might have happened under these proposals of the Northern Territory and federal governments to create new land councils if they had had to negotiate the Darwin to Alice Springs railway. These mining businesses would be concerned by the prospect of dealing with a larger number of bodies who, apart from lacking competence, would be without the corporate knowledge, economies of scale or professional expertise that prevail under the current arrangements. There was no forewarning of these proposals by the Commonwealth government and I note that these proposals were not supported by the Northern Territory government. Again, given the strength of the recommendations of HORSCATSIA, it is of grave concern that the government has chosen to follow this course.
The issue of land council delegations reflects a similar story. The joint submission of the Northern Territory government and the land councils proposed amendments to section 28 of the current act. The submission proposed a certain level of delegation of power to allow some functions to be performed at a regional level rather than at land council meetings. The Commonwealth government have taken the delegation power much further in the arrangements they propose under this legislation. Core land council functions with respect to mining and leasing on Aboriginal land may now be delegated. There is a possibility that the powers of a land council, the body representing traditional owners, could be delegated such that a body including non-Aboriginal people would be exercising these core land council functions.
These proposed amendments will also allow the Commonwealth minister for Indigenous affairs to make decisions about delegation of a land council’s powers even if the land council does not agree. The minister’s power to delegate these powers, as well as the types of bodies that land council powers can be delegated to, disfranchise traditional owners of the rights accorded to them under the original legislation.
While there is much to be concerned about in this bill, Labor does support a good number of the measures within it. The bill proposes a new section 12AAB to make an immediate grant of land to the Anindilyakwa Land Trust of land in the area of the Anindilyakwa Land Council included in any Arnhem land type 1 deed. This is land inappropriately granted to the Northern Land Council. Labor supports an immediate grant of that land to the Anindilyakwa Land Trust so it becomes the responsibility of the Anindilyakwa Land Council. I note with some concern comments made this morning by the minister in relation to the changes which he proposes. He referred with great ignorance to the way in which Indigenous Australians deal with their land and to their relationships with each other. He had the temerity, and indeed the audacity, to say this as he described the way in which Aboriginal people live on their land:
… We’re saying to people … that you’ve been living on what is for all intents and purposes little communist enclaves, which means that there’s no opportunity for business to flourish, there’s no access to a market economy.
I have never heard in this place such benign stupidity and rubbish. This minister is clearly ignorant of how Indigenous people see their land and how they relate to one another. I point the minister to the words of Justice Woodward and suggest to him that he bring himself to read the two reports of the Woodward royal commission and the subsequent reports and commentary which have been written about the land rights act. He would soon come to understand that his view of the world is not only wrong but also so far off the mark of where Indigenous Australians see themselves that it defies description. I say to him that I do not know any Indigenous people who are not concerned about involving themselves in the market economy in some way or another. I do not know any Indigenous Australians who do not want a roof over their head or the right for their children to attend school and have a healthy outcome—that is, to have education and health services and access to work opportunities. I do not know any Indigenous Australians who do not want any of those things, just like every other Australian.
What I know is that this pogrom, which has been undertaken in different guises by the federal government but in this case it is by attacking the land rights act, is all about disempowering Indigenous Australians. It is all about getting their agenda run and the wedge put in about how ignorant these poor buggers are. Well, they are not! They are not ignorant and they understand what you are doing. When you sit down and talk to these people, as this government should do, you understand what is required—that is, their need to give prior informed consent, as Justice Woodward commented upon in his royal commission report and as HORSCATSIA commented upon in its very first recommendation. The banal attitude of this government defies description. My time has concluded, and I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst welcoming many measures contained in the bill including the mining and exploration provisions, the House is of the opinion that some other provisions of this bill:
-
undermine the integrity of the Principal Act by eroding the rights of traditional owners and the independence of land councils;
-
are a recipe for uncertainty for development on Aboriginal land;
-
should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide a more balanced approach that ensures:
-
the informed consent of traditional owners to major changes;
-
that traditional owners as land owners are not unfairly constrained in optimising their financial and other benefits under the 99 year lease;
-
the better promotion and facilitation of economic development on Aboriginal land including home ownership opportunities for Aboriginal people;
-
the protection of traditional owners’ rights to control access and development on their own land; and
-
the maintenance of the independence and viability of land councils to defend and pursue the interests of traditional owners and other Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land.”
10000
Barresi, Phillip (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Barresi)—Is the motion seconded?
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr Garrett
—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
90
18:17:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
0
Mr TOLLNER
—It is indeed a pleasure to be standing here talking about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 and the changes it will bring to the land rights act which, in the main, has not changed at all in the last 30 years. The member for Lingiari summed up a few things when he talked about the Woodward royal commission. It is important to understand where things have come from and how they have eventuated. It is important in this context to understand the political climate of the time in relation to land rights and how we got to where we are now.
Back in the sixties and the seventies, the world was discovering that it had rights. South Pacific nations shook off their colonial oppressors. MGM stopped making films featuring white Americans gunning down red Indians. The cult heroes were Che Guevara, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. In Australia, Charlie Perkins was boarding freedom buses in the Northern Territory. The Aboriginal stockmen of Newcastle Waters and Wave Hill had walked off the job, demanding equal pay. A strike that became symbolic of Aboriginal dispossession was when the Gurindji people at Wave Hill turned the pay dispute into a demand for the return of their land. In 1967, the national referendum giving the Commonwealth responsibility for Aboriginal welfare received 90 per cent support, and the Aboriginal tent embassy was established on the lawns of Parliament House, just as Prime Minister Whitlam was moving into his office, brimming with reformist zeal.
The Gurindji strike lasted for seven years. In 1975, the year before the Aboriginal land rights act, Gough Whitlam symbolically poured red sand into the hands of Vincent Lingiari—my colleague the member for Lingiari on the other side represents the electorate named after him—and handed over the lease of 1,250 square miles of Vestey’s land, with a promise to further redress the injustice—an impression that has long been the lot of black Australians.
My point is that the Aboriginal land rights act is a rights act, not a lands act. It was about putting things right and about appeasing a national conscience and international opinion in the only place that the Commonwealth could—the Northern Territory. It was not about good land management or land administration. It was not about planning for the future exploitation and productivity of the land. The act does not concern itself with how the landowners are going to make a buck—quite the opposite. It is about the protection of land as a right, the preservation of culture, the locking of the gates and defending Aboriginal people and their land from the intrusions of outsiders—the miners, pastoralists, tourists or anyone without a permit for that matter, even the Northern Territory government.
It was thought that Aborigines would be able to return to hunting and foraging on their newly acquired land. Why would they need to make a dollar? Justice Woodward penned those intentions, writing of preserving ‘the spiritual link’ with land providing an Aboriginal sense of identity and allowing ‘Aborigines to be free to choose their own manner of living’. The Aboriginal affairs minister at the time, Ian Viner, picked up on the theme while introducing the legislation. He waxed lyrical about the Aboriginal spiritual connection with the land and the Dreamtime. He said that ‘ancestors left in each “country” certain vital powers’ that ‘make that country fruitful and ensure a good life for people forever’. ‘An Aboriginal’s country’, he said, ‘no matter how stricken a wilderness it may seem to others is, to him, a Canaan’. He stated his belief that there had been ‘a fundamental change in social thinking in Australia, recognising that within our community there are some people, the Aborigines, who live by a unique and distinct system of customary law’. Thus we can see the intent of the land rights act—to establish rights to protect the country and its inhabitants from the intruders, to create inalienable title in perpetuity for people who live differently and thereby ensure a good life for people forever.
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was established to establish a sanctuary, a preserve of living prehistory within modern Australia. Spurring on this mood was the Commonwealth’s deep suspicions about the intentions of the then embryonic Territory government, the Legislative Council. To defend Aboriginal Territorians from their future government, the act stipulates that the Territory parliament could not acquire Aboriginal land for public purposes. At that time, Canberra genuinely believed that, given half a chance, the Territory council would repossess Aboriginal land en masse and Viner felt compelled to tell the Commonwealth parliament that he had assurances that the Territory Legislative Assembly was prepared to cooperate. In fact, there was uncertainty, resentment and division in the Territory. It was not so much about Aboriginal land ownership; it had more to do with the way the rights act was imposed exclusively on the Territory from on high. It seemed hypocritical—and it was—to impose upon a territory a land regime that is applauded by the same people who would not have a bar of it in their home states.
Mr Viner had some sense of the impact his legislation might have on the Territory. Alarmed by what he feared was a white backlash, he wrote articles and pamphlets in the Territory in 1978 assuring Territorians that rumours that Aborigines would get 50 per cent of the land were untrue and downright dangerous to racial harmony. Today of course 50 per cent of the Territory is under Aboriginal title and that is the 50 per cent that Mr Viner said would never happen. He simply did not anticipate the real outcome of his legislation. His stated desire for an end to the divisiveness was not backed by his actions. He left the Territory a legacy that has soured relations between the Northern Territory government and land councils ever since. That legacy was his scant regard for the public interest in his plan to effect the biggest land transfer of crown and pastoral land to new, select communal ownerships since Captain Cook arrived.
The Commonwealth act prohibits any compulsory acquisition of land under the Aboriginal land rights act by the Territory government. The vast tracts of land were handed over to select communal ownership. The Territory government was forced into the land claims courtroom to represent and argue the public interest. It cannot be argued that the Territory government should not have done this. Governments are required to represent public interest, to plan for future services, provide water from catchment areas, provide pasture for cattle on the move, pipelines, powerlines, public parks and access for the enjoyment of beaches and rivers. To ignore such future considerations would have been a dereliction of public duty. But the adversarial nature of the courtroom inevitably leads to acrimony. Today most Aboriginal Territorians believe that the Territory government has opposed every land claim. They have been told that by land councils and the Labor Party finds polarisation of Aboriginal people and the previous CLP government relations politically convenient. John Reeves QC, in his review, said:
The provisions preventing the Territory government from compulsory acquiring land meant that the land claims process was the only chance the Territory government had to present possible matters of detriment.
He went on:
If the Territory government could acquire land in the future in certain limited circumstances, it would not be necessary for matters of detriment to be predicted way into the future and thus occupy so much court time and argument.
Today there is no real answer at all as to who owns the schools, the health centres and other community facilities on Aboriginal land. The land councils count such assets as having zero value, as they are not their asset. Taxpayers, through their government, also have no propriety interest, as the buildings do not stand on public land. So it was Mr Viner, consciously or unconsciously, who set up the dispute between the Territory government and the land councils.
The late author Shiva Naipaul visited the Northern Territory in the mid-eighties. He was appalled by what he described as the ‘confining of the Aborigine in his aboriginality—the escape into an adventure playground of timelessness, of goannas and kangaroos and red earth. The running off into a world of unalterable Aboriginal essences is a condescending and profoundly flawed prescription for regeneration.’ This was followed up with the challenge: ‘Either the Aborigine is or is not a citizen of Australia. If he is—which he is—he must face the consequences.’
Bob Beadman, in the spring 2004 issue of Policy wrote an article called ‘A future for Indigenous youth?’ in which he said:
The problem now, however, is that the title is now stitched up so tightly that it is worthless as a form of security for commercial borrowings, and home ownership is unknown for the high proportion of Aboriginal residents of the Northern Territory who live on Aboriginal land.
It is a cliché now, but the people are land rich but dirt poor.
The form of entry controls (which date back many decades prior to land rights, to when the land was first reserved for Aborigines), whilst very effective in providing a buffer from the worst aspects of the encroaching migration of the frontier, also blocked the migration of businesses, right through to the present time. Now, the Land Rights Act creates additional barriers to people pulling themselves up out of the quagmire of welfare dependency.
In a country with one of the highest levels of home ownership in the world, we construct a form of title for remote Aborigines that denies them the opportunity to fulfil what for others is the Great Australian Dream.
Collectivism has failed around the world, and the evidence is before our eyes that it hasn’t worked here either. Communal home ownership dictated by the Land Rights Act is just another manifestation of the removal of individual responsibility. I’ll bet if people were enabled to own their home repairs and maintenance costs would plummet.
Isn’t that something! If you owned your own home, maintenance costs would plummet. You do not have to be Einstein or the member for Lingiari to know that when you travel around community after community on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory nowhere do you see a market garden that grows fresh vegetables; nowhere do you see a butcher shop or a small abattoir; nowhere do you see bakeries. You do not see hairdressers; you do not see clothing stores—let alone a McDonald’s or an Irish theme pub. The reason none of that exists is that it is impossible to get those businesses up and running unless there is the incentive for people to make that investment in those communities.
I think the great changes being proposed today will go some way towards changing that. The normalisation of townships and the creation of long-term leases on towns will enable Aboriginal people and others to buy land and build houses in Aboriginal communities. It will allow businesses to set up. Some may not flourish—some may go broke—but that is business. It will allow people to set up market gardens and have an entrepreneurial attitude. It will allow for butcher shops, bakeries, hairdressers and clothing stores and present a whole range of other opportunities to Indigenous people.
In an article in the Australian of 15 August last year called ‘Hope lies in the great Australian dream’, the National President of the Labor Party, Warren Mundine, was reported as saying:
My parents owned a house and I own a house with my wife and my son now owns a house and my daughter is getting a house as well.
… … …
Owning ahome changes people’s lives. You have got an asset that you use yourself and that you can pass on to future generations.
He went on to say that home ownership ‘makes a total difference for people’:
For one thing you don’t have a ‘cargo cult’ mentality.
The article says:
Mr Mundine told the story of visiting an Aboriginal community where there was a broken sewer pipe.
‘I said: “You can fix that—we’ll just get a hessian bag and some concrete—otherwise you’re going to have sewage going everywhere.”
‘I was told, “That’s not our job, that’s ATSIC’s job”.’
The article continues:
Owning a home changed all that. ‘If the house is yours you look after it. The other thing is, if you own a house you have to be employed. You can’t willy-nilly wander in and out of jobs, you have to make a go of it.
… … …
‘If the boss is on your back you have to grin and bear it, you can’t just say “I’m out of here”.’
That is how you change people’s lives. That is how you allow them to get ahead—you create some incentive for them to work and an ability to own something.
The member for Lingiari laughs when the minister talks about mini communist societies in Australia. It is true. It is almost impossible for Indigenous people on Aboriginal land to get ahead or to own anything. I challenge the member for Lingiari to point out one single person who owns a private asset on any Indigenous land in the Territory. Hernando de Soto wrote in The Mystery of Capital:
By making assets ... capable of being divided, combined or mobilized to suit any transaction—by attaching owners to assets, assets to addresses, and ownership to enforcement, and by making information on the history of assets and owners easily accessible, formal property systems converted the systems of Western capitalist society into a network of individually identifiable and accountable business agents.
That is exactly what we are trying to do in transforming Indigenous economic development and what these changes to the land rights legislation will mean.
I think it goes without saying that the changes being proposed are not going to be the panacea for every ill in Aboriginal communities. More must be done. This legislation does not remove the permit system, for instance. It does not patriate this act to the Northern Territory government. I have said several times in this place that the act should be patriated to the rightful place, namely the Northern Territory. The permit system is another way of stopping Indigenous Territorians from accessing economic opportunities. A previous federal Labor MP, John Reeves QC, who conducted the Reeves review, sent me an email recently where he says:
I think the permit system should be scrapped and replaced with a system that more closely approximates that of all land owners—ie, the right to prevent trespass. By contrast, the permit system is essentially a passport system. Whilst the NT government presently has the power to make legislation to give effect to the permit system, the federal government has the ultimate control over the issue because it can withdraw that power just by amending the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.
He says that this should be done immediately. I am running out of time, but I think the last word should be left to Noel Pearson:
Many of the conventional ideas and policies in Aboriginal affairs—ideas and policies which are considered to be ‘progressive’—in fact are destructive.
He said Aboriginal affairs is dominated by journalists, academics, politicised clergy, politically active medical doctors, party careerists, writers, musicians, actors, cartoonists and ‘other inner city dwellers with socially suitable left-liberal opinions about everything’.
I and my people have suffered the intellectual and cultural hegemony of the progressive scribes for decades.
I think he is right. When I look at the members from the other side of the House who are due to speak on the debate, I see the members for Lingiari, Kingsford Smith, Fremantle, Reid, Banks, Fraser, Hotham, Werriwa, Chifley, Shortland and Melbourne. I rest my case. They are trying to do it all over again. They just restrict Aboriginal people and try to keep them in their place. There is nothing like having a good obedient blackfella around. We on this side of the House want to see them do well. We believe in the individual and giving them all a fair go. (Time expired)
95
18:37:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—It is a real shame that the government has chosen to apply the guillotine to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, and in so doing frustrate the legitimate rights that members of this parliament have, particularly in the opposition, to get up and speak to this bill. I cannot help but note that the Senate has also expressed concern about the speed with which this legislation is passing through the parliament. This has been a feature of the Howard government’s approach to legislation in the recent session, but giving a full and comprehensive consideration to an issue as significant as this is a primary responsibility of this parliament. That is what we have been elected to do. The member for Lingiari’s electorate incorporates the lands to which this proposed bill specifically applies. I would have thought it self-evident that not only he but any other member who wished to speak to this legislation should be given the opportunity. So it is a very great shame that the government has chosen to gag debate on a bill as important as this one.
I am struck, having heard the comments of the member for Solomon, by the difficulties that we sometimes have in this House in relation to political debate about Aboriginal issues. It is very difficult, it seems, for people to strip out their biases and their ideological fixations and come to a more constructive place as we seek to determine legislation, its merits and the kinds of policies that will be needed to be adopted by this House—and, hopefully, in time agreed to by both sides of politics—to help Aboriginal people overcome the accumulated disadvantage that they suffer.
In the House today we have had two interesting, hot-button occurrences. The first was a forum in the House, very well attended, detailing and concerning itself with issues of Indigenous violence, something which all of us both deplore and have great concern about. In that particular forum on Indigenous violence, speaker after speaker made the point that one of the most significant and important aspects of consideration of Indigenous violence is to recognise that both strong culture and the identification and protection of rights, particularly rights of the child, are absolutely essential predeterminants of having a debate and developing policy on this issue. Yet at the same time, both in the House and in the media, we have a concerted attack on notions of culture and on notions of rights. Who is right? Those Aboriginal people who work in communities, who experience physical abuse, who experience disadvantage day in and day out? Those Aboriginal people charged with the responsibility of running organisations dealing with health, truancy and kids who are petrol sniffing? Organisations concerned with the delivery of social services, with the health of Aboriginal families, who get up in this place and say that it is about strong culture, it is about recognition and identification of rights? Are they the ones who are correct on this issue? Or is it the plethora of pundits, opinion makers and ideologues who jump in and out of this debate as they see fit and when they see an issue that they can hang onto?
The other hot-button issue that was on display in this House today was the motion brought by the member for Stirling, Mr Keenan, calling upon the House to affirm the primacy of Australian law and asserting in effect that cultural considerations should not predominate over Australian law. With these kinds of contributions from members opposite in this debate is it little wonder that Aboriginal people get frustrated at the way in which politicians respond to the very considerable difficulties that they have?
Finally, I cannot help but refer to the contribution of the previous member when he looks forward longingly to the day when Aboriginal communities have ‘Irish theme pubs’ as evidence of their economic and cultural vitality. What a joke.
Labor opposes this bill, as there are aspects of it which are wrong and make it deficient. We come to the bill recognising that there is a need for reform of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, particularly in relation to prudential arrangements between and including royalty associations, which receive royalties from land councils, and also in relation to mining exploration and development activities.
I think it is particularly significant that it is on the issue of part IV of the act, which relates to mining, that we can see the most sensible and prudent aspects of this act. It is in that particular area that we have seen the most significant advance in the way in which mining companies in particular have changed their attitudes to negotiations with Aboriginal people, both for access to land and for the terms of development on Aboriginal land. I think, and I am sure members present would agree, that there has been a substantial change in attitude over the last decade from the mining industry in general in the way in which it has conducted itself, particularly in the Northern Territory, and in the way in which it has come to negotiations with a respect for culture and a willingness to sit down and spend the time necessary to negotiate. The result has been ongoing economic development for Indigenous people where the mining companies and Indigenous people have struck those agreements.
So it is appropriate that these much-changed attitudes and approaches, and the necessity for us to have better processes in relation to mining and royalty accountability, be reflected in any amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. But, as the member for Lingiari, who has just spoken, noted, these amendments also undermine the integrity of the principal act by eroding the rights of traditional owners. They are a recipe for uncertainty for development on Aboriginal land. The informed consent of traditional owners to major changes is not a part of these amendments. Traditional owners, as landowners, are unfairly constrained in optimising their financial prospects under the 99-year lease. There needs to be a better promotion and facilitation of economic development on Aboriginal land than is put forward by this amendment. And the protection of traditional owners’ traditional rights to control access and development on their own land is not present.
The member for Lingiari noted that these changes have come virtually out of the blue and that for a number of Indigenous communities across the Top End there has been little or no discussion or negotiation about these changes. Additionally, there is no evidence that the government understands the cultural values that attach to changes of this kind or the way in which those issues would play out at a future point in time. There is a diversity of situations that Indigenous people face and there are manifestly different conditions and challenges that present themselves to particular communities.
The comments made in the House today by Minister Brough, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, to the extent that Aboriginal people live in communist enclaves I think is an example of the need for the government to reconsider and to examine more thoroughly what is actually going on in Aboriginal communities. These are not helpful and not accurate comments. There is a danger that this debate is one where we hear only the loud voices and where the underlying and historically based issues are not properly and thoroughly explored, nor the points of view of the communities themselves.
I will just reprise briefly the history that has brought us to this point. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 was a product of the Woodward royal commission. It has been in operation for some 30 years. Justice Woodward’s basic premise was ‘the doing of simple justice to a people who have been deprived of their land without their consent and without compensation,’ and, further, that it was essential to both provide land and preserve the spiritual links to land that give Aboriginal people a sense of identity. While Woodward recognised the important need for Aboriginal people to be provided with land that would do most good in economic terms, as we do in this House and as Labor does, he also viewed the holding of land as a form of trusteeship rather than a transfer of rights.
There is some irony, I would have to say, in the position that the government takes where it wants to attack the rights of Indigenous people but in this very instance, when in fact they were not granted a certain kind of right, it takes opposition to that as well. The Aboriginal land rights act has subsequently been reviewed twice, most recently by John Reeves QC in 1997. That review was then referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in December 1998. The House of Representatives committee did not accept Reeves’s major recommendations and it took wide views from many people and took written submissions. Its report, Unlocking the future, had as its primary recommendation that:
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 … 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 that is extremely important—and that:
-
any Aboriginal communities or groups that may be affected having been consulted and given adequate opportunity to express their views.
That is the background: a process of review and of understanding an act of some 30 years standing, an extensive investigation by the House of Representatives committee and two primary recommendations that emerge as a result. It is on that that our opposition to the bill as it has come before this House is based.
It is the case that some of these proposed amendments, including proposed amendments before us which have been agreed to at least through the Northern Territory and through the land councils, are a result of an agreement on a package of proposals with the Northern Territory government. But it is our task as Labor members of this House to come to our view about the merits of the bill as it comes before us. That package took some time to negotiate—in particular, part IV of the act, which deals with mining and which, as I have said, has the support of the mining industry. But a number of the other proposed amendments have been neither sufficiently discussed nor negotiated with traditional owners or other Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal lands, nor even the land councils. That is the necessary precursor for a bill like this to come into law.
Whilst the need for traditional owner consent remains, I am worried that the federal government is already using the proposal in the amendments to negotiate with Indigenous communities. The cart is being put before the horse. It is important to identify that it is by no means axiomatic that individual home ownership capacity in and of itself will bring about economic independence or success for Indigenous people in facing the considerable challenges and disadvantage that does fall upon them. Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, has pointed out a number of overseas experiences that demonstrate that point.
0V5
Slipper, Peter, MP
Mr Slipper
—Not many.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—That has been countered by others—it is true—who speak in the debate, and I am reminded of a paper by Warin and Hughes of last year which saw fit to compare the work that was done in Aboriginal communities with that done in communist China. That is probably why we heard the minister’s comments in the House today. But that paper was singularly ill informed and did not understand that in fact there were a number of healthy, vibrant and economically active Aboriginal communities, including communities existing as out-stations throughout Arnhem Land and in other parts.
There are a number of other issues that are problematic and have been referred to by the member for Lingiari. These include the proposal to cap rental payments on land leased to a Northern Territory government entity at five per cent of the improved capital value of the land as well as making payments out of the Aboriginal benefits account, with that account being made available for rental payments. I just make the simple point that to cap a rental payment at five per cent, even of improved value, in an act of parliament like this I think is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in a commercial sense to Indigenous people and it is unacceptable given the terms of these leases and the periods of time for which they run. It is extraordinary to me that a figure of this kind should be included in a bill of this nature. I would certainly ask the minister to readdress that particular issue.
Again, the additional proposals that deal with creating new land councils are also of concern, not having been subject to sufficient negotiations or consultation. It seems that the government has taken those aspects of the Reeves report it agreed to and dispensed with the House of Representatives recommendations that it did not agree to. More importantly, though, is the question about housing itself and the arguments advanced by government members that this bill will be a magic bullet to the extent that it will automatically provide for people to have home ownership and that their social conditions will improve as a matter of course. It is true that, in some communities and some instances, home ownership, which we support, would have that effect, but it would be by no means the rule. For those people living in the Northern Territory in remote communities where their average income is around $13,500, it is hard to see how home ownership in and of itself is even reachable or accessible. The amount that has been identified as necessary for investment in housing in the Northern Territory alone—and that is maintenance and construction—runs to the billions. If the government were truly serious about home ownership or the provision of housing for Aboriginal people—Indigenous people who particularly face extremely challenging social situations on account of the fact that there is a perilous shortage of housing—that is what we should be hearing from the government.
I draw the House’s attention to the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute paper, Indigenous housing: assessing the long term costs and the optimal balance between recurrent and capital expenditure, released earlier this year. It considered this issue in detail. Its recommendations, most of which go to the best way governments can properly provide for housing, were simple. Governments must provide a financially viable and stable Indigenous community housing sector by ensuring concurrent support for recurrent maintenance and housing management and funding models. The research institute identifies, amongst other things, the lack of data and good information that governments have about what actually happens in Aboriginal communities where housing is in crisis and about the shortage that is there. The challenges faced by Indigenous community housing organisations, both in obtaining housing grants and in ensuring that housing is well maintained into the longer term, are profound.
The institute suggests that, amongst other things, the Australian government could request Indigenous community housing organisations to agree to assist in providing responses to relevant surveys of the housing management and stock condition and, upon receipt of these agreements, a suitably revised version of the questionnaire could be pursued. There could be a quantity surveyor driven analysis of the condition of the housing stock of ICHOs throughout Australia with priority focused on those organisations not receiving grants and the government could establish and fund a national Indigenous housing, training and development centre. This centre, drawing on and developing relevant existing courses, could be attached to an appropriate university and its courses could have tertiary diploma status. Finally, the centre could focus on delivering both longer and shorter courses in Indigenous housing management, drawing heavily on existing Indigenous housing managers. It seems to me that the government should consider—and, I hope, respond positively to—the policy recommendations identified in the work that the institute has done. There is a lot more to housing than coming into the House and supporting legislation of this kind without considering the issues in their wider context.
There are additionally some other aspects of this bill which we find have merit. I refer particularly to those provisions of the bill that refer to royalty associations. Those reforms contemplated are in sync with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on ATSIA proposals. There is absolutely no doubt that, in some instances, there is a need for a form of that kind with royalty associations, particularly to give confidence to both those who are receiving the royalties and those who are distributing them that it is done in a prudential and an acceptable fashion. We accept the need for reform, but this bill is flawed. We need to have good law which delivers good results—law which understands the history both of dispossession and acquisition of rights by Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and which understands fundamentally the necessity for proper consultation and identification of any or all of those obstacles that may stand in the way of these people being able to deal with their housing problems in a constructive and real manner. This is something the bill does not do.
99
18:57:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—When one listens to the honourable member for Kingsford Smith, his speech sounds reasonable and rational in some respects, but as a nation we really have to confront the fact that over 200 years of European settlement we have a situation where Indigenous Australians have an entirely unsatisfactory position in life. We find that they live for 20 years less than non-Indigenous males, we find that there is an infant mortality situation which a First World country ought not to be proud of and we find that successive governments over the years have endeavoured to salve the nation’s collective conscience by throwing money at the problem. I am more than happy to spend whatever money we as a government and as a nation need to redress Indigenous disadvantage, and in 2006 it is very important that Indigenous Australians also share in the prosperity of modern Australia.
The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 is designed to have a major positive impact on the lives of Indigenous Australians. The amendments set out in the bill have arisen as a result of three separate reports into the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Three reports have been conducted over a period of almost a decade, and all three made recommendations for changes that will help to streamline and update the provisions in the act to ensure improved outcomes for both Australia’s Indigenous people and those relevant stakeholders who play a large and important part in their lives. I think there has been an excessive focus in recent years on self-determination and an insufficient emphasis on accountability and outcomes. It really is important that, as a nation, we look at what we can do to improve the situation of Indigenous Australians.
I just think that so often the Labor Party in the past—like the Labor Party today—has remained some distance from reality. It is all about slogans, tokens and talking up what can be done, but this government is determined to bring about practical reconciliation. We are determined to make sure that there is the same level of accountability for Indigenous organisations as there is for other organisations in the general community. We need, in my view, to convince the Australian people that there are the appropriate levels of accountability with respect to Indigenous spending and, if the government is able to convince the people of Australia that this has at last been brought about, we will find that the government will be able to obtain the political support necessary to spend the additional dollars which are undoubtedly necessary for future expenditure in the area of Indigenous assistance.
The underlying objectives of the amendment in the bill being debated here today are to improve access to Aboriginal land for the purpose of development, specifically mining; to introduce an improved decision-making framework for Aboriginal people for land use; and to encourage improvements in the living conditions in both economic and social terms for Aboriginals living in the Northern Territory.
The three reports which fed into the legislation include the Reeves report, which found that Aboriginal people are not benefiting economically as much as could be possible if administration and licensing of Aboriginal land were streamlined. John Reeves—and the member for Lingiari would well know John Reeves, who was a former distinguished member of this place—is someone who does not look at the Indigenous situation through ideological perspectives; he looks at it as someone who wants to bring about real, meaningful, substantial, important and positive change for Indigenous Australians. The reports which fed into the legislation suggested changes to the act to enable greater ease in negotiating agreements for development, especially mining on Aboriginal land. The Reeves report noted that an inalienable freehold title to over 40 per cent of the Northern Territory land has brought insignificant benefits to the Aboriginal residents of the Northern Territory. I think that most honourable members would agree that this is indisputably a fact. We find that, while Indigenous residents in the Northern Territory have received the dollars, they certainly have not received the outcomes. Anyone who can defend the failed process we have seen over the last 200 years in dealing with Indigenous matters, in my view, has very little credibility at all.
The Reeves report also noted that changes to the act could make things better. It recommended that 18 regional land councils be formed under the umbrella of a single peak body to be known as the Northern Territory Aboriginal Council as well as a modified administration system for exploration and mining on Aboriginal land that has reduced regulations. Personally, I believe that the current structure of legislation for land rights in the Northern Territory is fatally flawed. I do not believe the 1976 legislation was appropriate and, while it may have made some people have a warm, inner glow and feel good, ultimately the people the legislation was intended to benefit—namely, the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory—have simply been sold short.
A second report released by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs suggested that the recommendations of the Reeves report were perhaps too aggressive and suggested incremental changes. Thirdly, the Manning report recommended changes to the time allowable for the negotiation of exploration and mining leases. A change suggested by the report was a period slightly longer than two years, which takes into account the weather patterns in the Top End. Further time extensions were also allowable under the Manning report suggestions. While there are differences in the recommendations of the three reports, there are also similarities, the main one being the general consensus that the act in its present form can be improved and that these improvements could have a positive impact financially and socially on the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
I am somewhat attracted to the recommendations made by John Reeves QC. He is someone who has put aside his former political mantra and is prepared to basically cut out the verbiage, to sit down and say, ‘We have tried it every other way. We have tried tokenism, we have tried symbolism, we have tried to make people feel warm and gooey inside but ultimately as a nation, as a government and as a people we really have a responsibility to address Indigenous disadvantage and all the previous systems we have adopted have comprehensively failed.’
On the issue of exploration and mining on Aboriginal lands, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 includes provisions that will increase core negotiation periods for licences from 12 months to 24 months, while also giving the Northern Territory government the power to end negotiations if it is of the opinion that a company’s intentions in the negotiations are not genuine. It will also enable the Northern Territory to act as observer to any negotiations—previously, this was a role carried out by the Australian government. It will retain the provision that allows the traditional landowners to have the power to withhold consent for mining companies to begin exploration. In the views of the drafters of the legislation, this enables the Aboriginal people to safeguard their own interests. Those exploration proposals that are vetoed by the owners will be subject to a one-year moratorium instead of the current five-year moratorium. This will give the Indigenous landowners greater opportunity to explore more quickly renewed avenues to secure benefits for their people.
When the Northern Territory ultimately becomes a state, I think it is really important that the land rights act be repatriated to the Northern Territory. I suppose the member for Lingiari and I—who do not really agree on very much—might well agree that, if the Northern Territory is to take its place as a state within the Commonwealth of Australia, the Northern Territory ought to be treated in this area in the same way as all other Australian states.
On other proposals for economic developments, the bill includes provisions that will give Indigenous people greater control over the issues by which they are quintessentially the most affected. These include the increase to the threshold of the contracts which need ministerial approval from the current $100,000 to $1,000,000—that makes a lot of logical, sound commonsense; allowing leases to include provisions allowing future transfers; and increasing the lease term that requires ministerial approval from the current 10 years to 40 years. It really is important that issues involving mining and exploration leases, and the negotiations that are a detailed and important factor in finalising these leases, are as streamlined and as workable as possible to ensure that the Indigenous people of Australia receive the greatest benefits, yet it is also important to retain the legislative protections that ensure the integrity of the act.
Further changes proposed by the bill include allowing land councils to delegate certain decision-making permissions to regional groups and clarifying the procedures required to establish new land councils. Currently, the act rather peculiarly states that there must be a ‘substantial majority’ to be in favour. This will be changed to a 55 per cent majority. Changes in the bill also include that future funding to land councils be based on the amount of work that they do and the results that they get, rather than simply on the number of people they represent. This will help to reduce the possibility of excessive funding going to any stagnant bodies. I said earlier that if we can ensure that we have the same level of accountability in the area of Indigenous affairs then it will be so much easier for a government to get the political support of the Australian people to make the economic and social investment necessary to redress Indigenous disadvantage.
I think that most Australians have a view that much of the money spent on Indigenous affairs is simply frittered away, wasted or stolen. All of us know of the horrendous reports we have seen in the media about mismanagement in Indigenous organisations, the historic lack of accountability and the way in which many people use the assets of Indigenous organisations as though they are their own assets. What happens of course is that that leaves a vacuum for the Pauline Hansons of this world to come in. They are able to make these wide pronouncements. People are concerned about wastage of government money, whether it be wastage in the area of Indigenous affairs or wastage in the area of non-Indigenous affairs, but because there is this suspicion that could build up in the Australian community about the fact that money spent in the area of Aboriginal affairs is wasted it makes it very difficult for the government of the day, regardless of political colour, with the best intentions to get the support of the Australian people to redress the very obvious ongoing issues of Indigenous disadvantage.
The bill currently before the chamber includes provisions to ensure transparency in land council cost recovery measures as well as giving power to the Commonwealth Office of Evaluation and Audit to investigate land councils. I know that whenever an amendment is proposed to any law there is a range of views. Indigenous affairs is an area which excites a great deal of interest not only in the community but on both sides of the House. I would be prepared to admit that everyone in the House wants to see Indigenous outcomes improved, but I think it is really important to take the rose-coloured glasses off and to look at what needs to be done in a practical sense to ensure sensible, practical outcomes.
Regrettably, I suspect the Australian Labor Party is still locked into the tired, old, failed—however well-meaning—policies of the past. This government has been prepared to look beyond the square. We have been prepared in a range of areas to take innovative initiatives. In recent times there have been a number of suggestions which have gained the support of many Indigenous people. So, while the opposition might well oppose this legislation, it really ought not to denigrate the fact that this government is trying to sweep away the lack of achievement in the interests of improving Indigenous outcomes. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 is designed to assist the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory to see a greater benefit from the immense amounts of land that we do have in the Northern Territory. I do not see this bill as being an absolute panacea, but I do see it as being a very positive and important step forward. I am very pleased to be able to stand in the House today to support it and I formally commend the bill to the chamber.
103
19:12:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—I rise to oppose the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 and to support the amendment moved by the member for Lingiari which is in the following terms:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst welcoming many measures contained in the Bill including the mining and exploration provisions, the House is of the opinion that some other provisions of this Bill:
-
undermine the integrity of the Principal Act by eroding the rights of traditional owners and the independence of land councils;
-
are a recipe for uncertainty for development on Aboriginal land;
-
should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide a more balanced approach that ensures:
-
the informed consent of traditional owners to major changes;
-
that traditional owners as land owners are not unfairly constrained in optimising their financial and other benefits under the 99 year lease;
-
the better promotion and facilitation of economic development on Aboriginal land including home ownership opportunities for Aboriginal people;
-
the protection of traditional owners’ rights to control access and development on their own land; and
-
the maintenance of the independence and viability of land councils to defend and pursue the interests of traditional owners and other Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal land”.
That amendment encompasses most of the objections that I have to this legislation, although it does not cover all of them.
At the outset of my contribution, I point out that I, together with other members of this House, was involved in an inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, for which the report was called Unlocking the future: the report of the inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. That report was tabled in August 1999. I notice that it is referred to in the explanatory memorandum to this bill. The honourable member for Lingiari, who is at the table, was a member of that committee. The significant thing about that committee is that the Native Title Act was all the rage at the time, with many arguments about it, and the issue of land rights was well and truly on the agenda. A committee of this House, chaired by the Hon. Lou Lieberman MP, as he then was, with a majority of government members, managed to produce a unanimous report to this parliament, and right up front was recommendation 1, on page 8, which says:
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.
I repeat that it was a unanimous report with a government majority, and the bill before the House today does not meet that basic test of proper consultation and informed consent of traditional Aboriginal owners in the Northern Territory.
The bill that is before us was added to by this government as against the bill that was proposed some months ago, and I believe it is all done in the hysterical climate that is being generated by the current Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who is a bit hairy chested and out there in a big way. He obviously sees this as an issue in which he can impress some of his colleagues and maybe pick up some votes in a future deputy leadership ballot. That is in his mind. It has been reported on in the press. This minister has a big mouth. The problem is that some of the people he talks to report back. I do not have a problem with him having an ego. I have a problem with him breaking all the proper protocols and sensitivities on an act of parliament that was first proposed by the Whitlam government but enacted by the Fraser government and that has served Aboriginal people well. In effect, paragraph 8 of the explanatory memorandum gives it away. Under ‘Objectives’, it says:
The principal objectives are to improve access to Aboriginal land for development, especially mining.
The National Indigenous Times of 15 June 2006 dissected the bill that is before the House. There is an analysis by Chris Graham, who says:
Briefly, the government is seeking to wipe out the independence of the NT land councils—to gain control of them. The land councils’ financial resources will now come under the direction of Mal Brough. He will decide the level of funding they receive (if they receive funding at all).
The Minister is also proposing to give himself the power to delegate land council functions to other bodies—bodies he has created and funded.
What does this mean in practical terms? It means that the land councils are dead. They will no longer do the bidding of traditional owners—they must do the bidding of the government, or they will be abolished.
So what is the intent of the Howard government amendments? They are designed to increase white access to the resource rich lands of the Northern Territory.
The government basically states that in its objectives on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum. From my experience of dealing with the four land councils in the Northern Territory—and I think the member for Lingiari can attest to this—the Central Land Council in particular and the Northern Land Council have served their communities well. What worries me about what the government is doing is that it is attempting to undermine those particular land councils, to break them up. In my view, that will not result in better outcomes for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
The government openly says that the bill is about devolving decision making. In my experience, and I think the member for Lingiari would attest to this, resources are stretched with the current land councils. That is because, in the 10 years of this government, they have really been squeezed and they are suffering the death of a thousand cuts. If you further devolve the decision making of the Northern Land Council and the Central Land Council, you are not going to get a better outcome, in my view, for Indigenous people or, indeed, for miners. You need properly resourced land councils. The smaller the land councils the fewer the resources—it becomes a personnel problem—and I think there is a real difficulty in proper decision making taking place.
As I said, I think the National Indigenous Times has done the most comprehensive analysis of the spin of the government, and I commend it to honourable members. Here is an example of the spin. Mr Brough said:
The reforms to the Land Rights Act will help create future opportunities for Aboriginal people. These amendments allow for 99 year leases which will make it easier for Indigenous people to own a home or establish a business in Aboriginal townships.
The facts are that the government amendments will actually ensure that traditional owners will forgo their ownership of land and the associated rights to control entry onto their land. That really is what this bill is all about. Here is some more spin that I think is worth quoting:
The amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 will allow changes to land tenure in Aboriginal townships, streamline processes for land development and raise performance and improve accountability of Land Councils and royalty bodies.
The facts are that the reforms will vastly reduce the independence of land councils and a range of activities. The only increased accountability would be to the federal minister, not to Aboriginal constituents. The amendments will also create major governance problems, with small, underresourced land councils forced to negotiate with large government bureaucracies and cashed up mining companies.
Since the government gained control of both Houses of this parliament we have seen its ideology coming through. It is attacking and cherry-picking those areas on which it has had a long-held view. The land rights act, for this Prime Minister, is one of those pieces of legislation. This is not good public policy in which the government is engaging. We need to respect the rights of our Indigenous Australians. We need to respect their right to say no and to have them properly resourced so that there is informed consent in relation to their decision making. What we should not have is a situation where the land councils have a gun held to their heads by this government and this minister basically saying, ‘If you don’t approve development we’re going to put you out of business.’
That is the thrust of what this legislation is about. That is why the land councils have a problem with this legislation. There was a press release on 1 June 2006 in which the land council expressed serious concerns regarding certain amendments. Mr Fry said:
Many of the amendments improve workability and are welcome, since they will remove red tape and speed up processes for mining and other developments.
Let’s cut to the chase here: many Indigenous people do want mining because they see it as their only way to advance themselves and their communities. They are not anti development; they just want a say over the development on their land. Mr Fry also said:
The proposal that Land Councils be forced to delegate land use functions to small corporations, and prioritise scarce resources to them, is unworkable and inefficient and will promote dispute and jeopardise development outcomes.
He is able to point to successful outcomes such as ‘the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, mining, pipelines, the foreshadowed Commonwealth radioactive waste facility’—which they support—‘or the ENI Blacktip gas processing plant near Wadeye’, which was signed off in May. These outcomes will be ‘seriously jeopardised if a myriad of underfunded, inefficient, small corporations are responsible for performing professional functions’. That is the real problem here: what the government is proposing is inefficient, unworkable organisations with scarce resources taking over development. So I commend the second reading amendment to members and I say to this government: you are going down the wrong track. You are blaming the victims. You are actually not producing decent legislation or decent policy. In part some of this bill will hinder development and create problems, and we will be revisiting this issue down the track.
10000
Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Wilkie)—The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I call the member for—
106
19:28:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—Kennedy.
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—How could you forget?
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—How could I forget?
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr Martin Ferguson
—How’d you find your way to the chamber? You’re a stranger in the House.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—When I see how you occupy your time here it is no wonder that I am a stranger in the House. I just did some quick research before I came down to give my speech in this debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. I looked up how much water the Northern Territory has. The Northern Territory has 77,000 megalitres of water in the annual run-off from its great rivers. I then looked up how much the Murray-Darling has. The Murray-Darling has only 22,000 megalitres. Half of the Northern Territory—and a lot of that would take at least half the water—is owned by people of Aboriginal descent, First Australians. Some 61,000 First Australians in the Northern Territory own 600,000 square kilometres—half the surface area—and they own let’s say half of the water supply, some 30,000 megalitres. The Murray-Darling on 22,000 megalitres supports 54,000 farming families—that does not include the 200,000 jobs that are there—and produces some $15,000 million a year of agricultural production. I ask: why do the most land-rich people on earth have almost all of the most appalling social statistical qualifying data concerning them? Whether it be life expectancy, income, alcoholism or trauma rates—these areas could arguably be amongst the worst in the world. How can these people be so enormously rich and yet so enormously poor?
When I was appointed minister in the Queensland government in 1983 I had to address that very seriously and very quickly. The education department had moved their teachers out of two schools and were threatening to move them from all of the schools in the gulf and peninsula. The police force were making similar threats and had their police removed from Pormpuraaw during mass rioting at the time. Similar threats took place at Yarrabah. They attempted to ban alcohol. They thought alcohol was the problem, as the current Queensland government does. That is what I walked into at the time. So we had to do some hard thinking.
I was quite surprised to find out that the Anglo races—the English, if you like—got private ownership in 1292. Quia Emptores was passed in 1292. At the time of the First World War the Anglos had nearly half of the world’s industrial production and about 40 per cent of its wealth—England and America put together. Why were these people so enormously successful? They were the one race on earth that had private ownership far earlier than anyone else. The next ones would appear to be the French, and that was not until the 1800s, and then the Germans in 1850. The Japanese only really got private ownership, the way we know it, in 1946. One can see the extraordinary success story that unravelled with the coming of private ownership to Japan, and one can see the same phenomenon occurring now in China. If you are looking for a reason as to why those races got ahead of the rest of the world—there may have been other reasons—the defining factor was that the Anglos had private ownership far faster than anyone else in the world, three or four centuries before anyone else in the world.
Why is this group of people in the Northern Territory, the most land-rich people on earth by a long way, so incredibly poor in every sense of the word? They do not have any private ownership. I have been quite amazed to hear each of the opposition speakers attack the minister over his use of the word ‘communist’. He could have used the word ‘socialist’ or whatever, but most certainly there is community ownership of land as opposed to an individual or a family owning this land.
I did not go into the job in 1983 with any ability to manoeuvre. The most successful community appeared to be Hopevale. I met with a person called Lester Rosendale, who became one of the leaders of the group that got together to change things in Queensland and who at that time was secretary to the advisory council of the church at Hopevale. The Rosendale family were heavyweights in the church. I said, ‘What have you done with land ownership here?’ He said, ‘We have private ownership; here’s the map.’ He had a big map of Hopevale with all the blocks drawn up on it. I said, ‘Legally it is still supposed to belong to the government with a beneficial ownership to the church.’ He said, ‘No, forget about that.’ I said, ‘What about tribes?’ He said no and waved it off. I was looking for a reason as to why Hopevale was the shining light of success amongst all the Aboriginal communities. It was the only one that had this private ownership arrangement.
We moved on. The next community I went to was Pormpuraaw. I met Jackson Shortjoe and Eddie Holroyd. I said, ‘What do you want?’ One of them, Eddie Holroyd, said, ‘We want self-management.’ I said: ‘That’s coming. Forget about that. Move on to the next item.’ Jackson Shortjoe then said, ‘I want to have a go at the cleanskins, the cattle that are running around here unbranded.’ The cattle were running around on government land. At one stage they were government cattle but no-one had been able to get them in. I think some members of the community were joining their cousins in little raids on the cattle in Pormpuraaw and moving them out to their cousins’ place. He thought it would be better if he was mustering them for himself. I said: ‘If you are going to do that, Jackson, you are going to have to build yards and put up fences. You will have to put out a lot of money here. I don’t have government money to give you and I’m pretty certain the feds won’t give you any money. Every bit of money they have put into anything they’ve lost, so I doubt whether you will get anything from them. What say you take up private ownership of a block and then you get some money off the bank to do it yourself?’ He said, ‘But we wouldn’t be able to get the private ownership.’ With a confidence that I most certainly did not feel I said: ‘I’m the boss. I make the decisions. If I decide that is going to be private ownership, then you will own it and nobody else.’ He said, ‘Yeah, that would be good.’ Later we had discussions with Eddie Holroyd and went down the same path conversationally.
Let me go back to Hopevale for one moment, because CDEP, the Work for the Dole scheme, started off with a Hopevale person called Greg. They did a 60 Minutes program on the scheme. It is the only time in the history of 60 Minutes that they did a repeat of a program the following week, because the positive public reaction was so immense to what Greg had achieved at what was then Weipa South and is now Napranum.
Hopevale went on to produce Matty Bowen—the greatest footballer in Australia at the present moment, to quote Peter Sterling; some of the selectors obviously disagree but I would agree with Sterling—Eric Deeral, the first Aboriginal person to be elected to a parliament in Australian history, and Noel Pearson, who needs no introduction to this parliament.
Torres Strait Islanders, in sharp contrast, are arguably the most successful race on earth in terms of the mothering of children and life expectancy, despite being away from medical access, in terms of trauma, alcoholism and crime. I remember being on Mer Island and asking the storekeeper how often the store got broken into, because we used to average one government store a week in a lot of Aboriginal communities. The lady said, ‘What do you mean?’ I had to explain to her what ‘broken into’ meant and she recoiled in horror and said, ‘No, we don’t have anything like that.’
The Mer case or the Mabo case, as it is known now—it was really the Father Passi case, because Mabo was picked out on the second day—one of the most famous cases in Australian jurisprudential history, centred on the fact that these people knew that they owned this area of land. It was acknowledged by everyone on the island that they owned that land. The government did not really interfere in any way with that ownership so they had continuous occupation and ownership which was universally recognised. I went on to recognise that arrangement in the legislation. If the Premier, God bless him, had listened to me and we had released the deeds of grant on Mer Island, there would have been no Mabo case. But he listened to $12½ million worth of lawyers’ advice, which was entirely wrong. But the judges were right in saying that those people owned that land. That was the decision of the Bjelke-Petersen government and every member of that government and every member of parliament recognised that ownership and so ultimately did the High Court—and who would argue with that decision? We could argue very much over the way it has been extended, but we will leave that for another day.
At Pormpuraaw we had only ever mustered 360 head of cattle. The government, which was responsible for Pormpuraaw, or Edward River as it then was, had only ever succeeded in mustering 360 head of cattle. But within three years, under Eddie Holroyd and Jackson Shortjoe, under the private ownership arrangements and the arrangements we had for the cattle, they got in 6,000 head. Under government-community ownership we got in 360 head, which was the maximum we ever got in. Then, under the control of the federal government, at the adjoining Aboriginal area, Aurukun, they started community ownership. The church had done a wonderful job there in fact. They had 12,000 head of cattle. It was turned over to community ownership and was run under community ownership, which really amounts to white outsiders coming in and doing it for you. That is really what community ownership amounts to: almost every store and cattle operation is run by outsider whitefellas, which is a dreadful situation in itself. It is demeaning for every single person of Aboriginal descent in these communities. The Aurukun cattle operation was run exclusively by whitefellas. They had inherited 12,000 head of cattle. Within six years they had no cattle at all. But under entirely black private ownership we went to 6,000 head of cattle mustered behind wire. This is an incredible success story which proves conclusively that if you move in this direction there is no reason why these people will not be just as successful as any other race of people on earth—if I may use the term ‘race’.
But I was in no situation to make these decisions. I must say that at the time I had read with very great interest the works of Konrad Lorenz, who received the Nobel Prize during that period for his work on territory and aggression, and Robert Ardrey—his magnificent books, including The Territorial Imperative. As one person remarked, it is the most important book since Das Kapital was written. If I were to reduce what Ardrey was saying in his group of books, of which The Territorial Imperative is one, to a single phrase, it would be that in Russia the year that the Communist manifesto was written was the same year that the Lincoln homestead act was propounded in the United States. Half of the United States was taken up under the Lincoln homestead act. Everyone got a mile by a mile for occupation, cultivation and production—those were the three criteria that you had to meet. You had to live on it, you had to produce something of value from it, you had to cultivate it and you had to use the land. If you did, you got a square mile for free. Remember the big land rush in the movies when they rushed to put their pegs into the ground? That land rush resulted from the Lincoln homestead act.
So Ardrey said that what happened was that Russia was turned into an experiment in community ownership and the United States was turned into an example of private, family territorial ownership. He compared the performance of both states. Russia was the biggest basketcase on earth, having to import huge amounts of food from outside, yet it had a bigger area of cultivated, arable land than the United States had—much bigger in fact. Nearly 90 per cent of the food produced in the United States by agricultural production was surplus to their requirements. They were feeding themselves and nine other people for every American at the time.
Let me move on and say that the question that I asked myself was: how do we move these people from where they are to where these people should be? I asked them the question first, because I actually had little say and little room in which to manoeuvre. So we went out and called a public meeting in each place and we said: ‘Hey, Fellas, this reserve area is in the name of the Queensland government. We’re the legal owners. You people are the beneficial owners, but the name on the ownership papers for Pormpuraaw, Kowanyama or Lockhart River is that of the Queensland government. We do not want to continue in ownership of this land. It is not right, it is not moral, it is not legal and it is not proper. We want to get out. We have to put someone’s name on this bit of paper. Whose name do you want on it? Do you want your local shire council name? Do you want your land council name? Do you want the government’s name to continue on it? Do you want private names to go onto this bit of paper? We will cut it up into little pieces and put private names on it. Whose name do you want to go on the bit of paper?’
They asked a lot of questions about private ownership. It was a concept they were not familiar with. At the end, about 3,800 people voted and only three voted against private ownership. Do you want to own your own house, your own farm and your own cattle station or do you want the council—whatever council or government that might be—to own it? Surprise, surprise! The vote was 3,800 to three. Nobody in this place has gone out there and asked them. Nobody has sat down and given them time. In this process that took three months, I think I was home for three nights. This process took an enormous amount of energy and commitment.
There are about 100,000 hectares of flat land at Lockhart River; it has a 60-inch rainfall. The land is very suitable for grazing or farming. We decided that at least we could plough out the blady grass and put in improved pasture and that would provide about two beasts to an acre or three beasts to a hectare. That would produce $50 million in income, which would have put the 100 families that lived at Lockhart River on an income of $400,000 each.
It would take a lot of money—we are maybe talking about $20 million—to move from where we were to put that fencing in, to plough out the blady grass, to plant the improved pasture, to put in waters and to set up a bit of ancillary feeding. I did not have a government that would give $20 million to the people, and I am damn sure that the federal government, the Hawke government, after the series of disasters that they had inherited, were not going to put a cent in it. Clyde Holding told me that they most certainly would not. So where was the $20 million going to come from?
We felt that, if we put the blocks out to private ownership, these people would own a piece of land; they would have something they could take to the bank. Mr Deputy Speaker, when you think about it, that is the only way it can ever happen. The bank has to have some security, and it is the only one with pockets big enough to be able to provide the finance. As far as the house building went, we provided them with the wherewithal to build their own homes, and 360 jobs were created. The interesting phenomenon was that, where many houses had been utterly destroyed—and Kowanyama was a classic example of this—and probably 70 per cent of the houses had been destroyed by the occupants, people who were not involved with the building program suddenly started to look after their own homes. When people started to realise they could build a home themselves, it was enablement or, to quote Noel Pearson in his very wonderful speech to the Press Club, it was ‘capability’. In retrospect what we were giving those people was the capability to move forward.
I hear a lot about education. Peter Harvey-Sutton, a schoolteacher at All Souls, is about the only person I know who has been successful. He frankly said, ‘If you want a place in the football team, you had better turn up to school and do your homework.’ It was a very cogent argument. Most of the leadership of the Aboriginal communities in Queensland come from All Souls school, and it is the result of very great people like Peter Harvey-Sutton as an educator.
Finally, Bjelke-Petersen said, ‘How many families do you have, Bob, that can run these things?’—he did not think we had too many; I think he thought I was a bit of a bleeding heart—and I said, ‘Five’. We had about 40,000 people living in these communities. He was quite staggered. I think he expected me to say hundreds or thousands. He said, ‘Only five?’ and I said, ‘Well, you asked me the question!’ At that point in time he realised, as everyone in this place should realise, that we must move forward. Do not worry about the past. Let us move forward into the sort of world that we can create for these people. (Time expired)
111
19:48:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I must say that it is a pleasure to follow the member for Kennedy. This debate is about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, and I am trying to work out in my own mind where the Soviet Union fits into the debate—but it was a delight to listen to the member. Having said that, I think we have to front up to the fact that the centre of this debate is the question of consent. It is about the rights of our own Indigenous community and whether or not we treat them with respect and are willing to support their determination to work out their problems.
I think the starting point for the discussion is revisiting a government majority report of the House entitled Unlocking the future: the report of the Inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. To understand the debate, you only have to go to the very first recommendation of the report. That report simply says that, if we are going to have a look at the future of this act of parliament, we have to start thinking about the requirement to consult the traditional Aboriginal owners and their requirement to give consent to changes with respect to the very operation of the bill before the House this evening. I think that is the benchmark for our not only being able to work with traditional owners and the Indigenous community generally to achieve a proper assessment of land rights legislation but also making sure that we give them the capacity to pursue and put in place not only self-determination but also a major improvement in the social indicators that are of concern to the great majority of Australians—issues going to access to housing, the level of education attainment and problems with health and employment, just to name a few.
Interestingly, the history of the act will show that it provided for the immediate transfer to Aboriginal people by freehold title of 258,000 square kilometres of land, which was formerly government reserve—land set aside for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. It also correctly provided for the processing of land claims, which is one of the issues that I want to address this evening, based on traditional ownership with the claims lodged by land councils to an Aboriginal land commissioner. About 44 per cent of Northern Territory land has been granted as Aboriginal land under the existing act, with a further 10 per cent subject to claim.
The legislation to date has provided for traditional owners in certain circumstances to refuse consent to mining and other developments on their land. That is not because they are against development; it is about trying to make sure that there is a balance between development and traditional rights of our Indigenous community. It has also provided for negotiations with developers and the payment of royalties to the Aboriginal beneficiaries, which is about the distribution of financial assistance to Aboriginal communities and the funding of land councils so that they meet their expenses in looking after the Indigenous community and properly representing them, with 30 per cent of those royalties being for the benefit of incorporated Aboriginal groups in the Northern Territory. That is the background of the legislation before the House this evening. Importantly, it is part of our trying to front up to the errors of our ways in days gone by.
The problem is that this bill seeks to undermine the principles laid out in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill. The intent of this legislation is to actually diminish the principle of self-determination. I personally believe that is plain wrong. Not only is that my view but it is also the view of the opposition, as reflected in a second reading amendment moved by the member for Lingiari, Mr Warren Snowdon, who knows better than anyone in this House the challenges confronting the Indigenous community. Unlike anyone else in this House, he spent the last week consulting different communities in the Northern Territory about their view on the draft legislation and how the opposition should react to it so as to ensure their voice is heard in this debate. Unfortunately, the member for Solomon, who also represents a very small part of the Northern Territory, has not taken the opportunity to consult the Indigenous community and does not properly articulate their views in this debate.
As shadow minister for resources, there are some aspects of the bill that the opposition very much supports and these provisions have the support of the Indigenous community. The Indigenous community of the Northern Territory wants investment. It wants to develop resources and wants to ensure that in the development of those resources it is consulted with a view to maximising the return not just in the form of royalties to the Indigenous community but, more importantly, in social and economic development. The Indigenous community more than anyone wants economic development in the Northern Territory. It wants resource development and tourism. That is about creating opportunities locally for training, schooling, employment and enlarging the economic cake available to the Indigenous community in the Northern Territory.
I think it is about time that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs understood that he is wrong. The Indigenous community is not anti economic development. It is more pro economic development than the minister himself. It is a question of how you do it. The best way to achieve development in Australia is by sitting down and negotiating with people and taking them with you. That is the intent of the act, as it currently stands. But, unfortunately, it is not the intent of some of the changes embodied in the bill before the House because they actually diminish the capacity for land councils in the Northern Territory to properly represent and lobby on behalf of the Indigenous community.
With respect to the issue of resources, following consultation over a long period, the changes embodied in the bill have the support of the Indigenous community and appropriately so. That is why the opposition also supports them because they are aimed at trying to get a decent outcome—trying to facilitate development over a shorter period and trying to shorten the negotiating period. So, in the interests of all groups, it is proposed that the negotiations covering mining access to Aboriginal lands be streamlined. That has arisen after a period of consultation. It is about consent. It includes the ability of the Northern Territory government to establish deadlines for negotiations after an appropriate period in order to encourage quicker agreements. It is about preventing protracted negotiations. It sets down a core negotiating period of approximately 30 months to provide a realistic time frame for negotiations on exploration and mining developments. We have achieved it in the past and we can do it better in the future. If you have any doubts about that, just look at the success of the negotiating process involving the upgrade and extension of the Darwin to Alice Springs rail line. That was done in consultation with and support of the Indigenous community. People put the effort into actually achieving an outcome. The Northern Territory will be able to set more realistic deadlines for people to work towards and that is what it is about—people working towards realistic outcomes so that they all know that if they achieve the necessary outcome and negotiations, everyone benefits.
It also sends a message to some in the mining sector that we will no longer cop warehousing of areas. This bill aims to prevent the warehousing of areas of Aboriginal land where there is no intention by a mining company to explore in the short to medium term. That is not just about the Indigenous community’s best interests; it is about the best interests of all Australians. No mining company should be able to warehouse land without properly considering exploration and development. It puts the onus on these mining companies to pursue the exploration opportunities and decide whether they are actually going to mine. It is not a challenge to mining companies with a good reputation that supports them; it is about the rogues in the industry who are not prepared to make the necessary decisions about exploration and development. It also reinforces the importance of local management by delegating decisions to the Northern Territory government. It will facilitate faster and more responsive processes in development for the resources sector. It will also facilitate minerals development in the Northern Territory.
The problems relating to negotiations will diminish, but it also raises another serious question about how you conduct these negotiations. For an extended period now the Minerals Council of Australia has criticised the Howard government for not properly resourcing representative native title bodies to conduct these negotiations on an equal footing. These negotiations are not cheap. They extend over a long period and you need to consult anthropologists and legal representatives to ensure that Indigenous communities are properly represented.
I remind the House that the Howard government is part of the review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. It has to get serious about properly resourcing and funding the Indigenous community’s representatives. Negotiations with mining companies have to be on an equal footing, because mining companies get a benefit as a result of successful negotiations. Think about what the Indigenous community wants out of resource development. They are saying, ‘We are pro resource development, but we want to be able to negotiate what is also of interest to us.’ And it is bigger than the issue of royalties. It is not just about money; it goes to issues such as social outcomes, health and education and how you lock in training. For example, how do we extend beyond Comalco in Queensland and the fact that this company has given an undertaking that any Indigenous kid who finishes year 10 is guaranteed a job at Comalco in Weipa?
Those are the types of models that we want to extend to the Northern Territory. But the Indigenous community has to be resourced to facilitate those outcomes, because it is about negotiating processes. The Indigenous community is prepared to manage and facilitate these processes but let’s resource it. It is not just about the law of the land, Mr Howard; it is also about avoiding lopsided negotiations. Lopsided negotiations are not good for industry, they are not good for the Indigenous community and they are not good for Australia at large. Lopsided negotiations, be they in the workplace or in the Northern Territory with the Indigenous community, where they are not conducted on an equal footing, leave a bitter taste in the minds of the participants in those negotiations.
That is not about good economic development in Australia. This is a very important bill, but I point out to the House and, importantly, to Australians listening to this debate that the Howard government is not prepared to extend the debate but is guillotining it at 8.30 this evening to limit the number of speakers. I think that is a disgrace. If it succeeds in gaining proper consent and proper consideration of negotiations, this bill will create long-term economic opportunities for Australia. Why, therefore, should the Howard government limit the opportunity for members to make a contribution to what is a very important debate for the future of Australia?
Having dealt with some of the positive aspects of the bill, I want to remind the House that there are some negatives. I have serious concerns about a range of issues raised by the member for Lingiari and reflected in his second reading amendment, which I absolutely support. Let us go to the issue of land councils. Historically, they have had guaranteed funding so they can do their job. The government now suggests that guaranteed funding should be replaced by ministerial discretion. I just scratch my head. That is about Big Brother from Canberra again saying: ‘If you do what you’re told when you’re told, you might get funding.’ That is not about cooperative negotiations and encouraging the Indigenous communities; it is about waving the big stick—‘Do what you’re told when you’re told or we’re going to cut out your funding.’ It is about politicisation; it is not about a long-term commitment to economic development and the improvement of the lot of Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
It is also about taking away the independence of the councils. If you are prepared to express opposition to a bill such as this, which is premised on consent, then it is stored in the back of the minister’s mind and you will pay the price over time because you dared to question the decision-making process of government. I am totally opposed to that approach to government, which should be about a strong democracy and people being able to express whether or not they support an aspect of proposed legislation. It is wrong to give the appropriations to the minister so he can decide who the favoured sons and daughters in the Indigenous community will be if they do what the Howard government tells them. Funding is essential for the activities of the Aboriginal land councils in the Northern Territory and their capacity to facilitate negotiations with the resources sector and a whole variety of other sectors, including the tourism sector, which I have responsibility for as shadow minister.
Then there is the issue of 99-year leasing. Where else in Australia would you get a bill which says that not only is an Indigenous community required to accept 99-year leasing but Big Brother in Canberra is going to determine capping at five per cent per annum of the approved capital value of the land for rental purposes? That is not about proper market considerations. Let the market play out. If there is going to be leasing for a 99-year period, then let the market determine the appropriate rent. Why should politicians interfere with the operation of the market? Let’s have proper economic development. Make the investment and take the market risk. But here we are told that, no matter what the economic potential of development is on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory, the maximum rate will be capped at five per cent. Why would the Aboriginal community bother to cooperate? There are a whole host of economic opportunities in the Northern Territory which will return a bigger rent than five per cent, but this government says you will only be entitled to five per cent.
Then there is the issue of more land councils to be set up to suit the needs of the government. There is a suggestion that some of the amendments embodied in this bill might, in fact, breach the Racial Discrimination Act. It is for the Indigenous community to consider their legal options. I encourage them: while the rule of law applies in Australia, explore your available options.
Unfortunately, time is limited this evening. Members are not really in a position to use all of the time normally available to members of parliament because of the guillotine of the debate. In conclusion, I say that there are aspects of this bill that, as the shadow minister for resources, I totally support. They are about facilitating economic development in the Northern Territory and, in doing so, bringing long-term benefit to Australia and, perhaps more importantly, bringing long-term economic and social improvements to the lot of the Indigenous community.
Other aspects of the bill are crude, un-Australian and unacceptable. I urge members of the House to support the second reading amendment. I also urge those members on the other side of the House who supposedly have a conscience—they are talking about the rights of refugees at the moment—to think about the rights of the traditional owners of Australian land. Think about the Indigenous community. If you are prepared to talk about crossing the floor on the rights of refugees, think about crossing the floor on the rights of our own Indigenous people. Support the right to decent economic development based on consent of the Aboriginal people—home-grown Australians who want to determine their own future. It is a challenge for members with a so-called conscience to stand up on Aboriginal land rights in the Northern Territory. I commend the second reading amendment to the House. I support those aspects of the bill relating to resource development in the Northern Territory, but I indicate my total opposition to the other aspects of the bill that members of the opposition have touched on in this important debate.
115
20:05:00
Andren, Peter, MP
KL6
Calare
IND
0
0
Mr ANDREN
—The question that needs to be asked about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 is: how much of it has been put together with input and agreement by the people who actually own the land we are talking about? Informed advice I have received is that the claimed nine years consultation from the discredited Reeves report onwards is ‘absolute garbage’. The Northern Territory government and the Australian government, as well as the land councils, stand condemned in their failure to properly disseminate information about proposals such as these to people who may have several, indeed many, languages but English and its peculiar terms is not one of their preferred or understood tongues.
Now we are having legislation rushed through yet again and, despite the minister’s visit to Northern Australia at the weekend, the landowners involved in this still do not understand the concept of a lease, let alone the word. So much for the excitement we heard from the minister today about the prospect of ownership. This, after all, is Aboriginal land. Their land title is inalienable and equivalent to freehold title. It is land owned by those whose ancestors were custodians of the land for tens of thousands of years before them.
Now we are about to return to the worst of paternalistic models. Through this legislation we set up a statutory body to take care of a head lease on traditional land and we ask its traditional owners to sign off for 99 years. This is at a time when many traditional owners—incidentally, ‘traditional’ is a term absolutely foreign to many of the affected people—do not know after 30 years what the land rights act is in fact all about. People are totally confused as to what a lease means. There is a massive communications problem that did not begin with this amendment; it began 150 or more years ago, and no real attempt has been made to address it in remote communities.
The difference is that this land, while equivalent to freehold title, is held communally, reflecting the fluidity and communal nature of Aboriginal landownership—quite a different concept to our Western, market based individualistic world views. The current Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act provides that, unless the act or some other law determines, the consent of the traditional owners, the landowners, is always required before others may use the land. As things stand at the moment, if someone wants to use the traditional land, the relevant land council conducts negotiations with the traditional owners, with those affected by the proposal and with the proponents. The land council must respond to the views of the traditional Aboriginal owners. The councils must also use traditional or other agreed processes to allow those owners informed, collective consent. When a proposal is agreed to, the land council then directs the land trust to enter the agreement.
When you consider that many traditional owners do not speak or read English, the substantial difficulties imposed by the incredible isolation of many of these people and the very different world views and concepts understood by all parties, it is clear how important and huge a task this is for the land councils. Yet the land council process is not without its serious weaknesses, which could and should have been addressed before this broad-brush and renewed paternalistic approach. I hear stories that even land council personnel cannot communicate with people in the homelands, yet their permission is sometimes obtained by dubious and highly questionable means. Is that now to be repeated many times over across northern Australia?
This legislation may not technically be taking consent away from landowners, but I am advised that it will have that effect unless this process is explained far more clearly—in fact, unless it is explained full stop, which it clearly has not been, from the feedback I have received from contacts throughout the Northern Territory. I understand that major banks could well have mortgages under a sublease over any land subject to these agreements. Say, for instance, the new leaseholder cannot pay. What happens? Do they sell? To whom? Could a non-Indigenous couple from Melbourne pay out the lease and secure a holiday home on the north Australian coast? Tell me why this cannot happen, Minister.
Under this legislation you also do not any longer need a permit for entry to leasehold land. We could have a scenario where half the land affected by this legislation is eventually owned by whitefellas. According to the explanatory memorandum the legislation will open up Aboriginal land. Exactly. What better way to finally undermine aboriginal landownership, which is not a Torrens title type ownership but a spiritual association that goes back 40,000 years at least.
The traditional owners simply do not understand the nature of these amendments, as was required under the original act. Schedule 1 of the existing act gave unalienable rights to traditional owners. It recognised clan and alliance or nation ownership. The existing act services the Aboriginals Benefit Account, which holds moneys equivalent to the royalties paid for mining. Thus, royalties are paid by mining operations to the Northern Territory government as owner of the minerals—with the exception of uranium, which goes to the Commonwealth—and the Commonwealth reimburses the equivalent amount from consolidated revenue into the ABA. These funds are then disbursed according to a formula to the land councils in order to provide for development and actions to benefit the owners of the land. However, the minister retains control over the ABA. A guaranteed 40 per cent is set aside to fund the administration of all four Northern Territory land councils.
It is worth noting that the ABA has net accumulated assets of $109.2 million, which are owned and controlled by the Commonwealth. This equity, from royalties and from Aboriginal land, is owned and controlled by the Commonwealth and cannot be accessed, leveraged or borrowed against by the land councils or the traditional owners.
I understand that there are elements of the bill, particularly amendments to part IV of the act, regarding mining provisions, that have been negotiated and supported by the land councils, who believe they will provide greater workability of the act—and that is fine. But there are parts of this bill that have not been negotiated with the land councils, that have been agreed to by both the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments without the agreement of those who actually own the land and their representatives. The processes in this bill abuse the very rights and recognitions of every property owner in this country. This has inserted provisions that completely ignore and undermine right of control over your own land. It undermines and renders invalid control, and thus essentially the ownership of that land for substantial periods of time—in fact, for generations.
The bill allows an association whose members are either traditional owners or residents of an area to apply to a land council to have powers delegated to it. But, if a land council refuses to delegate its powers or functions, the minister can override it. If there were provisions to ensure that a majority of non-owners could never override the objections of the traditional owners—who could otherwise then in effect lose any semblance of rights as an owner—this might not be so objectionable. However, such provisions are not included. The bill further provides that, once a delegation is made by a land council, it cannot be varied or revoked without the request of the delegate or the minister’s approval.
Further, if the land council does not agree with the delegation, the minister may completely override the council and delegate the powers or compel any variation to that delegation. This is all the more alarming when the land councils’ functions and powers that under this bill can be delegated to another body include decisions about mining on Aboriginal land and leasing on Aboriginal land. Not only that, but that body can be made up of non-Aboriginal people and a majority of Aboriginal residents of the area, who need not be the owners of that land. It is easy to see that a non-Aboriginal group could easily gain control over what happens on land owned by Aboriginals.
Currently the act allows for the creation of new land councils provided that a ‘substantial majority’ of Aboriginal adults living in the area agree. The Commonwealth was asked by the land councils and the Northern Territory government to amend this section to ensure traditional owners would have to consent to any proposed new land council. This is also in line with the recommendation of this parliament made back in 1999. However, the government not only disagrees with this approach but introduces in this bill the principle that a single Aboriginal person who is resident in the area can apply for the establishment of a new council. Other bodies such as a council, an association or a company with a majority of Aboriginal members may also apply.
But what of the traditional landowners? After all, the land is Aboriginal land only because these traditional landowners have fought the land claims to receive their rights under the title granted to that land. What happens in townships and communities where a large proportion of the Aboriginal population are not traditional owners? This is completely at odds with the whole process of being granted title to the land in the first place.
Further, the whole movement over many years has been to remove smaller, less efficient services and to remove duplication and impediments to attracting the very best in professional staff. As the Australian National Audit Office pointed out, the informed decision making processes facilitated by the administrative arm of a land council includes the input of lawyers, mining experts, anthropologists and so on. A land council’s strength is highly reliant on the professionalism that only the larger councils can attract. Or is this the very reason for these changes in the bill—to undermine the larger and potentially far more professional and more independent land councils?
Under the act a land trust could lease to the Northern Territory government or its entity the whole of a township or community. In return the entity would pay rent to the land trust of a fixed five per cent of the improved capital value. It must be asked: how do we work out the value of this land, particularly land in more remote areas? Not only this, but the peppercorn rent paid by the Northern Territory government to the land trust on behalf of the traditional owners is paid from the ABA, the Aboriginal Benefits Account. So the Northern Territory government is using the landowners’ income to pay the landowners peppercorn rent, determined by its own VG, on their land, over which they lose control for 99 years!
I know there are others who want to speak in this truncated debate—and it is deplorable that debate on such an important piece of legislation should be curtailed in such a manner—but I want to ask finally: what in this bill will attack the rudimentary health care problems that exist on a daily or weekly basis? How will they be fixed if the people suffering from illnesses can borrow money to buy a house for 99 years? They are asking today: ‘Where do we find the resources?’ We are told there will be packages put in place. They are saying, ‘What if we can’t afford to pay?’ How will the sewers, the water in each house, the roads and the telephones be fixed? Someone mentioned here bakers and candlestick makers and all these businesses that are going to grow out of nowhere.
If you take the trouble to read Richard Trudgen’s book, Why warriors lie down and die, you will see that in a short space of seven years he saw the complete collapse of many communities because their ability and their right to make decisions for themselves—in fact the very traineeships that were in place in some of these communities—had been taken over by imposed contracts from outside. So there are many other ways that we should be looking towards the benefit of these communities. It certainly is not in this particular act. This bill should be redrafted but, most importantly, it should honour the integrity of the existing legislation by applying the three vital factors missing in this process: communication, consultation and consent.
118
20:19:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—I join with others in regretting the fact that the time available for all of us to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006 has been cut so short. I will not waste any of my limited time railing against that—I will allow people to make judgments for themselves. One of the things that strikes me about this bill is that it illustrates an emerging feature of the Howard government: the Howard government hates agreement on issues that it might be able to exploit as wedge issues. This is an example, and a very sad example, because we have contained within this bill a significant amendment to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act supported by the government, the opposition, the Northern Territory government, the mining industry and the traditional owners and their representatives on the land councils on matters relating to mining and exploration.
It would have been a very significant positive achievement if we could have come into this parliament and made an amendment to the Native Title Act that would have been a significant plus for economic development with unanimous support in the parliament—I cannot speak for the Independents but, from the sound of their remarks, with the unanimous or at least the overwhelming support of the parliament—and with the support of the traditional owners, the mining industry and the Northern Territory government.
That could have been achieved. Everybody knew it could have been achieved. It was clear and known but it was a totally unacceptable outcome to the Howard government because it was good for Indigenous people and it was good for the mining industry but there was not a vote in it. It did not split the community. There was no division from which a government could gain political advantage. Where there is agreement on areas that are potentially wedge issues, this government insists upon driving in the wedge, achieving the political purpose by winning some section of that community whose votes it might not otherwise get, even if it means that those matters which could have been dealt with by agreement and consensus are torn apart.
We of course saw that illustrated with regard to the ACT civil unions legislation recently, where Laurie Oakes in last week’s Bulletin blew the whistle and made it absolutely clear that the Attorney-General and probably others in the government had in place a process that probably—and in my view, looking at it from an ACT end, almost certainly—could have led to agreement. But the Prime Minister scuttled the arrangement and made sure that the detailed proposals that could have led to an agreement were never sent to the ACT government so the agreement could never be reached and the wedge could be inserted.
That is why the first part of the second reading amendment about ‘welcoming the measures contained in the bill, including the mining and exploration provisions’ is so important. They could have been major unifying features, bringing together all sections concerned about economic development on Aboriginal land in a very positive way, but it was not good enough. We could not have discussion, negotiation or consensus because major changes have been made to the rights of traditional owners and their representatives on the land council without discussion, without negotiation, without listening and without an attempt at reaching consensus—in fact, with a deliberate attempt not to achieve consensus. No other landowners in this country would be treated this way. Let us remember that when we say ‘landowners’ the people we are talking about—the traditional owners affected by the Native Title Act—are people who have won their title. It has been determined that the title to this land is theirs; yet, without even talking to them, we pass a law to change the way it can be dealt with. No other Australian would be dealt with in this way, yet the government does not even blush. It charges headlong down this path in a manner which it has been warned by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner risks breaching the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and is likely to have us in court.
What will happen? The Howard government will say the people going to court are being divisive. Shock! They are holding up development! But they know that this is a deliberate attempt at creating that division and at undermining the bodies that have the capacity effectively to represent and negotiate on behalf of the traditional owners. And it is not as though that is a secret. I was the Deputy Chair of the then Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which reported on the operation of native title representative bodies. It reported to this parliament this year that, of all the mainland native title representative bodies, the two that were most effective were the Central Land Council and the Northern Land Council. In the words of the evidence presented by the Indigenous Land Corporation in talking about the difficulties it has dealing with these bodies, they were ‘performing at the better end of the spectrum’. They are two of the three—the third being the Torres Strait Regional Authority, which is not relevant to this debate—that are the most effective and the best to deal with.
So what do we do here? We say: ‘We’ll undermine them. We will undermine them financially, and we will undermine them structurally. We will create that proliferation of small bodies which every bit of previous evidence has said fails.’ Every bit of previous evidence says that, if you split up the big bodies, require them to delegate here and allow smaller split-off councils to be created there, it is less efficient. Everybody who has looked at it has found that, and it is not surprising; but every bit of evidence points to that. The government’s own majority on this committee found that—properly, on the basis of evidence put before it. But the government ignored them and, in fact, did the exact opposite.
We have letters from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory expressing widespread concern about elements of this legislation, and the government does not respond. It just charges on, when we know it could have had agreement about mining and exploration provisions from all the major participants, including the Northern Territory government. We could have had that bill through and it could have been a very significant positive, enhancing the debate about Indigenous economic development because we can see a way on which agreement can be taken going forward. But that is much too harmonious! There is no division in that. There is no vote in that. There is no split in that.
Let me come back to the point that no other landowner in Australia would be treated like this. I am here as a representative of the Australian Capital Territory, where everybody’s land is leasehold land. Can you imagine what would happen if we brought into this parliament a bill that sought to limit the capacity, the rent, which leaseholders in the ACT could have on their land? We will legislate a cap. These are people who lease Commonwealth land here in the ACT. Perhaps we should have a bill to say that there is a cap on how much return they can get. All my constituents would properly be outraged, and you would not dare do it to them.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr Brough
—It’s not about the constituents.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—It is about their rights, and you are treating the traditional owners in the Northern Territory in a manner you would not dare treat any other Australian. It would not even occur to you to treat any other Australian like that. It is wrong, it is improper and it is also, sadly, very bad economics. It is ineffective. I strongly support some of the measures in this legislation. They would make a substantial economic contribution. I forgive you, Minister, because in your case it is ignorance, but in some parts of the government it is a deliberate attempt to be divisive. A week ago you knew nothing. Now you are an expert, and you have made the transition without gaining any knowledge.
We have here a very significant piece of legislation. It has about 45 more seconds to be debated in this parliament, which is a great pity, but that is the way the world is. It is a great lost opportunity to make a unifying step forward. We are going to have here a divisive step—a step that will almost certainly end up in court, that will almost certainly end up with traditional owners in dispute with the government, when we could have had a unifying set of progressive economic reforms which had economic literacy and political legitimacy. This has got neither political legitimacy nor economic literacy. It is very poor economics as well as being very divisive politics.
10000
Somlyay, Alex (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. AM Somlyay)—Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I call the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
121
20:30:00
Brough, Mal, MP
2K6
Longman
LP
Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs
1
0
Mr BROUGH
—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to today’s historic debate on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006. This legislation will allow Aboriginal Australians in parts of the Northern Territory who have been denied rights for many years to be able to own their own home. I think it almost defies belief that in 2006 we are at a stage where many Australians simply do not have the right to own their own property where they desire to live and where, in many cases, generations have lived before them. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the enforcement of collective rights over individual rights has been an abject failure. As the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Clare Martin, recently said, self-determination was the biggest mistake. Unlike those who sit opposite, their colleagues in the Northern Territory agree with the thrust of this legislation. The Northern Territory’s Minister for Housing, Mr Elliott McAdam, who is of course of Indigenous descent, very much supports this and understands it is about—
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—He is an Indigenous person.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr BROUGH
—An Indigenous person—I stand corrected; you are right. He says it is all about choice and we agree with him. It defies belief that the opposition can think there is somehow a conspiracy and it is about denying people’s rights. It is simply not about that all.
As I said to the parliament earlier today, over the last two days, and last month, I met with the people of Wadeye, the people of the Tiwi Islands—Nguiu in particular—who have already signed a heads of agreement and also the people of Galiwinku. Many in those communities are excited about having for the first time the same rights as other Australians. This is something that we want to give them. It is something that we should not even be debating; it should just happen naturally. The reality is there has been nine years of debate on this issue—nine long years of talking to people. It is important that those who sit opposite recognise that this is not the end of the consultation. I say to the member for Canberra—
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan
—Fraser.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr BROUGH
—Sorry—the member for Fraser. I say to him: this is not the end of the consultation. No-one is being forced to do this. What will happen from here is that those communities that wish to participate will have the right to do so and they will then negotiate.
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMullan interjecting—
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr BROUGH
—The member for Fraser raises the issue of services. You know what we asked them to do? We asked the Territory Labor government to provide Indigenous people with the most basic things that they deserve: decent policing, decent education and decent health. I am negotiating on behalf of those Territorian Aboriginal people who have been denied that right by the people who sit opposite—that is an absolute disgrace—and I will continue to do that.
We have a couple of amendments that we will move today. I will table amendments that provide an option for the Commonwealth entity to hold township leases and other minor amendments together with a supplementary explanatory memorandum and a minor correction to the explanatory memorandum.
I have listened to the people whom I spoke with at the Northern Land Council in the last couple of days. On the five per cent cap, I inform the House that it is my intention to move a further amendment in the Senate when this is finally debated removing that five per cent. So far be it from me not to listen. We do listen to people. The reality is that that was set upon because it was a realistic rental agreement that most real estate proprietors would expect as a return on their properties. We and the Northern Territory government will negotiate fair and equitable returns with people in return for their 99-year leases. Then there will of course be a negotiation between the leaseholder of the head lease and the people who want to own their property, in the same way as currently occurs in the electorate of the member for Fraser here in the ACT—because that is the only way that people can have property rights. It will be treated identically. I think that is what people have to understand.
It has been nine long years. We now have the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, a member of the Labor Party, the housing minister of the Northern Territory, a member of the Labor Party, and the Indigenous President of the Labor Party, all agreeing that this is right. I simply ask—
IJ4
Snowdon, Warren, MP
Mr Snowdon
—He doesn’t come from the Northern Territory. He knows nothing about this stuff.
2K6
Brough, Mal, MP
Mr BROUGH
—We now hear the member for Lingiari saying that his party president does not come from the Northern Territory and does not know anything about this. You know what he knows about? He knows about the rights of his people. He wants them to have the same choices that you and I have and so do I. I think it is an awfully sad day when a man who represents much of the Northern Territory does not believe that the Indigenous people there have the same rights that he and I have. I feel that is a disgrace. It is a sorry day for the Labor Party and a sorry day for the member for Lingiari but a positive day in that this bill will pass and that Australian Aboriginal people will finally have the same rights, which they so richly deserve, that other Australians take for granted. (Time expired)
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Snowdon’s amendment) stand part of the question.
20:39:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins)
74
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Baird, B.G.
Baker, M.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
52
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Original question put:
That the bill be now read a second time.
20:50:00
The House divided.
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Jenkins)
74
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Anderson, J.D.
Andrews, K.J.
Baird, B.G.
Baldwin, R.C.
Barresi, P.A.
Bartlett, K.J.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Broadbent, R.
Brough, M.T.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Draper, P.
Elson, K.S.
Entsch, W.G.
Farmer, P.F.
Fawcett, D.
Ferguson, M.D.
Forrest, J.A. *
Gash, J.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hardgrave, G.D.
Hartsuyker, L.
Henry, S.
Hockey, J.B.
Hull, K.E.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A.
Jull, D.F.
Katter, R.C.
Keenan, M.
Kelly, J.M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Lindsay, P.J.
Lloyd, J.E.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Markus, L.
May, M.A.
McArthur, S. *
McGauran, P.J.
Mirabella, S.
Moylan, J.E.
Nairn, G.R.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Prosser, G.D.
Pyne, C.
Randall, D.J.
Richardson, K.
Schultz, A.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Thompson, C.P.
Ticehurst, K.V.
Tollner, D.W.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vaile, M.A.J.
Vale, D.S.
Vasta, R.
Wakelin, B.H.
Washer, M.J.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Wood, J.
54
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Andren, P.J.
Bevis, A.R.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Burke, A.E.
Byrne, A.M.
Corcoran, A.K.
Crean, S.F.
Danby, M. *
Edwards, G.J.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Grierson, S.J.
Griffin, A.P.
Hall, J.G. *
Hatton, M.J.
Hayes, C.P.
Hoare, K.J.
Irwin, J.
Kerr, D.J.C.
King, C.F.
Lawrence, C.M.
Macklin, J.L.
McClelland, R.B.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.P.
O’Connor, B.P.
O’Connor, G.M.
Owens, J.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Ripoll, B.F.
Roxon, N.L.
Sawford, R.W.
Sercombe, R.C.G.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Swan, W.M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, K.J.
Vamvakinou, M.
Wilkie, K.
* denotes teller
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Messages from the Governor-General and the Administrator recommending appropriations for the bill and proposed amendments announced.
Third Reading
124
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, the question now is that the remaining stages of the bill, including the government amendments as circulated, be agreed to.
The government amendments read as follows—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit “5 and 6”, substitute “4A to 4C”.
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit “items 7 and 8”, substitute “item 8”.
(3) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 7), omit the table item.
(4) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 20), omit “201”, substitute “201A”.
(5) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 25), omit the table item.
(6) Schedule 1, page 6 (before line 4), before item 2, insert:
1A Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
approved entity means a Commonwealth entity or an NT entity.
(7) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 7), after item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
Commonwealth entity means a person approved by the Minister under section 3AAA.
(8) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 6), after item 4, insert:
4A Subsection 3(1) (definition of exploration retention lease)
Repeal the definition.
4B Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
exploration retention licence means an exploration retention licence granted under a law of the Northern Territory relating to mining for minerals and includes a retention licence granted under the Petroleum Act of the Northern Territory as amended from time to time.
4C Subsection 3(1) (definition of mining interest)
Omit “exploration retention lease”, substitute “exploration retention licence”.
(9) Schedule 1, items 5 and 6, page 7 (lines 7 to 17), omit the items.
(10) Schedule 1, item 7, page 7 (lines 18 to 22), omit the item.
(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (lines 10 to 13), omit the item.
(12) Schedule 1, item 13, page 8 (before line 16), before section 3AA, insert:
3AAA Approval of Commonwealth entities
The Minister may, by writing, approve a person for the purposes of the definition of Commonwealth entity in subsection 3(1).
Note: Paragraph 22(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 provides that person includes a body corporate or body politic.
(13) Schedule 1, item 36, page 19 (line 20), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 36, page 19 (line 24), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(15) Schedule 1, item 36, page 19 (line 26), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(16) Schedule 1, item 38, page 20 (line 4), omit “an NT entity”, substitute “an approved entity”.
(17) Schedule 1, item 38, page 20 (lines 4 and 5), omit “the NT entity”, substitute “the approved entity”.
(18) Schedule 1, item 39, page 20 (line 8), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(19) Schedule 1, page 20 (line 9), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(20) Schedule 1, item 44, page 21 (after line 7), after subsection 19(8B), insert:
(8C) A consent of the Minister or a Land Council under subsection (8) relating to a transfer or grant may:
(a) be general; or
(b) be expressed to be limited to a specified person or a person included in a specified class.
(21) Schedule 1, item 46, page 21 (line 24), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(22) Schedule 1, item 46, page 22 (line 19), omit “79th year”, substitute “69th year”.
(23) Schedule 1, item 46, page 22 (line 21), after “this section”, insert “to the same approved entity”.
(24) Schedule 1, item 46, page 22 (lines 28 to 31), omit paragraph 19A(6)(b), substitute:
(b) must not provide for the amount of the annual rent to be paid to exceed 5% of the improved capital value of the land, as last assessed, before the start of the year concerned, by:
(i) a person approved under subsection 19B(1); or
(ii) a person who is included in a class of persons approved under subsection 19B(2).
(25) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (line 1), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(26) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (line 5), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(27) Schedule 1, item 46, page 23 (line 18), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(28) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (after line 6), after section 19A, insert:
19B Approval of valuers
(1) The Minister may, by writing, approve a person for the purposes of subparagraph 19A(6)(b)(i).
(2) The Minister may, by writing, approve a class of persons for the purposes of subparagraph 19A(6)(b)(ii).
(3) An approval under this section is not a legislative instrument.
(29) Schedule 1, item 46, after proposed section 19B, insert:
19C Modification of certain NT laws for a township lease held by a Commonwealth entity or transferred from a Commonwealth entity to an NT entity
(1) This section applies to:
(a) the grant of a lease to a Commonwealth entity under section 19A; or
(b) the transfer of a lease to a Commonwealth entity in accordance with that section; or
(c) the transfer of a lease from a Commonwealth entity to an NT entity in accordance with that section.
Taxes
(2) No stamp duty or similar tax is payable under a law of the Northern Territory in respect of the grant or transfer.
Registration
(3) On the application of the Commonwealth entity or the NT entity, the Registrar‑General or other appropriate officer under the law of the Northern Territory relating to the transfer of land must register the instrument of grant or transfer as if it were duly executed under that law.
(30) Schedule 1, item 46, after proposed section 19C, insert:
19D Modification of NT subdivision law for grant of a township lease to a Commonwealth entity
The procedures for the subdivision of land under the law of the Northern Territory relating to the transfer of land do not apply in respect of the grant of a lease to a Commonwealth entity under section 19A.
(31) Schedule 1, item 46, after proposed section 19D, insert:
19E Modification of certain NT laws for a township lease held by a Commonwealth entity
(1) This section applies in relation to a lease:
(a) granted to a Commonwealth entity under section 19A; or
(b) transferred to a Commonwealth entity in accordance with that section.
(2) The regulations may make modifications of any law of the Northern Territory relating to:
(a) planning; or
(b) infrastructure; or
(c) the subdivision or transfer of land; or
(d) other prescribed matters;
to the extent that the law applies to land the subject of the lease.
(3) In subsection (2):
modifications includes additions, omissions and substitutions.
(4) The regulations cease to have effect if the lease is transferred to an NT entity in accordance with section 19A.
(32) Schedule 1, item 48, page 24 (line 10), after “Subject to”, insert “sections 19C to 19E and”.
(33) Schedule 1, item 106, page 52 (lines 11 and 12), omit “receiving notice of the refusal”, substitute “the end of the period of 7 days beginning on the day the person receives notice of the refusal”.
(34) Schedule 1, item 113, page 53 (before line 11), before subsection 42(1A), insert:
(1AA) The Land Council must notify the applicant, the Minister and the Northern Territory Mining Minister of its decision within 7 days of making the decision.
(35) Schedule 1, item 119, page 55 (after line 31), after subsection 42(18), insert:
(18A) If:
(a) subsection (17) applies; and
(b) any necessary meetings of the kind referred to in subsection (4) were held in relation to the original application;
then the Land Council is not required to hold any further meeting of the kind referred to in subsection (4) in relation to the later application.
(36) Schedule 1, page 58 (after line 9), after item 124, insert:
124A Paragraph 44A(2)(b)
Omit “exploration retention lease”, substitute “exploration retention licence”.
124B Paragraph 44A(2)(b)
Omit “or lease”, substitute “or exploration retention licence”.
124C Paragraph 44A(2)(c)
Omit “exploration retention lease” (wherever occurring), substitute “exploration retention licence”.
(37) Schedule 1, items 125 to 127, page 58 (lines 10 to 31), omit the items.
(38) Schedule 1, page 59 (after line 20), after item 131, insert:
131A Subsection 46(17)
Omit “exploration retention lease”, substitute “exploration retention licence”.
(39) Schedule 1, page 63 (after line 21), after item 143, insert:
143A Subsection 48(7)
Omit “exploration retention lease”, substitute “exploration retention licence”.
(40) Schedule 1, item 146, page 63 (line 31) to page 64 (line 10), omit the item.
(41) Schedule 1, item 177, page 68 (line 11), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(42) Schedule 1, item 177, page 68 (line 12), omit “NT”, substitute “approved”.
(43) Schedule 1, page 78 (after line 13), after item 201, insert:
201A After subsection 76(1)
Insert:
(1A) If the Minister delegates the Minister’s powers under section 19B to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is taken to have executive authority to exercise the delegated powers.
(44) Schedule 1, item 202, page 78 (after line 20), after subsection 76(1), insert:
(1A) If the Minister delegates the Minister’s powers under section 19B to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is taken to have executive authority to exercise the delegated powers.
(45) Schedule 1, item 202, page 78 (line 29), omit “paragraph 45(1)(b)”, substitute “paragraph 45(b)”.
(46) Schedule 1, item 207, page 81 (lines 25 to 27), omit the item.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
127
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
127
Debate resumed from 15 June, on motion by Mr Hardgrave:
That this bill be now read a second time.
upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:
-
creating a skills crisis during their ten long years in office;
-
its continued failure to provide the necessary opportunities for Australians to get the training they need to get a decent job and meet the skills needs of the economy;
-
reducing the overall percentage of the Federal Budget spent on vocational education and training, and allowing this percentage of spending to further decline over the forward estimate period;
-
its incompetent handling of the Australian Technical Colleges initiative as evidenced by only four out of twenty-five colleges being open for business, enrolling fewer than 300 students,
-
failing to be open and accountable about the operations of the Australian Technical Colleges, including details of extra student enrolments, funding levels for the individual colleges, course structures and programs.
-
denying local communities their promised Australian Technical College because of their ideological industrial relations requirements; and
-
failing to provide enough extra skills training so that Australia can meet the expected shortfall of 100,000 skilled workers by 2010”.
128
20:57:00
Bird, Sharon, MP
DZP
Cunningham
ALP
0
0
Ms BIRD
—I am pleased to be able to speak to this amendment. When the original bill was put before the House I was gagged from speaking on it, and the clock is probably going to get me fairly quickly tonight as well. The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is intended to reallocate funding from the 2008-09 financial year to the 2006-07 financial year and to insert a new provision in the current act to enable the minister to redistribute program funds between particular years by regulation instead of by legislative amendment.
I take the opportunity to make a few observations and also to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for education when she spoke to the bill. The federal government announced as part of its election commitments in 2004 the establishment of Australian technical colleges throughout Australia. When I heard the announcement at that time, having a background in the TAFE sector I was a bit bemused by how the proposal would operate and what it intended to address. I understand that the government and the minister have indicated that it is to be part of the proposal to address the skills shortages. I put on the record, having been a coordinator of joint schools TAFE and Australian traineeship schemes at TAFE, that I am a great supporter of providing pathways for young people, particularly in years 11 and 12 but also potentially in years 9 and 10, to be able to study vocational courses.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
128
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
New Technologies
128
128
21:00:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I want to make a contribution tonight to the national debate on nuclear energy. The Prime Minister appointed a nuclear power task force in a cynical attempt to divert the negative attention he was receiving for his last overseas trip and in the hope that the Labor Party would split on the issue. The Labor Party has not split on this issue. We are against nuclear energy in Australia. The government has claimed that nuclear energy is necessary in Australia because it is clean power and makes no, or very little, contribution to greenhouse gases. On the other hand, it claims that coal is a source of dirty energy that contributes massively to the greenhouse effect.
In this debate the government has completely ignored two new technologies in which Australia is making a significant contribution. The first I would like to talk about tonight is geosequestration. Geosequestration involves capturing carbon dioxide during the power generation process and storing it under the ground. Carbon capture and storage projects are already occurring throughout the world. In Sleipner in Norway carbon has been stored since 1996 to reduce the amount of carbon tax paid by a commercial scale gas exploration and processing project. At Weyburn in Canada two million tonnes of carbon dioxide have been stored each year since 1996. In addition, a zero emission power plant is under construction near Berlin which will be ready by 2006 where carbon dioxide will be injected into nearby coal seams. There are also significant projects in Poland, France and Algeria.
In Australia, the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, the CO²CRC, and the CSIRO are doing very good work. I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of Dr Peter Cook. I have met him and I think he is a great Australian making a significant contribution to this very important field of scientific endeavour. Sixty-six sites have been identified around Australia as potentially suitable for carbon storage. Because coal has been mined so extensively in Australia, we have lots of emptied coal seams which lend themselves to the potential of storing carbon dioxide. The CO²CRC is researching a site in Otway, Victoria, which is expected to result in the injection of carbon dioxide into the ground by 2007. This is the most comprehensive geosequestration project in the world. It will be the first project to actually monitor carbon dioxide before, during and after its injection into the ground.
This is in addition to the Monash geosequestration project with Shell, which has a target date of 2015, and the Gorgan project in Western Australia which is aiming to reinject carbon dioxide from gas production into the ground by 2010. It is true that geosequestration technology is not currently financially viable in Australia, but there are plenty of examples of its being viable throughout the world. The consensus is that storage technology may be viable in Australia in three or four years time, and capture technology from coal fired power stations may take 10 years to fully develop and be commercially viable.
The other technology is hot dry rock geothermal technology, which captures the heat of granites located three kilometres or more under the ground. The heat is extracted from them by circulating water through them in an artificial reservoir. Researchers at the ANU have been looking at hot rock technology for over 10 years, and some of the researchers have founded Geodynamics Ltd, which is currently commercially developing the process in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. I am advised that it is possible that geothermal technology may be commercially viable in Australia in the next few years.
If the government were serious about dealing with the energy needs of our nation while dealing with and reducing our contribution to greenhouse gases, it would be putting technologies like geosequestration and geothermal technology onto the national agenda. These technologies have the potential to substantially reduce our greenhouse gases with none of the risks that go with nuclear power. When you compare the costs and the viability of these two technologies to the costs and the ramp‑up time of nuclear energy, these two technologies certainly should not be ruled out as being viable options for Australia’s energy needs into the future. They should certainly be involved in any national debate about the future of Australia’s energy needs. They should certainly be the subject of federal government studies, just as much as nuclear power.(Time expired)
Memorials
129
129
21:05:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—One of the privileges of being an Australian is the way our communities remember those who have served and have sacrificed their lives—often the best part of their lives—for their country. One of the great pleasures I had as a young subaltern in the 1st Aviation Regiment was Anzac Day, when we got to go out to the smaller country towns in south‑east Queensland to lead the march and to speak and mix with the veterans. The common point was always the memorial which was in town. As you look around Australia, and particularly as I look around South Australia, you notice that there are memorials in all kinds of places. Many of these memorials capture the fact that often from one community there were many brothers or cousins from the one family, or sometimes a father and his sons, who gave their lives. The impact on those communities was large.
Often we do not realise with the passing of time how some of these memorials decay or fade or, in some cases, are even removed and a part of our history is lost. I wish to pay tribute to Will and Jacqui Clough, who are members of the Riverton RSL in the electorate of Wakefield. After seeing that there were many memorials throughout the state which people had forgotten even existed, were never visited or were not maintained, they realised that an important role could be served by recording where these memorials were and who was on the memorial so that in years to come people who were researching family or military history would have an accurate record of these tributes to people who over the years had served their country.
What they initially thought might take a matter of months or, perhaps at a stretch, even a year stretched into a three-year journey for them as they travelled literally tens of thousands of kilometres around South Australia to record some 1,000 memorials with over 3,000 photographs that detailed people from South Australia who served our nation. Jocelyn Talmage, a historical research analyst, worked with them cross-checking and making sure that there were accurate records which identified who the people were, where they enlisted and some of their service history.
Having got this information, the question is: what do you do with it? If you record it on paper or in photographs, it like many other things will be forgotten or put away in some dusty place. After some consideration and discussion with the RSL’s South Australian branch, Will and Jacqui decided that the best possible repository for this would be the internet so that people around South Australia, as well as people around Australia and around the world, could access this information and learn about those who have served their nation. So, with the support of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, the Royal Australian Air Force Association, the Royal Australian Naval Veterans Association, the Vietnam Veterans Federation and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and with a grant from the Australian government, they were able to work with the RSL’s South Australian branch to create a website with a local provider and put this information on the internet in an extremely professional manner, such that whether you are interested in a locality or a particular person you can research and find out who from South Australia has served. This excellent website is at www.tributesofhonour.info. It is an excellent addition to the military history and the history of the communities of South Australia. I believe that Will and Jacqui and those who have worked with them to gather and provide this information deserve to be recognised and congratulated for the significant effort that they have gone to and the contribution that they have made to the history of Australia in recognising those who have served.
Unlawful Detention
130
130
21:09:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I think many, if not most, of us living here in Australia would consider ourselves lucky either to have been born here or to have come and built a new life within Australia. This nation of ours is one whose citizens expect to be free, safe and peaceful. Australia has those elements that allow a person to feel secure and that they will not be targeted for unusual treatment, penalties or restrictions on one’s life. Freedom is one of our defining Australian characteristics. It is what makes this place Australia and it is what our Diggers went to war and died for. Naturally, anything that undermines this freedom is an acute worry.
We have heard over time of problems within the immigration system, problems that led to bizarre situations such as those resulting in the outrageous injustice inflicted on Cornelia Rau, Ms Alvarez and others. These really were breathtaking revelations. They were then, and they have not lost their punch. As such, interest in the treatment of these individuals within the community has increased, the system that caused their circumstances to fall away to such a lowly, degraded and miserable level and the political backing of the system that resulted in such offences. In support of my concerns and those of many electors within Hindmarsh, I put a question to the responsible minister last year—in fact on 1 November, to be precise—concerning wrongful detention within immigration facilities:
How many incidents of wrongful immigration detention of persons legally in Australia is the Government aware?
You would think that such matters would be monitored very closely by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs or the Attorney-General, but it took seven whole months for a response to be given. On 31 May 2006 I received an answer to my question. The answer, in part, is as follows:
Of the 220 cases bearing the descriptor “released not unlawful”, the department has identified 26 cases involving Australian citizens.
The Attorney-General also wrote that the Reconnecting People Assistance Package:
... provides for ex gratia assistance to Australian citizens and permanent residents who may have been “adversely affected by inappropriate detention”.
So we have 220 cases described as ‘released not unlawful’, 26 of those 220 cases being Australian citizens being detained, and the government simply tells them that they can make some sort of claim through this assistance package. The media took an interest of course but, from what I read and heard, were unsuccessful in their attempts to get a comment or quote from the minister. So I put a follow-up question on the Notice Paper last week:
... regarding the 220 persons categorised as “released not unlawful” and released from detention, how many were (a) suspected of suffering from a mental illness, (b) assessed for mental illness, (c) diagnosed as having a mental illness, and (d) detained after the release of the Palmer Report.
I know from experience that I cannot realistically expect those responsible for providing an answer to want to reply this calendar year—as previously demonstrated by the last questions I put on notice—and maybe some time in the year 2007 I will get an answer. That would be most regrettable, but history shows that answers to such questions are not a priority of this government. So I also put questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I asked whether the parliamentary secretary could give us a detailed report on any internal investigation the government has conducted after finding out that there were 220 cases bearing the description ‘released not unlawful’. If you want to put it another way, that description means that people were detained unlawfully. I wanted to know how the 26 Australian citizens detained under our immigration laws had come to be so detained—and we are talking about Australian citizens like all of us in this chamber.
I am sure the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been asked these questions by the government—and if not, why not? These are the questions that have to be asked and answered. I am sure that the minister has received answers as to how the heck a government department responsible for immigration can go around locking up Australian citizens. I am also sure the minister has received numerous briefings as to how the department, the minister and the government can prevent the recurrence of such events which have caused this government a whole lot of trouble. We need to know what is being done to make sure this serial abuse of people—of Australian citizens like all of us in this chamber—does not continue to happen. I look forward to a reply to this question. I pray that it will be made available before the next election. (Time expired)
Hasluck Electorate
132
132
21:14:00
Henry, Stuart, MP
E0L
Hasluck
LP
1
0
Mr HENRY
—It has come to my attention that the Leader of the Opposition, in the company of Senator Sterle, made a lightning visit to my electorate of Hasluck a couple of weeks ago for a tea party. He regaled a group of nearly 25 local residents in High Wycombe with some of the most fanciful stories any of them had probably ever heard. Topics listed for discussion included the employment prospects of kids, working conditions, plus a secret plan for a nuclear plant in Hasluck.
He told the local folk that the Howard government has a secret plan to put a nuclear power plant at or near the Perth airport in Hasluck. It is outrageous to think that the Leader of the Opposition can make up such unbelievable stories, indulging in blatant scaremongering, when he knows that there is no plan to put a nuclear power plant at the Perth airport. He referenced a 1997 report to cabinet, which referred to potential sites for a research reactor that has since been co-located at the Lucas Heights facility outside of Sydney.
He then went on to say how disadvantaged they and their kids would be under Work Choices and the government’s AWAs. The Leader of the Opposition refused to do the hard work to develop policies that would keep Australia growing, lock in prosperity and ensure jobs and wages continued to grow. Instead, Labor continue to take the lazy way out by using distortions, stunts and scaremongering in place of hard work.
That brings me to the Leader of the Opposition’s plans for workplace relations—a back to the future scenario. Under Labor, there will be no AWAs and no worker will be worse off. Let us consider Mr Beazley’s record. As Minister for Employment, Education and Training from 1991-93, unemployment peaked at 10.9 per cent in December 1992. Teenage unemployment was 34.5 per cent—an absolute disgrace. His performance as minister in this area was absolutely appalling. Between 1991-93, the number of people in apprenticeships in traditional trades fell from 151,000 to 122,600—a decline of 23 per cent. Can we trust Mr Beazley to ensure employment and apprenticeships for our kids? Surely his record speaks for itself. Under the Howard government there are now 391,200 young people in apprenticeships. The truth is that the Labor Party record on youth unemployment and vocational education and training is a damning indictment of their commitment to the future of young people in this country. Under this government, the real wages of Australian workers have increased by 16.8 per cent compared to only 1.2 per cent in 13 years under the Labor government and when Beazley was minister for employment.
In 1995-1996, the Labor government spent just $984 million on skills training in Australia. This financial year, the Howard government has spent over $2.5 billion dollars on training. Included in this is the funding for the Australian technical colleges, which will provide skills training and vocational and technical education to young people. It is a shame that Mr Beazley did not support the City of Rockingham’s bid for an ATC. Although, thankfully, Phil Edman, the Liberal candidate for Mr Beazley’s seat of Brand, has lobbied hard to secure a satellite campus status for Rockingham with the Perth South ATC.
I see that Mr Beazley’s Labor colleague in Western Australia, Premier Alan Carpenter, wants to prevent businesses who use AWAs from being awarded state government contracts. Carpenter wants to risk the prosperity of our state by discriminating in the most unjust way against the same employers who are fuelling our booming WA economy. Lets look at AWAs in WA in three key industry sectors: in accommodation, cafes and restaurants, 49.4 per cent are on AWAs; in retail, 23.6 per cent; and in mining, 43.1 per cent. I wonder how all those mining industry personnel who live around High Wycombe feel about his proposal to knock off AWAs.
The Howard government is working to secure the future prosperity of not just young people but all Australians. I am proud to be a part of the government, and I am confident people will be much better off under Work Choices and AWAs. Mr Beazley indicated that industrial relations was a ‘blood fight’. He would contest out of principle and says that the Labor Party should be standing beside our trade union colleagues, as opposed to the working men and women of Australia.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I remind the honourable member for Hasluck that he should refer to members by their title or their seat.
Mr David Hicks
133
133
21:19:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
0
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—Tonight I speak about the continued treatment of David Hicks. In recent weeks, there has been greater criticism of US policy on Guantanamo Bay, with conservative European leaders such as Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Germany’s Angela Merkel, a far more pro-US leader than her predecessor, speaking out against it. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom, has said that the continued existence of Guantanamo Bay is undermining US credibility internationally. This elaborates on comments made by Tony Blair in February this year that Guantanamo Bay is ‘an anomaly’ that sooner or later has to be dealt with.
The more recent focus on Hicks has occurred following the suicide of three detainees last week. It is disheartening to read the comments of the camp’s commander, Rear-Admiral Harry Harris, who said of those deaths:
They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.
This was in contrast to those of US President Bush, who said that there was ‘serious concern’. The situation is such that one could well understand the desperation of these people. David Hicks is one of 460 prisoners who have not been brought to trial. He has spent 244 days in isolation. Even now his lone contact is with the military chaplain. Recently the Guardian Weekly wrote of the situation:
In one sense the three deaths change nothing: international law and opinion have already condemned Guantanamo Bay as a disgrace to a country that claims to fight its battles on behalf of freedom. In practical terms the policy of extracting suspects from around the world and holding them indefinitely without legal process has been established as a shameful failure: most of the prisoners have had minimal or no connection to terror and the US’s claim to hold an al-Qaida hardcore has never been tested in court.
Australia has observed Britain’s success in gaining the release of its nationals. Even France, which has been so critical of US policy in Iraq, in February 2004 succeeded in gaining the release of its last national. Australia’s David Hicks remains incarcerated and, as I said, he has still not faced trial. His military lawyer spoke recently of his desperation and extreme pessimism.
On Lateline last week, Professor Alfred McCoy made other broad comments of practices of the CIA in Guantanamo Bay. It is interesting to note where these criticisms are coming from. The International Red Cross, a body that I do not think we would be too critical of, has said that there is torture per se. There is no qualification, no ‘tantamount to torture’ phraseology—‘torture is being practised there’. The FBI has also been highly critical of practices there. In an investigation of Guantanamo detainees, it described them as ‘huddling, quivering and with signs of extreme psychological stress’. The FBI also noted that the degree of torture in Guantanamo Bay is such that evidence gained is often unreliable because of the sheer desperation of those who seek release.
Australia’s inability to take on the United States over the detaining of its citizen is, as I say, in contrast to the actions of many Western nations. It is also in contrast to the experience of US national John Walker Lindt, who obviously had far greater contact, far greater involvement and a far greater knowledge of terrorist operations. Because of the sheer reality that he is an American, he has not been held there for four years. As I say, there is mounting international criticism of the situation there. A country which stands over Romania and other eastern European countries to avoid international justice being dispatched to American citizens itself seeks to go above the rest of the world in maintaining this place of incarceration and torture.
As we all know, two British High Court judges ruled last month that there was a powerful case for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. International criticism is mounting. But in the last week we have even seen an inability of Australia to urge the United States to give access to British diplomats so that an oath can be taken. Australia will not act on it, but they are now also getting in the way of Britain formalising the rights of David Hicks.
Bass Electorate: Sporting identities
Mr Rod Beaumont
134
134
21:23:00
Ferguson, Michael, MP
DYH
Bass
LP
1
0
Mr MICHAEL FERGUSON
—I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the numerous sporting achievements of my constituents in Bass in Northern Tasmania of whom I am very proud. Sport, like other pursuits, plays an integral part in the lives of many in my electorate, and tonight I would like to take this opportunity to officially recognise some of our finest sporting men and women, both amateur and professional.
While obviously home to Ponting and Boon, we are also proud to call Hollie Grima, Brad Green and Matthew Goss our own, to name a few. Yet Northern Tasmania is also the playing ground of thousands of others who enjoy the good health, friendship and lifestyle associated with sport. This year I had the pleasure of visiting numerous sporting clubs and associations around the north and north-east of the great state of Tasmania. I look forward to attending AFL games at York Park, interstate cricket at the NTCA and the Launceston Tornadoes Basketball team. I also look forward to utilising my membership of the mighty Launceston Blues Football Club, attending events hosted by local golf clubs and participating in charity basketball games, among many others.
However, some of the best occasions that I have witnessed have actually been the end of season celebrations. This year I was proud to present my inaugural award: a trophy featuring, very appropriately, I think, a red kookaburra cricket ball, signed by the Prime Minister—a great cricket tragic—to a number of cricket clubs in Bass. I wanted the award to recognise those who contribute heavily to their club. I would like to congratulate once more Dean Gibbons of the George Town Cricket Club, Elizabeth McKinnon of the Launceston Cricket Club, Michael Claxton of the Westbury Cricket Club, John Mann of Mowbray Cricket Club and Judy Burgess of the Riverside Cricket Club. Tonight I would also like to acknowledge a well-known local identity Mr Jack Hinds, a highly respected umpire in Tasmanian cricket circles with the Tasmanian cricket league, with many years of dedicated service. All of these people are the lifeblood of their individual clubs and associations and very worthy winners indeed. I plan to expand the presentation of this award in the future to other sporting clubs and community groups.
I turn the attention of the House to another winner in the eyes of the Northern Tasmanian public: well-known businessman, sports lover and thespian Mr Rod Beaumont, who, unfortunately, passed away on 5 June this year. Rod Beaumont was a great family man who cared deeply for those around him. He was a big fellow with a large, generous heart and, to quote his wife, Jenny, ‘His eyes were kind.’ To anybody who met him, he was a very positive man with a wonderful sense of humour. He was also the driving force behind his well-known local company, Jenerick, an icon of Northern Tasmanian business. To his everlasting credit, Rod Beaumont was involved in many aspects of community life in Bass. He was President of Launceston Jaycees; President of Launceston Players, and later a life member; President and patron of Launceston Rugby Club, where I will never forget as an aspiring politician and Liberal candidate, he bought me a beer one Saturday afternoon; an inaugural member of the Lions Club Launceston North; and, an inaugural member of Cityprom and later its president. He was also a candidate for local government, standing for the Launceston City Council, and a member of the well-renowned Beefsteak and Burgundy Club.
Rod was also very much committed to the Liberal Party. During his formative years he vied for a number of various positions within the party and eventually was rewarded with the state presidency of the Tasmanian Young Liberals and, indeed, even preselection to stand for the House of Assembly seat of Bass. He was also made a life member of the Liberal Party of Australia Tasmania Division for his significant contributions. I am told he very much admired former Prime Minister, John Gorton, and was taken with a quote from his book: ‘He bucked the saddle of convention and conformity,’ and he saw himself in the same light. Rod was an incredibly talented, visionary and friendly big-hearted fellow and he will be missed by many. I am sure that all members present would wish his adoring wife, Jenny, and his twins, Charles and Bridget, all the best during this difficult time. For those who love this family, we join with them and try to understand. But for now, our thoughts and prayers are with you. Rod always thought that Northern Tasmania was the best place on the planet and, of course, I completely agree with him. I thank the House. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
135
21:29:00
House adjourned at 9.29 pm
NOTICES
135
Notices
The following notices were given:
00AMR
King, Catherine, MP
Ms King
to move:
That this House:
-
acknowledges that the Millennium Development Goals are an important part of the global fight against poverty;
-
acknowledges that the Millennium Development Goals require Australia to make an increased contribution to the eradication of poverty, particularly in our region, which consistently ranks among the poorest in the world across the measures used by the Millennium Development Goals; and
-
notes:
-
Australia has committed to increasing its foreign aid budget to being 0.7% of GNI in 2015 in line with the UN Millennium Development Goals;
-
the Government will need to increase foreign aid allocated to future budgets in order to achieve the target 0.7% of GNI by 2015;and
-
debt relief for developing nations provides opportunities that are beneficial for the global community in allowing debt repayment funds to be re-allocated towards infrastructure development, food, health care and education funding. (Notice given 19 June 2006.)
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
to move:
That this House:
-
notes that the Prime Minister has not made any contribution to the 20 Matters of Public Importance and Censure debates on the subject of industrial relations moved in the House of Representatives since October 2005;
-
notes that the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell, has expressed dislike for the Howard Government’s extreme industrial relations laws because they could be used to force down minimum wages;
-
notes that Cardinal Pell has described public debates such as the one on the Howard Government’s extreme industrial relations laws proposed by the Leader of the Opposition as always, always useful; and
-
calls on the Prime Minister to agree to a full and open public debate on the impact of his extreme industrial relations laws on the lives of working men and women and their families. (Notice given 19 June 2006.)
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
to move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended to enable the following to occur during the periods set aside in standing order 34 for government business on Tuesday 20 June 2006:
-
in relation to proceedings on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006 at the conclusion of the second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 6pm, whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate and any Government amendments that have been circulated for at least two hours shall be treated as if they have been moved together; and
-
in relation to proceedings on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Subscription Television Drama and Community Broadcasting Licences) Bill 2006 at the conclusion of second reading debate, not including a Minister speaking in reply, or at 8.30pm, whichever is the earlier, a Minister to be called to sum up (for a period not exceeding 5 minutes) the second reading debate and thereafter, without delay, the immediate question before the House to be put, then any question or questions necessary to complete the remaining stages of the Bill to be put without amendment or debate; and
-
any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
2006-06-19
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4.00 pm.
COMMITTEES
137
Committees
Science and Innovation Committee
137
Report
137
Debate resumed.
137
16:00:00
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
0
Mr HAYES
—Let me say at the outset that I appreciate the consideration extended to me from the other side on the Pathways to technological innovation report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation. I am under a time constraint, and I do appreciate being able to juggle the order a little. In the chamber, when the report was being introduced, I spoke about the need to develop an entrepreneurial culture in this country. Innovation, as I see it, is the development of ideas, certainly the transference of technology, through to the commercialisation of the process. Essentially, that is the basis upon which successful countries have been able to articulate their innovation into action and ultimately into the economy. It is a little late in the day to simply sit back and wait for a good idea to materialise, hopefully get a lucky break and crack the market.
One thing we found throughout our hearings was that, unfortunately, not all our best ideas made it to the marketplace. One reason why that has occurred is that it is not necessarily just scientific and engineering knowledge that supports a good idea into the marketplace; it is largely the development of the entrepreneurial skills to be able to support innovative content. We should not simply wait until people graduate from university to try and instil that culture. Quite frankly, that should be extended from schooling onwards. Therefore—as you would recall, Mr Deputy Speaker—one of the findings of this committee is that this should be engendered in our society very much from the earliest years, looking to develop innovative content but also with a view to looking at the skills necessary to make something happen; not just to dream something up but to make it happen.
Innovation is not entirely based on the ideas, as I say—it must be looked at in relation to its commercial possibilities and its impact on society, business and the economy—but basically it is the transition of good ideas into a commercial process. In its report, the committee looked at the issue of entrepreneurial skills. The committee effectively acknowledged the importance of entrepreneurial skills to innovation, the transfer of technology and the commercialisation process. Evidence to the committee indicates that there has to be a fundamental reform in our thinking in that regard. As I said, it must become very much a cultural shift. Quite frankly, it is stooped in our education system. Therefore, in the opinion of the committee, it requires a whole-of-government approach. Given that there is a very clear link between entrepreneurship and innovation, for this country to match the global efforts of our competitors or at least to maintain our productivity and economic wealth, we need to be out there promoting the development of a cultural shift, and a culture of entrepreneurship must be consistent with all that.
We found fostering a culture of entrepreneurship to be a critical step in improving this country’s pathways to innovation. It does not fall to any one group to do that, whether it involves innovative support mechanisms, education systems or business as a whole. Quite frankly, it is probably something that does require a whole-of-government approach in order to coordinate a policy link to assist in that regard. So formulating a program by which government can assist such a cultural shift and engender a more entrepreneurial culture requires the expertise of all those who assist in the development of our students, not only in schools but also in universities.
Throughout this inquiry much was made of the fact that we are simply not encouraging people into sciences or engineering, and that some of the people leaving school do not have the maths ability to be able to cope with those areas. But that comprises only one leg of this argument. Certainly, we do need to encourage our kids into sciences and into engineering, and schools play a significant role in preparing kids for those areas. But if that is all we are going to produce, and we fall short on the issues of commerce and business development skills, I am afraid we are still going to be exporting our most valuable resource—that is, ideas. We do not just need to be able to conceptualise our ideas; we need to be able to shift those ideas into the marketplace. The committee addresses this point in recommendation 5, where it says that a whole-of-government task force should be established to investigate a suite of appropriate policy program measures to foster a natural culture. I think it is important that we do see innovation as more than just hatching a good idea and that we look at the process that is involved.
On that theme, one of the things that the committee did notice is that there is certainly a lack of data available for us to be able to assess the level of business skills that we have. Despite the fact that our business skills and our entrepreneurial nature are critical to the development of commercial innovation, we found that there was very scant material available in terms of business and commerce graduates. That type of material does not appear in the Australian science and innovation system annual statistical snapshot put out by the Department of Education, Science and Training. The committee recommends that that be addressed. We think that the department should look very clearly at how we assess business and commerce graduates to make sure that we do have the requisite numbers. Without knowing that sort of data, we are not going to be totally successful in promoting this partnership that we would like to see eventuate between those in engineering and sciences, those who are going to conceptualise ideas, and those who are going to be out there with a view to commercialising those ideas for the benefit of business and of the Australian economy. In recommendation 4, the committee recommends that that data be captured and assessed by the department.
Innovation is about growth. It is certainly the basis upon which growth can occur not only in a business but also in the economy. Innovation is therefore more important as we attempt to compete as well as extend our position within our region and within our marketplace. Internationally, innovation policy has become the key element of industry policy and is, surprisingly, seen as the main factor driving productivity and in turn economic growth. The path to international innovation or competitiveness in this country, quite frankly, can only be through those innovation processes. This government has presided over about 49, I think it is, consecutive monthly trade deficits. (Time expired)
138
16:11:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
0
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—I thank the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, the member for Kooyong, for giving me his time here this morning because I am required to speak in the chamber. I appreciate it very much. As always, Mr Georgiou, in chairing the committee, was extremely helpful, assisting all the committee members. I really enjoyed this committee inquiry. Although I did not get to as many of the meetings as I would have liked to, I tracked it through Hansard because it is something of critical interest to me in my electorate, particularly the chapter of the report on ‘human capital—knowledge and skills’. I would like to refer to three recommendations, Nos 3, 4 and 5. I would particularly like to emphasise recommendation No. 5:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a dedicated whole-of-government taskforce to develop a series of measures targeting the early development of entrepreneurial skills in the education system (including the early school years) and the broader community. To inform the development of these measures, the Committee recommends that the taskforce draw upon the expertise of educators, researchers and industry specialists.
A bit of an indication for me, in coming to that conclusion with the committee, was my work with the Children’s Discovery Museum in Western Sydney. The Children’s Discovery Museum is actually an American concept. It is functioning in most American cities bar Washington, where, on my last study trip, I found that the Children’s Discovery Museum had in fact closed. But there is severe competition in Washington with the Museum of Natural History and the whole mall of incredible educational institutions. But in Sydney, our state capital city, we do not have those same options, and even less so in our other state capital cities around the nation.
So how do you capture young people’s imagination and interest in science and encourage them to see that there is a job at the end of it? That is the critical thing, and that is why I have been a big supporter of the Children’s Discovery Museum concept, which initially will target just primary schools so that we are stimulating, capturing and keeping primary school children interested in science so they will then take it on into secondary school. I notice from the submission by the New South Wales Department of Education and Training that they are also interested in this key area and the drop-off in high school of students continuing with science.
One of the key ways to address this would be through a science centre like the museum running the curriculum so that the New South Wales education curriculum comes out through the science centre. Science classrooms, which are incredibly dull, have not changed since we were at school, Mr Deputy Speaker—the old Bunsen burner, the picture of anatomy on the wall showing muscles, a few veins and things; it is still exactly the same—whereas most of the other classrooms have really progressed with what I call the ‘Discovery Channel of learning’. Take music: it is so fantastic, with the rock eisteddfods that go on; there is just so much that young kids can do in that line of entertainment. Take sport: my parents were always telling me to get out of sport because there was no future or career in sport. I would never suggest that to a young person. You can certainly have a great a career in sport and afterwards in sports management.
But, with science, the children do not see a job at the end of it. We really need to make that connection, that there is a job at the end of it, and you would encourage that with this science centre. You would look at placing it adjacent to research facilities, having universities involved, and then having a clustering of industries around that, piggybacking off the research that is happening. Kids who go there in primary school could look to high school, to university, to clubs and associations, and to social activities and see a career and a future with Merck Sharp and Dohme or a number of the other companies that gave submissions to our committee.
It is interesting that a lot of companies made comparisons between Australia and other countries and I think it is important to pick up on those. This might sound like a particularly female point of view—and I am glad that the member for Mackellar and a few other women are present in the Main Committee with me—but recently at the Penrith markets I bought some shoes for $12. They are delightful shoes. All of my girlfriends compliment me on them; they are fantastic. But, if the fellow at the markets who sold me those shoes was making a profit, what on earth is China producing these shoes for? I have lost my local television manufacturer. It could not land the cathode ray tube for the television into Australia for the price at which China delivers the whole television set into Australia. I have lost a number of other manufacturing jobs in my electorate.
We need to be on this end of things. We have targeted health and health services as particular areas where we would like to see innovation and reward for future jobs, employment and wealth generation in Australia. I was talking to one of my constituents today who is involved with the private health industry. They would like to see trade missions overseas by our health minister saying: ‘Hey, come and have a look at Australia. We’re leading in this area.’ We could target the wealthy area within Asia and say: ‘If you are going to undergo a medical procedure, Australia is the place to have it done. We have this expertise; we have the people who can do it.’
As we lose our manufacturing industry and move to other industries, we can only go ahead with those sorts of sales programs internationally if we have the appropriately skilled people here. Hence, recommendation No. 4 is to get an expanded snapshot of what is happening in our education facilities. How many students being educated and gaining degrees in Australia are going overseas? Foreign students, to start with, were never going to stay here, but how many Australian graduates also leave Australia to work overseas? What are the workforce participation rates of our science, engineering and technology graduates? We need to look at these critical issues to see where they are going. Firstly, we are training fewer of these graduates and, secondly, those we are training are either shooting overseas or not practising in their fields. We have to enhance people’s ability to see job pathways or ways forward to create, through innovation, their own jobs in their own industries.
One particular statistic which I love that I often use with my primary school kids is that 60 per cent of them will be working in a job that does not exist yet. After these kids get through high school or university, they will work in a field that does not actually exist yet. That is what this report is all about. How do we find and, I suppose, pick winners in innovation? How do we find areas that will go ahead and then really target the human capital—the knowledge and skills—required to take those areas forward and bring them to fruition in terms of successful companies, whether or not they get listed on the Stock Exchange, that will create jobs in Australia for up and coming young Australians?
It was a very important committee process—the public hearings and the report—for me to be a part of, given the work I have done with the Children’s Discovery Museum and the concepts that they have worked through with the New South Wales education department. They are actually looking at moving forward, and the federal government has actually funded a feasibility study for them. They are looking at about three or four sites for the Children’s Discovery Museum. One is the Parramatta Civic Place opposite the Riverside Theatre, a place identified by the Parramatta City Council. This was a very bipartisan committee, and this is a bipartisan move by the councillors of Parramatta, the councillors of Penrith, who put forward Penrith Lakes, and the New South Wales government, who put forward the RTA lands at the intersection of the M7 and the M4.
So there have been a number of options put forward in a bipartisan manner by the Labor and Liberal proponents of this idea. I think it has tremendous legs. This committee report goes further, saying that it is a very good idea. My Western Sydney colleagues and I will certainly be pursuing with the government some really concrete outcomes from this committee inquiry. Again, my congratulations go to the chair; he did an outstanding job, as always—and I thank him very much for allowing me to now go and do my duty in the other chamber. I commend the report to the House.
141
16:20:00
Georgiou, Petro, MP
HM5
Kooyong
LP
1
0
Mr GEORGIOU
—by leave—Can I say what a pleasure it is to participate in this debate on the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation with the member for Lindsay, the member for Tangney and the member for Werriwa. It was a very bipartisan committee. Before I launch into the guts of what I have to say, can I also say, on behalf of the committee: we all send our good wishes to the deputy chairman, Mr Harry Quick, the member for Franklin, who fell ill during the report’s finalisation. I understand he is on the mend, but we do send him our thoughts.
Earlier today the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation tabled its report Pathways to technological innovation. This is a significant report in terms of assessing the current support provided across the multitude of pathways leading from innovation to commercialisation. In its call for submissions to the inquiry, the committee defined innovation as:
… the path of conceiving, developing and implementing ideas through to the generation of products, process and services.
Most importantly, the committee said:
It gives economic value to a nation’s knowledge.
The end of the 20th century has been characterised by a further opening up of the world economy and the growth of knowledge based economies. In this environment, innovation is critical to enhance productivity, economic growth and global competitiveness. There is an increasing recognition of the importance of innovation to securing Australia’s future economic growth, environmental sustainability and social wellbeing.
In recognition of the importance of supporting innovation, the Australian government has committed substantial sums of money—billions of dollars—under Backing Australia’s Ability, with a notion of enhancing our innovative and commercialising capacity. This has been a major investment. There have been a number of reviews, and the reality is that there is a substantial commitment; nonetheless, given the importance of innovation to Australia’s long-term economic performance, there is always room for improvement. The inquiry identified that there are areas of concern regarding the capacity of Australian business and research agencies to innovate.
When the committee undertook to inquire into pathways to technological innovation, it sought to bring together a series of successful innovations and look at the obstacles they faced in commercialising research, with a view to making recommendations to the government. I have to accept responsibility for this approach and I also have to say that it was a little bit simplistic, because life was not like that. From discussions with researchers and entrepreneurs and from the case studies, it became apparent that this attempt would only provide part of the picture.
The evidence that came through to the inquiry showed that many successful innovators experienced a smooth pathway to developing their products and finding markets, and these experiences affirm the strength of Australia’s innovation systems. But one of the difficulties that we discerned fairly quickly was that the people who were successful tended not to see the impediments in their path. Having been a state director of a political party, I can say it is a bit like running a successful campaign: you tend to forget all the things that went wrong in the course of it and focus on the bottom line. This came over quite strongly in our discussions with entrepreneurs, innovators and scientists. But the reality is that, in addition to these submissions about positive case studies, the committee did hear a number of stories about innovation that was hampered because of gaps in the innovation support system.
The reality that became apparent was that some pathways to innovation are well developed and relatively smooth for the Australian entrepreneur or the innovating business, and other pathways are less well formed. The committee has spoken to government agencies, researchers and businesses about where knowledge is needed, what difficulties are experienced and how support might enhance the pathway to innovation. From this process, Australian innovators themselves identified a number of consensus issues. The report seeks to address these concerns.
The key issue for the inquiry was the difficulty of defining and measuring innovation. Once again, the reality is that the complexity of a concept or a process is resolved in the first instance by fairly crude and rigid definitions—or at least clear and rigid definitions. As greater insight is gained into the process, the definitions and concepts become more and more fuzzy rather than more and more clarified. This was an interesting insight into what was happening. Essentially, the notions of innovation and commercialisation have become broader. I think it is important that the system is capable of dealing with a high degree of ambiguity, because the simple truth is that it is a complex process and we do not completely understand it in any template form. In my view and I think the committee’s view, far from being a criticism, the general reluctance to impose an iron cage on the innovation process is a very real tribute to people’s ability to deal with ambiguity and the fact that there are many sources and many processes of innovation.
As with the concepts, the notion of metrics in the system is quite complex. Metrics are essentially arbitrary determinants of how you measure innovation. We have had the generation of a significant number of metrics, and all of these are problematic in seeking to establish the level of innovation because, by and large, they all measure correlations rather than causes. They are about inputs rather than outputs. Once again, I have to say it is a compliment—partly because I may be a rigid personality myself—that the system has gained the capacity to say that the indicators are only indicators and we cannot impose them as final arbiters of what we fund and what we measure. Especially when governments are involved, I think the capacity for open-endedness is a tribute rather than a concern. But there are a number of indicators, and we do quite well on some and not so well on others.
What came through clearly—and there was no dissension on this—is that there is a need for greater business skills and entrepreneurship in the area of technological innovation. The resolutions that people put forward were, however, quite different. There is the classic problem of making a good researcher into a bad businessman. Once again, here it is important that, while pushing more knowledge into the system, we respect the fact that there are no templates in this. The recommendations of the committee, especially in this area, are in some respects reasonably open textured, which I think they should be.
The fact is that, when you are dealing with a complex area, the program structures are necessarily also complex, and complexity means that they are difficult to access. That was one of the problems that we encountered. The recommendations of the report go not so much to making the system rigid but to making it more accessible by providing greater information about it and by providing greater assistance to innovators to access the system. Here, again, there is a recognition of this complexity on the part of departments and, to a degree, they are trying to address it. We just think that there should be a greater focus on this.
This was an important and I think complex review. I do not want to pretend that all the recommendations are freestanding and do not require more work, because that would be incorrect, but I think that the committee had the insight to realise where it could make very definite recommendations and where it could say that more work was needed. I commend the report to the House.
143
16:30:00
Jensen, Dennis, MP
DYN
Tangney
LP
1
0
Dr JENSEN
—As a scientist in a previous life I was very excited to be involved in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation. I remain excited. It is very important to determine how to successfully transition a good technical or scientific advance to commercialisation. This inquiry into pathways to technological innovation, as the member for Kooyong has said, initially had as its focus the identification of issues that either assisted or inhibited the process of commercialisation. Unfortunately the identification of common issues did not eventuate. Where the commercialisation was successful, often no hurdles were identified, whereas for those that did not succeed it appeared to be all hurdles.
As the inquiry had to focus on other issues, I will focus on some of the recommendations made in the report. Before I do this I would like to make a general point about science and technology—that is, if we cannot get people to become involved in science and technology there will be no scientific or technological ideas to commercialise in the first place. This is a very important point to realise. A prerequisite to pathways to technological innovation is having innovators in the first place. We have a looming crisis in this regard in that the number of students in science courses is dropping, particularly in some of the basic or what are often called ‘the enabling’ sciences. We need to engage our youth and get them to see the area as exciting and something they wish to pursue.
The member for Lindsay spoke of engaging very young children in science. I agree that this is important, but I do not think that this is a critical issue. From my experience, children are actually natural scientists. All of us who have had kids remember the kids in the high chair. They will throw something out of the high chair—‘Oh, it drops. If I throw it out of the high chair again I wonder if it will drop again.’ There is that scientific process of conducting the experiment and then repeating the experiment to ensure that it is in fact repeatable. Children are engaged in these areas anyway.
The problem is that somewhere along the education track we are losing a lot of these students. In my experience the problem is keeping the youth interested and engaged through high school. Things such as the nuclear debate, wherever that may head, are actually engaging our youth in thinking about scientific and technological issues. We need to determine how to do these sorts of things on a sustainable basis and do it more consistently and more often.
In respect of recommendation 1, entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers are people who do not actually wait around for the right information to just turn up; they tend to aggressively seek it out and if it is not easily found they will go on and forge ahead without it. We saw cases of this during the inquiry. Some people referred to the success they had despite the fact that they did not know where, for example, to access money.
This inquiry gave us the opportunity to gauge the use of support agencies. Potential users of the National Innovation Council were having difficulty engaging the assistance that they required when they needed the advice. It is important that access to assistance schemes is easy, streamlined and best suited to the needs of the user and not in some form that is best suited to our view of the way that it should be accessed. If contact is to be made by the user and it is not seen to be helpful or timely, then assistance will no longer be sought.
From the National Innovation Council’s perspective, it is imperative to be contacted and to get it right, as it allows them to improve the services provided and builds important linkages. The benefit of this report is that it enables the National Innovation Council to be more proactive in getting to the people who require their assistance to promote their services. Hopefully, it will also provide the intersection between AusIndustry and the National Innovation Council to more effectively assist potential users who have not been aware of the service in the past.
Recommendation 10 is that the government provide support to the CSIRO proposal for an Australian growth partnerships program to engage small to medium enterprises in demand driven collaborations with publicly funded research agencies. We believe that this has merit and needs to be actively pursued. The reason is that these collaborations allow small and medium enterprises to have access to a research and development ‘punch’ that would otherwise not be accessible to them and would allow these smaller enterprises effectively to have similar wherewithal to that of larger companies.
Recommendation 11 is that the Australian government request the Business Industry Higher Education Collaboration Council to examine and develop the business case for third stream funding to universities. Third stream funding is an area that has been trialled in the UK and found to have significant benefits in terms of research and commercialisation outcomes. This funding makes research and teaching, the core businesses of universities, more relevant to society by funding universities to engage with society.
Recommendation 12 is that the Australian government introduce a funded cluster development program to encourage the Australia-wide development of clusters which bring together innovation in research, business and education. In a similar fashion to recommendation 10 on the CSIRO issue, this gives smaller enterprises a bigger bang for the research dollar.
In conclusion, this report is a good starting point regarding what we require to successfully commercialise science and technology. Clearly, however, we need to delve deeper into various aspects that have been drawn out in this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.
Economics, Finance and Public Administration Committee
145
Report
145
Debate resumed.
145
16:38:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I have great pleasure in speaking to the motion to take note of the report titled Improving the superannuation savings of people under 40 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. At the outset I congratulate the chairman, the member for Cook, the deputy chairman, the member for Rankin, and all members of the committee on their very hard and extensive work on what I thought was a pretty challenging inquiry. In addition, I congratulate all of the members of the secretariat, who, as we all know in this place, do the real grunt work. They not only sit through the hearings but have to read through every submission—probably more extensively than we do, if the truth be known. Also, they have to prepare the draft report and then the final report and, along the way, put up with the idiosyncrasies of each committee member. So I congratulate Mr Stephen Boyd, Mr Peter Keele, Ms Bev Forbes and their team.
Superannuation is an increasingly important issue for the Australian community and the Australian government. The most pressing issue in superannuation today is the question of adequacy of superannuation savings. Since the introduction of the superannuation guarantee, we have had an exponential growth in superannuation savings, but it is well known that, at a rate typically of nine per cent, someone starting work even at a young age is not likely to have retirement savings that are adequate enough at retirement age to make them entirely self-sufficient in retirement.
It is a very important challenge for us to ensure that that changes and that young people do recognise that, unless they go beyond what the superannuation guarantee delivers to them, they are going to be relying—at least in part—on a pension. Looking at the figures, I am sure that it would not give them the lifestyle they are looking for.
I must say that it was fairly bold of the committee to seek a reference that was restricted to the under-40s. I think it is fair to say that that is where the biggest challenges are. Indeed, from the very beginning of the inquiry, the terms of reference narrowed the opportunities the committee had to make substantial recommendations. That was borne out during the various discussions held by the committee. It seemed that every time someone had a good idea, there were another 10 reasons why we should not embrace that idea.
Going back to my thank yous, I acknowledge that I was not as active a participant in this inquiry as most other committee members were. That was simply because my shadow ministerial responsibilities did not allow me to attend all of the hearings or to read through all of the submissions. But I have very great confidence in the members who did sit on the committee. Like most House of Representatives committees—and indeed like most joint committees—the members worked in a very cooperative way. They put politics aside as they tried to work through these very difficult issues.
There are some good recommendations in the report. In particular, I think it is a very good idea to have a benchmark target for young people so that they have, in effect, put in front of their eyes very early in their working life exactly what they will need to gain retirement savings that are adequate to deliver the sort of lifestyle they require. Of course, that will be a general benchmark; it will not apply to everyone equally. It is also true that people can go and seek information from a financial adviser if they are so motivated; but the reality is that people at that age tend not to do that. It is probably not until they get past the age of 40—or at least until they start having children and start thinking about retirement and the need to cater for not only themselves but their children—that they really start to focus on that issue. I think that is a very good initiative.
I also think that encouraging people to enter into a voluntary scheme of co-contributions is a good idea. Of course, with all of the other pressing needs that arise at that younger age—the family mortgage, the school fees, even just feeding the children and all the things that seem to come at once in one decade—people are not likely to make the additional voluntary contributions unless they are prompted to do so. I think that giving people the opportunity from the very beginning of their working life, and getting them into the habit of making those contributions, is very helpful.
I welcome all the initiatives to attempt to align the system for employees with people who are in small business. It is well known in this place that we have a growing number of self-employed people in this country. As people start to utilise their skills in the area of self-employment, it is very important that we ensure that that part of the workforce is in the superannuation system as well.
Financial literacy is also important, and it goes to many of the things I have been talking about. It is worth noting that the committee struggled with the concept of the bottom threshold for SG contributions. We acknowledge that it seems unfair to those who are moving from job to job, but we realise that it could be a compliance cost nightmare for the small business people who have the paperwork to do and who have the obligation to make SG contributions. I thought it was interesting that, after a lot of debate, we decided in the end that it should probably stay where it is, but we will freeze it so that, over time in real terms, the figure will decrease and more people will come into the net of the SG system.
Superannuation savings in this country are now approaching $1 trillion. That is a significant achievement in itself but it is not enough. Whenever we talk about superannuation it is worth reflecting on what the former Hawke and Keating governments did in putting that system in place. It has been an enormous success. It is also interesting to note that this committee report was effectively gazumped by the government’s superannuation announcements on budget night. The committee, of course, looked at the tax on the way in, the tax along the way and the tax on the way out—at all of those things that might impact on adequacy. While there are some very important recommendations, the committee concluded that the system as it stands is pretty right and that it remains highly concessionary. There is a lot of complexity because of the grandfathering of various changes over the last decade or more.
As a result of our lack of big recommendations, as important as the recommendations are, I think it is fair to say that the committee concluded that the system, particularly as it applies to under-40s, is pretty right. You then have to ask yourself about the big superannuation changes announced by the government, and you can only conclude that there is some disparity between the thoughts of the committee and the thoughts of the government. I will leave it for others over the course of the next 12 months, as we debate those proposed changes, to conclude who was right and who was wrong.
One thing that the government, the committee and all members of this place would agree on is the question of inadequacy. It remains to be seen whether the government’s proposals are sufficiently targeted at that adequacy issue. While they are very strongly targeted at those who are exiting the system soon and very heavily targeted at reducing complexity, it remains to be seen whether they do what we hope would be done with respect to adequacy.
Various submissions were made to the committee about tax deductibility—for example, on undeducted contributions—and those points were well made. Indeed, I wanted the committee to consider whether there was some merit in allowing people to draw down on undeducted contributions—that is, the contributions of money on which they have already been taxed at the marginal rate. The view is that people voluntarily put money in there and do not enjoy the concessions given to other contributions under SG or otherwise and that they should be able to draw down on that money now. It is an open-ended question. It would not be expensive for the government; it would increase savings at younger ages and would address that adequacy question. The committee, in its wisdom, decided not to further pursue that issue, but I would like to put that out there as a possibility for future thinking. Again, I congratulate the committee and the committee secretariat on their very good work. (Time expired)
147
16:48:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am pleased to speak to the motion to take note of the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration titled Improving the superannuation savings of people under 40. Until recently, to the best of my knowledge, I was the only member aged under 40 of the committee that looked into this issue with respect to generations X and Y. As a young Australian, I took great pride in the work that the committee undertook on a bipartisan basis with respect to the recommendations that we put forward.
I acknowledge the strong and hard work of the chair, Mr Bruce Baird, the member for Cook, as well as other members of the committee. I particularly acknowledge the hard and diligent work of the committee secretariat, who proved once again their incredible worth when it comes to inquiries of this kind.
Of particular interest to me was the opportunity to travel and hear from a variety of people in different state capitals and other centres talking about some particular challenges of superannuation. There can be no doubt that, for people of my age demographic or those who are perhaps even younger, the word ‘superannuation’ seems to bear little, if any, relevance to their lives. The eyes of most people, when you talk to them about superannuation and retirement, simply glaze over, and it is pertinent that we should undertake this inquiry—and I am pleased we did—because the findings in some respects would seem to be common sense, but in other respects did draw on some useful analysis that the committee was able to undertake, which I am sure will go a long way towards better informing government with respect to the future development of policy.
In particular, we know that Australia does have an ageing population. As the baby boomer age demographic moves through and we see an increasing number of people reaching the age of 65 and over, we will recognise that within Australian society there will be large demographic change. I am reminded of the fact that, 10 years ago or thereabouts, the number of Australians aged 65 and over was in the vicinity of 12 to 14 per cent of the population. We anticipate that over the next couple of decades the number of Australians aged 65 and over will reach close to 30 per cent of the Australian population.
From a public policy perspective, this does present a number of unique challenges. At a time when many Australians—due to it largely being a legacy issue—believe that, having worked and paid taxes all their lives, they are entitled to an age pension that will keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed, it would seem to me a significant policy challenge indeed to try to meet this expectation. This issue has been recognised by governments of both political flavours and, in this respect, I certainly welcomed the introduction of the superannuation guarantee. This committee’s report sought to expand on that superannuation guarantee and assess whether generations X and Y, those who will have had the advantage of the superannuation guarantee throughout the entirety of their working lives, will by the year 2042 have an adequate level of superannuation savings such that they could expect to not be reliant, or only in a very minimal form, upon the age pension. In this regard, I found the report to be particularly interesting.
We found, in the main, that there is a great divergence—what we called an expectations gap—for young Australians between the annuity they would expect to flow from their superannuation lump sum, which has been compounding over a period of some 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, and what they thought they would be getting when they reached retirement age. It was very clear to the committee that there was a great gulf between people’s expectations and the reality. Indeed, recognising this gulf has given rise to a number of the recommendations that the committee has made to the government.
I must at this point acknowledge the very good announcement made by the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, in this, the 2006 budget. The degree to which we have simplified superannuation and the ramifications of cutting tax for those annuities or lump sum payments as people exit a taxed fund will make a very material difference to so many people’s lives in the future. It is very important. While I do not wish to understate the significance of this decision from a public policy point of view, the fact remains that we still need to undertake further work and further reform if we are going to ensure that future generations of Australians do enjoy the very best when it comes to their superannuation savings.
In this respect, I would like to touch upon a number of the recommendations that the committee made. In particular, there is the recommendation that, as the best starting point, as a default position, Australians in new employment should automatically have three per cent of their salary, on a salary sacrifice basis, put into a default fund which they would have for their superannuation. Experience internationally, in both the United States and the United Kingdom, has demonstrated that there is a high level of disincentive for people to actually cancel that three per cent voluntary contribution, especially when it is in fact a default position. Having this three per cent default position does in fact make a material difference to the ultimate lump sum that is accrued in a superannuation fund by people making this voluntary contribution over and above the superannuation guarantee. That was a recommendation that I certainly wholeheartedly support and endorse because it is very clear that not enough young Australians have a full comprehension of or interest in their superannuation lump sum and what it means for their future. With Australians living longer and longer, it is very clear that people need to understand that having a small superannuation lump sum will simply not provide them with the income that they will need in their retirement.
Another key recommendation targeted financial literacy among two key constituencies. The constituency I would like to touch upon is female Australian workers, who often exit the workforce for various reasons, the most common being to raise a family. It is very clear that many women unfortunately do not have adequate time in the workforce to accrue the lump sum of superannuation that they need in order to ensure that they have an annuity in their retirement. It is very clear that Australian women face a real challenge in this respect, and I was particularly pleased that in recommendation 3 of the report we talk about what it is that the government can do to help to educate young Australian women about the need to set aside funds in superannuation for their retirement.
We have made progress in this respect but still there is certainly much more that needs to be done, and it is high time from the public policy perspective that we continue building on the good work we have undertaken thus far but really start to focus Australian women’s minds on the fact that when they leave the workforce, when they focus on raising a family, there is a cost associated with that with respect to their superannuation and that we should ensure that we do what we can to provide an adequate lump sum for women—be it in the form of some of their maternity payment going into superannuation or be it in the form of other assistance going into superannuation—to assist them in that regard.
Similarly, we decided as a committee that it would be worth while to develop a benchmark savings target. This would involve an individualised projection demonstrating on an annual basis to fund members what they would need to save, what their target would need to be and what kind of an annuity they could expect flowing from superannuation in order to keep them in the manner in which they would like to live with respect to future annuities. I welcome recommendation 4, which touches upon this particular aspect. Certainly much has been done in recent months as well by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, to ensure that those who are self employed are adequately looked after with respect to superannuation, and I welcome moves in that regard. Recommendations 5 and 6 in the report touch on this. Likewise, recommendation 8 deals with financial literacy for women aged under 40 with respect to superannuation.
In summary, it is very important that young Australians recognise that providing for their superannuation, providing for their retirement income, is a key component to ensuring that they have a healthy, long-term ability to draw down funds from their superannuation in the form of an annuity that will ensure that they are not solely reliant on public funding, and that is the age pension. It is clear that there are several components to that. The superannuation guarantee is one component, personal savings are another component and for many Australians the age pension would be a third component. But at a time when Australians are getting older and the demands on the public purse are increasing, it is important that we focus the minds of Australians on their need to make personal contributions over and above the superannuation guarantee, and I welcome that. For hospitality workers on the Gold Coast, those who are transient through a number of jobs, I welcome measures in this report that highlight their need to build a lump sum of superannuation as well over a period of time and I certainly believe that more hospitality workers need to focus in this regard as well. This is a good report. I am pleased the committee worked in a bipartisan spirit to reach the outcomes that were embraced in this report and I commend it to the House.
149
16:58:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I too commend the committee’s report Improving the superannuation savings of people under 40. This report was undertaken in the context of an ageing population and obviously the quest for an adequate retirement income, which is essential given that people will be living longer and there is a need to offset the costs of an ageing population. Reducing the age pension costs against increasing costs of home and aged care is a challenge, particularly when there will be a reduced workforce supporting an ageing population.
It needs to be acknowledged that the Hawke-Keating government’s economic credentials and policies, particularly in introducing compulsory superannuation contributions in lieu of forgone wages, have benefited this nation enormously. In fact the billions of dollars of current super savings have made a major contribution to the economic growth sustained since 1996. This inquiry had a particular focus on young people, and I must acknowledge the excellent contributions many made. It was clear that young people do like having a guaranteed super contribution collected from their income, but they did have the view that superannuation is something you think about when you become much older. When choosing what they should do with any accumulated savings or surplus income, young people were more interested in retiring their HECS debt or acquiring a property rather than sinking money into the less tangible superannuation fund. I remind all young people that currently the interest charged on HECS debts is the lowest in the market and encourage them to pay the minimum.
Several submissions were received urging the committee to recommend allowing early access to superannuation savings. This was rightly resisted, in my view. Early access would really just allow people to borrow from themselves, from their future security, taking quite a gamble that they would attain sufficient prosperity to offset this dipping into their superannuation. The facts, of course, do not support this kind of risky speculation. However, the committee, in considering the changed nature of work for young people, with the increased use of casual employment and the tendency towards multiple jobs and careers, did recommend that the income threshold of $450 should be maintained, not increased, and even perhaps lowered.
Having watched many young people work in the hospitality industry, I know that many employers seek to dodge the superannuation guarantee levy by maintaining a large casual workforce and making sure that very few of them are given sufficient hours of work per week to guarantee collection of the superannuation contribution. I actually was one of the committee members who supported the abolition of the threshold, but I understand the added risk of this measure encouraging employers to resort to the black economy and paying cash under the lap to avoid compliance obligations. So, with some reluctance, I did agree with the recommendation, but I would like to see a youth employment advocate with real powers to pursue any employers who exploit young people in the workplace.
The need for improved financial literacy training was supported by the committee. I must praise the New South Wales government’s initiatives that see young girls in high school being given this sort of training in school hours in special workshops. It is a wonderful idea and I was delighted to share my experiences in this regard with one group of participants from year 10.
Our recommendation that all employees be placed in a voluntary scheme with the ability to opt out is quite radical but is worth consideration by the government. A three per cent imposition—as a default voluntary contribution—was suggested, and I look forward to this recommendation being debated. The need for better individualised information from super funds and better regulation and supervision of this information from ASIC would be a welcome improvement on current practice. Realistic savings targets and projections would allow people to make informed choices about their financial future.
Recommendations that would harmonise the tax treatment of invalidity payments for self-employed people and bring unincorporated small business into the superannuation guarantee system should also be fully pursued by the government. In fact, I think there has been some espionage going on, because the government moved towards one of those recommendations in the last budget. The recommendation that maternity leave and maternity bonus payments should include the payment of super guarantee contributions is an excellent one, since women clearly are disadvantaged by moving in and out of the workforce because of family commitments.
The committee also supports the co-contribution measures now in place and would like to see a concerted campaign to inform a wider audience, particularly young people, of the benefits of this scheme. Co-contributions are also a way for many women to attempt to catch up in establishing an adequate and realistic superannuation savings account. The recommendation of the report to remove the 10 per cent work test regarding eligibility for the co-contribution would help to overcome the current disadvantage to self-employed women and others who have been out of the workforce who are still making superannuation contributions as well as to people returning to study and retraining—a fact of modern life. The latter is imperative, given the skills shortage in this country and the need for continuous learning and up-skilling that characterises modern employment.
The recommendation for a single default super fund for casuals and young people is one I would particularly like to see implemented, especially when people are members of so many different funds. I can imagine a government tendering this kind of service as a no-frills, low-cost service that allows people who belong to multiple funds to belong instead to just one fund. It is common practice for many young people to lose track of those multiple funds that they belong to and then, to many of them, those superannuation contributions are lost forever. Our suggestion that this be an opt-out provision, allowing for choice if so desired, is a good one.
There was more we could have explored, given time to pursue some issues raised in evidence. For example, one witness told us of the situation for expats when they work overseas for lengthy periods. They may pay or accumulate super in another country, then receive their pay-out when returning and use that for the cost of their return airfare or for their resettlement costs in Australia. But then they discover that they are perpetually behind in accumulating superannuation towards their retirement. In fact, that witness recommended perhaps putting some information on travel documents or passports to explain that. It would also be worth the government exploring bilateral arrangements with some countries to allow the superannuation to stay with the person and the funds to be transferred back to Australia.
I have concerns that many young people with multiple accounts have their amounts diminished by multiple fee collection and multiple collection of death and disability payments. However, our recommendation for a default for those in multiple schemes would help to overcome this.
I also congratulate the secretariat on their excellent support of this inquiry. Anything we can do in this parliament to assist those under 40 to plan for their financial future is worthy of support. I note the comments by the member for Hunter that the last budget did show the Treasurer’s preference to assist people over 60 and to give some sort of superannuation benefit to them. It is clear from this inquiry that there is a real need to look at getting more people into superannuation rather than encouraging bonuses and greater payments when they retire. But I think that is a debate that has to be had.
I also recommend this report to the parliament and thank the committee members. It is a committee that, unlike some, worked in a very bipartisan way. Its leadership is excellent and I pay full tribute to the chairman, Mr Baird, and to the secretariat.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ticehurst) adjourned.
EAST TIMOR
152
Motions
Debate resumed from 13 June, on motion by Mr Beazley:
That the House take note of the statements.
152
17:06:00
Snowdon, Warren, MP
IJ4
Lingiari
ALP
0
0
Mr SNOWDON
—Let me first say how pleased I am to be able to speak in this chamber about the commitment of Australian troops again to East Timor. Whilst I welcome the commitment by the government—and it is widely supported within the community—I do want to express my concerns about how it might, in the longer term, stretch the capacity of the Army to do its work.
I was fortunate to be in Timor-Leste in October-November 1999, just after the Australian troops began their task in that first fateful period after the independence vote when, as a United Nations sanctioned force, they were leading a multinational force of troops which was more than ably led by General Cosgrove. I had the fortune of meeting General Cosgrove and some of his commanders whilst I was there, very early on in their task, and the commitment of those senior soldiers, the officers and General Cosgrove, was then a great tribute to all of us, as I am sure it is now with the current group of senior officers—the commanding officer and his officers—and the soldiers who are present in East Timor.
I want to make the observation that, some while ago, I was fortunate enough to visit Australian troops in Iraq at Al Muthanna. We hear now that it is proposed that the Iraqi forces will take over the security task which was then being undertaken by the Australian Army, and I commend the Iraqi armed forces for doing that. Whilst the Australian government has said that it is proposing to maintain the deployment of the current set of troops or those who would be in the next rotation of the same size as the group at Al Muthanna to do other functions, I would like to know what those functions are and just would proffer the question as to whether or not we will be able to maintain that task group when, at the same time, we have committed ourselves—certainly in the short term, and I suspect in the medium to longer term—to a new force in East Timor.
I also want to make the observation that it is a grave disappointment that we have been required to go back in force to Timor-Leste. It is a grave disappointment to those of us who were involved prior to supporting the resistance forces in the years after 1975 and subsequently to be in a position where Australian troops are now being recommitted there. I want to express my disappointment at the inability of the Timorese armed forces and the Timorese government to maintain its own security, but I do not put the blame upon them. I suspect it is a lot more appropriate for us to contemplate the position and the decisions taken by the United Nations when it decided to withdraw the United Nations forces, including the Australian forces, previously.
Whilst I know there was great debate about whether or not the East Timorese should have a standing army, I do make the observation that I was in New York at the time that representations were being made to the United Nations by the Timorese diplomats and by the Timorese foreign minister, Jose Ramos Horta, about prolonging the stay of the United Nations, and there was much debate about how long that stay should be, what sort of force structure it should entail and whether or not we should have armed forces of the type that were there previously continuing on. I know that the Australian government took the position that it was no longer an appropriate thing for us to be doing, that it was their view and the view of the United Nations generally, the Security Council, that it was time to scale down the United Nations occupation.
I have to say that I think in hindsight that has proven to be a very poor decision. I would say to the government that they should err on the side of caution when discussing these issues now and in the future in the United Nations and just perhaps reflect that the East Timorese are in a very good position to judge what is in their own interests. If the East Timorese ask for more, I would rather give them more than less, whether that be Australian troops or other foreign troops, or Australian police or other foreign police.
As we lead up to the next election in Timor-Leste some time early next year, it is very important that there is a sense of peace and harmony in the community, that we do not have thugs wandering around the streets disturbing the peace or, more importantly, putting lives at risk and killing people. We need to have an election in a peaceful environment. Whilst making that observation, I would also say there has been much comment over the last month or so about Prime Minister Alkatiri and his government.
I make no judgment about the capacity of that government, but I do make this observation. You will recall that there was a Fretilin conference at which Prime Minister Alkatiri was reindorsed as president of Fretilin, apparently on a show of hands. However, there was no secret ballot. This, of course, was disparaged by the international media, certainly the Australian media, as a sign that the country and the Fretilin were not committed to democracy. I note that over the weekend this government took great pride in the fact that it subverted an attempt by the Japanese at the International Whaling Commission to have a secret ballot and was able to claim victory as a result of the decisions taken at the International Whaling Commission. I make no observation other than to say that one man’s meat is another man’s poison and, in this case, the government ought to understand that I do not think it does it well for it or some of its officials or, indeed, the media, to make the sorts of observations and judgments that were made in the case of Timor-Leste and not make similar judgments in similar sets of circumstances in other forums. It seems to me it is a contradiction that also shows some sense of hypocrisy.
In any event, we have a task ahead of us to secure the community of Timor-Leste to ensure that they have a long and viable future as a stable democracy. We need to do everything we possibly can to assist them. The Australian troops, I know, will do their job well. They are well equipped. We want to make sure that they can maintain their ability to do the task that they have been set. We need to make sure that decisions taken by the Australian government are in accord with what the international community believes is important for us as a community, but also most importantly for the international community, in terms of sustaining this small new democracy into the future.
I know that the Australian government at the moment is not thinking about this because it believes that the Australian forces should be based there on a bilateral arrangement with the Timor-Leste government—but I wonder whether it would perhaps be more appropriate if they were there under blue berets and that they were not a leader of a coalition of the willing, if you like, but in fact a United Nations sanctioned occupation force under United Nations rules and regulations and under the blue beret, where Australia might be the lead nation. I know that that could well be something of great debate, but I think it is important that we understand our position and realise that in the longer term it probably does not suit us to be seen as an occupying force. It would be far better to be seen as being part of a United Nations sanctioned force rather than just on a bilateral arrangement.
I want to complete my contribution by making some observations about a book I recently read about the occupation of East Timor by Australian forces in 1942—the 2nd/2nd commandos. I feel passionately about this issue of Timor-Leste and the importance of us supporting this community into the future—supporting its government and supporting the President with the Prime Minister and the foreign minister. President Gusmao has, I understand, only last week or a week or two ago made Jose Ramos Horta defence minister as well as foreign minister. It is important that we support them in their roles, ensure that they can work together and ensure that we do not do anything to undermine their capacity to govern appropriately.
I go back to 1942 and this book which is called All the Bull’s Men. It is about the 2nd/2nd commandos who were in East Timor trying to rebuff the Japanese occupation, working with the Dutch and the Portuguese—the Dutch in West Timor and the Portuguese in East Timor. It is about the trials and tribulations of that force, the support they received from the East Timorese community and the punishment that was meted out to the East Timorese community by the Japanese as a result of their assisting the Australian forces.
The Australian troops never forgot that, and I know that some of the most strident supporters of the quest for independence by the East Timorese have been members of the 2nd/2nd Commando Association. I say that because my father was a member of that association—not that he served in East Timor, but he was a member of the 2nd/2nd commandos subsequently. I knew many of those men, many of whom have passed on. What they told me in the time that I knew them was of sacrifices that were made for them by the East Timorese. I think that we, as a nation, can never forget it. Despite the disparaging comments that might be made about certain individuals in East Timor—the Prime Minister in East Timor or whoever—we have an obligation as a community to understand the sacrifices which were made on our behalf by the East Timorese in the Second World War and that saved many Australian lives at great cost to themselves.
It is asserted that up to 40,000 East Timorese died during the Japanese occupation. I think the Australian force was somewhat less than about 300. They were able to frustrate the Japanese for 12 months by running a very effective guerrilla war with the support of the East Timorese community. We must never forget that and, when we are contemplating what our role should be—now and into the future of East Timor—we must ensure that whatever happens, whatever the outcome, we sustain the desire for independence, the desire for democracy and that we do everything we possibly can to support them.
154
17:18:00
Kerr, Duncan, MP
RH4
Denison
ALP
0
0
Mr KERR
—This House would do well to heed the remarks of the member for Lingiari in his current role and in his former role as member for the Northern Territory. The member for Lingiari has had probably the most long-standing involvement with the East Timorese community in Australia of any parliamentarian, and he has had a record of speaking about the circumstances of that country—formerly when it was part of Indonesia and as it went through its turmoils—that every other member of this House could learn much from. I think those remarks are ones which we ought to reflect on.
I might make my own comments about the deployment of Australian forces in East Timor. The member for Lingiari put his finger on one of the greatest errors that was made in the judgment of the international community but more particularly the Australian foreign affairs establishment when it proposed and then executed a decision to wind down the UN presence after independence. It was a decision taken against the wishes of the government of East Timor, which was concerned about the stability of the new nation and looked to the international community to have an ongoing presence beyond that which was ultimately mandated. I think that the member for Lingiari is too gentle when he reflects on those that participated in the decision, because largely the international community took its lead from the advice tendered by Australia—that is, the United Nations brought its engagement and deployment to an end because the Australian government pressed it to do so.
The problem that we face now is similar to the circumstances and lack of foresight that applied in the Solomons. In both instances the Australian government took a short-term decision—in the case of East Timor to wind down a deployment that prevented an escalation of violence and in the case of the Solomons not to involve itself in making any effort to prevent the breakdown of civil order in that country. They were decisions which in the end resulted in Australia having to commit far greater resources of far greater substance at far greater risk than would have been the case had earlier decisions been made on a more sustainable basis.
There is an old proverb that we all know and that was drilled into us as kids if we come from an Anglo-Saxon background: a stitch in time saves nine. Two instances have confronted the Australian foreign affairs establishment in our own backyard, in the South Pacific and in our near north, where we have failed, where we have not understood the dynamics of the local community and where we have not applied ourselves intelligently to the security circumstances of those countries.
In East Timor after independence we were part of an international force deployed on the ground to assist in the building of a new nation. The nation had been riven by internal conflict in the past, where the actions of elements previously loyal to the Indonesian regime had been in conflict with Fretilin and other forces seeking independence for East Timor. That conflict saw a huge proportion of the population of that now independent nation killed in circumstances which were vividly displayed in a recent fictionalised series that the ABC put to air about those tragic events.
When we were pressed by that government in its frailty to continue to have troops and a presence on the ground from the international community, we took a short-term, penny-pinching decision: ‘No, let’s go home. It’s time to go home. Leave that country to its own resources. Let’s withdraw.’ The tragedy is that, when we did that and then the tensions that were inherent and under the surface bubbled to the top, we had to come in with a military solution, which was inefficient because it was not effectively a policing solution and which came in after lives had been lost.
In the same manner, if we go to the instance of the Solomon Islands, I was part of a joint delegation of this parliament that went to the Solomon Islands. We were confronted with a request from the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands that Australia make available seven Australian Federal Police officers to be part of a regional group—that is, from Papua New Guinea, Australia, Vanuatu and perhaps Fiji; I cannot remember the precise break-up that they were speaking off—to assist in law enforcement because they felt that circumstances were becoming so frayed that their country might be on the brink of something quite terrible. What surprised me as we left that meeting with the Prime Minister, and as I turned to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who were hosting us, was that we had gone into that meeting without that important knowledge being made available to us. As parliamentarians we were not supposed to know that the government of the Solomon Islands had made that request. It was an embarrassment to our high commission that the Prime Minister had made that embarrassing request to us.
The delegation was not stupid. The delegation had subsequent meetings. We met with the Leader of the Opposition and we said, ‘What do you think about the Prime Minister’s request?’ The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘We support it. This country is facing the possibility of breakdown and whilst we, of course, oppose the government of the day and would like to see ourselves replace it, we recognise that we are on unsound ground and we need some local police to prevent an outbreak of violence in our community.’ Then we went to the chief justice of the Solomon Islands and we asked the same question. The chief justice said, ‘The constitutional position doesn’t leave this in my hands, but my personal view is that our country faces the prospect of disintegration unless we have such assistance.’
On coming back to Australia I immediately wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs drawing attention to these requests and saying, ‘There was a foreign affairs, but also a national interest, imperative in us responding constructively to those requests.’ Again, sadly, we did not; we did not take the stitch in time. When the country fell into the chaos that it did with loss of lives, with an insurrection, with a coup, we then had to bring in the military and a stabilisation force. We withdrew it and we had to go back again. We have had these patterns of not anticipating, not thinking through the kinds of engagements that we are so vitally involved in in our own backyard.
If there is one place where Australian diplomatic intelligence and diplomatic strength on the ground matters, it is in the South Pacific. Here we are the regional superpower. It may be in the order of status within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that a posting to Italy or a posting to Vienna is infinitely more desirable, but in terms of our national interest such postings should be significantly less important in their status and in their resourcing than those in our near neighbourhood, where we actually are the superpower, where what we do matters, where the countries actually request of us assistance and where our decisions either to grant that or to refuse it have the kind of profound implications that they have had in the Solomon Islands and in Timor-Leste, and may have in Papua New Guinea and other countries where the potentiality for discord, and even for breakdown in civil governance, cannot be entirely discounted.
That is why I am concerned in this instance to use these reflective moments to, firstly, say we honour those who have responded to the call in our military to go to East Timor. We make no criticism of them, but they have had to come in after the Australian foreign affairs establishment dropped the ball in terms of its decision and got out cheap. In the same way we had a much higher cost in the Solomons, where we did not take advantage of an opportunity before the country descended into chaos to stabilise situations, and we have had two military interventions which have had significant costs to that country and to the relationship generally between the peoples of it.
These are important lessons that we need to learn. We need to be ready to anticipate and to act with some understanding of our regional importance. I think that the time has long ceased where we can have an order of priority in terms of our diplomatic establishment that allows our postings to be determined on the old traditional method, where the greatest seniority applied to people holding European and old-world positions.
This is our sphere of influence. This is where what Australians do matters. We also have to think carefully about the point that the member for Lingiari spoke about—that is, we have to beware of becoming an army of occupation. If we do go into these countries, we have to carry the international community with us and be blue-hatted where that is possible. We also have to beware that we do not find ourselves in exactly that situation in Iraq, where we are now being invited to reconsider our mission. The Prime Minister of Iraq has said that he expects foreign forces to be out of the country by November 2007, and in all but two provinces he expects foreign troops to be out by the end of this year. Those provinces do not include the provinces in which Australia currently has its troops. A good friend knows when to leave. When a host starts making hints like that, you start making plans to get out. The Australian government has to listen to this; otherwise it will be perceived not only by the extremists in Iraq but also by large sections of the population that Australia is overstaying its welcome. Sadly, Bush and Blair seem to have a tin ear. They have not responded to what is a signal of growing national impatience in Iraq about a perceived foreign occupation of that country.
If we do not have a little more sophistication in our response, but simply go along as clones of the Bush-Blair strategy of saying there is an indefinite occupation and an indefinite commitment of our troops—notwithstanding the judgments of the local national government—then we will risk being seen as an army of occupation, and not only by the al-Qaeda related people or even the former Saddamist loyalists but also by a widespread group of persons in that country. In the same way, if we do not build a coalition that presents us in Timor under blue helmets—
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—Ah, Timor!
RH4
Kerr, Duncan, MP
Mr KERR
—then we risk the same outcome. The member for Lingiari makes a sensible and substantial point, and the dopey minister at the table, who cannot make a connection between two foreign engagements in which Australia faces the same risk, demonstrates the incapacity of this government to be other than politically narrow in the national interests of its community. We do not need that kind of foolishness and short-sightedness. We need a government that focuses on the national interest instead of chiding oppositions by making short-sighted points. We need a government that is respectful of our national interests and understands the risks that a foolish ignorance of circumstances may place our troops at.
Debate (on motion by Mr Ticehurst) adjourned.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
158
Bills
R2551
Consideration in Detail
158
Consideration resumed from 15 June.
Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $841,720,000
158
17:34:00
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
0
Mr McMULLAN
—I want to refer tonight, and seek a response, to what I see as a continuing scandal in Public Service employment as it relates to the employment of people with disabilities. The particular responsibility in this area lies with the Public Service Commission, and therefore under the aegis of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Public Service Commissioner’s own report, the State of the service report 2004-05, states—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 5.34 pm to 5.51 pm
5I4
McMullan, Bob, MP
Mr McMULLAN
—As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, as the Public Service Commissioner State of the Service Report 2004-05 makes clear:
Over the past decade the data shows a consistent decline in the employment of people reporting a disability as a proportion of APS employees. At June 2005 people with a disability represented 3.8 per cent of ongoing APS employees, down from 3.9 per cent last year and from 5.4 per cent in 1996.
If the percentage remained the same, there would be 2,000 more people with disabilities employed in the Australian Public Service. It goes on to say some things about the changing structure of the Public Service, which clearly is part of the explanation, and I accept that. But it says:
... the past 10 years has seen a decline in the representation of people with a disability at all classification levels.
It really is a serious indictment. To put the numbers away from percentage terms, there were 7,008 people with a disability in 1996 and 4,642 in 2005. Allowing for a slight drop in the overall size of Public Service employment, the effective difference, if we had maintained the percentage, is that there are 2,000 fewer people with a disability in the Public Service than previously.
This is not a one off. Since 1996 the proportion of people with a disability has fallen every year except 2003, when it plateaued—5.4; 5.3; 5.1; 4.8; 4.5; 4.2; then it was 4 per cent for two years; 3.9 and in 2005, 3.8. I say to the government that, if it is genuinely concerned about employment for people with disabilities, start employing some. I notice that the Minister for Employment, who is also the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Public Service matters, has called a roundtable to encourage employers to take on more people with a disability. I do not have any disagreement with him doing that and I suppose no-one would be rude enough when they turn up to say: ‘We’re all doing better than you, Minister, and it would be good if you showed an example.’
What is happening is a disgrace. It is happening quietly, without any fanfare, without any analysis, without any commentary. It is a disgrace. The government is putting pressure on people with disabilities to go back into the workforce; some of the measures I agree with, some I do not. But the outcome is a desirable objective, that is to say: we want more of the people who have disabilities in our community and have the capacity to work to be in employment.
The Public Service Commissioner’s statement of Public Service values makes it clear that it wants to recognise and utilise the diversity of the Australian community it serves. It wants to promote equity in employment. It wants to provide opportunity to all eligible members of the community to apply for APS employment.
The State of the service report 2003-04 found a similar trend of declining recruitment levels and retention rates for Indigenous employment. The government did respond. At this stage I cannot indicate the success of the response—I am not going there because it is probably too soon to measure—but they did respond with an attempt to institute a centralised strategy to increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment in the public sector. It is time they did the same for people with a disability. What is happening now is a scandal. It is totally unacceptable. I would like to see by the next budget that the government has initiated, and the Public Service Commission is implementing, a similar centralised strategy to increase disability employment in the Public Service.
159
17:55:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I thank the member for Fraser for raising this matter. I can certainly assure him that the government would take those observations seriously. The interesting thing about all those statistical readouts, whether in a percentage term or an actual term, is that it also relies on people accurately reporting whether or not they see themselves as having a disability. The changing mix of workforce circumstances could have an impact on that. I do not think there is any reason to dispute the ambition, which the member for Fraser has acknowledged, of the government trying to encourage more people who see themselves with disabilities identifying the need to move away from a welfare circumstance into an employment circumstance. I also agree with the member for Fraser that the public sector has an important role to play in providing an example to the private sector about looking at the entire Australian potential workforce, particularly at a time when we are short on people. There is a lot of talk about skills, but we are short on people.
The member for Fraser also acknowledged Indigenous workforce matters. In a previous portfolio role I looked very closely at the non-English-speaking background make-up of our public sector. I noted—anecdotally, I will submit—that there were fluctuations, ups and downs, in the number of people from an NESB first and second generation in the statistics collected by the Public Service Commission, mainly because a lot of people who might have been a second-generation Australian did not see themselves as being from a non-English-speaking background. I speak of the very large numbers of post-World War II immigrants from southern Europe—Italy, Greece and so forth. They saw themselves as Australian rather than from a particular ethnic background that was supposedly non-Australian, or however you want to describe it—which, of course, is not a reasonable descriptor at all.
It is important that we have positive employment programs that encourage our first Australians, our most recent Australians and indeed those from a disability circumstance to be featured in the public sector. And, of course, we do. We do not have programs that prevent people from being part of the public sector workforce. As I said, I think the public sector has an important role to play in showing the private sector the way forward.
The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Kevin Andrews, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and, indeed, Dr Sharman Stone, the Minister for Workforce Participation, are both directly charged with encouraging improvements in these circumstances. I can certainly say from the government’s point of view, and as a minister who is looking at initiatives to train up those who have been out of the workforce to re-enter the workforce in either the public or private sector, there are enormous amounts of money deliberately set aside. So I can say to the member for Fraser that there are no impediments to progress. I do not believe there is anything to indicate that there is a will against progress.
I thank the member for Fraser for his contribution in this consideration in detail stage because I do not think it hurts to constantly encourage, as this government has done, each of the secretaries of departments to realise that they have a role to advance the cause of our first Australians—or else their own performance based pay arrangements might be affected—so that we do not see accounting methods for disabled Australians, Indigenous Australians and indeed people from a non-English-speaking background simply as an accounting exercise. There needs to be a positive reason for hiring people, and setting out policies that make it very plain that we want to report progress on that. So, I do not mind the member for Fraser’s challenge. I am sure that Dr Shergold, the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will note those comments very closely, and I look forward to improvements in the following years.
160
18:00:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—Given the shortage of time and the idea that we should move on to discuss some other departments as well this evening, I will confine my questions and remarks to two areas of Prime Minister and Cabinet activity. Budget Paper No. 2 says, on page 314:
Additional funding will also be provided to support PM&C in providing the secretariat to COAG and its work on the National Water and Living Murray initiatives.
The government announced in 2004, in what was described as a first step, that under the Living Murray program some 500 gigalitres in environmental flows would be returned to the Murray River by 2009. My question is: how are we going regarding this target? Is it correct, as has been said to me, that no additional gigalitres have been delivered to the River Murray through the Living Murray program? My follow-up question is: how do you see this target being met? Do you think that the target will be met? In addition, is it the case, as I have also heard, that the government is not planning to buy any water from willing sellers? If you do not intend to buy water from willing sellers, how do you intend to meet the first-step target? That is the first set of questions I wanted to ask.
The second set of questions arises from page 312 of Budget Paper No. 2, under ‘Auditing—increased activity’, where it indicates that an additional $3½ million will be provided over four years to enable the Audit Office to, amongst other things, increase auditing of the Department of Defence. My first question is: what is the reason for the increased auditing of the Department of Defence? Behind that, why are the Department of Defence’s audit reports so poor? Further, what is the government doing to implement the Auditor’s recommendations so we do not keep coming back to this situation of poor and unsatisfactory audit reports for Defence? I will confine my remarks to those questions and seek a response to them.
161
18:02:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I refer to the member for Wills’ questions relating to the Living Murray Initiative. As the honourable member correctly observed, the Living Murray Initiative is an intergovernmental agreement an essential part of which involves the recovery of 500 gigalitres of permanent water for environmental purposes—that is to say, for the purposes of watering six important environmental sites on the river—by 2009. In the intergovernmental agreement, a number of methods of water acquisition or water recovery were covered. They included: funding infrastructure, water savings infrastructure and water efficiency infrastructure, with the water saved being transferred over to the environmental account; purchases on market; purchases by tender; and a number of other methods of acquisition.
The relevant governments agreed to proceed initially on the basis of acquiring water through funding infrastructure which would save water through efficiencies. There are a number of these proposed investments, the largest part being from Victoria but with investments coming through from New South Wales and new contributions, as at the last Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting, from South Australia. The best estimate that I could give the honourable member is that around 300 gigalitres is most likely to be recovered by 2009—maybe more than that, but it is very unlikely to be less. So concern has been expressed for some time that the 500-gigalitre first-step target will not be met.
The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council recently approved a new policy proposal of the Commonwealth’s to acquire water from willing sellers via a tender, which will be launched shortly. But it is a tender with a twist, because the water that is to be bought must be water that either has been or will be made available through water efficiency measures. ‘Why are we doing that?’ the honourable member may ask. It is because we are seeking to achieve two objectives. We are seeking to recover water for the environment—which, of course, is the objective of the first step under the Living Murray Initiative—but at the same time we are seeking to promote the more efficient use of water in the agricultural sector, which is mostly irrigation in that part of the country.
The aim is to ensure that the amount of water actually available, or productively available, for agricultural use will not be diminished. Plainly, if a farmer has the right to extract 100 megalitres but, for reasons of inefficient infrastructure or inefficient practices, only 50 per cent of that is being put to productive use, and if the amount of water that is being lost through inefficiencies can be recovered through more efficient infrastructure and is then acquired for the environment, you have genuinely achieved a win-win situation: some water has been saved for the environment and the infrastructure is more efficient. This is exactly the same philosophy as underpinned the first approach—that is, the direct funding of infrastructure approach—but this measure enables the dollars to get down onto the farm rather than go only to finance large-scale infrastructure. It enables the water efficiency dollars to be accessed by individual farmers often for small-scale measures, nonetheless which in aggregate will prove very important in recovering water for the environment.
161
18:07:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I thought I would take the opportunity to give the member for Wills some response on the matters he raised in his contribution a few minutes ago and to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for his detailed response on the National Water Initiative. To the member for Wills: obviously the Council of Australian Governments’ agenda is enormous. I can say that, in the primary role I have in the government as the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, we are looking forward to the detailed work that is going to come out of this Council of Australian Governments deliberation in the area of occupational licensing and skills matters alone. The matter within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with an additional vote of resources to handle the coordination of that, therefore, is a substantial and good investment in the way Australia needs to gear itself for the rest of the 21st century. We are undoing, rebadging and indeed re-establishing some 19th century concepts that have worked well through the 20th century but need to work far better when it comes to Australia’s skills base. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are very much at the heart of those tasks.
Equally, on the funding for the task force to deal with the APEC conference, there are certain broad assumptions that have been used in a lot of these items. After all, APEC is going to be the largest meeting of its kind ever to occur in Australia so there are no benchmarks for us to refer to. There was some underspending in the previous year and there has been some refocussing this year. The budget was developed in January last year, ahead of some significant planning for the event. The underspending of $18.8 million was due to difficulties in estimating in advance the expenses required for this project, including the expenses by year. These uncertainties caused the Department of Finance and Administration to provide on a no-win no-loss arrangement for the quadrating of this funding in its provision as it is required. In that regard we have the flexibility to respond to that.
From a staffing point of view, the department’s average staff for 2006-07 is expected to increase, by 89, to 564. The increase in staff is in response to supporting the COAG agenda—as I said, substantial and important work for Australia’s future. This government has its eye on where Australian needs to be 20 and 30 years from now. It is not just dealing with where we have been over the last 20 or 30 years. The investment in an additional 30 staff for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is a very good investment indeed. Recruiting for the APEC task force will require some 59 people, and that is continued recruiting that is taking place.
With regard to the additional auditing that the member outlined in his earlier question, I am happy to seek some further advice on that. At the end of it, the general principles always stand. The Department of Defence has a massive expenditure of public moneys. It is very much involved in an important task in a lot of different places at the moment. PM&C want to offer additional resources to make certain that the real task of defending and advancing Australia’s interests overseas is the primary work of Defence. At the same time, ensuring that we can report to the people of Australia the correct expenditure of those moneys means that it is not just up to Defence alone; it is up to PM&C to play its central coordinating role.
162
18:11:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—I thank the parliamentary secretary and the minister for their responses. Can I follow up the issue of the Living Murray Initiative, which the parliamentary secretary responded to. He indicated that around 300 gigalitres—obviously there are some qualifications on the estimate—are likely to be recovered by 2009 through efficiencies and he then spelled out the path that the government is going down and the steps it is taking regarding buying water achieved as a result of efficiencies. My question is: has the government, as part of that exercise, done any estimates about water likely to be recovered through that process? Obviously that is germane to how we are going in relation to the target of 500 gigalitres by 2009. I would be interested to know whether the parliamentary secretary is able to provide any information about what kinds of dividends might be achieved as a result of going down the path that he proposes.
In the absence of colleagues I will take the opportunity to raise with the minister an additional issue concerning the Australian Public Service Commission. The Australian Public Service Commission is referred to at page 312 of the budget papers. One of the issues that has come to my attention recently is that the Public Service Commission has issued a new circular which relates to the citizenship requirements for Commonwealth public servants. Two sentences which previously made clear that the employment of noncitizens could only be done in exceptional circumstances have been deleted from that circular. One of the sentences is:
Preferably, this would only occur on the basis that the person is actively pursuing the acquisition of Australian citizenship.
The other sentence which has been deleted is:
... it is expected that a decision to engage a non-citizen would only occur for sound reasons and not as a matter of course.
This is clearly a watering down of the requirement for citizenship of employees in the Australian Public Service. My question, having regard to this circular, is: how many noncitizens are presently employed in the Australian Public Service and does the government have any view on or any figure of how many are likely to be employed as a result of the change in guidelines outlined in the circular?
163
18:14:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I gather that the honourable member wanted to know if we had an estimate of the amount of water likely to be recovered under the new tender arrangements I just mentioned. The answer is we do not. It is a tender. Tender is a price discovery process. We are not advertising the price which we are prepared to pay, nor are we stipulating the amount of water that we would seek to recover. Plainly, and I have said this publicly in many places, we would not be seeking to acquire more than 200 gigalitres because that is probably about all that we are short as far as we can currently see. But I do not think we are likely to have water in those volumes being tendered in any event. So we do not have an estimate.
It will be an informative exercise and we may not acquire any water. I think it is likely that we will acquire some. We are looking at every way in which we can acquire water for the Living Murray Initiative. But our aim is to, as far as we can, always acquire water in a way that ensures that the amount of water available for productive use in agriculture in the southern Murray-Darling Basin is unaffected. In other words, our aim is for a win-win situation where the water that is recovered for the environment is effectively water that was not being productively used.
163
18:16:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I will take a leaf out of the Prime Minister’s book. If the member wants to communicate to me the circular from which he is quoting, I will be happy to have it looked at. I will not take it at face value, even in these in-detail discussions about the expenditure of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
I will say, as a point of principle, as the first ever Australian minister for citizenship, one of the hallmarks of why we wanted to encourage the almost one million people living in this nation today who are not citizens but who are eligible to become Australian citizens was a job in the Public Service. It was one of the things that you could apply for as a citizen. I would be very surprised if there was a watering down of that circumstance. I would be happy, therefore, to take evidence and then, if you like, put it on notice and communicate that back to the member for Wills in due course.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Treasury Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $3,509,487,000
164
18:17:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Could I firstly, on the matter of the Treasury, refer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which comes under the Treasury portfolio, and remarks I made in the House before about ABS surveys. I think there might be some media interest in this tonight, not relating to matters I have raised but generally. I wonder if I could ask the parliamentary secretary whether he is aware of the number of surveys the ABS conducts in which participation is compulsory and in which Australian citizens are told they will be fined significant amounts of money if they do not participate.
I refer in particular to the Time Use Survey, which people in my electorate have been required to participate in. It is a very onerous survey. They are required to fill in and justify every five minutes of their day for 48 hours. An example is given of a typical ABS return: ‘6.20, toilet; 6.25, had a shower; 6.35, got dressed; 6.40, put on a load of washing; 6.45, made breakfast.’ People are told to fill this out and that if they do not they will be fined, I think, $200. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could respond as to whether the government is aware of the ABS doing this and whether they endorse this approach.
164
18:19:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I am aware that the ABS do these sorts of surveys. I think they have been doing them for 100 years. I think the Australian Bureau of Statistics do a wonderful job. The government has supported the ABS with increased funding for several years and will continue to do that.
164
18:19:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I would be less than frank with the House if I did not say that I found the parliamentary secretary’s response a little disappointing. I recognise that these surveys have been going on for a very long time, and I recognise that they have happened under governments of both persuasions. It is very different from the census. With the census, there is a general level of public understanding and public acceptance that it is an important activity to participate in. There is a general understanding that it is an obligation of citizenship to participate in it. But I do not think it is appropriate for people in my electorate or any other to have somebody knocking on the door and saying, ‘You will account for every five minutes of your day and if you don’t, you will be fined.’
I do not expect the parliamentary secretary to automatically be across these issues, but I wonder if he would be good enough to undertake to investigate and report back as to whether the government does feel this particular survey, amongst others, is appropriate and whether there might be some action taken to remind the ABS that getting people to account for every five minutes of their day for 48 hours is not something which happens in a democracy like Australia.
164
18:20:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I am happy to do that.
165
18:20:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—I do not intend to usurp the role of my ministerial colleagues, but I make the observation that before coming into parliament I ran an industry and tourism regional development board. At times, we had various surveys go to motels, caravan parks and the like. There was a similar reluctance to answer them. They were not about what the manager did in a day but what the various denominators were of price, occupancy and so on. I chastised a number of my members at the time by saying, ‘If you want to have a basis on which to go to government for grants and subsidies and the like, you’ve got to have accurate information coming out of the regions.’ I think most of them saw the logic of it.
With a thing like this, you do not know where it might impact. It might impact on child care or any number of other things when this information is fed into the computers. I would be interested to know, Parliamentary Secretary: if someone were to write ‘varies day by day’ on a part that they felt was an intrusion on their privacy or, quite frankly, onerous to complete, would that offend the form? I suspect it would not, and that they would just answer the things that they thought were reasonable in the circumstances. When you provide the answer, I would be interested to know whether there is that sort of latitude within the guidelines.
165
18:22:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—My question also relates to ABS surveys. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that with the ABS survey that looks at work and return to work activities, people over the age of 80 are being randomly selected and required to complete the survey as to whether or not they are looking for work and work activities that they have undertaken in the past month? Has the minister or the government given any thought to providing an exemption to people who are over 80 years of age and find it most distressful that they are forced to either have somebody come into their home or answer the survey over the phone? They feel very intimidated by it, and they cannot see the relevance of this survey to them.
I have spoken to the ABS myself and was unable to organise an exemption for a person who was over the age of 80. I was able to organise for that person to answer the questionnaire over the telephone. Alternatively, the ABS were prepared to allow one of the person’s family members to complete the questionnaire on their behalf. I would be most grateful if the parliamentary secretary would make some inquiries and look at taking some action to alleviate this system. It really does seem quite ridiculous when 80-plus-year-old women are being forced to complete this survey and we are unable to organise an exemption for them.
165
18:24:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I thank the member for Shortland for her question. I am very happy to do that; I will have a look at that and come back to you. But I want to make the point—following on from my very distinguished colleague, the member for Hinkler—that it is important for people to understand that the work that the ABS does is critically important to how we move forward in this country. Government decisions at all levels—not just at Commonwealth level but at state and territory levels—use ABS data for almost all their appropriations and a lot of their decisions. Local government rely on ABS statistics. Industry itself relies on ABS statistics to inform it about how it may lobby governments. It is critically important. I think they do a marvellous job. I am happy to take that on board and I will come back to you.
165
18:25:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I thank the parliamentary secretary for giving us the opportunity to put some questions to him. I am very interested in some of the forecasts on which the budget is based. In particular, I am interested in this new concept of receipts from companies rising more quickly than company profits. This is partly a function of the resources boom, of course. I might know the answer to this question myself—I think the answer to the question may be the extent to which mining companies, in particular, have been investing happily in new capacity and therefore bringing forward newer and larger deductions—but it is of concern to the opposition that the budget forecast seemed to be largely underpinned by the concept that receipts from company taxes are growing faster than company profits are.
I want to put a few questions to the parliamentary secretary. The first is: does he accept that, based on the budget, company tax is growing faster than company profits? From an independent observer’s view, having company taxes increase more rapidly than company profits seems unsustainable. On what basis does the Treasury believe this can be sustained over the forward estimates period? Is it assumed that the average company tax rate will fall again over the forward estimates?
The effective company tax rate must be rising if company profits are growing slower than the company tax. For current trends to be sustained, is there not effectively an assumption that the effective company rate is increasing and has been, in recent years, approaching the company tax rate itself? Is this the assumption Treasury is using and, if so, on what basis? And is Treasury assuming that the level of deductibility is very low for the additional component on company taxable income that is a basis of the above trend?
166
18:27:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I thank the member for Hunter for his very long and complex question. I would like to answer it in two parts: firstly, by saying that I will take the questions on board and come back with the information; and, secondly, by saying that he can rest assured that our projections are very reliable, as they have been for the last decade.
166
18:28:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I will move on now to another issue. The focus of public debate in recent times has been on child care—or, more to the point, the unavailability of child care—and, of course, the affordability of child care. I ask the parliamentary secretary what work the government have done on the various options for delivering greater child-care services in this country. Have they, for example, done any work on costing extending the FBT arrangements to small businesses or organisations which do not provide child care in-house? Have the government done any costing on the possibility of allowing taxpayers to claim child care as a tax deductible expense?
166
18:29:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I thank the member for Hunter for his questions. I will take them on notice.
166
18:29:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I thank the parliamentary secretary for his brief answer. I would like to move to another subject—the changes the government is proposing with respect to superannuation in this country. I know that at this stage it is only a proposal and the information in the budget is only very limited, but various costings have been bandied around with respect to the various initiatives the government has taken in the budget, and I was wondering whether the parliamentary secretary could give the parliament some idea of the basis for those costings. There has been talk of the expense of those proposals blowing out to a considerable percentage of GDP, and I was wondering whether the parliamentary secretary could further enlighten us on the basis of the costings and where the major cost is going to be imposed.
167
18:30:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you and the parliament are aware of the government’s announcements on budget night regarding superannuation, but let me remind the member for Hunter that what we have proposed and put forward is the most significant reform to Australia’s superannuation policy framework in decades, and that has largely been driven by this government’s desire to ensure that people, Australians, can save for their future and be prosperous and enjoy their retirement. Of course, it is a very important underpinning of our structural economy, particularly as it relates to some of the demographics that we are experiencing, like the ageing of the population.
It is very important that wherever we can we incentivise people to save for their retirement. There have been a lot of calls, including calls from all quarters of the community, to simplify superannuation tax, and so we have done that. We have cut through all of that by simply saying that where your funds are in a taxed fund, whether or not you take that as a lump sum or as an allocated pension, there will be no tax at all. This is a very positive initiative. We have embarked upon a consultation period, as the member for Hunter identified, and the government are now going through and will be looking at those submissions, and we will be putting out our position in terms of legislative proposals going forward.
167
18:31:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his insightful answer. Can I move on to what is known as the entrepreneur’s tax offset. This is, of course, a tax rebate given to certain small businesses, particularly those with revenues of less than $50,000 a year, phasing right out I think at $75,000 a year. I could stand corrected, but I believe the cost of that initiative is somewhat in excess of what was originally proposed when it first appeared in the 2005-06 budget. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can provide information about where exactly that money is going, maybe giving us a breakdown of the various businesses receiving the benefit of that tax offset and whether he can clarify why the cost of that offset has so significantly blown out.
167
18:32:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I am very happy to provide the member for Hunter with some of the information he has asked for. Of course, I would not accept on face value that it has blown out, as he has remarked. That is something that I will have a look at, but in terms of providing him the information, I would be happy to do that.
167
18:33:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary some questions about the Trade Practices Act, which of course comes under his direct area of responsibility. It is well known and well documented in this country that there is significant concern about the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act and, of course, there are allocations in the budget to the ACCC for the administration of the Trade Practices Act. Those concerns are very well founded. They go to the impact of cases commonly known as Boral and Rural Press and Metway. In particular, many are concerned that it is very difficult these days for the ACCC to establish in a court of law that a company does have the degree of market power necessary to be in breach because of any action under the Trade Practices Act. There is concern also, of course, that the concept of ‘take advantage’ is now a very questionable concept in the eyes of the courts, and these things need clarification. There is also a need for clarification in the area of what we commonly know as predatory pricing, and that is, of course, the concept of larger firms holding down the price, possibly below cost, just sufficiently long enough to drive a competitor out of the market.
There has been a very big expectation for a number of years now amongst the smaller and independent sector that the government would address these changes. Certainly there have been two significant reports—the Dawson report and I think a unanimous report of the Senate Economics References Committee which recommended a number of changes to section 46. Indeed, the opposition has been stepping up the ante in recent times because we are very concerned that the repeal of the retail marketing sites act should not be undertaken in the absence of significant reforms to section 46. I was hoping the parliamentary secretary could provide advice on where the government is on section 46. Can we expect to see some proposals coming forward from the government in the not-too-distant future and, if so, how wide-ranging will they be and will they cover what I call the two-threshold test—that is, a clarification of the parliamentary intention on the definitions of market power and of the concept of ‘take advantage’?
168
18:35:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—If the member for Hunter is alluding to several cases where certain things have been happening or they have not been happening then, firstly, if he is aware of any of those sorts of cases I hope that he is referring those directly to the ACCC for investigation; I am sure he is. Secondly, to answer his question, the government is always reviewing its legislation in order to ensure that it has the right and appropriate legislation in place.
168
18:35:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—I am always happy to refer cases to the ACCC, which I have done on a not irregular basis. But the point I make again is that there is a widely held view in the community—and we have plenty of legal opinion and, indeed, an all-party Senate committee to back that view—that the Trade Practices Act is now not sufficient to deal with these cases. The ACCC can take the cases all they like but they cannot get an outcome because of the deficiencies in the Trade Practices Act. That is the issue the government has to fix—not the opposition.
But can I take the parliamentary secretary to another issue, and that goes to revenue from fuel taxes. We heard some debate in the House today about various views on the extent to which the government is taking GST revenue compared with the extent to which excise has fallen as a result of the 7c reduction in excise in 2000 and the subsequent freezing of the excise component. The Treasurer bandied some figures around in question time today. Is the parliamentary secretary prepared to table—if not now, at some future time—further detail on the submission that the Treasurer was making in the House?
168
18:37:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—A point of clarification—did the Treasurer table it? I thought you mentioned—
168
18:37:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—The Treasurer used two figures today: roughly speaking, $10 billion raised in GST from fuel taxes since the changes and about $11 billion forgone in excise because of the changes there. It was very short on detail. I thought the parliamentary secretary at some point might be able to get us a more detailed explanation of what the Treasurer was saying in question time today.
169
18:37:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—To the member for Hunter—I am sure that it was the Prime Minister who referred to that in question time today. So, no, I cannot provide anything that the Treasurer said.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—I remind the Main Committee that the time agreed to for this section is up.
169
18:38:00
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
0
Mr FITZGIBBON
—Just one minute, Mr Deputy Speaker. It may have been the Prime Minister answering a dorothy dixer, but the figures the Prime Minister was relying upon almost certainly came from Treasury. I would have thought it was the parliamentary secretary’s responsibility to take my request on board and table those figures at his earliest possible convenience.
169
18:38:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—The question was: could I table the details that the Treasurer presented in the House today. No, I cannot do that, I am sorry—the Prime Minister presented them.
169
18:38:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—Could I reframe the question that the shadow minister just framed to the parliamentary secretary, and ask whether he could supply the figures that the Prime Minister gave in question time today from sources within the Treasury department, and give me that information, please?
169
18:39:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I would be happy to. What the Prime Minister provided is in Hansard, but if there is any further information that I can provide to the member for Shortland—and through her to the member for Hunter, I am sure—I would be very happy to do that. I will investigate what I can provide to you, if there is any such thing. But I refer you to Hansard—I am sure they will have the precise figures the PM mentioned.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Finance and Administration Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $2,635,250,000
169
18:40:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I am very glad that the Special Minister of State is here representing the Minister for Finance and Administration this evening, because my first questions relates to a matter I know is very close to his heart—the sale, or rather the abandoned sale, of the Snowy Hydro Scheme. The government has announced that it will not be proceeding with the sale; however, this has not been communicated, I do not think, to the House. I cannot recall the Prime Minister making a statement to the House to that effect, although public statements have certainly been made. So I was wondering if I could give the minister the opportunity this evening to explain to the chamber the government’s rationale for not proceeding with the sale of the Snowy Hydro.
169
18:41:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—I refer the member for Prospect to the press conference that the Prime Minister and I gave on the Friday morning a couple of weeks ago, whatever date that was, with the detail of the government’s announcement. The federal government, as the member for Prospect may or may not be aware, had a 13 per cent stake in Snowy Hydro. The federal government was not in a position to privatise Snowy Hydro; the only government that was in a position to privatise Snowy Hydro was the New South Wales government. In fact, it was the New South Wales government that made an announcement in December all on its own, without any reference to the federal government or the Victorian government, that it would sell its 58 per cent shareholding and privatise Snowy Hydro. Consequently, a month or two later, the Australian government and the Victorian government agreed that they would sell their shareholdings. I emphasise that the original announcement by the New South Wales government was not conditional upon the sale of the Commonwealth’s 13 per cent and the Victorian government’s 29 per cent; it was a unilateral decision. As a shareholder of only 13 per cent, the Australian government was not running this privatisation.
After listening to the Australian electorate, in a very broad sense, the Australian government came to a decision that we would not proceed with the sale of our 13 per cent. So the only decision that the Australian government made was not to sell that 13 per cent. There was no reason for us to assume that New South Wales would do anything other than continue with selling their 58 per cent, given that they had made the announcement unilaterally in the first place and it was not conditional on the sale of other governments’ shareholdings. Strangely, an hour or so before the Australian government’s decision was announced, the New South Wales Premier made a very forceful case on radio that his government would proceed with their majority shareholding; however, within about 15 minutes of the Prime Minister’s announcement, the Premier had changed his mind. People can make what they like of that. I think he said ‘pulling the rug out’ from under the sale about 20 times in the space of a couple of minutes, which was also a perplexing statement, given that the New South Wales government had made the original decision on their own.
But this discussion happening in the chamber is with respect to the appropriations bills, which is what I thought we were here for, and I can inform the chamber that there was $13.7 million provided for in 2006-07 to meet the external costs associated with the Australian government’s sale of its 13 per cent shareholding in Snowy Hydro Ltd. With that decision not to proceed with the sale, Finance will return the unspent funds to the budget.
170
18:45:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I note that appropriations is an opportunity for wide-ranging questions on matters that appear in the budget papers. I note that the Special Minister of State stated that a very significant factor in the government’s decision was public opposition to the sale of Snowy Hydro and, as he indicated, this was said by both him and the Prime Minister at their press conference. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether the government will be paying as much cognisance to public opposition when it comes to considering and putting through legislation for the sale of Medibank Private and whether they will be reconsidering their decision to privatise all of Telstra, given the massive public opposition to both those sales, which are equal to if not greater than the public opposition across the country to the sale of the Snowy Hydro Scheme.
170
18:45:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—The government will not be changing their position on the further privatisation of Telstra, and we have made announcements in relation to Medibank Private. There are very different circumstances between the three assets—Telstra, Medibank Private and Snowy Hydro—and I think that has been debated quite substantially in the public arena.
170
18:46:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Still on the sale of Snowy Hydro, has the minister’s attention been drawn to comments by Mr Ivor Ries of EL Ballieu, stockbrokers, on Radio National on 2 June, when he referred to the aborted sale of Snowy Hydro? He said:
Well, it’s obviously going to make Telstra a lot harder to sell. You know, because the Government can flip-flop around on policy on a day-to-day basis it’ll significantly decrease foreign investor confidence in Government policy here. So I guess it’s devalued Telstra.
Can the minister inform the House whether the Department of Finance and Administration has prepared any projections or estimations as to whether the revenue from the sale of Telstra has been adversely affected by the decision to abort the sale of Snowy Hydro?
171
18:47:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—I am not aware of the comments of that one stockbroker on that one radio program. Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of being able to sit around listening to a lot of Radio National programs. I emphasise that it is obviously the view of one stockbroker. If you ask the opinion of half-a-dozen lawyers, economists or stockbrokers on something, you might get eight or nine different views. That is probably the case in this situation as well. I am not aware of anything being done by the department along the lines mentioned by the member for Prospect, but if there is any further information that I can provide, I will.
171
18:48:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the minister. I am sure the House appreciates that he will take that on notice and get back to us if any such projections exist. I turn now to a different matter—that is, the matter of the government members secretariat. I have a series of questions about this and the allocation by the Department of Finance and Administration for it. Firstly, could the minister inform the House of the reasoning for the government members secretariat being located in the office of the Chief Government Whip instead of where it used to be in the ministerial office?
171
18:48:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—My understanding is that those matters were decisions of the Prime Minister.
171
18:49:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Can I clarify that the minister is not in a position to indicate to the House the reasoning for it being located in the Chief Government Whip’s office? Isn’t he in a position to confirm or deny that it is because the Chief Government Whip is not subject to FOI?
171
18:49:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—My understanding is that the functions of the government members secretariat fall within the responsibility of the Chief Government Whip, and those administrative arrangements are matters that the Prime Minister determined at the time.
171
18:49:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I wonder whether the minister is in a position to inform us now, or if not to report back to the House, on the location issues of the government members’ secretariat in sitting weeks and non-sitting weeks and, in particular, whether the department of finance encourages or allows staff members of the government secretariat to work out of government members’ electorate offices in other states in non-sitting weeks and help them in the preparation of public materials, newsletters and such from their electorate offices as opposed to their Parliament House location.
171
18:50:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—As I said, the function involving the day-to-day management of the government members’ secretariat falls under the responsibility of the Chief Government Whip. But if there is any other information that I am able to provide, then I will do so.
172
18:50:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I appreciate that, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that it does fall under the Chief Government Whip. However, it is an allocation from the department of finance, and I am sure the department of finance would be aware of the location issues of the government members’ secretariat and, given the government’s commitment to public accountability and transparency, I am sure there would be no problem in reporting back to the House.
I would like to now move on to the matter of media monitoring. In 2004-05 the bill for media monitoring in ministers’ offices and departments was over $8 million. It is of some considerable concern to me that a lot of these media monitoring costs will be ministers’ offices and departments ordering exactly the same clips or asking to see exactly the same shots of the news. Does the department of finance, as the department responsible for minimising unnecessary government expenditure, have a protocol or a requirement to ensure that unnecessary duplication of media monitoring does not occur?
172
18:52:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I will inquire as to whether there is any particular information I can give in that regard. I would assume that individual departments would work with their relevant minister in relation to media monitoring for the individual departments and ministries and that they would be responsible for the costs and budget allocations et cetera within each individual department. I doubt that it is something that is done right across all ministries but, if there is further information that I can provide, I will.
172
18:52:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the minister. I would like to now move on to another matter. On 13 June the Australian National Audit Office released a report entitled Internet Security in Australian Government Agencies. Again, the Department of Finance and Public Administration will hopefully play a key role in implementing the recommendations of that report. Is the minister aware of the report and is he aware of what happened to a very similar report which the ANAO released in 2001 which made essentially the same sort of recommendations five years ago that we have seen from the report this week? What steps did the department take to implement the 2001 report, which the ANAO finds largely were not implemented, and what steps will the department take to ensure that the 2006 report is actually implemented so that we cannot expect to see another report in 2011 making the same recommendations that they did 10 years previously?
172
18:54:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—I am aware of the report and have some responsibility in this process because the Australian Government Information Management Office, AGIMO, falls within my direct responsibility as Special Minister of State. So I am well aware of the report and I could say that some of the findings of that report are a bit disappointing given the recommendations from a few years ago.
The whole internet security area is very much a changing area. We know how technology is changing dramatically, almost weekly, and that raises some fairly substantial challenges in e-security areas. The member for Prospect can be assured that we will be taking up their recommendations. In fact we have already started to work on that. I think the government and the department are much better placed now than they were a few years ago to deal with these matters. AGIMO is already working on these recommendations. The member can be assured that they will be implemented.
173
18:55:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I would like to take the minister to the issue of government advertising and the indication in estimates that $250 million has been allocated for government advertising in the financial year 2006-07, a substantial increase from financial year 2005-06. Can the minister indicate whether the government has any forward projections as to the timing of this advertising, particularly in relation to the latter half of 2007? Is it expected that advertising will increase over 2007 and perhaps peak somewhere around October 2007?
173
18:56:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is probably a question that should have been asked as part of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I do chair the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications but that falls within the responsibility of Prime Minister and Cabinet. No, I cannot provide the information that he has asked for now and I do not know whether I can. He referred to a particular figure out of Senate estimates. My recollection is that there were some figures thrown around by senators in Senate estimates. I am not sure whether anybody was able to determine where those figures came from. I suspect that they were figures grasped out of the air by opposition senators during that estimates process.
Individual departments make decisions about their particular campaigns that they are running, whether it be issues related to health, skin cancer and those sorts of campaigns, which they are doing at any particular time. But the timing is individual within the departments. For instance, people would be aware of the advertisements running at the moment for Welfare to Work. Those were obviously timed quite appropriately to inform people about the changes in legislation that come into effect on 1 July. You do not start doing that six months before, but by the same token you do not start doing it on the day that the changes take place. So that was appropriately timed for very proper reasons—so that people understood that there was a change coming up in legislation and that it would come into effect on 1 July. The timing for each of those particular advertising campaigns is very much a matter for the individual departments.
The Minister for Human Services has joined us. He was one of the ministers responsible for that Welfare to Work campaign, to make sure that people are well aware of the legislative changes. So, to further answer the member’s question, individual departments and the particular information they need to provide and the timing of it will be determined by them and not by government in any sort of total sense. The Ministerial Committee on Government Communications responds to individual departments’ requirements for providing that information.
173
18:59:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I note that we are just about out of time and that the Minister for Human Services has arrived. I am sure we do not want to keep him waiting, but I would like to deal with one last matter before we move on. I wish to acknowledge that I am not sure who actually has responsibility for this, but I am interested in the staffing arrangements for parliamentary secretaries. In particular, I am interested in who approves the staffing arrangements for parliamentary secretaries—whether it is the Special Minister of State, the Minister for Finance and Administration or some other minister. To assist the minister, I am particularly interested in the staffing allocation for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs receives more staff than some government ministers and more staff than anybody on the opposition side other than the Leader of the Opposition himself. What process did the parliamentary secretary have to go through to justify his very significant level of staffing, to whom did he have to justify that—whether it was the minister at the table or some other minister—and what was the justification?
174
19:01:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—I probably should refer the member for Prospect to the Hansard of Senate estimates, because I think the member for Prospect is simply trawling over the same things that were trawled through in Senate estimates. I make the point that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has a substantial responsibility and is certainly very different from other parliamentary secretaries in that respect. Ultimately, staff allocations to ministers and to parliamentary secretaries lie with the Prime Minister.
174
19:02:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure if you want to keep going on finance.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Yes, I am quite happy for that to happen.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I want to ask the Special Minister of State about the Department of Finance and Administration guidelines on procurement, specifically as they relate to small business. The department of finance guidelines require all government agencies to pay small businesses their bills within 30 days of receiving a proper invoice and, of course, the goods. The department of finance, as I understand it from answers to me, does not keep those records for itself and certainly does not appear to enforce the keeping of the records or the compliance of other government departments with the policy. I do not expect the minister to be able to answer this immediately, but could he undertake with the department of finance to review the operation of the procurement guidelines and ensure that not only his own department complies with its own guidelines but other government departments comply with them as well?
174
19:03:00
Nairn, Gary, MP
OK6
Eden-Monaro
LP
Special Minister of State
1
0
Mr NAIRN
—I am happy to get some additional information on procurement. I encourage the member for Prospect to look at the e-procurement guidelines that I announced and the department released just recently so that he can see what we are doing from a procurement point of view to give some guidance to various departments in the way in which they do procurement electronically. With respect to the other matters you raised, I am happy to follow them up. What I will find is that this level of government is a hell of a lot better at paying its bills than certain other levels of government. In particular, a state health department was holding out on some of my small business people for 90 days and more. It is just appalling that a state health department would not pay its bills for 90 days or more. We will not be taking any guidelines from state departments, that’s for sure, if we review or do anything at a federal level with respect to paying small businesses.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I thank the minister for taking that further question. The Main Committee will now consider the Department of Human Services.
174
19:04:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I have some questions for the Minister for Human Services about his announcement today about the investigation of child support payers—or nonpayers. In particular, I listened this morning to his interview with John Laws, which I think he did while driving to Canberra through the fog and which I listened to while driving to Canberra through the fog. I am sure we both had our eyes on the road and were not likely to crash into each other as he was talking and I was listening! I note that the report in the Australian today leads with:
A crack team of investigators will spy on divorced dads who cry poor to avoid paying child support ...
This is the reporting of it. I want to ask the minister to clarify whether it is also the case that the investigators will look at the finances and the situation of recipients of child support who may be underestimating their own income, not just at the payers or nonpayers. Is it or is it not the case that people who have claimed a certain income and claimed payment from the other party based on that income will also have their situation examined by these investigators?
175
19:06:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—The assessment of the cost of raising a child under the existing formula is based on the payer’s income. If there is a default, the default lies with the payer, not the payee. That is because it is the payer who is not meeting their legal obligations, which are based on their income. Of course, from 1 July 2008, the formula will change. This is the fundamental principle. Currently, the formula is based on the payer’s income. From 1 July 2008, the formula will be based on the cost of raising the children. This is a substantial change which should address many of the complaints. If people are defrauding the system in relation to a payee’s income, we are happy to look at that, but my understanding is that the formula is based on the payer’s income, the non-custodial parent’s income, and that is the income that we are going to be looking at.
175
19:07:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I should have said at the outset that I do welcome the minister’s announcement today. Any of us, as members of parliament, would have custodial parents coming through our electorate offices with stories of not being able to receive payments from the non-custodial parent, and I am sure that we have all heard the stories of non-custodial parents pretending to have no income and, frankly, dodging their payments. So I do think the Minister for Human Services has made a step in the right direction.
I wonder if the minister could indicate how many staff in the Child Support Agency are currently dedicated to investigating non-custodial parents who are avoiding their legal obligations and avoiding the payment of child support. I know that the majority of investigations at the moment are deskbound, rather than the staff going out and doing proactive investigations, but I am just interested to know what sort of an increase this is and how big a change this is going to make in tracking down non-paying non-custodial parents.
175
19:08:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I should add for clarification that I am reminded of the fact that a custodial parent’s income comes into the formula when it hits about $40,000, I think it is. So—in order to provide clarity—we still are not looking at that particular area, because it is not deemed to be the high-risk area at this stage. However, of course there will be another look at the application of the current formula once a custodial parent’s income exceeds $40,000.
In relation to the other matter, I would need to get advice. I am happy to provide an answer to the member for Prospect on the current number of CSA staff that focus on enforcement. I will add that we estimate that this year 40,000 non-custodial parents claimed to have no income and receive no welfare. They are the low-hanging fruit, if you like, that represent the people that will be targeted. I estimated on radio today that 90 to 95 per cent of those people were male. In fact, it is 88 or 89 per cent. Overwhelmingly, they are male—although not all are—thus the phrase ‘deadbeat dads’. I should emphasise that there are around 690,000 payers and, of the 690,000 payers, the high-risk ones represent between 40,000 and 70,000. The number referred to the Australian Taxation Office this coming year because they have failed to lodge tax returns might get up to about 100,000. That automatically raises a question about whether they are telling the truth about their income.
There is no joy in this for the government. I want to emphasise that. I get no great joy out of chasing people to pay their debts to their children. But it is a debt to their children. It is their flesh and blood, and they have an obligation to contribute to the cost of raising their own flesh and blood—their own children. There is nothing nice, successful or enjoyable about the breakdown of a relationship. The entire focus of what we do is on the welfare of the children. That is the clear intention of the child support act. That is the motivation for the activity of the Child Support Agency. It is a very tough issue. But, every time we undertake surveillance and every time we undertake court action, we do it on behalf of the children. We do not do it on behalf of an angry mother. We do not do it on behalf of an angry father. We do it on behalf of the children. That is our clear focus.
My advice is that this is the first time we have gone down a path of surveillance. It has been sporadic if it has been undertaken in the past, and this is the first time we have allocated significant resources. We have allocated $143 million over four years to better compliance. It is part of the Parkinson package. There will be arguments from both men and women that the new Parkinson formula either advantages them or disadvantages them. It seems as though this parliament can never get the formula exactly right, because of the over 800,000 cases that the CSA has. Every single case is different. There is different income to the household; there are different relationships, as a mother or a father might be repartnered; there are different custodial arrangements; there are different locations in Australia; and there are different pressure points on the financial arrangements. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to frame a formula that is going to satisfy everyone. It is very difficult. Inevitably, whenever the relationship breaks down, there are incredible emotions involved.
Again, I want to emphasise that what we are doing is targeting those people who are clearly trying to hide their income. There are people out there who try and do it, mainly through so-called self-employment. There are others who choose—I think rather unwisely—to park assets in the name of a new partner, which is courageous behaviour for individuals. If they are using legal structures to try and disguise assets then we will try to find out whether those legal avenues are in fact robust enough to withstand the scrutiny of the courts. We are also introducing a number of other measures, including a significant increase in the number of people who are stopped at airports from leaving the country if they have a debt to the Child Support Agency. I think that is a very powerful tool. We also have a very powerful tool in our referral of cases to the ATO for further investigation.
176
19:14:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—Minister, if I am reading the figures correctly, it is estimated that there are currently approximately 105,000 people who are using self-employment and cash income to understate their income. It is also estimated that an additional 1,800 parents a year will face scrutiny under the minister’s announcement. I am not sure whether that includes the 300 who do at the moment or if it is on top of that number. Regardless, on my calculations, that is a little over one per cent of the people who it is alleged are or who are thought to be understating their income. Could the minister inform the House in general terms what process will be used to determine which of the 105,000 people will face this scrutiny? Will it be based on complaints from their former partner? Will there be a formula which the CSA will develop to identify those most likely to be identifiable as rorting their payments? Clearly, with 105,000 potential candidates for surveillance and only 1,800 who will be subject to it, there is a large degree of room to move in determining who receives the attention.
177
19:16:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—The surveillance initiative is the one which has attracted the most media attention, not surprisingly. We hope that there will be greater focus on other areas, such as greater collection of information by existing enforcement officers and the fact that we have the power, which I referred to a little bit earlier, in relation to stopping people at airports. I would rather not give the member for Prospect a box and dice description of how we target people for defrauding the system, but it is fair to say there are certain indicators that will become immediately apparent.
Data matching plays a significant role in that. Data matching between CSA and Centrelink and between CSA and the tax office provide a significant basis upon which investigations can be undertaken. To give an example, it is highly likely that a non-custodial parent paying only $5 a week to support all of their children—not one child, but all of their children—will be on Newstart. Therefore, if it is reported that they have a lavish lifestyle: perhaps they are driving a Porsche and living in Sandy Bay, Toorak or Mosman—
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
—North Sydney?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—In North Sydney—absolutely. My constituents are in no way protected from this scrutiny, I can assure you. If they are living a very lavish lifestyle, claiming Centrelink payments and paying only $5 a week to support their children then obviously a flag would be waved that would cause us to undertake further investigations. There will be processes put in place that will reflect current practice to some degree but will also represent new activities.
177
19:19:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I take the minister to the form of employment of these new investigators. The minister has told me before in answers to questions on notice in relation to Centrelink that Centrelink surveillance is primarily contracted out. There are a range of private investigation firms that are used for that purpose. I do not have a problem with that at all, but if I read this announcement correctly—and I have only read the media reports; I am not on the minister’s email list for his press release, if there was one issued—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I am sure there is. If I read and interpret the reports correctly, these new surveillance officers will be employed in house rather than be contracted out. That would seem to involve a significant degree of skill, training and equipment. I wonder whether the department or Centrelink has engaged in a cost-benefit analysis of conducting this sort of surveillance in house or of contracting it out to private investigation firms.
177
19:20:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Off the top of my head, I could not give an answer to that. Logic suggests that it should be contracted out; it probably will be. I have no desire to set up a government surveillance team or to train people in surveillance. Public servants have other skills and I do not think they are the sorts of skills that we should particularly develop, but I have not gone to that level of detail.
177
19:20:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—The minister referred in his remarks to stopping people from going overseas, which again is a welcome initiative. I wonder whether the minister could provide the House with information, tonight or on notice, as to how many non-custodial parents who have an outstanding debt with the Child Support Agency are living overseas already and how many of these cases are being actively followed by the Child Support Agency.
This matter is of some particular concern in my electorate, where there is a high degree of people from a non-English speaking background. When a relationship or a marriage breaks down, it is not unusual for one parent to return overseas and the children usually remain in Australia—and these issues do arise from time to time. I am interested in knowing how big a problem this is and whether the new initiative announced by the minister will in any way deal with that. Obviously, there are difficulties in conducting surveillance overseas, but does he have any strategies, either in this announcement or separately, to deal with the matter of overseas non-payers; and, if he does, what might they be?
178
19:22:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—That is a very detailed question. I stand to be corrected, but I understand that each year 1,800 people with a debt to the Child Support Agency are prevented from leaving the country. We expect that number to increase quite significantly as a result of this new initiative. Do not hold me to the exact figure of 1,800, but it is about that number. As for language barriers, I am sure they would be addressed. Stopping someone from leaving the country is not an easy process, as I am sure the member would be aware, but it is done as a matter of last resort. Obviously, with this new initiative we will expand that program.
178
19:23:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I would now like to move on to the matter of the smartcard. My first question to the minister is whether the cost estimate of $1.1 billion projected to 2010 is still accurate in his mind.
178
19:23:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—There is no reason to change that estimate.
178
19:23:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I thank the minister. I wonder whether the minister could share with the House, in some reasonably but not overly detailed way, how the government projects that the $1.1 billion will be recovered. As I understand it, the government’s position is that the smartcard will be cost neutral and, therefore, that $1.1 billion will be saved through other mechanisms. I wonder whether the minister could share with us exactly how that $1.1 billion is expected to be saved through the operation of the smartcard.
178
19:24:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—In the last two weeks I released a summary of the KPMG business case. KPMG estimates that, over 10 years, the savings will be up to $3 billion. The starting point is fraud and overwhelmingly that $3 billion will be in the area of fraud. We do suffer the difficulty that people do attempt to use—obviously sometimes successfully—a number of created identities in order to claim benefits, particularly from Centrelink.
We have a challenge based on advice that I have received that the current health care cards and pensioner concession cards are not robust and are very susceptible to fraud. The information I received, for example, is that 80 per cent of the PBS is claimed by people with concession cards and that 25 per cent of all concession cards are cancelled prior to the expiry date on the card. That, in itself, represents a concern that people might be using concession cards even though for various reasons they are no longer entitled to the concession. That is one reason why the access card will replace 17 cards and vouchers, and a number of those cards are concession cards. Currently, the government has no way of immediately and remotely cancelling a concession entitlement when it is claimed by an individual presenting an existing card.
I have seen various estimates from a range of sources claiming that the biggest beneficiaries of this will be the states, because they are the ones that give significant concession to individuals on public transport and assistance with rent, electricity, water and in a range of other areas. They base most of that concession entitlement on the Commonwealth cards, and yet they face the same challenge that we do—that is, that those cards are not robust and secure and we do not have the capacity to cancel the entitlement. Let me give you an example. A single parent might be on a single parent’s pension and receive a pensioner concession card. Then, for one reason or another, their assets have increased or their circumstances have changed such that they are no longer entitled to that card. Whilst we can cancel the entitlement from our end, it could be the case that they continue to present the card to get discounts for everything from the PBS to movie tickets. We just do not know.
KPMG provided the estimate of up to $3 billion. That is the financial benefit of the card, but it is the convenience benefit that will be most significant for individuals. The fact is, for example, that 600,000 people, according to KPMG, are turned away from Centrelink every year because they bring insufficient proof of identity information when they roll up to Centrelink. I know that Medicare send out 50,000 letters a year to people who have incorrectly filled out their name and address on a Medicare claim form. That, to me, is the icing on the cake. In fact, it is more than that; it is the carrot on the carrot cake. It represents a convenience to individuals that people have been yearning for but have been unable to obtain. I see that as the real and significant benefit of the access card.
179
19:29:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I ask the minister to clarify this. What is not clear to me in the $3 billion savings is how they are specifically related to the smartcard. Is there not double-counting between the savings that are projected from the smartcard and other general antifraud and compliance measures? I wonder whether the minister can confirm that the $3 billion over 10 years is specifically and directly related to the introduction of the smartcard.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Yes.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—I cannot ask for better than that.
179
19:29:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Sorry, I can help here. Understand that Human Services will deliver $1,000 billion in payments over the next 10 years. Currently we deliver around $92 billion. This year alone our detected fraud will be at around $2 billion. We prosecute around 10 people per day for trying to defraud the health and welfare system. So when KPMG advises us that it is up to $3 billion I personally believe that that is a very conservative figure. I think it will be far greater than that. If we accept the $3 billion figure, that $3 billion represents 0.3 per cent of the money we will distribute over the next 10 years. International benchmarks suggest that fraud is averaging around four to six per cent in health and welfare services. I saw a report I think from Deloittes earlier on that suggested that fraud internationally is around that figure. We are taking very conservative approaches to all these figures. So 0.3 per cent as a saving in relation to the access card I think is quite a conservative figure.
179
19:32:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—The minister has referred in his remarks to the KPMG report on the smartcard. He indicated in the lead-up to the release of the report that certain sections would be marked ‘commercial-in-confidence’, which the opposition expected and does not have a major problem with. But when he released the report not only were certain sections marked ‘commercial-in-confidence’ others were marked ‘cabinet-in-confidence’. I know the minister will not want to go into detail, because if he did he would not have marked it ‘cabinet-in-confidence’, but I wonder whether he could inform the House in a general way why certain parts were marked ‘cabinet-in-confidence’, which is not what the opposition was expecting and certainly not I think what the public would expect for a publicly funded report.
180
19:32:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—Because it was a cabinet document.
180
19:33:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—The whole document was a cabinet document, but only certain sections were marked ‘cabinet-in-confidence’. Clearly there is a reason why some was released and some was not.
180
19:33:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—The member for Prospect should be happy that he received some information from a cabinet-in-confidence document.
180
19:33:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—The minister has been doing very well tonight, but he lapsed into Howard government arrogance just then. He has been cooperative, he has been transparent but now the Howard government arrogance pops in: ‘You are lucky you are getting any. The taxpayer has paid for it, but be lucky you are getting any. Be grateful that we are telling you anything. Be grateful that we are telling you just a little bit about what is in this KPMG report.’ Given that he says we are lucky to receive any of the KPMG report, can I ask him when we might be receiving the Clayton Utz privacy impact statement?
180
19:34:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I emphasise that the KPMG report—I sigh because this has been going on for a while and it is becoming a little predictable, but we are moving on—was part of the advice the government received together with departmental advice and a range of sources of advice in relation to the decision to move forward. Given the level of expenditure involved, I thought it appropriate to release the basic information out of the business case from KPMG, as you correctly identified. There was information there that is sensitive to the tender process. It is a very significant IT tender process, and I do not think we should be giving any of the tenderers a free kick.
In relation to the privacy impact assessment, as I have said, the advice received from Clayton Utz and others was essentially made redundant because the nature of the project changed according to the decision of cabinet. For example, there was a robust public debate about an ID card, and cabinet rejected the proposal for a national ID card. As the Prime Minister said in the press conference the day after ANZAC Day, when we announced the proposal to proceed with the card, we took the view that Australia does not want or need a national identity card. This a very different proposition from a national ID card. Anyone who is familiar with national ID cards around the world would accept that.
There was a range of different sources of information—including, I might add, the Privacy Commissioner, who obviously has far more experience and was well across the brief. She helped us to address some of the privacy issues. I might say that the end product, the access card, will have less information in the chip than sits in your wallet today. It will not have as much on it as a drivers licence. Let me give you a real example. My New South Wales drivers licence—which the local Video Ezy store has a photocopy of—has on the face of it a photo, a name, an address and a date of birth and it has my signature. This card, on the face of it, will have only your photo and your name. It might have your signature on the back of it. In the chip, the only mandatory fields will essentially be your name, your address, your date of birth and pensioner concession and so on. It might have a signature as well. Those fields are readily available for the government now, obviously—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—So why are we doing it?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—We are doing it because this is a more robust identifier, and the challenge we have—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—For a billion dollars!
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Yes, and if you were here earlier you would have heard that the savings to individuals and the savings to taxpayers far outweigh the costs of implementing this project. I know it is going to be difficult for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to grasp the details of this, but there is actually strong demand in the community for this initiative. If she asks why we are going down the route of smart card technology, perhaps she could ask her state Labor counterparts, all of whom are proceeding with smart card technology—some not so spectacularly, I might add, because they are promising projects that are far greater than are actually deliverable. The fact is that the Queensland government is rolling out a smart card drivers licence in 2008. It will probably be out there before we have our own health and welfare services access card in the marketplace.
181
19:39:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—I must say the minister’s response on the privacy impact statement was quite disappointing. On the one hand he says that it is redundant; on the other hand he says that there is commercial-in-confidence information in there which we cannot possibly share. Either it is redundant or it is not. If it is redundant, what is the harm in releasing it? If there is commercial-in-confidence information in there, I would submit, with respect, that he could do the same thing he did with the KPMG report: mark certain parts as commercial-in-confidence and release those parts which are not commercial-in-confidence.
We have been going for 45 minutes and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education are here. I would like to ask one last question. I think it was on Friday that Professor Fels issued his report and warned:
To prevent it becoming a de facto ID card, there should be a prohibition on anyone compelling people to produce it.
I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation to prohibit compelling production of the card. As I understand it, the government has indicated that is their position, but it would be helpful if it could be enshrined in law.
181
19:40:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Mr HOCKEY
—I am a little disappointed that the member for Wills is not here. He tends to ask these questions through press releases. I am sure he has deferred to someone more capable under these circumstances. Professor Fels is a living, breathing privacy impact assessment.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen
—Are you going to do what he says?
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—I have a great deal of respect for Professor Fels, as does the Australian community. I obviously listen to everything that he says and take heed of certain things. Let me assure you of this: I did not invite him to take the position of head of the consumer and privacy task force with a flippant disregard for his ability to provide independent, sometimes courageous, advice. We were aware of that. That is because we are taking this issue very seriously. We do not want to see this project derailed by some fringe groups making extravagant claims about the impact on individual privacy. It is just not true. This is not just a rollout of a card; it is a rollout of infrastructure. It is going to be rolled out in a rather unstoppable way by the state governments, by the banking system. Credit card companies already do it with ANZ. They already have a smart card.
Let me explain the fundamental principle here. The fundamental principle is that the magnetic strip on the back of your cards is not safe. It is easily skimmed. The information sitting on that magnetic strip is not as robust as a computer chip in a card. It is a simple fact. Computer chips are more robust. We are not suggesting for a moment that it is a honey pot. We are not suggesting for a moment that it should be the all-encompassing identifier. In fact, I would strongly argue against it being treated by people as a 100-point identifier. I do not want that to occur; otherwise it may be argued that it is an ID card.
But there will be some people that will want to present it for identification purposes, such as when they are picking up an electronic ticket at an airport. A lot of aged Australians do not have drivers licences and have said they want to be able to present something when they are asked to provide proof of identity at various points. I think the issue raised about this being an alternative form of identification is a reasonable point. Some people might want to use it to make up a certain number of points to be able to open a bank account.
I would strongly argue that there is a strong case for us to have legislation that ensures it is certainly not to be the only demanded identifier. That is quite a compelling argument. This is so that, for example, if you want to open a bank account, it cannot be the case that the bank can say, ‘You can either present your access card or you don’t open a bank account.’ I think there is a reasonable point to be made that we could legislate to avoid that occurring. But it could be used as part of the process.
The key thing about it is that, for individuals that apply for the card, we will have a biometric identifier in the form of a photo that is more robust than any identifier out there at the moment. Even passport photos can be submitted by individuals rather than having the photo taken in the passport office. This will be a robust identifier for individuals.
Identity theft is regarded as the biggest threat to individual liberty at the moment—that is the global consumer reaction, and you will see more information about that in the next few days. I see this as a form of secure identity for individuals—for me or others. The other point to note about this card is that the individual controls the card. If a person wants to put additional information on the card, such as that they have an allergy to penicillin, instead of having a wristband there could be a field that can only be seen by medical practitioners that readily identifies that they have a medical condition. These are the sorts of issues that I want discussed publicly and that is why I have engaged Professor Fels. I am glad that the opposition are engaging in the debate.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Education, Science and Training Portfolio
Proposed expenditure, $2,794,953,000.
183
19:46:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I want to start today with some questions about a matter that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education made public today—that is, he intends changing the name of the New Apprenticeships scheme to Australian Apprenticeships. I saw reported in the Adelaide Advertiser that the government intends to spend $24 million. I would appreciate it if the minister could tell us if that figure is correct. If it is, has the government decided to spend all of that money in this budget year, 2006-07? If that is the case, where is that identified in the budget papers?
183
19:47:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am pleased the member for Jagajaga asked about this matter, because we want to create an enormous amount of prestige about the Australian Apprenticeships system. We want to put this very clearly in the minds of parents and those who support young people as they make their choices about the further studies they might undertake and the training they might want to undertake. For most states, year 10 is the year where students make some decisions about taking on Australian school based apprenticeships in years 11 and 12, with employers taking them on as part-time employees and where their academic studies and training matches the overall requirements of advancing in the elementary parts of trades as well as, obviously, completing academic studies.
We want to create a very clear impression, particularly in the work that is being done through the Council of Australian Governments, that a credential gained in one state carries a weight of recognition across all states. It has been some 10 years since the government’s New Apprenticeships program was launched. We now know that we can have a truly national training system, given the agreement with the states and territories last year, which was recently re-endorsed just 10 days ago at the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education.
What is in a name? Essentially, the short answer is that the name Australian Apprenticeships says it all. Obviously, our ambition is to get the word out about exactly what that means—to reinforce the decision making that parents and those who support young people help those young people make and to create an air of prestige about it.
I saw the figure of $24 million quoted in the paper as well. I am writing to the Prime Minister to put to him very clearly our ambition to spend an appropriate amount of money not just in this year but over the years ahead, so that the resources are there in an advertising sense and to underpin our clear ambition to create this sense of prestige. My point is that there is nothing in the budget that will reflect that $24 million. There is money that is appropriated, as there regularly is, for marketing exercises underpinning all of this department’s programs. I am seeking further assistance from the Prime Minister, which would be the appropriate way for a minister to do it, and I will wait until the Prime Minister writes back with his agreement to that particular request.
183
19:50:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—So there is no truth to that $24 million. Is that right? If there is no truth to the $24 million—if you will just confirm that briefly—how much is the actual rebranding going to cost, the change of name from New Apprenticeships scheme to Australian Apprenticeships?
184
19:50:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—In the interests of accountability, I cannot say what the cost of any rebranding exercise is until we embark upon it. But the coincidence of the new contracts for our Australian apprenticeships service centres—or Australian apprenticeships centres, as they will be known from 1 July—gives us an opportunity to write the contract requirements, which is what we are doing, for the 30 or so new providers around this country. These are the people who tendered under the old New Apprenticeships centres program for the right to run these Australian apprenticeship centres so this gives us a ready opportunity to make certain that, as they gear up for door opening on 1 July, they will be reflecting the new program name.
The overall cost would be consistent with the kind of cost that we already see in the expenditure of moneys for marketing. In addition to that, we will obviously look for other ways to further enhance the standing of apprenticeships as a first choice. I simply say to the member for Jagajaga that the full amounts will obviously come out in time, as they would through exposure in Senate estimates and so forth. The money is not appropriated in this matter before us; it is simply a new program proposal put to the Prime Minister, the finance minister and the Treasurer, as is my wont as a minister of state.
184
19:52:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—So, in other words, the government has no idea how much this rebranding will cost. The second thing that was reported was that this new rebranding was based on research that the government has apparently had done for it. Apparently the research said that the word ‘new’ was considered daggy. Will the minister now make this research available and can he tell us who in fact conducted the research?
184
19:53:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I will seek advice on exactly who conducted the research. At the end of it, the normal approach to these things is to commission some research to set out very plainly where the positioning of items such as selling the prestige of Australian apprenticeships sits in the marketplace. My understanding is that there was some work done over the last couple of months on this. I must say, anecdotally, the state ministers are very happy about seeing the end of the word ‘new’. So, if nothing else, those who are administering apprenticeship programs around this country are quite happy to see the government act on updating the language and, indeed, reinforcing the sense of prestige and national purpose that will come with this new branding of Australian Apprenticeships.
184
19:53:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—So the question, Minister, is will the research be made available and will you provide that research to the opposition?
184
19:54:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I see no need one way or the other to make it available or not make it available. Is the opposition now proposing to be against the idea of enhancing the standing of apprenticeships?
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin interjecting—
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! Is the honourable member seeking to ask a question?
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Yes, I am.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Will you allow a question, Minister?
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am in the process of responding, as is my right in this place.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Will you make it available or not?
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I have said, I see no point one way or the other about making it available.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—That is not an answer.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! There will be no more interjections. The minister is having a go at answering the question.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I simply make the point quite plainly that our ambition in working in partnerships with the state and territory governments is to create a truly national process. But if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition now wants to run some sort of rearguard action to try to explain that 10 years after new was new that new should stay, I look forward to that policy announcement prior to the 2007 election.
185
19:55:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—The minister will not put words in my mouth. All I am doing is asking for a copy of the research. If he will not make it available in a cooperative way, we will have to pursue other methods. The minister said in his press release today that there will be major changes to Australian apprenticeships. I ask him: will the incentive system for employers be changed, and what other changes does he have in mind that will have an impact on the budget?
185
19:56:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—Outlined in the documents before us is a clear commitment from this government to employer incentives and other initiatives that outline very clearly our ongoing support for apprenticeships. At the end of it, what we are proposing is a rebadging, rebranding, refocusing, revitalisation of the standing of Australian apprenticeships in the hearts and minds of the decision makers and also the young people who make those decisions themselves. The government’s commitment—a record level of commitment—is something in the order of twice the amount—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DJC Kerr)—Would the minister permit a question?
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—Again, I am pursuing the question that has been asked by the member for Jagajaga. I am not going to take any further questions. She can wait until I have completed the answer to the first question she asked me.
The ready reality that the member for Jagajaga never seems to want to get is that the states and territories are actually talking to us and not to her. The states and territories are actually working in a cooperative way with us and are not interested in dealing with the member for Jagajaga. If she has a problem with her own party structures, which means that she is left out of the loop, that is a difficulty that the member for Jagajaga can overcome on her own investment and her own ability or otherwise.
What we are determined to do as a government is to recognise and to ensure that the record level of investment that we are placing directly in the hands of Australian businesses and Australian individuals—who already understand that the best way to invest in their business is to invest in training, and the best way to invest in themselves is to invest in training—is continued. If there is anything in the member for Jagajaga’s attempts at questioning to suggest that the government is planning to somehow or other alter its commitment to that, she is plain wrong, as she always is on any of the subjects associated with this broad discussion.
186
19:58:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—Goodness me! All I asked was, ‘Will the incentive system be changed?’ and I got that diatribe. I take it from that that the incentive system will not be changed—
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave
—That is right.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—So when you said in your press release today that there will be major changes to Australian apprenticeships in the coming months, you did not actually mean that there were going to be any. So let us put all that to one side, because plainly the government does not have any plans to make any changes other than changing the name.
If we can move to the operation of the technical colleges, first of all I want to ask some questions about some of the stand-alone Australian technical colleges. By that I mean the ones the government intends to set up as independent schools without support from either the state governments or the Catholic system. I will take the example of the proposed technical college to be set up in Townsville next year. I see the member for Herbert has just come in; I am sure he will be interested in the minister’s answers.
The minister has announced that the college will commence operations in 2007, but I just want to understand how this college is going to be financed. The current AGSRC secondary school figure is about $9,000 per student. Could the minister just confirm that that is the Australian Government School Recurrent Cost secondary school standard, about $9,000 a student? Of course, as the minister would be aware, this is a cash figure; it does not include liabilities for superannuation and so on. Nevertheless, as the minister would know, it is a conservative figure when we look at the costs of actually running a senior secondary school. We all know that students in years 11 and 12 are likely to be more expensive than that, and I would ask the minister to confirm that that is his expectation. Some people suggest that the estimates could be between 20 and 50 per cent higher than this average provided for secondary school students.
So, first of all, I would like to know what cost estimate the government actually has, particularly for these schools that are not going to have the support that will be coming to those technical colleges in cooperation with the state government system or the Catholic system. Could the minister give us an idea of the actual figure he is working to for the cost per student in these colleges, like the one in Townsville?
10000
Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Before I vacate the chair in favour of the member for Herbert, might I remind him that it is Tasmania, the electorate of Denison in particular, that is paradise, rather than the electorate of Herbert!
HK6
Lindsay, Peter, MP
Mr Lindsay interjecting—
186
20:01:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I fear that the unparliamentary observation by the member for Herbert might in fact be correct—that there could have been a misleading of the chamber! But, either way, I think it is important that each of us comes here with our own little bit of paradise at the back of our minds, even if it satisfies just ourselves!
As for the substantial nature of what the member for Jagajaga has asked, yes, that figure seems to be correct. The question, though, unfortunately underpins the fact that you have not quite worked out, Member for Jagajaga, how this program actually works. Under the process of each of the state governments, there is a requirement for the schools to be registered. Either they are registered as a result of being in a partnership with an existing state owned school or a non-government school, or indeed, as you have suggested in your question, they are registered as a brand new school. All three of those types are in fact part of the network of Australian technical colleges that is being rolled out. But they all have to be registered state by state. As a result of that, they also receive recurrent funding by agreement. Schools that are registered are tied into the school system of that state and have to deliver the curriculum that is required to satisfy whatever the end point of study happens to be in that state—in Tasmania, it is year 10; in most other states it is year 12. At the end of it, they still need to satisfy the state board of studies. They still have to follow the requirements of the state boards as far as the curricula for academic study or indeed technical training are concerned. So the basis of your question is not quite correct—the suggestion that, by some process of osmosis, a school like the one in Townsville, in the member for Herbert’s electorate, might somehow or other be treated differently.
I should add that, on top of the continuing commitment of this government, record amounts of money are going to state governments for the use, in a recurrent sense and also in a capital works sense, of schools. There are record amounts of money going into the private school sector from this government for recurrent expenditure as well as capital works. There is also a vote of money that is going to each of the consortia running the Australian technical colleges, money that goes towards both capital works and additional recurrent expenditure. So, to sum up the answer to the member for Jagajaga’s question, there is additional money. There are additional resources—$351 million over the current quadrennium.
187
20:04:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I do understand that the independent schools receive money from the Commonwealth, and I am glad that the minister has confirmed that his estimate of the secondary figure is as we expect it to be—that is, about $9,000 per student—and that he also accepts that year 11 and 12 students are more expensive. We could add on to that that VET students are even more expensive again because of the technology and so on that they require.
I will run through the figures. If this school in Townsville were to receive the same rate of Commonwealth support as a Catholic systemic school, it would be receiving about $5,200 a student. State recurrent funding would be about $2,000 a student. That gets us up to around $7,000 to $7,500 a student, so we are a bit short. The department has advised the Senate estimates committee that this college will not be charging fees. The answer to the question that we asked in Senate estimates indicates that the fees for this college will be nil. The point of all of this is that, as the minister has confirmed, secondary school students need at least $9,000 a student. For years 11 and 12, they could need an additional $2,000 a student, yet this school, by the government’s own figures, will only be getting $7,500 a student. I would ask how much extra is going to go to this school in Townsville from the Australian technical college fund per student if it is the case that they are paying nil fees.
187
20:07:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—In response to that, the figures that the member for Jagajaga has offered are perhaps an indicative example or an example indicative, if you want to look at it another way. At the end of it, the government have made it plain that no additional fees will be charged for people to attend an Australian technical college. We understand that there are fee structures already in place in line with the attendance at an existing non-government school.
The Australian government has dedicated something in the order of $19 million or $20 million to the Australian technical college in Townsville for its operating and capital works moneys over this current three-year period. On top of that, it has a tremendous amount of support from the Townsville community. The Townsville example is not isolated in this, but I have to say that I have been quite amazed by the strength of support that has come out of the Townsville community in general and, indeed, the Townsville business community towards the Australian technical college of North Queensland. It is quite amazing to think that, some six or seven months before this particular college opens, Townsville business has already committed 100-plus places for school based apprenticeships—Australian school based apprenticeships, as they will be called from 1 July. That is 100-plus employment opportunities to young people attending this school.
On top of that, the effect of the strong business contingent involved in the management of this college sees businesses such as Alexander Body Works, which have repainted one of their utilities with ‘Australian Technical College North Queensland’ I am telling everyone all around the country, ‘You should get an Alexander Body Works involved in your consortium.’ They are driving around Townsville and Thuringowa getting the word out. I have a feeling I may have to be literally beating people off with a stick, and they are going to be coming back and asking for even more money because this program is so successful and so well understood in the Townsville region. I was rather delighted that the member for Jagajaga used the Townsville example, but I would be very cautious if I was her in any attacks that she might make on the way that this college is operating or organising itself, because it has an enormous of support in the Townsville and Thuringowa region.
188
20:09:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—As you yourself would know, Mr Deputy Speaker—and as the minister knows—this is a new school, so I ask him again: is it the case that there will be no fees? It is a new school so the current fees do not apply. Is it true that there will be no fees at this school? That is the first thing. The second is that the minister has just told us that $20 million will be spent on this school. The critical question is how much of the $20 million will be spent in a recurrent way per student and how much is going on buildings?
188
20:10:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I do not have the numbers off the top of my head but I am happy to go and find those in order to account for them. But at the end of it we also believe the consortium is very well equipped, very well supported and very well able to do all that they said that they would do. I make the principal point that there is no additional fee involved in attending an Australian technical college.
188
20:10:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—So at this school there will be no fees, given there are no fees now because the school in fact does not exist—is that correct?
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr Hardgrave interjecting—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—Okay. I will go to some of the other technical colleges. Now that the minister has told us that he intends to spend $20 million at the technical college in Townsville and he has also told us, in previous announcements, that there will be $20 million spent in the Hunter and $9.6 million in Geelong, could the minister also tell us how much is being spent on the technical colleges that are already open: Gladstone, Port Macquarie, Eastern Melbourne and the Gold Coast? Could the minister tell us how much recurrent money is being spent and how much capital money is being spent?
189
20:11:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—The member for Jagajaga might be wise to put these specific questions on the Notice Paper. I am happy to try and furnish her information upon request.
189
20:11:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—The reason I am asking here, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the minister is that we have asked these questions in Senate estimates and the department refused to answer them. This is an opportunity for the minister to actually give us an answer here tonight and, if he is unable to, can I take it that the commitment he has just given is that we now will have answers to these questions?
189
20:12:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I have just said the member for Jagajaga might want to put the specific questions on the Notice Paper. I am not constantly carrying around with me the expenditure, technical college by technical college.
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Ask your advisers.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I do not need to ask my advisers because they are not carrying it either. The member for Jagajaga might be wise to understand that the varying amounts of money reflect the ambitions of each of the local communities. Each community has put a case to us about how they interpret the Australian technical college program. Each brings a different asset base, a different model and a different approach. We have entered into a contractual obligation with each of those communities. There has been a very real effort to allow each of those communities to understand that there is not a standard amount of money that is associated with it. Some simply cost more than others because of the type of programs people have put to us.
In Townsville there has been a larger commitment to the physical structures of buildings because we recognise that it is a cyclone rated area that requires quality building. A quality program of construction is underway, to the best of my knowledge. But the day-to-day dealings and all of that information actually rests in the hands of each consortium. The government is always happy to account for what those amounts are. I suspect that, as each of the amounts is expended and as each of those dollar figures is available, if the officials have not provided it at Senate estimates I might see the member for Jagajaga put it on the Notice Paper and ask me a question.
189
20:13:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—As the minister has just given a commitment to that sort of accountability, we will put it on the Notice Paper. I look forward to a comprehensive answer that sets out the commitment in both recurrent and capital terms. The other questions are related to how many apprentices will actually be enrolled in each of these technical colleges. First of all, with the colleges that have already been opened the department has provided information about how many students are already enrolled at those technical colleges, so I will not ask that again. How many of the students at the Eastern Melbourne technical college are actually enrolled in school based apprenticeships? Are all the students at the technical college actually enrolled in school based apprenticeships?
190
20:14:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I do not know the exact number of people involved in school based apprenticeships, but I do know that the eastern Melbourne consortium have an obligation, in a contractual form, to ensure that each of the students involved with the Australian Technical College East Melbourne are involved in a school based apprenticeship. They either do that at the beginning of their enrolment or, indeed, once they have achieved some of their prevocational occupational health and safety studies and those sorts of things; it depends on how the school itself is structured. Either way, the students have a commitment. The consortium also has a commitment to have those students not only in a school based apprenticeship but in a certificate III school based apprenticeship—in other words, one that reflects a real trade-based assessment. In anticipation of further questions, the one at Port Macquarie simply cannot do that.
If the member for Jagajaga were really committed to this cause, she would get on the phone to the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training—if she would take the call—and demand that she stop playing at shadow boxing on this and deliver Australian school based apprenticeship opportunities to what I would estimate are between 5,000 and 7,000 students in New South Wales. The member for Jagajaga could do that today. But the problem is—and we saw it just the other week with the rollover by the member for Brand on the question of Australian workplace agreements—that John Robertson from Unions New South Wales is running the New South Wales government and not any of the people who sit in the cabinet room.
I cannot give you the exact number of people who are involved in whatever trades or apprenticeships. But we do expect each of these consortiums, rightly, to live up to its contractual agreement to provide at least these apprenticeships. In a state like New South Wales that is quite radical. Yet every day in Queensland, the North Queensland technical college is developing itself and already has over 100 bids from employers to take on school based apprentices. I think it is amazing, when you compare that with what is happening in New South Wales.
190
20:17:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—The minister mentioned Port Macquarie, so I might now ask him a question that I want answered about Port Macquarie. The minister would be aware that St Joseph’s vocational, a school at Port Macquarie, was operating as a vocational college before it became a technical college. I understand that the school at that time had 185 students enrolled already. I ask the minister how many extra apprentices are enrolled at the four technical colleges that are currently operating? He has previously said that just under 300 students are enrolled. But is it the case that, if you remove the 185 who were at Port Macquarie already, the extra number of students in this new technical college is closer to only about 100?
190
20:18:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am just so glad that the member for Jagajaga did not become the education minister after the last election. If she had, the number of people enrolled in the Australian technical college around Australia would be zero—because there would not be such colleges. The member for Jagajaga is very churlish and very uncharitable in her approach. People in all these different places around Australia are less than impressed by her approach on this. The nonsense she has peddled about Gladstone, for instance, has gone over like a lead weighted battleship in that particular city, which has a great commitment to vocational and technical education that has been enhanced by extra funds from this government.
She would not want to show up at Port Macquarie or Taree either, because she would be tarred and feathered because of her churlish and uncharitable comments about the way that St Joseph’s vocational college is enhancing what it has done in the past. Even worse; if there were any commitment by the member opposite to school based apprenticeships, she would be joining with me and demanding that New South Wales in particular, but also Western Australia, get with the program and give the sort of opportunities that are available every day to people in Queensland and that are becoming available every day to people in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. But these sorts of opportunities seem to be a foreign concept in Western Australia, a state run by the CFMEU—with the CFMEU’s head numbers person being that state’s education minister—and in New South Wales, where Unions New South Wales refuses to allow part-time apprenticeships. Is it any wonder that businesses in New South Wales are leaving the state? I invite the member for Jagajaga to refocus her energy on joining with us on this to try to bring about and broker the change we want.
The simple reality is that currently there are over 300 school based apprenticeships, not all operating at the certificate III level because of the New South Wales intransigence and failure to update. The ambition is very clear: with over 20 colleges that should be operating come the 2007 school year, there will be over 2,000 school based apprenticeships. I suspect that by about this time next year we will see something in the order of 2½ thousand school based apprenticeships operating.
This government is actually about giving opportunity to young people. We are not about prescribing—as the Labor Party have done state by state around this country—that kids have to remain at school until they finish year 12 or kids have to remain at school until they are 17 or 18, depending on where they are, and yet not providing full range of pathways and opportunities. This government has done more to expand the notion of success that individuals can achieve by taking on the trades than those opposite ever dreamed about. They had this lazy view that training was about burying further the massive levels of unemployment. In 1993, when they trashed the training system with the recession we had to have and 30,000 people left it overnight, we saw a whole series of programs under Working Nation, which was actually all about using training to hide the real level of unemployment in this country.
All I say to the member for Jagajaga is that, if she were genuine in her inquiry this evening, she would be saying to me: ‘Minister, tell me how I can help you succeed? Minister, tell me how I can talk those silly people in state governments in New South Wales and Western Australia into getting with the program? Tell me how I can go to the union movement and say, “Hold on a second; you have no chance of growing your union membership if you don’t have people in the workforce, in the trades”?’
But the member for Jagajaga has shown that she is not genuine in this. This is all about trying to get some fodder for a press release, and I can think of all of her lines now. The sad reality for the member for Jagajaga is that I look forward to this churlish and uncharitable press release that she will put out, because all that it will do is further develop the view amongst the state ministers—and indeed amongst the constituency that she is trying to offer some shadow representation to—that in fact she knows nothing about what she is talking about.
192
20:22:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I shall take it from all of that that I am correct, that there were about 185 students already enrolled at the Port Macquarie vocational college before it became an ATC and that therefore the extra apprentices enrolled in the four ATCs that are now open are closer to about 100, because you have not corrected it and instead have decided to give us just a whole lot of waffle.
Given that he is prepared to take these questions on notice, I will just say this to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. As he would be aware, he has a piece of legislation in the chamber right at the moment. When we get to the consideration in detail stage of that bill tomorrow or the next day then he may ask his department for answers to the detailed questions that I have put to him tonight, because I intend to ask them again.
I will move on to another area of training policy, particularly the future of the industry skills councils. I ask the minister whether or not a review of the industry skills councils is currently under way, or has that review already been completed? I ask the minister: who was responsible for conducting the review? If it was external to the department, who conducted it and how much did the review cost?
192
20:24:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—The member for Jagajaga has damned herself on two fronts with the comments she has just made. The piece of legislation that she has forecast to come before the chamber again this week is an example of how successful the Australian technical colleges program has been, because it brings forward expenditure from the out years into the current year. It shows the great lie that she is trying to tell around Australia about this program. It is actually bringing money from the out years into the earlier years. It is creating the necessary financing and the flexibility in the financing that is necessary to meet the expectations of the communities that have taken up the challenge for the technical colleges.
The member for Jagajaga can try to use this forum to verbal me as much as she likes, but she knows very plainly that I have made it—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms Macklin
—Answer the question.
CK6
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
Mr HARDGRAVE
—This is not a question and answer period; this is a series of five-minute speeches. You should understand the rules of engagement. What I am prepared to do is to engage on the point that it is not reasonable to suggest that I have not answered any of your questions and inquiries. In fact, I have, but the member for Jagajaga chooses not to want to listen to the responses, because it does not suit her predetermined purpose.
With regard to the industry skills councils, this also makes my earlier point very plain—that is, obviously none of the state ministers is talking to her. At the recent Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education this subject was raised by state ministers, and they asked to be involved in the process, which, at an earlier ministerial council meeting, they had charged me to execute. Under the Skilling Australia’s Workforce Agreement, the national training agreement, there was consideration that all elements of the training system would be subject to review, including the industry skills council. My department has undertaken an extensive range of consultations with industry groups, unions and the state departments of education and training to seek their views. State ministers will be further consulted on the matter and will make some decisions later in the year. Frankly, at the end of it—and I think that one of the ministers made this point—we have to be sure that all elements of the national training system are contributing to the way the system operates. One way or another, whether or not the industry skills councils are performing their tasks is something we will make a decision on as is appropriate and that will be decided by state ministers and me. It simply proves yet again that the state ministers will not talk to the member for Jagajaga. She has no research potential other than to ask these questions. It really is quite sad how disconnected she is from the national debate on training.
193
20:27:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I will finish on a couple of indexation issues. It is disappointing that the Minister for Education, Science and Training is not here; I cannot see the point of going into any great detail on schools’ issues. But the minister may be aware that Minister Bishop has issued a number of media releases claiming that the indexation of schools recurrent programs is an average of 6.4 per cent. I ask that the minister at the table confirm that the indexation is an average of 6.4 per cent. I also ask the minister how, if that is the case, he can justify an indexation arrangement of about two per cent for vocational and technical education. Why has he been able to deliver only two per cent to vocational and technical education if schools are getting an average of 6.4 per cent?
193
20:28:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am happy to take the substantial basis of that question and report back to the member for Jagajaga in due course. At the end of it, this government, this budget and the documents before us have voted almost an extra $1 billion towards the task of higher education in schools, science and training. This is a government that has had a record level of commitment now, over the 10 years it has been in office, to a massive spending spree on education. There has never been a government like this when it comes to education, science and training as far as the level of expenditure is concerned—expenditure that is well targeted and trusts local communities. One billion dollars is to be invested in the Investing in Our Schools program, delivering to both the state school sector and the non-government sector and to the parents in those sectors a chance to invest directly in their schools.
I suspect that no matter what the member for Jagajaga might like to ask, the answer is not going to satisfy her. The government have increased expenditure in this portfolio to record numbers. We have, I think, taken upon ourselves very plainly a sense of national cooperation and national leadership. What is important from our point of view is that the states keep up, and whether the states are able to keep up with our leadership on this is an issue for individual states. It is understood that the overall partnership in training and in schools is a partnership with the state governments—constitutionally, they have direct responsibility for it. We are a part player in it but we are a part player in the sense that we can provide national leadership that can fashion national outcomes on a state-by-state basis.
193
20:30:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—Given that vocational and technical education and universities are getting indexation of two per cent it does not say much about higher education under this government. Given that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education is going to get back to me about that, I will leave that issue. I have a couple of other issues. The minister may have seen the state Liberal spokesperson from New South Wales, Mr Brad Hazzard, saying that if the Liberal-National coalition won the next election in New South Wales A to E reporting would not be used to report on children up to year 3 and that local communities would choose how to report on students in years 4 to 6. The spokesperson has come out and said that he will not do what the federal government has required the states to do. Would such a decision by a New South Wales state Liberal government—obviously a big assumption about whether or not they will win the state election—mean that the federal minister would withhold funding from New South Wales public schools? If that is the case, what is the total value of grants to New South Wales public schools that would be put at risk if the A to E reporting requirement was not met, as was suggested by the Liberal spokesperson in New South Wales?
194
20:31:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I thought that this was the Parliament of Australia and not fantasy land in the sense that we are dealing with a hypothetical here. If there is a change of government in New South Wales—and I hope there is—the point would be made very plain to the incoming education minister that the government stands on the side of parents. Parents need to have a good understanding about how their child is performing, not just simply something saying that they exist and that they are actually in the classroom. We want a clear reporting process. We want something that is very easily understood. We think it is reasonable that parents know how their child is performing in comparison not only with other people in the state but also with other people in the classroom.
The only people who have something to fear out of this are mediocre teachers. We think that the best teachers are going to welcome the chance to have parents know that their students are achieving an A outcome, a B outcome, a C outcome or whatever. No-one has anything to fear. We stand for excellence in education on this side. We have put it very plainly to the states. My understanding is that Minister Bishop is expecting some responses back from the states by the end of July. I guess we will deal with the detail of those responses then.
It is really important that the member for Jagajaga does not do herself a disservice by standing for mediocrity. The Labor Party are all about rewarding mediocrity. Members of the Labor Party are constantly looking for examples to satisfy the case put to them by the Australian Education Union or the New South Wales Teachers Federation that mediocrity is okay. We have a view that we want to achieve excellence from our students. Earlier reforms from this government dealt with literacy and numeracy benchmarking. The way in which those opposite rallied against that because somehow it was going to expose teachers did them no service at all. Without wanting to embarrass my poor son, but I am about to, if it had not been for Dr David Kemp’s reforms earlier in the life of this government revealing literacy traps, which then enabled my son to find out that he was not reading and writing properly, he might not be as good a student as he is today. I am quite proud about the fact that this government has stood for encouraging excellence and exposing where excellence is not being achieved. Whether it is the New South Wales Liberal Party, the New South Wales Labor Party or whoever it happens to be, it is an example that the member for Jagajaga will go and grab for, because she stands for mediocrity while we on this side stand for excellence.
194
20:34:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I remind the minister that it is actually the New South Wales Liberal Party who are opposing these measures, not the Labor Party. The Labor government in New South Wales have given a commitment to this reporting system, so I hope that the rant that the minister has just delivered will be well received by the New South Wales Liberal spokesperson on education, that plainly what he stands for is mediocrity.
Another issue I want to get the minister’s response on is also in this year’s budget. The government has decided to continue its tutorial voucher initiative. I understand there has been an evaluation done of the pilot tutorial voucher initiative. There is an executive summary of this evaluation that is available on the DEST website. We would like to see a copy of the final evaluation.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 8.36 pm to 8.59 pm
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—Before the bells rang for the division, I referred to the evaluation of the pilot tutorial voucher initiative. Will the full copy of the report of that evaluation be made available publicly? As I said, the executive summary is on the website but we would appreciate a copy of the whole report.
195
21:00:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am advised that, as the member has suggested, the executive summary is available on the website. In due course, the full evaluation report will be made available. Various chapters are being finalised and the collation of chapters and appendices is being done. So in due course it will be made available.
195
21:00:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I would appreciate it if the minister could also let us know how much the evaluation cost. Obviously, the material that is available on the website about the success or otherwise of the tutorial voucher initiative is important, given that the government has decided to continue with this initiative. In the interests of being able to assess whether or not the first round of the pilot was successful, it is important that the evaluation be made available as quickly as possible. And could the minister also let me know how much the evaluation actually cost?
195
21:01:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I understand that the member for Jagajaga has placed a pretty extensive FOI request with the department seeking documents relating to this pilot tutorial voucher initiative and the evaluation of the pilot. The first response was provided on 13 March and the next on 8 May. Remaining documents were to be provided in two stages; I think some were provided on 22 May and the final stage will be made available as soon as practical. I am sure that the matter of cost and all those other matters can be handled in that FOI request, or in whatever other form suits the member for Jagajaga. The government has not made it a practice to not make information available following reasonable requests. I do not see us changing our approach in this particular matter.
195
21:02:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—Finally, I want to ask the minister about the federal government’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership interdepartmental committee. I would be pleased if the minister would inform us of whether or not the Department of Education, Science and Training is on this nuclear energy partnership interdepartmental committee and, if so, what role it is playing.
195
21:02:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—Obviously, the Prime Minister established this taskforce to undertake an objective, scientific and comprehensive review into the questions of nuclear energy, uranium mining and processing, and so forth—things that might be relevant to Australia in the long term. Naturally enough, this department play a role because obviously we have access to scientific expertise—to people who are highly regarded and who are regarded around the world as being capable in this area. The various key taskforce members have been announced by the Prime Minister. The taskforce will be chaired by Ziggy Switkowski and will include various other people who bring a variety of views to this task. This department stands ready to be of assistance in whatever form that taskforce dictates.
196
21:03:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—No, I was talking about the federal government’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership interdepartmental committee, which is a different group from the one the minister has just referred to. So, once again, I ask: is his department on this interdepartmental committee and, if so, what role is it playing?
196
21:04:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—Obviously, the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who is primarily responsible for science, is currently over the middle of the Pacific, heading to the United States. I will happily take that question on notice and refer the answer back to the member for Jagajaga at some stage.
196
21:04:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—There is another matter that I would like the minister’s advice on. For some time now, the non-government school sector has been expecting to hear about a review to be undertaken, as they understand it, by the department—an internal review looking at the way in which the government intends to fund non-government schools into the next quadrennium. It is obviously a very important matter for the non-government school sector. So I ask the minister if he could let us know where this review is up to, when it will be announced, who will be conducting it and when he expects it to be completed.
196
21:05:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I am happy to say that the review will be conducted in the course of this year. It is being conducted within the department, but obviously it will seek advice from the non-government schools so they have full input into the process. They will have more than a little chance to put their various points of view on any of the matters they care to raise.
196
21:06:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the minister: so am I right in thinking that this review has commenced? Is that correct?
196
21:06:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I understand that some preliminary work has commenced on it, the elementary stages of this, and that the review proper will be conducted over the remainder of this calendar year.
196
21:06:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
0
Ms MACKLIN
—This review will be conducted by the department. Will the department be seeking formal submissions from the major non-government school groups so that they can put in their contributions to the department?
196
21:07:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I think I have probably already answered that. To put it another way, we would expect that the non-government school sector would be actively participating, putting formal submissions into the department to help us shape the way this review is deliberated on. So we welcome the full cooperation and engagement of the non-government school sector.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 2) 2006-2007
197
Bills
R2550
Second Reading
197
Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dutton:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL (NO. 1) 2006-2007
197
Bills
R2549
Second Reading
197
Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dutton:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 5) 2005-2006
197
Bills
R2548
Second Reading
197
Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dutton:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 6) 2005-2006
197
Bills
R2547
Second Reading
197
Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Dutton:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
197
21:10:00
Main Committee adjourned at 9.10 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
198
Questions in Writing
Parenting Payment
198
198
1492
198
Vamvakinou, Maria, MP
00AMT
Calwell
ALP
0
Ms Vamvakinou
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 26 May 2005:
Based on current information, how many persons in the postcode area (a) 3043, (b) 3045, (c) 3047, (d) 3048, (e) 3049, (f) 3059, (g) 3061, (h) 3063, (i) 3064, (j) 3428, and (k) 3429 receiving Parenting Payment (Single) will have their youngest qualifying child aged six years or more from 1 July 2006.
198
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Hockey
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The number of current Parenting Payment (single) customers who will have their youngest qualifying child aged six years or more from 1 July 2006 and reside in each of the specified postcodes is listed in the following table:
Postcodes
Current Parenting Payment (single) customers that have youngest qualifying child aged 6 or more from 1 July 2006
3043
29
3045
<20
3047
46
3048
46
3049
<20
3059
<20
3061
<20
3063
<20
3064
78
3428
<20
3429
41
Notes
SAS extracted data as at 17 June 2005 where: Youngest FTB Eligible Child (including Partner’s) is aged 4 or 5 and DOB between 1/7/99 and 1/7/00.
Based on residential addresses geocoded within 2003 electoral boundaries.
All cells that have the value of less than 20 have been changed to display <20. This includes cells that have a value of zero. This rule has been employed for privacy reasons.
To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 36 hours at an estimated cost of $1,490.
Parenting Payment
198
198
1602
198
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 31 May 2005:
Based on current information, how many persons in the (a) electoral division of Prospect and the postcode area (b) 2145, (c) 2148, (d) 2164, (e) 2165, (f) 2175, (g) 2176, (h) 2178, (i) 2759, and (j) 2766 receiving Parenting Payment (Single) will have their youngest qualifying child aged six years or more from 1 July 2006.
198
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Hockey
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Of the current Parenting Payment (single) customers residing in the electoral division of Prospect, 243 will have their youngest qualifying child aged six or more from 1 July 2006.
-
to (j) The number of current Parenting Payment (single) customers who will have their youngest qualifying child aged six years or more from 1 July 2006 and who reside in each of the specified postcodes is presented in the following table:
Postcode
Current Parenting Payment (single) customers who will have their youngest qualifying child aged six years or more from 1 July 2006
2145
109
2148
98
2164
34
2165
81
2175
<20
2176
61
2178
<20
2759
54
2766
29
Notes
SAS extracted data as at 17 June 2005 where: Youngest FTB Eligible Child (including Partner’s) is aged 4 or 5 and DOB between 1/7/99 and 1/7/00.
Based on residential addresses geocoded within 2003 electoral boundries.
It should be noted that postcode boundaries may cross electoral divisions.
All cells that have the value of less than 20 have been changed to display <20. This includes cells that have a value of zero. This rule has been employed for privacy reasons.
To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 33 hours and 45 minutes at an estimated cost of $1,475.
Trans Fatty Acids
199
199
3000
199
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
Mr Brendan O’Connor
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 7 February 2006:
-
Is he aware of the health concerns about consuming foods containing large amounts of trans fatty acids (TFAs).
-
What steps is he taking to reduce the consumption of foods containing large amounts of TFAs.
-
Does the Government intend to follow the lead of Canada, the United States and some European countries in requiring mandatory labelling of the TFA content in food.
199
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is currently investigating Australians’ dietary intake of TFAs to determine whether such intakes constitute a public health risk that should be managed, for example, by limits on TFA content in foods, mandatory labelling, or public health messages.
FSANZ has recently collaborated with the NSW Food Authority to obtain new analytical data on the levels of TFA in Australian food. FSANZ will use this and other information to estimate current levels of dietary intake, which will assist in determining the public health risk.
Australian TFA intakes were last estimated in the 1990s. When compared with other countries at that time, Australian consumption was lower.
Currently, TFA content must be declared when claims in relation to the cholesterol content or types of fat such as ‘polyunsaturated’ in a food are made. Australian manufacturers may also voluntarily declare the TFA content of their products. Many table-spread manufacturers have chosen to do this after finding ways to virtually eliminate TFAs from their products.
-
The Australian Government maintains contact with authorities in the US and Canada to follow the public health, industry and consumer impacts of introduction of mandatory labelling of TFA. This information will be considered when responding to the assessment of public health risks from current intakes of TFA. Australia’s TFA intake has been estimated to be lower than US and Canada.
Defence: Employment
200
200
3011
200
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
Mr McMullan
asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 February 2006:
-
Are any Defence personnel who are currently on leave working in a Defence related field.
-
How does Defence ensure that civilian and ADF personnel who are on leave do not undertake outside employment in a defence related field.
-
How does Defence ensure that former civilian and ADF personnel do not obtain employment in a related field within the first 12 months of leaving Defence.
200
Billson, Bruce, MP
1K6
Dunkley
LP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence
1
Mr Billson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
As at 1 May 2006, there were 31 Defence personnel, both military and civilian, who are on leave and working in Defence-related jobs.
-
Defence has personnel policies covering outside employment while on leave. All personnel undertaking outside employment whilst on any form of leave are to seek approval prior to commencement of leave. Defence policy makes particular note of the potential for conflict of interest.
-
Defence has separate personnel policies to cover post separation employment. Refer to the response given to Question on Notice 3010.
Consultancy Services
200
200
3059
200
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 14 February 2006:
Did Centrelink engage Leslie Whittet and Associates to provide management consultancy services at a cost of $40,000; if so, (a) what services were obtained under the terms of this contract and (b) why was it considered necessary to engage outside consultants on this matter.
200
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Hockey
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Mr Leslie Whittet has been engaged by Centrelink to provide consultancy services up to a maximum amount of $40,000.
-
Aspects of Centrelink’s Business Continuity Management, including a particular focus on a pandemic response.
-
It was considered necessary to engage an outside consultant on this matter as the work required is very specialised, requiring a particular set of skills, experience and knowledge.
To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 7 hours at an estimated cost of $347.
Medicare and Veterans’ Gold Cards
201
201
3079
201
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
Mr Georganas
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 27 February 2006:
-
What is the (a) value and (b) duration of the contract to produce Medicare and Veterans’ Gold Pass cards.
-
Why has the contract been awarded to an overseas company.
-
How many Medicare and Veterans’ Gold Pass cards are expected to be produced over the term of the contract.
-
Will he guarantee that there is no risk that the personal information of Australian citizens will be sold or used improperly as a result of the new contract arrangements.
201
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Hockey
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
The contract to produce Medicare, Veterans’ Gold Pass and other long-life magnetic stripe cards:
-
is valued at $4,184,736 over the 3 year contract period and is made up as follows:
Medicare Cards, $ 3,826,713
Veterans’ Gold Pass, $ 16,140
Other cards, $ 341,883
-
has been entered into for a period of 3 years.
-
The contract to produce Medicare, Veterans’ Gold Pass and other long-life magnetic stripe cards was awarded to Giesecke and Devrient Australasia. (G&D). The procurement of the G&D card production services was conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. G&D was assessed as providing the best technical solution and the best value for money of all respondents.
-
The following card quantities are expected to be produced over the term of the contract:
Medicare Cards, 10,463,187 cards
Veterans’ Gold Pass cards, 41,754 cards
Other cards, 981,189 cards
-
The contract with G&D specifically sets out that G&D must adhere to the requirements of the Privacy Act 1988, including the requirement to not use, or disclose, personal information for any reason apart from performing the contracted services. This includes a commitment that personal information will not be sold or improperly used.
A further condition requires G&D’s physical security infrastructure to conform with the Commonwealth Protective Security Manual.
In addition to the above, a secure data encryption/decryption system has been put in place between Medicare Australia and the G&D Melbourne facility, to transmit personal data required to personalise blank cards. The encryption/decryption process is in accordance with Government standards developed by the Defence Signals Directorate and the Australian Government Information Management Organisation.
To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 9 hours at an estimated cost of $555.
Taxation
202
202
3116
202
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 27 February 2006:
-
Has the Australian Taxation Office ATO begun implementing improvements to its systems to better match the risk issues associated with paying GST refunds.
-
Is there a conflict between paying GST refunds in a timely manner and preventing fraudulent or incorrect refunds; if so, how does he intend to resolve it.
-
What proportion of GST refunds were not issued within 14 days in
-
2003-2004,
-
2004-2005, and
-
2005-2006 to date.
-
Is it common for a company to have its GST refund manually checked every time it lodges a claim.
-
Does the ATO notify a business if its refund has been delayed.
-
Can he say whether any business has suffered cash-flow or capital funding problems because its refund was delayed.
-
In respect of the 205,000 individuals and businesses which were overcharged penalty interest arising from audits before 2000,
-
have they been contacted,
-
what sum was mistakenly collected,
-
have the taxpayers been repaid or compensated,
-
has any individual or business become insolvent as a consequence of being overcharged,
-
since the mistake was discovered, has consideration been given to having the ATO’s formulae independently verified, and
-
before the mistake was discovered did any of the taxpayers contest their liability for penalty interest in the courts.
-
What systems are in place to ensure taxpayers are not overcharged in the future.
202
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes. As part of its risk management approach, the ATO has established processes to risk assess certain categories of GST refunds.
-
The ATO continues to balance the need to verify activity statement refunds prior to issue, with the need to meet community and Government expectations that appropriate refunds are issued to the right person in a timely manner. Strategies have been developed (and are continuously reviewed) to address this balance.
-
Activity statement refunds not issued within 14 days (against a benchmark of 92% issued) were:
2003-04 5.6%
2004-05 7.9%
2005-06 (at 3/3/06) 7.18%
-
As part of its risk management strategy, the ATO risk assesses certain categories of taxpayers based on their tax history. Where this history includes regular refund claims that are in line with the client’s historic refund pattern, the ATO will not hold up a current refund for verification purposes.
-
Yes. The ATO notifies large enterprise taxpayers by email where their activity statement refund is delayed for verification, this email includes the name and contact details of the taxpayer’s key client manager.
For all other taxpayers, the ATO notifies them by telephone that their activity statement refund will be subject to verification; the benchmark for this contact is within 48 hours of the intervention.
-
The ATO activity statement processes are aimed at minimising the potential of adverse cash flow or funding impacts.
-
-
The ATO issued a press release on 15 December 2005 and has started to correct the accounts of those affected. Explanatory correspondence will be sent to taxpayers along with any appropriate amended assessments as accounts are corrected.
-
Based on its work to date, the ATO estimates the revenue impact as being between $150 – 180 million.
-
The ATO is in the process of correcting accounts of affected taxpayers and expects to complete the process by 30 September 2006. All affected taxpayers will be entitled to a credit for the amount of overcharged interest. For taxpayers who have paid the incorrectly charged interest, compensation will also be paid at prevailing base interest rates for the affected periods.
-
The ATO is not aware of any taxpayer who has been made insolvent solely due to the over charged interest.
-
The ATO is subject of external scrutiny through the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) program of audits. The ATO has involved the ANAO in its strategy and processes for rectifying the error.
-
Other than the case which highlighted the error, the ATO is unaware of any cases of disputed liability to penalty interest being pursued in the courts.
-
Corrections have been made to ATO computer systems; any cases amended from 24 September 2005 have had the interest correctly calculated.
Diabetes
203
203
3195
203
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 27 March 2006:
-
Will he explain why Lantus, intended for use by type 1 diabetes sufferers, is not currently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
-
Is it the case that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) has refused to list Lantus on grounds of its uncertain overall benefit and its high cost-effectiveness ratio; if not, on what grounds has the PBAC refused to list it.
-
What is the Government’s response to the view of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation that Lantus has been demonstrably effective at reducing the incidence of hypoglycaemic attacks.
-
What is the Government’s response to the view of Dr Warren Kidson, a visiting endocrinologist at Sydney’s Prince of Wales Hospital and Children’s Hospital, that Lantus has been far superior to standard insulin for many of his patients with unstable type 1 diabetes.
-
How does the Government reconcile the apparent conflict between the advice of practising specialists and the findings of the PBAC.
-
Will he act to ensure that diabetes sufferers have timely and affordable access to Lantus; if so, how; if not, why not.
204
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Insulin glargine (Lantus®) could not be considered for listing on the PBS until PBAC made a recommendation that it be listed. This occurred on 21 April 2006 at an out of session meeting of PBAC. LANTUS® has been recommended by PBAC as both clinically effective and cost effective compared with other available treatments.
There are other processes that need to be completed, such as pricing negotiations, before listing can be implemented. These are being progressed now.
-
At an extraordinary meeting in late March, PBAC recommended the listing of LANTUS® as an unrestricted benefit on the PBS. PBAC acknowledged the clinical need for an insulin product that reduces hypoglycaemic events without compromising long-term diabetic control. The cost effectiveness of LANTUS® was accepted at the new price proposed.
-
Studies on the efficacy of drugs are taken into consideration by PBAC.
-
As above.
-
There is no conflict.
-
LANTUS® has been evaluated using the same criteria as all drugs evaluated by PBAC. Although other processes required for listing will be progressed as quickly as possible, it is not possible at present to say when they might be completed.
Media Training
204
204
3346
204
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the Department or any agency under the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005; if so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training.
-
For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
204
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr Nelson
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes. In 2005, 629 individuals in Defence received some form of media training.
-
The cost of media training delivered within Defence in 2005 can be divided into two categories:
- Direct contracts with Defence: $278,009 (inc GST).
- Contracts in which media training is a sub-contracted component: $68,000 (inc GST).
Media Training
204
204
3350
204
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
Did the department or any agency in the Minister’s portfolio engage the services of a media training company in 2005. If so, how many individuals in the department and each agency received media training.
-
For 2005, what sum was spent on media training by the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio.
204
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGauran
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Department/agency
Media training company
Number trained
Cost (GST incl)
Department –
(a) Product Integrity and Animal and plant Health Division
Stone Wilson Consulting
9
$4,200
(b) Rural Policy and Innovation Division
Stone Wilson Consulting
3
$2,200
Bureau of Rural Sciences
Econnect Communications Pty Ltd
13
$7,920
ABARE
Kennedy Communications
7
$4,543
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Roger Fry & Co
14
$9,020
Australian Pesticides &
National Capital Communications
2
$495
Veterinary Medicines Authority
Roger Fry and Co
18
$11,700
Grains Research & Development Corporation
Creed Media Pty Ltd
6
$2,200
Taxation
205
205
3382
205
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 29 March 2006:
-
What is the estimate of the number of firms which fail to meet the requirements of both the Continuity of Ownership Test and the Same Business Test, as amended by Schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (Loss Recoupment Rules and Other Measures) Act 2005.
-
What is the estimated total value of the accumulated tax losses of these firms.
-
How many of these firms have turnover under $100m.
205
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
to (3) In order to minimise costs of compliance, and given that losses that are ineligible for recoupment do not pose a significant risk, companies are not required to provide details to the Tax Office of losses that fail to meet the requirements of both the Continuity of Ownership Test and the Same Business Test. This situation applies both before and after the amendment of the legislation by Schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (Loss Recoupment Rules and Other Measures) Act 2005.
Truancy
205
205
3400
205
Hayes, Chris, MP
ECV
Werriwa
ALP
0
Mr Hayes
asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 30 March 2006:
-
Is he aware of the article ‘Hunting down truants’ in the Daily Telegraph on 8 February 2006.
-
Can he confirm that the operation in Sydney’s southwest to cut truancy rates referred to in the last paragraph is run by Macarthur Youth Commitment.
-
Is he aware that Macarthur Youth Commitment has had its funding for projects such as the one referred to removed by the Department of Education, Science and Training.
-
Does he intend to provide any ongoing funding for Macarthur Youth Commitment to continue a project that is cutting truancy rates; if not, why not.
206
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr Hockey
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
Centrelink is not part of the taskforce mentioned in the article.
Centrelink’s understanding is that there are two attendance strategies currently running in Sydney’s South West region. One is a Centrelink initiative called the Positive Attendance Strategy for Students (PASS). PASS involves secondary schools supplying Centrelink with attendance information that identifies students at risk of incurring a Youth Allowance or ABSTUDY debt. The other is the Transition Broker Project, which is an initiative of the Macarthur Youth Commitment.
To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 8 hours and 2 minutes at an estimated cost of $372.
Medicare
206
206
3429
206
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
Mr McMullan
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
-
What was the (a) scheduled fee and (b) Medicare rebate payable for the two most commonly used podiatry services on 1 January (i) 1995, (ii) 2000, and (iii) 2006.
-
From 1 January 1995 and 1 January 2006, was the increase in the gap between the scheduled fee and the Medicare rebate for the two most commonly used podiatry services proportionally more than the increase in the Medicare rebate; if so, will he explain why this has occurred.
206
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (b) (2) Podiatry services were not eligible for a rebate under Medicare until 1 July 2004, when rebates were introduced for a range of allied health services under the Medicare Allied Health and Dental Care Initiative. In January 2006, the schedule fee for podiatry services under this initiative was $53.90. The Medicare rebate was $45.85.
Taxation
206
206
3450
206
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
What is the revenue impact of GSTR 2006/2 for each year between 2000 and the end of the forward estimates period.
206
Dutton, Peter, MP
00AKI
Dickson
LP
Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer
1
Mr Dutton
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
There is no revenue impact from GST Ruling 2006/2 for each year between 2000 and the end of the forward estimates period.
Camden Airport
206
206
3455
206
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
0
Mr Fitzgibbon
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
-
Is he aware of the concerns of tenants at Camden Airport about a dramatic increase in rent charged by Camden Airport Limited.
-
Has he raised this issue with Camden Airport Limited; if not, why not and does he intend to do so.
-
What justification has Camden Airport Limited provided for increasing rents by between 25 and 150 per cent.
-
What justification has Camden Airport Limited provided for back-dating some rental increases to April 2005.
-
Will he, or will he ask the Treasurer to, refer allegations of abuse of market power by Camden Airport Limited to the ACCC for investigation.
-
Does he share the concern of tenants at Camden Airport that the long term viability of the Australian aviation industry will be affected by the increased rent charged at Camden Airport; if not, why.
207
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
I met with Mr Kim Ellis, CEO of Bankstown Airport Limited and Camden Airport Limited, on 4 April 2006 and one of the issues discussed was rental increases.
-
Rent reviews are a commercial matter between the Airport Lessee Company (ALC) and their tenants and are conducted in accordance with the terms and conditions set in the lease. It is appropriate that tenants negotiate directly with the ALC to agree on fair and reasonable rental rates having regard to the market reviews that have been conducted in accordance with each lease.
-
I am advised that many of the lease agreements contain provisions that allow for the rent increase to apply from the date that the review is carried out. The negotiation of lease agreements is a commercial matter between the ALC and their tenants.
-
I am advised that if a proposed increase is disputed, most leases contain additional rent review clauses that provide for the appointment of an independent third party valuer to reassess the market rental rate. Given its responsibility for investigating pricing complaints under the Trade Practices Act 1974, any complaints about the level of charges would be a matter for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Those tenants who remain concerned about rents and other pricing matters at the Airport may therefore wish to raise this matter with the ACCC directly.
-
Camden Airport Limited has advised that their vision is for Camden Airport to be the premier sport and recreation airport in Australia. The Camden Airport sale agreement provides that Camden Airport will have due regard to the existing sport and recreation aviation facilities and operations in developing the master plan. The final master plan for Camden Airport indicates a commitment by the airport to continue to develop the airport and includes provisions for additional hangars, the construction of additional engine-run-up bays and an extended taxiway network.
Sifrol
207
207
3461
207
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
-
Is he aware that the drug Sifrol is an effective treatment for Parkinson’s Disease that is widely available throughout Europe.
-
Is Sifrol being considered for importation and listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS); if so, when does he expect it will be available on the PBS; if not, will he act to make the drug available for the treatment of Parkinson’s Disease and other diseases for which it is a suitable treatment.
207
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr Abbott
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Yes. SIFROL® (pramipexole hydrochloride) was registered in Australia on 20 April 1999. It is approved for use in the treatment of signs and symptoms of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.
-
As SIFROL® is registered in Australia, the sponsor of SIFROL®, Boehringer Ingelheim, is legally allowed to market the product in Australia if it chooses to do so.
The company manufacturing SIFROL® has chosen not to market the drug in Australia. It is the manufacturer’s prerogative as to whether to market a product in Australia and the government cannot compel a manufacturer to market a product. Similarly, the decision to apply for PBS listing of a drug is one that only the manufacturer of the medicine can make. To date, the manufacturer has not applied for the subsidisation of SIFROL® through the PBS. Decisions regarding these matters include commercial and other considerations which can only be made by the company involved.
Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport
208
208
3463
208
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
Mr Murphy
asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
-
What are the details of the work required at Sydney Airport to prepare it for the introduction of the Airbus A380, eg, parallel runway works, taxi ways etc.
-
Is this work dependent upon settled weather conditions in order to be completed by a particular date; if so, (a) by what date is or was the work to be completed and (b) have weather conditions delayed work; if so, what are the details.
-
Has the work affected the use of the operating modes that use the east-west runway; if so, what are the details.
-
Will the Airbus A380 be able to use the east-west runway at Sydney Airport; if not, why not.
-
Does the work impact on Airservices Australia’s capacity to achieve its LTOP aircraft movement targets and, in particular, the targets relating to areas north of Sydney Airport; if so, what are the details.
208
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr Truss
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) is responsible for works at Sydney Airport to prepare it for the introduction of the Airbus A380. SACL has advised that the A380 airfield works include the provision and strengthening of runway shoulders for runways 16L/34R and runway 07/25, the construction of additional taxiway fillets and the realignment of taxiway Golf at the eastern end of runway 07/25. Additionally, to facilitate aircraft parking six A380 parking positions are being constructed with an additional two positions in future as A380 movements increase.
-
SACL has advised that all work is dependent upon settled weather conditions however the project plan has considered the prevalence of poor weather at the planning stage:
-
The date for the practical completion of the straightening of taxiway Golf which is the last major airfield works is 1 August 2006.
-
Weather conditions have not delayed this work.
-
Airservices Australia has advised that the work has not affected the nomination of the operating modes that use the east west runway. A small number of aircraft have not been able to depart from the east west runway, reportedly because they did not have the aircraft performance data required for departure from an intermediate taxiway.
SACL has advised that the A380 works have been planned taking into consideration the maintenance of LTOP and, apart from the notification of a 10 day period in early April, has not impacted on the utilisation of runway 07/25. During this 10 day period the use of the east west runway was limited to arrivals on runway 25 (from the east) and departures on runway 07 (to the east). For 2 days during this period, as a result of weather conditions (wind) the east west runway was fully reinstated and operated exclusively. Additionally, it will be necessary to impose a minor restriction at the eastern end of taxiway Golf for varying periods until the completion of works at the end of July.
-
SACL has advised that the A380 aircraft will be able to operate on the east west runway.
-
Airservices Australia has advised that the work has had no impact on Airservices’ ability to nominate an LTOP mode. There has been a very minor impact on Airservices Australia’s capacity to achieve its LTOP aircraft movement targets (see answer to 3).