2006-06-22
41
1
6
REPS
0
0
2006-06-22
The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (REPEAL OF INOPERATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL 2006
1
Bills
R2596
First Reading
1
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Costello.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
1
1
09:01:00
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
0
Mr COSTELLO
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2003, in accordance with the government’s aim of reducing complexity in tax laws, the Board of Taxation commenced a project to identify inoperative provisions and to repeal those parts of the taxation law which were no longer required. In October last year the Board of Taxation reported that it had identified about 2,100 pages of inoperative provisions in the income tax law and recommended that they be repealed. In November last year I accepted the recommendation of the Board of Taxation.
In April of this year, I released a draft of the present bill for public comment. Today I am pleased, after consulting in relation to the proposed bill, to present a revised version of the bill to the House.
The bill before the House repeals over 4,100 pages of inoperative tax law, including about 2,600 pages of income tax law. That amounts to almost a third of the income tax law and over half of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The bill also repeals about 1,500 pages of other acts relating to taxation, including 48 sales tax statutes that are wholly inoperative. As such, this represents a major improvement in the shape of the tax law and a major reduction in the volume of the tax law.
Repealing inoperative material will significantly reduce the length of the law. It will make it easier to use and lower the compliance costs borne by those who use the tax law.
As well as repealing inoperative tax law, the bill also makes other improvements to the tax laws which will make them easier to use. For example, it replaces multiple definitions of some terms with a single definition. Rationalising definitions will bring greater consistency to the tax law and make it easier for taxpayers to understand and meet their obligations.
The bill also rewrites some remaining operative provisions from the 1936 assessment act into the 1997 assessment act or the Taxation Administration Act 1953. This allows us to incorporate those provisions into the more straightforward structure of those acts and to do so in the more contemporary language they use.
The flow-on effects of the repeal of inoperative provisions will provide further benefits for taxpayers and tax practitioners. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that approximately 200 public rulings, which contain references to provisions which are being repealed, will be either revised or withdrawn. The commissioner is also working with tax professionals to improve the readability from the ATO’s legal database of other public rulings affected by the bill.
Repealing the inoperative provisions and making these other improvements are important parts of the government’s continuing efforts to reduce the complexity of the tax law. The government will look for similar opportunities in the future to improve the tax laws and reduce the regulatory burdens and compliance costs faced by business and other taxpayers.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House for its consideration.
Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.
PRIVACY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2006
2
Bills
R2593
First Reading
2
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ruddock.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
2
2
09:06:00
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
0
Mr RUDDOCK
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Privacy Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 makes amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and the Privacy Act 1988. These amendments address two areas: the collection of health information and the handling of genetic information.
In relation to health information, the amendments in schedule 1 of the bill will ensure that medical practitioners can continue to access health information that is available through the prescription shopping information service (PSIS), without being in breach of the Privacy Act.
The PSIS is a national hotline service run by Medicare Australia which began operation on 31 January 2005 as part of the prescription shopping budget measure. It was established to provide medical practitioners with information about patients they suspect may be obtaining prescription medicines in excess of their therapeutic needs. It does this by allowing registered prescribers to access information about their patient’s prescription status, if the patient has been identified under the program’s criteria.
The PSIS identifies a potential prescription shopper as a person who, in any three-month period:
-
obtains prescriptions from six or more different prescribers; or
-
has had supplied 25 or more target pharmaceutical benefits; or
-
50 or more pharmaceutical benefits in total.
Since its inception, over 11,600 prescribers have registered to use the PSIS. These prescribers have made over 16,300 calls, and 5,100 of these calls have identified patients who meet the program’s criteria.
By providing prescribers with this information, the government is helping to ensure that Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines are used in an appropriate and safe manner, while also helping to protect the integrity of the PBS for all Australians.
The Privacy Commissioner has issued temporary public interest determinations to ensure that the collection of information from the PSIS, without the consent of the patient, is not a breach of the Privacy Act. In doing so, the Privacy Commissioner considered that the public interest in medical practitioners collecting information from the PSIS outweighed to a substantial degree the public interest in adhering to the principles of the Privacy Act.
However, the temporary determinations expire on 22 December 2006, so it is appropriate that this issue be addressed permanently through legislative amendment. This is consistent with recommendation 83 made by the Privacy Commissioner in her report, Getting in on the act: the review of the private sector provisions of the Privacy Act 1988.
Accordingly, the bill will modify the National Health Act and the Privacy Act to permit an organisation to collect health information for the purposes of providing a health service, without initially obtaining the consent of the patient, where the collection is authorised by or under law.
These amendments will offer a permanent solution, allowing the PSIS to continue to operate past the expiration of the current determinations.
In relation to the handling of genetic information, schedule 2 of the bill implements some of the Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee recommendations in their report, Essentially yours: the protection of human genetic information in Australia.
Genetic information is a type of personal information, but it is not a totally new type of information. It is a more sophisticated form of information that we have been dealing with for a long time.
The government agreed with the approach taken in the Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee report that a separate regulatory regime for genetic information is unnecessary and that genetic information should be dealt with in the protective framework of the Privacy Act.
To that end, the bill will amend the definitions of ‘health information’ and ‘sensitive information’ in section 6 of the Privacy Act to expressly include genetic information. This will ensure that the collection, use and disclosure of genetic information will be given the additional protections provided for in the Privacy Act.
Genetic information that is or could be predictive of the health of an individual will be treated as health information for the purposes of the act. Genetic information that is not otherwise health information—for example the results of parentage or kinship tests—will be treated as sensitive information for the purposes of the act.
The bill also implements the report’s recommendation that a health professional be permitted to disclose genetic information about a patient to that patient’s genetic relative, where that disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to an individual’s life, health or safety, even where the threat is not imminent.
The proposed amendment does not impose any obligation or duty on medical practitioners to disclose information. It merely permits them, if they choose to do so, to disclose genetic information to a genetic relative where there is a serious risk to the health of the genetic relative.
The bill further provides for the development of guidelines relating to the use or disclosure of genetic information to a genetic relative. These guidelines will be issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council and will be approved by the Privacy Commissioner.
This bill demonstrates the Australian government’s commitment to an effective and relevant privacy regime for Australia.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (HARMFUL ANTI-FOULING SYSTEMS) BILL 2006
3
Bills
R2594
First Reading
3
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Truss.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
3
3
09:12:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
0
Mr TRUSS
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill implements domestically a significant international initiative to protect the marine environment.
In order for ships to travel through water efficiently, the ship’s hull must be clean of marine growth, such as barnacles and algae. The build-up of unwanted marine organisms is prevented by applying anti-fouling paint to the hulls of ships. In the 1970s anti-fouling paints containing chemical compounds known as organotins were developed, and at that time were considered environmentally safe.
Subsequently it was found that these compounds had an adverse effect on the marine environment and human health.
These compounds are effective anti-foulants because they leach into the water, killing barnacles and other marine life that have attached to the ship. However, studies have since shown that these compounds persist in the water, killing sea life, harming the environment and entering the food chain. One of the most effective and commonly used organotin anti-fouling paints is TBT (or tributyltin). TBT is arguably the most toxic compound to be intentionally introduced into the marine environment and has been proven to cause deformities in oysters and sex changes in whelks (a marine spiral shelled gastropod mollusc used as food).
These findings have caused concern about the potential impact of TBT and other organotin based anti-fouling compounds on humans who consume large quantities of seafood. While there is evidence that some localised measures may have helped reduce the levels of pollution by organotin compounds in many areas, the harmful effects of these paints are still being detected around the world’s oceans.
Consequently, many governments have recognised that a mechanism is required to regulate the harmful effects of TBT used on international trading ships. It has been agreed that the only way to avoid global and regional pollution by organotin compounds is to implement a total ban on the use of TBT based anti-fouling paints through international cooperation. This understanding led to the adoption of the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships in October 2001.
The convention will enter into force internationally 12 months after the date on which not less than 25 countries, the combined merchant fleets of which constitute not less than 25 per cent of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping, have become a party to it. As at 31 May 2006, 16 states representing 17.27 per cent of the world’s shipping tonnage were parties to the convention. The convention is expected to come into force internationally in the near future.
The Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Bill 2006 will enable Australia to ratify the convention and implement it domestically. The convention prohibits the use of harmful organotins in anti-fouling paints on ships. It will also establish a mechanism to prevent the future use of other harmful substances in anti-fouling systems.
This bill has three main objectives. Firstly, it will establish a regulatory scheme to protect the Australian marine environment from the harmful effects of organotin based anti-fouling systems used on ships. Secondly, it will protect human health during the application or removal of anti-fouling systems. Finally, the bill provides for uniform international rules and procedures for protecting the global environment from the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships.
The bill will prohibit the application or reapplication of organotin compounds on all Australian ships anywhere in the world and also on any ship in an Australian port, shipyard or offshore terminal.
By 1 January 2008, it will be an offence for any ship bearing such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces to enter an Australian port, shipyard or offshore terminal unless the ship bears a coating to prevent the compound leaching into the water. A similar offence will apply to Australian ships entering a port, shipyard or offshore terminal elsewhere in the world.
The Australian government agreed to ban the use of organotin based anti-fouling paints through Australia’s Oceans Policy in 1998. This commitment recognises that Australian Defence Force ships seek to comply with international environmental standards as far as practicable, taking into account the fact that operational requirements may take precedence in some circumstances.
The proposed act will apply to all states and the Northern Territory. However, any state and Northern Territory legislation prohibiting the use of TBT on ships of less than 25 metres in length will be preserved.
The collective actions of governments working through the International Maritime Organisation has provided a global incentive for the shipping and marine coatings industries to restrict the use of harmful anti-fouling systems and to develop replacement systems which are safe.
If Australia does not ratify the convention, the level of environmental protection in our waters will be lower than internationally adopted standards, representing a cost to Australian coastal communities. Australia would not be in a position to enforce the full range of controls on anti-fouling systems against foreign flag and Australian ships. The lack of a national approach to control the use of harmful anti-fouling systems could result in the states and Northern Territory establishing local regimes for controlling the use of harmful anti-fouling systems on larger ships, potentially creating multiple regulatory schemes with different requirements around the Australian coast.
It is undesirable to establish unilateral regulatory regimes at either the state or federal level if an appropriate regulatory scheme could be provided by a multilateral agreement. Australia’s obligations as a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that nations should adopt international rules and standards when implementing laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment caused by ships. Uniform international standards are vital to the international shipping community, which often faces significant administrative costs in complying with multiple regulatory regimes which often cover the same subject matter but require different documentation or actions to ensure full compliance.
The bill continues the government’s efforts to enhance Australia’s marine pollution prevention regimes. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS BILL 2006
5
Bills
R2584
First Reading
5
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
5
5
09:20:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr ANDREWS
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, in introducing the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 and the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006, I remind the House that everyone’s life opportunities are diminished by restrictions on the freedom to work.
Over the past 25 years Australia has been witnessing one of the most important, yet least remarked upon, shifts in the history of our labour market—the rise of the independent contractor.
The incidence of independent contractor type arrangements is significant, with estimates as to the numbers of Australians now working as independent contractors ranging from 800,000, as estimated by the Productivity Commission, up to 1.9 million.
These Australians have already chosen to work for themselves to gain the benefits of the choice and flexibility that self-employment provides.
Their choice must be respected.
Unions which are struggling for relevance and face declining membership have failed to see the advantages that many workers have accepted of more flexible working arrangements.
As a result, unions are opposed to independent contractors and have used industrial relations and political tactics to try to restrict its natural growth and to force contractors into the traditional industrial relations system.
Australia’s continued prosperity in the 21st century requires systems of regulation that encourage rather than restrict creativity, that reward rather than confine initiative. Australia deserves a system that responds to the needs of individuals including those who have made the deliberate choice to become an independent contractor and their families.
Independent contractors are entrepreneurs, and the one-person micro-business of today is often the employing small business of tomorrow.
For many, the attraction of independent contracting is to operate independently, not to work as an employee. The flexibility that independent contractors provide the workplace is an important component of a modern and dynamic economy.
The Independent Contractors Bill 2006 (the principal bill) reflects the government’s commitment to ensuring that independent contracting is encouraged without excessive regulation. The principal bill is built on the principle—a principle that this government believes in—that genuine independent contracting relationships should be governed by commercial not industrial law. This is reflected in our approach of having a stand-alone Independent Contractors Bill, rather than including the reforms in workplace relations legislation.
In contrast, the Labor Party and the union movement are trying to legislate to force independent contractors to be treated as employees, irrespective of the circumstances or the wishes of those involved.
The government will put a stop to this regulatory excess and deliver on its promise made during the last federal election to introduce this legislation.
The principal bill represents a further element in the Australian government’s reform agenda for workplace relations, building on the Work Choices legislation last year. Work Choices has facilitated greater choice and flexibility in our workplaces, a process begun over a decade ago, by making it easier for employers and employees to make arrangements that best suit their needs. The legislation that I introduce today provides Australians with an even wider range of choices about how they work and ensures that their choice is respected.
The Independent Contractors Bill 2006 enshrines, as part of its objects, the status of independent contracting as a wholly legitimate form of work. It protects the freedom of independent contractors to enter into the contracts of their choice.
Importantly, the principal bill does not define the term ‘independent contractor’ beyond its meaning under common law. I note that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, in its 2005 report on independent contracting and labour hire arrangements, recommended that the common law approach to determining employment status be maintained by the government, and that is what we have done.
However, we have not included in the definition components of the personal services income test used by the Australian Taxation Office to identify independent contractors, despite the committee’s recommendation that we do so. This test has been developed to address the specific requirements of taxation law.
It is a self-assessment test and easily manipulated to achieve the desired outcome if a worker is seeking to be classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee.
The government considers that the courts should continue to apply the long established common law tests to establish the status of the worker. These tests have been developed by the courts over a number of years and allow the entirety of the individual circumstances to be taken into account. This is also consistent with the approach taken in the Workplace Relations Act, where the terms ‘independent contractor’ and ‘employee’ import their common law meanings.
As with the Work Choices legislation, the principal bill will use a range of constitutional powers, including the corporations power, to override certain provisions of state industrial relations legislation in order to remove restrictions on the use of independent contractors.
State deeming provisions
The principal bill will override state provisions which deem certain classes of independent contractors to be employees. These provisions effectively change the nature of a working arrangement at state law from independent contractor to employee, thereby drawing independent contractors into the net of industrial relations regulation where they do not belong.
State deeming laws have become so absurd that they can result in completely arbitrary distinctions—an independent contractor who drives a bus can be deemed an employee, while a taxi driver is not; or a person who packages goods under a contract for services is deemed to be an employee if they do so at their home, but not if they do so on business premises; a blind installer is deemed to be an employee but a plumber is not.
The existing regulation of independent contracting across many of the states is a regulation of entrepreneurship. It is job destroying.
The principal bill will remove these arbitrary distinctions and allow independent contractors to be just that—independent.
There will be a three-year transitional period before the state deeming provisions will be overridden. This will allow adequate time for ‘deemed’ employees and the businesses that engage them to be made aware of the changes and to adjust their business affairs accordingly.
Protections
Both bills also contain important protections. For instance, the principal bill preserves existing protections for certain groups, in particular textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) outworkers and owner-drivers. In addition, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 provides for penalties to be imposed on employers who seek to avoid their obligations under employment law by disguising their employees as independent contractors or who coerce their employees to become independent contractors. The principal bill also provides for a single unfair contracts jurisdiction.
Outworkers
Just as Work Choices did not override state protections for employee outworkers, the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 will not override state protections for contract outworkers.
Moreover, existing federal provisions under the Workplace Relations Act, which provide guaranteed minimum remuneration for contract outworkers in Victoria, will be extended to all contracted TCF outworkers in Australia and set as part of the Australian fair pay and conditions standard. This guarantee will only apply where an individual outworker is not already covered by state or territory legislation that provides some form of remuneration guarantee, regardless of whether the state or territory protection is more than the standard.
Owner-drivers
Secondly, the principal bill will maintain existing legislation in New South Wales and Victoria with respect to owner-drivers in the road transport industry.
While the Victorian legislation has only recently been passed, in New South Wales there has been long—indeed, almost 30-year—bipartisan support for special arrangements for owner-drivers. These arrangements include allowing owner-drivers to bargain collectively with transport operators and have minimum rates of pay and goodwill compensation set by a tribunal. These provisions in state legislation will remain, given the special circumstances of owner-drivers in having to operate within very tight business margins because of the large loans they have to take out to pay for their vehicles. However, let me be clear—it is not the Australian government’s intention to replicate these arrangements.
As I have announced, I will be reviewing state regulation of owner-drivers in 2007 with a view to rationalising these laws and achieving national consistency if possible.
Sham contracting arrangements
The Workplace Relations Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill provides civil penalties for ‘sham’ contracting arrangements. A sham arrangement is one where an employer seeks to avoid taking responsibility for the legal entitlements due to employees by seeking to disguise as an independent contracting relationship what is in reality an employment relationship.
In addition to penalties for misrepresenting a genuine employment relationship as an independent contracting relationship, there will also be penalties for an employer knowingly making false statements to an employee to persuade or influence them to become an independent contractor, and for dismissing or threatening to dismiss an employee with the sole or dominant purpose of re‑engaging them as an independent contractor.
These penalties will send a clear message to employers that this sort of unscrupulous behaviour will not be tolerated.
The Office of Workplace Services will be empowered to pursue these matters on behalf of employees. Extra funding of $6.2 million was allocated in the federal budget for the next four years to enable the office to undertake this function in addition to its other compliance responsibilities.
Unfair contracts
The current federal unfair contracts provisions will be removed from the Workplace Relations Act and placed in the Independent Contractors Bill. As they relate to commercial contracts, they more appropriately sit in the independent contractors legislation.
State unfair contracts jurisdictions will be overridden, as far as constitutionally possible, primarily using the corporations power, and there will be one single federal unfair contracts jurisdiction. This will alleviate the current confusion of having concurrent state and federal unfair contracts jurisdictions operating in New South Wales and Queensland.
The principal bill will provide a cheaper and more accessible unfair contracts regime than the current federal system, as the Federal Magistrates Court will be vested with jurisdiction to hear unfair contracts cases though the Federal Court will continue to have a role. This implements another of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation in its 2005 report.
The federal unfair contracts jurisdiction will be extended to include incorporated independent contractors, meeting another of the recommendations made by the House of Representatives committee. We are concerned that this not become a remedy for the ‘big end of town’.
To this end, it will only be available to corporations where a director of the corporation or a member of the director’s family personally performs the work under the contract. This kind of arrangement would be in keeping with family business operations.
The jurisdiction will be limited to contracts for services that are binding on an independent contractor and that relate to work performed by that independent contractor. The principal bill would allow a financial cap to be imposed on unfair contracts claims, by regulation, if there is a demonstrated need.
Labour hire code of practice
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will play a key role in facilitating the development of an industry based voluntary code of practice for the labour hire industry. This is consistent with the House of Representatives committee recommendation that the government establish a voluntary code of practice for labour hire arrangements.
Conclusion
These bills move genuine independent contracting relationships away from the realm of industrial regulation and into the commercial sphere where they should have been all along.
An efficient modern economy should have a dynamic mix of working arrangements with the flexibility to respond to the changing demands of clients, consumers and competitors.
Independent contractors are an important part of this mix. The flexibility to employ or engage must remain a fundamental right when operating within the Australian economy. It is important that relevant standards are met, however the parties themselves are generally best left to determine the most appropriate form of their relationship.
These bills will reduce the current arbitrary restrictions on how independent contractors are to be treated under the law. They will create, as far as possible, one uniform unfair contracts jurisdiction in the federal sphere with clear parameters for the courts to judge whether a contract is harsh or unfair.
They will ensure that unprincipled employers will not be allowed to avoid their legal obligations to employees by using independent contracting as a mask.
In the case of genuine independent contractors, however, they will put a stop to the undue interference of prescriptive regulation in state industrial relations systems that effectively turns them into employees regardless of their wishes.
In 2004 the coalition said we would protect the right of independent contractors to work the way they want and we will do so.
The coalition believes everyone’s life opportunities are diminished by restrictions on the freedom to work.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.
WORKPLACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS) BILL 2006
10
Bills
R2583
First Reading
10
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Andrews.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10
10
09:36:00
Andrews, Kevin, MP
HK5
Menzies
LP
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
1
0
Mr ANDREWS
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 makes a number of necessary amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 to implement the government’s commitment to protect independent contractors.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
10
Bills
R2590
First Reading
10
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hardgrave.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10
10
09:37:00
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 by appropriating additional funding of $43.6 million over the 2006-08 calendar years to improve opportunities for First Australian Indigenous students in school and training sectors.
This funding will be used for additional tutorial assistance, support for community festivals for Indigenous youth, health promotion, activities addressing substance abuse by Indigenous youth in remote regions, and delivering school based sporting academies and related activities for Indigenous students.
The Australian government places enormous importance on achieving better educational outcomes for Indigenous students. To achieve this, new investment is absolutely necessary in the areas of schooling, vocational and technical education, and health related strategies. This government is committed to developing the capacities and talents of our First Australians, our Indigenous people, so they have the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and values for a productive and rewarding life of their choosing.
Some $14.5 million will be used to extend tutorial assistance programs to encourage year 9 Indigenous students to continue with schooling to complete year 12, thereby improving their educational and job prospects. This initiative has the benefit of engaging year 9 students and reducing drop-out rates from school at this very critical transition point. Tutorial assistance for Indigenous year 9 students will complement similar assistance already provided to year 10, 11 and 12 Indigenous students.
Up to 5,000 Indigenous vocational and technical education students annually will also benefit from tutorial assistance program funding of $11.2 million. This initiative will be directed towards Indigenous students undertaking courses leading to the attainment of Australian Qualifications Framework Certificate Level III or above qualifications. Indigenous students are, sadly, underrepresented in courses at these levels. It is well recognised that attaining an AQF Certificate Level III or above qualification significantly increases the chances of employment.
Another initiative contained in this bill is directed towards giving young Indigenous girls and boys increased opportunities to engage in education and sports activities. Funding of $9.1 million is being sought for 18 school based sporting academies and related strategies. This funding will build on successful models of sporting academies that have helped Indigenous people engage positively in sport and succeed in education and later life. I pay tribute to the member for Canning for his very positive efforts in his electorate in piloting this program. This funding will provide a rolling out of the lessons learned so well in the strategies in the southern suburbs of Perth.
In 2007 the initiative will also enable more than 1,000 students to attend up to 12 sports academies, located within schools, offering a range of sports and recreation activities. With some 18 academies in place by the end of 2008, the participation of our First Australians will increase to an estimated 1,530 students from every state and territory.
Up to some 16,000 young people annually will benefit from this government allocating $7.3 million to the Indigenous youth festivals initiative. This is a component of the Community Festivals for Health Promotion program. This program aims to, through Indigenous youth festivals, promote healthy and positive lifestyles, improve participation in education, increase vocational planning and reduce crime and drug abuse—and they are very effective indeed.
The festivals are providing an opportunity to strengthen educational outcomes—such as attendance at school and school engagement—by integrating events of this nature into core curricula and practices of schools, particularly in remote areas such as Cape York and parts of Western Australia.
Funding of $1.5 million will be used as part of a whole-of-government regional approach announced in September 2005 to address substance abuse—diversionary and preventative education based projects that build upon the successes already achieved through the Australian government’s Partnership Outreach Education Model. The POEM pilot will be introduced in the central desert and two other remote regions. These projects will help combat the critical issues of petrol sniffing and substance abuse and we are ambitious to engage up to 1,000 young people over four years.
A further $100,000 from existing program resources is being made available to the National School Drug Education Strategy to assist in stopping young people from becoming involved in substance abuse activities.
This bill before the House will make an enormous difference. It is a deliberate investment as part of a whole-of-government commitment to our First Australians to make a difference in their lives through their formative years at school to ensure that they, through their own efforts and enterprise, can engineer a great sense of success in their own personal futures.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2006 MEASURES NO. 4) BILL 2006
12
Bills
R2597
First Reading
12
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pearce.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
12
12
09:44:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of changes and improvements to Australia’s taxation system.
Schedule 1 to this bill extends the existing capital gains tax (CGT) rollover relief on marriage breakdown to assets transferred under a binding financial agreement or an arbitral award entered into under the Family Law Act 1975. This measure will also extend to similar arrangements under state, territory or foreign legislation. Finally, the measure will ensure that the CGT rollover interacts appropriately with the main residence exemption and that marriage breakdown settlements do not give rise to CGT liabilities.
Schedule 2 improves the interaction between the consolidation rules and the demerger rules. Currently a consolidation integrity measure causes certain CGT rollovers to be ignored for consolidation tax cost-setting purposes. This integrity measure will not apply to a consolidated group or multiple entry consolidated group that forms after a demerger. The amendments will apply from 1 July 2002—that is, from the commencement date of the consolidation regime.
Schedule 3 amends the simplified imputation system to ensure that Australian companies receive franking credits attached to non-assessable non-exempt distributions from New Zealand companies. This change will apply from 1 April 2003—that is, from the commencement of the trans-Tasman imputation measures.
Finally schedule 4 to this bill will implement the government’s decision to reform the CGT treatment of foreign residents.
These reforms will further enhance Australia’s status as an attractive place for business and investment by addressing the deterrent effect for foreign investors of Australia’s current broad foreign resident CGT tax base.
The amendments in this bill better target and strengthen the application of CGT to foreign residents. This is achieved, firstly, by narrowing the range of assets on which a foreign resident is subject to Australian CGT to Australian real property and the business assets of Australian branches of a foreign resident.
Secondly, the integrity of this narrower CGT tax base for foreign residents is strengthened. CGT will apply to non-portfolio interests (10 per cent or more) in Australian and foreign interposed entities, where more than half of the value of the interposed entities’ assets is attributable to Australian real property. Those assets may be held directly or held indirectly through one or more other interposed entities.
The amendments align Australia’s domestic law with the approach adopted in Australia’s tax treaties. They complement taxation changes already introduced by the government affecting investments made from Australia.
Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2006
13
Bills
R2589
First Reading
13
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Pearce.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
13
13
09:48:00
Pearce, Christopher, MP
A8W
Aston
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer
1
0
Mr PEARCE
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill will give the force of law in Australia to a protocol amending the Australia-New Zealand double tax agreement. The bill will insert the text of the protocol into the International Tax Agreements Act 1953.
The bill also includes consequential amendments to provide the legislative framework to support Australia’s treaty obligations to provide assistance in the collection of tax debts and to exchange information on tax matters with other jurisdictions.
The protocol between Australia and New Zealand was signed on 15 November 2005. Details of the protocol were announced and copies were made publicly available following the date of signature.
The protocol enhances trans-Tasman integrity aspects relating to administering and collecting tax imposed in accordance with the treaty and the laws of both countries. The protocol reflects the government’s desire to provide for more effective exchange of information on a broader range of taxes, for example, GST, and to provide for reciprocal assistance in collection of taxes.
The government believes that the conclusion of the protocol and the associated amendments will strengthen the integrity of Australia’s tax system. These measures will reduce tax evasion in both countries and will assist in ensuring that tax liabilities on cross-border transactions are correctly determined, through bilateral administrative cooperation between the Australian Taxation Office and the New Zealand Inland Revenue Department.
The protocol also includes an obligation for New Zealand to enter into negotiations with Australia in the event that New Zealand agrees to lower rates of withholding tax with another country. The ‘most favoured nation’ obligation recognises the importance the government places on lowering withholding taxes imposed on Australian investment in New Zealand, consistent with the direction set in Australia’s double tax treaty arrangements with the United States and the United Kingdom.
The enactment of this bill, and the satisfaction of the other procedures relating to proposed treaty actions, will complete the processes followed in Australia for those purposes.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
13
Committees
Public Works Committee
13
Approval of Work
13
13
09:51:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Deputy Leader of the House
1
0
Mr McGAURAN
—On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the
Public Works Committee Act 1969
, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed construction of housing for Defence at Fairview Rise, Ipswich, Qld.
The Defence Housing Authority proposes the development of a 19.6 hectare site at Fairview Rise in Ipswich, Queensland to provide some 162 serviced residential allotments for construction of Defence housing at an estimated cost of $50.7 million.
The Fairview Rise site is eight kilometres east of RAAF Base Amberley and some six kilometres from the Ipswich city centre.
The proposed development would involve the construction of at least 162 new residences over the next three years, primarily intended for use by Australian Defence Force personnel stationed at RAAF Base Amberley.
In its report, the Public Works Committee recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee.
The Defence Housing Authority accepts and will implement those recommendations.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the project will be undertaken in a number of stages.
Phase 1 civil works will be undertaken over a period from August 2006 to April 2007 with phase 2 civil works being undertaken over a period from March 2007 to November 2007. Construction of houses will commence in April 2007 with completion scheduled for June 2009.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
14
Approval of Work
14
14
09:53:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Deputy Leader of the House
1
0
Mr McGAURAN
—On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the
Public Works Committee Act 1969
, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fitout of new leased premises for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) proposes to undertake a refit of new leased premises at 120 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria at a cost of $9.85 million, which includes $6.9 million for fit-out and $2.95 million for infrastructure and security.
The proposed fit-out of 8,000 square metres over seven floors, together with a ground floor service centre facility, will create an efficient, flexible and contemporary working environment that will meet the requirements of ASIC now and in the future.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that the proposed works should proceed. The committee has noted that the $6.5 million lease incentive will be used to offset the cost of the fit-out.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out procurement process could begin this month.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
14
Approval of Work
14
14
09:55:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Deputy Leader of the House
1
0
Mr McGAURAN
—On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the
Public Works Committee Act 1969
, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: HMAS Cairns
redevelopment.
The Department of Defence proposes to redevelop the naval base HMAS Cairns. The works now proposed are needed to support all naval vessels planned to be home-ported at HMAS Cairns and operating in Far North Queensland.
The main components comprise marine works, refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, construction of new buildings, civil works, temporary facilities and minor works, services works, demolition works, and several key property acquisitions.
The estimated out-turn cost of the proposal is $76.3 million.
In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed subject to the recommendations of the committee.
The Department of Defence accepts and will implement those recommendations.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the works would be committed in August this year with the objective of having them completed by mid-2009.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for its support and I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
15
Reference
15
15
09:56:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Deputy Leader of the House
1
0
Mr McGAURAN
—On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the
Public Works Committee Act 1969
, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of canine kennelling and training facilities for the Australian Federal Police at Majura, ACT.
This proposal will provide new and upgraded facilities for dog kennelling and training at Majura in the Australian Capital Territory to enable the Australian Federal Police to meet increasing demand for canine services within Australia and overseas. They are such an important aspect of law enforcement and investigation today.
The proposed new canine kennelling and training facility is to be the AFP centre for law enforcement canine training. At present, there is no state or territory with such a dedicated purpose-built canine training facility.
The facility will produce canine teams for the detection of firearms, explosives and drugs in the aviation environment and AFP national operations, including APEC coverage in 2007. It will also develop and build canine capability for the Australian Federal Police to support international deployment commitments, particularly within the Asia-Pacific region.
This proposed training centre will provide capacity to produce 54 canine teams per year and provide maintenance and validation of operational teams. The facility will constantly house around 30 dogs throughout the year.
The overall out-turn estimated cost of the works is $10.2 million.
Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is planned to commence in November this year and be completed by November next year. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
15
Reference
15
15
09:59:00
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Deputy Leader of the House
1
0
Mr McGAURAN
—On behalf of the Special Minister of State, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the
Public Works Committee Act 1969
, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fitout of new leased premises for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations at Brindabella Park, ACT.
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations proposes to undertake a fit-out, at a cost of $15.5 million, of new leased premises at Brindabella Park in the ACT.
The proposed fit-out will provide the department with an additional 10,800 square metres of office accommodation.
This degree of fit-out is required to accommodate the projected staffing numbers of the department to ensure the most efficient and effective use of the resources.
The sharp increase in staffing numbers is largely the result of recent changes to workplace relations policy and the government’s reforms.
The fit-out will embrace the dynamic requirements of the department and form the basis for strategic realignment of working groups.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out procurement process could begin during September, allowing construction to commence by November this year. A staged construction has been adopted allowing stage 1 completion and occupation by December this year. Stage 2 would be completed by the end of January next year for occupation in early February. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA'S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
16
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
16
Debate resumed from 21 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 through 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”.
16
10:01:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—I was making the point in my introductory comments yesterday before the debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 was interrupted that in my view the Prime Minister had engaged in overblown hyperbole when he talked about the new Australian technical colleges as being ‘the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skill shortages and to revolutionalise vocational education and training throughout Australia’. In terms of the latter part of his comment about revolutionising vocational education and training, there is no doubt that part-inspiration for these new technical colleges was the desire by the Howard government to force and implement its industrial relations agenda in the creation of these new colleges. The claim that the colleges are to be the ‘centrepiece of our drive to tackle skill shortages’ is just a lot of hyperbole.
The Prime Minister and members on the other side of the chamber seem to want to run the line that the skill shortages that have emerged are symptomatic of a booming economy and low rates of unemployment. I made the point yesterday that that correlation does not compute in the region I represent—the Illawarra. The Illawarra currently has one of the highest rates of regional unemployment. The most recent data shows unemployment at 8.9 per cent and full-time youth unemployment at 36.8 per cent. Almost 40 per cent of people in the 15- to 19-year-old age group who are looking for full-time work cannot get it. At the same time, we have huge skill shortages. So to say that these colleges are going to address this very serious problem is unbelievable.
As to an assessment of whether these colleges are good public policy and good expenditure of public funds, I do not believe that to be the case. There are other, much more cost-effective ways that you can tackle skill shortages and youth unemployment. I cited the example of a project that has been very successful in the Illawarra by which means 220 unemployed young people—who would have been part of that 36.8 per cent statistic—have been able to do a six-month pre-apprenticeship training course at the TAFE institute. When they graduate they have the equivalent of a first-year apprenticeship. They are much more easily placed with an employer if they come out with that level of qualification. Yet every year, as the committee that oversights this program, we have to go knocking on the doors of ministers to try to extract a miserable $100,000 from government to help us support this project. The state government, to its credit, has made a huge investment. It funds the six-month pre-apprenticeship courses that enable these young unemployed people to come out with the equivalent of a first-year apprenticeship.
In the Illawarra we have already placed 220 young people, at a minimal contribution from the federal government, and yet the government is talking about investing a huge amount of public funding to create a parallel system, to create a new technical college. There are no stated deficiencies in the ability of the Illawarra Institute of TAFE to respond proactively to the needs of our community. The problem has not been caused by a booming economy and low unemployment rates. As I said earlier, that does not hold in my electorate. The problem has been caused because the government has been asleep at the watch.
Numerous organisations, including credible organisations like AiG and ACCI, have drawn the government’s attention to the skills crisis year upon year. Rather belatedly, the Howard government have come to realise that there is such a thing as a genuine skills crisis, but it still will not accept responsibility for being asleep on the watch, saying, ‘We just have to accept this happens because of a buoyant economy.’
I do not accept that. In my view, the government can blame nobody other than itself for allowing this crisis to develop. According to independent advice from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, in 2004 there was a four per cent drop in the number of trainees and apprentices in training nationally in Australia. In relation to my own electorate, I put a question on notice to the government to track what was happening in apprenticeship training in the Illawarra. I asked what had occurred from 1996 onwards. By the government’s own admission in the answer to my question on notice, the number of trades and the related workers in training—that is, apprentices in training—in the traditional trades fell from a level of 880 young people undertaking training in 1996 to 870 people undertaking training in 2004. So we were training fewer people in the traditional trades in 2004 than we were in the first year of the Howard government. Having 870 young people in training in 2004 was in fact a marked improvement on what was happening in the early 2000s. In 2001 the number of people in training had fallen to only 630.
This is not something that has occurred overnight. This has been part of a long-term trend and the government failed to take heed of the alarm bells ringing. So, in my view, it is right and proper for the opposition to query whether this initiative is good public policy. We do not oppose the bill, but we are suggesting in our contributions to the debate that there are other creative ways of addressing the skills crisis. It seems amazing that the government can find the allocations to create a parallel system of TAFE colleges when we know that for years there has been a huge underspend in the technical and vocational education area, particularly on enabling our TAFE system to meet the unmet demand.
As I say, I have major reservations about the proposal because it does not deal with the issues confronting the people I represent. Both the young unemployed and the businesses, predominantly small businesses, are crying out for skilled labour now—not in 2010, not in 2012 but now, today. What is the government’s response to that? Nothing. At best they think that 7½ thousand students graduating from these colleges, if they all get up and running, will solve the problem. It will not.
The decision to establish these colleges will barely make a dent in the skills crisis. At best we will see 7½ thousand students go through these colleges when they are fully operational. But there is a question mark about whether they will all become fully operational when we have only four up and running and one of those four has only one student enrolled. The 7½ thousand students who would have gone through the colleges represent only two per cent of all Australian students in years 11 and 12. The overwhelming majority of senior secondary students, let alone the huge numbers of young unemployed that I spoke about earlier, will have no affinity and no connection with these colleges. Businesses in my electorate tell me they cannot afford to wait year after year for action from this government. They are crying out for skilled labour now, not in four or five years time. We all know that we have an estimated shortage in the vicinity of 100,000 skilled workers. The graduates from these parallel, alternative colleges will provide just a drop in the bucket in dealing with this crisis. Having 25 new colleges training a maximum of 7½ thousand students who do not graduate until 2010 to 2012 is, in my view, a totally limited and inadequate response to a crisis which everyone acknowledges is imposing severe constraints on our future economic capacity.
So let us look at what has been achieved in terms of the Prime Minister’s statement that these colleges are to be the ‘centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education and training’. We know that there are supposed to be 25 colleges, but 20 months after the announcement there are only four open for business. Each of the 25 colleges was supposed to have 300 students enrolled in years 11 and 12, which was in keeping with the promise that something like 7½ thousand students would graduate. How many students are in fact being catered for in these colleges? Gladstone technical college in Queensland has but one student enrolled. No-one can tell me that that is not a wasteful expenditure of public funds. There are fewer than 300 students enrolled in the other colleges on the Gold Coast and in east Melbourne and Port Macquarie. There are 300 students at four colleges rather than 300 students at each college. Yet our Illawarra apprenticeship committee has had great trouble getting a miserable $100,000 commitment to a program that has already placed 220 young unemployed people into apprenticeships in the Illawarra.
There is no word on exactly how many of the 300 students in the four colleges are actually new to vocational education and training, who are learning a trade for the first time in a new college rather than just continuing their vocational studies at a school with a new name. A whole year after the tenders closed we have only 12 funding agreements out of the 22 announced by the minister. Three regions have had no announcement on the preferred bidder, let alone on whether a college might open. We do not even know whether they will open at all. I know there was some talk about Illawarra being provided with one of these colleges. I have not heard any more. I know there have been endless negotiations and discussions, but 20 months after the announcement where is the college proposed to be in the Illawarra? Is it ever going to eventuate? Wouldn’t that money be better diverted to the existing TAFE system and to the project I have referred to which has shown success on the ground in my electorate?
I want to also point out that there are genuine concerns about whether these colleges will see the light of day when one looks at the underspend that has occurred. The report of the opposition senators on the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee said:
A lack of financial transparency surrounding these Colleges is of concern. The Government has, at two Senate Estimates hearings, refused to provide details of the 11 funding contracts signed with individual Colleges. Advice from the Department given to this Committee at the Budget Estimates in June 2006 showed that as of 30 May 2006 whilst $185 million has been committed to the Australian Technical Colleges only $18 million has been spent. This is out of a total Budget of $343 million over five years.
The Opposition notes the provisions of the Bill which seek to introduce a regulation making power to allow for funding changes between program years without the need for further resource to legislation.
… … …
This proposed section would reduce the extent of Parliamentary oversight of this program which is regrettable. Spending to date indicates that current expenditure and training targets may not be met and Opposition Senators look forward to the opportunity to scrutinise any future regulations made under this new power.
So, with fewer than 300 students currently enrolled, businesses and families in my electorate are going to be waiting for a very long time before they reap any benefit from the government’s promises. We cannot afford to wait too much longer because, I repeat, unemployment statistics at the end of May show that in my region the overall unemployment rate is 8.9 per cent and the youth full-time unemployment rate is 36.8 per cent. We have a huge skills crisis not just among the traditional trades. Surprisingly, at the top of the shortages list are kitchen hands. While all this has been happening, we have had a very successful apprenticeship pilot program that has placed 220 young unemployed people into apprenticeships. But trying to get money out of this government is like trying to draw blood from a stone. I think the Prime Minister’s rhetoric about this being the ‘centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages’ is well short of the mark and the government would be well advised to look at projects that are working on the ground and fund those in a sensible way, instead of trying to establish an alternative, parallel TAFE system.
20
10:17:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about something that I have been passionate about for many years, having been an employer and trainer of apprentices for over 30 years. It was interesting to listen to the debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I note that the New South Wales state government are rolling out a set of trade schools. I wonder why they are competing with their own TAFE colleges. It seems to me that the money would be better invested in ensuring that their TAFE programs on the ground are actually well funded and able to deliver training all across New South Wales. But I do welcome their decision to roll out trade schools. I certainly hope that my electorate—and that of the state member for Murrumbidgee, Adrian Piccoli—will be a recipient of one of these trade schools, which will hopefully complement the technical college that I have been sincerely lobbying for since the Prime Minister’s announcement of the Australian technical colleges.
Let us go back to those 13 years of Knowledge Nation, when I was in business training apprentices and when and the value of apprentices and of trades and services was worthless as far as the Labor federal government were concerned. They were concerned only with ensuring that every child went to university, regardless of whether or not that was their chosen career path. That put an enormous amount of peer pressure on parents: parents felt that they were failing their child if they did not send their child to a university. I am not saying at any stage that our children should not go to a university—of course they should. But around 30 per cent of Australian students went to university while 70 per cent were not given the opportunity. Instead, they were slugged by Labor states—and by coalition states, when they were in power a long time ago. They were not given any incentive or opportunity to attend TAFE and get into the trades and services.
In fact, employers have always had to fund their students going to TAFE. They have had to fund the payments and they have had to adapt their workplaces while their students had block releases for TAFE. So the entire cost of a student going to TAFE to do a worthwhile apprenticeship in a worthwhile trades and services area—whether it be electrical, automotive, airconditioning, concreting or fencing—had to be paid for by the people themselves. The apprenticeship was not considered worthy of funding by the Commonwealth Labor government and the state governments. Why? Because people were interested only in this incredible Knowledge Nation, in getting every child into a university and in putting pressure on parents so that they felt they had failed their children if they did not direct them to university. Most of these children (a) did not want to go to university and (b) wanted to get a job, so university would not have been the appropriate place for them.
There is a desperate need to build this nation, and you cannot build this nation with academics alone. I believe the people on the ground who have apprenticeships and go on to get a trade certificate are the real nation builders of Australia. They are the people who can actually put together the concrete foundations from which Australia can move forward with a roads system, an infrastructure system, an electrical system and a motor vehicle system. All of these things are required from tradespeople, the people who have always been made to feel as though they are not as worthy as somebody with a degree. I think that is a crying shame. I am not allowed to say ‘disgrace’ in this House anymore, so I think it is a crying shame.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean
—That is a disgrace!
83O
Hull, Kay, MP
Mrs HULL
—It is. It is a crying shame that this took place and that these people were left behind. The crisis with the skills shortage has not been the making of the Howard or coalition government over the last 10 years; it is a result of the 13 and perhaps more years preceding, not just the former federal Labor government but a mix of coalition and Labor state governments. All parties here are responsible for what has transpired.
There has been an unfair and biased view toward anybody who wanted to enter into a trade or service—and it still exists. It simply still exists. The pay differentiation is absolutely appalling—I will have to find a new word. These young people are doing four years of study in order to qualify and then be put on a very low wage. Where are the unions on all of these issues?
There is a need for us to cooperatively work as a nation—state and Commonwealth—to ensure that our students are given all of the choices and options available as part of their prevocational guidance in their school years. Schools should not just concentrate on how their HSC results or their academic excellence stack up when their results are advertised each year. More than 70 per cent of children in all schools—whether they be state or private schools—need unqualified attention, and they deserve this. They should not be put at the back of the classroom if they want to pursue a trade or service course in, say, year 10. They should not be discounted as not being able to succeed.
I have said it time and time again in this House: if you did a poll or a survey of the owner-operators of small to medium businesses and of many large businesses across Australia, you would find that few of them would have a degree. Few owner-operators would have been through a university, yet they are contributing to this nation’s economic worth. It is time that they were recognised. When they are out at a social gathering and the issue of education and degrees comes up, it is time that they were not made to feel less worthy because they do not possess one. It is time they were recognised for the valuable nation building that they put in place.
I find it surprising when I hear debate and discussion from the opposing side in this House, because they are supposed to be the supporters and representatives of these hard-pressed workers out there in the community. Let me tell you that they fall short, and so does everybody else, as far as I am concerned, in raising the worthiness of people in Australia who have done very worthy courses in trades and services and who have come out with a certificate of qualification. I only have to look at the business that I was in and at the work of the panel beaters there to say that these guys are pure geniuses. What came into the workshop was a mangled mess and what went out was better than a new vehicle coming off a showroom floor. Yet, are they recognised? No, they are not. They are made to feel as though they are not worthy when they are out in a social situation because they do not hold the fundamental university degree. That is sinful.
Finally, what we have is recognition—belated, but it is happening—and I commend the Howard-Vaile government and the minister for putting forth these technical colleges. There has been a crying need for this to take place. The measures will be very positive in rephasing our funding to meet the expected expenditure for the Australian technical college initiative in 2006-07 and to introduce some flexibility to move funds across calendar years to match actual expenditure. The establishment of the Australian technical colleges will enable our industries in the Riverina, which are just champing at the bit, to come on board and to start co-sponsoring apprentices and trainees to address the ongoing skills shortage across the Riverina. We have a great legislative framework to roll out these technical colleges.
Whilst I greatly support this bill—and I have been making these wild statements and speeches in the House for about eight years now—I have some concerns about what we have at the moment. I am concerned that I do not have one in the Riverina. I desperately need to establish a technical college in the Riverina—preferably in the western Riverina. The western Riverina has enormous support for the establishment of a technical college. Again I encourage the minister to look at us as a very viable opportunity. I convened a working group representing industry, the community, the education sector, local government and the federal government, with me as its representative. In February 2005 we submitted an expression of interest for a technical college to be located in the western Riverina.
My electorate of Riverina is very enthusiastic about everything. People are very motivated politically; they are a very active electorate and clearly keep me on my toes by demonstrating these things. They are enthusiastic about having an Australian technical college in their region. Like other areas across Australia, the Riverina continues to endure severe skill shortages, which are impacting on our future growth and development opportunities. Recently, I saw it reported that the government had threatened to terminate proposals for colleges in Dubbo, Lismore-Ballina and Queanbeyan due to a lack of community support. I felt quite enraged by this, because here I am out in the western Riverina, ready to roll, ready to go and saying to the minister, ‘Choose me, choose me, choose me.’ My people are absolutely devoted to getting one of these colleges up and running.
I am constantly approached by constituents in my electorate, particularly business owners and employers in the western Riverina, to help them. They are struggling and are very desperate to find skilled and non-skilled workers. There is a need for non-skilled workers out there as well. Whilst I talk about trades and services and people being involved, the world cannot go on without non-skilled workers. They need to be recognised and they need to be valued. They have so much to contribute.
I think that the bill before this House will eventually enable employers in my electorate to attract skilled staff into the electorate, particularly if they have a technical college that they can be a part of and cooperatively use to enable them to part-train people while they are in school. Those who are currently training apprentices often lose their staff to people who are unwilling to train and they poach staff. Worst of all, when our young people move away from our electorate, there are no opportunities or they are not given options through the education system. It is time for the education system to provide our children with all opportunities and all options for employment—not just the sexy ones but the ones out there that are needed to keep our regions strong.
The Riverina has worked tirelessly over the last 10 years to address our skills shortages. Some of our initiatives introduced in the region during the 10 years include the Griffith Enterprise Network, Career on a Plate, the Regional Skilled Migration Project Officer, the Western Riverina Higher Education Project, MIA Backpackers and Harvest Labour Study, the C Change Bureau, Country Week and Griffith and District Schools TAFE Link Day.
Right across the other areas of my electorate you see the Riverina TAFE working tirelessly to ensure that there is delivery of workforce participants with the appropriate accreditations to be able to enter into many of these careers in order to give employers an opportunity. An Australian technical college, particularly in the western Riverina, would offer industry an opportunity to sponsor their students. By doing so, industry would then be encouraged to become involved and take an interest in training and student development. Local industry has signalled its support for such a proposal and is very keen to become involved. We had a Leaders in Careers forum in Griffith. This forum attracted approximately 70 industry representatives and has resulted in the establishment of the Griffith Enterprise Network, primarily attended by local industry and training providers to try to develop a pathway to enable our young people to get gainful employment and career opportunities in our local region rather than export our very good local children.
Recently, a local job and training expo was run by Leeton-Narrandera LYNKS Program. It was a very good program and it attracted 84 businesses which showcased their local job opportunities to prospective students. A few weeks ago I launched the Compact program in Wagga Wagga. Helen Renshaw and her team are doing an absolutely extraordinary job in giving our students an opportunity to understand where their career paths might take them. One of the young girls who spoke on that morning succinctly addressed and put in perspective how important this program is that has been funded by the Howard-Vaile government. She has had a variety of placements within businesses and she does not know what she wants to do when she finishes her schooling. But what she does know is that she has had opportunities to experience businesses first-hand to assist her in making those choices. The Compact program is an excellent program. The leaders and providers are absolutely committed to the children of the Riverina and to giving them a choice.
The technical colleges are a great initiative, as I have said. There is a sincere need for me to attract a technical college. When I looked at the state proposal to roll out these state trades schools, I thought it provided a good opportunity for us to look together at how we can offer real choices to the children of the Riverina and beyond, particularly those in rural, regional and remote areas, so they can gain experience in a trade, service or workforce. I think it would be a very good idea if the state looked at how they could work cooperatively with the Commonwealth on their intention to roll out trades schools, rather than put these colleges down.
There is a desperate need for the state training organisations and apprenticeship boards to start looking at the way apprenticeships are delivered. In the 30 years that I have been involved in a trade and in the delivery of training and indentureships to apprentices there has been no change in the way in which apprenticeships are delivered, but there has been an absolute change in the way in which we now perform our duties. For apprentices, there is still a four-year mandatory period to qualify while they are on very low wages. Then when they do qualify they move on to equally low wages. There is a need for the apprenticeship boards to have a look at this and say, ‘We believe that you can complete a trade and a qualification in two years.’ There is no reason why an apprentice has to do four years. There is no reason why they should be deterred from taking on a valuable trade that they can operate in their own business in future. They can do that adequately in two years. Training and delivery practices have changed vastly over the years, yet the apprenticeship boards have never kept up with the changes. They keep on doing things in the same old way, deterring our children from having opportunities to meaningfully obtain a trade certificate in any vocation they choose and to go on and establish their own business and employ people. That is what people do in trades and services. (Time expired)
24
10:37:00
Crean, Simon, MP
DT4
Hotham
ALP
0
0
Mr CREAN
—I rise to support the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 but also to support the second reading amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It points to the continued failure to provide the necessary opportunities for Australians, the government’s incompetent handling of the technical colleges and its lack of accountability—an issue which is continually on show in this place as the government closes down more and more opportunities for accountability.
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—That’s a disgrace.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—It is a disgrace. In essence, the bill has two purposes: one is to bring forward funding from later years in the forward estimates to this year and next year—on the face of it that is a good thing, but I will come to that in a minute; and the second is to allow future similar reallocations to be done by regulation as distinct from parliamentary enactment. We support the bill, but, as I indicated, we have moved a second reading amendment.
I rise to talk on this bill because after all of my years in public life I remain convinced that the greatest investment that a nation can make is in the education and training of its people. It is the investment that is the great enabler in our society. It enhances an individual’s opportunities; it also drives the economy and helps to shape a more tolerant and civilised society. As such, it is a benefit not just to the individual but to the community. It is a public good, not just a private good. Because it is a public good, governments not only must recognise it but must invest adequately in it. It is my charge that that is what this government has failed to do over the past 10 years.
Not only do we have to create opportunities for people to progress beyond secondary school but we must also provide for a system of lifelong learning. Learning and skill formation does not stop at secondary school—it does not stop when people leave their formal education. So governments are not only faced with the challenge of having to provide better funding for affordable education in the traditional sense; they must also fund a lifelong learning framework. We must be flexible and innovative in creating different pathways and options for skill formation. As I said before, it is an investment that this government has consistently failed to make at adequate levels over its past 10 years in office. That is the reason we face the skills shortages that beset this nation today, creating a constraint on the nation’s capacity and an underperformance in a global market of opportunity.
It was interesting yesterday in question time that, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister acknowledged that we have a skills crisis. But it is a crisis that he and his government have created by failing to make the necessary investment in skills. Whilst the 25 technical colleges are welcome, the response by the government has been inadequate. The Prime Minister also holds that part of the solution to this problem—in fact, his entire solution at the moment—is to turn to importing our skills. Labor has never opposed skilled migration as a potential contributor to our labour force in areas where particular skills are required which can only be provided by skilled migrants. This is particularly pertinent in much of regional Australia. But there has to be a balance, and we must provide training for our people first, particularly our young people. If we get that right it obviates the need to turn to importing skills through skilled migration programs.
In essence, the Howard government has been importing skilled migrants while at the same time turning people away from TAFE and university. It relies on the section 457 visas to ensure that we get skilled labour, but recent examples have demonstrated that these 457 visas have not been bringing in skilled people. A recent example is the Kilcoy meatworks, where 25 of the 40 people brought in under skilled migration programs went to unskilled work, not as slaughtermen as was sought under the 457 visa application. Here is another example of the quick fix that fails when it is not administered to serve the purpose for which it was introduced. The truth is that this government has no comprehensive plan—no strategic approach to addressing the real crisis that besets this nation: a massive shortfall in skilled labour. We have to invest in the future; we have to build our human capital.
The 25 technical colleges that this bill, in part, relates to were announced in 2004. Two years later only four of the 25 are in operation, teaching fewer than 300 students. That is my point about the inadequacy of this response. We are not opposed to the concept; we are not opposed to the bill; we are saying it is a totally inadequate response. This bill seeks to bring forward funding from 2008 and 2009 to 2006-07. On the face of it, that is welcome, but what is the reality? The establishment of a number of these technical colleges has been very problematic indeed. Bidders have failed to satisfy tender requirements. The Australian technical colleges for Geelong, Illawarra, Darwin and Adelaide North may not meet their projected start-up dates.
The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Hardgrave, has threatened to scrap planned colleges in Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore-Ballina not because of lack of community support, as the member for Riverina suggested in her recent contribution, but because these colleges will not sign up to the government’s AWAs. This is a circumstance of crossed priorities. We know the government will do whatever it takes to get its AWAs up—that is a matter for a separate debate—but this debate on the skilling of our people is too important to become hostage to another agenda. I ask the people in the public gallery which is more important: the training of our kids, thereby giving them opportunity in life, or the government’s insistence that AWAs be the determinant of the circumstances under which the teachers are employed?
Let us back the teachers under any circumstance so long as they deliver quality skills formation. That is not what this government is doing. Potentially three of these colleges will be scrapped, not because they failed to deliver what the bill purports they will offer but because the government is driven by this mad ideology on another front. This government introduced AWAs under Work Choices, but what choice is it when the teachers have no choice? They have to take AWAs. They cannot choose to collectively bargain, because the government will not let them. That is no choice at all. It is another example of the government’s naming bills exactly the opposite to what they purport to carry out.
83D
Murphy, John, MP
Mr Murphy
—It is an utter disgrace.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr CREAN
—As my good colleague points out, it is an absolute disgrace. There are other problems with these technical colleges. Essentially a lot of secrecy has surrounded them. We have had great difficulty in pinning down the specific funding for individual colleges. There is concern about the slow progress of implementation. As at 30 May 2006 only $18 million out of the $185 million has been spent. We are a bit confused as to why we need to bring forward money from two years out to spend this year and next year, when we have not even spent what was allocated for this year.
The minister said that the figure of $18 million that we have talked about was plucked out of thin air. It was not. The figure was given just recently in evidence to the Senate estimates. The department itself said that only $18 million has been spent. The truth is that it is a case of too little too late. This system that the government has introduced will produce its first qualified trades persons not next year or the year after but in 2010. What sort of solution is that to our trades crisis?
In his second reading speech the minister said that the Australian technical colleges initiative had been enthusiastically embraced by the community, industry and employers. He gave examples of Adelaide South, North Brisbane, Warrnambool and Geelong. All of these colleges are yet to open. The point I made before was that only four have opened: Port Macquarie, Eastern Melbourne, the Gold Coast and Gladstone. They have a total enrolment of 300. I was in Gladstone a couple of weeks ago. Do you know how many they have at their college? One person.
The government talks about this being a great initiative, but the truth is that this initiative is failing to deliver on the ground. In my home state of Victoria there is only one college for the whole of the eastern side of Melbourne. I represent the seat of Hotham, in the south-east of Melbourne. It is very interesting, because the one college, Eastern Melbourne, has two campuses. One is at the Ringwood Secondary College, an existing school in the electorate of Deakin—a Liberal seat. The other is St Joseph’s College, in Ferntree Gully, which is in the electorate of La Trobe—another Liberal seat. But there is nothing in my electorate or in the electorates of Chisholm, Bruce, Holt or Isaacs—all Labor seats. So ask yourself: is need determined by who happens to hold the seat? Is that the way we run government these days? Is that the control that this government is now applying—that the only people who get these technical colleges are those who vote for the Liberal Party? I have been unable to find any information about any activity at Ringwood. At St Joseph’s, if you go to the school’s website, you see that the funding appears to have been used to build a new technology centre and to extend existing training programs.
There can be a better way of dealing with this problem. When we were in office we made a real commitment to lifting the skills and the educational ability of our people. We massively increased schools funding by 55 per cent in real terms. We increased TAFE funding by 56 per cent in real terms, and we increased funding for universities by 60 per cent in real terms. We established the National Training Authority to provide an umbrella framework to overcome the differences between states so as to operate as a national system of training. Under the Working Nation program we sought to re-engage the long-term unemployed through Work for the Dole and training them—not just to do menial jobs but to acquire skills that were recognisable and to build confidence to get them work ready. That is a smart way to reconnect the unemployed in our community.
Labor established Netforce, a mechanism for extending the training regimes beyond the traditional trades into the new economy industries. In that period of time, we saw the doubling of the traditional apprenticeship system and the creation of another 36,000-plus traineeships. That all happened up until 1996, when this government came to office. And what did they do? They abolished Netforce, they abolished the Australian National Training Authority and they promised to boost apprenticeships, but all they did was to roll in traineeships and call them apprenticeships and claim that was the increase that they had promised during the election campaign.
Now it is reported that they will change the name again from New Apprenticeships to Australian Apprenticeships. You know how much that is going to cost? $24 million—just to change the name. This is a government that will spend a fortune on branding but nothing on real training. In its first two budgets this government slashed $240 million from the vocational education and training sector. It then froze funding until 2000. No wonder we have a skills crisis. Yet what is the response 10 years after that carnage? It is to announce 25 technical colleges, and two years later again we have only four, teaching 300 students. This is a government that does not build skills; it is a government that deskills, and it is why this country is being held back.
This skills shortage problem is nowhere more important than in regional Australia. It is now really holding back our regions and the ability of industries to build their communities, where these same communities are struggling to retain trained people. The Howard government in the most recent budget cut $13.7 million from an incentive program to encourage rural and regional businesses to take on apprentices.
Again I ask people to contrast their record with what we did when we were in office. We had a solution to this problem for the regions when we were in office. We set up area consultative committees under the Working Nation program to ensure that local training programs matched local industry needs. The objective—and I was Minister for Employment, Education and Training at the time—was to get a proper match between the local supply of labour and that which the region was demanding of it. The area consultative committees were resourced to undertake skills audits, to identify the skills and the deficiencies within particular regions. We involved the local chambers of commerce and industry in the task of identifying and working through the problem. We worked with them to establish what their demand for labour was—not what Canberra determined for them but what the locals said. Who best to understand their needs than those connected with the regions? That was the whole purpose of this program: tell us what your demand is and we will, through the Working Nation program, match it with the supply. We will give you the people with the training that is needed.
As a result of that leadership from the regions as well as the resources of government—the partnership that is so essential—300,000 jobs were placed by area consultative committees in the last six months of Labor’s term. What it demonstrates is that if you empower regions, if you ask them for leadership and you resource them, they get results. We still have the area consultative committees. I am pleased about that. They are a legacy that has remained. The problem is that they have not had the capacity for the last 10 years to continue the vital function not only that they were given but that they proved themselves adept at delivering on. Labor has demonstrated that you can address this issue. Regions need government support to empower and resource them to meet their needs.
I have recently been consulting widely with these same area consultative committees. Everywhere I go, these bodies are telling me that their region is being held back by shortages across a range of trades and industries. Some have been tasked, interestingly, by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs as being agents in assessing their local need for skilled migration. But the area consultative committees can do more. They should be resourced to identify opportunities to train young Australians, unemployed people and people who get retrenched, so that they can meet the future needs of their region. This is the opportunity that the government is missing out on. By all means get the 25 colleges established—if they are ever capable of doing it. But the real opportunity is to have a national system for the training of our future and our people. (Time expired)
28
10:57:00
Richardson, Kym, MP
E0B
Kingston
LP
1
0
Mr RICHARDSON
—I rise today in support of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. This bill will provide the government with more flexibility when it comes to administering the funding allocated to the establishment of the 25 Australian technical colleges across the nation. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, Labor’s member for Hotham, speak about Labor having the solution to and policy on this issue. I wonder if that was the same solution and policy that led to us taking over a $96 billion debt, unemployment at the highest rate ever and interest rates which, hopefully, are never to been seen again.
This bill seeks to bring forward funding which had been allocated to be expended in 2008-09 so that it will be available to the colleges in 2006-07. The fact that we are in this situation where we need to bring the funding forward is a wonderful thing. It means that those organisations which were successful in their bids to build and run an Australian technical college are getting on with the job of having those colleges ready and able to accept students as soon as possible. This bill also seeks to provide for a regulation-making power that will allow funding for a calendar year to be carried over or brought forward without the need for an amendment to the legislation.
These are practical amendments which will help to deliver on the Howard government’s election promise of providing 25 Australian technical colleges throughout the nation and are part of the government’s overall strategy to address skill shortages across the nation. These technical colleges will provide young people who wish to gain a trade with the option to gear their year 11 and year 12 studies towards obtaining formal qualifications in that trade.
One of the organisations in my electorate of Kingston was successful in its bid to establish a technical college in Adelaide’s southern suburbs. On the evening of Friday, 19 May, that organisation and I combined to hold an information evening for prospective students and their parents. We had been expecting approximately 100 people to attend the information evening and were both surprised and elated when we had to start bringing in more chairs to allow in excess of 450 people to hear about our college. The residents of the southern suburbs were excited about the opportunities which were opening up for young people in the area, and a large number of young people wanted to enrol then and there on the evening.
The success of this event highlights the demand in the community for the type of education we are striving to provide and the desire of young people to obtain a trade qualification. The need for this legislation highlights the success of this program with regard to finding good organisations to establish the colleges and their desire to get on with opening the colleges and educating students. In my electorate of Kingston, the organisation which has been successful in obtaining the funding to establish the college is the Port Adelaide Training and Development Centre, PATDC. The organisation has worked very closely with me and with local business groups since the announcement of these colleges was made, and it is dedicated to ensuring that their doors are open to year 11 students next year.
In the last three years, the southern suburbs of Adelaide have seen the shutdown of a Mobil Oil refinery and the closure of a local Mitsubishi plant. Since the closure of these two massive contributors to the southern economy and the loss of over 600 jobs from these two closures alone, federal, state and local governments, along with private industry and the wider community, have developed a blueprint to grow and develop our local economy. One of the central points of that blueprint is the need for a strong skill and technology base. The Australian technical college to be located in Adelaide’s south will provide not just a short-term solution to that skill and technology base but an ongoing, long-term one. In fact, as I stated before, we hope to have 75 people starting in 2007, and we believe that will grow to 125. In three years, instead of 300 people, we hope and envisage that it will grow to 450 young people.
The technical colleges we are dealing with in this bill will provide a huge boost for communities like those in my electorate. Not only do they provide hope for young people who are struggling with the challenges of academic study and desperately wish to pursue a trade, and not only do they provide hope for local businesses that, if they increase production and create successful businesses, they will be able to source enough skilled labour, but also they provide hope for the community as a whole. Communities like those in Kingston which have suffered job losses and plant closures like those of Mobil and Mitsubishi suffer a slump in morale and community spirit. An initiative like this and the location of a technical college in an electorate like mine can provide a massive boost, and has already done so, for the community.
This is an initiative aimed at training young people for the careers they want and getting them into jobs. These colleges will establish links with local industry to provide a pathway from training to work for young people, and I can assure you that local industries in my electorate are exceptionally supportive of the college and are lining up to ensure that the minute these young people leave year 12 they move straight into an apprenticeship in a local industry. At the end of the day these colleges are about the future: the future of our young people, the future of industry across the nation and the future of local communities. These colleges have across-the-board support out in the local community and are providing real solutions to very real problems. I have two grown sons who are currently completing trade qualifications—an apprentice plumber and an apprentice carpenter-builder—and both of them would have revelled in the opportunity to attend one of these colleges. The Howard government recognises that a trade qualification is just as valuable as a university education, and we are striving to provide young people like my own sons with adequate choices for their future.
The bill provides the flexibility needed to meet Australia’s skill needs as well as providing meaningful choices for our young people. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.
29
11:04:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
0
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—We could say the previous contribution, from the member for Kingston, was short, but I suppose it reflects the government’s lack of commitment to the important debate about apprenticeships. I know that, as a Bankstown boy and a graduate of the Western Sydney school of hard knocks, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, you know the importance of apprenticeship training. It has been at the centre of western suburbs activities for many years. In that context, this debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is of fundamental importance to Australia’s future growth prospects. It is about the skills of our nation and our capacity to attract and retain investment in Australia at a time when we, as a nation, are riding the resources boom. Potentially, the biggest barrier to continuing that resource boom is a lack of trained working men and women in Australia.
We all accept that apprenticeship training has become one of the critical issues. It is the issue that the companies I deal with as shadow minister for resources, forestry and tourism discuss on a regular basis. Even this week I have had some of the biggest resource companies in Australia in the iron ore, the coal and the oil and gas industries in my office discussing a range of issues. The issue they continue to raise and pursue with me is the lack of commitment of the Howard government to the all-important question of apprenticeship training. That reflects yet again the incompetence of the Howard government.
It is inconceivable that the government have failed to appreciate the fierce competition in industry to attract tradespeople in Australia at the moment. It is reflected by the fact that, for example, in Western Australia at the moment a bricklayer can earn $1,000 a day. A tradesperson in Western Australia in the resource sector can knock out $180,000 a year. There is only one reason they can attract those salaries and wages at the moment: there is a shortage of tradespeople. The government are responsible for that because they always like to talk about wage pressure, but you have to understand that wage pressure also reflects the importance of supply and demand in Australia. Their policy on the industrial relations front, therefore, is not about productivity and driving training in Australia but about trying to force down the wages of the lowest paid and the more needy in the Australian community—the hospitality workers, the child-care workers, the cleaners, the security workers. The semiskilled and unskilled people are demanding a bit of a leg-up in the Australian community.
I would have thought we should have had a policy which was about training all Australians, giving them all the chance to benefit from the opportunities that exist in Australia at the moment, whilst also saying to the less privileged in the Australian community that people have to do the mundane work that we expect to be done—like cleaning Parliament House, looking after aged people and looking after children in child-care centres—and that we should look after those people in a decent industrial relations system. I say that because the skills shortage in Australia at the moment is having a huge impact on wages and therefore has inflationary ramifications for the overall management of the Australian economy. You cannot isolate these pressures.
I would also go as far as to say that the shortage of skilled tradespeople has in fact become a real threat to our economic prosperity, given the production constraints it is causing. That effectively means that there are now barriers to investment in Australia. Once you start to lose investment, you lose it for many years to come because, when a particular multinational invests in another country, it creates a hub of investment activity and makes long-term decisions. It is not going to chop and change those decisions based on whether or not Australia, in five, 10 or 15 years time, resolves its shortage of skilled tradespeople.
This impact is being felt across many industries, particularly mining and tourism—our top commodities and service sector export industries. Indeed, only last month mining industry analysts foresaw production constraints for companies such as BHP becoming an issue much sooner than expected because of these shortages. If you have any doubts about that, just think about the potential development of Olympic Dam in South Australia. Hopefully, there will be approvals by the end of next year. Where are the tradespeople going to come from? Think about what is going on in the North West Shelf fourth gas train and the expansion of the iron ore facilities in the north-western area of Western Australia. Think about construction on the east coast—the duplication, for example, of the Gateway Bridge near the Brisbane airport. Think about the ongoing upgrade of the Hume Highway. Where are we going to get the operators and tradespeople? All we are going to end up with is more pressure on the wages system of Australia. That is why I say that, if you go to areas such as Gove, Groote Eylandt, Mount Isa, Karratha, Paraburdoo or Port Hedland, you just cannot see the tradespeople coming through when you see all the difficulties being faced by industry. I also say in that context that there is an onus on them to do more. I can think back over the last five, 10 or 15 years to when these companies closed their apprenticeship training centres. All of a sudden, they have realised that was a bad decision. Training was not a cost to running a business; it was an investment in their future. So they have also contributed to the shortage with a lack of commitment in the past, but they have learnt from the error of their ways on this issue.
On that note, while I appreciate the concerns of the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Gary Hardgrave, in matching the needs of the unemployed within the mining industry, I believe this is merely another sign of desperation from a government that has failed to invest in vocational education over the last decade. I refer to the problem pointed out by the Minerals Council of Australia. They said that there is very little point providing government incentives for unskilled workers when it is skilled workers that the industry is crying out for. I am staggered at his naivety in acknowledging that the current unemployment incentive of a $25 a week living-away-from home allowance would not be sufficient. Whilst he is considering at the moment whether an allowance of $100 or even $250 would be enough, he might take a look at the rental lists in the Pilbara, for example, where the average housing costs are around $600 a week because of the expansion that is going on in that area.
In the tourism industry there is a current shortage of 7,000 positions and a forecast of an additional deficit of up to 15,000 people a year. The National Tourism Investment Strategy identified that 130,000 workers would be needed over the next decade but, with its current share of employment growth, tourism would only secure 45,000 workers. Tourism is so important in winning export dollars. At the moment we have an advertising campaign which is about encouraging people to come to Australia from traditional markets such as the United Kingdom, Europe and North America, but a huge priority is China. You have to understand that, if you want to attract and encourage these people and for them to tell others to come down to Australia, it has to be a quality product. Unless you have trained workers, you do not produce a quality product. That represents a long-term threat to the tourism industry in Australia. I recently saw this when I went to a tourism forum in Northern Queensland, where I discovered that exclusive resorts are considering closing some of their operations due to staff shortages. Who would have thought that would happen in the 21st century—a time when we have got a huge trade problem?
At the same time, new hospitality graduates are coming out of their courses and being picked up by the mining industry to feed the resources boom. The problem for the hospitality industry is that, whilst it might train a few people from time to time, it cannot compete on the wages front—which points to the need to do more on the training front.
While a boom time is contributing to shortages, it is the neglect of our vocational education training system over the last decade that has to be highlighted in this debate. I think there is also a problem in the community—not just a lack of commitment and leadership shown by the government. The community has got to accept that a university education is not the be-all and end-all of life. Apprenticeships are exceptionally important to the future of Australia. Just think about another problem confronting Australia at the moment. A tradesperson in their mid-20s can knock out over $100,000 a year. How are we going to attract and retain nurses and teachers on the salaries they are being paid at the moment compared to what is being achieved by a tradesperson? An apprenticeship is the right thing for young people to do. You do not have to go to university; do an apprenticeship. You will be better off, for example, than becoming—and this is a problem for the Australian community—a teacher or a nurse, because they are not appropriately rewarded. We have a huge problem in the rewards paid to those in some of our important occupations in Australia at the moment.
In Europe, master tradespeople are treated in the same way as those who receive doctorates. They have an important status in the international community, but not in Australia. For far too long we have downplayed the importance of apprenticeships. I think we need a system that elevates the status in society of a master artisan to that of someone with a doctorate. There is interestingly an organisation in Australia, the International Specialised Skills Institute, under the patronage of Sir James Gobbo, that is striving to do this.
But it is a more fundamental debate. We have to make sure that we lift the supply of tradespeople in Australia so that we can command international investment in Australia. This is about saying to the international investment community: ‘You want a stable political opportunity. Australia offers that—a very secure place for investment.’ Unfortunately, we are giving them another message at the moment, that we do not have the tradespeople to facilitate their investment in Australia. We have to get serious about resolving this problem.
What is the government’s answer? They have a special visa category for bringing in overseas apprentices. It is not good enough. I have young people in my electorate in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, where we continue to have a disproportionately high level of youth unemployment and long-term unemployment, who actually want an apprenticeship. It is about additional places supported by government. Do not ask me to put my hand up to give apprenticeships to kids from overseas. I am more concerned about kids in my electorate, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, in the constituency of Batman. In suburbs such as Preston, Reservoir and King Island Park, kids are finding it hard to get through to year 10, let alone years 11 and 12. These are kids who cannot get an apprenticeship because of the lack of support for apprenticeship opportunities by the Australian government.
Let us stop running down skills in Australia. Let us stop treating an apprenticeship as a second-class opportunity in life. Let us say to the Australian government: ‘We’re uncomfortable, because of your failure, with importing unskilled workers at the expense of young Australians in the 21st century. We require additional resources.’ The Australian community would welcome additional resources in the TAFE sector. It is a sector in the Australian community that is always valued, as you and I appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, because we come from the western suburbs of Sydney. We historically had well-performing and respected TAFE colleges where kids went and did their apprenticeships. Maybe we also have to think about whether or not we should revitalise some of those institutions. There should not be competition between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments; they should work together. It is about getting them in place on the ground. We have to reach that point in the very near future because we have neglected it for far too long.
Our problem is that the Howard government’s proposal will not produce a tradesperson until 2010. We need them now. The resources, tourism, energy and forestry sectors are saying to me: ‘We need them now. You’ve got to push this government to get serious about this debate.’ Only four of the 25 colleges are operating at the moment, with fewer than 100 students. Minister Hardgrave is all over the place, threatening to scrap some colleges while refusing to reveal funding arrangements for any of them. While we wait for new apprentices to appear from these bungled new technical colleges promoted by the Australian government, the Australian Industry Group predicts that in less than four years we will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers in Australia. Otherwise, we are going to drop the ball on the economic front.
It is now that we have to get serious about these issues. It is also about making some tough decisions. I do not see the government talking about, for example, the ACT government announcement of a fortnight ago. Chefs will now have an apprenticeship of two rather than four years. That is the way to go: streamline the apprenticeship system, concentrate on the skills and give the kids the support that they need. It is not just in the ACT. In Victoria the automotive engineering apprenticeship, by agreement between government, unions and employers, has now been reduced from four to three years, provided the kids do the three-month prevocational course in years 11 and 12 at school. It also means that their starting rate, once they leave school, is the second year apprenticeship rate followed by the third and fourth year apprenticeship rates in their second and third years. Think what that means to kids: a shorter apprenticeship and more money in their pockets. That is the way to do it—not with bungled announcements on Australian technical colleges and brawls with state and territory governments but with tripartite cooperation between employers, all levels of government and the union movement, which actually wants to assist these kids to achieve something in life. We have to get serious about this debate, because the response by the government has been all too inadequate. The government has to start cooperating at local, state and territory levels and with representatives of the Australian community and employers to get it right.
The cues are coming from the Victorian and Queensland governments. They have made very detailed statements about the need to completely review, trade by trade, the apprenticeship training system in Australia. It might be appropriate, for example, that we continue to have a four-year apprenticeship for electrical tradespeople. It is not for me to decide; it is for industry. Alternatively, in Canberra we now have two years for the training of a chef, a highly skilled person sought after not only in Australia but internationally. This is about immediate action to get people into the necessary skilled occupations so that they produce the goods, attract investment, increase exports and enlarge Australia’s economic cake into the future. If we do that, we also look after those people in retirement. It is about greater economic prosperity in Australia and looking after those people, our parents and our grandparents, who have built the opportunities that we now benefit from, including the resource boom. It is about attracting people now.
I refer to the figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research which show that, at the end of last year, there were 389,000 new apprentices in training compared to 390,700 in 2004 and 393,500 in 2003. This is, unfortunately, the lowest number of Australians in new apprenticeships since early 2003. We have to start looking at these figures. For the government, the problem is that the figures tell the truth. When you listen to the rhetoric of the government during question time, they tell us that we have record numbers of apprentices, but when you actually break down the numbers and look at the traditional trades you see we have gone backwards year after year. We have shortages at the moment in the traditional trades. I was shadow minister for employment and training in 1996 when the Howard government first came to office. We expressed our concerns then about hiding in the so-called overall apprenticeship front, which historically included the traineeships, what was really happening on the traditional trade front.
Unfortunately, our predictions and warnings have proved to be correct. It was a cover for doing nothing. It was a cover for not being serious about becoming an electrician, a bricklayer, a painter or a plumber—all the traditional trades that have served Australia so well over such an extended period. There was a debate in here recently about the Snowy Mountains scheme. Think about all the people who worked as tradespeople and who were trained as a result of that historic nation-building opportunity. Down through the decades we as a nation have prided ourselves on training good apprentices and good tradespeople. We are no longer a nation that can hold our head high on that front, because we have gone backwards.
I simply say that this is about a real policy debate—not these funny little technical colleges that the government likes to suggest are going to solve the problems. It is about real money for additional places and cooperation between all levels of government, the private sector and unions. That is what mum and dad want out in the suburbs in the Australian community. They believe in apprenticeships and they want the government to do more. They want the duckshoving to stop between the different levels of government. The Labor Party has said that it is going to—
E07
Markus, Louise, MP
Mrs Markus interjecting—
LS4
Ferguson, Martin, MP
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I see the member for Greenway laugh at the proposition that the government should help pay kids’ TAFE fees—that is no laughing matter to a young apprentice on a few dollars a week—and that we actually give them completion payments to encourage them to complete their apprenticeship. Why wouldn’t you think about that when you have about a 40 per cent drop-out rate? How do you shorten apprenticeships and encourage the kids? By giving them a few more bob through a review of the apprenticeship system and giving them the enthusiasm to complete their apprenticeship course.
Members such as the member for Greenway think the apprenticeship system and doing things like that for the kids in Western Sydney is a laugh. I come from Western Sydney and I know how important it is to them, as do you, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton. This is no laughing matter. This is a very serious issue. It is about kids in the most disadvantaged suburbs actually getting additional apprenticeship places. It is about saying to their mum and dad: ‘We care about your kids getting some proper training in Australia.’ That is all we have heard government talk about for far too long—‘You don’t have to go to university.’
We have to focus this debate on real skills development and get incentives in place to get more meaningful and secure training opportunities in Australia. If you want to increase productivity in Australia, then skill the Australian workforce—skill them now and continue to skill them in the future. It is about time the Howard government recognised that, as a result of its massive funding cuts in the 1996 budget, it has progressively and continuously inadequately funded TAFE and VET Australia-wide to the detriment of our skills base and our future growth. Just go and talk to the resource and hospitality companies in Australia at the moment. If we do not do something serious about this, investment will be lost, regional Australia will miss out and the economic cake will be smaller because of the Howard government. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mrs Markus) adjourned.
COMMITTEES
35
Committees
Members’ Interests Committee
35
Report
35
Mr CIOBO
(Moncrieff)
11:25:00
—As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 30 March 2006 to 21 June 2006.
Publications Committee
35
Report
35
Mrs DRAPER
(Makin)
11:25:00
—I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—adopted.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
35
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
35
Debate resumed.
10000
Hatton, Michael (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Hatton)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
35
11:26:00
Markus, Louise, MP
E07
Greenway
LP
1
0
Mrs MARKUS
—Could I first clarify that my laughter earlier on while the member for Batman was speaking was actually related to his comment about state and federal governments working together. I will note during my speech that the New South Wales government is indeed working against the federal government putting these technical colleges on the ground in Western Sydney. I have fought very hard and will continue to fight hard to ensure that the tech college in Western Sydney is up and running.
I rise today to support the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. The Australian technical colleges have been given great support from all sectors of the community. The current act needs to be amended so that funding for 2008-09 can be reallocated to 2006-07. The bill will allow 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.
Australia has embraced these colleges as they open across the country, which is why there is an increased need for funding for 2006-07. I can assure those opposite that there is no shortfall, as has been suggested by some of their colleagues, and that the money allocated to the Australian technical colleges, totalling $343.6 million, remains. Given that 22 of the 25 Australian technical colleges have already been announced, it is important that this money is moved forward so that these Australian technical colleges can be established sooner rather than later. Australia will have five colleges opening in 2006 and a further 20 colleges are planned for 2007. This is possible because the Australian technical colleges have received widespread community and industry support. As I have mentioned previously, Australia has embraced these colleges, which is why the establishment of the Australian technical colleges is well ahead of plan.
It is a shame that the Labor Party failed to embrace the Australian technical colleges when they were first announced in November 2004. From when they were first announced the opposition have done everything possible to undermine the importance of these Australian technical colleges. Finally, after much opposition, in March 2005 the Leader of the Opposition, with his tail between his legs, told parliament that Labor would be dropping their stance against the Australian technical colleges. I congratulate him on dropping that stance. They obviously realised what the Australian government and the rest of Australia knew—that the Australian technical colleges are a great initiative. Even when the opposition leader gave his party’s support in March 2005, the original Australian technical colleges legislation was delayed in the Senate by the Labor Party until October 2005. Given that funding could not be accessed due to the delay caused by Labor Party senators, it is a great achievement that over half the funding agreements have now been completed.
Not surprisingly, amongst all this the union got on board, trying to blame the federal government for bypassing the TAFE system because, according to Pat Forward, it is ‘unable to establish a positive and productive relationship with the state governments’. It is ironic, considering the above comments from Pat Forward, that all states except New South Wales and Western Australia have signed up and have moved forward with the Australian technical colleges. One of the colleges that is being held up as a result of the New South Wales government is in Western Sydney, where my electorate of Greenway is located. Why is it that every state except New South Wales acknowledges the academic and vocational education that these colleges will provide? These colleges will provide our young people with jobs. They will provide our young people with the opportunity to become the business leaders of Western Sydney. These school based apprenticeships are a way for young people from all over Australia to engage in education and training and employment but with the added element of the business community, who have embraced this initiative.
I have been extremely frustrated with the games being played by the state government. Recently in parliament I asked the Prime Minster what barriers the Australian technical colleges were facing in New South Wales. It appears that these school based apprenticeships are facing opposition due to a union dominated award. This union award is depriving youth from my area of Western Sydney—and youth from other regions of New South Wales, including Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore—of the opportunity to advance in their chosen careers. These union barriers are holding back the training opportunities that our youth and their parents want.
I have spoken to union members who have sons and daughters who would like to go to these Australian technical colleges but cannot because they are being stopped by a union dominated award system. They want their children to consider a career in a traditional trade, where their training is strongly supported by industry and business. This is an opportunity for their children to stay at school, complete their year 12 certificate and undertake a school based apprenticeship. It is about time the New South Wales Premier stepped in and stopped playing politics. When infrastructure, schools and hospitals in New South Wales need a serious cash injection, what does the Premier do? Rather than investing $18 million in these areas, the Premier announced that the government would create state skills colleges in Western Sydney.
I find it amazing that the state government wants to create a trade school which only allows pre-apprenticeship certificate II level—which in school study terms equates to fewer than 40 days a year—when the Australian government has technical colleges ready to commence which offer certificates III and IV trade apprenticeship courses, which equate to 100 days a year and a job. As Gary Hardgrave said, there is nothing revolutionary about throwing $18 million at something that is already in place. Do I smell an election coming? Has the New South Wales government delayed signing off on the Australian technical colleges so that it could announce its own? Is it trying to win the votes of Western Sydney? Surely not!
These Australian technical colleges will enable up to 7,500 students to gain the vital education and experience needed to excel in their chosen trades. We have the opportunity to give our local youth the guidance, education, mentoring and support they need through these colleges. We have the opportunity to fill the gaps in local skills based jobs as well as create the opportunity for many more. Other members of parliament have seen first-hand the benefits of the Australian technical colleges and the benefits they bring to the community, including the member for Petrie, Theresa Gambaro; the member for Braddon, Mark Baker; and the member for Kingston, Kym Richardson. The success of these colleges is why we need to bring the funds forward to support the establishment of colleges over the next two years.
The ability to reallocate funding from 2008-09 to 2006-07 will mean that students will be able, sooner rather than later, to commence the new school based apprenticeships. It will mean that students will be able to continue with their academic study of English, maths, science and technology so that they can gain their year 12 certificate, plus be given the opportunity to be educated in the running of a business, plus business tuition. It will mean that students are able to take part in practical experience in their chosen area of interest as well as be given the opportunity to form a relationship with a potential employer.
The Australian technical colleges are an important part of our nation’s future, the future of our youth and the future of our regions. We have an opportunity to have an Australian technical college in our region which will focus on the needs of Western Sydney. I am proud that in my electorate of Greenway unemployment went down from 4.9 per cent in December to 4.5 per cent in March, compared to 8.6 per cent in March 1996, when Labor was last in government. This unemployment rate is low because the people of Greenway and Western Sydney are hardworking people who want what is best for their families and for the future of their children. Wanting what is best for their children includes wanting the opportunity for their children to choose to attend an Australian technical college, to give them the best start possible.
The opposition can go on about skills shortages but, while they do, the state government of New South Wales continues to put up barriers to the colleges being put in place. I am proud to be part of a government that will spend $10.8 billion over the 2005-08 period on vocational and technical education. We are absolutely committed to the youth of Western Sydney. We are absolutely committed to providing an opportunity and an environment where they can achieve their potential. I am proud to be part of a government that listens to the needs of our youth and the future needs of the nation and acts on them—which is why I am here to support the bill amending the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005.
38
11:36:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I rise to make some comments on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I do not disagree that money should be brought forward in the budget to provide training for young people. If the election promise of the Prime Minister to establish these colleges comes to fruition, there will be a college established in Sunshine in western Melbourne. As I understand it, the consortium seeking to oversight that college will have four campuses, two of which will be in the electorate of Gorton. So it is a significant matter for the constituents in my electorate and the surrounding areas.
However, I have to challenge the motives of the government in the lack of preparation and true consideration of the needs of young people, particularly because of the way in which the Prime Minister announced the colleges. If there has been a need to provide greater training, why has it taken almost nine years after the election of the coalition to do anything about it? If it is not to ideologically pursue Australian workplace agreements why not just provide the funding and use the institutions already in place, which are mainly TAFE colleges? There are a lot of questions.
Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am somewhat cynical about the motives of the Prime Minister and the government. I recall that the Prime Minister did say at the election launch in 2004 that a re-elected coalition government would ‘establish 24 Australian technical colleges to accelerate national skills development in traditional trades’. In principle I support that contention, but I have to say that it seemed to me to be policy on the run. It was a paragraph to be placed into the campaign launch speech of the Prime Minister, and no real thinking was undertaken.
I guess that is why in June 2006 there are still many questions that members in this House are asking about the operation. In this debate we have already heard the member for Hotham, and I imagine others, talk about the fact that, notionally, we have colleges in place but that they are not training too many young people. We have the absurd situation in Gladstone, Queensland, where a college is in place but it is teaching only one student. I guess the spin doctors of the government could say: ‘We’re really intensively training these young people. We’ve got a whole college set up to train one person.’ But clearly, and more seriously, that does show a deficiency in government planning. It shows a lack of sincerity in its concern for young people and their training when promises do not come to fruition, and indeed when a college has been set up, as is the case in Gladstone, but is not training the young people in that region who are in need.
I attended a meeting that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Hardgrave, held in Taylors Lakes in my electorate in February 2005. I have to say that, whilst I was and remain sceptical about the motives of the government, if one or more young people were trained in my area I would of course welcome that, even if it were not undertaken in a manner that would reflect good government. The promise that Minister Hardgrave made at that meeting in Taylors Lakes was that we would be up and running earlier than would now appear to be the case. That might be because there have been difficulties in convincing organisations to involve themselves in this process. I have to say it is clear that many ran a mile from the proposition, because they really did not believe the government’s heart to be in Australian technical colleges. The website that refers to the proposed Sunshine college indicates that it may commence its first training in 2007. That is not that far away at all, but I am yet to be convinced that this college will be up and running at that time.
I think it is important, certainly for my constituents and for the public at large, to realise that when the government talks about technical colleges it does not mean it is going to build colleges. There are no bricks and mortar involved in most of these colleges. People have made the assumption that, in each and every case, there will be construction. For example, in the proposal in Sunshine in western Melbourne they will be using the facilities of existing organisations. They will be looking at up to four campuses; therefore, they will be using those facilities. So let us not get too carried away with the notion put forward, I think by the Prime Minister, that somehow the Commonwealth will enter this field which has been the domain of the states for many a year, with enormous amounts of funding. That is not the case. It is a very small amount of funding. The government is looking to use existing arrangements. I have no problem with that, but I just do not want the spin doctors of the government to try to suggest to the community that it is constructing genuine colleges and has invested a lot of money in doing so. That is not the case.
Other than to put a paragraph in the Prime Minister’s speech at the campaign launch, what seems to be the motivating factor of the Commonwealth’s prevailing over state jurisdictions—that is, entering into the field that historically been undertaken by the states? I am afraid to raise industrial relations—I am a little tired of having to raise IR in matters that are supposed to be about other public policy areas—but it appears to me that the primary reason for the Commonwealth to establish these so-called colleges is to force staff in the post-secondary education field into Australian workplace agreements.
In fact, as Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, I asked the department, when we had its officers before us, about this matter when we were inquiring into participation in the workforce. I inquired of the departmental officers: why is it that in the brochure that was put together for these notional ATCs—this was early last year—the only reference to employment arrangements, in a paragraph to do with the staffing of these ATCs, included a reference to Australian workplace agreements? If the government agreed that there should be choice and if the government were suggesting that an employer should be able to offer AWAs—which is their right, even under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 prior to Work Choices—why were there no references to other industrial instruments? Why was it the case that the only reference to an industrial instrument in the entire summary of employment arrangements for Australian technical colleges was the reference to individual contracts?
Again we see that the government’s ideological pursuit of an instrument that has been wholeheartedly rejected by the overwhelming majority of Australian workers is being foisted upon teachers. Since 1996 we have seen the capacity for employees and employers in the federal jurisdiction to enter into Australian workplace agreements. That has been going on for nearly 10 years. In this instance, and I want to talk specifically about Australian technical colleges, the Commonwealth are suggesting that they will set up these establishments and effectively force the employees, those in the teaching profession, to enter into Australian workplace agreements whether they wish to or not. There is no choice in that arrangement.
It is extraordinary to think that a government would actually create a set of circumstances, in establishing a series of colleges, to, as much as anything else, force individual contracts on teachers. The fact that the government’s priorities in education and training provision have even a skerrick to do with the industrial instrument of the teaching profession shows how skewed the government’s thinking is in relation to industrial law vis-a-vis education services. We have seen it in the threat to university funding if universities do not offer AWAs. We are now seeing it with the notional ATC establishments, where they will be forcing teachers to take up Australian workplace agreements. And these are Australian workplace agreements in which there is no no-disadvantage test. The no disadvantage test that was placed in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has effectively been removed and therefore the office of these instruments can be below the teaching awards that would apply to the teaching profession that would be providing training or education to any of the young people in these colleges.
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth government has this obsession with smashing unions. Because it does not want to allow collective bargaining, it creates a world—if you like, a greenfields site—which obviates the proper processes of industrial negotiations. I really think the government needs to get collective therapy. It has such a perverse obsession with individual contracts that all its public policy is polluted in so many areas. I need to make those points because they demonstrate one of the reasons why some of the organisations that would normally be interested in taking up a role have chosen not to do so. That is a real concern for me and it is certainly a concern for organisations that I have spoken to when the matter was raised with them.
Having said all of that, can I say, having questioned the way in which the Commonwealth has chosen to set about entering the field, that if a college were established in Sunshine of course I would want to play a positive role. I offer the caveats that I have just mentioned in relation to the IR instrument and the fact that it has turned people off; they do not want to get into an industrial battle with particular organisations. In the event that we do end up having a college, which has certainly been promoted far and wide—the government has spent a lot on advertising to date—I want to play a positive role. I have said as much to Minister Hardgrave because, in the end, notwithstanding those reservations, western Melbourne’s young people have serious skill deficiencies and they need an opportunity.
When you look at the demographics of western Melbourne compared with those of the other side, eastern Melbourne, you clearly see fundamental differences. In fact, in some ways the demographics of the areas of western Melbourne that I represent share some of the problems that are associated with regional Australia in terms of people not having as many opportunities as those in the wealthier suburbs of the city of Melbourne. For example, if you compare the Treasurer’s electorate with mine, and refer to the ABS data on educational qualifications, you see it is three or four times more likely that a constituent in the Treasurer’s electorate will have a postgraduate degree than is the case in the electorate of Gorton—and I am hoping these figures have changed because this ABS data is a little dated. As the census is coming up shortly, I will be interested to see its findings on this matter. It is over three times more likely that a 10-year-old in the Treasurer’s electorate will be online at home than a 10-year-old in my electorate.
These are really compelling gaps, and I do not think governments can arrest that imbalance themselves. Of course, they are the result of a variety of factors, such as people residing with like. There are so many reasons why those inequalities exist in parts of cities or between regions. But governments should play a role to at least increase the likelihood that people in the electorate of Gorton can get access to training and education in a similar manner to the way in which people in other parts of Melbourne—or indeed in other parts of the country—can. To that extent I accept that we need more funding for education in the west of Melbourne.
I have been railing against this government over its failure to provide sufficient resources in education, transport and health in western Melbourne. I have been attacking the government over its failure to worry about my constituents. If you look at the sort of money that goes into my electorate in any of those public policy areas compared with what goes into some of the other electorates, you realise that the government has an obsession with marginals rather than the marginalised. You see the government concerning itself with someone who has a one per cent margin. It is a case of: ‘Let’s make sure we secure that seat,’ or ‘Let’s make sure we hold that seat.’ Then all of a sudden you see the government putting millions of dollars into that area rather than looking after people who are in need.
0V5
Slipper, Peter, MP
Mr Slipper
—Are you talking about Ros Kelly?
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—I tell you now, Member for Fisher, if we had to use a whiteboard for this government, it would be the size of a football field because of the way in which the government has chosen to abuse Commonwealth money in this area. I am trying to be quite temperate in my remarks. I am not suggesting for a moment that it has only been the coalition government with an eye to that. I think it is a responsibility of all members in this place to raise the matter when governments are considering the interests of constituents in marginals rather than focusing on those that are marginalised in our society. I think more should be done about that. There should be a more bipartisan approach, particularly from government members who are not members of the executive. They should be making that very clear.
Government members—certainly members of The Nationals—who are in quite poor seats in regional Australia would not always receive sufficient capital if they were seen as being in a particularly safe seat. There has to be a situation whereby we get rid of this cynical approach to funding. I was surprised, therefore, to learn that the suburb of Sunshine is a proposed site for an ATC. I welcome it. There is a great need in my electorate for such a service. In the event that the college is established, I hope that the government does a bit more than train just one person, as is currently happening in Gladstone, Queensland. I hope that the Commonwealth is genuine about the problems in providing training opportunities for young people in the electorate of Gorton, the neighbouring electorate of Maribyrnong and other surrounding electorates that will access this college if it is successfully established.
We support bringing money forward to expend on training, but I am still somewhat sceptical that the college will be successfully established by 2007. I am concerned that not a great deal of thinking or effort has been put in by the Commonwealth to ensure that my constituents who are in need of training are provided with that opportunity—an opportunity that will enable them to get a good job. Let us hope that I am wrong and that the government sets it up. (Time expired)
10000
Lindsay, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Lindsay)—Representing the great state of Queensland, I call the honourable member for Fisher.
42
11:57:00
Slipper, Peter, MP
0V5
Fisher
LP
1
0
Mr SLIPPER
—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You also join with me in representing the great state of Queensland. The difference between you and me, though, is that I represent the best part of the best state—namely, the Sunshine Coast.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—I think the member is misleading the House!
0V5
Slipper, Peter, MP
Mr SLIPPER
—But I have to say that, having spent quite a considerable amount of time in Townsville, you also are singularly fortunate to have been chosen by your constituents to represent them in the Australian parliament.
My friend the member for Gorton reminded me a little bit of a worm squirming or twisting on a hook, because deep down he sees that this legislation is really an important initiative. He sought to pillory the government, accusing us of pork-barrelling and assisting the marginals and not the marginalised. He suggested that government resources were going where they were not deserved, that government resources were not going to where needy people were. Then he had to stand up and say, ‘However, at Sunshine, in my electorate in Victoria, we are getting a college.’ Then he said that, if this is to be established, he wants to play an important role in it—and I think any member would clearly want to play an important role in a local Australian technical college.
His argument was a bit thin, because he spent an inordinate amount of time condemning us for basically not putting Australian technical colleges where he believes they ought to be, and then he said, ‘However, I’ve got one.’ I think that basically blows his argument right out of the water. This government is placing Australian technical colleges where they are needed. When this policy was announced prior to the last election, it was a very popular policy. The fact that we are now debating the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, which will bring forward funding, is an indication that the roll-out of Australian technical colleges is proceeding expeditiously and in a very successful way.
Again I want to draw to the attention of the House an inconsistency uttered by the member for Gorton. He talked about 2007 and the proposed Australian technical college at Sunshine. He said that the reason we have this bill is that we need the money now because the colleges are being established more quickly than was anticipated. He then said that, even though we are talking about earlier money, he is not convinced that his college will be open by 2007. The whole reason we have this bill is that his college is about to open. However, I feel deep down that the member for Gorton really wants to support this bill and that he does not sincerely support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister.
I am particularly proud to say that the coalition government has always been mindful that we must give our young people the best opportunities in order that they can gain a good education that will lead them into good jobs where they can be solid, contributing members of our society. The Australian technical colleges are a great example of the Australian government putting this philosophy into action. An amount of $343.6 million has been pledged to create 25 of these technical colleges in 24 regions around the country. I have been a strong advocate of the vital role of all levels of government in giving students opportunities. Once governments give students the opportunities, it is then up to the students to exercise them, take advantage of them and achieve the best possible outcomes.
The main aim of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is to fast-track funds for the establishment of these valuable institutions, the Australian technical colleges. The funds were originally allocated for a period ending in 2009, but the progress of establishing the colleges is ramping up. It is moving at a very rapid pace and so the money is required sooner. So, instead of the pessimism uttered by the member for Gorton—who seems to wring his hands and say that his local college at Sunshine will not be established by 2007—the reality is that this bill will bring about the availability of the money earlier so that the colleges can be set up more quickly, including the college at Sunshine in Victoria.
The fact that we are expediting and rolling forward the expenditure reflects the dedication and conscientious effort of the coalition government in bringing useful services online in a prompt time frame. It also reflects an ideology that suggests it is pointless to wait until the future when you can do something that can be achieved for great benefit today. Often governments, particularly governments of the Labor persuasion, have been condemned for saying one thing and then doing another—for making rash promises which never attain a situation of reality. But, in this case, we have made a promise. Not only is our promise becoming reality but it is becoming reality much more quickly.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that, as the honourable member for Herbert, you were instrumental in ensuring that one of these Australian technical colleges will be placed in that area you like to refer to as paradise—namely, Townsville—and that other colleges will be established in other parts of the state of Queensland: the Gold Coast, north Brisbane and Gladstone. The north Brisbane college will initially service the Sunshine Coast and I hope that, in the fullness of time, we do get an Australian technical college right in the heart of the Sunshine Coast. We of course have excellent educational institutions, excellent government schools and non-government schools. We have a tremendous Sunshine Coast TAFE and we also have the University of the Sunshine Coast. So an Australian technical college on the Sunshine Coast would of course add another layer of choice to students who come from one of the most rapidly growing areas in Australia.
The areas which were initially given Australian technical colleges were identified as regions that have high youth populations and also a significant need for skills. They are also areas which have an enthusiastic industry base that is supportive of these colleges. The Australian technical colleges are designed to provide high-quality tuition to year 11 and year 12 students in vocational as well as academic pursuits. Tuition in these colleges will be provided in a wide range of areas, including cooking for commercial establishments; metalwork, including fabricating, machining, toolmaking, sheet metalworking and welding; automotive industries, such as mechanics, autoelectrics, panel beating and painting; building and construction; electrical trades; and technologies such as refrigeration and airconditioning. Employers tell me that they often place advertisements in the media seeking people to carry out trade work. They have trade opportunities in their business, but so often these positions go unfilled. So there clearly is a shortage of skilled people. The government, by allocating money to Australian technical colleges, is doing its bit to ensure that businesses are able to grow and expand, which boosts the economy and, in so doing, provides job opportunities. The fact that all of these courses are being offered will help make up those skilled vocations that are always required by a progressive society.
It is unfortunate that many people in Australia have sought at all costs to go to a university—any university—to do any course, even though graduation from that course, while an achievement in itself, does not necessarily bring about a career path. I think trade training has been underrecognised as an important part of Australia’s future. Many people have spurned trade training in the interests of obtaining, say, an arts degree from a university. While an arts degree is a very useful thing to have—I have one—it does not necessarily fit you out for a job in the way that the Australian technical colleges will by giving people trade training in areas much needed by industry and the community.
Students will be enrolled in school based apprenticeships, while also receiving tuition in a new business course and in all-important information technology studies. Those who do enrol in Australian technical colleges will acquire skills not only in a trade but also in business and entrepreneurial operations. This will help meet the goals of equipping our young people with as many skills as possible in their journey towards real, meaningful and rewarding employment. It is envisaged that some of the participants will go on to self-employment, further study at university—maybe in a technical area related to the area studied at the Australian technical college—or further training. The technical colleges are based in existing high schools so that students can continue learning through their usual curriculum and so gain their year 12 certificate. Some of these colleges will be based in a variety of situations, but I think the whole idea is to have some sort of orderly transition from school to a form of tertiary study so that we do not have the sudden break that once was there.
The colleges will have school based new apprenticeships, will be guided by industry and will have a great deal of relevance to industries in the area. The colleges must offer Australian workplace agreements to teaching staff. We see AWAs as a very important initiative which brings about flexibility. Different employees have different needs; different employers have different needs. As has been indicated during question time by the minister, those on Australian workplace agreements earn considerably more on average than those not on Australian workplace agreements, and it is important that these AWAs are offered to teaching staff.
I was quite appalled at comments made by the Leader of the Opposition when he did a complete somersault on his previous support for AWAs and said that a Labor government would abolish AWAs. Of course, we are not quite sure what a Labor government would do with respect to existing AWAs, because there has been some conflict, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay—and you may well have seen reports of this conflict—between what the Leader of the Opposition says about allowing existing AWAs to serve out their time and what some union officials are saying, which is something to the effect that only ‘genuine’ AWAs will be allowed to continue. In other words, if a union does not like an AWA, it will rip it up. The ALP has been pilloried, and appropriately so, for quite irresponsible comments. It does not look very good for the Australian Labor Party or for parliament generally when that side of politics is prepared to junk perfectly good policy—in fact, outstanding, progressive policy—in the interests of knuckling under to the trade unions.
People throughout our community, particularly in the private sector, have been voting with their feet and walking away from trade unions. I think that trade union membership is somewhere below 20 per cent now, so it is a pity that such organisations have such a stranglehold on the Australia Labor Party. They used to say that the Labor Party in government was the government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions. To give them credit, I thought that Labor was moving away from that, but, when I saw the fairly disgusting knuckling under to the union movement in the announcement that a future Labor government would scrap AWAs, it was clear that the Labor Party certainly has not changed its spots.
The design of the colleges will be determined by the management bodies. The roll-outs have already started. A number of colleges are opening and it is expected that large numbers of these colleges will progressively come on line. Agreements have been reached with around 13 management consortia—and this is expected to increase to 16 by the end of this month—that will be providing school based initiatives from next year. Management of these institutions is carried out by various consortia made up of local business operators, schools, training organisations such as TAFE colleges, universities and industry representatives. The colleges will have the added effect of promoting general pride in the acquisition of skills in trades. They are skills that are valuable not only to the individual but also to the wider community.
The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is a very positive initiative. Even though the ALP will huff and puff and say that they see some warts in this legislation, the bill is before the House because we are ahead of time with respect to Australian technical colleges. We want to provide the money sooner, because we have achieved so much and there is no point in postponing this initiative. This is a case of a government actually expediting the implementation of a promise given at election time—quite contrary, of course, to the record of the Australian Labor Party, who say what they want before elections and then tear up their promises afterwards. This legislation is positive. It is bringing forward expenditure on the Australian technical colleges, which will be a very strong arm in the skilling of Australia’s workforce. This is a wonderful initiative by this government and I am very pleased and proud to stand in the parliament today to support the bill before the House
45
12:12:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
0
Mr ADAMS
—I thought the contribution by the honourable member for Fisher was a rather weak one. He normally speaks quite well, but most of his speech was about attacking the Australian Labor Party and there was no substance to his comments. That reflects the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. It is hard for anybody on that side of the House to get excited when they know that this is really a nonsense bill and that there are a lot of other ways that things could be done instead of introducing this legislation.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005, which provides for the establishment and operation of Australian technical colleges. The act provides funding for colleges over the period 2005 to 2009. It also establishes a regulation-making power to allow for funding to be carried over or brought forward into another calendar year, removing the need for future recourse to legislation such as this bill to alter the timing of funding. Of course, there is so much uncertainty about these colleges that the government needs to have that sort of flexibility, which is probably a very bad thing from the point of view of accountability, auditing and so on.
Labor supports this bill, though these colleges seem redundant. Why on earth are we setting up a whole set of new colleges around Australia with new associated expenses when we have a perfectly good TAFE system currently operating? Not only that, it is very difficult to get information about the setting up of these colleges, what courses there will be and how they will be run. A bit of a secret operation is going on around what is actually happening. There have been disputes in Tasmania as rival private groups rally to pick up the extra money. The new colleges have been structured so that groups which should be working together to support training have been pitted against each other and are fighting to get influence and control. I have no problem with putting more funds into the hands of tertiary and further education providers, but why is it necessary to have a whole new system in place to do that? We could provide more places if we beefed up the TAFE system around Australia. As there are only four colleges operating in 2006, with enrolments of fewer than 100 students, only 100 students will be qualified by 2010. That is the contribution of this government to addressing the skills shortage.
The Australian Industry Group estimates that we will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers by 2010. So the situation is that only one-thousandth of the skilled workers Australia needs will be trained under this regime, which is a pretty appalling effort to address the urgent need of the country. The colleges have far too narrow a scope and their implementation has been very bungled. They seem to be years away from being useful in the push to skill our workforce. Added to this are the draconian industrial relations laws, which prevent the recruitment of good college staff. They have been frightened off by the insistence that if they go into these colleges they will have to sign an AWA before they are employed. That is frightening off lots of good staff who might have been given a job there.
The Labor Party has a much better plan and a more systematic approach to dealing with the skills shortage. I remember, when Working Nation operated, we managed to reach many of those young people who found college entry very hard but could access on-the-job training very satisfactorily. Some refinements could have been made to that program but essentially it managed to set many more students on a good training path and gave them an opportunity for a start and to get into formal training—something that this government does not seem to have any understanding of. We must invest in our skills base through a strong education and training system.
This government has an appalling record of allowing Australia to be the only developed country to reduce public investment in our TAFEs and universities. Public investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen eight per cent since 1996. The OECD average is a 38 per cent increase. So we know where this government is going. It is a shocking record. Those new colleges will go nowhere near fixing this lack of training. We need to work with the states to improve the education and training that already exists, firstly by improving the conditions that many of the schools and colleges work under now. Labor’s approach would be to improve the workshops and trade facilities in the secondary schools and to refurbish the technology and science labs across secondary and TAFE establishments. We could then improve on the skills and trades on offer.
So many things have changed as technology has changed. The types of skills needed now will require a whole new set of workshop facilities and training opportunities. Australia has always been at the forefront of innovation—and we are still there—but most of our good ideas go offshore because of the lack of skilled people to undertake the development work. I will quote from an article by Chris Styles, who is a senior lecturer in marketing at the University of New South Wales, and Tim Hardcourt, who is the chief economist of the Australian Trade Commission, on how they see innovation and where our skills need to be honed:
Business innovation can also be about new ways of manufacturing products or services (or, indeed, adding services to products), novel ways of working with and configuring supplier and distribution networks, and different approaches to attracting and retaining the best staff. In sum, its about being truly different from rivals on a number of fronts (and receiving the substantial rewards for being so), rather than playing the same game as everyone else and competing on implementation and price (while blaming the resultant low margins on being in a ‘mature industry’).
All these areas of business innovation are crucial if ideas are to create value for customers, shareholders and society though increasing the number of sustainable jobs. Of course, new scientific technologies play a crucial role in all of this. But they are only the means to execute brilliant customer driven business ideas, not ends in themselves. Companies that developed innovative businesses—such as Dell in the US, IKEA in Sweden, and Servcorp in Australia—created new categories, established new competitive rules, and forced others to play catch-up.
Of course, we see this principle at work in sport every weekend: the Australian cricket team plays a very different game to the rest of the world; Kevin Sheedy of Essendon and Rodney Eade of the Sydney Swans invented radical new tactics in the AFL; and no-one drives a formula 1 car like Michael Schumacher or devises race strategies like his Ferrari tactician Ross Brawn. All make use of technology—particularly IT—but its the way they think, challenge existing assumptions and keep others guessing that makes them stand out from the rest. That’s innovation. And while Ian Thorpe’s ‘fast skin’ swimming suit is an example of an important technical innovation, it combines with his natural talent, work ethic and unique training regime to bring him success at the Olympics and FINA championships (those big feet of his also probably help).
The article continues:
At both the country and firm level Australia needs to put more effort into encouraging and supporting scientific research. However, turning great ideas into sustainable jobs and shareholder value requires more than this. Research into business innovation, and education to develop managers capable of creating innovative businesses, must also be a priority. Commercialisation is different from inventing. Otherwise, at best, we may just end up with a whole lot of better mouse traps.
Unemployment will always be one of the major drivers of all forms of social dislocation, from poverty to poor outcomes in health and crime. We have seen this particularly in our Indigenous communities lately, but it is still there among the whole of the Australian population. Despite this government’s rhetoric that we have much lower unemployment nowadays—they say under five per cent—it is all in the manipulation of figures.
A8W
Pearce, Christopher, MP
Mr Pearce interjecting—
BV5
Adams, Dick, MP
Mr ADAMS
—They are paper figures, Parliamentary Secretary. Evan Thornley recently told us on the ABC radio:
If you add up the total of unemployment, disability and sole-parent benefits together, there are more people now than when the official unemployment rate was much higher. This, despite a decade of boom. It works like this: We used to have about a million unemployed and about 100,000 disability pensions. Now we’ve got half a million unemployed and 600,000 disability pensions. We’ve just rearranged the deckchairs, and declared victory. That’s why we still have one in six children growing up in a jobless household. … The truth is we have about two million people who have less work than they want.
Everyone who is on a benefit is quite aware of this. They wonder how they have been written off. Many of them would like to access much more retraining and have more opportunities but cannot afford to even try. He goes on to say that, although we have a skills shortage, there are employers everywhere who say they cannot fill their job vacancies, and therefore it is possible to have real unemployment and skill shortages running together:
Because the skill levels and geographic locations of the unemployed don’t match the jobs available. We have unemployed timber workers, but a shortage of mining engineers. We have unemployed textile workers, but a shortage of bricklayers. We have large pools of unemployed people living in our urban fringes, and shortages of fruit pickers in the Riverina.
That particular gentleman explained that, while demand for labour and skills can change quite quickly, the supply of people and the skills they have to meet new demands can only change with long lead periods. To skill people up takes time. He continued:
That’s why you try to equip your workforce with a large range of transferable skills, and think about how you’ll develop your regions.
That is what we should be doing. That is why I believe that we have to put training in the areas where the skills are likely to be needed. By using the regional high schools and having TAFE annexes, it will be possible to keep our young people up to date with future jobs of the region and also have the flexibility to upskill older workers whose jobs are changing or when new ones are becoming available that require a whole new training component.
Evan believes that we are not investing highly enough in the skilled workforce, nor are we competitive in helping what innovative local industries we do have to build up for export. There are few incentives and few avenues to find help to develop products. Just look at what happened with the removal of the renewable energy targets. Look at what is happening there, and that is going to impact on my state of Tasmania, where we might lose a factory in the future. Most of our research in the private sector is going offshore, and what we do ourselves is squeezed into our universities and places like CSIRO and maybe some CRCs, which manage to do a bit around their so called ‘core’ activities.
Evan is right: we cannot compete with the likes of the US. Our scale is all wrong. We have to be more clever and niche orientated with the things we do well now or could do well given the skills and incentives. This is what Labor wants to assist in and what we think we have the answers for. We have three commentators here who believe that we must change direction as far as training and innovation goes. To see that is really not rocket science, yet the minister has very little idea about how to deal with educating and skilling up our young people, let alone reskilling those who have been pushed out of the system by technology and are languishing in one of our unimpressive unemployment benefit schemes for the lack of any other form of subsistence. I am not impressed with these so called new colleges, as they do not offer anything different. Nor do they seem to allow any school links or provide any specialist training that does not cost the student an arm or a couple of legs.
You only have to look at the disasters in the rural sector. A recent article in the Australian Financial Review bemoaned the fact that it was ‘the end of the road for the family farm’, as they were ‘too small, too inefficient and not viable’, and it was happening across Australia. Farm workers are being laid off and, because they have had little access to training in the past and the wages have been low, no new ideas have been filtering in to boost changes to farming. Farmers are growing older and there is no-one coming to replace them. Our farming sector is likely to give up, and our farm produce will come from offshore. It needs a whole new mindset to change this and a whole new approach to training so that there is publicly available training to deal with shortages, not just today but planned for the future, 10 and 20 years down the track. We need training that means something, which can be developed on an ongoing basis, not just a static qualification which you get at the end of your schooling. This cannot be fixed with single, highly specific courses as, by the time the student has finished, some of it might be out of date.
I am not happy with this bill. I feel that the funds taken to set up a whole new sector would be far better employed in using the infrastructure that is there now and by boosting the ability to continue to add to courses, to research the needs of industry and the private sector generally and to come up with courses in conjunction with enterprises, to ensure we are in front with training and that employers value their employees because they are the key to the growth of their enterprise or industry. There is a danger here that, if we do not provide training that is relevant and inclusive to allow all our population to enter the workforce in the areas where they have the greatest chance of succeeding, we will be allowing in more and more migrants. I saw last weekend in an article in the Daily Telegraph that this government is planning to bring in 97,000 skilled migrants to work in businesses where it is claimed there are not enough local skilled workers to fill the vacancies—yet we are turning our own youngsters away from training institutions. Three hundred thousand have been turned away from TAFE since 1997, over 14,979 qualified students were refused a university place in 2006 because of the lack of funding and 4,000 fewer new apprentices were in training at the end of last year. More than 33,000 of those who start one of the new apprenticeships quit before— (Time expired)
49
12:32:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
1
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I am very pleased to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, and I have listened to some of the debate in this place this morning. I particularly appreciated the contribution of the member for Riverina, and my comments follow along a similar line. If ever we needed flexibility in meeting Australia’s skills needs it is now, and I really welcome the government’s responsiveness to contributing to meeting those needs. A view in the community that I believe has prevailed for many years is that every student must reach university to succeed. This attitude has caused many young people to lose heart, as they have felt other abilities and skills are not valued, and they are defeated before they even start. This has been a real tragedy for Australia. It is beyond time that we acknowledge the technical skills that go hand in hand with the academic abilities to create valuable and crucial synergies in areas of science, engineering and medicine, to name a few. I think my colleague the member for Lyons mentioned innovation and the very important contribution that makes.
Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting Professor Ian Frazer, the recent winner of the Nobel prize for his work in finding a cure for ulcers. As I prepared this speech, I could not help but reflect on where Professor Frazer would be without his lab technicians and the people who design and manufacture the lab equipment. I think he would be the first to recognise and acknowledge that the team around him has allowed him to have such great success in this groundbreaking medical work which improves the quality of life for many people who suffer from stomach ulcers. Indeed, where would a heart surgeon or aeronautical engineer be without the designers and the welders? The engineers and the architects who design our buildings or our homes would be unlikely to see projects come to fruition without the window manufacturers, the concrete batchers, the bricklayers, the carpenters and the electricians, all of whose skills ensure an end product.
We sometimes do not give a lot of weight to this—or we have not in the past. I have been very pleased to see our ministers, particularly Brendan Nelson, raise the national debate on this to a very high level. We have some amazing young people who have such a lot to contribute but who feel so defeated by our country, which seems to place a disproportionate value on economic, legal, science and other academic qualifications. I do not for one moment want to suggest that we should not value and reward these disciplines, but it did get to a stage when there was too much emphasis on academic achievements and insufficient on creative and technical skills, and I am very pleased to see this being redressed.
I am a great supporter of university education. We have to encourage the full development of our people and their skills and abilities. In fact, for 10 years I worked with the Midland community, which is not technically in my electorate. It is now in the electorate of my very good colleague the member for Hasluck, but it services much of the hinterland, which is in my electorate. With the local community, we fought very hard to achieve university places in the eastern corridor. If you look at a map of Western Australia which shows where the institutes of higher learning are, you will see they are mostly located in the northern coastal or southern coastal strips and in the western suburbs. We have very little to offer in terms of a university-level education in the eastern region. I compliment the incredible work of people like Eric Lumsden, who headed a community committee to drive the establishment of that university. Brendan Nelson, again, was responsive and provided 25 places for Midland.
I went along to the opening day. Many of the students who actually came from the electorate of Pearce, the hinterland, expressed to me that they would never have had an opportunity, because of travel restrictions and family situations, to attend a university had it not been for these places, which were administered by Curtin University, being made available in the region. They were people doing early childhood development courses and suchlike—important work at that higher level. So I do not for one minute want to suggest that I am not supportive of university; I am.
It is an extraordinary achievement that this government has managed to highlight and have debated the value of technical education and been prepared to fund Australian technical colleges, giving those in our community an opportunity to reach their potential in other areas, thus making an important contribution to the skills base of our nation. As I said, I am grateful for the early work of Minister Nelson, who raised this issue nationally and worked so hard to draw attention to the inequities of funding between university and technical education. Minister Nelson visited the Swan View High School in my electorate and saw first-hand the value of recognising and developing the individual abilities of students, whether they be academic, creative or technical. The federal government, along with the state government, provided funding for a manual arts centre there. It was a joint effort. There was a jewellery design and manufacturing course and workshop available at that school. It also had a strong emphasis on engineering and strong collaboration between the academics from the universities and technical development so that young people could either stream into the serious academic side or stream into the design or manufacturing side of engineering skills.
I met two young people who had been students at the school and became jewellery designers. They worked in New York, I think, with one of the top jewellers and then later came back to Perth and took up positions with one of Perth’s leading jewellers. It was a great inspiration to see how thrilled these young people were to have found a niche where they excelled and where they knew their abilities were valued. I think it is enormously important that we do speak up more about how valuable these skills are, whether they are in engineering or other areas of design or technical skills. We need to acknowledge that.
I recently attended a graduation of some young people who were part of a pilot program to attract more young people into the trades and the automotive industry. Over the years in which we have seen the decline of technical education, there has been a view from parents that they do not want their kids to go into what used to be known as the ‘dirty trades’. The automotive industry has changed so much these days. It is a very highly sophisticated area and, again, there is a path for many different skills—from the design side to the actual mechanical side. The Motor Trade Association of Western Australia did a very good job in going around to schools, engaging with parents and students and helping them to see what opportunities were available in the modern automotive industry. I attended the graduation of these young people and, again, it was terrific to see the enthusiasm they had for the areas they had worked in. As a result of that pilot program, nearly all of them had been placed in apprenticeships in the domestic automotive industry, the heavy equipment industry or in shipping and boating, which is big in Western Australia. The opportunities are boundless in Western Australia, whether they are in domestic automotives, heavy equipment or the shipping and haulage industries, because it is going through a huge resource boom and it is having to import skilled people to take up jobs in the mining sector. What a great shame it is for our young people that they did not have an opportunity in the past to seriously develop these skills. The government’s 2004 election commitment to create 25 Australian technical colleges to train 7,500 years 11 and 12 students in the areas of need across the country was an important step in reducing that skills gap.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the original Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005. The new bill will amend the 2005 bill so that funding originally outlined for 2008-09 can be brought forward to 2006-07 and will insert a new provision in the bill to enable the minister to redistribute program funds between years by regulation instead of legislation. This allows much greater flexibility in responding to training needs as they arise and it will also allow the establishment of more facilities at an earlier date than first anticipated. I think this demonstrates the incredible enthusiasm around the country for this initiative by the federal government. The funding set aside for the colleges is $343 million over a five-year period. That is a very big injection of funds into technical training. I am informed, as I said, that this will benefit about 7,500 students around the country.
One of the reasons I really wanted to rise to talk on this is that there were a number of organisations in the Midland area—which crosses over between the Hasluck and Pearce electorates—that had made a bid for the first round of funding. I know it was very competitive and it is always difficult to choose who gets the opportunity and who does not in the first round, but they put together such an excellent proposal that I wanted to run through a couple of the issues raised in a letter to our minister from the group, which was headed by the Swan Chamber of Commerce, outlining some of the reasons an Australian technical college should be located in the Midland region, in the eastern region of the Perth metropolitan area. To quote from the letter:
Current education and training delivery models are simply not proving effective for the region and a new approach is required if the Eastern Metropolitan area is to be revitalised and re-energised using education and skills development as a catalyst. For a decade the Midland community, the regional centre, led by the local Government authority, the City of Swan and local business, has worked towards the establishment of an integrated learning environment (the Midland Community Learning Precinct).
This is the same group that I helped get the university places for. They have done incredible work. They go on to say:
Interest groups which had been working to enhance education and vocational training issues have come together to form both the Midland Local Area Planning group ... and the Swan Alliance both of which have representation from industry, business, educators, the community and local government.
… … …
The Perth Eastern Region has a long and honourable tradition of vocational training—
that is true—
and a culture of taking pride in trades achievement and has been in the past one of the major apprenticeship and trainee locations for the State.
It has this long tradition. In fact, both my father and my grandfather were apprenticed to the Midland railway workshops, where my father learned to be a fitter and turner and as a young man studied mass production. America was just beginning to mass-produce motor vehicles. When war broke out, my father was manpowered to Adelaide because they needed people like him to solve the problems of how to mass-produce munitions. It was his job to resolve those problems and set up the kinds of mass production techniques they were using in the motor industry, in which he studied, for the building of railway engines and to transfer that skill to the war effort. So for me it is a very personal issue as well because I know this area has a marvellous history, particularly in the engineering trades.
The writer of the letter, the President of the Swan Chamber of Commerce, who was Peter McDowell at the time, said that the Midland ATC ‘would focus primarily on engineering’. There is good reason for that. Midland is at the crossroads of the major highways that service the traffic going to and coming from the eastern seaboard of the country. It is also the major highway, the Great Northern Highway, which takes all the trucking and tourism to the north-west mining and pastoral regions of Western Australia and, of course, the Perth airport is very close by. The letter went on to say:
Employment of apprentices and trainees has decreased markedly in the region and recently industry has begun a concerted effort to rectify the decline. Some of Western Australia’s industry leaders are located in the region and have committed to a project to increase their involvement in enhancing educational outcomes. During the development of the ATC program industry partners will participate directly so pathways can be identified that optimise the relationship between the vocational environment and the workplace.
As I said, the electorate of Pearce lies within the outer metropolitan regions of Perth and it extends to country towns and communities. There are wheat and sheep farms, viticulture, horticulture and brickworks in the electorate as well as mining interests, aviation and heavy haulage—it covers such a broad area; there is a need for all sorts of skills in all of these different industries—building and construction, manufacturing and so it goes. With all of the transport coming through this hub, it is a very important part of the outer metropolitan area. It used to be called Midland Junction because it is indeed, as I said, the junction between the eastern seaboard and access to the northern reaches of the mining and pastoral areas of Western Australia.
The push for an Australian technical college really does not in any way suggest that we have not got strong educational precincts there now. The Swan Technical College and the northern technical colleges have done an amazingly wonderful job supporting the region. If you look at the figures from the 2001 census in the Swan catchment alone, which is only part of the proposed catchment for a technical college, almost 20 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds in the area were unemployed. That is terrible in a state where we are just screaming out for unskilled and skilled labour. In 2000, just over 18,000 students were attending school in Swan, at 31 primary schools, 12 high schools and the Midland College of TAFE. The Midland catchment area relies more heavily on a certificate level qualification—13.8 per cent—than the Perth metropolitan area, which reflects a reliance on TAFE and access to trades and vocational studies. The Swan TAFE offers excellent initiatives. As I said before, that is where the eight young people who graduated in the automotive industry pilot course did their work. I commend the work that they have done.
In finishing, I want to quote again from Mr McDowell’s letter on behalf of the group seeking funding for an Australian technical college, because they set out very clearly the reasons that an establishment of an Australian technical college is justified. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support this group in their work to bring an Australian technical college to the eastern region. These are the reasons they set out:
-
A decade of hard work has already been done to establish an innovative integrated education environment in Midland, the centre of our region utilising existing community assets.
-
Plans for the Midland Community Learning Precinct could easily accommodate an ATC and add considerable value to the integrated learning model.
-
Interim Board led by industry, and an Independent Governance model is being developed.
-
Industry and community need and demand has been amply demonstrated.
-
Federal Government has recognised the region as a key area of need.
-
The proposed site of the ATC is in a major transport hub for metropolitan and inland areas and there is a diversity of modes of transport available.
-
There is a catchment of more than 10,000 year 9 and 10 students.
-
The region is home to some of WA’s biggest industry players in the engineering, transport and building and construction and mining services firms and many are directly committed to the ATC concept.
-
The area can service skills shortages in the metropolitan, regional and mining areas.
I am pleased with and support this bill. (Time expired)
53
12:52:00
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
0
Mr BOWEN
—The Australian technical colleges have been a story of duplication and a saga of incompetence. In a federation it is important that the Commonwealth and state governments work together to fix matters of national importance. Governments, especially for the last 20 years or so, have been working to reduce duplication, to streamline the operations of government, to reach efficiencies and to reduce the overlap between what federal and state governments do. The creation of Australian technical colleges goes against this trend. This policy does not reduce duplication; it creates it. I cannot think of any precedents for this sort of duplication being created by a Commonwealth government. We have public schools and TAFEs doing a good job with very limited resources, yet the government has seen fit to attempt to completely duplicate that system.
We just heard from the honourable member for Pearce, a member for whom I have a considerable degree of respect. Although I do not agree with her conclusions, she said that she acknowledged the work being done by her local technical colleges and schools in the Swan district. I am sure that is right, and I am sure that that is an issue that you have an interest in, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie. We recognise that TAFEs and public schools are doing the best they can with limited resources, yet this government has chosen to completely duplicate the system. Let us imagine what could have been done if the federal government, instead of attempting to create a new system from scratch, had put the money into the existing TAFE and public school systems. We have the situation where over 40,000 young Australians are being turned away from TAFE every year and this government, instead of working with the state governments to fix that, instead of putting money into the TAFE system, is trying to create its own system. Not only has this seen a ridiculous level of duplication but we have seen it incompetently implemented.
In preparing for this speech on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 this morning I got out my notes from the original Australian technical colleges bill and the contribution I made in that debate. I was surprised to see that it was almost exactly one year ago that I spoke in that debate. It has been almost a year to the day that this House was considering the original Australian technical colleges bill. In that speech I warned that creating a new system would have start-up costs and a start-up lag and that the amount of time it would take to create these Australian technical colleges would be very substantial. I am sorry to say that I was right. But I am also sorry to say that it has taken even longer than I thought it would. I was amazed to hear the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education boasting in his second reading speech that this bill was a measure of:
... the great successes which have been achieved to date in implementing the Australian technical colleges initiative.
I do not believe a minister could come into this House and say that with a straight face. Not even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, at the table, is keeping a straight face when he hears the Minister for Vocational Education and Training saying, ‘This is a mark of how successful we have been.’ By now there were meant to be 25 colleges operating. How many do we have? Four. And how many students are in these colleges? There are 300—not 300 each but 300 across the nation. There were meant to be 7,500. Again I quote the minister boasting in his second reading speech:
I am happy to report to the House that, already, four colleges are in operation, with another to commence later this year—the one in northern Tasmania—and at least 20 are expected to be in operation in 2007.
The minister did not share with the House the fact that there were meant to be 25 operating by a now. He only shared with the House that there were four. Those four are in Gladstone, Port Macquarie, Eastern Melbourne and the Gold Coast. Port Macquarie is a very interesting case in point. I was interested to read the comments of the principal of the Port Macquarie college, who indicated that they had been doing this since the 1970s and that there had only been a few extra students introduced to the school as a result of the Australian technical colleges initiative. So a large proportion of those 300 students the government claim are now in technical education because of their initiative were already in technical education at the school at Port Macquarie. Of course, who can forget Gladstone—a technical college with one student? I am all in favour of good teacher to student ratios, but one student is a bit ridiculous. This shows the incompetence of this government and the incompetence of this minister. The minister blames everybody else for his incompetence. Again I quote the minister in his second reading speech:
It is another example of how the Howard government’s election commitment has been so enthusiastically embraced by the community, by industry and by employers.
That is a very interesting quote. By itself, in isolation, you cannot take issue with it. But these are the very people he blames for his incompetence. These are the very people he blames for the fact that there are only four colleges in existence. As reported in the Australian on 25 April this year:
Mr Hardgrave said three colleges announced in NSW at Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore/Ballina on the far north coast could be scrapped within weeks unless he received a “clear indication” from the community of local support.
He went on to say:
“In the case of those communities—if they don’t take up the offer we will have to look at other regions,”
When asked if he was worried about the lack of progress, he said:
“Absolutely, I am worried about it. I am going to Darwin next week to give them a hurry up.
“You’ve got to actually extract a digit and do something ... ”
That is a direct quote from the minister, blaming everybody but himself, blaming the community for their lack of enthusiasm, when he and his department have not been able to get more than 300 students—at a very generous interpretation—so far in the Australian technical colleges, one year after the bill passed the House and two years since the government made its commitment.
The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education would have to qualify for this government’s least competent minister, and that is a big call. He specialises in bluster, bluff and question time buffoonery and not in delivering the outcomes that this nation needs. We cannot afford an incompetent minister in this particular area. The government has a very long tail when it comes to its ministry. The junior level of the ministry is particularly incompetent, but this is one area where the nation cannot afford to have an incompetent minister in the chair. The Prime Minister said:
... the technical colleges are the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education in Australia ...
So here we have the government’s self-admitted centrepiece of its policy failing through the minister’s incompetence. But, to be fair, that is due not only to the minister’s incompetence but, in addition, to the government’s ideological obsession with Australian workplace agreements.
I was interested to hear one of the rare contributions in the policy debate in this House from the honourable member for Greenway earlier. She blamed the unions for the lack of an Australian technical college being established in Western Sydney. She said that the unions’ and the state government’s obsession with awards was stopping a college being opened in Western Sydney.
The federal government’s ideological obsession in not giving people choice, in insisting that employees of the Australian technical colleges be given Australian workplace agreements, means that communities, workers and potential teachers are saying, ‘What about our working conditions?’ The government arrogantly say: ‘You’ll cop it. If you don’t like it, we’ll go somewhere else.’ The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education says, ‘I’m going to Darwin to give them a hurry-up and to tell them that they have to take AWAs.’ So we have the intersection of the government’s ideological obsession with individual contracts and AWAs and their ham-fisted attempts to fix the skills crisis in this nation.
If the government wants to introduce flexibility into the employment arrangements in Australian technical colleges, it can. It can have any range of industrial instruments. Some colleges might choose to offer Australian workplace agreements. Others might choose to offer common-law contracts to achieve their flexibility. Others would be happy with an award and enterprise agreement. But this government insists.
The reason we cannot afford to have this sort of incompetence and this sort of ideological obsession is that the skills crisis is in the first order of economic problems facing this nation. We have heard warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia, the OECD, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Australian Industry Group recently conducted a survey of over 500 businesses, and they found that the inability to find skilled staff was the biggest barrier to growth. The AiG passed comment on the recent budget. They said:
We’re disappointed there wasn’t more progress ... made in some of the big nation-building areas, particularly skills, which ... was fairly underdone in the Budget.
I think the AiG might have been a bit generous in saying that it was ‘fairly underdone’—it was more than ‘fairly underdone’; it was totally neglected—but I agree with the thrust of their sentiments.
The Australian Industry Group issued a discussion paper back in 2004, warning that we would need 100,000 new tradespeople by 2010. Back in 2004, they were warning that we would need 100,000, and this government’s contribution is 300. The St George-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Small Business Survey, which comes out regularly, consistently shows that the skills crisis is one of the biggest problems facing small business in this country.
The Governor of the Reserve Bank has been warning about this issue. He warned about it in his statement to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in early 2005. Both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, at the table, and I were then on that committee, and we heard the Governor of the Reserve Bank warn that the skills crisis was one of the biggest economic challenges facing this nation. He has repeated that in every monetary policy statement since, in every appearance before the House of Representatives economics committee and in every public statement that he has made.
Personally, I am singularly unsurprised that this is the biggest challenge facing our economy, because I represent in this House the biggest industrial estate in the Southern Hemisphere, at Smithfield-Wetherill Park. I go around to the factories. I talk to the recruitment managers. They tell me that it is impossible for them to get an appropriately qualified, skilled workforce—that they have trouble attracting people to come and work in the biggest industrial estate in this country.
As I said, the Australian Industry Group have indicated that we need 100,000 extra skilled workers by 2010. The government’s centrepiece is producing 300. Even if we believe their projections, they say that we might get to 7,500 a year. Even if the minister manages to get his act together—if he, in his words, ‘pulls his digit out’ and actually gets something done—then, even if it is as successful as the government say it will be, they will get to 7,500 a year. The breathtaking incompetence that we have seen this far indicates that not even 7,500 a year is achievable.
And, of course, the government deals with the shortfall by importing the difference. We see, day after day, in question time and in examples brought forward predominantly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the government plugging the issues of skills shortages and apprenticeships by issuing foreign worker visas. And this is the problem, the result, of 10 years of neglect by this government. Public investment in universities and TAFEs has fallen by eight per cent since 1996. The average across the OECD is a 38 per cent increase. Yet Australia is the only OECD nation to actually reduce the amount of government money going into universities and technical colleges. That has been this government’s contribution.
I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because fixing the skills crisis in this nation is not only important economically—it is also important socially. We are seeing 40,000 young people every year being turned away from TAFEs. That is bad for our economy, but it goes without saying that it is also bad for those young individuals. Their hopes and, as the Prime Minister would say, their aspirations are being dashed. Their aspirations to be tradespeople, perhaps to start small businesses, to grow their small businesses and provide for their families are being dashed. Why? Because this government is wasting $350 million, duplicating a training and education system which already exists—not only creating start-up costs but start-up lags, which means that the numbers of apprenticeships and skilled tradespeople that we need are not being created. Instead of working with the states, instead of putting aside its ideological obsession, it is creating just 300 apprentices a year. It is doing nothing about improving our apprenticeship completion rates. Forty per cent of people who start an apprenticeship in this nation do not finish it. Can you imagine what it would do for the skills crisis in this nation if we could get that figure down—if we could halve it or better? But this government completely ignores the problem and does nothing about it.
Why doesn’t the government take up Labor’s policy of introducing a trade completion bonus of $2,000, to be given to every apprentice on the completion of their apprenticeship? I am not saying that would convince every apprentice to finish their training; some apprentices clearly just feel that they have made the wrong choice. But any economist would tell you that a $2,000 incentive to finish their training would play an important role in getting people to finish their apprenticeships.
Why doesn’t the government take up Labor’s plan, announced by the Leader of the Opposition, of abolishing TAFE fees for traditional apprenticeships? Why doesn’t the federal government take it up? It is not a matter—
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr Barresi interjecting—
10000
Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Wilkie)—The member for Deakin will have an opportunity to speak shortly.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr BOWEN
—The Leader of the Opposition has given a commitment to do it; why doesn’t the Prime Minister? The honourable member for Deakin conveniently blames the states. He could be the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education he is so good at blaming everybody else! That is what the current minister excels at, apart from his buffoonery in question time and his expertise at bluff.
Why doesn’t the government take up Labor’s plan to fix the skills crisis in this country? It cannot be fixed overnight; no government could fix it overnight; you cannot fix a problem which has been brewing for 10 years overnight. Some of the traditional trades in this country have had shortages recognised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics every year for the last 10 years, but only in 2004 did the government take any steps to fix it. And when we look at those steps, we see they involve the creation of a new, completely duplicated system—25 colleges across the country which will, at best, create 7,500 apprenticeships a year.
Australians deserve better than this half-hearted, ham-fisted attempt to fix our skills crisis. They deserve a coordinated effort. They deserve COAG, every state premier and the Prime Minister of this nation, getting together to fix the problem. That is not what we see from this government and we will only see it from a Labor government.
58
13:11:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
0
Mr BARRESI
—I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 because it really does represent a debate on learning—and we should be talking about what we have learnt when it comes to education. One thing that we have learnt is that the one-size-fits-all approach to education does not work and it is one of the reasons why this government has recognised the need to reintroduce an emphasis in our secondary education system on vocational training and education.
One of the things that you hear often from parents and, even more so, from grandparents is their lament about the demise of the technical skills system around this country. Through the Australian technical colleges model we are emphasising once again that one size really does not fit all and that we need to address the skills shortage and the aspirations of those students who do not want to go on to university or higher tertiary education. We have learnt that Australian students and their families do want a choice when it comes to education and the ATCs are all about that ability to choose—the ability of young Australians to choose a course of study that interests them and which they can pursue. This choice and variety has been a success, even though members opposite like to talk down the ATC model that this government has introduced.
The main purpose of this bill, though, is to allow the movement of funds forward for the establishment of the ATCs. Increased funding is needed for 2006 and 2007 and reflects this government’s achievements in establishing ATCs sooner than originally anticipated. The colleges have received widespread community and industry support, even though those opposite keep talking down the program. The enthusiasm received for the program has generated the establishment of the ATCs ahead of time. Currently the government is in a position where 22 of 25 colleges have been announced, five colleges are operating in 2006 with almost 300 students and at least 20 colleges are expected to be operational in 2007. When fully operational, the 25 Australian technical colleges will have at least 7,500 students each year.
The member for Prospect went on and cited figures about the skills shortages and how the ATCs, even in their full capacity, will be covering a mere drop in the ocean in terms of those who are needed to make up the shortfall in skills. This is a very convenient argument by those on the other side, who do not realise that this government approaches issues of this kind in a multifaceted way. The ATCs are just one part of that policy prong to address skills shortages.
I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on this bill. I will declare I have a vested interest: one of those ATCs is in my electorate; it is located in Ringwood. I have become fully aware from talking to parents, industry groups and businesses in the area that there really is a demand for technical colleges. The eastern suburbs based ATC is based at Ringwood Secondary College in my electorate of Deakin. I take particular pride in being able to say that is one of the achievements that this government has been able to introduce for the benefit of the people in the eastern suburbs. It is currently offering courses in automotive, cabinet-making and electrotechnical industry trades. At present, the eastern Melbourne ATC has only 13 students. I recognise that that is a small number. There are nine students in cabinet-making, three in electrical trades and courses and one in the automotive trades. And there has been criticism from those opposite that the take-up rate for enrolments has not been quick enough or great enough. I would like to remind members in this place that it was the ALP that held up the funding agreements in the Senate until October 2005. This led to a delay in the establishment of localised funding agreements until the very end of the 2005 school year, too late to allow substantial enrolment in the courses. Of course, what the ALP conveniently will then say is that the delay—which they created—and the failure of the enrolments to be at a higher level are indications that the ATCs are not supported and are a failure. That certainly is a long way from the truth.
Earlier in the debate the member for Hotham stood up in this place and criticised work being done at the eastern suburbs based ATC. The member went on to tell the House that he was not entirely sure what was being done at the ATC in Ringwood and its subsidiary campus in Ferntree Gully. He formed this opinion—this is strange for someone who used to be the Leader of the Opposition—because the information he was seeking did not appear on the ATC’s website. I have advice for the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham: look deeper into the work being done by the ATCs, pick up the phone, make a time to go out there and see them—go and visit Ferntree Gully, go and visit Ringwood, and see what great work is being done. Don’t just take the lazy option, sitting at your desk typing in some sort of a website string to see what they are doing. If he had bothered to pick up the phone and speak to those who are involved in the eastern suburbs based ATC, he would know that considerable progress has been made in this area, progress that will certainly be of great benefit to those students who will be taking up places in the very near future.
I can inform the House and the member for Hotham that the eastern Melbourne ATC is planning a midyear intake to double its student numbers and that all these students are in year 11 and intend to continue their studies next year. The Australian technical college in Ringwood has been an unqualified success. Of the 13 students enrolled this year, 10 are in apprenticeships and three are currently completing their final work experience. It is expected that they will enter apprenticeships next semester. In time and with the additional funding supplied by the government, the Ringwood campus will expand its offerings to include engineering and manufacturing programs. The demand for this training option is one that is real and one that has been demanded by industry in the eastern suburbs.
Even with limited advertising, 60 people attended a recent information night at one of the eastern Melbourne campuses. The ATC in Ringwood is projecting enrolments for 2007 into six training streams on offer with 15 students in each stream. Given the obvious demand, I would not be surprised if the demand were greater than that and the enrolments were higher than the 90 that it envisages.
But the great success of the ATCs is a link between the colleges and the needs of the regions they service. ATCs must operate in a manner that best suits the particular region. ATCs must be a school so that students can gain their year 12 certificates. They must have school based apprenticeships and they must be industry led and relevant to industry needs. Beyond that, it is up to local industry and communities to determine the best model for their region and their students. So it is driven by the local region; it is driven by the local industry. It is managed by those groups and, at the end of the day, it fulfils a need that they have rather than one that has been created and dreamed up by bureaucrats in the city centres.
The courses and trades offered at the technical colleges are tailored to the needs of the community. In consultation with local industry the colleges develop skilled workers who are ready to meet the demands of employment and are well on their way to having a sound skill set for their work. The eastern Melbourne college is clearly committed to working with local industry and, far from talking it down, I would say to members opposite: talk it up, because that is what parents want. Parents want an alternative. Parents are seeking this for their children. They recognise that some of their kids do not want to move on to university—they want a trade; they want to move into an apprenticeship, a traineeship. Often they just need to be given that experience while they are at school to really find out whether or not it is the sort of career that best suits them.
The other thing that the eastern suburbs ATC did this year, for the member for Hotham’s education, is that, by the end of May, it held two industry skill councils with local businesses: one on cabinet-making and the other on electrotechnical industries. At these skill councils a selection of local businesses and professional associations met, reviewed the ATC curriculum and gave direction to the college about industry training needs and the way in which a college could help meet these needs.
ATCs do not exist in educational isolation. As I said earlier on, they form a broader commitment that this government has to ensuring that all Australian students are provided with the support they need to make informed choices about their school and work futures. Recently I was pleased to be able to launch another arm of the support offered to school students in choosing their career and training paths. Career Advice Australia and Eastern Industry Education Partnership will provide a link between students, their career advisers and industry. In fact, Eastern Industry Education Partnership itself is a partner in the consortium that is running the eastern based ATC at the Ringwood Secondary College. I commend the dedicated work of those involved in both of these projects. I firmly believe that they will lead to better informed and more focused students in all school learning areas, not just in the vocational and technical sectors.
To make sure that the ATCs will be centres of excellence, the expectation is that they will employ the best possible staff. The colleges must be able to attract and retain the best teachers available, and their capacity to offer attractive working conditions, such as performance pay, is crucial to their success. To assist ATCs becoming centres of excellence, the $343 million funding that this bill represents is new money. There is no shortfall, as some in the opposition suggest. ATCs are not a duplication of TAFEs, as some in the opposition suggest. To claim this clearly indicates a deliberate distortion of the program. The colleges provide an opportunity for students to stay at school and complete their year 12 while undertaking a school based apprenticeship. I thought this would have been welcomed by those opposite. I thought they would have applauded such an initiative.
Technical colleges are an important part of the Howard government’s approach to meeting our nation-building skills needs. They are an investment in the longer term. But they are not the full picture; they are not all we are doing in addressing our skills needs. These colleges, furthermore, will not charge additional fees. The colleges will be schools—government and non-government. In respect of recurrent schools funding, they will be funded on the same basis as existing schools. Unlike the TAFE system—which is inherently a state based creature—where there are fees, these ATCs will not be charging additional fees.
The member for Prospect got up in this place and said, ‘Why don’t you adopt Labor’s plan of abolishing TAFE fees?’ Labor’s plan to abolish TAFE fees does not have to wait until those opposite come into government. I have news for the members opposite. They do not have to wait until they come into government to abolish TAFE fees. All they have to do is pick up the phone—those who claim they have some sort of special influence in their states—talk to Morris Iemma in New South Wales or to Steve Bracks in my state and say, ‘Please abolish the fees now.’ They can do that now. They do not have to wait until they come into government.
But, if Labor ever comes into government and decides to abolish TAFE fees, I can tell you that a lot of cost shifting will take place, because all it will be doing is abolishing fees that its own mates, its comrades in each of the state governments, are currently presiding over. In fact, in recent times, in the case of New South Wales, they have increased the fees. So do not come in here and say, ‘Adopt our plan.’ Your plan can be implemented today. All you have to do is pick up the phone and put pressure on your state Labor Premiers. Surely the member for Prospect, if he is a man of any great importance in the Sydney area, should be able to do that with a quick phone call to Morris Iemma.
Another thing I would like to touch on is that the approach to technical education that we are introducing through ATCs is recognised as being a success. Even the Victorian and New South Wales governments in recent times have recognised this and have moved from wanting nothing to do with the federal model to developing their own. But, as usual, their option of a technical college is a pale imitation of what we have developed.
The Bracks Labor government in Victoria announced recently that it would provide $32 million for its own version of technical colleges. Here it is, putting up obstacles to the setting up of ATCs—through its education department and through its union affiliates by insisting on certain awards and conditions—while, at the same time, imitating our model but not going all the way. On the face of it, Victoria’s $32 million may sound commendable. But, when you consider that the $32 million is spread across four years and includes the capital development of at least four colleges, that funding is woefully inadequate.
I would like to be in a position to provide to this House more detail about the Victorian model, but I am unable to do so, because, as usual, the Victorian government has not provided information on this policy area. We will have to wait to see such information until some time between now and 25 November, when the state election will be held. The information that the Bracks government has released does not indicate that their model will provide anything new. Their model will provide programs that are already available to every student in a secondary college in Victoria. It is a knee-jerk, populist and reactive policy that serves no-one. But it does recognise, in a strange way, that the federal government’s initiative on ATCs needs to be applauded.
Mr Bracks’s Labor colleague across the border in New South Wales is providing an even weaker response to training needs in his state. Labor Premier Iemma has provided $18 million to be divided among 10 technical schools—and that funding is for four years. We are providing $343 million to establish 24 colleges, which is more than $14 million for every college. The Labor Premier, Morris Iemma, demonstrates his commitment to vocational training by providing the equivalent of around $1.8 million to his training centres.
There is a clear difference between what this government is putting in place and the half measures, half-baked ideas and reactions that have been offered by the Labor Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales. The difference is that the federal model is industry driven and committed to addressing the skills shortages in this country while the states are offering up a supply driven approach to training needs that will do nothing to build skills capacities in their states.
I ask this House and the people in my electorate to remember the simple difference of $1.8 million over four years to 10 centres as opposed to the real commitment of $343 million for 24 colleges. One of those colleges is at the Ringwood Secondary College, the same college where I had great pride a number of years ago to have an automotive and manufacturing technology skills centre established. I paid credit to the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, for doing that, and I do so again. The reason I say that is that the establishment of that skills centre was thwarted at every attempt by the education department. They did not want it. The local industry put up a proposal to the state government to set it up, and the state government not only refused to take their proposal to ANTA to get funding but also ignored the entire eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Not one skills centre was proposed and funded in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne until Minister Brendan Nelson intervened and said, ‘This is a joke; there are real skills needs there.’ Information provided by industry indicated a skills need and we set up the automotive manufacturing skills centre. The ATC in Ringwood complements that earlier initiative.
This bill represents a real commitment by the federal government to skills training. It provides an alternative to the needs and demands of young people in the electorate. It provides them with an opportunity to learn a trade while they are at school and still do their year 12 certificate and, at the end of the day, it provides them with a career alternative, one which is in high in demand by industry and by the nation. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned.
DO NOT CALL REGISTER BILL 2006
63
Bills
R2564
Consideration of Senate Message
63
Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.
Ordered that the amendment be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendment—
(1) Clause 39, page 31 (line 13), omit subclause (2), substitute:
(2) A nomination, or a withdrawal of a nomination, must be in writing.
63
13:32:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
1
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
This proposed amendment implements the Senate committee’s recommendation that consent for a person to act as a nominee can be provided only in writing. The effect of the proposed amendment will be that the relevant account holder must nominate a person in writing before that person can either apply to have a number listed on the register or consent to receive a telemarketing call on a number that is on the Do Not Call Register.
Clause 39 of the bill provides that for the purposes of that bill an account holder can nominate an individual to be the account holder’s nominee. A nominee can make an application for a number to be listed on the Do Not Call Register or can consent to receive a telemarketing call on a number that is registered on the Do Not Call Register.
The proposed amendment will provide greater certainty about the relationship between the account holder and the nominee. There will be written evidence that the account holder has nominated another person to register the account holder’s number on the Do Not Call register and/or is able to consent to receive telemarketing calls. This in turn will give a person making a telemarketing call comfort, as the account holder will need to act positively to give effect to the nomination.
10000
Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Wilkie)—The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
DO NOT CALL REGISTER (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2006
63
Bills
R2563
Returned from the Senate
63
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA'S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
63
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
63
Debate resumed.
10000
Wilkie, Kim (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Wilkie)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
63
13:34:00
Hoare, Kelly, MP
83Y
Charlton
ALP
0
0
Ms HOARE
—Firstly, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow parliamentary secretary for industry, infrastructure and industrial relations, who are at the table, for facilitating the passage of the Do Not Call Register Bill 2006 by supporting the amendment from the Senate, because that might now allow us to leave at the normal time this afternoon.
I am pleased to be able to speak today on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. After 10 long years, the Howard government have finally woken up to Australia’s massive skills shortages. Over the past 10 years the government have been advised by many industry groups, including the BCA, the Reserve Bank and others, that these skills shortages have been getting greater and greater. The Howard government not only did nothing to address the skills shortage crisis over the last 10 years but actually contributed to the skills shortage. Under 10 years of the Howard government, Australia is now the only developed country to reduce public investment in TAFEs and universities by eight per cent, but the OECD average over the same period was an increase of 38 per cent.
The member for Deakin has just engaged in a slanging match with the New South Wales and Victorian governments, saying that the New South Wales government was now following the lead of the technical colleges. I must let the member for Deakin know that he is wrong. The New South Wales government has taken the lead in technology high schools. One of those high schools is in my electorate. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the principal and the staff—all the teachers and all the assistants—and the students, parents, families and friends of Glendale Technology High School.
Glendale Technology High School is a progressive centre of learning and has about 860 students. It has won various awards over the years, and I am always very pleased to be associated with Principal June Hingston, her staff and her students. This year, the school was awarded the Director-General’s Award for School Excellence. This award recognised the excellent transition programs that the school has developed with the local primary schools and the well-established links with TAFE, New South Wales industry and the community. That is just one of the accolades that the Glendale Technology High School has received in promoting the kinds of courses that we are looking at with the Australian technical colleges.
The senior school—that is, years 11 and 12, which this bill also refers to—has an extremely wide range of courses which lead to the higher school certificate; joint courses with TAFE, some of which involve a work experience component; and also vocational courses. The school is in the fortunate position of being co-located next to the Glendale campus of the Hunter Institute of TAFE, allowing them to forge good relationships and to further develop them for the benefit of the whole school community.
This bill brings forward funding for the proposed 25 Australian technical colleges from 2008-09 to 2006-07. The total level of funding will remain the same. The bill also establishes the regulation-making power to allow for funding to be carried over or brought forward into another calendar year, removing in future the need for recourse to legislation such as this bill to alter the timing of the funding.
Items 1 to 5 of schedule 1 of the bill amend section 18(4) of the principal act, transferring the funds between those financial years. The reallocation brings forward money from 2008-09 to be spent in 2006-07. However, the overall funding remains unchanged. What is proposed with this amendment is that the funding be $110 million for 2006, $110 million in 2007, $55 million in 2008 and $52.783 million in 2009.
These extra resources for trade training and skills development are welcomed by Labor. As has been said, 25 colleges are to be built across Australia in 24 regions. However, concerns have been expressed in this discussion over the past few days that only four of these technical colleges are open, despite the election promise back in 2004 that these colleges were going to be opened if the coalition were returned to government. So the original decision was made in 2004 and the budget allocation was made in May 2005, yet only four of these Australian technical colleges are open. We hope that the majority, if not all, of the technical colleges will be open by 2006. That will allow our students in our communities to attend these colleges if they so wish. As at 30 May 2006, $185 million had been committed to the Australian technical colleges but only $18 million had been spent. The total budget for these technical colleges is $343 million over five years.
As I said, we have raised concerns—in particular, in the contribution made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. These concerns included the bungled process—why we do not have these technical colleges up and running already—the lack of transparency in the tender process, the lack of access by the opposition to data on the specific funding of these colleges and other questions.
Indeed, the member for Deakin kept repeating that there would be no additional fees payable to attend these colleges. I asked him: ‘Additional to what?’ and he did not answer me—additional to the fees that these private organisations charge anyway? That was what was evident in a government backbench briefing that we were able to get our hands on. The coalition backbench briefing was evidence that the government’s technical colleges were dreamt up on the run during the 2004 election campaign, and there have already been changes to what was proposed in 2004, including breaking the Prime Minister’s promises of no student fees, cutting the funding in the first three years by $33.3 million and pulling out of the public tendering process.
Opposition senators produced a report after the inquiry into this legislation. At paragraph 2.3, the senators indicated:
A lack of financial transparency surrounding these Colleges is of concern. The Government has, at two Senate Estimates hearings, refused to provide details of the 11 funding contracts signed with individual Colleges.
I have a list of my own questions which I hope the minister might be able to answer in his summing up so that we can move forward on these proposals. These are some of my questions. How will the staff, both the academic teachers and the vocational teachers, be recruited to the Australian technical colleges? Will the students who attend the Australian technical colleges actually participate in paid work; if this is going to be part of a trade training program, will they be able to participate in paid work as all apprentices do? Will the teachers who are recruited be offered AWAs; and, if they are offered AWAs, will they have the right to refuse those AWAs and then have the right to collectively bargain? This bill provides for four years of funding for the set-up of the Australian technical colleges, and I have a question regarding the ongoing support for the Australian technical colleges: will they be adequately maintained? As we know, technology changes in all areas, including in the trades area, and upgrades will be required.
Will there be fees involved? We have seen from that backbench report that there will be fees involved. Will the technical colleges be classed as private schools and how will the students be selected? I welcome the technical college for the Hunter, and there will be one in Gosford as well. There are going to be a large number of students who want to attend these technical colleges. What are going to be the criteria for their entrance? Will those young people who live in my electorate of Charlton and who might wish to travel to Newcastle or Singleton to attend an Australian technical college be assisted with their travel costs? There will be a lot of costs involved because of the fair distances between the technical colleges. Will the teachers employed be able to be members of a union? What transparency and review mechanisms will be available? We want to know how many colleges will be opened next year and how they will operate.
As I said, we welcome this. We have been talking for 10 long years about the massive skill shortages in this country. Yesterday those shortages were reaffirmed by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations skilled vacancies index for June 2006. It said the vacancies for trade positions rose by 1.6 per cent in just one month. The vacancies are there because there are not the tradespeople to fill them. The skilled vacancies index showed that vacancies in the metal trades rose 3.1 per cent, in construction 2.1 per cent, in the automotive trades 0.8 per cent, for chefs 0.9 per cent and in hairdressing a whopping five per cent. The Reserve Bank also recently identified that the shortage of skilled workers is one of the most significant constraints on our economy and that that is putting pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates.
In April this year Labor put out a discussion paper—to have a dialogue with business, unions and the community—called Labor’s training Australia partnership: getting the skilled migration balance right. We have invited submissions until the end of this month. It was put out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for immigration. You would have seen the reports recently and even heard in this place recently of the problems that are occurring with the skilled migration program. We are importing skilled migrants. We are turning young people away from our TAFEs. Somewhere in there, the balance is not right. Some 300,000 skilled migrants have been imported over the past 10 years, and over that time something like 270,000 young people have been turned away from our TAFE system. In 1996 the permanent skilled migration program intake was 27,500. In 2006 it is expected to reach at least 97,500. The government has increased the skilled migration program at the same time as it has, as I said, denied young Australians an opportunity to attend TAFE and start a trade. There are lots of options up for discussion in this discussion paper, and a few suggestions have been laid out.
The other issue is the temporary business long stay or 457 visas, which have since 1996 brought into Australia more than 330,000 temporary skilled workers. A recent report suggests that some guest workers who have come in under this visa have been exploited. Even yesterday in this place the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a question about the skilled migrant visa program. She asked whether or not it is operating effectively or properly and outlined the breaches and abuses of the 457 visa conditions, including at ABC Tissues in Sydney, T and R meats at Murray Bridge, Teys Bros meats at Naracoorte and Kilcoy meatworks in Queensland. She also referred to another case in Western Australia that has been referred to by Senator Vanstone. The member for Oxley yesterday asked a question about the Kilcoy meatworks and the 457 guest worker visas. I think the indication was that the company had put on the sponsorship application that people were going to be employed as slaughter workers, which requires quite considerable skill, but after they came here were employed as unskilled labourers. This was in a place where, as you can imagine, there are lots of young people and unskilled workers screaming out for a job.
The other options that we go to in our discussion paper are migrant apprentices and the trade skills training visa. This visa was introduced in November last year, when we knew we were going to have massive skill shortages and when we had lots of people crying out to get into an apprenticeship and get into some trade training. The trade skills training visas actually allow companies to import young people to train as apprentices rather than train young Australians as apprentices. If the government is really serious about the Australian technical colleges, and the benefits of them, then it must immediately move to abolish these trade skills training visas.
We know that there are many Australians out there willing and ready to work. Youth unemployment in Australia is over 20 per cent. In my region, it is over 30 per cent, and it has been for a long, long time. We want to work with business, unions and the community to make an investment in a skilled future for Australia. Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, put out a statement in September last year called ‘Australian skills blueprint’. It is a commitment that Labor in government have made to our young people, particularly those who are in years 9, 10, 11 and 12 who may not necessarily want to or be able to go to university. We have made a commitment to them that Labor in government would support them in the choice that they make for their future career and in their education.
In conclusion, Labor supports this bill. We hope the concerns that have been raised by many members on this side of the House are going to be addressed immediately by the government to ensure the successful operation of the Australian technical colleges. Those concerns have been detailed in the amendment to this bill moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We have moved this amendment, but, at the end of the day, we support this bill. We support our young people, but we believe that much more needs to be done.
67
13:53:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—At the outset, I want to deal with the core of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. The core of it is simple administrative implemental flummery. What is the difference between this bill and the one that had 2005 instead of 2006 at the end of it? It is a reallocation of funding from forward years backwards. What is it a response to? It is a response to the fact that out of 25 technical colleges—initially 24—that the government decided to set up, only four have started. This is a hurry-up.
What is the second element of this bill to be considered? There is a specific power given under this bill: once it passes through here and then the other place, instead of having to bring a bill like this before this House in the future, the minister, simply by making a regulation, will be able to make these sorts of changes. There are a number of precedents for that, but in the past few years, in workplace relations and also in this area as well—the education area—the government has done similar things. So much for this bill; that is effectively what it does.
I will speak to the background in relation to this bill, and I will also speak in support of Labor and Labor’s substantial amendment. The key context of the discussion on this bill is that we have here a coalition government which is effectively irresponsible. Responsible government did exist in the 19th century. This is a government shackled with its version of how life should be—very much a 19th century thing and inappropriate for the 21st century. This is a government that has walked away from the fundamental responsibilities that Australian governments in the past have not only taken up but have in fact ensured—that is, where work needs to be done, it is done properly.
That happened over 10 years ago, when this government came to power. It brought down the National Commission of Audit. On its instruction, the National Commission of Audit found that the Commonwealth government of Australia should not deliver a single direct service to any Australian and that the only functions that should be open to the Commonwealth government were to audit and benchmark. This is a bit unusual, I suppose. Here is a Commonwealth government 10 years on, starting last year, that has actually gone out and tried to institute something. It has tried to put together 24, now 25, technical colleges spread throughout the regions of Australia.
Why has it done that? Because of the fact that for the 10 years that it has been in government, it has not taken responsibility for the training needs of Australians, other than to do what Dr Kemp did when he became the minister—that is, to run a completely ideological line about this: talk about numeracy, talk about literacy, talk about new apprenticeships, that is, traineeships, where there was a lesser level of learning, a lesser level of scope, where there was an instrumental approach to providing employers with a very narrow focus. If it wanted a particular job done, it would get a trainee to do that job. This is a government that has walked away from its fundamental responsibility to ensure that young Australians get the skills that they need at whichever level of the education system and in conjunction with the states, whether it be at TAFE or at the university level.
Ten years on, we have a fundamental skills crisis in Australia, and it is a skills crisis that lies at the very feet of every one of those government ministers walking in now for question time and the Prime Minister, who has allowed Australia to reach a stage where 300,000 young Australians who wanted a position in TAFE and wanted full apprenticeship training have been denied it. This is a Prime Minister and a government that have preferred to import apprentices from overseas in their new scheme, that have preferred to use a system of four-year temporary entry permits to bring in hundreds of thousands of people to replace skilled Australians. This is a government that has been irresponsible, because it would not take up the charge of governing Australia in a responsible fashion.
The skills crisis that we have does not have its genesis in the Australian people, not even in Australian industry. Its genesis lies at the very feet of the Prime Minister and his government and the fact that they think they can do it by automatic control. Audit, benchmark, but take no direct action to fix the problems that they have created. They should be condemned, as they have been condemned over the last 10 years, for their inaction. They should be condemned because they are not a responsible government but an irresponsible one that will not take charge of this vital issue.
We have got this bill with 24 or 25 technical colleges; we actually need a thoroughgoing overhaul of the entire education system, top to bottom, with a concentration on providing trade training for those people in years 9 and 10 and through to years 11 and 12. We need a program equivalent to what, more than 25 or 30 years ago, was available throughout continental Europe, where people, at the end of their training, could come out with a full apprenticeship.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
68
14:00:00
Questions Without Notice
Australian Defence Force
68
14:00:00
68
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Minister, in light of concerns that some pistols issued to members of the ADF security detachment in Baghdad were made in 1963, will the minister inform the House whether he has received the report of the Review into the Combat Clothing and Equipment section of the Defence Materiel Organisation? If the report has been received, when will the report be released?
69
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
Dr NELSON
—I thank the member for Barton for his question. There are two issues inherent in the question. The first relates to the Glock nine-millimetre pistol. As former Chief of Defence Major General Cosgrove remarked, I think on Monday, whilst the design of the pistol is aged, the pistol itself may not be. All of the equipment issues in the Australian Defence Force are under constant supervision by the Defence Force and its military. The second issue is the system which delivers equipment to our soldiers. Shortly after my appointment to the portfolio I initiated an independent inquiry into the System Program Office, which delivers supplies to our Australian soldiers. That office has 33,000 line items and more than $22 million a year in budget. I have received that report. I have had a preliminary meeting with the secretary, the defence chiefs and the chief executive of the Defence Materiel Organisation in relation to it. It is currently being considered by me and the ADF. The outcome of the report and what I intend to do about it will be released in due course.
Taxation
69
69
14:02:00
Somlyay, Alex, MP
ZT4
Fairfax
LP
1
Mr SOMLYAY
—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer inform the House how tax cuts applying from the end of next week will help workers in my electorate of Fairfax and across Australia? How has the government consistently supported hardworking Australians?
69
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I thank the honourable member for Fairfax for his question. The good news is that from 1 July all Australians will have their tax cut. This follows on from the government’s tax cuts in five of the last six budgets. The government cut tax in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. From 1 July we will be lifting the low-income tax offsets so that you will not pay tax until you reach $10,000 if you are a low-income earner. We will be increasing thresholds so you will stay on the 15 per cent rate to $25,000. We will be cutting the top rates—the 47c rate to 45c and the 42c rate to 40c—and, as a consequence of that, we will be giving much more incentive.
One of the ways in which you can assess the effect of policy is by looking at real disposable income, which is wages and allowances less tax. Let me give the House an example—a single-income family with two children. In 1996 their real disposable income was $38,171. In 2006 it is estimated that their real disposable income will be $52,024, a 36.3 per cent increase. That is because wages have gone up, taxes have come down and family benefits have improved. The government first reduced the family taper from 50 per cent to 30 per cent, and then we reduced it further. We lifted the threshold for the maximum rate of family tax benefit in 2005 to $37,500 and in this budget to $40,000.
The other great improvement to the family tax benefit system was the $600 lump sum payment per child per annum. There were some people who claimed that was not real money. As I was sitting in my cold Canberra flat last night, alone, it was too late for Lateline, so I turned to my favourite reading matter—The Latham Diaries. The Latham Diaries told us:
The night before the policy release, I—
this is Mr Latham—
asked Swan—
that is the member for Lilley—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 104. I know that the Treasurer is obsessed with Mark Latham, but maybe he can keep the obsession private.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I call the Treasurer. I am listening carefully to the Treasurer’s answer.
CT4
Costello, Peter, MP
Mr COSTELLO
—I was never as obsessed with Mark Latham as the roosters were. When Mr Latham asked Mr Swan how to deal with the $600 annual payment, Mr Swan replied:
‘Just say that it’s not real money ...
Mr Speaker, $600 per child per annum, which is being received by millions of Australians, and we had the member for Lilley saying, ‘It’s not real money.’ I prefer the observations made about this by Ms Gillard, the Manager of Opposition Business. She told the Age on 1 November 2004:
In some of our traditional booths we saw swings against us ... I think probably the $600 played a role in that. I think we’ve got to be frank and say there were a lot of people who received $1,200 or $1,800 ... in a lump sum and they were pretty keen to keep it, and they identified needing to vote for the Howard Government as the way of keeping it.
They sure did. It was real money. Single-income families, dual-income families and families with children are a lot better off as a consequence of the family policy, the tax policy and the wages policy of this government. The next instalment is on 1 July, and the only way to keep that is to keep a coalition government managing the economy in the interests of average wage earners in Australia.
Workplace Relations
70
70
14:07:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Treasurer, and it follows his revelation of a continued sojourn by him, lonely in his cold flat in Canberra. Treasurer, while you were being warmed by Mr Latham’s diaries, did you also have the chance to read Laurie Oakes in the Bulletin magazine yesterday, where Mr Oakes recalled your interview about the government’s industrial relations changes on radio 2GB with Alan Jones last week, and which contained the following analysis of your performance? Treasurer, did you read this:
By refusing to deal squarely with the questions Jones raised, by attempting to use the ‘confuse and stupefy’ technique, Costello came off sounding not only devious but also out of touch and even a bit thick.
Treasurer, do you agree with Laurie Oakes?
70
Costello, Peter, MP
CT4
Higgins
LP
Treasurer
1
Mr COSTELLO
—I have to say that I find Laurie Oakes great company. If you ever get the opportunity to have a bite to eat with Laurie, take it, especially if he is paying the bill. I must say that I have a new idea: the next time that I am lonely and cold in my flat I will give Laurie a call. I will get him around for a cup of tea, and I tell you what: if we can order in some Kentucky Fried Chicken I will have the Leader of the Opposition around as well.
Trade
70
70
14:09:00
Mirabella, Sophie, MP
00AMU
Indi
LP
1
Mrs MIRABELLA
—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House what the government is doing to ensure that there is a successful conclusion to the current Doha Round of global trade talks? What could that success mean for Australian exporters, particularly those in my electorate of Indi?
70
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the member for Indi for her question, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Indi on her recent marriage. The Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations that are fast reaching conclusion are very important for all Australian exporters, but particularly a number of exporters in the electorate of Indi. Australia has been pursuing improvement in this area ever since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round.
In the electorate of Indi, the beef producers, the sheepmeat producers, the fat lamb producers, the dairy producers and the wine producers all stand to benefit from a successful outcome to this round. We are determined to deliver the benefits of a successful outcome. For example: the Indi beef producers face tariffs of 38 per cent into Japan and 146 per cent into Europe, and we want to get those down; the Indi dairy producers face tariffs of 246 per cent into Europe, and we want to get those down; the Indi fat lamb producers face tariffs of 92 per cent into Europe, and we want to get those down; and, of course, the Indi wine producers face tariffs of around 25 per cent into the Japanese market, and they would like to get more product into the Japanese market.
So, across the board, multilateral trade negotiations can deliver a very wide range of benefits to many industries within the Australian economy, and particularly in the electorate of Indi. The objective, particularly for those agricultural industries, is that we see the EU make greater commitments to open its markets to agricultural products. We need to see the United States reduce the subsidies it pays its farmers. We need to see the developing countries lower their tariffs on industrial products in order to open up trade across the world. If we are successful with these improvements, the extra access gained could boost agricultural exports from Indi by about 15 per cent.
Just recently an OECD report was released that indicated that Australia had the second lowest level of agricultural support in the OECD. The challenge now confronting the rest of those OECD countries in these negotiations is to match what Australia has already done.
Immigration
71
71
14:12:00
Burke, Tony, MP
DYW
Watson
ALP
0
Mr BURKE
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the proposed amendments he has announced to the Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006 will be enforceable on Nauru under Australian law? Can the Prime Minister explain how Australian law can be amended to guarantee any amendments will take effect under the law of Nauru? When the Prime Minister reports back to the President of Indonesia, will he be reporting his intention—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey
—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Every component of this question is a request for a legal opinion, which is not allowed under the standing orders. It is absolutely, to use their words, ‘specific’.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for O’Connor. I am listening carefully to the question. The member for Watson will continue and I will listen.
DYW
Burke, Tony, MP
Mr BURKE
—When the Prime Minister reports back to the President of Indonesia, will he be reporting his intention to withdraw the bill?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I believe that question is asking about some administrative matters; therefore, I will call the Prime Minister.
71
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In answer to the last part of the question, the bill will be debated, being the intention of the government, when we return in six weeks time. In relation to the other matters, self-evidently—and I think he is asking for a legal opinion so I will chance my arm; I have been out of practice for about 30 years but I will have a go—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Grayndler!
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr HOWARD
—Don’t remind me of that. I will have a go. Self-evidently, the laws of Australia have application except in those limited cases where some degree of extraterritoriality has been accepted by private international law. The laws of Australia only apply to Australia and the territories under the control of Australia. But it is the case, for example, so I am advised, that the actions of Commonwealth officials in other places can remain within the purview of somebody, for example, such as the Ombudsman. I might, on that basis of giving legal opinions, quit while I am in front.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
72
Distinguished Visitors
72
14:15:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Neil O’Keefe, a former member for Burke. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
72
Questions Without Notice
Family Relationship Centres
72
72
14:15:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General update the House on how the new family relationship centres will help families such as those with children attending the Corpus Christi school in my electorate, who are in the gallery today, to resolve issues surrounding separation without resorting to the courts?
72
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr RUDDOCK
—I thank the honourable member for Lindsay for her question. I would like to say to the students from the Corpus Christi school that they have an outstanding member in the member for Lindsay, one who, I might say, has taken a great deal of interest in family law and related issues. On that basis, I can certainly say to her constituents and prospective constituents that she made a significant contribution to one of the hallmark reports of this parliament, Every picture tells a story, which was the genesis of the family law reforms about which I have been asked. I was able to launch for her in her electorate the proposed family relationship centre last year and of course I commend her involvement in the task force that has been assisting in the development of these initiatives.
Next month will herald a new era for Australian families in dealing with the family law system. These are the most significant changes to the law in three decades and they will take place on 1 July. The first 15 family relationship centres—including a centre at Penrith, in the member’s electorate—will open their doors on 3 July, as will the new website and the new family relationships advice line. Combined with significant legislative changes and the biggest investment—some $400 million over four years—in the family law system, we will see a cooperative approach encouraged to deal with the difficult issues surrounding family breakdown. Families will be able to access support at all levels of their relationship. Where separation is inevitable, it will ensure that parents are focused on arrangements that are in the best interests of their children.
These reforms have been widely anticipated by most and certainly welcomed, but I am sorry that there are some who have been trying to talk down these initiatives and misrepresent them. For instance, the member for Gellibrand has resisted supporting these changes, despite the fact that a number of colleagues on the parliamentary committee agreed with them. She has had hardly a positive thing to say about them. She said that family relationship centres would be ‘sausage factories’. She made out that they would expose women and children to violence, when it is clear that we have put in place arrangements to ensure that should not happen.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms Roxon
—I raise a point of order as to relevance, Mr Speaker. I am not sure that it is in order for the minister to give such a quote when it actually says they should ‘not be sausage factories’—and we hope that they will not be.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. I am listening closely to the Attorney-General.
0J4
Ruddock, Philip, MP
Mr RUDDOCK
—I will not spend much time on this, but she also suggested that staff would not be qualified. She begrudged services for families, particularly in the northern suburbs of Sydney because they were represented by the coalition, but failed to acknowledge that 44 per cent of the centres will be in areas covered by the Labor Party. She did not even acknowledge that there would be one in the seat of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and, I might just say, she even suggested that there were some difficulties about contractual arrangements—which are in place. But when the first family relationship centres open their doors to Australian families despite the negative views we have heard from the member for Gellibrand, those views will be seen for what they have been: very irrelevant.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—You are better at vilifying refugees, Phil.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I may say so, that was a grubby remark and it should be withdrawn. It is offensive and it should be withdrawn.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has been asked to withdraw that remark. The Leader of the Opposition will stand up and withdraw it.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—I withdraw, but it is a legitimate point, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw without reservation.
PE4
Beazley, Kim, MP
Mr Beazley
—I withdraw.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I thank the Leader of the Opposition.
Skilled Migration
73
73
14:20:00
Sawford, Rod, MP
3J4
Port Adelaide
ALP
0
Mr SAWFORD
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an answer he gave in question time yesterday when he said:
... there is overwhelmingly a need to have a policy that allows skilled tradesmen to come into this country on appropriate terms and conditions.
Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that the latest full-year figures from the immigration department show that 30 per cent of visas approved under the temporary 457 visa scheme were below the minimum salary level? Is this what the Prime Minister meant by ‘appropriate terms and conditions’? Prime Minister, if this visa scheme is able to undercut its own minimum salary levels, what is it doing to the wages of local workers?
73
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I have not seen the figures quoted by the member for Port Adelaide. I am not saying they are wrong but I would like the opportunity myself to check them. What I had in mind, in reply to the member, when I talked about appropriate ‘conditions’ or ‘circumstances’—I forget which word I used—was a situation where it is appropriate to bring in skilled tradesmen when there is a demonstrable shortage of them in this country. I think most Australians agree with that. I think most Australians bring a commonsense attitude that, if there are adequate numbers of Australians available to fill skilled trades positions, then they should get the jobs and you do not bring in the foreigners but, if there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen, you bring in the foreigners to fill the gap, to keep the industry going—and you keep our prosperity intact.
Indigenous Communities
74
74
14:22:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
Mr TOLLNER
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Is the minister aware of further evidence of endemic violence and abuse in some Indigenous communities? How should next week’s intergovernmental summit help address these problems? Additionally, can the minister update the House on this week’s meeting with the National Indigenous Council?
74
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, Mr Tollner, for his question. Last night the Lateline program had a very sobering account of a Central Australian community, Mutitjulu, where allegations of child abuse, sexual abuse, serious violence, trafficking of petrol and other substance abuse were put to the test. Doctors, youth workers and workers in women’s shelters came forward and gave evidence—as did a senior female elder from Mutitjulu who gave some very moving testimony—about the heart-rending pain caused by the crimes that have been committed in their community. These are things which we hope to address directly and fully at the summit next week with our state and territory ministerial colleagues, in a bipartisan approach which can put an end to these blights on our society. The program last night on Lateline clearly demonstrated that there is an absolute need to restore law and order in these communities today. Unfortunately, it was also sobering to hear from the doctor and others that this is not restricted to Mutitjulu. As many in this place have heard before, it is very widespread.
During the week I met with the National Indigenous Council, and we discussed these issues. They are an advisory body to the ministerial task force, and many of my colleagues were present at that meeting. They raised many important issues and gave good advice to government. One recommendation to government that I am taking up is to have an independent audit of the safety of these communities and the need and appropriateness of policing in these Indigenous communities to ensure that they have the same right as others to a safe environment and that their children are free from the predators that were described in this program.
Dr Sue Gordon, herself a magistrate in Western Australia and the chair of the National Indigenous Council, had this to say:
An audit is the only way we will get a true picture of the actual needs and resources required at each community. A national audit may also shed light on the number of police stationed in a community at any one time. Police numbers may be higher on paper than the numbers actually stationed in communities. It is important to understand the true situation.
The federal government is spending some $2 million to provide a police station to Mutitjulu. We all understand that policing has always been a state and territory responsibility, but we also understand that this situation is a national disgrace and that it needs a national response—and we are willing to step up to the plate and work with our colleagues in addressing those needs. The NIC also recommended that we fast-track cases involving sexual abuse so that perpetrators are not back in the communities where often, in doing so, they are able to reap what is called in these communities ‘retribution’ or ‘payback’. The recommendations included: a greater use of protected bail conditions; the supporting of boarding schools to remove children from dangerous environments—expenditure on that was also increased in the last budget; and that it was important not to ignore these problems occurring in urban areas. I say this to the lady who wrote to me from Perth this week and to the numerous other Indigenous people who called my office and said, ‘We know that this is a remote Australia problem, but please don’t forget us, because there is pain in many Australian communities—in regional Australia and remote Australia but equally in some of our suburban areas and our cities as well.’ We will not be forgetting them.
Finally, I am asking the states and territories to come here with goodwill and with an acknowledgment that this is a problem that we must deal with today. We do need more police. They have to be where they are needed. We need better interaction between the courts and the police. We need to engage locals and empower them so that women, in particular, can feel that they can talk to someone in confidence and in trust about the pain and indignities that they have suffered. It will take a coordinated and comprehensive approach, and the federal government stands ready to deliver that to make the lives of Australian people safer and better so as to realise the same opportunities that we all take for granted.
Skilled Migration
75
75
14:27:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
Mr HATTON
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his answer during question time yesterday when he said:
... if you have a skills shortage ... it stands to reason that you have to close the gap ... by bringing in people from overseas.
Prime Minister, isn’t it a fact that the number of 457 visas being approved below the minimum skill requirement has more than doubled compared with a similar period two years ago? If, as the Prime Minister asserts, this program is supposed to be helping the skills shortage, why are workers with lower skills being brought into Australia in ever increasing numbers?
75
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—Where there are particular allegations that the system is being abused, they are investigated. I have had raised in the House in the last almost two weeks and prior to that a number of examples. Some of them are still under investigation. The celebrated one involving Teys Bros in Naracoorte in South Australia was investigated and the allegation was found to be incorrect. I say to the member for Blaxland that the member for Oxley raised a particular query with me yesterday. I have responded to him, indicating that that matter is being investigated. I do not pretend for a moment that everybody involved in business in Australia is lilywhite, and I would not rule out the possibility that some people do not do the right thing, but you do not damn a whole program on the basis of that. Where you have specific allegations, you raise them and you have them investigated.
Health Services
75
75
14:29:00
Schultz, Alby, MP
83Q
Hume
LP
1
Mr SCHULTZ
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware of reports that Goulburn Hospital is closing its children’s ward on the weekend? Does the government have a response to this threat to health services in my electorate and how important is it for state governments to adhere to the provisions of the Australian health care agreements?
75
Abbott, Tony, MP
EZ5
Warringah
LP
Minister for Health and Ageing
1
Mr ABBOTT
—I thank the member for Hume for his question. I appreciate his concern to preserve rural health services, a concern which is shared by many members on this side of the House, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, as demonstrated recently. I am aware that the New South Wales health department will close the specialist children’s ward on weekends at Goulburn Hospital starting this weekend. A children’s ward that is shut on weekends means that children will have to face potentially dangerous transfers. I quote Dr Andrew Keegan of the New South Wales AMA, who said:
Young children on drips or needing oxygen will need to be transferred to adult wards or to other hospitals such as Canberra, an hour’s drive away. There is a strong likelihood of cross-infection.
This weekend closure of the specialist children’s ward at Goulburn Hospital comes on top of the closure last year of 12 surgical beds at Goulburn Hospital. This is not the first time that the Greater Southern Area Health Service has been in trouble. I am advised by the member for Eden-Monaro that last year small businesses in his electorate had to wait up to four months to have their bills paid by this health service. I am advised by the member for Riverina that the Greater Southern Area Health Service hospitals in her area have sometimes had no milk because the local milk vendor had not been paid. Sometimes motor vehicles have been grounded because the registration has not been paid and the ambulance has not been operational because the petrol bill has not been paid.
DZS
Bowen, Chris, MP
Mr Bowen interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Prospect is warned!
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—This is simply unacceptable behaviour from a New South Wales agency. Whatever is happening in Goulburn and elsewhere in this health area, there is certainly no lack of money in Macquarie Street. The Commonwealth government is giving New South Wales public hospitals almost $14 billion under the health care agreements. Then of course there is the $10 billion that the New South Wales government is getting this year through the GST.
I want to say to the New South Wales government that the closure of the children’s ward at Goulburn Hospital is a clear breach of the Australian health care agreement, and I call on the New South Wales government to immediately honour its obligations to the people of Goulburn and to other people living in southern New South Wales.
Skilled Migration
76
76
14:32:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
0
Ms MACKLIN
—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Chief Executive of the Australian Meat Industry Council, Mr Kevin Cottrill, has confirmed on ABC radio that the immigration department is not processing applications for skilled meatworkers under the 457 visa program because of concerns that some employers are breaching the visa conditions? Prime Minister, if this program is not being systematically abused, why has it been suspended?
76
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—The direct answer to the first part of the question is no, I am not. But let me just respond to the logic inherent in the member’s question. I would have thought that, if the immigration department were refraining from processing applications because it thought something was wrong, the immigration department was doing its job.
Sugar Industry
76
76
14:34:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
Mr NEVILLE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister update the House on the detected outbreak of sugarcane disease in my electorate of Hinkler? How is the government responding to this very serious threat to the Queensland sugar industry, if not the national industry?
76
McGauran, Peter, MP
XH4
Gippsland
NATS
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1
Mr McGAURAN
—I thank the honourable member for his question. With some 800 cane growers in his electorate, I well understand his concern since a disease outbreak was officially diagnosed on a property at Childers on 12 June. This is the first known case of smut disease in eastern Australia, although it has previously been found and contained in Western Australia in the Ord in 1998. This is an extremely serious disease which could significantly reduce the yield of Queensland’s billion dollar sugar industry, with around $100 million of this originating in and around the Bundaberg region in the honourable member’s electorate of Hinkler.
As of today, the disease has been confirmed on 12 properties. Each of these properties has been quarantined and the movement of plants and machinery off these properties has been prohibited. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, in conjunction with all sectors of the industry, have moved swiftly and with great competence. We are working closely with the Queensland government and the industry to determine the nature and extent of the outbreak. Indications are that, currently, smut disease in Queensland is a controlled incursion and there is no evidence yet that the disease is spreading widely. The Australian government, specifically officers of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, are providing leadership and technical expertise and have been fully involved from the moment the suspected diseased plants were first identified.
The government has moved to invoke the emergency plant pest response deed, which sees government and industry working together to implement a national response to an emergency plant pest such as this. The response team has some 30 field staff, including experts from both industry and government, on the ground working long hours and weekends. While this outbreak is of grave concern to growers, I have been enormously impressed by the sophistication and the maturity of the response. Nobody is panicking or losing their heads, even in the face of such a grave crisis. Instead, they are focused on containing the outbreak. The disease has been found only in a small geographical area and it spreads slowly. I can assure members of the House, especially the member for Hinkler, that the government will continue to work closely with Queensland and the sugarcane industry on this issue.
Workplace Relations
77
77
14:37:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the case of Tisha Vimpani, sacked and escorted from her job at a Sydney RSL club for chewing the Nicorette gum that helps her quit smoking. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, given Ms Vimpani’s workplace had fewer than 100 workers, her sacking was completely within the letter of his new laws? Is the Prime Minister aware of Ms Vimpani’s comments: ‘I need the money and now I haven’t got any. I care for my elderly mother and being at the club was really good because she could call in. They knew that I care for mum and mum was my biggest concern. What do I do now?’ Prime Minister, what does she do now that you have taken away her unfair dismissal protection?
77
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—I am not aware, nor is it possible for me to be aware, of the individual circumstances of the almost 10,000 changes in employment—I am told 10,000 people a week around Australia go into or go out of jobs. As the member for Perth knows, it is quite impossible for me to know the individual circumstances. But, generally speaking in relation to unfair dismissals, I do know that over the 12 or 13 years that unfair dismissal laws have operated in Australia they have cost tens of thousands of jobs. There have been tens of thousands of Australians who otherwise would have had jobs in this country who have not. I also know that there was a near universal call from the Australian small business community for a change in the area of unfair dismissals.
It was a call that had even lapped upon some Labor shores. It had even reached the Hunter, where the member for the electorate bearing that name is a person I know has spoken on occasions in favour of getting rid of the unfair dismissal laws because he does have a little resonance with small business. I think his wife has a very successful small business. The truth is that there was justification for changing the unfair dismissal laws, and I do not run away from the fact that we have changed them in relation to firms employing fewer than 100 people.
Human Services
78
78
14:39:00
Wakelin, Barry, MP
HV5
Grey
LP
1
Mr WAKELIN
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Human Services. How has the government responded to community concerns in my electorate about accessibility of government services? What is the government doing around the country to make these more accessible?
78
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
Minister for Human Services
1
Mr HOCKEY
—I thank the member for Grey for that question. The member for Grey is a terrific guy too—he is a great guy and he has a great electorate. He has been a part of the roll-out of the family assistance offices right across Australia. When we came into human services and we linked Centrelink with Medicare and a range of other agencies, it became immediately apparent that we could get better services to more families by rolling out services in Medicare offices across Australia. The Howard government are very proud of what we do for families in Australia, so we want more families to be able to access more benefits and to get access to more money.
83Y
Hoare, Kelly, MP
Ms Hoare interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Charlton is interjecting out of her seat. It is highly disorderly and she is warned.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Charlton is not interjecting out of her seat.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I inform the Chief Opposition Whip that, according to my seating plan, the member for Charlton is out of her seat.
QI4
Price, Roger, MP
Mr Price
—Can I seek leave to table the latest seating plan, Mr Speaker? Oh, sorry!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I call the Minister for Human Services.
83N
Hall, Jill, MP
Ms Hall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Shortland!
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Toxic! There are 238 Medicare offices in Australia, and so far this year we have rolled out family assistance services to 150 of those offices, including those three in the electorate of the member for Grey at Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln. The good news is that more than 100,000 families have already accessed this service through those Medicare offices.
There are parts of Australia that do not have Medicare offices or even, for that matter, Centrelink offices. I know one town in the member for Grey’s electorate—Mungeranie. I am sure all my colleagues have been to Mungeranie. It is 1,000 kilometres north of Adelaide, 1,000 kilometres west of Broken Hill, sitting on the Birdsville Track with a population of three. They may want to access Medicare services. They might want to access Centrelink services—John and Genevieve Hammond out there. They can do it by telephone or online, even though I think they are unlikely to access the maternity payment. Ten people per day access the maternity payment, and the maternity payment is going up to $4,000 on 1 July. If that is not an encouragement to have more children, then I do not know what is. I am going to give it a shot! We must be close to the summer break—the winter break, I mean!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The level of interjections is far too high!
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr HOCKEY
—Out of all of this, Australian families can access the family tax benefit through these FAOs; 1.8 million Australian families get family tax benefit part A; 1.3 million Australian families get family tax benefit part B; 574,000 Australian families get the child-care benefit; and 200,000 Australian families have accessed the maternity payment in the first nine months of this year. My colleague the Minister for Health and Ageing has said that the Howard government is the best friend that Medicare has ever had. The Howard government is the best friend Australian families have ever had.
Internet Pornography
79
79
14:45:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government’s belated response to Labor’s plan to protect Australian children from internet pornography. Why does the government continue to refuse to adopt Labor’s clean-feed policy that would block internet porn at the ISP level? Why does the Prime Minister continue to ignore the views of the Australian Families Association and 62 members of his own backbench by refusing to block pornography at the source? Why won’t the government swallow its pride and put the interests of Australian children ahead of its political interests and adopt Labor’s clean-feed policy?
79
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
Mr HOWARD
—In reply to the Leader of the Opposition’s question, I would have thought protection of Australian children was not only an absolute priority but also in the political interests of all political parties. I do not think it is exclusively in the interests of my party any more than it ought to be in the interests of the Australian Labor Party. The reason we have adopted the policy outlined yesterday by the Minister for Communications, Information Economy and the Arts is that it achieves the goals of providing protection for Australian children without imposing the unreasonable restrictions and cost burdens of the Labor Party’s policy.
Workplace Relations
79
79
14:46:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
1
Mrs MAY
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business and Tourism. Could businesses in my electorate of McPherson be hurt by proposals to abolish Australian workplace agreements? What changes to the government’s workplace relations legislation could do this damage at the cost of jobs around Australia?
79
Bailey, Fran, MP
JT4
McEwen
LP
Minister for Small Business and Tourism
1
FRAN BAILEY
—I thank the member for McPherson for her question and acknowledge her very strong support for small business in her electorate. I understand the concern expressed by the member for McPherson in her question. I can tell her and other members of this House that, yes, I do know that, if ever the Leader of the Opposition were given the opportunity to make the sorts of changes that he wants, small businesses in her electorate and every electorate represented here in this House would be hurt and there would be a loss of jobs.
The Howard government’s Work Choices legislation has delivered a simpler, fairer and more flexible system for small businesses. They have definitely benefited from our getting rid of unfair dismissal, the reduction of red tape and increased productivity. This would all be at risk if the Leader of the Opposition were to ever get that opportunity. I would like to record in the Hansard what small business people themselves say. Diana Williams of Fernwood Women’s Health Club—and I know there is a Fernwood in the member for McPherson’s and the member for Deakin’s electorates–said:
Ninety-nine per cent of my staff are female, and they are very happy with our AWA arrangements as they provide flexibility and accommodate the kinds of conditions that women in the workforce are looking for. The Opposition’s move to abolish AWAs—
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Gorton!
JT4
Bailey, Fran, MP
FRAN BAILEY
—This is so important I will repeat it:
The Opposition’s move to abolish AWAs is very disappointing and a step backwards for small business operators.
A step backwards. What small business knows is that Labor is no friend to small business.
Telecommunications
80
80
14:49:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
Mr WINDSOR
—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party and relates to a story in today’s Land newspaper headed ‘Nats push for line parity’. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that my constituent Mr Wacker Williams from Inverell—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for New England has the call.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will repeat that. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that my constituent Mr Wacker Williams moved a motion at the New South Wales Nationals annual conference in Ballina last weekend—
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for New England is asking his question. He will be heard.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that my constituent Mr Williams moved a motion at the New South Wales Nationals annual conference in Ballina last weekend that called on the National Party to guarantee that there will be no differential pricing between urban and country phone—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: you have previously ruled out of order questions that relate to party political matters purely and simply, and this question is dealing precisely with those issues and is totally out of order.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I am listening closely to the member for New England. His question, I believe, is about line rental. I call the member for New England and ask him to come to his question.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—The question does relate to the National Party motion moved last weekend in Ballina arguing for guarantees that there will be no differential pricing between urban and country phone, fax and internet line rental charges. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why his party is calling for these guarantees—
SE4
Bishop, Bronwyn, MP
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you did say you would listen to the member’s question, and I would refer you to page 538 of the Practice, where it says, ‘Speakers rule out of order’—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for New England is moving very close to referring to party matters. He will come to his question or I will sit him down.
009LP
Windsor, Antony, MP
Mr WINDSOR
—The question relates to line rentals, Mr Speaker. Why is there a call for these guarantees when the government has said previously in this House and to the National Farmers Federation that future pricing parity for both basic telephone and broadband services is enshrined in legislation? Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House in which legislative instrument the guarantee is enshrined and why he appears not to have informed his National Party members?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The last part of that question is not in order, but I call the Deputy Prime Minister for the rest of the question.
80
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Deputy Prime Minister
1
Mr VAILE
—I thank the honourable member for New England for his question. I am well aware of the concerns of Mr Williams from Inverell, and he was at the conference. We actually had a lengthy discussion about the government’s policy on telecommunications and the commitments that the government made last year when we passed that legislation through this place. As you would expect, and as you know very well, Mr Williams is a great advocate for himself and his peers in business in the area of Inverell—
A government member—And the National Party.
SU5
Vaile, Mark, MP
Mr VAILE
—and the National Party, seeing it has been mentioned. I assured Mr Williams that the government would continue to implement the policies that we announced last year that would look after the interests of regional Australians as far as telecommunications services are concerned.
Roads to Recovery Program
81
81
14:55:00
Haase, Barry, MP
84T
Kalgoorlie
LP
1
Mr HAASE
—My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. Would the minister inform the House of funding that councils in my electorate of Kalgoorlie and throughout Australia will receive prior to 30 June this year from the Australian government’s supplementary Roads to Recovery payment?
81
Lloyd, Jim, MP
IK6
Robertson
LP
Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads
1
Mr LLOYD
—I thank the outstanding member for Kalgoorlie—
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr Tanner interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Melbourne is warned!
IK6
Lloyd, Jim, MP
Mr LLOYD
—for the question. The member represents one of the largest electorates in the world, covering some 33 council areas. I am very pleased to inform the member, and to inform the House, that those 33 councils in the electorate of Kalgoorlie will receive before 30 June this year a supplementary Roads to Recovery payment of $12,920,000 that they can use on building better and safer roads in their council areas. That is of course on top of the first payment this year of another $12,920,000.
I note that some 18 mayors from south-east Queensland visited Canberra yesterday to talk about road funding. I am pleased to inform those 18 mayors from the councils in south-east Queensland that they will also receive before 30 June $22,246,000 in extra payments for their councils so they can get on with building better and safer roads. Of course, for the Brisbane City Council that also includes a $7,156,000 extra payment on top of the $26 million that Brisbane council received in financial assistance grants this year. I am sure that the member for Lilley, the member for Brisbane and the member for Griffith will welcome that extra payment to the Brisbane City Council and to councils all around Australia.
Adelaide Airport
81
81
14:57:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and I refer the minister to his statement in the consideration in detail stage of the appropriation bills on 14 June when, in answer to questions about issues relating to airports, local government and rates, he said:
In the case of Adelaide airport, an independent arbiter was put in place to try to establish a successful outcome. He made a recommendation … but, when it came to it, the council was not prepared to accept the arbiter’s ruling.
Minister, isn’t it a fact that there was no ruling and it was Adelaide Airport and not the council that withdrew from the arbitration process? Why did the minister mislead the parliament and why hasn’t he sought to correct the record?
81
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
1
Mr TRUSS
—There have been disputes involving two airports, Adelaide and Perth, in relation to the payment of rates. In the case of Perth, the Westralia Airports Corporation have reached agreement with two of their three local authority areas but not the third. There are difficult negotiations going on at the present time in an endeavour to resolve these issues. I do not seek to inflame the issues any further by making additional comments, other than to say that we will be working diligently and carefully with the City of West Torrens Council and the City of Belmont in an endeavour to have the issues resolved promptly.
New Apprenticeships
82
82
14:59:00
Laming, Andrew, MP
E0H
Bowman
LP
1
Mr LAMING
—My question is to the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education. Would the minister outline to the House measures that this government is taking to encourage business to take on apprentices? Secondly, Minister, what are the employment prospects for young Australians who complete an apprenticeship?
82
Hardgrave, Gary, MP
CK6
Moreton
LP
Minister for Vocational and Technical Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister
1
Mr HARDGRAVE
—I thank the member for Bowman for an excellent question. He is a go-ahead guy in a go-ahead part of south-east Queensland. I will illustrate that point by making it plain that in 1996 the federal electorate of Bowman came 52nd in the ranking as far as unemployment is concerned—52nd best in Australia. Now it is the 20th best. It is No. 20. That in itself underscores the fact that 3.2 per cent unemployment is the figure in Bowman today, which shows that around Cleveland and Redlands there has been a terrific amount of development with businesses investing in themselves. The best way that businesses can invest in themselves is to take on apprentices.
The Australian government is backing that decision of Australian business with record amounts of incentives and benefits to both employers and apprentices. Some $571 million in the coming financial year is anticipated, with $43.7 million in personal benefits directed to apprentices themselves. If we go back to a full set of figures that can be properly analysed from the 2001-02 financial year, we see that employers spent $3.6 billion in direct expenditure on structured training. This in fact represented a 52 per cent increase on where they were at in 1996. There we were five years ago: employers realised that investment in training was important and they were getting on with it.
The recent Australian Industry Group report, World class skills for world class industries, looking and talking to business, outlined that a 30 per cent increase on top of that is anticipated by Australian business over the next three years. All I can say to the member for Bowman and all members in this place is that the prospect for further job growth is very real. Factored in, of course, with the Australian government’s Work Choices legislation, we will see businesses being confident enough to invest in themselves by taking on more apprentices. This provides opportunities for young people to get a start in a job and thorough training to develop technical and employable skills. They, of course, also help to create the employers of the future. We know on this side that, when we came to office, we saw just 161,500 people in training in 1995-96. There are now almost 400,000 people in training in this country. That is an increase of 141 per cent.
Government members are always attentive to this point: the low point in Australia’s history was back in 1993 when the employment of apprentices reached its lowest ever ebb of just 122,700 people. And who was in charge? Who presided over the single biggest drop in Australia’s history? The now member for Brand, the Leader of the Opposition.
ZD4
Howard, John, MP
Mr Howard
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
82
Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers
Private Jacob (Jake) Kovco
82
82
15:02:00
Dr NELSON,MP
RW5
Bradfield
LP
Minister for Defence
1
0
Dr NELSON
—Mr Speaker, I wish to add to an answer.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The minister may proceed.
RW5
Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP
Dr NELSON
—The member for Barton asked me a question about a side-arm that had been raised in the course of the board of inquiry into the death of Private Kovco. In answering the question in relation to the nine-millimetre Browning pistol used by our troops in Iraq, I referred to comments made by former Chief of Defence and Chief of Army General Cosgrove. He said specifically:
... although the Browning pistol was “as old as the hills” it remained a good handgun.
… … …
“... it is not a question of how old it is; it is proven technology.
“The pistol itself may have been made last year, it is just a very old design.
He also said:
“I know that the money spent to prepare the diggers, both in terms of their personal kit and their training, is immense—unprecedented.”
I table that report.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
83
Personal Explanations
83
15:03:00
Roxon, Nicola, MP
83K
Gellibrand
ALP
0
0
Ms ROXON
—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—Yes, with tedious repetition, unfortunately, by the Attorney-General.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The honourable member for Gellibrand may proceed.
83K
Roxon, Nicola, MP
Ms ROXON
—The Attorney-General has indicated twice now in this House that we—I—have referred to family relationship centres as ‘sausage factories’. Labor in fact supports the family relationship centres, as the Attorney knows. I will table the press release that he is using, which is titled ‘Family Relationship Centres are not sausage factories’, and we are urging that the Attorney-General not administer them as if they were.
Leave granted.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
83
Questions to the Speaker
Parliamentary Behaviour
83
83
15:04:00
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
0
Mr TANNER
—Mr Speaker, my question relates to the legitimate freedom of expression of members during parliamentary proceedings. Earlier in question time, you required the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw an interjection that was directed at the Attorney-General which in effect accused him of vilifying asylum seekers. This is a legitimate political claim. Whether or not you agree with it, it is a legitimate political claim that has been put in this House by many members, me included last night, and has not been required to be withdrawn. Could you indicate to the House in what circumstances, when a withdrawal is requested, you would decline to require a withdrawal. If, for example, a circumstance arose where I accused the minister for workplace relations of driving down workers’ wages, would I be required to withdraw in those circumstances?
83
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member will not debate his question. I will make two points. The member for Melbourne really should raise his point at the time but, since he has raised the question with me, the response is: if he looks at House of Representatives Practice, I think on page 499 or 500, it talks about not only the actual words but the context in which they are used and the climate at the time and, accordingly, the occupier of the chair at the time has to rule on the spot.
Committee Reports: Government Responses
83
83
15:05:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Mr Speaker, on 1 December last year, over six months ago, I asked you a question related to the practice outlined on page 689 of House of Representatives Practice whereby the Speaker presents a schedule listing government responses to House of Representatives and joint standing committee reports to the House and, subsequently, the Leader of the House presents a list of parliamentary committee reports showing the stage reached with a government response in each case. Last December, you replied to my question with the assurance that you would follow up the matter and report shortly. I remain interested in the response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report, Roads to recovery, which was undertaken over two parliaments and tabled in September 2003. I would appreciate, Mr Speaker, your advice on the progress in presenting the schedule of outstanding committee reports to the House.
84
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Fowler. I think she is anticipating some papers that I will be presenting very shortly.
Parliamentary Behaviour
84
84
15:07:00
Wilkie, Kim, MP
84G
Swan
ALP
0
Mr WILKIE
—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. It relates to the member for Mackellar’s conduct in question time today and on more than 50 other occasions during this parliament. I refer to page 188 of House of Representatives Practice, insofar as to the raising of points of order, where it states:
The opportunity to raise a point of order should not be misused to deliberately disrupt proceedings ...
It further states:
Members have been disciplined by the Chair for raising spurious or frivolous points of order and for persisting with matters after the Chair has ruled.
Given that the member for Mackellar has raised over 50 points of order which clearly seek to deliberately disrupt proceedings of the House, I ask that you consider applying disciplinary action to the member as referred to in this section of House of Representatives Practice to prevent the member from wasting your time and that of the House.
84
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
The SPEAKER
—I thank the member for Swan. As the member for Swan would be aware, all members have the right to raise a point of order at any time. It is the role of the occupier of the chair to listen to that point of order and rule on it and, if successive points of order are raised during a particular question or a particular answer, there have been occasions when the occupier of the chair has ruled them frivolous. I listen carefully to all points of order and try to rule on them as appropriate at the time.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
84
Auditor-General's Reports
Report No. 48 of 2005-06
84
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 48 of 2005-06 entitled Interim phase of the audit of financial statements of general government sector entities for the year ending 30 June 2006.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
COMMITTEES
84
Committees
Government Responses: Report
84
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 8 December 2005, the date of the last schedule, and 22 June 2006. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard.
The schedule read as follows—
THE SPEAKER’S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES
(also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government responses made in the period between 8 December 2005, the date of the last schedule, and 22 June 2006)
22 June 2006
THE SPEAKER’S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE REPORTS
On 22 June 2006, the Government presented its response to a schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports tabled in the House of Representatives on 8 December 2005.
It is Government policy to respond to parliamentary committee reports within three months of their presentation. In 1978 the Fraser Government implemented a policy of responding in the House by ministerial statement within six months of the tabling of a committee report. In 1983, the Hawke Government reduced this response time to three months but continued the practice of responding by ministerial statement. The Keating Government generally responded by means of a letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity. In 1996, the Howard Government affirmed the commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of their presentation. The Government also undertook to clear, as soon as possible, the backlog of reports arising from previous Parliaments.
The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 8 December 2006. It also lists reports for which the House has received no government response. A schedule of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, generally in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.
The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government’s response to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Members’ Interests, the Committee of Privileges, the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries) and the Selection Committee. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Reports from other committees which do not include recommendations are only included when first tabled.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. However, responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within 6 months of tabling a report. The committee monitors the provision of such responses. The schedule only includes reports with policy recommendations.
22 June 2006
Description of Report
Date Tabled
or Published
1
Date of Government Response
2
Responded in Period Specified
3
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (House, Standing)
Unlocking the future: The report of the Inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976
30-08-99
No response to date
No
Many ways forward: Report of the inquiry into capacity building and service delivery in indigenous communities
21-06-04
No response to date
4
No
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
(House, Standing)
Inquiry into future water supplies for Australia’s rural industries and communities – Interim Report
05-05-04
No response to date
5
No
Getting water right(s) – The future of rural Australia
21-06-04
No response to date
5
No
Taking control: a national approach to pest animals
28-11-05
No response to date
5
No
ASIO, ASIS and DSD
(Joint, Statutory)
Private review of agency security arrangements
13-10-03
No response to date
6
No
ASIO’s Questioning and Detention Powers - Review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 3 Part III of the ASIO Act 1979
30-11-05
29-03-06
No
Australian Crime Commission
(Joint, Statutory)
Cybercrime
24-03-04
09-02-06
No
Inquiry into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude
24-06-04
No response to date
6
No
Supplementary report to the Inquiry into the trafficking of women for sexual servitude
11-08-05
No response to date
7
No
Review of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002
10-11-05
No response to date
6
No
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (House, Standing)
From reel to unreal: future opportunities for Australia’s film, animation, special effects and electronic games industries
21-06-04
No response to date
8
No
Digital Television: Who’s Buying It?
13-02-06
No response to date
9
No
Corporations and Securities
(Joint, Statutory)
Report on aspects of the regulation of proprietary companies
08-03-01
No response to date
10
No
Corporations and Financial Services
(Joint, Statutory)
Report on the regulations and ASIC policy statements made under the Financial Services Reform Act 2001
23-10-02
No response to date
11
No
Inquiry into the review of the Managed Investments Act 1998
12-12-02
No response to date
12
No
Inquiry into Regulation 7.1.29 in Corporations Amendment Regulations 2003 (No.3), Statutory Rules 2003 No.85
26-06-03
No response to date
11
No
Money matters in the bush-Inquiry into the level of banking & financial services in rural, regional & remote areas of Australia
15-01-04
No response to date
13
No
Report on the ATM fee structure
15-01-04
No response to date
14
No
Corporations amendment regulations 2003
24-03-04
No response to date
11
No
Corporations Amendment Regulations 7.1.29A, 7.1.35A and 7.1.40(h)
02-06-04
No response to date
11
No
Exposure draft of the Corporations Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2005
16-06-05
08-12-05
No
Property Investment Advice – Safe as Houses?
23-06-05
No response to date
15
No
Timeshare: The Price of Leisure
05-09-05
No response to date
16
No
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
13-02-06
No response to date
No
Corporate responsibility: Managing risk and creating value
21-06-06
Time has not expired
Economics, Finance and Public Administration
(House, Standing)
Numbers on the run: Review of the ANAO Report no. 37 1998-1999 on the management of Tax File Numbers
28-08-00
No response to date
17
No
Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 2003
21-06-04
No response to date
18
No
Improving the superannuation savings of people under 40
19-06-06
Time has not expired
Electoral Matters
(Joint, Standing)
The 2004 Federal Election: Report of the Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2004 Federal Election and Matters Related Thereto
10-10-05
No response to date
19
No
Funding and Disclosure: Inquiry into disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates
30-03-06
Time has not expired
Employment and Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation
(House, Standing)
Working for Australia’s future: increasing participation in the work force
14-03-05
No response to date
20
No
Making it work: Inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire arrangements
17-08-05
No response to date
21
No
Environment and Heritage
(House, Standing)
Public good conservation: Our challenge for the 21st century
27-09-01
No response to date
22
No
Sustainable cities
12-09-05
No response to date
22
No
Family and Community Services
(House, Standing)
Road to recovery: Report on the inquiry into substance abuse in Australian communities
08-09-03
No response to date
22
No
Family and Human Services
(House, Standing)
Overseas Adoption in Australian: Report on the inquiry into adoption of children from overseas
21-11-05
No response to date
23
No
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)
Inquiry into Australia’s Maritime Strategy
21-06-04
25-05-06
No
Australia’s engagement with the World Trade Organisation
09-06-04
16-02-06
No
Reform of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
12-09-05
No response required
Australia’s Human Rights Dialogue Process
12-09-05
02-03-06
No
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2003-04
10-10-05
27-03-06
No
Report of the Delegation to the United States 28 June to 13 July 2005
11-10-05
No response required
Australia’s free trade agreements with Singapore, Thailand and the United States: progress to date and lessons for the future
07-11-05
No response to date
24
No
Parliamentary delegation visit to Australian Defence Forces deployed to support the rehabilitation of Iraq - 22 to 28 October 2005
22-05-06
No response required
Australia’s Defence Relations with the United States
22-05-06
Time has not expired
Expanding Australia’s trade and investment relations with North Africa
22-05-06
Time has not expired
Industry, Science and Resources
(House, Standing)
Getting a better return: Inquiry into increasing the value added to Australian raw materials second report
24-09-01
No response to date
25
No
Intelligence and Security
(Joint, Statutory)
Review of the listing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
26-04-06
Time has not expired
Legal and Constitutional Affairs (House, Standing)
The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution
30-11-95
No response to date
No
Modern-day usage of averments in customs prosecutions
31-05-04
09-05-06
No
Inquiry into crime in the community: victims, offenders and fear of crime
11-08-04
No response to date
26
No
Exposure Draft of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005
18-08-05
08-12-05
No
Review of technological protection measures exceptions
01-03-06
No response to date
No
Migration
(Joint, Standing)
Review of Audit Report No. 1 2005-2006: Management of Detention Centre Contracts
Part B
05-12-05
No response to date
27
No
National Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing)
Norfolk Island electoral matters
26-08-02
No response to date
28
No
Antarctica: Australia’s Pristine Frontier. Report on the adequacy of funding for Australia’s Antarctic Program
23-06-05
No response to date
22
No
Norfolk Island Financial Sustainability: The Challenge – Sink or Swim
01-12-05
No response to date
28
No
Current and future governance arrangements for the Indian Ocean Territories
13-06-06
Time has not expired
Native Title and the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Land Account
(Joint, Statutory)
Report on the operation of Native Title Representative bodies
21-03-06
No response to date
No
Examination of annual reports 2004-2005
21-03-06
No response to date
No
Procedure
(House, Standing)
Arrangements for second reading speeches
01-12-03
07-12-05
No
House Estimates: consideration of the annual estimates by the House of Representatives
13-10-03
No response to date
29
No
Media coverage of House proceedings including the Chamber, Main committee and committees (Final report)
10-10-05
No response to date
29
No
Maintenance of the Standing and Sessional Orders – (First report)
27-03-06
29-03-06
30
Yes
Public Accounts and Audit
(Joint, Statutory)
Corporate governance and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth government business enterprises, December 1999
(Report No. 372)
16-02-00
No response to date
31
No
Access of indigenous Australians to law and justice services (Report No. 403)
22-06-05
02-03-06
No
Review of auditor-general’s report 2003-2004: Third and fourth quarters; and first and second quarters of 2004-2005 (Report 404)
07-12-05
No response to date
32
No
Annual report 2004-2005 (Report 405)
28-11-05
No response required
Developments in aviation security since the committee’s June 2004 Report 400: Review of aviation security in Australia – An interim report (Report 406)
07-12-05
No response to date
33
No
Publications
(Joint, Standing)
Distribution of the Parliamentary Papers Series
29-05-06
Time has not expired
Science and Innovation
(House, Standing)
Second report of the inquiry into increasing the value added to Australian raw materials
24-09-01
No response to date
No
Pathways to technological innovation
19-06-06
Time has not expired
Transport and Regional Services
(House, Standing)
Regional aviation and island transport services: Making ends meet
01-12-03
No response to date
34
No
Ship salvage
21-06-04
No response to date
35
No
Treaties
(Joint, Standing)
The Australia – United States Free Trade Agreement
(61st Report)
23-06-04
No response to date
No
Treaties tabled on 7 December 2004 (previously tabled in May and June 2004)
(63rd Report)
14-12-04
No response to date
No
Treaties tabled on 7 December 2004 (3) and
8 February 2005
(65th Report)
20-06-05
No response to date
36
No
Review of treaties tabled 7 December 2004 (4), 15 March and 11 May 2005 (66th Report)
17-08-05
No response required
Treaties tabled on 13 September and 11 October 2005
(69th Report)
05-12-05
No response required
Treaty tabled on 9 November 2005
(70th Report)
06-12-05
No response required
Review of Treaty tabled on 29 November 2005
(71st Report)
27-02-06
No response to date
No
Review of Treaties tabled on 29 November 2005 (2)
(72nd Report)
28-03-06
Time has not expired
Review of Treaties tabled in February 2006
(73rd Report)
10-05-06
Time has not expired
Review of Treaty tabled on 28 March 2006
(74th Report)
29-05-06
Time has not expired
These notes reflect the response circulated by the Leader of the House on 7 December 2005 entitled “Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee reports. Response to the schedule tabled by the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 22 June 2006”.
-
The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.
-
If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote.
-
The time specified is three months from the date of tabling.
-
A consolidated draft government response has been prepared with input from relevant agencies. The response will be finalised for tabling as soon as possible.
-
The response is in the final stages of clearance and is expected to be tabled in the near future.
-
A response is being considered by the government and is expected to be tabled shortly.
-
The response to the original report is to be finalised prior to issuing a response to this supplementary report.
-
The government is finalising its response to the report.
-
The government is continuing to prepare a response to the report. It is expected the response will be tabled shortly.
-
The response is being finalised and will be tabled in the near future.
-
The government continues to respond to this report through changes to the Corporations Regulations and ongoing proposals to make further refinements to the regulation of financial services based on public comment. A response to this report will be tabled following implementation of these changes to the law.
-
Substantial changes to financial services regulations are currently being implemented. The impact of these changes on the operation of managed investment schemes will have to be evaluated. A response to the report will be provided in due course.
-
The response will be finalised as soon as possible.
-
The response to this report is to be included with the response to the report on ‘Money Matters in the Bush’.
-
The government is considering the recommendations of the Committee and will table a response in due course. However, before finalising and tabling its response the government believes it is important to consider any recommendations made by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs (MCCA) working party that is currently investigating property investment advice. The MCCA working party is due to report shortly.
-
The government is currently considering the recommendations and a response will be provided in due course.
-
The Numbers on the Run Review was overtaken by the Australian National Audit Office in report no. 47 of 2004-2005, which was tabled on 31 May 2005.
-
A consolidated draft response is being considered and a response will be tabled in due course.
-
The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2006, which was introduced into the Parliament on 8 December 2005, gives effect to the government’s response to a number of the Committee’s recommendations which the government considers to be a priority. The government is considering the remaining recommendations and will table its full response to the report in due course.
-
The government response has been finalised and will be tabled as soon as practicable.
-
The government is considering its response in the context of the recently announced Independent Contractors Bill. A response will be tabled shortly.
-
A response is being drafted and will be tabled in due course.
-
The government’s response is under consideration and is expected to be tabled shortly.
-
The government’s response is under consideration.
-
The government response is in the final stages of clearance and is expected to be tabled shortly.
-
The response has been finalised and is in the final stages of clearance.
-
The proposed response is currently being prepared and will be finalised as soon as possible.
-
A response will be considered once the government has made a decision on the future governance arrangements for Norfolk Island.
-
A response is being drafted and will be tabled in due course.
-
Recommendations implemented by the House by amendment to the standing orders.
-
The government is considering its response to outstanding recommendations and a response will be tabled in due course.
-
The response is being prepared and will be finalised as soon as possible.
-
As agreed with the Committee, the Department of Transport and Regional Services provided a letter dated 16 February 2006, acknowledging the interim report. A response will be provided when the final report is tabled.
-
The government is continuing to consider its draft response to the committee in light of development in the aviation sector.
-
Following completion of Australian Transport Council processes, a draft government response has been developed and circulated to all relevant agencies for comments. The final response is expected to be tabled in the next parliamentary session.
-
The government response is being finalised and will be tabled in due course.
DOCUMENTS
93
Documents
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:09:00
—Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts—Report on the Spam Act 2003 Review, June 2006.
Department of Finance and Administration—Reports—
Former parliamentarians’ travel paid by the department for the period July to December 2005.
Parliamentarians’ overseas study travel reports for the period July to December 2005.
Parliamentarians’ travel paid by the department for the period July to December 2005.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Expenditure on travel by former Governors-General paid by the department for the period 1 July to 30 December 2005.
Debate (on motion by Ms Gillard) adjourned.
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:10:00
—I present documents on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:
Funding for public dental health services—from the member for Richmond—3291 Petitioners
Medicare rebates for the Vietnamese Counselling and Psychotherapy Services in Footscray—from the member for Warringah—1388 Petitioners
Falun Gong—from the member for Higgins—260 Petitioners
Falun Gong—from the member for Warringah—182 Petitioners
Use of natural resources in Tasmania—from the member for Calare—322 Petitioners
The listing of the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) as a terrorist organisation—from the member for Berowra—3222 Petitioners
BUSINESS
93
Business
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:10:00
—by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after 9.30 p.m.) be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings.
Question agreed to.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
93
Special Adjournment
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:11:00
—I move:
That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 August 2006, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Question agreed to.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
93
Leave of Absence
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:11:00
—I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
94
Ministerial Statements
Iraq
94
94
15:11:00
Howard, John, MP
ZD4
Bennelong
LP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr HOWARD
—by leave—Earlier this week Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, announced the transfer of responsibility for security in Al Muthanna province from coalition forces to the Iraqi government (a process referred to as provincial Iraqi control).
Through the course of next month, the Iraqi security forces will take over responsibility for providing security in Al Muthanna, with the coalition providing support if requested by the Iraqi government.
This is an important step towards the Iraqi government taking control of the country’s security situation. Al Muthanna is the first province to be transferred entirely to provincial Iraqi control.
That this step can be taken is due in no small measure to the hard work, bravery and commitment of the Australian Defence Force. It also reflects the Australian government’s determination to help the Iraqi people secure a better future.
Since May 2005, Australia’s Al Muthanna Task Group has trained about 1,650 Iraqi soldiers of the National Iraqi Army’s 2nd Brigade. This brigade is already conducting security operations in Al Muthanna and it contributed to the success of the December 2005 elections. In conjunction with other Iraqi security forces, these soldiers will now assume primary responsibility for security within the Al Muthanna province.
The second key role of Australia’s Al Muthanna Task Group has been to provide a secure environment for the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction Support Group, which is conducting a range of important rehabilitation projects in Al Muthanna.
These projects have included the provision of training and technical support to four hospitals; the rehabilitation of approximately 30 health clinics and 35 schools; and the completion of dozens of other infrastructure projects.
Following the Iraqi Prime Minister’s announcement on security arrangements in Al Muthanna, and in accordance with the prospective completion of Japan’s reconstruction mission in the province, the Japanese Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, has announced that his country’s contingent in Al Muthanna will be withdrawn.
The ADF will continue to provide security for the Japanese contingent until they have completed the final elements of their mission, which is likely to occur by the end of July.
Japan will remain a vital coalition partner in Iraq. Along with continued reconstruction assistance, Prime Minister Koizumi has announced that Japan will expand its Air Self Defence Force contribution to provide airlift support for the United Nations into Baghdad and Irbil.
These developments highlight both the determination of the Iraqi authorities to take control of their own destiny and the determination of Australia and other coalition partners to help them do so.
It is important to note the progress that Iraq is making on other fronts. Since January 2005, we have seen Iraq hold three national polls and draft a constitution. More than 15.5 million votes were recorded in elections in December last year, including approximately 12,000 recorded at polling booths across Australia.
Last month, Prime Minister al-Maliki’s cabinet was approved by the National Assembly.
Despite a difficult security environment, Iraq’s economy is growing strongly, with the IMF estimating real GDP growth this year of 10.4 per cent. International assistance is also playing a critical role in accelerating the delivery of basic services.
Electricity generation capacity has increased by 30 per cent. Roughly a third of Iraq’s school buildings have been rehabilitated in the last three years and 36,000 new teachers have been trained.
Iraq is experiencing significant growth in telephone and internet subscriptions. Vaccination programs for Iraqi children to ward off ailments such as measles, mumps, rubella and polio have expanded rapidly.
We have witnessed important progress in the judicial system. All provincial courts are operational. More than 700 judges have been trained. And Saddam Hussein is being publicly brought to justice for his crimes against the Iraqi people.
We have seen a flowering of free speech and a free press in Iraq, including 54 commercial television stations, 114 radio stations and 268 independent newspapers and magazines.
To see the Iraqi people striving to reclaim civil society in the cradle of civilisation, sometimes at great cost and against great odds, is a humbling experience for those of us privileged enough to live in a free and democratic society.
The courage of the Iraqi people serves as a constant reminder of why the international community must maintain its support for Iraq’s democratic transition and development.
Clearly the security situation in Iraq continues to be dangerous, notwithstanding that it has improved sufficiently in Al Muthanna province for responsibility to be handed over to Iraqi forces.
The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi earlier this month has strengthened the hand and the resolve of all who want to see a peaceful and stable Iraq emerge from the grip of violence. But Iraq remains an active battleground in the global fight against terrorism. It also faces major challenges in terms of sectarian and criminal violence.
The transfer of security responsibility that will take place in Al Muthanna is an important step, but it is only one step.
There is still a big job to do in assisting the Iraqi authorities in meeting their security challenges. There remains a need for strong and continued support from the international community.
After careful consideration by the National Security Committee, the government has decided that Australian forces will take on a new role to support the Iraqi government and security forces.
Planning for this role has been done in consultation with our coalition partners and with the Iraqi government.
The ADF contingent will relocate from its current base at Camp Smitty near Samawah in Al Muthanna province to the coalition air base at Tallil, located some 80 kilometres to the south-east in the neighbouring province of Dhi Qar.
From its base in Tallil, the ADF will contribute to coalition operations in south-east Iraq under the banner of Operational Overwatch—the coalition effort to support the handover of primary responsibility for security to Iraqi authorities. The focus of ADF operations will initially be in Al Muthanna province and may expand to cover Dhi Qar province later in the year.
Our forces will have two responsibilities. The first will be to continue to engage with Iraqi security forces and local authorities, building on the relationships we have developed and the successful ADF training and mentoring program that has been under way since April last year.
This will involve a range of activities, including regular meetings with local leaders, exercising with the Iraqi security forces and supporting and mentoring them as they consolidate their capabilities.
As part of this engagement, we will also continue the ADF program of reconstruction assistance. This has so far delivered many valuable improvements to services and infrastructure for the local community in critical areas such as transport, health, veterinary and agricultural services and utilities.
The ADF contingent’s second responsibility will be to support the Iraqi authorities in crisis situations. While southern Iraq is relatively calm compared with other parts of the country, the security environment remains dangerous. Should situations develop that are beyond the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to resolve, the Iraqi government may call upon the coalition to provide them with backup.
This could involve the ADF providing support in areas such as communications, command and control, intelligence and surveillance and, in extreme cases, through direct military action.
The intelligence assessments available to the government indicate that the areas in which the ADF will be operating in its new role have among the lowest threat levels in comparison to the rest of Iraq.
That said, the ADF’s new role will be higher risk.
The government is keenly aware of the risks associated with this new mission and will ensure that the ADF has the resources it needs to carry out its tasks as safely and effectively as possible.
ADF troops in southern Iraq are well structured and equipped. In addition, ADF elements have access to coalition support capabilities, including medical evacuation, air support and other ground support enablers such as logistics and fire support.
A battle group similar in size and structure to the Al Muthanna Task Group (approximately 450 personnel) will be based at Tallil Air Base. It will comprise two combat teams: one cavalry combat team drawn from 2/14th Light Horse Regiment based in Brisbane and one motorised infantry combat team, drawn from 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, based in Townsville.
The battle group will be under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Michael Mahy, Commanding Officer, 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment.
The force will also include an ADF training team of approximately 30 personnel. Since the beginning of this month, the training team has been training and mentoring Iraqi instruction personnel at the Iraqi Army Basic Training Centre at Tallil Air Base. We are also making a small training contribution at the Counter Insurgency Academy in Taji, north of Baghdad.
Let me be very clear: Australia will not be hostage to a particular timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We will only leave when the job has been finished. There may have been strong views either way on the original decision to go to Iraq, but there should be complete agreement on all sides now that this is not the time to leave the Iraqi people to their own devices; in other words, to cut and run.
Iraq is an active battleground in the international fight against terrorism. To leave Iraq prematurely would not only destabilise the Middle East; it would also provide comfort and strength to extremists all around the world.
To say that we should fight against the terrorists in Afghanistan but walk away from the struggle in Iraq is simply illogical. If countries such as the United States, Great Britain or Australia were to follow such logic, it would be nothing less than a disastrous defeat for the cause of freedom and the values we hold dear.
The point that Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair made in this very House in March is as powerful today as it was then. And I quote:
Here are Iraqi Muslims … saying clearly that democracy is as much our right as yours … This struggle is our struggle.
If the going is tough—we tough it out. This is not a time to walk away. This is a time for the courage to see it through.
Helping Iraq to achieve stability and democracy is in Australia’s national interest. And it is part of Australia accepting its global responsibilities.
Our support is at the request of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people and is dependent on progress by Iraqi authorities in managing their own affairs.
We in the government are very mindful of the risks our men and women face in Iraq. I have never sought to hide those risks. As always, our thoughts and our prayers are with all those who are serving their country bravely overseas. I present a copy of the statement:
Australian Defence Force commitment to southern Iraq
Mr ABBOTT
(Warringah
—Leader of the House)
15:28:00
—I move:
That the House take note of the document.
I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the debate.
Leave granted.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr ABBOTT
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Beazley (Leader of the Opposition) speaking for a period not exceeding 17 minutes.
Question agreed to.
97
15:29:00
Beazley, Kim, MP
PE4
Brand
ALP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr BEAZLEY
—I agree with the last sentence of the Prime Minister’s statement. As always, our thoughts and prayers are with all of those who are serving their country bravely. But we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place, and we should not be there now. Iraq is a quagmire and staying there is not in our national interest. Make no mistake about it: we are opposed to the war in Iraq. We want our troops in Al Muthanna province home now, as the Japanese withdraw.
The Prime Minister and the government, since we have been involved in this story, have constantly shifted the goalposts on our troops. When troops were first sent to this conflict they were there to search for weapons of mass destruction which did not exist. At the time that rationale was developed, there were men within the US administration urging great caution upon the senior figures in the administration. There were allies of the United States urging great caution upon them. There were others who were saying that, whether or not those weapons of mass destruction existed, this was not the right first step to take. All this sound advice was coming from friends of the United States and honoured members of the administration itself. Nowhere amongst them could be found the ministers of this government, whose advocacy was always for war. The troubles which are now afflicting American foreign policy, as I will state a little later in my remarks, all stem back to that. At least a small part of the responsibility for these problems should be sheeted home to the other side of the House, particularly the members of the government frontbench.
Then the rationale became ‘regime change’. When no weapons were found, the government then said, ‘Our objective to remove Saddam Hussein was a very good thing and that has been achieved.’ But before the war this is what the Prime Minister had to say to the National Press Club:
I couldn’t justify on its own a military invasion of Iraq to change the regime. I’ve never advocated that. Much in all as I despise the regime.
Then the rationale for this commitment became to support the efforts of the Japanese in Al Muthanna province. Here is what the Prime Minister said on that occasion:
The Australian task group will have two roles. First, it will provide a secure environment for the Japanese Iraq Reconstruction Support group, which is currently building roads and schools, ensuring clean water supply, and delivering incidental health services to the people of that province. Second, the task group will be involved in the further training of the Iraqi security forces. That training is essential if the Iraqis are to assume responsibility for their own security.
That job is done now. The rationale for the deployment of those troops in Al Muthanna has come to an end. They should be thanked for the excellent service they have performed and they should be brought home.
We now get the rationale of ‘security watch’. It is no good for the Prime Minister to stand up in this place and say, ‘When the job is done.’ It sounds good as a spin meister’s slogan. It means nothing at all in the context of this conflict. The job keeps changing, according to the Prime Minister, and we are allowed to make assumptions that the job is defined on all occasions by politics. We had the Minister for Defence this morning saying that by the end of this year we should be able to give serious consideration to bringing those troops home. What criteria, what issues, what analysis has he provided to allow him to reach that conclusion? The answer is politics. We have the strongest suspicion on this side of the House that, whilst large numbers of countries have withdrawn their troops from Iraq, it is quite clear the Americans intend before the congressional elections to at least announce, if not activate, substantial draw-downs. While the British are, as we are speaking, substantially drawing down their forces from Iraq, we are left with the suspicion that there are politics here involved more around electoral timetables in the United States than decisions in the Australian national interest. So an opportunity has been lost. The opportunity which was originally reflected in the decision is one that should never have been taken.
We have nothing but praise for our troops and the roles that they perform, irrespective of the decisions that governments take and the adequacies or otherwise of the political performance of the national leadership of any political hue in this country. Our soldiers are excellent in professional terms—well motivated in personal terms and highly capable both as exemplars to others and in conducting themselves in any type of conflict situation. Nevertheless, they are deployed at risk. In an area where there has been substantial combat they are deployed without their own tanks, without their own high capability armoured fighting vehicles, without their own heavy artillery and without their own helicopter support. This is a dangerous thing to do.
In the original commitment in Al Muthanna province the troops had access to nearby divisional assets, coherently organised by the British in Basra that entailed all those things. Fortunately, their capacity or their need to access them was never tested. The Prime Minister asserted in his brief remarks to the parliament that somehow or other something similar to that is being provided without the clear-cut description that went originally with it when our troops were first committed in Al Muthanna province. I do draw attention to these things. The troops are in far more dangerous a situation than they were in previously. I accept the analysis of the Prime Minister and the intelligence officials that the situation is less dangerous where they are than in other places in Iraq. Nevertheless, it is substantially more dangerous than where they were.
Richard Armitage, a member of the Bush administration at the time the initial commitments were made and one of those urging caution upon the Bush administration and a great friend of Australia who was not supported by his Australian ministerial counterparts and friends at the time that he was urging caution on the US administration, said very recently to a journalist from the Australian:
The British used to make a big deal of walking around in their berets in the south. Now they won’t even go to the latrines without their helmets. The south has got much rougher ...
In those circumstances I do think we are entitled to more than two paragraphs on the divisional assets being brought in to back up our troops, their readiness and availability to our troops and the circumstances which would trigger a commitment of American tanks, APCs, helicopters or heavy artillery if trouble came about. It is true that when trouble emerges in Iraq the presence of M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley armoured fighting vehicles is almost invariably required to pull you substantially out of trouble. We do have those LAV25s associated with the Australian armed forces. They are not as effectively armoured as are their American counterparts. We need to know these things if we are to do the right thing by our defence forces.
The politics of Iraq are not as they were in the immediate aftermath of the war and not as advertised by the Prime Minister in his remarks today. The fact that Iraq has attracted a considerable al-Qaeda activity in the aftermath of the original phase of the fighting has been due in no small measure to the fact that our presence in Iraq has acted as a magnet for all the ne’er-do-wells in the Middle East who seek an opportunity to deliver jihad against Western forces.
Originally the diehard elements of the Baathists and the al-Qaeda elements coming into Iraq were the substantial dynamics of the insurgency. That is no longer. That is a very small proportion of the insurgency now. Mostly what is going on in Iraq is Shia versus Shia, clan versus clan, Shia versus Sunni, Sunni versus Sunni and Sunni versus Kurd. The forces whom we train, be they police or army, are deeply infused with what is the confessional, sectarian and clan struggle inside the politics of Iraq now. And we find, often as not, that when murder and mayhem take place on the streets it is sometimes conducted by a militia outside officialdom and often it is conducted by somebody legitimately in uniform.
We are in a political situation and quagmire of which we have no understanding and on which there has been no effective debate conducted in this country. But in all the other countries which are participants with us in Iraq there is the certain knowledge that ultimately the political solution in Iraq now totally depends on the political outcome in that struggle that I have referred to and that, effectively, Western forces can play little or no role in that, and in some instances the presence of Western forces complicates the task as they are sought to be manipulated by one or other of these contending forces or they attract into the country some of the ne’er-do-wells associated with al-Qaeda about whom we are speaking.
What has been the result of what the government has wrought in Iraq? The government has responsibility here because one of the factors involved in President Bush’s decision, a decision he now much regrets, was the firm belief on his part that the sanctions regime on Saddam Hussein had broken down. He was convinced it had broken down and was not working in a way that sufficiently contained the capacity of Saddam Hussein to develop weapons of mass destruction. President Bush was overly pessimistic in his assessment in that regard, but he was absolutely right when he said that the sanctions regime had broken down. It broke down in no small measure on the neglect of Australian ministers. So there is a level of personal responsibility attached to the government for creating the situation that has put the United States in so much trouble.
This has been a bad war for the United States and its allies. It has sucked the oxygen out of US foreign policy all over the world. The war has made Iran stronger in the Gulf region, the war has made it impossible for the United States to deal with Iran or Syria effectively, the war has increased the prestige of the arch-criminal Osama bin Laden everywhere in the Arab and Islamic world and, worst of all, the war has made it harder, not easier, to fight international terrorist networks all over the world.
The Prime Minister says, ‘How can you be consistent and argue’—as we do—‘that Australian troops are properly engaged in a struggle in Afghanistan but not so in Iraq?’ Let me now tell the Prime Minister why that is so. We are engaged in Afghanistan because we are signatories to the ANZUS alliance. We invoked the ANZUS alliance in the aftermath of September 11 and justified an attack on the then regime authorities in Afghanistan and removed them. We rightfully participated in that, but the job is not done. The job has not been completed.
The second reason why we should be in that struggle now and why it differs is that the internal situation that I referred to in relation to Iraq does not exist in the same way in relation to Afghanistan. The threat in Afghanistan comes from remnant Taliban efforts across the border from Pakistan and remnant al-Qaeda efforts across the border from Pakistan. We are defending the Afghan people against invasions of the folk that we drove out in the first place. That is why we must continue the struggle there.
When we come to looking at the issues engaged in international terrorism, we note this: while the situation in Iraq is complex, and certainly there is an al-Qaeda element there, in the case of Afghanistan it is al-Qaeda central, it is Taliban central, it is terror central—and if we do not win this summer or next summer, we will lose in Afghanistan. That is why it is absolutely essential that over these next two years we mount a substantial military effort in Afghanistan—and the Labor Party support it and would support more. What we will not support is reinforcing error, strengthening mistakes—and that is what is happening in Iraq. When the US engaged with Afghanistan, it had the support not only of all its old Cold War enemies—the Chinese and the Russians—but of all its European allies, its Australian ally and the overwhelming number of countries in the Middle East—it had the support of all of them. Since the engagement in Iraq, since the gradual bogging down in the quagmire, since we have taken upon ourselves the burden of being dragged deeper and deeper into civil and sectarian conflict, we have lost all of that. We have lost that coherence of response.
That is why bin Laden has been a beneficiary of the war in Iraq. That is why Iran, previously identified as a rogue regime, has been the beneficiary of the war in Iraq. The people who have not been beneficiaries of that war have been the young Americans who have had to fight it and die in it. The people who have not been beneficiaries of that war have been the many Iraqi civilians who have died and who go on dying. The time has come now to leave the Iraqi people to themselves as best they can to sort out the problems that they now confront. This—I repeat what I said the first time we committed with troops—is a mistake. It is a profound mistake. The mistake should be dispensed with now. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mr Bartlett) adjourned.
MAIN COMMITTEE
101
Miscellaneous
Iraq
101
Reference
101
Dr NELSON
(Bradfield
—Minister for Defence)
15:47:00
—by leave—I move:
That the following order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate:
Australian Defence Force commitment to southern Iraq—Motion moved by the Prime Minister: Resumption of debate.
Question agreed to.
PRIVILEGE
101
Privilege
101
15:47:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Earlier this week the honourable member for Chifley raised a matter of privilege alleging that the failure of Australia Post to deliver certain items of mail from his office may amount to an improper interference with the free performance of his duties as a member. I have carefully examined the matters raised by the honourable member and I have looked at the documentation he has provided. Improper interference with the ability of members to freely communicate with their constituents would be regarded as a serious matter. In the particular circumstances raised by the honourable member, while I appreciate that the apparent failure of Australia Post to deliver mail items to his constituents would be a matter of concern for him, I have not been presented with detailed evidence that there may have been any improper interference with the performance of the member’s duties as a member. I note that the member for Chifley has written to the Australian Federal Police about this matter. If further information comes to hand that relates to possible improper interference, I would consider the matter again, but at this stage I am not prepared to give precedence to a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
Also, yesterday the honourable member for Canning raised a matter of privilege. The matter concerned a dispute between the honourable member and an officer of the Australian Taxation Office. The honourable member for Canning said that the officer had sent him a copy of a submission the officer had made to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The essence of the dispute appears to be a conflict between statements the honourable member has made in a submission to the committee and statements the officer has made to the committee. In accordance with past practice, this matter should be considered by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and I will ask the committee to consider the matter.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
101
Matters of Public Importance
Workplace Relations
101
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gorton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The mounting evidence that the Government’s extreme industrial relations changes are driving down the wages and conditions of many Australian workers.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
101
15:50:00
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
00AN3
Gorton
ALP
0
0
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—There is an historic struggle under way in this country in the industrial relations arena. There is an epic battle over whether Australians in the future will be forced to live to work or to choose to work to live. We in the Labor Party say Australian families ought to be able to work to live. The government’s Work Choices will force Australians to live to work. Both Labor and coalition parties agree that we need to be productive to maintain and enhance our standard of living, our quality of life. But only Labor believe it can be done without taking an axe to employment conditions and employment protection. It was Labor that ushered in the country’s modern economy. It was Labor that made the hard decisions to effect the structural changes necessary to produce the last 18 years of economic growth. It was Labor that shifted industrial negotiations from central wage fixing to enterprise bargaining. It was Labor—opposed by the coalition—that introduced compulsory superannuation to ensure Australian working families had a certain future.
When Labor devolved our industrial relations system, we put in protections for employees. Work Choices rips these protections away. Work Choices shifts all power to employers. Work Choices makes lawful what rogue employers have been doing unlawfully. Work Choices goes after unions and does not care who gets hurt in the process. This is all about putting Howard’s ideological obsession before fairness and common decency.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Gorton will refer to members by their seat or their title.
00AN3
O’Connor, Brendan, MP
Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR
—Mr Deputy Speaker, this is forcing upon Australian workers the obsession of the Prime Minister. It effectively attacks unions and goes after ordinary working Australians, because of the Prime Minister’s obsession with deregulating the market. The fact is that the government has a perverse obsession with this matter. If you look at legislation in other areas of public policy, you will find the hand of industrial relations: you will find an industrial relations dimension. When it comes to funding educational institutions in this country, you will find an industrial relations dimension forcing universities to impose Australian workplace agreements. The Australian technical colleges legislation that was debated in the chamber today also goes to forcing Australian workplace agreements upon teachers who may work in those colleges.
Every area of public policy that is introduced by this government has a particular twist, a particular dimension, that goes to adversely affecting Australian workers in this country. It is an obsession that the Australian people do not accept as a reasonable response in the area of industrial relations. There is no longer a balance in our industrial relations system—a system that since Federation has ensured fairness and a decent wage for ordinary working families.
The pursuit of these reforms has little to do with productivity. When you compare Australia with New Zealand in the 1980s, it is clear that the collective bargaining process that was undertaken and enshrined by Labor governments in Australia was more effective in productivity terms than the statutory instrument of the individual contracts that were imposed in New Zealand. In that period, Australia’s productivity outstripped that of New Zealand threefold.
This week we have had the OECD report findings in which it is quite clear that comparable countries to ours in terms of wealth can ensure that unemployment levels are low, without stripping away employment protections. The government chooses not to accept empirical evidence that has been provided by the OECD report. For example, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark have lower unemployment levels than this country but have not ripped away employment conditions or the employment protections that should be provided to employees in this country. There is no need, therefore, to rip away the basic entitlements of working people in this country in order to generate productivity when the evidence is to the contrary.
We see a government obsessed with attacking employee organisations registered under the Commonwealth act. Unfortunately, that is what a lot of this is about: an obsessive enmity towards unions in this country. You show me a country without unions or a country without democratic institutions representing employees, and I will show you a country that is very extreme either to the left or to the right. Countries without unions are not democratic. If the government believe it is okay to pursue an assault upon those organisations then they misunderstand the democratic institutions of a decent country and a decent society. The eminent economist Tim Colebatch, when referring to the OECD findings, said that our employment is well behind that of the countries to which I referred earlier.
But perhaps the biggest furphy of all that has been recently asserted by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is that AWAs are more productive than collective agreements. I refer not only to the earlier comparison I made between Australia and New Zealand but also to my own state, Victoria, where the Kennett government chose to enact legislation that forced individual contracts upon people. The result was that productivity went down.
Many examples show that, when a government wishes to introduce statutory instruments that force employees to negotiate individually with their employers, it does not lead to productivity growth. With the ideological blindness of the government, we have seen instead example after example of employees being maltreated by certain employers who are choosing to take away the conditions of employment. We have seen examples of that raised in this place—Spotlight, the employee working for a juice bar, a very young employee working for Bakers Delight and the treatment of employees at the Cowra Abattoir.
We have seen time and time again that the government will endorse bad behaviour by certain employers. That is not what we want in this country and that is not what good employers want in this country. Good employers want a fair system. They want to be able to compete with their competitors. Let there be no mistake about that. What they do not want to do is force their employees to go below a minimum award set of conditions. Decent employers do not choose to go after their staff. Most employers, and particularly employers in small businesses, have an intimate relationship with their staff. They know their employees well. They quite often know their families. They do not want to be placed in the position, as they have been under Work Choices, of having to consider cutting conditions of their staff because some competitor up the road chooses to do that. That is not a system that is fair. That is certainly not what would have occurred if a decent government were enacting legislation to bring about changes for the better in this country.
I return to the assertions made by the Prime Minister and the Australian Mines and Metals Association in relation to AWAs and productivity. It is not the case that those instruments have provided productivity. When it comes to an alleged nexus between AWAs and productivity, I think the only industry that the Prime Minister has chosen to refer to to date has been the mining industry. What we have seen there are a number of assertions that somehow, without having AWAs in place in that industry, we cannot have a productive industry. I think that is entirely wrong. The President of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union has made that very clear in his own opinion piece. He chooses to make a comparison between the metals mining areas and the coalmining and non-coalmining areas. Mr Maher said:
In terms of productivity growth, the performance of the mining industry as a whole over the last 10 to 15 years has been good, with average annual productivity increases of 4.7% for the years 1985 to 2003. Indeed, the main employer lobby group for the non-coal sector, the Australian Mines and Metals Association, has frequently cited these figures to justify its position in support of individual contracts as the non-coal sector has had a very high take up rate of AWAs in comparison to other industries.
However, the general mining productivity figures have been good partly because they rely on coal mining.
He went on:
This is where the facts become rather inconvenient for the AWA cheer squad. That is, when one examines the characteristics of coal mining in comparison with the other mining sectors there is one feature that stands out. The coal mining industry is full of members of my union and is largely regulated by collective agreements. The coal mining industry is characterised by an estimated 85% union membership density. In addition, almost every pit has a collective agreement negotiated between the union and the mine operators that include Business Council notables BHP-Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.
Mr Maher is asserting, quite correctly, that if you were to draw a comparison between those mines that have collective agreements and those mines that have instituted AWAs, the former category has a greater productivity level. It is those mines that have collaborated with their staff and have encouraged enterprise agreements—collective arrangements—that have been more productive. So it is not the case, as the Prime Minister has asserted, that somehow removing AWAs from workplaces will in fact reduce productivity. There is no evidence to suggest that that will be the case in that industry.
I had the good fortune some years ago to speak to that peak employer body and they asked me about AWAs. I told them that I had seen rigid AWAs and flexible collective agreements. It is not necessarily the instrument that provides productivity; it is the intention of the parties to find ways to overcome inefficiencies for the collective good. So it is not the case that AWAs are necessarily flexible. However, in certain circumstances, they have been instruments that have, effectively, adversely affected an individual employee. In that industry there are many employees who have a rare set of skills. They travel to remote areas and they have some market power to negotiate their conditions.
An AWA under the Workplace Relations Act is a totally different creature to the AWA that is now being foisted upon the Australian workforce. The AWA that is now being instituted is effectively an agreement that does not contain a no disadvantage test. It is an agreement that does not provide any protection for employees, and we have seen those examples. I would ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the logic behind his assertion that there is a nexus between AWAs and productivity growth because, when you compare mine to mine, that is not the case in the mining industry. I am beginning to realise that, in effect, these AWAs are being forced upon Australian workers, without any proper protection.
It is not just me who makes that comment. In today’s Daily Telegraph the state Nationals’ leader, Andrew Stoner, attacked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. He called him a particular name that is unparliamentary. I ask people to read the Daily Telegraph. The Nationals’ leader said that he thought it was outrageous that Minister Andrews had introduced an AWA that did not contain a no disadvantage test. In fact, he said he was not even aware that there was no test. The word starts with a ‘d’ and the second part is ‘head’.
No wonder the Nationals’ leader is concerned. We have seen The Nationals vote against this legislation in the Queensland parliament. Now we have seen the Nationals’ leader in New South Wales say that the minister is acting in an improper way and the reason for that is that this legislation is unfair on ordinary Australian workers. (Time expired)
105
16:05:00
Barresi, Phillip, MP
ZJ6
Deakin
LP
1
0
Mr BARRESI
—Another week and another ALP and union scare campaign on industrial relations—it just rolls on. The scaremongering campaign keeps claiming extreme industrial relations. The only thing that is consistently extreme in this entire debate is the language coming from members opposite and their union masters—language which we have heard all too often over the last 10 years—and claims that do not bear out the facts. In a very short while I will go to some of the claims by the previous speaker, the member for Gorton, in his much touted report WorkChoices: a race to the bottom. The exaggeration and the extremism just keeps going. This time Labor have put it in a nice binder, printed it off and put it in a coloured cover et cetera to give it some sort of respectability, but it still contains the same extreme, untruthful claims. The ALP believe that if they continue making these claims then they will magically come true. I hope the member for Gorton is not leaving the chamber. This is his MPI; he should be here to support it. But, obviously, he is so concerned he has decided to go away. We have seen this before.
It is time the ALP were honest with the Australian people. They should come clean with the Australian people. They should tell them how their opposition to Work Choices—in particular, their recent knee-jerk reaction of ripping up AWAs—will remove flexibility in the workplace. They should come clean and tell them how they will remove reward and incentive for the skills and effort that much needed labour has to offer to the community. They need to come clean and tell the Australian people how they would destroy the aspirations of people wanting to get on in their careers. They need to tell the Australian people how their knee-jerk reaction will cost jobs. That is what they need to be telling the Australian people, not the exaggerated claims we hear over and over again from members opposite.
The ALP are fond of quoting statistics on industrial relations, but rarely if ever are we given all the information. Those opposite, especially the member for Perth, are fond of referring to information provided at recent Senate estimates hearings detailing a sample of AWAs lodged since Work Choices came into effect. Let us look at some of that information. We are not told by the member for Perth or any of those opposite that, of those sampled, 78 per cent provide for wage increases. Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, you heard me right—wage increases of 78 per cent during the life of the agreement. Furthermore, we are not told that 84 per cent of the sampled agreements contain higher wages than the comparable standard, the hourly rate in the award. We are not told that either because it is not convenient. Isn’t that surprising!
I have a couple of other statistics. In the Australian on Tuesday this week it was stated:
Workers following Kim Beazley’s advice to reject Australian Workplace Agreements lost $27 a week after a stationery company offering the contracts abandoned its plans for further change.
That is the message that members opposite should be spreading. That is a real factor in this debate. Follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and you will suffer. Nothing could be simpler. It is the centrepiece of Labor’s overnight knee-jerk reaction on workplace policy—and that is what it was: a knee-jerk reaction to pressure from New South Wales unions. Tearing up AWAs will mean that the workers that the ALP claims to support will suffer.
Let us not leave the criticism of this knee-jerk policy simply to claims that I or members on this side make. Let us look at what people out there in the community are saying. Let us look at an excellent opinion piece by Terry McCrann that appeared yesterday in the Courier Mail, the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun—it was in a number of newspapers. If those opposite have not read it, I suggest they do so. It appeared in the Courier Mail under the headline ‘Beazley a goose for threatening Australia’s golden egg—axing AWAs to hit resources’. I will read into the Hansard some of the comments that Mr McCrann, a very considered commentator on economic issues, made:
Let there be absolutely no mistake. If Labor won the next election and if it delivered on its promise to abolish AWAs (Australian Workplace Agreements), it would seriously hurt every single current and future Australian. Any benefit delivered to individual workers—and even that is highly dubious—would be swamped, swamped, by the damage to the broader economy, along with the mass destruction of jobs—right across the broader economy.
It goes on to point out that the Mineral Councils has said:
... one out of every two employees in the minerals sector as a whole are covered by AWAs.
The bigger point is that all the rest of us benefit from the success of the resources industry, every which way.
That is Mr McCrann’s analysis of the knee-jerk reaction by the Leader of the Opposition, whose only job he is trying to protect is his own when faced with the pressure put on him by the unions in New South Wales. Furthermore, Mr McCrann writes:
The resources industry employs barely 100,000 people directly but it generates the prosperity on which the jobs of the other 10 million of us rest.
Mr McCrann is right. We do rely on the minerals sector. Those opposite are willing to tear down the same sector that is giving us our prosperity today. I find that a curious proposition, particularly when you see that the Leader of the Opposition comes from a state where that sector is actually thriving. The entire state’s fortune and prosperity have been based around that sector. No wonder he has moved house to Sydney. I wonder how often he gets back to Perth these days to front those people who at the moment are enjoying the benefits to the Western Australian economy created by the resources sector. The analysis of the ALP’s response continues, this time by Dennis Shanahan in the Australian on Tuesday.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
—Oh, you’re not going to quote Dennis!
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr BARRESI
—Maybe the member for Bruce is one of these guys that Dennis Shanahan is referring to. He writes:
But there were also concerns among frontbenchers and backbenchers—
there is a frontbencher and a backbencher in the chamber now who have concerns—
that it was bad policy, would alienate aspirational voters who’d built businesses and lives from trade backgrounds, and was not well planned.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
—I talk to journalists; I don’t talk to Dennis Shanahan.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Bruce!
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr BARRESI
—I am sure the member for Bruce would say that he is not one of those backbenchers or frontbenchers. I do not know what position you hold these days; it is all over the place—concerned about aspirational voters being alienated.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
—You don’t know much, mate, that’s for sure.
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—The member for Bruce!
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr BARRESI
—The Labor Party are making exaggerated claims about our Work Choices legislation, but the one thing we do know is that their latest foray into policy announcement has been discredited by the business community and by those who study these issues through the media. They have even been discredited, if not threatened, by some of their own supporters.
The much touted Work choices: a race to the bottom task force report was released by the member for Gorton, whom I must say is a decent bloke. At least he does not resort to the antics of the stunt man on the frontbench, the member for Perth. The member for Gorton puts forward arguments, and he follows those arguments, rather than resorting to stunts. Unfortunately for the member for Gorton, the task force report should be discredited.
The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, and the member for Gorton went out to the media yesterday and said that the business community is against the industrial relations changes. Mr Beazley said in today’s paper:
Members of the ALP task force had been surprised to learn many small businesses do not support the Work Choices regime. They did not like the idea of a race to the bottom in wages.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
—That is true.
ZJ6
Barresi, Phillip, MP
Mr BARRESI
—That is true, says the member for Bruce. Let us look at that task force. Before I came into parliament I did a lot of work as a psychologist. Those who know anything about research and sampling would know that you need to make sure that your sample and the foundation for your research is sound. The task force is based on 21 hearings and 147 statements. Eight of those statements were from employers. The rest were from unionists, academics and employees. Eight came from the business community that Labor says is worried about the Work Choices legislation. We are told that employers will cut wages to compete against businesses up the road.
Let me tell you what will happen if an employer followed the prescription of those opposite: they would not be able to hire good workers. We have a skills shortage at the moment. Why would someone want to be in a race to the bottom when they need people to work because their business is growing and when there is prosperity with high consumer confidence? Why would you do something which would ensure that your employees left you to go up the road to better pay?
The member for Gorton referred to teachers a little while ago. I am glad that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education is here with us, because he has reminded me of this notion of a race to the bottom. We should be promoting skills and good workers. The state governments promote their best teachers out of teaching and into the bureaucracy and some sort of administration role. What are we left with because we do not reward talent and skills and we do not differentiate? We are left with the best and the worst on the same conditions and on the same rates of pay.
No wonder a lot of teachers say when they get to a certain level: ‘I’m doing a great job here. I’m putting in a lot of effort during the day, after hours and on holidays and all I get is the same amount of money as the next bloke.’ There is no differentiation. Whether they be in the teaching profession, in the small business down the road or in the mineral sector wherever it may be, people will realise in this time of a skills shortage that all they need to do is leave that place that is not doing the right thing and move elsewhere.
There are a lot of claims in this document Work Choices: a race to the bottom. I will not have time to go through it, but I would welcome the opportunity when we return in August to go through every aspect of this task force report and discredit it. The report claims that many small business owners do not understand Work Choices, that it is prescriptive, complex and confusing. Work Choices is a simple matter for small businesses. Work Choices exempted small and medium sized businesses from unfair dismissal laws when, previously, small business entrepreneurs faced a prospect of financial damage or even failure due to unjustified unfair dismissal cases. That is what the 1.2 million small businesses in Australia with 20 or fewer employees faced, yet the member for Gorton has written his report based on statements from eight employers. It is an absolute joke.
There are a lot of things in this report. I cannot go through all the claims about women, migrants, volunteers, families and the no disadvantage test. Every single one of them will no doubt be torn apart in due course. In the one minute that I have left, I will go to what the ALP and the Australian public will face in the future. Unions New South Wales has demanded that the Leader of the Opposition show some backbone and strength and put out a policy position. In a knee-jerk reaction, he did that and ripped up AWAs as a consequence. What will the unions ask for next? We already know that Greg Combet has demanded that compulsory collective bargaining be a part of Labor policy. This will mean dealing with unions in every workplace negotiation, whether or not they have employees that are unionised. I wonder whether the member for Gorton told that to the small businesses that he talked to. Did he tell them that one of the things he will be pushing for is collective agreements and that Bill Shorten is demanding that non-union workers be slugged with compulsory union fees? (Time expired)
108
16:20:00
Ellis, Kate, MP
DZU
Adelaide
ALP
0
0
Ms KATE ELLIS
—Fifteen minutes from the member for Deakin and what have we learned? We learned that he had a past as a psychologist. We learned about his thoughts on the Leader of the Opposition and his living arrangements. We learned that he thinks the member for Gorton is a good bloke—that is one of the few things I agree with him on—and we learned that he does not want the member for Bruce to start doing stunts, which is one of the other things I agreed with him on. What we did not hear is anything which disproves that the mounting evidence shows that the government’s extreme industrial relations changes are driving down the wages and conditions of many Australians. As a member of the ALP’s industrial relations task force I can absolutely say that this evidence is overwhelming. I would remind the member for Deakin and other members opposite of the reason why it was necessary for us to establish this task force and to work so hard on its deliberations. The ALP had to take this initiative to set up the task force in order to do something that the Howard government did not have the courtesy to do: that is, to let the Australian public have their say.
Labor had to step in and stand up for the people of Australia when the government refused to hear them out. This happens on many occasions, but with industrial relations the feelings of betrayal, confusion and outrage with the Howard government were certainly at the highest levels that I have seen in my time in this parliament. The government, let us remember, had absolutely no mandate to push these changes upon the Australian people. Where were these plans during the election campaign? Where were they on the member for Kingston’s brochures during the election campaign? They did not let Australians have a say about them then. What a disgusting abuse of our democratic institutions and, more importantly, what a disgusting abuse of the faith of the Australian people. By not making its plans for extreme industrial relations changes clear during the last election campaign, this government deliberately misled the people of Australia. What an absolute nerve this government has.
Let us not forget that when the government ran its last election campaign it was based on a scare campaign on interest rates. This government gained re-election by scaring the most economically vulnerable members of our community into believing that they would be better off under a coalition government. What a disgraceful nerve it now has in turning around and robbing these very same Australians of their fair pay, their conditions and their rights in the workplace and hurting the workers who rely most upon protection. I believe that an integral part of the role of government is to look after those who have trouble, for any range of reasons, in looking after themselves and their families. This government spits in the face of those Australians who most need government support, those Australians who rely on their government to watch their back. It is the ALP, though, who are seeking to listen to these Australians and to let them have their say.
Let us look further into why we had to set up our task force to listen to Australians. The Senate committee established to investigate the proposed laws last December contained terms of reference that did not allow senators to examine the potential impact of the unfair dismissal laws. And, unlike the Labor task force, the committee sat for only five days and it did not leave Canberra. It spoke to a fraction of those who put in submissions and it failed to properly analyse the impact of these changes on the broader community and those that these changes would most affect.
In contrast to this, the ALP task force set out to give ordinary Australians a say on one of the most extreme industrial relations changes our nation has ever seen. Since January the Labor task force on industrial relations has travelled to cities and towns, listening to the concerns of employees, families, community organisations, unions, church groups and small businesses. We have visited every state and territory and held public hearings in 20 electorates, including the two electorates of the members opposite. We asked Australians how they felt, and Australia replied to us. Their answers were incredibly interesting and the government should stop and pay them some attention.
It is of no surprise that concerns should be so widely shared across the community, especially when one considers the incredibly broad range of people who have been affected by this legislation. This legislation affects millions of Australia’s most vulnerable workers. It affects workers who will be punished by unfair Australian workplace agreements which they have no choice but to sign up to. It will affect millions of pensioners, whose pensions are set in relation to average male earnings, which are now threatened by the establishment of the so-called Fair Pay Commission. It will affect our society as a whole and the fair go that we have afforded each other for so long.
I would now like to draw the attention of the House to several of our task force’s key findings. Firstly, we found that the Fair Pay Commission has been established simply to drive down minimum wages. It has already delayed the first national wage decision, denying the lowest paid a much needed pay rise. And, contrary to the government’s beliefs, the ALP is not alone in calling attacks on minimum wage standards an outrage. The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell, commented on Sunday, saying:
I don’t particularly like the new IR laws because I’m frightened they could be used to force down minimum wages.
And Laurie Oakes, one of Australia’s most respected journalists, wrote in this week’s Bulletin:
Cardinal Pell is right to be concerned. These laws will lead to lower pay and worse conditions for a not insignificant number of workers. The government has known it all along. It lied in claiming other-wise.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Adelaide will have to withdraw the word ‘lied’. You cannot even do it in a quote.
DZU
Ellis, Kate, MP
Ms KATE ELLIS
—I withdraw the word ‘lied’. Furthermore, the 2006 OECD unemployment outlook report concluded that coordinated wage bargaining at the enterprise level ‘is found to significantly reduce unemployment’. The OECD further concluded that, ‘No significant direct impact of the level of the minimum wage on unemployment is identified,’ and that, ‘The minimum wage could encourage higher participation by helping to make work pay for the low skilled.’ The government has been so blinded by its arrogance it can no longer draw a distinction between untruths and the truth. Sadly, it is our constituents, the Australian workers, who are feeling the impact of this government’s ideological rampage on standards that ensure a fair go for all Australians.
Secondly, one of our further findings was that, contrary to assertions by employer bodies, many small businesses worry about the impact of Work Choices on their employees and on their businesses. They have expressed the concern that Work Choices condones the actions of rogue employers and pressures good employers to take the low-wage road. I represent many small businesses in my electorate of Adelaide and have spoken with many of them, and many others, throughout this task force’s inquiries.
Unlike the government, who come in here and talk pure rhetoric, I am actually interested in what small business owners themselves have to say—and I am giving them their chance to have an input. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have good relationships with their employees and they have expressed concern that the use of Work Choices by their competitors will force them to choose between their employees’ employment conditions and the future of their businesses. Furthermore, the task force found that many employers consider Work Choices to be prescriptive, confusing and complex.
One of these, George Liarakos, is a small business owner who feels threatened by the new changes. A small business owner and pharmacist from Melbourne, George told our task force that the government’s IR laws are unfairly skewed against the interests of employees, they prevent genuine bargaining and they allow competitors to undercut the conditions of employment that Mr Liarakos offers his employees, which will place him under considerable stress to do the same. This parliament should be encouraging best practice in employment relations, not worse.
Who do you think we should believe? Do we believe the government, who would have us believe that workers will not have their wages and conditions cut—though they certainly will not take the time to guarantee this—or do we instead listen to the employers themselves, the employers who themselves are saying that they will have no choice but to cut wages and conditions once their competitors do so? That is what these laws do: they start up the race to the bottom.
Thirdly, the task force found that the abolition of the no disadvantage test means that Australian workplace agreements ignore the inherent inequality in the bargaining relationship between the employer and an employee. The task force considered that AWAs were always unfair, except in the rarest of circumstances. We have seen this backed up in the Senate estimates, where it was revealed that 100 per cent of these AWAs which had been checked since Work Choices’ commencement have excluded at least one award protected condition.
I could talk for a long time about the mounting evidence which is showing that these changes are driving down the wages and conditions of most Australian workers. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise that you cannot be as generous with your time as I would like, but I will say one thing: the government did not give the Australian people the opportunity to have their say on these laws. This is what the Labor Party is doing now and you can be sure that this is what the Labor Party will be doing into the future. We will be ensuring that there will indeed be a time when the government will be forced to listen to the views of the people, that is, when they have a chance to be heard loud and clear next year on election day. You can mark my words that I and members on this side of the House will be making sure that this mounting evidence of the detrimental effects of these laws on Australian workers is well known to all workers and to those in Kingston. (Time expired)
111
16:30:00
Richardson, Kym, MP
E0B
Kingston
LP
1
0
Mr RICHARDSON
—I rise today on the matter of public importance both frustrated and annoyed at the disservice, dishonesty, scare tactics and misinformation that those opposite are trying to sell to the Australian people. I realise that rule No. 1 in the Labor Party book of how to be a good opposition is to simply oppose government policy for the sake of it, similar to The Latham Diaries. But I have a tip for the Leader of the Opposition and his team: the Australian people are not interested in your stunts or your behaviour during question time, which the young people in the galleries and young people in general see. It is disgraceful. Get onto the real issues—you are the leaders of the nation.
The member for Gorton spoke about the mining arena which will be disadvantaged. Perhaps he should go and speak to the opposition leader’s own home state of Western Australia, where over 8,000 miners have told their unions: ‘Please stay away: we are happy on our AWAs.’
The Australian people want good government, and that is why we sit on this side of the chamber. The Australian people want the opposition to support this government. They want an opposition that has the moral fortitude to stand up and support government legislation when it is good legislation that will move our nation forward and keep the economy strong. Most importantly, the Australian people want an opposition that will support government policy when it is policy that will create jobs and keep them off the dole. We saw this appalling opposition in action when dealing with the introduction of the GST, when they ran around claiming the sky was going to fall in and our economy was going to be ruined.
The proof is in the performance: the Howard record. The member for Adelaide wants to compare the Howard National-Liberal coalition government to the Labor Party. Since their time, and in our time, we have seen an increase of 16 per cent in real wages. We have seen an exceptionally low level of unemployment—when the Leader of the Opposition was minister for employment, unemployment hit 10.9 per cent—which, under this government, has just hit a 30-year low of 4.9 per cent.
Under Labor, we saw home loan interest rates reach 17 per cent—let alone business loans, which peaked with the small business sector overdraft at a 20.5 per cent interest rate—in contrast to this government which has managed the economy so well. We now see the official rate of interest at only 5.75 per cent. So, if the member for Adelaide wants to compare our record to their record, look again at the facts.
Federal Labor, please do not try to fool the Australian public again. You have no credibility left when it comes to economic management. Labor put the Australian people behind by passing to the coalition government a $96 billion debt when we took over in 1996. For over 10 years now, taxpayers and the government have paid out $8 billion in interest. Mr Deputy Speaker, members opposite and those in the galleries, just imagine the additional moneys we could have provided to essential services and the people of this country if Labor had not put us in that position.
The opposition has done nothing but try to scare Australians with its lies and deception over industrial relations. That continues today in the appalling MPI brought by the member for Gorton. The member for Gorton is foolish if he thinks the Australian people are going to take his half-baked complaints and criticisms seriously. The Australian people are sick and tired of the Australian Labor Party’s innuendos. As the member for Gorton is a member of the Labor Party, he labels himself untrustworthy and unreliable on the subject of industrial relations and good economic management.
There is no greater evidence of the campaign of lies and fear than the exposure of the Leader of the Opposition’s lies in relation to workers on AWAs. First of all they came to this place, waving newspapers, claiming that the world was going to end for Australian workers. Then this week prominent union leader Joe de Bruyn comes out confirming what we had always known, that the members opposite had ‘been taking a lot of liberties with the facts’. I will say it again: the ALP and the opposition leader have ‘been taking a lot of liberties with the facts’. Sorry, let me clarify that: a union boss—one of the very people who run the Australian Labor Party—came out and told the Australian people that the Leader of the Opposition and the entire Labor Party had not been telling the truth. They distorted the facts to suit themselves in an attempt to scare Australian workers as much as possible. The scare tactics continue. Those are not the actions of a responsible or effective opposition—and it does not end there either.
Next we have the case of Esselte Pty Ltd where, in the Labor Party’s imaginary world, workers were going to be $65 a week worse off under a proposed AWA because of a loss of Saturday penalty rates. Thank God for the honest employer from that company who came out and told the Australian people that this was a complete lie because they simply do not roster staff to work shifts on Saturdays. Thank God the employer was able to set the record straight because, again, the Labor party were not going to. After all, you cannot scare Australian workers with the truth when it comes to the industrial relations reforms, so members opposite have to rely on blatant lies and misinformation.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—Order! The honourable member should be very careful and he needs to withdraw that accusation. During his speech he has modified his language to an acceptable fashion, but I believe that the word ‘lie’, because of the indication of deliberate deceit, should be withdrawn.
E0B
Richardson, Kym, MP
Mr RICHARDSON
—I unconditionally withdraw the word ‘lie’. I think that Mr Paul Starick, a very good journalist from the Adelaide Advertiser, summed it up best when he said in an article on Wednesday:
In his private dreams, Kim Beazley must be hoping for an economic downturn and substantial job losses.
I think Mr Starick hit the nail right on the head. He must know the Leader of the Opposition well because he has discovered that this is a man who would rather see Australian workers on the dole line and suffering from a poor economy, like they were when he was in the Labor government, in order to better his own political ambitions. If Labor are elected next year, Mr Beazley would undoubtedly get his wish because we all know their record on economic management.
The timing of this MPI is interesting. When I was at Edge Church on Sunday I spoke to a young couple with a small business within my electorate. We had an interesting conversation with respect to their staff and the industrial relations reforms. Since the introduction of the new laws, their workforce has gone from eight staff members to 14. They pay staff above the award and receive loyalty and flexibility from employees who are rewarded with opportunities. There are other examples such as the Subway franchises, particularly in Sydney. An owner there provides flexibility in work hours for two single mums, parents, university students and the disability sector. These are true stories to come out of the IR changes. These are not made up. The facts are not twisted like those we hear from the Labor Party. These are true stories, but we will not hear true stories like these coming from the Labor Party because, again, you cannot scare people if you tell the truth about reforms. (Time expired)
10000
DEPUTY SPEAKER, The
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
—Order! The discussion is now concluded.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2006
113
Bills
R2536
Report from Main Committee
113
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
113
Mr NAIRN
(Eden-Monaro
—Special Minister of State)
16:42:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA'S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
113
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
113
Debate resumed.
10000
Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr Jenkins)—The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
113
16:43:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—After having been so rudely interrupted by question time, and given the soporific content of the previous speech, it is hard to get started again on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, but I will give it a bash.
VU5
Griffin, Alan, MP
Mr Griffin
—You can do soporific, though.
LN6
Hatton, Michael, MP
Mr HATTON
—I can do soporific—what the member for Bruce says is quite true. I will start in this case not from the very beginning but from the core of what this is about—a bill which just says one thing: ‘We need to bring some money forward in order to kick-start this process because we have not got enough people taking it up and in future we do not want people to know about the maladministration that is happening, so we will just make the changes by regulation and probably the only person who will know then is Alan Ramsay because he is the only one who follows what happens at the regulation level and within the Public Service departments.’ This is a line that has been put into operation in about three other bills recently. A government by regulation is no government at all. It should come under the purview of this parliament, in particular because of the fundamental inadequacies of the entire approach the government has taken.
We have seen 10 years worth of the government walking away from their responsibilities with regard to Australia’s technical colleges. In the end, at almost two minutes to midnight last year, we had the quick run to the judge to say, ‘We’ve come up with this brilliant idea and we will actually have technical colleges. There will be 24 of them’—once we finally get them going, of course, we can now say in relation to this bill—‘and they will be the answer to our problems.’ If you look at the order of magnitude of the problems, even when the colleges are up and running they will provide for about 1,000 students. If you listen to the Australian Industry Group, they say that the demand for skilled people in Australia—and, from a Labor Party point of view, we say they should be Australians who are trained and given the skills to take up these jobs rather than importing people from overseas on four-year TEPs or bringing them in from overseas in order to take on apprenticeships in regional areas—is for 100,000 immediately. What do we get in the government’s proposal? We get 1,000th of what is needed—not 100th and not a 10th but 1,000th.
We have seen this government effectively deny 300,000 young people places at TAFE. We have seen them walk away from the major problem that Australia has—that the fashion with regard to apprenticeships and trade training changed. The major employers such as Telstra and State Rail stopped training people. A lot of industry simply went with that trend. In an attempt to save costs, they put trade training aside as being too difficult, too costly and too intensive. This has been a 30- or 40-year program—apprenticeships have fallen over that time—but the government have been responsible for the past 10 years and their initial approach under Dr Kemp, as the relevant minister, was simply to say, ‘We’ve got this wonderful new program, we’ll come up with New Apprenticeships—a new way of training.’
The old style of apprenticeships has long gone. No more are people trained across the board with a depth of skills who are able to say at the end of their period of training that they are fully qualified tradespeople. It does not happen any more. The crisis is enormous. The average age of tradespeople in the traditional trades in Australia is 54. Ten years from now, if we keep going the way we are, that average age will be 64. Where are the people to replace them? The Prime Minister, in his answer to my question today, which he did not answer relevantly, re-endorsed effectively the position he had taken previously—‘You can import them.’ Do what the government has been doing—plugging holes to fill the gap—and import them, in an extraordinary way. Four-year temporary entry permits used to be for large multinationals to fill a specific hole when they could not get someone with expertise in Australia because the nature of the work was so different, people were not trained to do it and there was a corporate culture that needed to be taken into account. Very small numbers of people came through, not hundreds of thousands of people in the traditional trades.
The back end of this is that, at the end of the four-year TEP, those people then get preferred entry into Australia if they apply under the full migration program. There is a discount on the number of points they need. So people from England, Ireland and other countries are coming in under this program and some of them—60,000 to 70,000 a year or so—are coming on to the end of the normal immigration program. This is not part of the normal skills based program but an add-on. What is the effect on young Australians and why are we in a major skills crisis now? It is because the government has not seen it as its responsibility to do something about this.
Labor has had a good, long, hard look at that situation. We have expressed our ideas in the second reading amendment in front of us. I will reiterate the first three points and then go to some substantial planning as to how we actually fix it, but that is based on having a complete commitment to really doing something about this. The first point we make is:
... the House condemns the Government for:
-
creating a skills crisis through during their ten long years in office ...
And I would add the rider: and not doing anything to solve it but in fact making worse by taking the temporary measures that they have. The second and third points are:
-
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 ...
The member for Batman, in his contribution earlier in the day, gave excellent coverage of these three points. He gave practical examples from his discussions with Australian industry leaders on what they saw as the depth of this problem. He talked about the fact that their industries face an immediate crisis and we need to train people as fast as possible in order to be able to do away with the capacity constraints that industry is facing. We cannot continue to grow at a sufficient level unless the capacity constraints that are there now, because of the lack of skilled people, are met.
The member for Batman properly outlined part of our approach. We need to think about this in a new way. It is no use having a Dodgy Brothers approach to New Apprenticeships—the traineeships which are larger in number than the real apprenticeships that they replaced but which do not give people full and proper training. We need to take account of the fact that the old style of training, the extended period of time that there was, needs to be foreshortened in a number of traditional trades from four years to two or from three years to two. In part this can be done by concentrating the training for young people in the first year and a half of an apprenticeship, all the tech elements, either at school in years 11 and 12, in specific specialist schools that can do it or, alternatively, at a rejuvenated TAFE level. The approach is to concentrate that so that their apprenticeship training in the job can be more useful.
Part of the reason it could be more useful and part of the reason that more people might then stay on and complete it, because we have at least 40 per cent of people not going through with their apprenticeships, is Labor’s $2,000 to $2,500 apprenticeship completion bonus. They would get half of that halfway through and the final amount at the end. The second element to encourage them is $800 per year for a skills account. We would abolish up-front fees and pay the money directly into the skills account to be spent on TAFE fees, textbooks or materials for every traditional trade apprentice. That would do away with that disincentive that is currently there and provide a bonus incentive for people to complete their apprenticeship.
Compressing the amount of time it takes by allowing people to get advanced standing in their apprenticeship would enable them to get paid more money—to get paid at third and fourth year rates. This is another element that is quite critical. Young people going through years 11 and 12 find themselves in a position where it is easier to go out into the broader workforce and earn quick money readily. They do not want to be in an apprenticeship and earning less than their peers. A key problem is the differential, which is part of the reason people do not complete their courses. Our bonus is a way to help narrow that differential.
I am very proud of the fact that in September 2005 Labor, in considering the difficulty that we faced and the deficiencies in front of us, came up with a skills blueprint. I want to note for the House the elements of that blueprint. Our program for getting skills into our schools was to (1) offer young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities and rid our schools of dusty and Dickensian workshops, (2) establish a trades-in-school scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skills shortage and provide extra funding per place, (3) establish specialist schools for the senior years of schooling in areas such as trades, technology and science and (4) establish a trades taster program so years 9 and 10 students can experience a range of trade options, which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs.
I have taught years 9 and 10. I also taught people who left school early and did their diploma entry 1 and diploma entry 2 at TAFE. I know from my experience that keeping up to 80 per cent or so of the cohort at school at years 11 and 12 and trying to give them a comprehensive education with only bits and pieces of woodwork, metalwork or other trade based approaches—technics programs and so on—or, over time, photography classes and others that would have some advanced standing in trade training and trade skilling simply does not go near addressing the fundamental problem. There has been a long extension of what kids see as irrelevant training in a comprehensive area and a lack of direct, on-the-job experience and a lack of direct physical experience, particularly in trade training.
In 1975 I saw in Holland with my very own eyes a system where they had the courage to split the kids between an academic stream—about 20 per cent of the population—and an alternative stream. There was a choice to change over into the academic stream for those who wanted to go there. From about 14 or so, kids would go through what is effectively a technical high school or a specialist high school which provided not only a full comprehensive education but also complete trade training. At the end of that period of training people would come out as carpenters or electricians. Indeed, the normal impulse was to have a double trade qualification at the end. Speaking to Dutch representatives recently, I found they moved away from that model in the last number of years but are now moving back close to the purity of that original model because they realised that you cannot run a society without people trained in trade skills and without an adequate number of professionals to provide what really is the engine room of the economy. In this regard Labor’s plan lays out the future. I endorse it completely and I endorse the second reading amendment.
117
16:57:00
Ellis, Annette, MP
5K6
Canberra
ALP
0
0
Ms ANNETTE ELLIS
—I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. The bill will bring forward the funding for the proposed Australian technical colleges from 2008-09 to 2006-07. We are not opposing this bill, because we will support any move by this government to improve the skills base of our nation, but we really need to have a bit of think about just how serious the skills shortage is. The skills shortage crisis, which is what it is, is to be laid I believe fairly and squarely at the feet of the current federal government. They have had 10 years do something about this. They have been warned—there have been very evident signs coming forward along the pathway—and we are now in a position where we have a very dramatic skills shortage.
I am on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs which is looking at employment opportunities for our Indigenous people. We have had a lot of discussions in that inquiry with people from the mining industry, the tourism industry and a range of employers around this country. Everywhere we go, whilst we are talking specifically about Indigenous employment, the desperate levels of skills shortage in this country are inevitably brought to our attention. It is an inevitable part of any discussion anywhere when you are talking about employment levels and employment opportunities in Australia today. As I understand it, the government having announced that they would be bringing these technical colleges on stream, we are not going to see any graduates until the year 2010. I understand that is the prediction. It is a fairly slow way of doing something about the skills shortage.
We have major concerns about these technical colleges. When the bill was originally debated in June 2005 we raised concerns about the nature of the colleges. One of the main concerns is the duplication of resources the bill presents. Australia already has technical colleges, so why are we creating more which are based on a completely different system and funded by a different level of government? It becomes quite bureaucratic. Talk about levels of governance—that is exactly what is going to happen as a result of this decision.
The government announced that it would open 25 technical colleges across Australia. We are fairly critical of the government’s narrow scope in its approach to these colleges and its ability to implement its own policy. It is not looking good at this stage. I am not quite sure how long it is going to take for them to start falling into place. For example, 22 successful proposals have been announced but, of these, only 12 funding agreements have been signed, as I understand it. Only four technical colleges are open, with a total enrolment of fewer than 300 students, at Port Macquarie, Gladstone, Eastern Melbourne and the Gold Coast. Three other regions have not yet been announced—and the Howard government is threatening to take the promised technical colleges away from those regions. These include Queanbeyan—which I will come back to in a moment—Dubbo and Lismore-Ballina. It is not a very cohesive way of governing when you just say, ‘Okay, this is what we are going to do and if you don’t meet it we’ll rip it off and take it somewhere else.’ Just on what basis were the decisions made in relation to the establishment and location of these colleges?
As at 30 May this year $185 million had been committed to the Australian technical colleges but only $18 million had been spent. The total budget I believe is $343 million over five years. The Department of Education, Science and Training has refused to provide individual funding information for the colleges. It is all a bit of a mess, I believe very strongly. The Howard government’s Australian technical colleges policy makes the government’s agenda very clear on two main issues: industrial relations and education. All the staff employed by these Australian technical colleges must be offered Australian workplace agreements. That is a directive of the federal government. That is part of the deal.
This leads me to the problems facing the proposed technical college in Queanbeyan. My interest in Queanbeyan is because Queanbeyan, whilst just over the border out of the ACT, is part of my immediate region. I know that in most cases the planning and the co-location of many services, employment opportunities and business growth opportunities are regionally based here—a very good thing that we all applaud, even though sometimes it may be within the ACT or within New South Wales. In September 2004 the government announced it would open a technical college in Queanbeyan. We welcome that into the region if it is a way of improving the skills shortage. Tenders for the service provider closed in May 2005. I believe the government received two proposals for the Queanbeyan technical college, including one involving the New South Wales government. As I understand it, the federal government has rejected that New South Wales government proposal because the New South Wales government refuses to offer staff at that college Australian workplace agreements. It is interesting to look at the media reports surrounding this particular decision. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times of April this year:
... a Queanbeyan technical college is being held up by the NSW Government’s refusal to offer staff Australian Workplace Agreements ...
The article continued:
The minister was believed to have been favouring a bid from a consortium led by the Capital Region Business Enterprise Centre, based in Queanbeyan.
The bid, which included the NSW Department of Education, proposed converting one of Queanbeyan’s two public high schools into a college for Year 11 and 12 students.
But of course that is now all up for grabs because, unless there is an AWA commitment within the proposal, the minister has made it clear that he will withdraw the proposal.
The Queanbeyan mayor is not impressed. I know that the CEO of the Canberra Chamber of Commerce is far from impressed. People within Canberra, who are very aware of the skills shortage, are far from impressed. But the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Hardgrave, has continually said that, if they do not meet this criterion, like all other criteria, the college will be scrapped. So much for any proper scientific or analytical consideration of where we need these colleges to be, reflective of skills shortages. If it is decided that this region needs one, then everything should be done to bring it in, if it is in fact going to assist in answering the skills shortage question.
In May this year the federal minister threatened to take away that Queanbeyan technical college unless there is a clear indication of support from somebody else within the region. I believe now that the Commonwealth is out there searching for an alternative provider for that Queanbeyan technical college. I can only assume that the other of the two original proposals was not satisfactory. So it seems that the Commonwealth has now rejected that original one purely on the basis of industrial relations. I cannot think of any other reason. There is no evidence before me to give me another opinion.
Like the rest of Australia, Canberra has a major skills shortage crisis and we need to reinvest in our skills base. Australia needs a more systematic approach to promote trades, science and technology education than I believe is being offered through this technical colleges process. Unlike the Howard government, we would work with the states and territories to implement these changes in secondary schooling for the benefit of all young Australians and not simply pick up our bat and ball, go out of the oval and play in a different field because we just want to do it that way.
Labor’s skills blueprint, released in September 2005, outlines our program for getting skills into our schools. We must offer young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities, establish a trades-in-schools scheme to double the number of school based apprenticeships in areas of skills shortage and provide extra funding per place, establish specialist schools for the senior years of schooling in areas such as trades, technology and science, and establish a trades taster program so that years 9 and 10 students can experience a range of trade options, which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs. Our priority on this side of the chamber is to train Australians first, to train them now and to very seriously address this crisis level of skills shortage.
As I said earlier on, I have had the privilege of speaking to a range of people not only within my own community but around the country in relation to employment opportunities. Overwhelmingly, from all sectors of the community, when you talk about employment they wring their hands and say, ‘We simply must be doing something quickly and seriously about the skills shortage. It should never have got to the level that it has.’
Whilst we are supporting this Australian technical colleges bill, purely because we have to do something, there are severe deficiencies within this process. As far as my region in Queanbeyan and the ACT is concerned, AWAs should not be coming into it. The establishment of a proper skills based training system and the requirements for that should be the basis upon which those decisions are made, not some ideological bent in relation to industrial relations.
119
17:08:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—Whilst a number of bills related to the establishment of Australian technical colleges have come before the House, this is the first time that I have spoken on them. Can I begin by expressing my amazement at some of the contributions by government members to this debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, and I have listened to a number of them. We have here an initiative which is being talked up as the solution to the skills crisis in Australia, but its implementation has well and truly gone off the rails. In fact, the very reason for this bill is to redistribute funding between the program years by pushing the unspent funds from the early years to later years. There could be no clearer indication of the failure of the program than these delays.
But I do not want to dwell on that aspect of the bill; rather, I want to point out the folly of the program in the first place, which I believe is the main reason for the slow progress. If Australian technical colleges are meant to be the government’s solution to the skills crisis that we are facing in Australia, you have to wonder if the government has got any idea of the problem we are facing. The truth seems to be that the government does realise the extent of the shortages but has a strategy to fill the gaps with skilled migration. Australian technical colleges are really just a ploy to try to convince the electorate that the government is serious about training.
Even if we accept at face value that Australian technical colleges are a genuine effort by this government to encourage young people to undertake trade training, we have to judge its potential for success against other programs which may be more widely available and more cost effective. To begin with, we should put Australian technical colleges into perspective. When fully implemented and with their full capacity of 7,000 students, Australian technical colleges will represent less than one per cent of TAFE students in Australia. We are measuring skilled labour shortages in the hundreds of thousands, but when this program is in full operation it will provide only a few thousand entrants to full trade training. Australian technical colleges are nothing more than a bit of window dressing.
But what makes it worse is that it is set up in competition with state government initiatives, which can result only in more duplication and wasted resources. We have already seen a reluctance on the part of the New South Wales government to participate. Why would they when they have their own major programs for vocational training in schools? To make matters worse, whilst vocational training in schools is one way of addressing our skills crisis, it can play only a minor role in solving that crisis. When it comes to addressing the major factors, this government is doing little or nothing to ensure an adequate supply of skilled workers. The biggest contribution to our skills base is not at the input end. What we are doing is trying to fill the bucket while it has a gaping hole in the bottom.
If all the people with trade qualifications were now working in their trade, we would have a skills surplus, but the sad fact is that, when you look at trade course graduates 10 years after they have come out of their time, you find that more than one-third are no longer working in their trade. In some trades the figure is more than half. How many times have you spoken to a driver or a security guard, or to a police officer, as I have, or to a number of other people and they have said, ‘Actually, I’m a plumber,’ or an electrician or a fitter by trade? But they are no longer working in that trade.
The really sad fact about trades in Australia is that they are just that—a trade. In most cases they do not develop into a career, and as workers get into the later years of their working life only a small fraction still work in their trade. Some, like those in the printing industry, will have seen their trade become redundant. Others such as motor mechanics, bricklayers and roof tilers will have lost the physical strength to continue. The list can go on. Injury will have forced some to leave their trade, and they cannot be blamed for that. While governments cannot do a great deal to assist some of those workers, the lack of retraining programs is a national disgrace.
To come back to the objective of Australian technical colleges in trying to attract young people to enter trades, there are two factors that these colleges do not address. The first of these is the lack of training opportunities for what we might call the ‘traditional’ trades. I know that when I left school many of the young men I knew went into a trade. They were strongly encouraged to have a trade qualification. It was seen by my parents’ generation as a very good thing to do. ‘Get a trade, son,’ was good fatherly advice at the time. Parents did not have to worry as they do today, because they knew then that their child could get a trade.
Trade-training opportunities were readily available. Our railway workshops, electricity distributors, the PMG or what we now know as Telstra—those and many of the bigger private companies had large trade-training facilities. Apprentices often spent their first year on the job in the trade-training workshops of these organisations. They provided an excellent standard of training and ensured that they had the best skills available for their workforce. Unfortunately, other employers who did not invest in training were able to poach these skilled workers with slightly higher pay and, as these large public and private employers began to tighten their belts, they found that trade training did not give direct results for their bottom line, so the programs were severely cut back.
Today we have group apprenticeship schemes and they do a good job in sharing apprentices among employers. By gaining experience in a range of fields, it could be said that these apprentices have better training in some cases. But I hear reports that group schemes are seeking more employers to take on apprentices and that opportunities in some popular trades are limited. While today some employers may say they find it difficult to find apprentices, one thing I always find hard to explain is that, when you look at the census figures, some electorates have much higher rates of people with trade qualifications than others. I know that my electorate of Fowler, in western Sydney, has a rate lower than those of some surrounding electorates, like Prospect, Macarthur and even Werriwa. So when I hear of young people in my electorate who are finding it difficult to get into a trade, I wonder if it is their lack of contacts in those trades that stands in their way rather than a lack of ability.
I have followed with interest the development of pre-apprenticeship schemes such as those in the Illawarra. Almost all those undertaking these pre-apprenticeships are able to get an apprenticeship in their chosen field. I would expect the same to apply to Australian technical college trainees, as it should for those undertaking vocational training in schools. But the distribution of these courses will determine who has access and, as I have already noted, the number in Australian technical colleges is very small compared with the number seeking apprenticeships, so this really becomes the limiting factor.
When I look at a second factor in encouraging the uptake of trade training, I have to question the wisdom of assuming that a decision taken by a 15-year-old will determine his or her lifelong occupation. As I said earlier, an alarming number of trained tradespeople leave their trade even at a very early age, so investing in training for school aged children has to be questioned. As we also know, drop-out rates in trades can be very high and, while rates of pay and other factors may be important, anyone who has experience of teenagers could easily explain why a decision taken at age 15 is not seen in the same light when a person is 17, 18 or 19 years of age. This is where we need to closely question the wisdom of investing quite large amounts of money, as we are doing with Australian technical colleges. We will need to study their effectiveness in leading to students going on to complete a trade and we should compare this level of success with alternatives such as school based vocational training and pre-apprenticeship courses. I say to the government this evening: look after our children. They are Australia’s future.
Debate (on motion by Mr Nairn) adjourned.
FAMILIES, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION (2006 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2006
122
Bills
R2561
Returned from the Senate
122
Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request.
ADJOURNMENT
122
Adjournment
Mr NAIRN
(Eden-Monaro
—Special Minister of State)
17:20:00
—I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Iraq
122
122
17:20:00
McClelland, Robert, MP
JK6
Barton
ALP
0
0
Mr McCLELLAND
—I rise to make some comments on the prime ministerial statement today on the new role for our troops in Iraq. The statement went into some detail regarding background but very little detail regarding actual operations. The guts of the operations, however, are in a passage where the Prime Minister said:
Should situations develop that are beyond the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to resolve, the Iraqi government may call upon the coalition to provide them with backup.
Indeed, on Thursday of last week, 15 June, the Minister For Defence said in the Main Committee this role was akin to the civil call-out that our defence forces might be required to provide to a civilian community in Australia.
When we are looking at our troops performing a role akin to the civil call-out function that we have legislated for in Australia, the issues involved are very complex and dangerous for them, particularly from the point of view of accountability and, from a legal perspective, the personal risks they may face. For instance, in Australia our legislation is quite clear that our troops can only perform tasks as requested by the civilian policing authorities. If that is the regime in Iraq, then there are concerns. Clearly, in Australia, there are professionally trained police officers whom we will respect. In Iraq, we have seen, as the Leader of the Opposition said, security forces wracked by their own involvement in sectarian violence. The extent to which our defence forces should be required to undertake tasks as directed by such authorities is clearly a real concern.
Similarly, in Australia, there is an elaborate mechanism—complex arrangements—for authorisation before a request is made for civil call-out, involving the Minister For Defence, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. The government needs to explain what is going to be the trigger in Iraq. Will it be the interior minister, the minister for defence or some lower order officer? How can we be sure that that lower order officer may not be an officer who is involved in a particular militia that is itself associated with sectarian violence? Authorisation is a crucial issue.
Again, the legislation in Australia provides that the overall command of a potential scene where a civil call-out may be required rests with the commissioner of police of the state. If we are putting our troops in a situation where the overall direction of the scene is with the Iraqi community, with the Iraqi policing authorities, what does it mean from the point of view of risks that may be faced by our troops or, indeed, motivations that may exist on the part of the Iraqi security forces which our troops do not want to be associated with? These issues are complex and must be clarified.
Another important issue is the detention and delivery of someone who may be breaking the law or who may be perceived to be breaking the law. In Australia there is a careful regime in place where our troops detain for the minimum period a person before they hand over that person to the civilian policing authorities to effect arrest and detention. Again, these issues are not clarified. Are we potentially putting our troops in a position where they may be handing over someone to torture or, indeed, to capital punishment? These situations have not been addressed at all. Nor have the requirements for when reasonable force can be used or when lethal force is authorised. Again, these are crucial issues which have not been explained by the Prime Minister. Nor have provisions for when opening fire is engaged in.
The bottom line is that, if these matters are not clarified from the point of view of our troops, as indicated in an Irish case of Crown v Clegg, our troops could be exposed to criminal sanction. These issues have not been addressed. The government has thrown our troops in, again looking for something to do in Iraq, but they may well have exposed our troops to risk. (Time expired)
Corporations and Financial Services Committee Report
123
123
17:25:00
Baker, Mark, MP
DYK
Braddon
LP
1
0
Mr BAKER
—I rise to speak on the report of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services entitled Corporate responsibility: managing risk and creating value. The committee’s inquiry closely examined the increasingly important corporate governance issues facing Australian companies today. Corporate responsibility is an emerging issue of significance to Australia’s business community. This term is commonly described in practice as a company or organisation considering, managing and balancing the economic, social and environmental impacts of its activities. This is also referred to as triple bottom line accounting. However, until recently, this was largely a notion for discussion by academics, which resulted in sporadic corporate reporting on environmental and social impacts. However, over the past decade, corporate responsibility has developed into a practical mechanism for companies to assess and manage their non-financial risks and to maximise their long-term financial value.
We have seen in recent years how companies are increasingly coming under pressure from consumers and their own shareholders to consider the social and environmental impacts of their business decisions. We have witnessed a new group of investors who believe in the concept of socially responsible investments. This challenges companies to consider their ethical and moral obligations to the community. This charge has largely been set by the financial institutions who are at the forefront of this development.
An example I would offer, which underlines my strong views on corporate responsibility, is the manner in which Australian vegetable growers have been treated by some in corporate Australia. Last year, when the fast food chain McDonald’s chose early to cut a contract for potatoes from north-west Tasmania in preference to imports for a miserly sum of $4 million Australia-wide—or approximately 0.0c per packet of french fries—it raised in many of my constituents’ minds the question of whether such corporations have a social conscience. That decision by McDonald’s has had long-term ramifications for the vegetable industry not only in Tasmania but throughout Australia. It gave rise to the Fair Dinkum Food campaign, which I have supported and continue to support. It brought attention to the failure of large corporations to support the communities from whom they profit.
My complaint against McDonald’s, as a major buyer of produce in Australia, is that it did not once stop to consider its actions and the effect they would have on not only the short-term but the long-term viability of Australia’s vegetable industry. Nor did McDonald’s stop to consider the effect its actions would have on the communities in which it does business.
Corporate responsibility is not about dictating to companies such as McDonald’s that they cannot make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders but about encouraging companies to consider the social and environmental impacts of their actions as part of their decision-making process. I should also point out that, in my efforts to help Tasmanian vegetable growers, I have met with executives from other large companies, including Coles, who have demonstrated that they are prepared to listen to stakeholders. As a result of these meetings, an industry task force group has been set up and the fruits are starting to be delivered now, with Coles putting out contracts for some of the largest areas of peas to be grown in Tasmania next year.
This reinforces a finding of our committee’s inquiry that the vast majority of Australian company directors can take and sometimes do take an enlightened self-interest approach. This view essentially allows directors to consider and act upon the legitimate interest of stakeholders, other than shareholders, to the extent that these interests are relevant to the corporation.
The committee strongly supports further successful engagement in voluntary development and the wide adoption of corporate responsibility. The committee also believes that the recommendations contained in the report will play an important part in progressing the future of corporate responsibility in Australia, moving forward in a positive manner.
Iraq
124
124
17:30:00
Bevis, Arch, MP
ET4
Brisbane
ALP
0
0
Mr BEVIS
—I want to add to the remarks of my good friend the member for Barton on the Prime Minister’s statement today on the deployment of Australian troops in Iraq. At the outset, I think it is important in a debate of this kind to place on record what I know are the genuine and deep-felt views of all members of the parliament on both sides of the chamber—that is, that those Australian men and women who serve in our defence forces and are deployed return safely to our shores at the earliest possible opportunity.
There are, however, a lot of unanswered questions about the way in which this deployment has been handled. I was amazed at the display of appalling arrogance by the Minister for Defence, who thought it was appropriate to answer a dorothy dix question two days ago in this parliament and to use that as the means for announcing to this parliament and the people of Australia that Australian troops were being committed to a theatre of conflict over and above any previous commitment that the Australian parliament had been made aware of and that it involved additional troops being located in a different part of Iraq to that which they had been involved in previously and that they would be tasked for different things. The fact that the Minister for Defence could think, in his arrogance, that it was appropriate to make such a profound announcement through the means of a dorothy dix question obviously even fell through to the Prime Minister, who at least today has done the proper thing and made a ministerial announcement to enable this parliament to have a debate, albeit after the event, when we return in August. It is a matter of some interest to note that it was the Prime Minister who made that statement today, not the Minister for Defence. You would have expected questions of deployment of troops to have involved the Minister for Defence more directly.
There are very serious questions left unanswered, even after the announcement of the Prime Minister today in this parliament. The member for Barton raised all-important questions, but no detail has been provided—as there was on the earlier deployment—to this parliament and the Australian people but, most of all, to the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, about the units with which they would be operating and the support they would be provided.
We all remember, when the deployment to Al Muthanna province was announced, the advice that the Australians would be working with British forces in particular but with other coalition forces that would provide heavy armour support, air cover and medical evacuation capabilities should the need arise. None of that advice has been provided to this parliament in the offhanded, cavalier way with which the government have treated this most important matter.
The government have continued that approach with the situation in Iraq. The Prime Minister and this government committed Australian troops to that conflict originally, they said, because of weapons of mass destruction. When that failed to be borne out in fact, the government then changed their view and said that the Australian troops were there to effect regime change. It is worth noting that regime change was specifically ruled out by the Prime Minister at the start of the deployment of Australian troops for the identification and removal of weapons of mass destruction. The Prime Minister ruled out Australian troops being involved in a regime-changing exercise.
In fact, the Prime Minister went further than that and said that regime change was not an appropriate reason to commit Australian troops to Iraq. Barely months later, it became the sole reason. Then the goalposts were shifted again and we were told that Australian troops needed to be in Al Muthanna to protect the Japanese engineers who were there. Now that that task is complete and the Japanese are leaving, the government has shifted the goalposts again and a new role described as Security Overwatch—whatever that may mean—is now the task that the Australians have been set. This is not the way in which Australian troops should be committed to areas of conflict.
The government are not treating the Australian men and women in Iraq with the courtesy and respect that they deserve. I only hope they are providing the support on the ground so that Australian men and women who are there in the service of our nation receive the full level of support they require in equipment and command structures and that they are able to return to Australia at the earliest possible opportunity, all of them in good health and in good time.
Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements Program
125
125
17:35:00
Hull, Kay, MP
83O
Riverina
NATS
1
0
Mrs HULL
—I rise tonight to advise the House of an injustice—one of the worst injustices I have ever seen and that I would ever wish to see happening to Australian people. That injustice is happening to people in my electorate. It is called the ASGE program—Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements program—that is being delivered by the state government. One of my constituents said:
We just can’t see how we will ever pay off our $2.4 million property purchase, when we paid $1.2 million of it for an asset which we are likely to lose most of. And there’s such a strong possibility that we’ll now have to sell the property as our equity level is so non-existent without our water.
She went on:
I am sure we can both get jobs in civilian life as we are both quite switched on young people with varying skills, but we will have nowhere near enough income to ever service the debt we will leave with. Our banks took a punt on us with minimal equity, based on our business plan and our reputation in the industry. Our families have had frugal and innovative management over three generations, building their operation. And they have already started selling their assets as their own equity level will be impacted upon by our loss.
The issue here is that successive state governments of all persuasions have gone ahead and issued water licences, and people have taken up those licences. Then there was a decision by the New South Wales state government that, for five years, there would be an Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements reduction and a policy of across-the-board cuts. I have here letters from Minister Aquilina and from the director-general of water saying, ‘The policy is for across-the-board cuts and you will receive around 52 per cent of your water entitlement.’ Then we had two court cases where the state government used money—New South Wales taxpayers’ money—to fight Murrumbidgee ground water users on the issue of across-the-board cuts. The ground water pumpers in my electorate lost that case to the state and then they lost an appeal to the state, all on a policy of across-the-board cuts. For five years people had letters from Mr Aquilina, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and from the director-general of water saying: ‘You can be assured that you will have 52 per cent of your water.’
There was also a water-sharing plan that was adopted in December 2002 and gazetted in February 2003 for implementation in July 2003. That remains the water policy and the water management plan today. It has never been withdrawn yet now we have a history of extraction. Across-the-board cuts are not fair. The history of extraction system is not fair, but the water level management plan that my growers and producers put to the state government in court cases was fair, and they lost their case against the government. In December 2005, we saw the state government change its mind and then issue people a letter saying: ‘Sorry, there’s now going to be a history of extraction system. We no longer have a policy of across-the-board cuts.’
That is a good thing for those people under the history of extraction system and I have no reason to decry those people. They have been in the industry for a long time and have a good history of extraction. But now the state government has wiped its hands of responsibility for people who have done nothing wrong. This is a crime; this is an injustice; this is something that the state government must rectify through its anomalies committee. These people deserve a fair go. These people have been treated shabbily. These people are young Australians who want to build a life in production. They have been very good at it and have done absolutely nothing wrong, but they have been subject to ridiculous policy changes by the New South Wales state government, which should have adopted the water level management plan put to them by people who actually know about water, who have dealt in water all of their lives and who understand the systems that they work in and the recharge of those systems.
Iraq
126
126
17:40:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
0
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—I would like to take this opportunity to make some comments on the statement made earlier today by the Prime Minister with respect to the latest deployment to Iraq. The first point I want to make very clear—and it has been said by other speakers from the opposition—is that we support our troops. We believe they do a great job. We believe they have been exemplary performers overseas in a range of peacekeeping and other activities. We are always impressed by their professionalism and they have our full support.
However, we do not support this deployment. We do not support maintaining our position in Iraq. We did not learn a lot today from the Prime Minister about what is happening with this deployment. We are still dealing with scant detail about what is going to occur. We know some things, though. We know that the area the troops are being sent to is a more dangerous area than where our troops currently are. We know the coalition airbase in Tallil, near Nasiriyah. It is about 100 kilometres south-east of their current location at Camp Smitty, just outside the provincial capital city of Samawah. We know that in the Nasiriyah area there have been a number of serious accidents and incidents in the last few years. In March 2003, Nasiriyah was the scene of savage fighting during the initial invasion. In April 2004 there were clashes during the Malidi uprising. The Italians have had 31 troops killed there since 2003, including 19 in a single suicide bombing in 2003. A tragic ambush in March 2003 saw 11 US soldiers killed in the city.
As recently as 5 June 2006, an Italian soldier was killed and four others wounded, one seriously, in a bomb attack in north Nasiriyah. Dr Nelson himself, the Minister for Defence, said on 20 June 2006:
This has the potential to be more dangerous for our soldiers in the sense that the terrorists and the counter-insurgents, who are totally opposed to Iraqi people having the same democratic rights as Australians and other people in the world, might possibly want to target Al Muthanna as being the first province to go to Iraqi control.
Neil James, the Australian Defence Association executive director, said, again on 20 June:
What’s going to make it more risky is that the area they have been operating in is almost 100 per cent Shiite and mostly from the one faction, so it has been relatively benign tactically. The places they are going to are going to be more dangerous.
An issue of concern was raised by the shadow defence minister yesterday in the House and related to the issue of helicopter backup. In 2005 the then Minister for Defence, Senator Hill, was quoted as saying:
The helicopter support that we will have from the British is principally medical evacuation. That type of function is not principally an attack capability.
The government’s rationale for deploying fewer numbers to the Al Muthanna task group, which comprises 450 personnel, than those in the Dutch contingent of 1,500, whom they were replacing, related to helicopter support. No helicopter support was being provided. Australia had a narrower role than the broad security responsibilities of the Dutch. So there are questions about what is going to be provided in the way of helicopter support. We understand the additional rationale that with the handover the Iraqis are taking over a greater security role, but what do we know about the resources and capability they will have to provide that support? There is no doubt that the medical support provided through helicopters for evacuation is essential, but we do not know the detail of what is happening.
As other speakers have also said, let us not forget that the mission keeps moving. First it was about finding weapons of mass destruction—that was the issue. Then it was about regime change. Then it was about protecting the Japanese engineers. Now with the Japanese withdrawing there is the somewhat nebulous role of security oversight. It has never been properly articulated; it keeps changing. Why is that? The answer is: it is about politics.
The Prime Minister says we cannot bring our troops back to our region. Maybe he should tell that to some of the other countries which have made decisions in the national interest to remove troops: New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, the Netherlands and the Ukraine. Tell that to the Philippines and Thailand and to half a dozen other countries that have withdrawn: Honduras, Nicaragua, Iceland, Tonga, Moldova and the Dominican Republic. Tell that to the major nations that are reducing their commitment or have a timetable for withdrawal, for example Poland, Italy, Norway, South Korea and Bulgaria.
There is no doubt that this is an ongoing quagmire. It is an area of grave concern. We have to look to the future and what we will do in this area. In some respects issues have been played out in US domestic politics. We know that the Defence minister has said that there may be a timetable for withdrawal later in the year. They have to come clean on the detail. This is a deployment which is incredibly dangerous and there are real issues about our forces. I stress once again: the Labor Party supports our forces, and we have tremendous confidence in their capacity to do the job, but let us not forget that at the end of the day we have to look to the future of our own region to ensure that it is safe and secure. That should be the priority of this government.
Retirees
128
128
17:45:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I draw the attention of the House to the lot of retired people in our community. On a frequent basis I communicate with people through things such as surveys. For example, a fortnight ago I spent two complete days in the Elizabeth shopping centre to listen to people from the electorate of Wakefield. That confirmed the information we have got over a long period of time that retired people in our community are in a wide range of situations. Some people are on a full pension. Some are on a part pension. Some are completely self-funded. Some are single. Some are couples. Some have their own home. Some are in private rental. Some are in housing trust homes. There are a variety of health situations. There are issues about public transport et cetera. The wellbeing and the lifestyle that these people can afford comes down to not only the interplay of these factors but also the interplay between the three levels of government, Australian, state and local government, as they affect their income or income support—the rates they pay on properties, the rents they pay on properties, as well as their costs for things such as utilities, public transport and community services et cetera.
There are some retired people in our community—and this includes some people on a pension—who say that they have never had it better but there are others, particularly as we come into winter, who are suffering and find it difficult to stay warm. Some people are doing it very hard. I believe it is appropriate that the government and the House take note of that. We, as leaders, need to evaluate what we are doing collectively to support this generation that has gone before us. I note that the federal government has done a range of good things, and I think it is worth while recapping on some of those.
I will come back to the indexing of the pension to the CPI and tying it to the male total average weekly earnings. I note that the age pension is currently $40 a fortnight more due to the introduction of this decision. However, this is still an area of considerable concern for those people who are reliant on the pension.
Pensioners receive a supplement to their pension to maintain a two per cent advantage over any increase in the CPI. The supplement is currently worth over $17 for singles and $14.80 each for couples. I note that income and asset tests were relaxed as a result of the A New Tax System and that the assets test will be further reduce in 2007. I note that, with the senior Australians tax offset, single pensioners can earn up to $24,867 and pay no tax. Couples with equal income can earn up to $41,360 tax free as of May this year. There are quarterly telephone allowances and there has been an increase in the rebate to 35 per cent for private health insurance for those aged 65 to 69 and an increase in the rebate to 40 per cent for those over 70.
A whole range of other things are provided, for example the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the pensioner loan scheme, but I still draw the attention of the House and the government to the fact that some people are finding life very hard. I think we have a duty to look at how the three levels of government can work more effectively to understand why that is and how we can help people to have a good quality of life and health care regardless of which combination of circumstances they find themselves in.
One of the most frequent pieces of feedback I have had from people who are reliant on the pension as their prime income is that the CPI is not a fair representation of the costs that they as pensioners incur. Whilst they welcome the fact that this now occurs twice a year—in March and September—the all-groups category, which is calculated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, does not necessarily reflect accurately the consumption patterns of pensioners despite the changes that occurred in September 1998. Whether it is purely to do with the CPI and finding a better way to work with pensioners or the equally likely approach of making sure we have a better interaction between the three levels of government, I draw to the attention of the House the plight of retired people in our society.
Question negatived.
AUSTRALIAN TECHNICAL COLLEGES (FLEXIBILITY IN ACHIEVING AUSTRALIA’S SKILLS NEEDS) AMENDMENT BILL 2006
129
Bills
R2535
Second Reading
129
Debate resumed.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
129
17:51:00
Kelly, Jackie, MP
GK6
Lindsay
LP
1
0
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—It is a great pleasure to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I had long calls during the last election from employers in my area that with the labour shortages that we are currently experiencing—we have the lowest unemployment rate in Australia in 30 years—employers are finding it hard to get employees, let alone skilled employees. We really need to step up our efforts in this direction and to get our unemployed skilled up to meet the needs of the directions of future Australian industries.
In my area the rock eisteddfods are incredibly popular, and I know that at any school you go to they have so many talented youngsters, but somehow the sciences, the trades and the technical professions need to capture that same amount of interest and enthusiasm and we need to direct young Australians into those areas, where the jobs are, rather than into entertainment. It is not that entertainment is not a great career; we just do not need more singers but need more tradespeople.
The amendment moved by the opposition really underestimates the effect of this bill and goes on with a lot of political point scoring which adds no value to the face of the bill. At the end of the day, the opposition will be voting for this. They realise that it is a good bill and that it needs to be supported in the face of state Labor governments such as the New South Wales Labor government’s ideological opposition to school based New Apprenticeships. It refuses to enhance, direct or incentivise its educational trainers, who have some outstanding curriculums to offer, to be a part of the bids that came forward to this government.
The states just cannot get across the industrial relations aspects of the bids, where we required these technical colleges to get the very best of trainers from industry. If you have to pay people higher wages on an AWA to give them what they are worth, then that is what you must do. If you find that a teacher is not performing, that they are not bringing students up to speed in a reasonable amount of time, then you have to have the flexibility to dispense with that teacher’s services and take on someone who will get those students up to speed. That flies totally in the face of the awards and the lock-down of the TAFE industrial system, and there is significant opposition within the New South Wales government to TAFE’s involvement. Every time it came to the crunch in areas like Lismore-Ballina, Queanbeyan and Dubbo, and even in my local area of Penrith—certainly in the Campbelltown area, where TAFE was a part of the bid—it was just so hard to get them over the last line of contracting the teachers with those types of technical skills who would work in the technical colleges.
In the end, the Catholic Education Office in Parramatta—and I am delighted to see the member for Parramatta here—was successful in attaining the Sydney technical college, and they will roll out a number of places. I think it is about 150-odd places across Sydney, particularly in Western Sydney. They have chosen the Blacktown area to establish their campus. It is a fairly central location. I figure that you could have at least two or three other technical colleges in Western Sydney. We have a large trades area—a large family tradition of trades—and a lot of young people interested in trades but who are lacking the opportunity.
The New South Wales government have not grasped the school based apprenticeships by the horns. They have not done much with TAFE incentives for employers. They make it very difficult for employers to take on apprentices. They have not taken on policies such as weighting government contracts so that employers with high numbers of apprentices have an advantage over employers with no apprentices in successfully winning government tenders. That is a very basic policy the New South Wales government could adopt to really drive apprenticeship take-up amongst employers.
They could back it up with school based apprenticeships, where kids start after year 10 to gain recognisable certificate level III skills in their trade during their school time and they can use their holidays and spare time working in the industry to gain on-the-job training so that by the time they leave in year 12 they have one or two years of their apprenticeship under their belt. Then the second- or third-year wage of an apprenticeship is not such a disadvantage compared to the pay of some of their friends who are possibly on welfare or in jobs which seem to pay, after expenses, a bit more than the poor old first-year apprentice gets. So there are a number of things that the New South Wales state government could have done.
As it was, a lot of the New South Wales ATCs went the way of the private sector, such as to the Catholic Education Office. There were good bids from my area, and there is a particular one I am still pursuing because I really think Penrith is a fantastic area to have a technical college in. We have a very strong interest in the trades, we have a significant number of young people and this is really where a lot of our young people want to head. They can get great paying jobs and make a significant contribution to their future financial security and have a very prosperous old age. My bid was backed by the Hunter—
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—The Hunter Valley Training Co.
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—That is right, the Hunter Valley Training Co., which is in the electorate of my good friend the member for Paterson, who has a very good relationship with Milton. We both know Milton from that company, but Milton also has an extension of that company in Penrith, called Skillswest. Skillswest has premises where they can undertake mechanics and automotive training, carpentry and bricklaying. Those are a number of the skills that are listed to be offered by these technical colleges. It offered a model in which the children from the public schools could be involved.
I am pretty sure the technical college proposed by the Catholic Education Office in Parramatta will probably be filled just by the Catholic systemic school students in Western Sydney. They would find sufficient kids to do that, and that basically means that everyone in a public school and everyone in a non-Catholic school in Western Sydney is going to miss out. If the New South Wales government had backed the bid of the Hunter Valley Training Co. through Skillswest and if we had been able to get that bid up, we would have seen another 150 places offered to children at the public and non-Catholic schools in Western Sydney, like Nepean High School. I think that would have been a great outcome for the level of money being invested in skills.
Why do kids like the rock eisteddfod rather than trades? I go around music labs in our schools, and they are dynamic. I remember music when I was at school. There was a dilapidated old piano that was invariably out of tune and there were a bunch of recorders. It was not really exciting. For me sport was far more interesting. The member for Parramatta will acknowledge that my singing last night was not the greatest. I probably should have taken music more assiduously at school! But sport was my thing. I was not that interested in music. It did not have a lot of appeal. Science, on the other hand, was fascinating. You had on the wall amazing pictures of the anatomy, the bone structure and the muscle cell structures. You had bunsen burners and some whizzbang experiments that exploded, blew up smoke and turned things different colours. They were, in hindsight, quite dangerous and have since been eliminated from the schools based curriculum. We have seen a flip today. Today music in the schools is vibrant. There are electronic keyboards and there are iPods. You can create your own electronic music with just a computer program. You can learn keyboards. Music is exciting and interesting. It is what I call the discovery channel level of learning.
Science, on the other hand, has not moved on. In fact, I think it has been made less exciting by the elimination of a lot of the interesting stuff. The labs really have not improved. The paint has faded and the labs have got greyer, and kids are not that interested in the technical side of things. That is a real shame. A lot of kids like hands-on learning. Woodwork, metalwork and some other VET courses are offered. But these VET courses only go to level 2. When that child leaves school at the end of grade 12, they must attend TAFE and redo all of that metalwork, all of that carpentry and all of everything else they learned because it is not recognised in going towards a TAFE qualification or trade based skill levels, for which you can earn a wage accordingly.
There is clearly a need for more investment in skills. It really was not coming from the state governments. It really should have been. It should be happening in years 11 and 12. We should be capturing those students in year 10. They are very good students and they are very bright, but they are more hands-on, outdoorsy type kids. They do not want to be tied to books in a classroom. It is not them. Their parents are plumbers and electricians—they are tradies—and they know the family industry fairly well. They have helped out on weekends. If you can capture that interest in years 11 and 12, you can capture a willing and able market. If they wait until the end of year 12 before they move out into the labour market, the wages are a huge disincentive. There are barriers in front of young people who do not have a driver’s licence and are trying to commute by public transport in Western Sydney. Most of the trades work that is done right across Sydney is by tradespeople from Western Sydney. Quite frequently tradesmen in my area go as far as Cronulla and the North Shore for jobs, and the young kids have to get to where the work is. The public transport system means they are getting up at 3.30 or four o’clock in the morning. It becomes arduous. They look at the other kids who have left school and ask, ‘Why am I doing this?’
These technical colleges go a long way to capturing the interest of our children early, to maintaining involvement and to getting them halfway through a trade. As you leave year 12, there will only be two years to go to finish and at least get the trade under their belt. I think the parent is in more of an advantageous position to pressure a young person when they can say: ‘Look, it’s two years. Just finish it. Get your trade, get your diploma, get that under your belt and then you can go and do what you want to do.’ That is better than saying, ‘It’s four years.’ You are not going to convince even the most enthusiastic young person that four years is not an incredibly long time.
I will keep pushing for an Australian technical college in my area. We have got around a lot of the roadblocks that were put in the way by the New South Wales state government. It could be an extension of the Hunter Valley Training Co.’s operation in the Hunter, which is due to open next year. It is full steam ahead and it will be one of the truly outstanding ATCs of the 25 listed. These colleges will cover regions such as Port Macquarie, where the St Joseph’s Vocational College is moving forward with its successful bid; eastern Melbourne, where the Ringwood Secondary College is moving ahead with its successful bid; Gladstone; the Gold Coast; Illawarra; Bairnsdale and Sale, with the Gippsland technical college; Bendigo, which will have the central Victorian college; Geelong, with G-Force Recruitment; Townsville, where the Townsville Chamber of Commerce won the bid; and Adelaide, where the Archdiocese of Adelaide and the Northern Adelaide Industry Group won the Adelaide north bid and where the Port Adelaide Training and Development Centre won the Adelaide south bid. There are 400,000 people in Adelaide and they got two technical colleges. I think that strongly indicates that there should be two for Western Sydney, which has two million people. We have a very strong trades base and a lot of industry to service in New South Wales and greater Sydney.
In Darwin the ATC will be run by the Territory Construction Association. In north Brisbane, Commerce Queensland and Redcliffe City Council made the successful bid. The Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle and the Hunter Valley Training Co. are doing the one in the Hunter, as I have already said. The Tasmanian consortium is doing one for Northern Tasmania. Stirling Skills Training Inc. is doing one for Perth south. I have already mentioned that the Parramatta Catholic Education Office is doing the ATC for Western Sydney. In South Australia, Whyalla and Port Augusta are being serviced by the Catholic Diocese of Port Pirie and the Upper Spencer Gulf Industry and Regional Development Group. At Sunshine the Sunshine Secondary College made the winning bid. In Gosford the Central Coast chamber of manufactures are moving ahead. In Warrnambool, BTEC and the South West Institute of TAFE have made a bid. We are looking at that. I do not know that that has been announced yet. There are a few others that are still to be announced—in the Pilbara, Dubbo, Lismore-Ballina and Queanbeyan—because of issues with the education department to do with recognition of qualifications and industrial disputes about AWAs et cetera. That is quite an extraordinary aspect of the state government.
Our Investing in Our Schools program is a great program that looks at delivering funds for improvements to facilities in schools. For years I have been saying to our government: ‘You keep on saying that more and more money is going to schools’—which is true; we have increased and increased funding to schools in our 10 years of government—‘but I am not seeing it on the ground. Nepean High School in my electorate does not see that money. If all those increases per capita had gone directly to the students at Nepean High, the school should have seen significant increases in its operational budget, but it has not.’
The Investing in Our Schools program is great. The funds go straight to the schools and bypasses the New South Wales state government. But—wouldn’t you know it?—the state government gets an administration fee. We found out yesterday that the state government has been creaming—and in some states, it is up to 16 per cent—off the Investing in Our Schools program. How hard can we try? We are trying to get money to the coalface, where it needs to be spent and, as a federal government, we must go through the states one way or another. Somehow, when we finally found a way to circumvent these guys, they still have their sticky fingers in the till and are pulling out some money. I think that was one of the major problems with the ATCs—they could not get their sticky fingers on that money. They did not like the schools based apprenticeships, because it seemed to knock out their sticky fingers a bit. It almost seems as though we have to pay them off and say: ‘Here’s your 16 per cent up front. Can you let the rest go?’
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—The education mafia.
GK6
Kelly, Jackie, MP
Miss JACKIE KELLY
—That is right. ‘Can we get the rest of this straight to the schools where it is needed?’ My people come to me and say: ‘I can’t see the money. You say you are putting in all this money.’ I can show you budget after budget over 10 years where we have invested in schools. The amounts have gone up and the allocations have increased but, somehow on the way through the states, the money just gets gobbled up in administration costs in these monolithic state education departments. I do not know what they produce, but they seem to cream off this administration fee, which gets bigger and bigger and the finances fail to make it to the grassroots level where they need to be.
You can see this in the child-care sector as well. For 10 years, the New South Wales state government, in particular, have totally rejected their primary schools. They have done nothing in this area and I reckon they will do nothing in this area until the next state election. They have said they would, simply because the state opposition in New South Wales came out with an excellent primary schools proposal for more investment in preschooling. But, again, you see the federal government coming in with child-care subsidies, and they just walk away from it. Instead of increasing their expenditure so that, overall, we get a benefit, it just seems that the more money we put in the more ways they find of taking their money out, and the end result is that we end up carrying the can for things.
I would not like to see this happen with the technical colleges. I would like to see the technical colleges boosted and be the source of overall additional funding to address our skills based shortages. I would almost like to bet you—if that is at all appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker—that somehow the state governments will withdraw their funding from the VET programs and withdraw their funding from some aspect of our schooling so that the overall funding for skills in our schools will decrease. It is one of the classic, shameless exercises of governments under fire when they do not have their economies right and are failing financially.
I commend this bill to the House. It will go a long way to addressing Australia’s skills shortages at a time of the lowest unemployment in 30 years.
134
18:11:00
Owens, Julie, MP
E09
Parramatta
ALP
0
0
Ms OWENS
—Before I say what I was going to say on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, I would like to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by members opposite. Firstly, I want to say how tired I am, and every member on this side is—and probably every person in Australia is—of hearing speaker after speaker on the government side get up and blame the states for something. Nearly every speaker does it; it is so boring. The reality in this country—
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—But it’s true.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms OWENS
—It is certainly true that you do it.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—It’s true that they’re failing in their duties.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms OWENS
—They are democratically elected governments. We are a unique democracy in this country. The people of this country like to have one side of politics in the states and the other side in the federal arena. Nearly every federal government you can remember has lived with that; it is your job to work together. You have been here for 10 years. If I were in business—and I was—and went to my boss month after month saying, ‘I can’t get along with that other person; we can’t work together. I know all our infrastructure is falling apart, but it’s not my fault; we just can’t work together,’ and 10 years later I was still saying it, I would not be there. Get your act together; it is your job. The state governments are democratically elected, so work with them and stop whingeing about the fact that you cannot. It is so boring and every single person out there will agree with me.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—Tell your mates in Macquarie Street to pick up their game.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms OWENS
—You tell them. You are the government; you talk to them. You are failing. If you cannot handle it, get out and let someone else do it. It is your job to work with them. You tell them; do not ask me to do it. I am the opposition; you are the government. Take responsibility for your own actions and your own failures to work with the states. It is so boring and so tired, and everybody out there thinks it is. They are bored with the cost shifting and blame shifting that goes on between you and the state governments. Grow up and do your job. You would not survive a day in business if you took that attitude.
The second point I would like to make is how bizarre it is that I hear people talking about solving the skills crisis as though it is not a crisis—that the centrepiece of this government’s policy in solving a crisis which is current and has been around for 10 years is a program that will take 10 years to roll out. This program, six years after it was announced, will deliver at the very most 100 skilled people around the country. I am listening to speaker after speaker get up and praise themselves for doing something to solve one of the greatest problems Australia is facing at the moment, but it will take at least 10 years to roll out. What kind of centrepiece policy is that? How bizarre is it that you are all so relaxed about the fact that this country faces a chronic skills shortage but it will take you 10 years to produce any kind of result at all—100 skilled people will be delivered around the country in six years? It is estimated that in 2010 we will face a crisis of a shortage of at least 100,000 skilled people. This is the centrepiece policy? The relaxation on the government side of this House is astonishing. After all, it is not their fault; it is the state government’s fault! We have heard that day after day. There is nothing this government can do, because the state governments are standing in their way. It is just astonishing.
Nevertheless, we on this side of the House will be supporting the bill. It was part of the election platform. The government actually went to the people on this one. I cannot say the same for the industrial relations changes, obviously, but it did go to the people on this one. It was part of its campaign. In spite of the fact that we believe it is too little, far too late and that there has been extraordinary bungling of its administration, we will be supporting it.
The reason for our support of this legislation is that the issue of education and training is one of the biggest and most important issues facing this country and affecting our future growth and prosperity. Education, training, skills, knowledge, craft, competence and quality are all capacities that underpin growth not just for the nation and the economy but also for the people that the economy serves. Bills, such as this, that relate to our capacity to train people as they enter the workforce and as they retrain are all about how this country moves forward in the global environment. As new major economic powers emerge, as the massive labour forces of China and India take their place in the international market—massive numbers at relatively low pay rates and conditions and initially unskilled—we have to ask how this nation is to respond. As those massive labour forces change in nature, with their governments engaging in aggressive education programs—which they are already doing—and as the populations in those countries move up the food chain internationally, we have to ask how Australia is to respond.
Since the government has been in power for 10 years, we should probably be asking also how it has responded. We have been aware of the outside world for quite some time and we have been aware of the changes taking place in those huge developing countries for many years. I remember back in 1992, before I joined the Labor Party and at least 12 years before I entered politics, speaking at a forum about the growth of China and its impact on our workforce in the long term. I spoke of how, by 2020, people would need to reskill up to three times in their lives—many people are probably facing that need already—and said that creativity and skill would be the major drivers for growth in this country. That was back in 1992. So, if a person outside of politics who was not even a member of a political party was talking about it in 1992—and there were an awful lot of books, papers and magazine and newspaper articles about it back then—there is no excuse whatsoever for the Howard government to have ignored it and not responded.
How has the government responded? Has it tried to move us up the food chain, or has it tried to move us down? That seems a silly question, because this is Australia, the land of the fair go and the land of opportunity. It is really quite unimaginable that we would have any government trying to move any person down the food chain let alone large sectors of the population—certainly not pushing some people into a race to the bottom of the food chain, as seen with the new industrial relations system. I do acknowledge that the government is not trying to move the whole country down the food chain, just some of us—not all of us, but some of us.
When it comes to education, we really should look at this government’s record and we should look at it very hard. When it comes to education and training, our record is embarrassing at best and shocking at worst. Most notorious is the fact that we are the only country in the OECD, the only country in the developed world, that is reducing its expenditure on post-secondary education generally. Our expenditure has been falling. We are the only country in the OECD, the only country in the developed world, where that is the case. What is going on here, with this great country that is enjoying a most prosperous period? We hear every day in question time how wonderful things are, how everyone is doing so well and how prosperous we are; we have never seen such good times. What the hell is going on that, in the best of times, we are reducing our expenditure on education, against trends in the rest of the world and against massive trends in the developing world, particularly China and India, which will overtake us in terms of education in no time at all?
We should look also at our general level of skills and the measure of the number of people in the workforce that have a grade 12 equivalent qualification. Australia is really underperforming in that area. In countries like the United States and Canada and the major countries of Europe, 80 per cent or more of people between the ages of 25 and 64 have year 12 equivalent or better. In Australia, it is not 80 per cent; it is 67 per cent. This great prosperous nation that sees itself moving forward confidently into the future is leaving 33 per cent of our working population between the ages of 25 and 64 largely on the scrap heap. Maybe 10 to 20 years ago not finishing grade 12 was not such an issue, but it sure is an issue now. Unskilled jobs just are not there any more. They are moving offshore. They are heading off to those massive unskilled cheap labour forces overseas. In this day and age in Australia, if you do not have a good education or some training, you are out in the cold. Thirty-three per cent of our workforce between the ages of 25 and 64 do not have year 12 equivalent.
We have heard lately from the government lots of talk about the economy, particularly in relation to the new industrial relations laws. We heard a remarkable statement from the Prime Minister recently that ultimately the success or failure of the new Work Choices will be judged on what is good for the economy as a whole. That is one of the first times I have heard the Prime Minister suggest that perhaps it will not be good for people as individuals or even for people as a whole but that certainly it will be good for the economy.
But good for the economy must include good for all of us. Where possible, we should work unbelievably hard that it is also good for each of us—what is good in the long term for all of us and for each of us and what is needed in the short term for all of us and for each of us. That is government—not just good for the economy and good for the flow of money and the figures, but good for all of us and, if it is at all possible after incredible hard work, good for each of us. That is government. Politics, on the other hand, is about what is good for me in the short term and what is good for me in the long term. The worst side of politics is that it is also what is bad for the other side in the short term and in the long term. In the government’s approach to the skills crisis, we have very much a case of the latter.
One has to assume that the reason the government is choosing to set up a parallel system rather than work through the system that is already there—the TAFE system and the high school system—is that it really does not want to cooperate with the states because it gets too much political advantage by doing as much damage as it can to the states. By working with the states, it would no longer be able to play that political card and put politics first. Actually working with the states would be about government, not about politics—putting government first, putting people first, not its own political interests.
Playing with the nation for the government’s own political purposes and the lives of people in order to inflict damage on its opponents does, unfortunately, have collateral damage, and that is people—young Australians; young people seeking to enter the workforce; people who have found themselves sidelined because their skills are no longer relevant; people trying to retrain; and women who have been out of the workforce raising their children, women who did not have skills in the first place but who are desperately trying to find a way back into the workforce and are looking for the training opportunities to do so.
My electorate of Parramatta does not have a TAFE college, but it is surrounded by four struggling, underresourced institutions that are so overdue for real respect and renewal that I find it unimaginable that we are talking about setting up a parallel system when we have such a fabulously effective and well regarded system that is struggling and is well overdue for renewal. The TAFE institutions are incredibly important, because those unskilled jobs just do not exist anymore in the way they used to. They were originally incredibly important for the trades, but now they are also important for the services sector—for hairdressers and nurses. People from all sorts of professions now do their training at TAFE. There are also high schools in my electorate that want to provide flexibility for their students to mix high school with trade qualifications and even one that desperately wants to specialise in order to attract more students.
We often hear this government whingeing about duplication—usually whingeing about how badly the state does it and how they would love to be better if only they did not have those nasty states getting in their way and stopping them from doing a good job—yet now we see them setting up a parallel system at great taxpayers’ expense. They do not dislike duplication; they actually love duplication because it allows them to bag the states at every opportunity, to blame somebody else, to be the opposition if they possibly can and to deflect attention from their own failures and their own choices. Let us be very clear about it: the government is very good at claiming that this or that is a state responsibility—and I do know about the Constitution—but, in practice in this country, both state and federal governments are involved in education, health and social services, and it is their duty to work together to get the best result.
We will be supporting the bill because, in the long run, it will provide some quite important opportunities for a relatively small number of people. In my electorate, the Parramatta Catholic Education Office has been awarded one of the tenders. It will be training up to 200 people within a few years. This will provide extremely important opportunities for those couple of hundred people, and it will be extremely important for the Catholic Education Office, which does such an extraordinary job in my electorate. I wish the Parramatta Catholic Education Office well in developing its project and getting it up and running. It is an extraordinary organisation, and I know that it will do an incredible job in providing those opportunities for up to 200 skilled people. Of course we do need many more skilled people than that in Western Sydney, which that technical college will service, and we need many more than that in my electorate of Parramatta alone.
Let us look at this program in a little more detail. There will be 25 technical colleges which will not produce their first qualified tradesperson until 2010, at the earliest. The Australian Industry Group estimates that, by then, we will need at least 100,000 skilled workers, but by that stage the technical colleges that are up and running will only be able to provide 100. They will be 199,900 short in 2010 but 100 better off.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—No, 99,900.
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms OWENS
—Yes, you are right—99,900, still a very large—
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms OWENS
—No, my maths are very good, because training a person actually takes longer than a year. Think about it.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
E09
Owens, Julie, MP
Ms OWENS
—There are 100 people enrolled now. Training trades and skilled people does not take six months; most apprenticeships are actually three or four years long. You work it out. If there are 100 people enrolled now, there is a time that they take to finish a course. My maths are fine. Your maths are not very good if you do not realise that you are at least 99,000 short.
This is very much a political solution. As I said, our need to deal with this skills crisis is urgent. We really have to act now. But one of the worst aspects of this program is the bungling in the administration of the program. There are currently fewer than 100 students across Australia that are enrolled in the four technical colleges that are currently operating in East Melbourne, Gladstone, the Gold Coast in Queensland and Port Macquarie. Another will open soon in northern Tasmania.
The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education has recently threatened to scrap the colleges in Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore-Ballina, and the successful consortium in Darwin have also been threatened with the loss of their $17 million in funding. So, in spite of the urgency and in spite of this being a program announced in 2004, we still have a long way to go in seeing those 25 technical colleges actually roll out.
In contrast, a Beazley Labor government will care about education. We care about it passionately on this side of the House. We believe in the need to build an education system that teaches young Australians how to work, and we believe in the need to have it now. Train Australians now. The urgency is now. The urgency has been around for 10 years—we are 10 years too late—but even now is better than in another 10 years. We really cannot wait.
When you make young people wait—when people who turn 17 cannot get the opportunity; they turn 18, and they cannot get the opportunity; they turn 19, and they cannot get the opportunity—you profoundly impact on their whole lives. Lives do not wait for governments to act. They really do not. Particularly young people’s lives do not wait. Every year you delay, every year you get it wrong and every year you make it hard impacts on the rest of that person’s life. Every year their career is held back, their confidence falls. Their CV does not look as good as it should early enough. Every single year they cannot invest in their future. Every single year they are not paying superannuation. Lives do not wait for governments to act. This is urgent. Train Australians now. Get on with it.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! This sitting is suspended. The chair will be resumed at 8 pm or at the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 6.31 pm to 9.37 pm
Debate (on motion by Mr Nairn) adjourned.
139
21:38:00
House adjourned at 9.38 pm until Tuesday, 8 August 2006 at 2 pm, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day
2006-06-22
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley) took the chair at 9.30 am.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
140
Statements by Members
Paddington Public School
Cleveland Street Intensive English High School
140
140
09:30:00
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
0
0
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I wanted to inform the House of two very significant events that happened in May in my electorate. Two public schools in my electorate celebrated their 150th anniversaries: Cleveland Street Intensive English High School and Paddington Public School. Reaching this kind of milestone is a very important event in Australia’s educational history and is of course very rare. Both Cleveland Street high school and Paddington model school were established on their original sites on 5 May 1856.
I was fortunate to be invited to celebrate with Cleveland Street Intensive English High School when they had a reunion, an open day and a number of other events over a wonderful weekend recently. The school started off as a model school with 215 students and has seen in its years very many changes and very many famous faces pass through. The students who are now attending the school are all newly arrived non-English-speaking background students of high school age. They come from many different countries and bring with them a diversity of languages, customs and beliefs.
Since 1977 more than 10,000 students have passed through the doors, representing more than 100 different countries. They usually spend between three and 12 months at the school and then transfer to other government high schools in order to complete their high school studies, go to TAFE or go directly into the workforce. The school provides an education to a unique group of students—newly arrived permanent refugees, long-term temporary residents and international students. It is known not only for the fine quality of its education but also for its innovative welfare and transition programs for students providing not just an education but also the support that these young people need to settle into the community.
The school has marvellous architecture as well, and much work has been done recently by the New South Wales Department of Commerce to restore the fabulous buildings there. In fact, there is raked theatre style seating in one of the very old classrooms that would have held probably 100 students at a time when educational styles were quite different to now.
Paddington Public School is a primary school that was established in 1856 as the Paddington model school providing an educational program for girls and boys. The school’s first building was an iron house that was built and shipped from England and designed to hold 200 students. At one stage in 1892 the school held 1,400 students on a very small inner-city site. In 1963 it became a public school called Paddington Public School providing primary education to local students. I am so pleased to be able to congratulate these schools on their sesquicentenary. (Time expired)
Jandakot Airport
140
140
09:33:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
1
0
Mr RANDALL
—I rise this morning to support the proposed relocation of Jandakot Airport in Western Australia. Jandakot Airport is the busiest general aviation airport in this country. It is located in the seat of Tangney; however, it is right on the border of the seat of Canning. Just to give you an indication of how busy it is, at a school graduation in December last year as the students were being presented with their certificates they had to stop on a regular basis because of the planes flying over doing their circuit training late in the evening.
The relocation of Jandakot Airport to a location in the Shire of Murray, which is within the Canning electorate, is something that I support very much. The fact that the Jandakot Airport is the busiest general aviation airport in Australia means that within two years it will have reached saturation point in terms of movements. Flyover noise and nuisance are having a big impact on the local residents. The local shires and cities—the City of Cockburn, the City of Canning and the City of Melville—have all made submissions about the impact that the Jandakot Airport is having on their local area.
In this place several years ago, when discussing the master plan for Perth Airport, the member for Perth, Stephen Smith, quite rightly pointed out that in Western Australia, if we wanted to design the worst possible configuration for airports, we could not have done better than what we have at the moment. We have Perth Airport, not too far away is RAAF Base Pearce and to the south of that is Jandakot Airport. They all impose on each other’s airspace. They overlap to the extent that international airlines, such as Singapore et cetera, fly over the flight space of Jandakot to get to Perth Airport. It is well managed but it is not an ideal situation.
We have seen at Jandakot an impact on housing because of the increased movements. Previously, an aerial water bomber could not get off the ground and crashed into a local house, so there are those sorts of impacts. I support the fact that the relocation will bring to the Peel region an enormous amount of aviation related industry, which will bring jobs to that area. If the state government, which I understand has some sympathy for this move, gets behind this along with the federal government, this move can only be a positive not only for aviation in Western Australia but for jobs and for safety, and I think the people in my region will be very pleased to see its location in the Murray Shire.
Breast Cancer: Herceptin
141
141
09:36:00
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
0
Mr MELHAM
—I wish to place on record my thanks to the many people who have signed my petition to have Herceptin placed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. These constituents from Banks number among tens of thousands of Australians—well over 30,000 to date—who have already signed similar petitions. It is an outrageous state of affairs where a family with a member who suffers from breast cancer may have to contemplate mortgaging their home to fund the treatment. These families face finding $60,000 a year. In a country like ours, this is a disgrace. The government makes much of its budget surplus, which is estimated at $10.8 billion in the coming year. On this side of the House, we believe in having a vigorous public health system so that, no matter what your financial circumstances, you have the right to access appropriate health care.
Each year, approximately 13,000 women in Australia are diagnosed with breast cancer. Of these 13,000 women, it is estimated that 20 per cent have HER2 positive breast cancer. HER2 is a protein that is found on the surface of cells and, when functioning normally, it has been found to be a key factor in regulating cell growth. When the HER2 protein is altered, extra HER2 protein receptors may be produced, resulting in increased cell growth and reproduction. This often results in more aggressive breast cancer cells.
Herceptin is a drug that attaches itself to the cells that overexpress HER2 protein and, by binding itself to these cells, it can slow the growth and spread of tumours. Herceptin is currently listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for women who experience and suffer advanced HER2 positive breast cancer, but it is not listed on the PBS for women with early-stage HER2 breast cancer, and its costs are prohibitive.
Roche submitted their application to the Therapeutic Goods Administration on 17 February 2006. The TGA approved it on 21 April 2006. The Pharmaceuticals Benefits Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the Roche application for PBS funding of this new application for Herceptin. The PBAC will meet in July, when there is a process of resolving outstanding questions.
Breast Cancer Network Australia reported on its website, which I accessed on 21 June 2006:
We expect PBAC to make their recommendation in August. In normal circumstances we would expect this recommendation to be processed through cabinet then formally listed on the PBS in December. However—we see no reason why it should take this long and are urging the government to process it as soon as the PBAC recommendation is finalised.
On behalf of the women of Banks and across Australia, I endorse this appeal.
Scarborough Primary School
142
142
09:39:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
1
0
Mr KEENAN
—I rise today to congratulate Scarborough Primary School, one of the very good primary schools within my electorate of Stirling. Its canteen has just been judged the healthiest canteen in the state of Western Australia by the WA Kids Health Alliance. Scarborough Primary beat 1,000 other schools from around the state to win the award for 2006 after making a presentation at the schools expo and submitting its menus to the judging panel of nutritionists and health experts.
The principal, Len Collier, and his dedicated and enthusiastic team of canteen volunteers—Rochelle Phelps, Willow Barker and Arti Patel—are to be congratulated for this great achievement that will not only benefit students now but also help them to learn how to make healthy food choices in the years to come. It is well known and acknowledged that healthy eating habits are developed in childhood and that these habits will set our children up for a healthy lifestyle for the rest of their lives. This includes making healthy choices about what to eat and enjoying eating as a positive social experience. Healthy lunches are an extraordinarily important part of this for both of those reasons. It is great to hear that the school has had numerous requests for sample menus from other schools around Western Australia.
The commitment of Scarborough Primary School to the health of students does not stop just with healthy eating. I recently had the privilege of joining Mr Collier, teachers and students on the Walk Safely to School Day. The students were very enthusiastic about the day and were rightly competitive about the length that they had walked to school. A bit of healthy competition in these things never goes astray amongst children. Of course, by encouraging walking to school, the school is keeping the children physically active as well as teaching them vital safety skills, like crossing the road. It can also increase family time if their parents join them on the walk, and it cuts down on pollution when families do not use their cars to take their children to school.
Once again, I would like to congratulate Len Collier and his canteen staff on such a fantastic achievement. Winning Canteen of the Year for 2006 is a great acknowledgment for Scarborough Primary School, and I hope that their hard work and results will serve as an inspiration to other schools in Western Australia and around the country.
Bankstown Airport
143
143
09:41:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—I rise to express my concern and dismay at an article in the Daily Telegraph entitled ‘Thrust for new jets at Bankstown’. Having gone through the whole process of getting a management plan for the next 20 years for Bankstown Airport—together with the member for Banks, winning the great victory on behalf of my constituents—banning 737 jets forever from Bankstown Airport as part of that process, arguing against 100-seater aircraft at Bankstown Airport, but that being allowed at 12 services a day, and having successfully seen off OzJet and its BAe146 passenger jets, this simply did not work; it did not get going. And yet the management of the complex that is now at Bankstown Airport—a commercial industrial complex as well as a GA airport—continues to drive for a passenger service that could be dubbed as a second stringer to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. I simply do not think that this will fly. It did not when the government tried to do it in 2000, and I do not think it will now.
The latest we have on this report is that the Airbus A318, which has a rate of descent of 7.5 per cent versus the normal three per cent—so it can get in and get out of Bankstown Airport, which is 250 metres longer than London City Airport, where they have already been approved—is being considered. The discussions between those who run the airport and the makers have focused on this being a way in which a 100-seater aircraft that is supposed to be a ‘small regional type’ could get in and out of Bankstown. The person from Airbus trying to flog it thinks it is terrific and that it can be used between Sydney and Canberra because of the number of public servants resident in the local area. Those public servants mostly work for the state government; they do not work for the federal government. Certainly, there have been drives before to try to get this kind of service running.
But the key question here is about the noise level. What we do not have at Bankstown is a way in which we could cap the noise coming out of the airport. If it is true the A318, as Kim Ellis, the airport chief executive says:
… is ideally suited to Bankstown, a small regional-type jet that is low noise and low impact—
then let us see it proven in the stats that come out, and proven vis-a-vis the BAe146 and vis-a-vis the other aircraft that use Bankstown Airport. The regional operators that use Bankstown Airport for charter services and so on, and particularly those who are in general aviation, who effectively feel that they are being forced out, would like to see the airport concentrate on the realities that are in front of them. Run this as Australia’s premier general aviation airport and run it as hard as you can to make it as efficient as it can be for the people it services. They should stop dreaming about being a second string of the KSA.
Handicapped Persons Association of the Northern Territory
143
143
09:45:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
0
Mr TOLLNER
—I wish to speak today about a true blue Territory organisation that has and deserves the support of this government and the community so that more opportunities are available for the important people in our community who live with disabilities. The Top End has many unsung heroes. The people at the Handicapped Persons Association, better known as HPA Inc., I believe are all unsung heroes and set an example to the Australian community. HPA was started in 1963 by Harold Garner, when he presided over the first meeting of what was then known as the Mentally Handicapped Persons Association. HPA assists 90 to 100 people with intellectual disabilities and mental illnesses through the provision of employment and training options, generates sales revenues in excess of $1½ million and receives Commonwealth funding in excess of $900,000.
The organisation, under the direction of Paul Goggan, has 23 full-time employees and more than 16 casuals. The staff are truly inspirational, and I challenge anyone to work harder and to be more dedicated than they are. I have seen these men and women on several occasions. They love their work and they love having a go. HPA is governed by a board that is committed to the provision of services to people with disabilities in our community. They are Magistrate Daynor Trigg, the President, and Barry Thomas, Helen Hill, Margot Robinson, Kevin Peter and Grace McGinn. The Northern Territory Administrator, His Honour Mr Ted Egan AO, is the patron of the organisation.
At one of the HPA business arms, Kokoda Industries in Winnellie, Paul Jolidon overseas a carpentry workshop that manufactures a wide range of timber products, including palettes, survey pegs, lattice and garden edging. Under the direction of Peter Walker, another arm, Supertube Outdoor Furniture, manufactures PVC outdoor furniture, marketing signs, pet beds, bike racks and room dividers, amongst many other products. Ausdesigns is managed by Margaret Marron and is the industrial sewing company that specialises in the design and manufacture of eye-catching handbags, conference satchels, tourist gifts and a host of other fabric products. Damien Davy looks after Kokoda Industries Palmerston, which manufactures a range of steel and timber outdoor furniture. Congratulations to this energetic team, especially to Jenny Upton, Hilda Walker, Verena Brady, Robert Thomas and Allan Peckham and also to Patricia Pine, for her dedicated management and for providing accommodation and support services to over 40 people with intellectual disabilities. You will not find a happier, more self-respecting group with a greater sense of community and achievement than these people in the Territory. This really is an exceptional story. (Time expired)
Western Australia: Great Northern Highway
144
144
09:48:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
0
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—On 24 November 2003, a petition was presented to the House about the unsafe condition of the Great Northern Highway, a major highway in Western Australia. In an adjournment speech on 1 December 2003, the member for Pearce referred to that petition and stated that it contained over 6,000 signatures from people in the electorate of Pearce. The initiator of the petition was Mrs Helen Keillor of Muchea. Mrs Keillor coordinated the placement, collection and presentation of the petition through the office of the member for Pearce. As the member for Pearce said in her adjournment speech at that time:
... Mrs Helen Keillor ... spent countless hours gathering the names for presentation to the House. She is a concerned parent and community member.
Mrs Keillor has requested that I present her view of the facts of the coordination, placement and presentation of the petition to the House. The petition contained signatories from people not just from the electorate of Pearce but from the electorate of O’Connor, as well as from the general motoring public of Western Australia. There are 4,098 signatories representing 91 Western Australian shires and 1,658 signatories from the Perth metropolitan area. The petition specifically related to the 250-kilometre stretch of highway for the area from Middle Swan to Wubin. The electorate of Pearce contains 90 kilometres, about 36 per cent, of this stretch of highway. People from Middle Swan to Wubin, which reflects the 250-kilometre stretch of highway to which the petition referred, helped on the campaign. Mrs Keillor also wishes me to place on the record that the $14 million for urgent works committed in October 2003 was for overtaking lanes and safety improvements specifically for that stretch of highway between Muchea and Wubin. Mrs Keillor is to be commended for the hard work she has done in ensuring an upgrade of the condition of the Great Northern Highway.
Hinkler Electorate: Health Services
145
145
09:50:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
1
0
Mr NEVILLE
—The Gladstone region is getting better health services under the coalition government. Just this week, the government delivered more than $58,000 under the Medical Specialists Outreach Assistance Program to continue an oncology service in Gladstone. I lobbied very strongly to secure this funding. It is a fantastic outcome for the region, as it is a service now being funded for three financial years by the Commonwealth. In 2004-05, the oncology service saw 479 patients, which just goes to prove how vital the health service is to the district. In the absence of state government support, the Australian government has stepped in to ensure that hundreds of Gladstone people who require oncology treatment and consultation will continue to receive the best medical attention. Dr Atkinson, a specialist from Brisbane’s Mater hospital, visits Gladstone regularly and delivers this service.
Last week, I had the pleasure of announcing extended hours for the Australian Hearing service operations in Gladstone. Now Australian Hearing staff will be available in Gladstone for at least two weeks every month, giving Gladstone residents significantly better access to the best hearing services. These extra hours will help meet the growing demand for such services and make it easier for many hearing-impaired older people to receive attention, saving them trips to Rockhampton or Bundaberg.
Another example of Gladstone residents receiving better services from the coalition government is that Queensland’s second highest increase in bulk-billing rates occurred there between 2004 and 2005. Hinkler’s bulk-billing rate reached an average of 69.9 per cent last year, an increase of 9.4 per cent from 2004. That was the second biggest percentage increase for any Queensland electorate, and way ahead of the 5.3 per cent average increase across the state. It is also backed up by a 14.2 per cent bulk-billing increase achieved between June 2003-04 and June 2004-05, which was actually the biggest increase in Queensland for that time frame.
That flies in the face of the ALP’s constant cries of doom and gloom about the health services in my electorate. If members of the opposition cared to look at the facts, they would acknowledge that Hinkler families have a better range of health services now than they ever had before under previous Labor governments. They might also encourage their state colleagues to inject some rigour into the aspects of health for which that state government is responsible.
Lilley Electorate: Broadband Services
145
145
09:53:00
Swan, Wayne, MP
2V5
Lilley
ALP
0
0
Mr SWAN
—I take this opportunity to raise my concerns about the state of broadband roll-out in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. The local network infrastructure is not up to scratch, and Telstra is not responding to the community’s needs in any timely way.
In 2004 I surveyed select local suburbs to gauge broadband access. My initial investigations revealed a patchwork of access, with at least 144 households and businesses in Boondall and Taigum alone—only 20 minutes from the CBD—unable to receive ADSL internet access. In response to community demand and armed with the survey results, I lobbied Telstra to hurry up and deliver. Almost 18 months later, many locals are still reporting the same problems. It is the same old story for frustrated residents in Lilley, with bodgie networks blocking broadband access. There are local broadband black spots throughout the community, where some residents are able to access ADSL services whilst their neighbours a few streets away languish behind with dial-up. This is a completely ridiculous situation in 2006.
A number of locals have approached me to complain that they have been knocked back for ADSL because, they have been told, the network in their local area is not compatible. During my regular mobile office sessions, I have heard familiar complaints from residents in Taigum and Boondall. Both of these suburbs are attracting strong growth, and residents rightly expect that, living within 20 minutes of the CBD, they would have access to broadband. I have made numerous representations on behalf of those who have been denied access to ADSL with Telstra. I am sorry to report that, to date, there has not been a satisfactory response from Telstra about why these residents still cannot gain access to ADSL—residents who rightly, I think, expect the local network to be up to scratch.
This uncertainty is causing a great deal of inconvenience to many of my local constituents, who deserve reliable, fast internet access. It is an unacceptable situation that in mid-2006 households and businesses within a 20-minute drive of the CBD are being denied access to broadband. Fast, reliable access to the internet through broadband ADSL should be an essential part of our modern telecommunications service, and it is simply not fair that some areas are missing out. The failure to deliver adequate broadband to locals in Lilley is an indictment of our current infrastructure. It is vital that the government undertake to deliver broadband to all Australians. The failure to invest in the network has meant that the capability of everyone in my electorate to access ADSL broadband is severely constrained. The local network infrastructure is not up to scratch. I have serious concerns about the delays in the rollout of broadband infrastructure, and it is about time that Telstra came to grips with this problem and did something about it.
Wakefield Electorate: Community Activities
Health Services
146
146
09:56:00
Fawcett, David, MP
DYU
Wakefield
LP
1
0
Mr FAWCETT
—I rise today to speak to the House about the need for all three levels of government to work together for the benefit of small communities in our rural and regional areas. These are not communities who have people who are sitting there with their hands out. Many of them work very well and strongly together to achieve outcomes. A good case in point is the community of Two Wells south of Mallala in the Adelaide Plains area of the electorate of Wakefield. This community had the opportunity again this year to see the Two Wells Melodrama at the Two Wells Community Centre, a production put together by locals. Mark Boon, the scriptwriter, Brian Wilson, the musical director, Lance Morgan, the production manager, and Ann Marie Eaton, the choreographer, put this production together at the Two Wells Community Centre, which is a building funded and built by the community and is now there as a community facility.
This activity brings the community together in that people like Maria Pellizzari of the Red Cross and others do the catering and provide three-course meals. There is strong involvement from members of all sorts of clubs. We see 250 people a night over four nights turn up to participate in this strong community event. This is a community that is alive, thriving and working together. But this parliament needs to work with people in other levels of government to make sure that we give this community the support it needs. I particularly talk here about aged and health care. This strong community has the Mallala Community Hospital. It is no surprise that it is called ‘The community hospital’, because the board is a community board, supported and run by the community.
The federal government has worked with the community to put funding into aged care licences—this is Butler’s View, which is the aged care part—but there is a drastic need for further, joint work between the levels of government to make sure that acute care and the delivery of home and community care are put together in a joint way such that the community gets the ongoing viable and effective support they need for their population. The fact that they are a smaller community, dispersed in this rural and regional area, does not mean that they should have a lesser standard of care than that delivered to other people around Australia. I call on the state government to work with the federal government, as I work with the board—Mrs Maxine Varcoe and others at the hospital—to find the model of care that will work for them and their community, and to each play their part in coming together to contribute to a model that will deliver sustainable and effective aged care and health care for the community now and into the future.
Dental Health
147
147
09:58:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—In the short time that remains before this debate expires I would like to bring to the attention of the House the shocking state of dental health care available in Australia and to remind the government that they should be meeting their obligation to provide dental health care. One of the most successful programs that existed in Australia prior to the election of the Howard government was the Commonwealth dental health care program. Unfortunately, the Howard government cut the program, which cost very little money, and, as a consequence, many people in the community are struggling. One such person, a constituent of mine who lives at Toukley, has only a top set of dentures and has been waiting for two years for dentures. Meanwhile, my constituent has been forced to basically live on soup and soft foods. This is not good enough in a country like Australia.
In addition to that, I would like to advise the House that when Andrew Podger gave evidence to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing he said that the Commonwealth had a responsibility for dental health care.
10000
Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. IR Causley)—Order! It being 10 am, in accordance with sessional order 193 the time for members’ statements has concluded.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 2006
147
Bills
R2536
Second Reading
147
Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Baldwin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
147
10:00:00
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
83E
Oxley
ALP
0
0
Mr RIPOLL
—Before I turn to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006, I will take the opportunity, while the member for Paterson is in the chamber, to remind him that last time we were in here he promised me some information. He was going to send it to my office. I eagerly await that. I know he will follow through and keep his commitment.
I am very pleased to speak on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 as I think this is an important bill that deals with a whole range of areas and sectors in Australia that are very important to our economic development and growth. Labor support the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill. However, we seek to refer the bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for further consideration and verification of the accuracy of its implementation. The amendments contained in this bill are sensible though long overdue improvements to Australia’s intellectual property regime that enhance efficiency and maintain an appropriate balance between innovation and competitiveness.
Briefly, the bill proposes to broaden the springboard regime for pharmaceutical patents, clarify the rights of a prior user in the granting of patents, add a competition test to the compulsory licensing of patents, allow for exemplary punitive damages to be awarded in patent infringement actions, amend provisions relating to the revocation of trademarks and public access to trademark files and, finally, make minor and technical amendments to the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003 and the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994.
The problem with this bill, though, is that it has taken the government the best part of seven years to get to this point, which is a very long time when we look at the fast growth in development in intellectual property rights. Such a lag in the implementation of this important legislation is unacceptable and is symbolic of this government’s complacency and neglect when it comes to ensuring best practice in Australia’s intellectual property regime and, by extension, our nation’s ability to innovate and compete in a rapidly changing global market. I think the evidence of that is all around us.
The amendments made by the bill give effect to some outstanding aspects of the September 2000 Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee’s report—Review of the intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement—and the March 1999 Advisory Council on Intellectual Property’s Review of the enforcement of industrial property rights.
The principle of substantive provisions of the bill relate to schedules 6 to 8, with schedules 6 and 8 of the bill representing the government’s response to recommendations 15 and 18 respectively of the IPCRC report. According to the IPCRC, intellectual property laws and competition policy were viewed as ‘largely complementary’ on the basis that sensible intellectual property arrangements can promote innovation, which is a key form of competition. The committee also acknowledged, however, that the two can also conflict, because intellectual property laws usually confer exclusive rights. The report states:
While conferring intellectual property rights encourages investment in creative effort, it can allow the owners of the results of this effort to unduly restrict the diffusion and use of these results.
The IPCRC report continued:
It must also be recognised that the rights granted by the intellectual property laws can be used for anti-competitive ends. This occurs when the rights are used to claim for the creator not merely a share of the efficiency gains society obtains from the creation, but also super-normal profits that arise from market power unrelated to the creation.
So two questions guided the IPCRC in seeking to harmonise the interests of competition and innovation. The first was: do the exclusive rights available under intellectual property laws need to be curtailed, as they go beyond what is needed to encourage an efficient level of investment in creative effort? The second was: are adequate enforcement remedies available under those laws, as the community’s interest in competitive markets needs to be protected by ensuring that abuse of those rights is prevented? The two key words that come out of that report and out of this amendment are ‘competition’ and ‘innovation’.
The Australian economy, and in fact the global economy, is driven by competition and innovation, and Australia is well served by promoting both those principles and, in so promoting them, protecting people’s rights—whether they be intellectual property rights or other rights or incentives—in terms of fostering competition and fostering innovation. If our industries and our economic gains are to continue into the future, and if the powerful reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments that led to the 15 consecutive years of economic growth in Australia are to be repeated for the next 15 years, action needs to be taken by the government today. The key thing for the government to take note of is the words it uses in the recommendations from its own reports, particularly in regard to competition and innovation.
Schedule 6 of the bill—exemption of continued prior use from patent infringement—seeks to clarify the scope of rights provided under section 119 of the Patents Act 1990 to balance the rights of a patentee and those of a third party. Section 119 of the Patents Act also provides a defence to a patent infringement where a third party has been independently using the invention before the patentee applied for the patent. Submissions to the IPCR committee expressed concerns that the section did not achieve this objective, and consequently had a detrimental effect on competition.
The submissions also identified some lack of clarity as to the scope of the section. In particular, it is not clear whether a number of things were correct. For example, it was not clear whether prior use must be in Australia or whether it can be used anywhere in the world; whether the provision is limited to commercial use, in which case a person who has developed a product or process, but who has not taken definitive steps to commercialise it, will not be protected; and whether the right should be limited to the actual prior use or whether it can be assigned or licensed. As such, schedule 6 provides that the prior user right is not limited solely to the making of a product or the using of a process but is limited to prior use in Australia only. It also permits the assignment rather than the licensing of the prior use right, thereby limiting prior use to a single entity, which balances the patentee’s interests in maintaining an exclusive right over the product.
Schedule 7—springboarding and patents—relates to a limited provision in the Patents Act 1990 that allows generic drug manufacturers to collect information required to obtain regulatory approval for a patented drug during that patent period. This practice is known as springboarding. The springboarding provision was intended to allow earlier regulatory approval for generic pharmaceuticals and faster market entry upon patent expiry, and to prevent originating drug companies from receiving a further de facto extension of patent term.
I put on the record that, in my electorate, the pharmaceutical company Alphapharm does very well. It is very successful. It is an after-market or generic drug producer. It is a great employer, and a hugely successful producer of generic drugs, not only in the domestic market but also, I understand, in the international market. It is companies such as Alphapharm in my electorate that need proper protection and that need the ability to be able to access drug formulas and patents once they expire so that they can continue their work.
Currently, springboarding provisions only allow springboarding on patents that have been extended after the extension has been granted. Patent term extensions of up to five years are available, as new drugs, unlike most other technologies, often require time and effort to obtain regulatory approval before public release and sale. Because this time consumes part of the usual 20-year patent term, an extension is made available. In some circumstances this will mean that local generic companies cannot enter the domestic market on or soon after patent expiry on a drug unless the development work has been conducted overseas. This disadvantages the Australian generics industry and provides an incentive for companies to move their R&D activities offshore. I am sure that government does not want that to happen. Certainly, the Labor Party does not want that to happen.
I would encourage and support any legislation, incentives or other moves that would promote local generic pharmaceutical companies to carry out their R&D activities onshore. That should be supported by government. I think that is a sensible thing. Such provisions are more restrictive than similar provisions overseas, such as in the USA, the EU, Canada, Singapore and New Zealand, where springboarding is allowed on all pharmaceutical patents. Schedule 7 therefore moves to allow springboarding on any pharmaceutical patent at any time for purposes related to generating information necessary to support an application for regulatory approval of a pharmaceutical product in Australia.
Schedule 8—compulsory licensing of patents—relates to section 133 of the Patents Act 1990 and provides that a prescribed court can order a patentee to grant a licence to work their patented invention in certain circumstances. Section 133 allows the court to make the order if the reasonable requirement of the public with respect to the invention has not been satisfied and the patentee has given no satisfactory reason for failing to exploit that invention. The Patents Act provides that the reasonable requirements of the public have not been satisfied if an existing trade or industry is unfairly prejudiced by the patentee’s failure to work the invention or to grant licences on reasonable terms; a trade or industry is unfairly prejudiced by conditions imposed by the patentee on the working of the patent; or if the patent is not being commercially worked in Australia but is capable of being worked.
The IPCR committee considered the conditions currently prescribed for the grant of a compulsory licence to be deficient in that they did not include an explicit competition test and did not sufficiently take the legitimate interest of the patentee into account. Accordingly, in addition to the existing provisions, schedule 8 seeks to include a competition test as one of the grounds on which a compulsory licence can be obtained. Under this test, if the patentee has contravened or is contravening part IV of the Trade Practices Act in connection with a patent, then a compulsory licence is available as a remedy for that contravention. Intellectual property arrangements must seek to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights and returns of innovators while also facilitating an open and competitive market.
IP and trade practice law covering copyright and patents must take account of the reality of an increasingly knowledge based economy by balancing creative, social and economic ends. In 1999 and 2000 respectively the government received the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property report, Review of enforcement of industrial property rights and the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee report, Review of intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement. These reviews were welcome. The problem, however, has been that it has taken nearly six years and three separate bills to achieve some but still not all of the recommendations contained in these reviews. Obviously, those changes are welcome but there is still more to come.
It is little wonder that, according to an Australian Bureau of Statistics report, Innovation in Australian business 2003, intellectual property arrangements were seen as a major barrier to innovation in Australia, with over 75 per cent of Australia’s innovative businesses not using any formal methods of intellectual property protection. Furthermore, more than half of Australia’s innovating businesses reported having no formal or informal protection of their intellectual property and only a little over four per cent of Australia’s innovating businesses reported using patents to protect their work. That is a surprisingly low figure, a figure that I think needs closer attention and scrutiny by government as to what can be done to increase the protections available and the protections used by innovating businesses in the research and the work that they do.
Many businesses, according to the ABS report, resorted to instead using only informal methods of IP protection, such as secrecy, to protect their work and ideas. Amazingly, despite these adverse effects, the intellectual property reform agenda, as outlined by the government’s own advisory council and the IPCRC reports, remains unfinished. The unfinished business includes a number of things. Recommendation 17 of the IPCRC report is that sections 144 to 146 of the Patents Act 1990 be repealed on the basis that tie-in contracts, which tie purchasers to the patentee’s products, are not necessarily anticompetitive and that their adverse effects are better addressed by amending the Trade Practices Act 1974. The government has accepted these recommendations, but to date nothing has been done. My suggestion and my encouragement would be that the government get on with what it said it was going to do and actually move on these issues.
Recommendation 23 of the IPCRC report is that the Federal Magistrates Service be used to overcome rigidities in the enforcement of the rights under the patents system. The government deferred its response to this recommendation and asked the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, the ACIP, to consider this issue. The ACIP supported the recommendation that the Federal Magistrates Service be given jurisdiction in patents, trademarks and designs. The government, however, is yet to act. Again, I would encourage the government to take on board its own recommendations and move forward on these critical issues. Recommendation 24 of the IPCRC report is that the trademark assignment provisions be amended to ensure they are not used to circumvent the parallel importation of legitimately trademarked goods. This recommendation was accepted in principle by the government but to date no action has been taken. Again, I would encourage the government to follow through on its own recommendations on these very important matters.
I will conclude on just a few points. Intellectual property rights and arrangements are very important issues as, for many Australian companies, IP is not just their only asset but also their only product. As a nation we have a significant weakness in the commercialisation of Australian ideas and innovation. Intellectual property rights and arrangements, both legal and financial, are a key lever in the pursuit of better commercialisation outcomes and thus by extension an integral feature of the broader innovation debate—a debate the Howard-Costello government has entirely missed. The government in conjunction with the Business Council of Australia more than six years ago convened a national innovation summit. It was to:
... identify the optimal mechanisms to enhance Australia’s competitiveness through innovation.
Despite that, the government is still missing the mark on innovation. Obviously, it is not just Labor that says this. In its recent report New concepts in innovation: the keys to a growing Australia, the Business Council of Australia—a good friend of this government—is most damning of the government. The report reads:
... there is ... a lack of understanding in many policy-making circles about how innovation occurs ... and the policy environment required to allow it to thrive.
According to the BCA, this lack of appreciation means that policy development:
... centres on a narrow understanding of how companies are undertaking innovative activities ... and, as a result, leads to a narrow focus for public policies that attempt to foster innovation within the economy.
This is not surprising when one considers the complacent nature of the government in this area, and I do not say that lightly. After 10 years in government we see very little in incentives, new programs or new and innovative ideas from government that will encourage competition and innovation within Australian business and the economy. It has taken the government nearly seven years to advance its intellectual property reform agenda, incomplete though it may be, and more than 10 years to begin to develop a better understanding of business innovation. According to the ABS’s January 2006 report Patterns of innovation in Australian business:
The paper represents the first consolidated analysis of innovation across Australian businesses ...
The government’s so-called central innovation initiative, Backing Australia’s Ability, was initially developed back in 2001 and was designed to represent:
… a commitment to pursue excellence in research, science and technology through the generation of new ideas; the commercial application of ideas; and developing and retaining skills.
Those are all worthy activities to follow through. These failures notwithstanding, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 is sensible, and it is a long overdue improvement to Australia’s intellectual property regime. It is, however, disappointing that Australia’s innovating companies and our economy have had to wait so long for any substantive action on these issues and with obviously more action needed and more action deserved by Australian business.
Labor now urges the government to finally complete the intellectual property reform process commenced nearly seven years ago. After 10 years of the Howard government, business in Australia still waits for the proper competitive and innovative environment that it deserves and needs if we are to be a globally competitive economy.
152
10:20:00
Cadman, Alan, MP
SD4
Mitchell
LP
1
0
Mr CADMAN
—It is very interesting to hear the Australian Labor Party wax lyrical about innovation and patents and trademarks et cetera. The closest I can remember them ever getting to anything in this area was producing a spaghetti-like diagram that said: ‘That is where our future is going.’ As for dealing with patents or trademarks, I cannot remember one initiative, one piece of legislation—anything—that the Australian Labor Party produced during their term in office to deal with innovation and these issues.
The government has had a number of inquiries, and over a period of time has been acting on those inquiries and the reports it has received. The process has been gradual, admittedly, but it has been safe and sure, with wide consultation. As the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, said, there are still a couple of elements to go, but they are not points to remark on or invoke criticism of. It is a continual evolutionary process, as Australia moves into a competitive global market. Australia is performing extremely well; we are punching well above our weight in all areas.
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 deals with three or four issues. The first is to provide exemplary damages to be awarded in cases of blatant or wilful infringement of a patent to increase the strength of granted patents. This strengthening process, one can say, is a good move. There have been criticisms within the Australian community, particularly amongst software providers, that it is too tough, but I do not believe so. I believe that Australian innovators and creative people need to have their creativity protected by strong patent laws. I think this is a good measure, one that needs to be implemented and one that I am delighted to see the government bring forward.
The second issue dealt with in the bill is to clarify the prior user defence in the Patents Act, which ensures that third parties who had used the invention before the patent was filed are not unduly adversely affected by the grant of a patent. Somebody who may have been working in the back shed and came up with a patent and made announcements of it but did not proceed to the legal processes could find that somebody comes in underneath them and claims it as their patent. The bill provides for a fairer assessment process with the granting of such a patent. There is a very wise and sensible process to ensure that there is fairness and that those who have innovative and creative minds are properly recognised and honoured by receiving the patent.
The third issue is to provide a competition test as an additional ground on which a compulsory licence to use a patent may be granted. That is an interesting provision and one that I will deal with a little later. I should add that other amendments included in the legislation will give effect to the outcomes of the recently concluded trademarks legislation review, but they will allow the Registrar of Trademarks to revoke the registration of trademarks in certain circumstances, providing a quick and inexpensive means of addressing incorrectly registered trademarks. There are a number of other minor amendments.
The bill implements wider springboard provisions. These are provisions that use the subject matter of a patent to collect the data required to obtain regulatory approval of a generic version of a product to which the patent relates during its life. That means getting ready to launch into a generic before a patent has expired. That will mean, on the immediate date of the cessation of the patent, a generic product can be produced. It has been said by elements within the pharmaceutical industry that this is a bit unfair. It is not unfair because Australia, on the day of the cessation of a patent in Australia, can immediately be confronted with generic imports hitting the market on the day that the patent ceases. All this does is allow Australian manufacturers to compete fairly and to be ready to manufacture on the date of cessation of the patent.
I think this is a sensible springboarding approach. It will not damage Australian industry. In fact, it tends to support Australian industry and Australian generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. It does not diminish recompense for the investment and research that has been entered into by drug companies in the development of pharmaceuticals. This is a process that is supportive of Australian industry and one that I believe will be successfully applied. It is the same sort of provision that competing nations, such as the US and the EU, have in place already—this is somewhat similar to their current regulatory processes.
One of the things of interest is the granting of a compulsory licence. It caught my attention because it seeks to redress anticompetitive conduct in the marketplace by using a right of a patent to freeze somebody out or to try to prevent the use of a product. Currently, the rights given to a patent owner do not include the right to behave in an anticompetitive manner that breaches other laws regulating anticompetitive conduct; therefore, the inclusion of a compulsory licence is a remedy. The law does not allow anticompetitive use, but this is an additional remedy that addresses the anticompetitive conduct relating to the patent and it will not weaken the legislative rights of the patent holder. In other places, such as Canada and the US, compulsory licences are available as a remedy to redress a patent owner’s anticompetitive conduct. So the test that covers this situation is where there is a non-working of an invention that has a negative impact on the public interest. But, where this does not relate to a competitive marketplace, a compulsory licence can also be issued in those circumstances.
In this area, we have had some criticism from both sides of the argument. Some have said that this raises the bar too high in allowing competition against patent holders; it just makes the lives of patent holders too difficult. But, on the other hand, the government really does need to address access to information and a product. The government has done this by setting a standard. It has aligned the standards for anticompetitive conduct under the Patents Act with those under the Trade Practices Act. That linking together has not been done elsewhere in the world. Patents legislation stands in its own right in most places, but in Australia we have linked it with the Trade Practices Act. That will make it clearer for patent owners what sort of conduct could give rise to a compulsory licence being granted. I think that innovation will be welcomed, as it is more widely understood.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House some of the wonderful innovation that is occurring in Australia and the patent and trademark processes which may apply to them. In particular, the type of work that I think demonstrates Australian capacity in these areas is contained in the Spatial Interoperability Demonstration Project. This project has been entered into by a range of Australian industry groups, including the Australian Spatial Information Business Association—surveyors, geographers and people like that; the Open Geospatial Consortium; CSIRO Land and Water and its strategy division; Emergency Management of Australia; Geoscience Australia; Aurora Australis; and Shared Land Services, from the WA Department of Land Information. These groups have come together and said, ‘We are using completely different systems of information, and the lack of interoperability of our systems is hampering the development and use of geospatial information.’ So, to cut across the different databases, forms and styles of keeping information, this project has drawn together for the first time anywhere in the world, I believe, the processes of interoperability—that is, the ability to link together spatial data, information and processing tools between different applications, regardless of software and hardware. I think I have used before in the House the example of what might have occurred in the Canberra bushfires had such a system been available at that time.
An example of interoperability in the spatial environment has been adopted by the Bureau of Meteorology. Its web services provide access to spatial data products by actively participating in several interoperability projects and in the development of a live, real-world demonstration of applications that access spatial information on demand. For instance, the bureau’s involvement in the Australian Water Data Infrastructure Project has enabled it to build the required infrastructure utilising existing hardware and open-source software and aligning the system architecture with the existing set-up of web servers. To me, that is a great advance. That is just one example of the way in which Australia needs to be able to move into the era of intellectual property and the protection of it.
I am delighted that the government is moving in these areas. I really value the intellectual strength of the Australian endeavour, and we need to protect it. It does not matter whether it is in the field of music—and that is something we are particularly dealing with today—or in science, medicine, the creation of computer aids or even in something as crucial as weather and geospatial information. I just want to see Australian work protected properly by patents and trademarks that are of world-class standard and that will make sure that the creativity of our people will stand against everyone.
155
10:33:00
Hatton, Michael, MP
LN6
Blaxland
ALP
0
0
Mr HATTON
—The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 is a grab bag of measures covering a series of different areas in intellectual property law. They run to trademarks. They run to the springboarding regime and changes to that in the pharmaceutical area. There is also a series of other changes. If you look at the bill as a whole, you cannot deal with it in terms of any central theme because the changes are cast over a broad area; indeed, significantly different areas in intellectual property. If there is any theme at all—which is not centrally seen in the bill—it is the fact that it has taken a hell of a long time to make these changes.
This government have been in office for 10 years. They have taken seven of those 10 years—fully 70 per cent of that time—to make these changes. It is not as though the government did not have assistance from a number of committees of review which looked at what needed to be done and made very specific recommendations—some of which, many years after, have been taken up in this bill. What have the government been about all this time? The changes here are significant enough to be indicated by the government to be important, particularly their effect on competition in Australia between Australian generics pharmaceutical companies and overseas pharmaceutical companies. This bill changes the balance between those two sectors of the Australian pharmaceutical economy. All 10 of the companies based here argued against the changes in the bill—changes that will have a significant impact on what happens from here. Why has this bill taken so long? You would have to question the thrust of this bill and why the government want to do it.
There are provisions relating to trademarks and all those areas, but I am not interested in them. I want to concentrate specifically on schedule 7 of the bill—schedule 10 also is tangentially associated with this—and on the question of springboarding. What is it? You have to go back and have a look at what our regime is like, and has been like, in the treatment of the innovative production of pharmaceuticals in Australia—how they have been treated previously—how the generics industry has developed in Australia and what effect that has had on the price of pharmaceuticals in Australia.
It has been argued by some that there is an imbalance in Australia between the pharmaceutical companies and the generics companies and that, in fact, those who innovate Australian based international pharmaceutical organisations do not get enough return for their innovation and that the return is too high to generics companies. I say that because the question of the intellectual property of those who innovate here is protected under the basic provisions of the key legislation, which is the Patents Act 1990. What does that give innovative companies? They are granted exclusive rights to make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of their invention for up to 20 years and an exclusive right to manufacture a potential product for sale in Australia or for export.
It was recognised that you needed to make an adjustment for that 20-year period, because it could take five years or so for global companies to do the research and development to start off with and then move into the full approval stages. You cannot just do the work in one country; you cannot take research that has been done in the United States, Singapore or somewhere and just incorporate it in Australia and get a big tick for it. In particular, you cannot do that if you have done the innovative work in Australia—and we have had significant innovative work in pharmaceuticals. The most important developments in that area came, you will not be surprised to hear, from the Hawke-Keating government. This government has made changes to intellectual property rights in this bill and hopes to have them passed. Members of this government, if you listen to the member for Mitchell, even if they were there as backbenchers when the Hawke-Keating government was in play, have diluted the program we had in place.
The program is very simple. It was a major and significant change that boosted Australia’s capacity to support Australian based international pharmaceutical companies to undertake research and development and to massively innovate for the benefit of Australian workers who worked for the pharmaceutical companies and for the benefit of Australia because these companies are paying taxes in Australia. It was for the benefit of Australia because we could build up an Australian capacity to operate here on a national basis and to export regionally and become a regional power in the pharmaceutical area and extend that to a worldwide presence. The government cut that capacity to pieces when it destroyed the factor F program that Labor brought into being. Factor F said, ‘If you really are interested in going out and starting to do full-blown research and development in Australia and then export that product, and if you take up this challenge, we will support you with this program to invest in Australian pharmaceutical companies by giving you a series of tax breaks and so on.’
The effect of that was this. Merck Sharp and Dohme is located in the neighbouring electorate to mine of Reid and has a number of people from my electorate of Blaxland working there. Merck Sharp and Dohme was able to kick off its first major research in Australia directed towards the major export of a product. There was $400 million worth of product exported in a single year. They built that to over $2 billion worth of exports, all on the back of factor F. When this government came to power, they hacked that program to pieces. What did they put in its place? PIP. What was left was just like a small pip in a piece of fruit. What we had in capacity went from a watermelon down to a small, frazzled apricot or peach through the government’s push to have Australia’s pharmaceutical industry innovate product here, make it, have it protected under our intellectual property laws and then push it into the world.
I really do not think this government understands at all the importance of supporting companies that are locally based and doing research and exporting from here. If you think of them just as international pharmaceutical companies, you do not understand the dynamics of the companies themselves. They are competing globally against other elements of their companies. They work regionally. Our great task is to look at this from a different perspective and ask, ‘How can we build a pharmaceutical industry in this country and build the innovators—the overseas and Australian based innovators—into a much more significant exporting industry that supplies not only our needs but those of the region and the world?’ Why shouldn’t we support Australian based international companies to compete from an Australian regional basis with their operations in Belgium, Singapore or the United States? That is what we did with factor F and it had a multifold benefit to the Australian people. It built muscle and capacity within the pharmaceutical industry. That has been stripped away in the government’s 10 years.
What do we have in this bill? We have somebody’s really bright idea that the best thing that you could do to pull down the cost of pharmaceuticals in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is to push forward the generics manufacturers. You could do that by taking the springboarding provisions in this bill. There was a 1998 bill that gave a bit of a run to the pharmaceutical companies and said: ‘Well, you’ve got 20 years protection. We realise that you put the arguments and that it takes up to five years or so before you can actually get your product to market, so we’ll give you an extension. We’ll allow for the period of time it took you to develop the product and effectively give you a full 20 years of protection. At the end of that 20 years, local or overseas generics companies can then come in and produce product. The exclusive use will then be finished and we will get a benefit, where the generics companies can come in and match that product. There would then be a fall in the price of that product.’ That would be a terrific thing.
There would be a fall in price, less impact on our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, a hope for greater competition and so on. But you also have to ask these questions. This is a significant boost to the generics companies. How much innovative capacity is there in local generics companies? Are they actually springboarding? As far as I know, there is not a single generics company in Australia that is doing research and development of its own. They take the IP of another company. The springboarding provisions in schedule 7 and the associated one in schedule 10 allow them to go in early, before the 20 years has expired, to take the intellectual property rights of a company, to access that information and to have the generics prepared so that from day one—that is, as soon as they have finished—they can go.
The arguments that have been made before the committees that have looked at this include that, if you look at our competitor countries, springboarding is available not just on a limited range of pharmaceuticals, as this bill allows for, but on all pharmaceutical products. Those provisions are current in Canada, the United States, the European Union and Singapore. That is four of the five or so with those provisions.
Australia faces a massive competitive problem with Singapore. Singapore have determined to become the pharmaceutical hub for the Asia-Pacific. They have decided to do that. And once they have decided to do something, they go ahead and do it and they do it in a world-class way. They have determined that they will build a pharmaceutical industry in Singapore that will match and beat us and will match and beat anyone else in the world. And they will back it to make sure that it provides returns for the Singaporean people. What is the effect of this bill on this? If you look at the Bills Digest and at the evidence given before the Ergas committee and others, you will see that the effect is that the pharmaceutical companies that are here in Australia will probably litigate to try to protect themselves and to try to stop the generics companies from having a benefit from the use of their IP. They do not like the provisions of this bill, and they might do that.
There is another thing that these companies might do. They might say, ‘Let’s have a look at the landscape in Australia. Let’s have a look at the factor F program.’ Its destruction and replacement by the minor PIIP program has made it harder for big pharma to operate in Australia and to build capacity here and then to export drugs to that world market. It has made it harder for them to regionally compete with the other elements of their companies, and they may be getting the big message that they might not be wanted as much here as elsewhere.
This bill resets the balance in Australia between the generics companies and the innovators. We could all wish that the innovation was always Australian. We have significant Australian innovators that have become world forces because of the products they have developed—against most of Australia’s history, because in fact they have gone out and commercialised those products effectively.
We can think of a product in the flu area that is not being supported by this government. We face a profound problem in the form of an international flu epidemic. This government has decided that it will put its money into building up stocks of Tamiflu rather than building up stocks of the Australian Relenza, which is a brilliant product to try to stop major flu outbreaks. That product was developed by a company that did the R&D, innovated, built itself and realised that it had to go worldwide in order to make it. It is an entirely brilliant product. Is it supported by this Australian government? The answer is no. They do not understand the effectiveness and capacity of Relenza. They do not understand that you can build up stocks of Tamiflu but there will not be enough and it will only operate for a maximum period of three months or so, when you need six months coverage. They will not support that local innovation; they would rather import that.
With this bill the government have effectively said, ‘What we are most concerned about is those companies that do not innovate and with changing the intellectual property regime to reset the balance to try to lower the cost because, if you are producing generics, you can not only produce them here but you can flog them overseas.’ We might be able to flog those generics, but we will do so in strict competition with countries that are supporting their industries—some far more than others. So there is a real problem here. There is a real problem here with the lack of understanding of the dynamics. There is a problem if you take a simplistic approach to this area. You can say, ‘These are Australian companies producing drugs: we want them to produce here, we want to lower our costs here and we want them to flog the stuff overseas.’
What happens if the major investments of overseas farmer companies in Australia either dry up or cease—if those companies decide, because of the environment that exists in Australia, where innovation is not being properly rewarded, to relocate to Singapore, because the Singaporeans give them a better deal? We have seen this before; we have seen it in Malaysia and elsewhere. But the capacity of the Singaporeans to design and then implement a grand scheme has been demonstrated time and again in a whole range of different industries. They can take the great advantage we have got here and just strip it away from us. We will then have another major set of Australian producers—locally based, using locally based employees and researchers—who can be gone within a wink. If you think that that is stretching it too much, I ask you where Ericsson’s R&D centre is now. I will tell you where it is not: it is not in Australia. The most significant R&D centre that we have seen in the telecommunications area, with in the order of 300 researchers, just up and closed overnight. They moved back offshore. They moved back home. We can lose it—we can lose the local advantage. We can just have a narrow focus with regard to this.
What if the government had been properly apprised of what the potential is here—and you would have to expect that they should have been—and if they had listened to evidence given to the Ergas committee or they had listened to what had been said by Australian based industry generally? Certainly they listened to the generics and they said, ‘This is a wonderful thing and you should go with it.’ But what did Paul Jones in the patents and trademarks practice at Freehills say about the changes? They may make innovative pharmaceutical companies more willing to litigate to protect their market share. He sums it up:
Clearly this new provision favours generic companies over innovators. The springboarding amendment will raise the stakes for innovators with generic pharmaceutical products likely to be on the market sooner after patent expiry and in greater numbers. Consequently, innovators may be more willing to litigate to protect their market share.
As I have argued, they can not just litigate; they can go or they can wind back what they are doing here. The normal approach that Australians would have to overseas companies and to major multinationals over the whole length of our history is: (1) to be fearful of them; (2) to think that they are just here to grab everything they can get; or (3) to think that they may be part of some grand conspiracy to rip us off. All companies go after profits. All companies seek to maximise their position. All companies need to be constrained by government regulation. All companies cannot get ambit claims that they put up and cannot win all that they might want to win.
But this is a major 21st century industry. The government says it is on about innovation, but it has not backed Australia’s ability. It has had the report, but the recommendations in the report are not in this bill. Instead of that, it has actually gone backwards and said: ‘We’ll take the normal sort of nationalistic approach. We’ll just think of Australian based generics. We’ll just think of how we can pull that amount we might be paying down here—how we can sort of mix it with the overseas companies producing generics.’ It has not supported Australian based pharmaceutical companies. It does not understand the capacity to have great wins for Australia by taking the right approach. We need to be really careful of what is happening here.
159
10:53:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—Intellectual property rights are the gold of the future. Intellectual property rights are the hope of the future. Intellectual property rights are the power of the future. I think it is very important that we recognise that and enshrine that within legislation. I think it is very important that the government is highly mindful of the importance of intellectual property rights and, in doing so, places the importance on them that is needed and deserved.
When I hear that it has taken seven years to develop this legislation, I shudder, because that means it has taken seven years for the government to get its act together and legislate in an area that is about Australia’s future. It is about our position within the global market. The government, through being lazy and failing to act when it needed to act, has jeopardised the development of innovation within Australia. It has also affected our ability as a nation to compete. Protecting intellectual property rights is all about competition and innovation, and without proper protection you will find that companies do not make the investment that they need to. Intellectual property rights are of vital importance to Australia’s future.
The legislation we have before us today, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006, broadens the springboarding regime for pharmaceutical patents, clarifies the rights of a prior user in the granting of patents, adds a competition test to the compulsory licensing of patents, allows for exemplary and punitive damages to be awarded in patent infringement actions, amends provisions relating to the revocation of trademarks and public access to trademark files and makes minor and technical amendments to the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003 and the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994.
At this stage, I would like to comment about plant breeders rights and the importance of ensuring that we get it right. People sometimes forget the importance of plant breeders rights, but the rights that companies like Aventis and Yates have had to particular intellectual properties in relation to plants have been very significant. They have had an impact in Third World countries and can be used to manipulate the market and the supply of certain foods and certain plants, which can have wider ramifications than might be envisaged. Whilst that does not come under this legislation, I think it is a really good example of the importance of intellectual property rights—how they can be used in an anticompetitive way to manipulate situations and in a way that is not for the general good.
I will come back to the legislation. This bill gives effect to some of the outstanding aspects of the government’s response to the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee report Review of the intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement and Review of the enforcement of industrial property rights. The bill is divided into 16 schedules and amends the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987. The bill is quite technical in nature and amends a number of schedules.
Like previous speakers, I would like to turn to schedule 7, which deals with springboarding and patents. It allows for springboarding as an exception to patent infringement on any pharmaceutical patent—redefined to encompass both product and process patents—at any time for purposes solely in connection with gaining regulatory approval of a pharmaceutical product in Australia or another territory. ‘Springboarding’ refers to using the subject matter of a patent to collect data required to obtain regulatory approval of a generic version of the patent product, when the patent is selling first.
When we were debating the free trade agreement in this parliament, I expressed some concerns about how that would impinge on patents. I know that the US wanted a much more liberal system on patents on pharmaceuticals, and I always have concerns about patents and drug companies’ ability to manipulate those patents. We have heard that there is currently the ability for a five-year extension on patents, given that the patent runs for 20 years, and there is a lead-up time so that that five years extension is granted. My understanding is that the US would have liked a much longer period of extension of the patent.
Pharmaceutical companies have been known to make minor changes to drugs by just adding an extra component—the drug is basically the same—and then they can renew their patent. I think that we need to monitor the area of pharmaceuticals very closely in relation to patents. Given that the development of drugs does take a long period of time, patents are needed. It is once again a very good example of how investing in research and development leads to products that are very beneficial. The ownership of those intellectual property rights is essential for the development of those properties, but we have to be very careful that there is no exploitation within the process.
Further, on the issues surrounding springboarding: as I was mentioning, the limited provisions in the Patents Act 1990 allow generic manufacturers to collect information required to obtain regulatory approval for a patent during the patent period. The springboarding provision was intended to allow earlier regulatory approval for generic pharmaceuticals and faster market entry upon the patent expiry and to prevent originating drug companies from receiving further de facto extensions of patents, which, as you can gather from what I have already said, I believe is imperative.
Current springboarding provisions only allow springboarding on patents that have been extended after the extension has been granted. Patent term extensions of up to five years are available, as often new drugs, unlike other technologies, require that time and effort that I was talking about—the time to not only develop the drug but get it listed. The member for Banks this morning made a member’s statement about Herceptin, a drug that many of us have fought to have listed on the PBS, but it has taken time, and that time is reflected in the need for the extension of the patent. The points that I wanted to make related to pharmaceutical patents, and I needed to just place on record my words of caution on plant breeders rights.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasise the importance of intellectual property rights. Often they are the only asset and product of a company; that is what their existence is about. Their legal and financial extension is important in relation to the broader innovation debate. I think innovation is very important to us as a nation. It is very important for research and development. I would encourage the government to expand their research and development because I see that as the way of the future. There is little incentive under this government for new ideas and innovation.
This government have been very tardy in the development of this legislation. Seven years is far too long when it comes to something as important as intellectual property rights. For that I think they stand condemned. I also believe that they need to be a lot more active in encouraging companies in the area of research and development.
161
11:06:00
Murphy, John, MP
83D
Lowe
ALP
0
0
Mr MURPHY
—The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 proposes many long overdue amendments. The shake-up of intellectual property laws, most noticeably within the Patents Act 1990, gives legislative effect to several outstanding recommendations from the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee’s report Review of the intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement, as well as recommendations from a report by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, Review of enforcement of industrial property rights. It is remarkable that one of the most dynamic fields of law, where the strength, clarity and certainty of its provisions are of utmost importance to both commercial and private entities, has only just seen the necessary strength, clarity and certainty provided to several of its elements.
It is true that this bill does make some amendments to intellectual property laws that may not seem pioneering in the minds of many. Providing the Register of Trade Marks with the power to revoke the registration of a trademark where there has been an administrative oversight or error is a case in point. It is also true that the bill makes a number of minor amendments to the Patents Act 1990, the Trade Marks Act 1995, the Designs Act 2003, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987, many of which may slip under the radar.
However, this bill does not simply address trivial niceties. The bill also proposes highly relevant and substantive provisions, including: new grounds upon which a compulsory licence for patents may be ordered; punitive or exemplary damages to be awarded by a court in patent infringement actions; greater clarity and much-needed certainty for the infringement exemption for prior use rights on a patent; and a broader patent infringement exemption for springboarding.
These are not ancillary provisions which make minor or administrative changes to correct some technical errors. They are essential tools in ensuring the numerous intellectual property acts function as intended. While I give the government credit for making amendments which are both sensible and in the public interest, the amendments ought to have been made years ago, as the member for Shortland just stated. The Review of the intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement and Review of enforcement of industrial property rights were handed down in September 2000 and March 1999, respectively. Some of the changes before us today should not have taken seven years to come to fruition.
In any event, I am pleased to finally have an opportunity to speak more specifically on those substantive amendments which I have just mentioned. I will begin with the amendments to the prior use exemption found in section 119 of the Patents Act. It is well understood that the public policy founding the grant of a patent is to encourage the advancement of the innovation process and to grant the public the details and benefits of those innovations by providing the patentees with a right to a limited monopoly over the innovation so as to enable it to be exploited for profit. However, there may often be a need to protect the legitimate interests of third parties who are compromised by the grant of a patent, thereby necessitating exemptions from patent infringements.
It would not be fanciful to imagine cases where these third parties have invested substantially in a product and have kept their research and investment secret for understandable commercial reasons. These parties may not have applied for patent protection for the new product because a large proportion of the patent term would be wasted before the product could reach the market. These parties face every chance that they would be gazumped by a competitor who patents the same or a similar product. Such a scenario would unjustifiably prevent this third party from continuing with the development of the product and they would not be able to recoup the extensive costs of the research and development.
The current provisions in section 119 of the Patents Act are intended to protect such interests by permitting someone to continue using a process or making a product where they were doing so, or were about to do so, at the time a patent application was lodged by someone else—if that prior use was not publicly known. Given the ambiguity in the text of the provisions dealing with prior uses, concerns have, as expected, been raised over the clarity, scope and usefulness of the section 119 defence to patent infringement. Indeed, the review of intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement heard from a number of parties who had invested considerable amounts of money into inventions over a long period of time but did not feel adequately protected. Three specific concerns have previously been raised about the prior use defence: (1) whether the defence only operates in relation to the making of a product or the use of a product; (2) whether the defence was available if the prior use occurred overseas and not in Australia; and (3) whether the benefit that may come from the defence may be assigned or licensed.
I am pleased that this bill addresses those concerns by repealing the existing provisions and providing, firstly, that the prior use defence is not merely limited to the making of a product or use of a process. Prior use can also encompass all other acts that may constitute an infringement of a patent, including selling, hiring or otherwise disposing of a product or process. This will provide parties engaged in research and development with much greater confidence that the benefit of their work will not be lost if another party applies to patent an invention before them. This can only provide an incentive for further research and development in Australia, which is naturally a good thing, because an organisation will continue to have the benefits of being able to profit from its work, even where another party has patented the same item or process. We should all be supportive of any proposal that seeks to stimulate further innovation in Australia, which of course is one of the cornerstones of the Patents Act. Secondly, the defence will only be available where the prior use has occurred in Australia. Again, this amendment will serve to protect research and development completed in Australia by ensuring that patents which are subsequently granted are not impaired by earlier work completed overseas, often in obscure jurisdictions. Thirdly, a prior user is able to assign but not license his or her prior use rights. Given that it is common in Australia for the commercial exploitation of products to be carried out by parties separate from those who completed the research and development, this amendment is necessary if the prior use defence is to have any value for many third parties.
In my view, these amendments effectively balance with clarity and certainty the rights of third parties against the right of patentees. Australia is now able to provide parties engaged in research activities with a clear and defined right to develop their inventions and to commercialise those outcomes without major equivocation. This amendment will ensure that people or organisations who have developed an invention that has not gone public and that is not patented will continue to have a right to exploit the invention, even where a subsequent patent has been granted for the same invention.
Given the complexity of technology, the substantial investment that must go into research, and the long lead time to develop an invention, I am appalled that third party rights have been left exposed for so long by the government. This is particularly so given that it was on notice as to the current flaws in the Patents Act.
While concerns may be raised that the amendments come at the expense of the monopoly rights enjoyed by patentees and undermine the inherent value of holding a patent, it would be prudent to be mindful of comments made by the report, Review of intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement. I note that the review rightly concluded that intellectual property laws and competition policy are ‘largely complementary’ on the basis that the former promote innovation, ‘which is a key form of competition’.
Given that the community’s interest in competitive markets needs to be protected by preventing abuses of intellectual property rights, I am pleased that this bill provides for strengthened enforcement remedies under the Patents Act. The amendments will add section 122(1A) into the Patents Act, which will allow courts to include an additional amount in any assessment of damages for infringement of a patent if it considers it appropriate to do so in the light of the flagrancy of the infringement, the need to deter similar patent infringement, the conduct of the infringer after notification of a patent infringement, any benefit to the infringer and all other relevant matters. This will fortify the exclusive monopoly rights available under intellectual property law for patent holders against those without a legitimate defence to patent infringement.
That said, the Review of intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement also questioned:
… whether exclusive rights available under intellectual property laws need to be reined in because they go beyond what is needed ‘to encourage an efficient level of investment in creative effort …
As I have stated before, it is my belief that the amendments to the ‘prior uses’ section of the Patents Act—which may be said to rein in the exclusive rights of patent holders—will not only continue to promote investment in creative effort, particularly given the substantive protections offered to an even wider variety of research and development conducted in Australia, but also simultaneously promote the goals of competition policy.
This much is clear: sufficiently protecting ‘prior uses’ and allowing investors to exploit their investment in an invention, despite a subsequent patent already being granted to another party for the same invention, will only increase competition in the market for that product. It does not take an economist to realise that, in the long run, consumers could potentially be the beneficiaries of more products being available at lower prices.
This argument could equally be applied to the third substantive amendment in this bill, to which I wish to speak—the compulsory licensing of patents. It is true that a granted patent contains a corollary right not to exploit the invention and a general right to exclude others from exploiting the patent. Though a patentee may choose not to exploit the right for legitimate reasons, such as a lack of resources, there may be occasions where the failure to do so could be contrary to the public interest.
Section 133 of the Patents Act currently allows a court to order a patentee to grant a non-exclusive licence to a third party if it is satisfied that the reasonable requirements of the public, with respect to the patented invention, have not been met and the patentee has not given a satisfactory explanation for its failure to exploit the invention. I note that the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee observed that the current provisions which grant these compulsory licences are outdated, poorly aligned to achieve their purpose and deficient. I wholeheartedly support the government’s proposal to incorporate a competition test as one of the grounds on which a compulsory licence can be granted. This will have the effect of allowing a court to grant a compulsory licence if the patentee is in contravention of part IV of the Trade Practices Act because of its anticompetitive conduct.
I am aware of dissenting views on this particular amendment and note that the Law Council of Australia in its submission to the review of intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement cited the 1997 Canadian case of Director of Investigation and Research versus Warner Music Canada Ltd et al, 78 C.P.R. 3d 321:1997, which observed that:
... refusal to licence their trade marks falls squarely within their prerogative. Inherent in the very nature of the right to licence a trade mark is the right for the owner of the trade mark to determine whether or not and to whom to grant a licence ...
What is inescapable, however—and this should not be ignored—is the potential for rights granted by intellectual property laws to be used illegitimately for anticompetitive ends. These ends are completely unsatisfactory. They are ends which may impede the early and wide passage of important inventions to the market than otherwise would be the case. These anticompetitive actions are unrelated to and go beyond the extent of granted patent right. This amendment to the compulsory licensing of patents regime strikes a more appropriate balance between the interests of the general public and patent owners.
While I understand why the Law Council would approach this particular amendment with some trepidation, it is important to note that the interests of patentees are adequately protected by existing provisions. These provisions allow patentees an opportunity to provide a satisfactory reason for failing to exploit their inventions. Furthermore, should compulsory licences be granted by a court, a patentee will (1) have access to an agreed court determined payment and (2) maintain rights under the Patents Act which prohibit any other infringement of their patent, including if the compulsory licensee uses the invention outside the terms of the licence.
In concluding, while I am supportive of the spirit and text of the amendments contained within the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill, I remain somewhat disappointed that they have only just come before the House, as I and other speakers have said. That said, the amendments in the bill are sensible improvements to Australia’s intellectual property regime. They are amendments which effectively balance intellectual property policy and competition policy while being attentive to the private interests of intellectual property rights holders and the wider public interest.
165
11:22:00
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
0
0
Mr GARRETT
—Following on from the contributions made by my colleagues, including the member for Lowe, in this debate on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006, I want to begin by noting that these amendments are very much overdue and that the reform process that has been undertaken in relation to copyright has been pretty stilted. Copyright has an importance which not only goes to the heart of the authorship of works inasmuch as all creative artists and authors of works have copyright on the material and the work that they create but also extends to patents in the material that inventors, individuals and companies and others develop over time.
As we move into a digital age where most material, particularly knowledge and information, will be transmitted by the internet, where the digital economy will become increasingly important and where there is the necessity for us to have clarity for those communities, those companies and those individuals who are participating in the digital economy, the need for a framework for the conduct of their activities within the digital economy becomes much more urgent. So the need for this government to move in a much more speedy and expeditious manner to deal with the many complexities in terms of considering copyright review and copyright generally is self-evident, I think.
We need a discussion about copyright into the longer term. I invite the government to consider that the next phase of its copyright review process in broad policy terms is the need to have a much more open discussion about the nature of copyright and how copyright will be asserted, regulated, protected and exploited in the digital age. I am not sure whether the House would be aware that there is now a significant discussion being undertaken in other jurisdictions, particularly in Europe, around the notion of what is called a creative commons.
LL6
Baldwin, Robert, MP
Mr Baldwin
—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not wishing to consume the honourable member’s time, but this bill has absolutely nothing to do with copyright amendments. This bill is on intellectual property, springboarding and medicines.
10000
Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! I will make that order.
HV4
Garrett, Peter, MP
Mr GARRETT
—I would just make the point that a creative commons is all about intellectual property, the way in which intellectual property is protected and the various means for it. It goes very much to the heart of this legislation that is in front of us, including the fact that this legislation has taken some time to reach us. So I will continue my remarks. There are discussions now on policy considerations, which open up the idea and the notion that there are copyright alternatives altogether. There are a number of creative commons projects under way, including one in the United Kingdom, where those who wish to seek an alternative way of allowing people to use or modify their work—for example, to maximise the exposure of their work to increase distribution or to use innovative business models rather than fully-fledged copyrights to secure a return on their investments—are looking at an alternative to the existing framework. This is very much something that the Attorney-General and the government should be looking to.
In particular, a creative commons offers the opportunity for a set of free public licences which could withstand court scrutiny and where the language is simple enough for nonlawyers and nonparliamentarians to understand but sophisticated enough to be identified by various web applications. In the whole of the copyright debate, those people who are working in the pioneer and path-taking areas of digital art, digital culture and digital business are very interested to see whether the debate and the policy considerations are going to go in this direction. On that basis, I will make this additional comment. If you want to offer the creators of intellectual work a set of copyright licences that, in some senses, are freed from the constrictors of existing legislation but do not impact upon the rights of those people who hold copyright in the work they create then a licence along the lines suggested in the debate on a creative commons would be particularly useful for the government to consider.
The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 incorporates a number of aspects of intellectual property and implements the government’s response to the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee’s report Review of intellectual property legislation under the competition principles agreement and the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property’s Review of enforcement of industrial property rights. The Intellectual Property and Competition Review report, which is commonly known as the Ergas report, focused on Australia’s intellectual property laws. It did that in the light of the competition principles agreement, which forms part of the compendium of National Competition Policy agreements. It is in that context that we are debating and considering the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill.
In April 1995, all Australian governments reached agreement on a national competition policy. That came on the back of the microeconomic reforms that were initiated by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments in the 1980s and the early 1990s. The review of enforcement of industrial property rights recommended that a number of issues, including public education of intellectual property, enforcement issues and legal uncertainty in the field, needed to be addressed. On the question of public education, I have to say that there is a very strong need—an urgent need, in fact—for the government to increase the amount of public education in the area of intellectual property. To be fair, I do not think this area is well understood by the public. However, increasingly as people create and produce work online, in particular, their understanding of copyright will need to be made much more comprehensive, and the government has an important role to play there. The report stated that the main objective is to provide a cost effective patent system that reduces the incidence of infringement and gives greater certainty to patent owners and licensees enforcing their patent rights without damaging the public interest. I think there is absolutely no doubt that that is an important and very necessary public policy goal.
This legislation broadens the springboarding regime for pharmaceutical patents and it clarifies the rights of a prior user in the granting of patents—and that is important and necessary. In addition, because it came on the back of the COAG reforms, it adopts a competition test for the compulsory licensing of patents. It also amends provisions relating to the revocation of trademarks and public access to trademark files. Additionally, it makes minor and technical amendments to the Patents Act.
Labor understands that this is worthy and sensible legislation. Comments have been made in the House that it has been too slow in coming. But, importantly, by giving effect to the government’s response to the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee report, there will now be some certainty for those parties who have been waiting for the government to act on this issue.
The bill is divided into 16 schedules. It amends the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Design Act, the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act and the Olympic Insignia Protection Act. Schedule 1, which revokes registration of trademarks, proposes to amend the Trade Marks Act to allow the Registrar of Trademarks to revoke the registration of a trademark where there has been an administrative oversight or error. There are a number of other schedules of this order that are very much in the manner of tidying up and ensuring more efficacy in the legislation.
Schedule 2—the non-payment of fees relating to trademarks—sets out fee payment requirements and brings the fee payment provisions of the Trade Marks Act into line with those of the Patents Act and the Designs Act. Schedule 3—the registration process for certification of trademarks under the Trade Marks Act 1995—changes the administrative aspects of how applications for certifications are processed and affect the internal workings of the Trademarks Office and the ACCC. There are a number of other schedules of some importance. Schedule 6—the exemption of continued prior use—clarifies the prior use right, which the member for Lowe spoke about previously. To this extent, the clarification is valid only in Australia and extends to the exploitation—that is, the sale—of the product and it can be assigned and not licensed.
Schedule 7—springboarding and patents of the Patents Acts 1990—allows springboarding and its exemption to patent infringement on any pharmaceutical patent at any time but only for purposes in connection with gaining regulatory approval. This is consistent with FTA obligations. The schedule provides that generic medicines can only be exported if the term of the patent has been extended. It is pretty important, given the debate that has surrounded generic medicines, that these forms of clarification under the schedules are included in this bill.
Additionally, schedule 8—compulsory licensing of patents—proposes to include a competition test, whereby a patent may be compulsorily licensed if a person has been found guilty of anticompetitive conduct under part IV of the Trade Practices Act. Schedule 9 clarifies that the claims of an innovation patent define the intention. Schedule 10 proposes that a divisional application from a granted innovation patent may only be made in accordance with the regulations and during the life of the first innovation patent. Schedules 11 and 12 as set out similarly contain measures which would make for more efficacy in relation to this legislation. Schedule 14—approving forms: Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994—provides that approved forms under the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act no longer stand as legislative instruments for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act as they are essentially of an administrative rather than a legislative nature. I do not propose to speak in any more detail on the strength of these schedules, other than to note that all of them are necessary and to say that they will make this legislation more effective.
On the question of copyright review and copyright reform more generally, I want to draw to the attention of the House that, as this review process has been undergone and reflected in the legislation we have before us, there are additional aspects of the review process, including those that relate to intellectual property, that the government needs to be mindful of. In particular, I note the recommendation in the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee’s report that there be an amendment of the Copyright Act to remove special provisions which provide for the government rather than individual creators to be the first owners of copyright material created or first published under its direction or control.
What tends to happen is that the creator of material, where the government itself has been the contracting party, loses their copyright in the material and the government, in effect, takes it. Evidence was given only yesterday, at a hearing of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Affairs, of Aboriginal artists, authors and writers who find themselves in this situation, whereby they are in receipt of grants or they are producing material which the government has contracted for them but, as a consequence of producing that material, they lose the capacity for their copyright. That is important in the light of this debate because governments ought to be providing legislation which enables individuals who create work to be able to properly, prudently and legally exploit their work. So their rights in terms of creating work should not be reduced. Their rights should actually be asserted. And that is an important function of what governments do in relation to legislation of this kind.
Additionally, I draw attention to the proposals that the government has afoot about copyright reform—and I think particularly of something like moral rights and communal rights. It may be said that these rights are of a vaguer nature and are not necessarily as easy to legislate for, and I think there is some truth in that. When former Democrats senator, Senator Ridgeway, wanted the parliament and the government to give more attention to the question of communal rights, particularly for Indigenous communities, I must admit the question was raised in my mind as to how easy that would be under the existing legislative framework and in fact under the one that is included essentially in what we are discussing here today in the House.
If we open up our minds in policy terms to what the creation of work is about and how those people who create work can be confident that they have some protection over it, whether it is through a specific legal instrument, such as a bill and copyright, or whether it is through a consideration by the government of additional sorts of rights—either those which might come by way of considering creative commons or essentially expanding on and making a bigger frame, in effect, for moral rights and communal rights to exist—then I think there would be some confidence that we would know the direction in which the government is going in its consideration of issues like patenting, copyright and intellectual property.
The report by the Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, Pathways to technological innovation, examined the need for an effective intellectual property regime in order to encourage innovation. Recommendation 9 stated that:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review Intellectual Property legislation according to the National Competition Policy Agreements and establish an Intellectual Property legislation system of periodic re-review.
There is provision in the bill before us for review of some of the schedules that I have identified. But the bigger issue, of reviewing intellectual property and intellectual copyright in the longer term, is a critical one for this government.
Australia hitherto has relied on the very generous provision of natural resources and the natural advantages that we have to exploit those resources, but in the 21st century we will be increasingly required to rely on our innovation and our intellectual resources, and our intellectual resources have become embodied in intellectual property, in the intellectual property of the country and in our capacity to export that intellectual property to other parts of the world. I am particularly keen to see that the government’s digital action agenda plan comes before us, and we know what Senator Coonan has in mind with regard to that policy. I am particularly keen to see that, in our consideration of innovation, we recognise how important intellectual property actually is.
Unless and until we significantly increase the capacity not only to generate intellectual property but also to export it into international trading frameworks and domains, we are going to be the lesser for it. The amounts of money generally involved not only in patents, which are important, but, more importantly, in intellectual property and intellectual property export over time are very large. This is not a small beer economy; this is an economic area which has the potential to earn this country great amounts of foreign income. But at the moment we run trade deficits on cultural goods and in the digital area in terms of digital content. The government needs to harness in a much more vigorous and robust way the intellectual abilities and talents of young Australians and those working in the new areas of the digital economy by not only developing better, more effective and more transparent regulatory frameworks in the copyright and patents domains but by giving consideration to the kind of environment in which intellectual innovation is going to operate in the longer term, in particular whether we ought to consider something as open-ended as open source software. But in this case a creative commons for copyright consideration— (Time expired)
169
11:42:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
1
0
Mr BALDWIN
—in reply—In summing up the second reading debate on the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006, I would like to thank all of the members who have contributed to this debate, in particular the members for Oxley, Mitchell, Blaxland, Shortland, Lowe and Kingsford-Smith. There were a number of points raised, particularly by members of the opposition, about the length of time the government has taken to introduce this bill. The thing to note is that the key recommendations of the IPCRC report were enacted in 2001 by the Patents Amendment Act 2001. These changes to the patents legislation have operated effectively for some years now, and this bill implements the majority of the residual recommendations.
Implementation of these recommendations was delayed by negotiation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement and by other competing government priorities. The government has not been able to implement all of the recommendations at this stage. This is because of other urgent government priorities that have arisen and also because of recommendations from some other recent reports into the Australian IP system that will affect the implementation of these recommendations. Outstanding recommendations are on the government’s legislative program and will be implemented in the near future.
This omnibus bill amends several pieces of intellectual property legislation. Many of the amendments are of a minor or technical nature and some of the more significant amendments implement recommendations of two reports into the intellectual property system. One of these, by the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, considered the balance between Australia’s intellectual property and competition policy. The other, by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, considered issues relating to the enforcement of patents rights. However, the most significant amendment made by the bill is to the pharmaceuticals springboarding provisions of the Patents Act. I note that the opposition, as mentioned by the member for Oxley, is supporting the bill and referring it to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. We welcome the committee’s review of this bill; as soon as they review it they will understand its benefits to Australia.
The amendments we are putting forward will enable generic companies to undertake more generic medicine research and development in Australia and remove disincentives for undertaking those activities that currently exist. The term ‘springboarding’ refers to the research and development of a generic pharmaceutical that a manufacturer needs to undertake in order to obtain regulatory approval for a generic version of a patented drug. The springboarding exemption allows generic manufacturers to undertake research and development during the term of a patent that would normally constitute an infringement of the patent, provided the work is limited to obtaining the regulatory approval.
It was quite rightly said by the member for Mitchell that this bill will allow Australian generic manufacturers to compete fairly with overseas countries. For too long Australian generic medicine manufacturers have been disadvantaged by the fact that overseas countries and their intellectual property laws have placed them in the position that when the patent runs out they are able to hit the marketplace in Australia within a very short period of time, whereas Australian companies are delayed.
The generic medicine industry is important to Australia. It employs around 3,000 people and is estimated to make up around 33 per cent of Australia’s $2.8 billion pharmaceutical export trade. There are eight generic medicine companies currently operating in Australia, and three main companies currently doing generic research and development: Alphapharm, Mayne Pharma and Arrow Laboratories. All three companies have made significant investments in Australia in recent years. It is estimated that combined they spend around $36 million a year on generics research and development.
The Patents Act currently allows generic medicine companies to springboard off patents for some pharmaceutical substances; however, springboarding is only available for a narrow class of patents that relate to pharmaceutical substances, and is only possible after the term of the patent has been extended. Other countries, such as Europe, the US and New Zealand, have more generous springboarding provisions in their patents legislation than Australia has at present. This has the potential to provide a powerful economic incentive for Australian based generics companies to conduct their generics research and development, and subsequent manufacturing, overseas rather than in Australia.
To prevent Australia losing generic drug development work overseas it is important that Australia introduce comparable springboarding provisions. During the debate the member for Banks criticised the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 for tipping the balance between the big pharmaceutical industries and the generics industries too far in favour of the generics industries. What that does is allow the generics industries to be competitive, and in a more rapid time frame, than those companies from overseas that would bring generic product to Australia.
The amendments that the bill proposes to make to the springboarding provisions of the Patents Act achieve all that I have mentioned. Other markets, such as Europe, are introducing more generous springboarding provisions. As that happens, Australia will continue to lose generics drug development work overseas unless it introduces similar provisions. With the development work happening offshore there is a high chance that manufacturing will also be done offshore, so Australia could lose its manufacturing work overseas as well. I thought that the members of the Labor Party that supported jobs in Australia, rather than attacking the provisions of this bill, would be asking for it to be expedited so that jobs can be created.
With these provisions there will be scope for companies in Australia to do research and development work not only for the Australian market but also, importantly, for the export market. In this way, the Australian industry can benefit from the large number of patent expiries due in the coming years. Australian generic companies have come out strongly in support of these provisions. In fact, John Montgomery, the chair of the Generics Medicine Industry Association, has said that the widening of the springboarding provisions enables local industries to compete more fairly with overseas players.
Australian generics companies are making decisions now about the work they can do in Australia versus the work they will need to undertake overseas. Any delay in the passage of this bill could result in work being lost overseas. In summary, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2006 reflects the government’s commitment to encouraging innovation and providing Australia with a strong intellectual property system that meets the needs of all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
EAST TIMOR
171
Motions
Debate resumed from 19 June, on motion by Mr Beazley:
That the House take note of the statements.
171
11:50:00
Adams, Dick, MP
BV5
Lyons
ALP
0
0
Mr ADAMS
—I would like to add my comments to the debate on the situation in East Timor, particularly as I had the opportunity to visit there during the last deployment of our troops on the first parliamentary delegation from Australia to East Timor. At the time, I was lobbied to have our troops remain for a littler longer under the umbrella of the United Nations.
I do not know why we changed the deployment by scaling down our involvement in East Timor. In fact, I think it was probably the decision of the Australian government that the United Nations brought its engagement and deployment to an end. Now we have a situation much like the Solomons. Australia took a short-term decision mainly, it seems, because of the commitment of troops in another place, some distance from Australia—a place which we really have little interest in except that we were there doing a boasting exercise for the US President.
We have pulled out too early and, as in other areas, that has caused great anguish and worry for the community, particularly as the tools of democracy are still being put into place. There have been a number of divisions in that community, which are still being fixed. We knew that the tensions were still there and that something would happen if support was withdrawn from those who were trying to kick-start the economy and deal with shortages, unemployment and many other problems facing the new nation. This was borne out by the articles run in the press during May, in which many commentators queried Canberra’s level of awareness and preparedness for the eventuality of a breakdown of the government in Dili.
One of my friends is working over in East Timor, and I have been following the day-to-day events through his first-hand view. It worried me that it seems there is little knowledge as to what is really behind this unrest. None of the commentators has really put up a clear answer, and it has been put down to inexperience and lack of accountability. There is a strong feeling of resentment against Prime Minister Alkatiri. Today we have heard that he has been offered an ultimatum to resign because of allegations of violence and recruitment of a death squad. As yet, the allegations are unproven, and they will continue to add to the unrest until resolved. Both the president and other members of the government have asked for further assistance. There is still a need for Australia, along with the UN, to help the young nation move forward. It is important that Australia lends a hand, but through a multinational force under the United Nations.
I agree with some commentators that there is an urgent need to develop more effective internationally or regionally agreed structures of post-conflict reconstruction that entail some form of mentoring arrangements for new independent states. They should include accountability for budgets and the security of external auditors so that we can see how those states are developing, and so they can see for themselves and make their own judgments. We cannot afford to fail again, and nor can East Timor. I do not think we particularly need to send troops. I am not even sure there needs to be armed militia at this stage. We should be training police and bureaucrats to help put the nation on a decent economic footing.
Investment needs to be encouraged to return. A strong government system is also needed to ensure that East Timorese rights are upheld. I note that Tasmania has dispatched 12 police officers for 100 days to help towards the restoration of law and order and assist with training both police and emergency services personnel. Some of them were there six years ago and remember their service fondly.
Australians really do like the East Timorese people and would like to help them gain proper independence. But we cannot be the entire solution, lest we become part of the problem. Removing the UN peacekeepers’ presence, under which Australia had a part, has meant that thousands of people have left their homes, many because their houses have been burnt and ransacked. I understand that some 100,000 people in and around Dili have sought shelter in churches, orphanages and other reasonably secure compounds, while others are just camping out in open grounds and areas.
I would like to put on record the views of someone who has spent a number of years in Dili and who has worked for the UN from time to time, working with the redevelopment of other Third World countries. His view is interesting. He says:
I believe that the East Timor’s government—including much credit due to Alkitiri—has acted strongly in a number of ways in tackling the important issues of human survival and development. Health and education indicators have been improving at a very good rate. Remember the utter vacuum that it inherited. They’ve had just four years so far; Australia and the USA even opposed an extension of the UN Mission after just three years of independence!
Of course the Timorese Government achieved much because of lots of help from others, but so what? The Timorese people suffered because of the silence of lots of others for a much longer period. The Fretilin Government has been committed to development; and any blame for any failure also has to be shared. It sounds like the international community is too ready to take the praise for the successes, but to attribute all the blame to the government.
Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the current leadership has made utterly unacceptable errors in the latest unrest, and are so much a part of the problem they can’t conceivably be part of the solution (although Xanana’s—
that is, the president’s—
likely proposed government of national unity or alternative transitional measures through to next year’s national elections will probably allocate them current leadership roles as a means of bringing the different forces together).
Evidence of the capacity of areas of the government is on show. For example, the continued functioning of the police and health services and schools in the districts where things are calmer, and the roles being played by government in the current humanitarian effort. Of course, there’s been panic among people desperate to get food from the warehouses, but there’s more evidence of civil order in food distribution (I know it’s not great stuff for TV). I watched food distribution in one of the camps yesterday afternoon: piles of boxes of water, piles of sacks of rice, lots of people queued waiting to have their names ticked off a list to be handed their rations. All handled calmly by a couple of people from the main humanitarian relief team, and several designated Timorese guys living in the camp who diligently maintain the lists for the team.
The statements by Tim Costello when he returned to Australia were insulting to many people working in humanitarian relief. Let me describe the situation: an Inter-Agency Humanitarian Assistance Group has been established. It comprises the Timorese government (in a coordinating role, under Labour and Community Reinsertion Minister Arsenio Bano), seven UN agencies (WHO, UNICEF etc), and five international NGOs (Oxfam, Plan International, HealthNet, Red Cross and Care). I’m told World Vision was invited to join the effort.
These various agencies are cooperating in their coverage of food distribution and health and sanitation monitoring across all camps. Apparently World Vision is doing the same. According to Tim Costello on ABC’s Lateline the other night, “There’s only about three or four aid agencies still functioning. The UN’s gone, many other aid agencies, because of the security situation have gone.” I’m not involved in any of this, so I don’t mind saying it has not gone down too well with many people working long hours.
It’s hard to feel sympathetic with his calls for stretched Australian military forces to provide “double cover”. As I said yesterday, the Australian troops are not only securing and protecting loads of essential utilities, and restoring order in the face of violence springing up in all sorts of places, but ensuring safety to the political leadership, UN facilities and officers, and the joint humanitarian efforts in the field (there are lots of camps in Dili).
The important issue here is that there’s an opportunity for international agencies to not repeat the errors of the past. Cooperation is essential. So I see a few vehicles driving around flying their own flags and others wanting to ensure their own “brand recognition” for TV viewers back home. Of course UN agencies have also been under pressure from their head offices to get good footage for impressing potential donors. To their credit, they’re generally focusing on what’s necessary on the ground at present.
Listening to people displaced and impacted by all this is also essential. Sitting and listening to various people in the camp yesterday afternoon was more informative than any UN briefing I’ve been to in the past few days. Groups can’t just come in and start doing their thing or operate in relative isolation from others; this is a lesson which apparently has to be learnt over and over again.
This is one of the positive outcomes I hope arises from the current tragedy. East Timor can be described as a “failed state” in the sense that everyone, in some way, has failed it. Are they going to fail it again? What lessons have the different agencies learnt?
I still hear people in different agencies (UN, international NGOs, etc) talking as if they need to get back to what they were doing before, or do what they were doing but with more resources. Stop! From now on it has to be different. There’s been too much of importing “solutions”, of paternalistic “development”; of wasting donor resources due to inexperienced “advisers” or forgetting to focus on outcomes.
Fortunately, there are now many people in the Timorese Administration who can and must be more assertive about what is needed as East Timor does what it couldn’t do post-1999: to undertake “emergency” and “development” roles side-by-side rather than the latter being viewed as a logical successor to the former. Despite the destruction and current dejection of the national psyche, the foundations for doing so continue to survive. The biggest challenge is to those agencies, UN and others alike, which continue to operate here: how are you going to change this time around? And when the dust settles, it will be more than the Timorese leadership that will have some questions to answer.
This position is not in isolation and I believe we have a responsibility to listen to the views of those on the ground attempting to deal with the chaos rather than the armchair politicians directing operations from afar. Many Australians are going over there to help, we need to make sure they are supported and safe, so whatever is decided by this Government, it should be in the interests first of East Timor and secondly with the safety of all those who are helping out in mind.
174
12:05:00
Griffin, Alan, MP
VU5
Bruce
ALP
0
0
Mr GRIFFIN
—We are here today to discuss the motion with respect to the commitment of troops to East Timor. I need to make it clear that I support this deployment, as does the opposition as a whole. There is no doubt that security in East Timor and our doing all we can as a neighbour to maintain East Timor as a viable state should be a priority for the Australian government and Australian foreign policy. This is therefore a deployment that is supported by both sides of politics on a bipartisan basis.
The recent unfolding events in East Timor are a major concern to all of us. We remember our hope some years ago with the first deployment to East Timor that we would be seeing the birth of a successful new nation, the newest nation in the world, in a situation where it would go forth and prosper. I think we are all filled with disappointment at what has unfolded in recent times, and the looting, the killing, the violence on the streets of Dili and elsewhere in East Timor are a cause of major concern. There is no doubt, first up, that all sides of politics support the need for this deployment.
Also it needs to be stated clearly again, I think: all sides of politics have a tremendous amount of respect for our defence forces—for their professionalism, their capacity and their ability. They will do us proud and they will get the job done as they have done so many times before. There is no doubt that when they have served overseas Australian forces have always served with distinction and have always shown themselves to have a particular capacity, especially in operations like peacekeeping, to achieve the objectives of the operations in a manner which brings credit upon all concerned.
I turn to the question of what is happening now with Operation Astute, as this operation is called, where approximately 2,680 ADF personnel are deployed. I go to the question of the way those forces are being treated in a formal sense by the government and what that means with respect to both recognition for what they are doing and also remuneration and other benefits for what they have been doing or are doing. What is different about East Timor now from East Timor back around 1999 is, I guess, still to be clearly understood. There is certainly an argument that the sorts of circumstances that our forces are facing in East Timor are remarkably similar to the circumstances of the earlier deployment, and therefore you have got to ask yourself why it is not being treated under the various acts as warlike. Back at the time of the original deployment the then Minister for Defence, John Moore, said:
The peace enforcement nature of this mission demands that we recognise the conditions of the deployment and the roles our personnel will perform.
That is why the government has acted to significantly increase the package of allowances compared with other recent deployments.
Certainly at that time there was recognition by government, and I think all concerned, that the nature of the particular circumstances around their deployment in East Timor deserved recognition as warlike. When we go to the question of what we are dealing with now in terms of the unpredictability of the violence around Dili you have got to ask: why not now? And that is an answer which I think the government has not properly been able to come to terms with.
The government’s statements with respect to this issue also raise concerns about the fact that there is no doubt that they have said, and made a point of saying, on the record that they see this as being a dangerous and risky deployment. The Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 25 May said:
It is always a solemn responsibility of any government to place the men and women who defend our country in danger. This is a dangerous mission and a dangerous situation and we must not walk away from the possibility that casualties could be suffered by the forces that will go to East Timor.
The defence minister, again on 25 May in the House, said:
We know that this is going to be a particularly dangerous mission ... the situation in East Timor is very unstable, it is very dangerous and there are also incidents occurring as the day progresses which give no reason to believe that it is likely to improve in the foreseeable future.
The foreign minister, Mr Downer, again on the same day in the House, said:
... the security situation as of last we have heard in Dili is bad. We are very concerned about the security situation on the ground and there are reports of shootings, so there is a good deal of danger there.
In these circumstances it seems to me clear that the government needs to revisit this decision and, certainly, look to the fact that there is a serious issue with regard to the way we treat our forces in East Timor.
On the issue of whether service in Dili should be treated as warlike service, the national president of the Australian Peacekeepers and Peacemakers Veterans Association, Paul Copeland, is on record in the affirmative as saying:
When these troops arrived in East Timor there was no law. I think they should have been on warlike service from the beginning and that could have been reviewed it a little bit later down the track.
When we look to the question of the way this is being treated, we also, I think, have to take into account the views of the families of the service people who are serving—the circumstances and views that they have with respect to this matter. Just to give you some idea of the sorts of concerns it is raising around Defence Force families, I will quote from an article in the Age. When the minister was in Dili and meeting with members of the Defence Force, he was asked a question by one of the soldiers about the classification of ‘warlike’ and whether it would change ‘with the death of one of us’. I think that highlights the fact that, in the mind of any soldier involved in the deployment, there is that awareness of risk. They are concerned about what might happen and the fact that they are dealing in an area where, as I said, even by the admission of the current head of the mission over there, they do not think they will ever get all of the weapons that are out there in the community, and where there is an incredibly dangerous set of situations.
I mentioned the issue of families and their views. An article from the Sunday Herald Sun reads:
One mother of a soldier serving in Dili emailed John Howard direct: “I am writing to express my dismay at the shameful decision you have taken to only pay our army men and women in East Timor a peacekeeper daily pay rate, on what you accurately termed a ‘dangerous mission in a dangerous situation’. For you not to pay them what they are due is an insult, and a bewildering disgrace. They are in danger. Can you now make a public statement otherwise?”
… … …
Another angry family member singled out Dr Nelson. “If you’re carrying around a pack and a machine-gun, then are you not in a warlike situation? ... This man should now know that young people will not join the defence forces to be treated like rubbish and gun fodder by someone whose take-home pay is in the region of $150,000 a year.”
Of course, we know that Dr Nelson’s pay is considerably more than that. This has real implications for members of the Defence Force with respect to what their entitlements are. There is no doubt that it is therefore something that needs to be taken into consideration. When you deal with the armed forces and with veterans, recognition is a very important part of the way they view their service. That is understandable because, when your life is on the line, you need to be in a situation where the serious nature of what you are endeavouring to do for your country is understood.
When we look at some of the pay rates et cetera which relate to this area, there is no doubt that there is a significant financial aspect to this, too. It is one of the issues we have to address as a country. If we do not properly recognise what our defence forces do, we will continue to have difficulty around recruitment and retention of our armed forces. There is no doubt that, when decisions like this are taken—decisions which certainly on the face of it look to be unfair and unjust—it sends a message not only to serving defence people but also to those who might be interested in or considering the question of a career in the armed forces. It sends out a message that is not constructive towards a situation where they would actively consider or maintain that career, and that is something I think the government needs to keep in mind. It has implications for pay rates, as I said earlier. It also has implications from the point of view of medals and recognition, and implications in terms of entitlements as veterans down the track, should they be dealing with a range of difficulties which may well relate to their former service.
So the decision from the minister in this case needs to be looked at. I know it has been defended on the basis of a recommendation from the Chief of the Defence Force. He has also related it back to decisions taken at cabinet level in the previous government. Again, that is just not good enough. Recently the government, quite rightly, reconsidered the question of how they handled the issue of Rwanda and the treatment of Rwanda veterans. That was in response to Labor taking up the issue of Rwandan veterans and the fact that their service in that particular operation was not being treated as warlike. That decision had initially been taken by a Labor government. As I have said on the record, I believe that decision was wrong. I can understand why it was taken at that time, but it needed to be revisited because the full nature of what occurred in the deployment in Rwanda was not properly understood. That led to the issue being revisited, and the government, to their credit, came to the party earlier this year and changed the way that particular operation was treated. I know from talking to Rwandan veterans that that has been very important to them. It is not only a question of money; it is not only a question of recognition. It is a question of trying to get some sort of understanding within the community about what they went through—an understanding for themselves, for their families and friends, and for the broader community.
When we look at what is happening in East Timor compared with the situation in Rwanda, the fact is that we are looking at similar events occurring. The scale of what occurred in Rwanda was certainly horrific; there is no doubt about that. But when we look at some of the incident reports that have come out from East Timor there is no doubt some terrible things have been occurring there too. So the government need to revisit this decision, to look at it again, because they have taken the wrong decision on this occasion. It ought to be reviewed on the specifics of what has occurred in Dili, with proper consideration of what our forces have been facing, and the circumstances they may continue to face into the future. If the decision needs to be reviewed again down the track then it should be, but we should be erring on the side of support for our troops in these circumstances to make sure that they get a fair deal. At a time when we are having trouble holding our Defence Force to the level we require, when we are having trouble recruiting to the force, we need to realise that decisions such as this send signals which are not helpful in maintaining a viable force.
The sort of public comment that has occurred about this also makes it clear that this is not a popular decision by the government and it is something that they need to reconsider. I have had drawn to my attention an article in the Sunday Times by Liam Bartlett headed ‘Obscene twist to blood money’. I will briefly quote from that article and its key points:
So, what’s the difference between Rwanda and East Timor? Dili has seen plenty of machetes on the streets, rebels with guns, refugee camps, looters who like to play with fire, and a high degree of difficulty trying to tell the good guys from the bad.
If anything, the troops in Timor have been granted tougher rules of engagement that their counterparts in Rwanda who had to stand by idly and witness shocking atrocities.
But that only strengthens the argument that East Timor is a volatile scenario that requires armed soldiers to do dangerous work.
… … …
This senior triumvirate of government, by their own admission, sent soldiers to a foreign country that could produce “casualties” and now they want to call it “non-warlike”. Are we really that gullible?
If it was, and is, truly non-warlike, why didn’t these three form a parliamentary delegation and sort it out over a tropical banquet with Messrs Alkitiri, Horta, Gusmao and Reinado?
A Herald-Sun editorial, headed ‘Timor diggers deserve better’, said:
It took a single Digger to shoot down the argument of Defence Minister Brendan Nelson that East Timor service was not “warlike”.
“The classification warlike—would that change with the death of one of us?” the soldier asked the minister.
Dr Nelson left East Timor within a day. But the Diggers must stay to try to quell chaotic attacks by armed gangs as easterners and westerners feud.
The Diggers have confiscated most guns from these gangs, which still carry machetes, as well as disarming most of the split East Timor defence and police forces.
PM John Howard said of our troops, “their lives are on the line” in a “dangerous” operation he compared to 1999—but the Defence Department thinks otherwise.
The bureaucratic decision our 2600 Diggers are not on “warlike” service comes as the UN estimates the number of killings to have been much higher than so far realised.
The UN has a full inquiry into the Alkatiri Government’s role in the atrocity in which 12 surrendering rebel policemen were gunned down.
Our Diggers will receive a tax-free allowance of $78.60 a day compared to $150 in Iraq or Afghanistan.
They must serve overseas for 91 days before their income is tax-free.
But this is more about honour.
Denial of warlike service denies them the Australian Active Service Medal and access to the Gold Card and earlier service pensions when they are older.
This has happened before. About 150 Australian Army trainers are still fighting for just recognition for “warlike service” from when they trained the East Timorese troops from 2001. The Defence Department ordered them to hand back UN honours.
So it is hard not to conclude their successors in East Timor are the next victims of penny-pinching bureaucracy.
No wonder another Digger asked Dr Nelson what was happening with defence force retention problems.
I think that highlights the issues here. The government needs to look at this again. (Time expired)
Debate (on motion by Mr Wakelin) adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
178
Adjournment
Mr WAKELIN
(Grey)
12:20:00
—I move:
That the Main Committee do now adjourn.
Education
178
178
12:21:00
George, Jennie, MP
JH5
Throsby
ALP
0
0
Ms GEORGE
—In my first speech as an elected member of parliament I emphasised the importance of the public education system throughout our nation’s history. It has been an important component in the struggle for a fairer society and for the sustenance of Australia’s democratic system. It was through public schooling that as a nation we sought to provide access for all young people beyond elementary schooling, to make compulsory education free and to provide a curriculum entitlement for all students. Historically, the public education system has played an important role in building the social capital that builds our communities in society. Sir Henry Parkes envisaged public schools as making:
No distinction of faith, asking no question where a child was born, what may be his condition of life, or what the position his parents, but inviting all to sit side by side.
Over the decades the principle that public schools were places where young people from a range of varied backgrounds and experiences could mix and learn to appreciate and respect difference reinforced the idea that public education was in fact a public good. Public schools continued to be microcosms of the communities in which they exist. They provide an important ingredient in learning to live harmoniously in a diverse society. When Prime Minister Howard criticised public schools for being values neutral, he could not have been further from the truth. Rather, the logic of their existence means that they live out such values as fairness, respect and tolerance and, within this framework, encourage students to explore what such values mean in a variety of contexts.
Regrettably, however, the concept of public education as a public good has increasingly come under challenge. As the funding of non-government education by the federal government has increased, so too has the government’s rhetoric emphasising choice and the private benefits of education. The figures tell the story quite clearly. In 1976, 64½ per cent of Commonwealth expenditure on schools went to the government school system, 35.5 per cent to non-government schools. Fast forward three decades later and almost the exact reverse applies. In 2006, of the Commonwealth specific purpose payments for schools, it is now 33 per cent that goes to the government school system and 67 per cent to the non-government sector, and only 26.3 per cent of recurrent funds go to the nearly 70 per cent of students in public schools.
A focus on the notion of choice constructs education as a commodity that is accessed and purchased for individual benefit. The consequences of this philosophy are extremely serious for public education and the public good. It leads ultimately to the residualisation of public education, and public schooling comes to be regarded as a safety net for those who cannot afford private education. You can see the danger in the promotion of individual choice which marginalises the considerable role that public education has played and continues to play in creating a sense of community and in underpinning the values of a democratic society. At the extreme, this philosophy of choice as an individual freedom leads to the dangerous proposition that all schools should be funded as though they are all the same—the no difference theory, as it is described by Professor Alan Reid from the University of South Australia. Radical forms of this no difference theory are promoted by those who advocate the introduction of a voucher system in education. No difference, they say—though nearly 70 per cent of all our students are in public education, which also happens to educate 88 per cent of our Indigenous students and 82 per cent of children with disabilities. And they claim ‘no difference’.
I want to conclude by quoting from a speech made by Professor Reid back in 2003 when he launched the AEU’s public education project. These are his comments on the no difference theory:
By ignoring what constitutes publicness, such a proposal glosses over the fact that education is a major public policy lever which is only effective because there is a substantive public education system through which not only educational changes but also broader social outcomes can be effected.
The supporters of public education in my view must be loud in their condemnation of the no difference theory and bold in their support of the concept of public education as a public good.
Anzac Day
179
179
12:26:00
Gash, Joanna, MP
AK6
Gilmore
LP
1
0
Mrs GASH
—Each year as Anzac Day approaches I encourage the local children to write to me with their Anzac Day stories, and each year I try to read into the Hansard extracts from some of the contributions. In this way, I hope to encourage a greater awareness of why we celebrate Anzac Day the way we do, and what it means to those generations who listen to the tales.
Some of the stories give me a wonderful insight into their thinking, uncontaminated by the ravages of adulthood. Some of the comments are touching, others naive, but all especially unique. Nearly all have gained their insight from books, and I wonder what they could have written if an adult or some old digger had sat down with them and told them their own story. What would they have said? What would they have felt? The impressions they gain in their younger years will stay with them forever, so it is important that they are exposed to the true spirit of Anzac. Having them write little essays is one way of doing that. I am happy to reward their contribution by mentioning them in this way.
This year’s selection came from Kangaroo Valley Public School with the first prize essay from each year. The first contribution is from Dyami Kirwan of year five, and Dyami writes:
In my essay I will tell you about Australian soldiers fighting to defend Australia on the Kokoda Track. Life on the Kokoda Track was hard and days were spent trudging through mud, climbing up steep hills and getting tangled in vines. It was too rugged to map in kilometres so it was mapped in how many hours a day it would take to walk. I’d just like to say thank you to the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels for helping the men on the Kokoda Track. The men on the Kokoda Track were very brave to have gone through those harsh conditions to save our land.
And Dyami concludes with a thank you to Anzacs. Thank you, Dyami.
Rebecca Radic of year six has chosen a brief account from one participant on the Kokoda Track as well. She wrote:
The Japanese needed Port Moresby so they could launch a full attack but little did they know we were at the ready. We met up with some Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels who helped us by carrying many of our wounded to safety. We grabbed our guns and in a rush everyone was panic stricken by the sudden suspense. My legs went numb and refused to move. I was so nervous. This was it. My heart missed a beat. I bit my lip so hard it started to bleed. The world was coming back to me.
Thank you, Rebecca.
Michael Eccles is in year three and he wrote:
So when we landed (at Gallipoli) we scrambled up the cliff. We dug trenches for us and our mates. 2000 ANZACs died on that day. We put up with flies buzzing around everyone’s food. The muddy trenches when it was raining. It was boiling hot in summer and freezing cold in winter. Many ANZACs died from illness but we didn’t pull out we were brave.
Thank you, Michael.
Alex Good of year six chose to write about Tobruk. He wrote:
I’m going to tell you about the ANZAC spirit needed in Tobruk. Adolph Hitler was getting ready for a war. He was creating the perfect soldiers who thrived on glory and obeyed orders. They were trained to do anything for their country and would stop at nothing—until they met the Australians. Hitler had never seen anything like it. Soldiers with the attitude to never give up and keep going. With any other men fighting, if the tanks broke through the front line they would have surrendered but not the Australians. Instead of going straight for the tanks, they went for the infantry behind. Once gone, they went for the tanks. Hitler had his first defeat.
Well done, Alex.
And finally, two small contributions that are no less in stature from Jacob Radic and Jaxon Boyle. This first one is from Jacob:
In 1915, when the soldiers landed at Gallipoli at Beach ‘X’, thousands were killed. Some were killed when they were still in their longboats. After landing on the beach the ANZACs had to dig trenches to protect themselves from the machinegun fire of the Turks in the hills.
And Jaxon wrote:
The ANZACs escaped from Gallipoli one night by making their guns fire on their own.
Thank you to Jacob and Jaxon, and thank you to Kangaroo Valley Public School.
It just goes to show that students do get involved with Anzac Day and that some of their contributions do come straight from the heart. It is very rewarding to see exactly what they do. I compliment the staff at Kangaroo Valley Public School and also the parents who are involved with Anzac Day and with their school. Thank you.
Social Welfare
181
181
12:30:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
0
0
Ms HALL
—I would like to bring to the attention of the House today a letter I received from a constituent. This constituent pointed out to me the predicament that he is in and the stresses that are being placed on him by his inability to meet all his expenses through his age pension. He gave me an example of the types of events that occur that place unusual and unexpected strain on his and his wife’s finances.
He believes that the government has not thought through the effects of these issues. His wife became ill and she was referred to have an ECG, an echocardiograph. They had to pay a gap of $72. In the same week his wife had to have a heart monitor, which cost $152. They had to pay that up-front. Then they went to see a cardiac specialist and they had to pay $180 up-front. This placed an enormous strain on them. He said: ‘I will have to sell my home to survive and probably have to move into a caravan.’ He feels that every time he turns around he is hit with some new expense and that the cost of living is outstripping the pension. He is getting further and further behind. He is particularly concerned, given that the government’s Work Choices legislation has been introduced and the effect that that will have on the long-term viability of the pension. That is what I would be saying to him.
In addition, the government’s Welfare to Work legislation is due to come into force on 1 July. My office has been inundated with constituents who are already finding that Centrelink has adopted a very harsh approach to their circumstances. One lady in particular has a part-time job. She is a certificate III (AIN). She has managed to crack a job that has got her into the Hunter New England Health Service. She is working 14 hours a week; sometimes she even works 38 hours a week—it fluctuates, but she has a definite permanent, part-time 14 hours a week. She has been required to register with Salvation Army Plus to look for full-time work. This is where I become very concerned. Salvation Army Plus have been pursuing her and putting extreme pressure on her to find another job. They ring her five times a week before she has to go to an appointment. They SMS, they write and they are constantly having this invasive contact.
She has become so upset about this that she recently went to see her doctor. For the first time in her life she has been placed on medication for stress. She believes that she has got herself to the position where she is going to end up losing the job of her life, the job that she has worked and trained for. She is being required to apply for casual jobs as a sales assistant. She is being required to travel an hour to a job interview and being asked to apply for jobs that do not fit in with her qualifications. This is a woman who is dedicated to returning to work.
I have also found that Centrelink, in line with the government’s requirements, has been putting undue pressure on people in receipt of disability support pension. People are finding it harder and harder to obtain the disability support pension. Those who do find work are having more and more pressure put on them to increase their workload or, alternatively, to go off the disability support pension. The legislation has not even kicked in yet, and here we have Centrelink, at the behest of this government, placing this very harsh regime on the people that they are there to service. (Time expired)
Investing in Our Schools Program
182
182
12:35:00
Ciobo, Steven, MP
00AN0
Moncrieff
LP
1
0
Mr CIOBO
—I am pleased to rise to talk about the delivery of an outstanding program in my electorate of Moncrieff. I am exceptionally pleased at the performance of the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program. This program has delivered—as I had the pleasure of announcing in the past week—over $1 million in additional capital funding to schools, both public and private, in my electorate. Let us not lose sight of the reason why the Howard government is investing this $1 billion in local state schools and private schools. It is because state Labor governments have walked away from their responsibility to make adequate capital payments to state schools to ensure that their facilities remain at a level that communities can be proud of.
I am a very big supporter of the $1 billion Howard government Investing in Our Schools program. I am delighted at the fact that Ashmore State School, Bellevue Park State School, Benowa State School, Broadbeach State School, Miami State School, Nerang State High School, Nerang State School, Surfers Paradise State School and William Duncan State School received a combined total of $994,960 under the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program. I personally telephoned all the school principals—and acting principals, in a couple of instances—to let them know that, thanks to this $1 million Howard government investment in their state schools, there would now be money made available to those school communities to pay for airconditioning of classrooms, upgrades of ICT equipment, refurbishment of classrooms, refurbishment of halls, the construction of shade structures and courts and various grounds upgrades and oval irrigation at schools.
These are all the kinds of projects that school P&Cs have told me that they desperately need in their schools, because the state Labor government has dropped the ball when it comes to funding these kinds of vital services. That is the reason why this funding from the Commonwealth government exists. That is the reason why, as I said, I personally telephoned the various principals to let them know the good news, as well as writing to the P&C associations—to let them know that the Commonwealth government, through prudent economic management, has been able to save $8 billion a year thanks to paying off Labor’s $96 billion debt, and that money is flowing directly into programs like this, which makes a real difference at a grassroots level for those schools.
In addition, I was pleased to announce funding to two local independent schools. In particular, I was pleased to advise the Emmanuel College of Carrara that the Howard government was providing through the Investing in Our Schools program some $67,500 for the construction of a shaded area for meals and gatherings for their students. Similarly, I was pleased to announce to the principal of the Southport School, Mr Greg Wain, that the Howard government was contributing $60,000 in capital infrastructure for airconditioning of classrooms.
The fact is that airconditioning of classrooms remains a very crucial component of making sure that schools provide a good learning environment to their young pupils. Airconditioning of classrooms is absolutely crucial in a state like Queensland, especially over those exceptionally hot summer months. I am pleased that this money means that students will be now able to learn in airconditioned classrooms, not be distracted by the heat—not be forced to stop learning because they need to have some respite from the heat that often exists over a Queensland summer.
I am very grateful, too, at the response that I have had from P&Cs when I have told them the news. I was delighted to personally attend Broadbeach State School and announce to the assembly there the allocation of their $150,000 in funding. I must say, having spoken with the P&C president of Broadbeach State School, I got a very clear indication of just how grateful that school community was to have this $150,000 go into their school. That is a lot of lamingtons in a lamington drive, and I am pleased that the money that they raised from various school funding initiatives can now be put to other uses, over and above the $150,000 that Broadbeach State School is going to receive.
I am very pleased that this $1 billion Investing in Our Schools program is available. I intend to continue making sure that schools that may have missed out this time have the opportunity to get access to this program in the future. I will continue making sure that the Howard government’s program has the greatest opportunity possible to remain in place for as long as possible. We will do that through careful economic management.
Workplace Relations
183
183
12:40:00
Irwin, Julia, MP
83Z
Fowler
ALP
0
0
Mrs IRWIN
—The current level of concern in the community over the government’s extreme industrial relations changes has focused on the plight of employees who have felt the brunt of employers’ cuts to wages and working conditions. But employees are not the only victims. As I related to the House on Monday, employers are being given advice to cut wages and conditions and to get in before their competitors do to give working conditions the chop. We are now seeing evidence that this is happening in the road transport industry, with devastating consequences. For one transport company based in my electorate of Fowler, the impact of the changes was felt when the head contractor—one of the largest freight companies in Australia—placed pressure on its subcontractors to cut rates or to at least not increase rates at a time when increasing fuel costs had made rate increases necessary. Large freight companies have been increasing the pressure on subcontractors for the last few years, but the rapid rise in fuel costs has left trucking subcontractors in a position where they would be losing money on every load unless they could cut costs.
As fuel costs have risen, reducing labour costs has been left as the only way that operators can keep their heads above water—and that has meant a race to the bottom for trucking operators. The only operators to survive are those which have cut hourly rates of pay for drivers, cut penalty rates for weekend work and reduced rest breaks and other conditions essential for the safety of all road users. In one case brought to my attention, an operator with a fleet of 24 trucks has had to close its doors after more than 20 years in business, because—and what this operator was doing was fantastic—it paid award rates and met essential safety requirements. It could not compete with operators prepared to cut wages and conditions. That has left 30 local drivers out of work and in the queue to work for operators paying much less than the award.
To give some idea of the pressure trucking operators are under, the contractor gets around $720 for a 20-tonne load return trip from Sydney to a regional centre but offers only $420 to the subcontractor to do the job. After fuel—which makes up over half the operating cost—maintenance and capital charges, that leaves an operator losing money if they pay award rates and even further behind if they pay penalty rates for weekend work. That leads to a race to the bottom, forcing drivers to work excessive hours just to make a living. That can only lead to greater danger for road users. And there is, of course, the added cost of failed businesses and losses to suppliers to the industry. This case is just the tip of the iceberg. For years the road transport industry has been a tough business. Payment of award rates across the industry at least gave operators an even playing field when it came to labour costs.
In the current environment, we can expect road transport operators to be at the front of the charge to cut wages and conditions for drivers. As more employers take the advice of experts and use AWAs to cut wages and conditions, the number of workers facing cuts will grow. It will not happen overnight, but it is happening at a faster rate than some members of the government are comfortable with. Given that there is another year-and-a-half to the next election—when everyone in this country will know of someone who has been forced to accept a rough bargain in an AWA and when thousands of small businesses that tried to do the right thing by their employees will have gone to the wall—faced with the choice of a government that created the nightmare and a Labor opposition that will tear it up and give real protection to workers and small businesses, the voters will definitely give this government a very fair dismissal at the next election.
After-Hours Medical Services
184
184
12:45:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
1
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise to announce to the House the signing of the GP after-hours service agreement for the Hunter region. This has been long negotiated. The program was started in 1998. The very first pilot program was at Maitland Hospital. I was fortunate to be involved in that at the very beginning and secured some $5 million worth of funding to allow it to start. That is now rolled out in hospitals across the Hunter and, indeed, other areas in Australia. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Dr Arn Sprogis—who is the Executive Director of the Hunter Urban Division of General Practice and who has primary responsibility for the GP after-hours service—and of some of the team from within the department of the Minister for Health and Ageing, particularly Deborah Milner, Kaye Sperling, Jennie Roe and Megan Morris. I can understand that perhaps Arn Sprogis is not the easiest person in the world to deal with. However, he has a strong passion for the health care of those in our community and that is why I support him.
This new funding model will work better for the GPs in our region. There will be cash funding in excess of $7½ million and that will be topped up. When people go to the after-hours GP service or receive after-hours GP service visits in their homes, there will be bulk-billing applied on top of that. The MBS rebates will be applied to that as well. We are seeing a different mix of funding but there will be no disadvantage. I note that, as always, certain organisations complain that this will require more paperwork but it will also provide greater accountability and perhaps more accurate tracking of those who come along to the after-hours GP service.
We need to focus on the benefits to the doctors in the Hunter, who prior to this program being established in 1995 were on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If they wanted to take some time out, they were forced to hire a locum to take over their shift. Doctors are now scheduled on for perhaps one night per week—in some cases two nights per week—at the various hospitals throughout the Hunter, and it gives them quality of life at home and a weekend life. We often hear, and it is true, that in the broader Hunter and particularly in regional and rural areas it is hard to attract doctors because of the lifestyle risks that there are: constantly being on call, call-outs in the middle of the night and the effect on their family and social life. This has been a great plus. I congratulate the originator of the program—that is, the Hunter division of GPs—on their foresight.
There have been well over 100,000 visits to the division after-hours GP service, and well over 90 per cent of those people have been seen within 30 minutes of going to the hospital. This has also had the added effect of reducing the demand in the emergency waiting rooms. For a lot of the procedures, people are first checked out by triage nurses, appointments are made and then people see the doctor, but a lot of the minor things that chew up a lot of time in an emergency waiting room are able to be dealt with by the GPs. It is of great benefit not only to the GPs, who are not being called out in the middle of the night, but to our emergency departments. It has seen reductions of around 16 to 19 per cent, depending on the hospital, and a reduction in categories 4 and 5 patients during the clinic hours, which has reduced the stress on the beds.
I also acknowledge that only in a very small capacity is Hunter New England Health contributing to this program. The lion’s share of the funding is being picked up by the Commonwealth government. Also in this new funding agreement, which will go until 30 June 2008 when all programs are to be reviewed, will be a review mechanism. Should the funding levels drop below the agreed standard because of lack of visitations, there will be an adjustment in payments, but if there is a higher number of people coming through and more money coming through the door due to bulk-billing, the money will be agreed as well. (Time expired)
After-Hours Medical Services
World Refugee Day
185
185
12:50:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
0
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I welcome the commitment of the previous speaker, the member for Paterson, to GP Access After Hours. I only wish they would fund it for four years, as Labor promised to do, so that the member for Paterson does not stand up every year to rescue them. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge on the record one of the members of GP Access After Hours who gives his time as a GP—Peter Arnold, my doctor of 36 years, soon to retire. I register my appreciation and that of the community for his long and dedicated service.
This week we celebrated a very special day in the UN calendar: World Refugee Day. Fortunately, we had no legislation brought forward this week to detract from its importance. The theme of this year’s World Refugee Day is hope, which serves as a reminder of our responsibility to help keep hope alive amongst those who need it most—the millions of refugees displaced and who are still far from home. World Refugee Day is an opportunity to reflect on and recognise the plight of refugees. The UNHCR now estimates that there are almost 21 million refugees worldwide. That is an extraordinarily large number of people fleeing civil wars, ethnic persecution and religious violence across the globe.
In the Newcastle and Hunter region we have settled more than 600 refugees since 2002, the majority of whom have come from Sudan, Liberia and Burundi. There is perhaps no better way to promote better understanding of the plight of refugees than through the telling of personal stories. Today I wish to draw the attention of the parliament to the work of some remarkably talented young storytellers in my own community of Newcastle. These are young people who are making a difference and keeping hope alive for refugees.
Last month I was privileged to attend a youth forum on racial tolerance. This forum was hosted by YNOT, a local organisation working creatively with disadvantaged youth in our region and achieving wonderful results. At this forum young Novocastrians Ashleigh Elizabeth John, Stuart Csanki and Duncan Whiteside talked about their experiences of growing up in Newcastle with friends from around the world and the benefits of multiculturalism and racial tolerance for our community. Duncan Whiteside, a University of Newcastle student who works with YNOT in its youth mentoring programs, argued for the need to promote tolerance and acceptance throughout the community, starting at the grassroots level. ‘Sure, it is a long-term prospect,’ said Duncan, ‘but this community has a long-term future so why not start to build now. The risk is low and the rewards are infinitely high: a community of tolerance.’
Students of Mayfield East Public School were also present at this youth forum, which screened a short film made by those students called Little Leaders: The Youth of Multicultural Mayfield. The film starred six years 5 and 6 students from different cultural backgrounds—Adrianna Gagamoe from Samoa, Apag Chinmouth from Sudan, Anna Robertson from England, Ryan Bartlett from Indonesia, Hope Anderton from Turkey and Luke Single, a young Aboriginal student. Little Leaders is an inspirational film with a strong message of respect and racial tolerance. The students and their teachers speak openly and honestly about matters of race and cultural differences as they recount their own friendships with other students from different backgrounds. Importantly, the film demonstrates that young people are not just the leaders of the future but also valuable members of our community now. Apag Chinmouth, who arrived in Newcastle last year as a Sudanese refugee, said:
I was happy when I finally got to Australia and I want Mayfield to be safe place.
To ensure that Mayfield is a safe and happy place to live, each of the students put forward their own ideas about the future and how to make their community better. The students nominated a skate park—which will in fact be opened in Mayfield this Sunday—a basketball court and easy access to health services as amongst the most important things to keep them safe and happy. They argued:
Happy places equals happy people.
I also want to acknowledge the outstanding work of Phil Thomson, the recipient of the 2005 Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia and SBS Student Journalism Award for his feature article, Simon’s Story, an inspiring true story of a Sudanese refugee living in Newcastle. The award-winning piece tells the story of Simon Pabek, a refugee who fled Sudan after Arab Muslim workmates associated him with rebels. Before coming to Australia he spent time in a refugee camp in Kenya which hosts 70,000 mostly Sudanese refugees. Since 2003 Simon, who is employed as an African refugee worker at Newcastle’s Migrant Resource Centre, has helped more than 400 Sudanese, around 60 Liberians and a small number of Burundians, Rwandans and Somalis to settle into Australian life. Simon has completed a law degree in Sudan’s peacetime and is now studying law at the University of Newcastle so that he can practise in Australia. It is important that his story and other stories are heard. I congratulate all of the people I have mentioned. I look forward to joining Simon Pabek next week when we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Newcastle Migrant Resource Centre.
Tom Quilty Gold Cup
Beaudesert Country and Horse Festival
Unemployment
187
187
12:55:00
Elson, Kay, MP
6K6
Forde
LP
1
0
Mrs ELSON
—I rise today to bring to the attention of parliament two extraordinary events held in my electorate last weekend. Boonah Shire Council hosted the 2006 Tom Quilty Gold Cup endurance ride over the Queen’s Birthday long weekend. International, interstate and local horse riders, their horses, strappers and supporters began camping at the Boonah showgrounds for up to 10 days before the event.
The Quilty Cup is the largest endurance ride in the world and the premier equestrian event in Australia. It was held in the little shire of Boonah and was the 41st Quilty Cup to be held internationally. With the support of local volunteers from the Show Society, Lions, Rotary, Guides, Boonah High School, Mount Alford P&C and the National Party Ladies Group, they prepared on average 1,000 meals a day for 10 days for their visitors. Congratulations must be given to these volunteer groups because together they raised $21,000 for the community.
In general it was a great opportunity to showcase the many benefits of this beautiful, friendly part of Queensland to the many hundreds of international visitors and the media at this event. It also proved to be a great boost to the shire’s economy. The visitors expressed their gratitude for and amazement at the wonderful welcome they received and their gratitude to the volunteers who pulled together to stage such a great and memorable event. Thanks must also go to the hosts, the Fassifern Horse and Pony Club under their President, Jill Crowley; the Australian Endurance Riders Association, its vets, stewards and volunteers; and the ride director, Dick Collyer. They and all the community, including the SES and the ambulance service, made this big task and event really happen and it placed Boonah Shire on the big success map. Well done to all concerned.
Another event took place over the same 10 days in the adjoining shire of Beaudesert, the 2006 Beaudesert Country and Horse Festival. This year’s was one of the biggest festivals ever, with interstate and international visitors pouring into Beaudesert. The festival this year had more than 30 different events over 10 days. It ended last Sunday with a massive parade, with 2,000 horses joining the many floats to make a spectacular finish to a very successful festival.
Many volunteers, led by organiser Nancy Moss, worked tirelessly to ensure the progressive international dinners, black-tie ball, trail rides, bush poetry campfire presentations, parade and many other functions over those two weeks ran smoothly and successfully. An enormous job was done, all by volunteers. The festival organisers recognised the support from the generous sponsors and local newspapers, the Beaudesert Times and the Jimboomba Times. In the House today I recognise all their efforts and thank them for staging such a successful event and for placing the shire on the map as the horse capital of Australia.
I would like to especially congratulate Rural Lifestyle Options, an organisation that helps people with disabilities to achieve their potential. They do great work in our community. They have a great network and they are admired by many for their achievements. To add to their achievements, they won the best community float in the festival. Well done to Carole Caswell and all of her team and staff at Rural Lifestyle Options.
While I have a minute or so to spare, I would also like to place on record the great track record of the Howard government in bringing down our unemployment figures. Since March 1996, the coalition has created more than 1.8 million jobs. What is more, three-quarters of all the jobs created in the past two years have been full-time jobs. The unemployment rate is now at a 30-year low at 4.9 per cent. Since the coalition was elected, unemployment has been reduced by 218,000, or 29.6 per cent. There are now more than 7.2 million Australians in full-time employment, the highest number ever, with almost one million full-time jobs created since 1996. Under the coalition, teenage full-time unemployment has fallen by 28.4 per cent. I did have a very high teenage unemployment rate in my electorate and I am so pleased by the success of the Howard government and by seeing many young people in fulfilling jobs and having a future ahead of them. Long-term unemployment now comprises 1.0 per cent of the labour force—the lowest level ever recorded. The number of long-term unemployed is now 48.6 per cent less than under Labor. Under the coalition there have been more full-time jobs created in the last 12 months than there were in the last six years of Labor.
Education
188
188
13:00:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
0
0
Mr DANBY
—Today I want to talk about school funding and in particular certain schools in my electorate which have been grossly underfunded and discriminated against. These schools serve the Orthodox Jewish community. They are Yeshivah College, Adass Israel School, Yesodei Hatorah College and Sholem Aleichem College. They are all fine schools which serve both the religious and secular needs of this community. They do particularly well academically within their limited resources. They are not wealthy schools, and the level of resources that they can offer their students is not comparable to some other schools in my electorate.
Under the Howard government, the SES model is used to fund these schools, as it is for all other independent schools, but because these schools are in relatively affluent suburbs, they are classed as wealthy schools. This is one of the underlying faults of the SES model. We have basically a lot of poorer kids in a wealthy postcode and large families, which are quite natural for this community within my electorate. Yeshivah College, for instance, is classed as being as wealthy a school as Wesley College whereas in fact it has nothing like the same level of resources.
During the 2001 election campaign, the then education minister, Dr Kemp, made a specific promise to these schools. He promised that he would review the effect of the SES model on these schools. In a letter to the Australian Jewish News, he said, ‘There will be funding certainty for the Jewish schools under the coalition.’ In fact, the only certainty is that nothing was done. During the 2004 election campaign, Brendan Nelson came to Melbourne Ports and accused Labor of threatening these schools’ funding, while promising increased aid to these schools. Still nothing was done.
Now, finally, the new Minister for Education, Science and Training, Ms Bishop, has announced that the unfair SES system is being reviewed. The Howard government has admitted that its system for the funding of non-government schools has broken down. But the disadvantage of these less well-off Jewish schools in my electorate will continue unless the situation for these schools, which are grossly underfunded under the government’s model of education funding, is solved, as the Liberals have promised for the last eight years—promises they have not honoured.
Now, through a media mouthpiece, the new education minister has the cheek to say she is going to come to my electorate, among other electorates where there are large numbers of independent school students, and expose the Labor Party. Well, she is in for a shock if she comes to Melbourne Ports, because parents from these schools will be demanding that the funding promised to them by two previous education ministers be given to them—and, if I were them, I would be asking for back pay. Where is the funding that these schools should have got over the last eight years, funding that has been denied them and that would have given them the same level of resources as surrounding schools?
The minister’s statement must be followed by action that deals with this grossly unfair situation we have at present. The minister should also admit that the promise made by Dr Kemp in 2001 that appeared on the front page of the local newspaper on 19 October 2001—that Jewish schools in Melbourne Ports would not be disadvantaged by his SES system—has not been kept. Similarly, the promise by the previous minister for education, Brendan Nelson, made in 2004 to these schools—again, coincidentally before the last federal election—has also not been kept.
I cannot believe the level of hypocrisy of going to the media and saying, ‘I am coming to attack Labor in electorates where there is a high level of participation in independent schools,’ when your government made promises to the constituents, parents and students of my electorate over the last two elections that it did not keep, did not honour, and then having some mouthpiece of yours say that these seats are vulnerable at election time for political exploitation by the Liberal Party. If I were a parent of students at one of those schools, I would be rising up, like many writers of letters to the editor in my electorate have been, pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of the Liberal Party and of successive Liberal education ministers over this issue. Labor are also reviewing our policies on schools, and I welcome that. I am confident that in 2007 we will have a policy that offers fair treatment to all schools, not just in my electorate but in all electorates, particularly to the less well-off schools in our community.
Darwin Business Enterprise Centre
189
189
13:05:00
Tollner, David, MP
00AN4
Solomon
CLP
1
0
Mr TOLLNER
—I rise in this adjournment debate to draw the attention of the chamber to the absolutely marvellous support scheme being conducted for small businesses by the Darwin Business Enterprise Centre. The Darwin BEC assists local small business owners and operators and provides support to those people starting up a business in the Top End of the Northern Territory. The BEC has an excellent board of directors who bring great experience and energy to the BEC, and I outline them as follows. The chairman is Mr Bruce Mouatt and other directors are Bob Pettit, Lyn Bennett, Kerry Moir, Vic Minchin, Tim Proctor, Alison Huck and Mike Walker.
The Top End Business Development Centre, also known as the TEBDC, is one of the BEC’s and Darwin’s flagship programs. The TEBDC is a small business incubator spread over two campuses in Darwin’s industrial area of Winnellie and Palmerston. The TEBDC has recently undergone a revitalisation, and I thank Peter Lillibridge for his dedicated leadership there. There are currently over 25 tenants in the two locations, including Tableaux Group owned by Tina Jones. This is a training business that offers accounting solutions for businesses and individuals and management accounting services including MYOB.
JKY and Associates, owned by John Youseff who is a CPA, also provides small business accounting services and start-up advice. HPD Hydrotech Pipeline Design, owned by Brian and Marie Petrie, offers hydraulic engineering services, fire services, hydraulics and a range of other services. Priority eBusiness owned by David Head specialises in building database systems to increase business efficiency, making it easier for business to get online with website design, hosting and domain name registration. A major incubator success story is Fusion Joinery and Fusion Displays and Graphics, owned by Michael Dickinson and Shandelle Judd. Fusion has recently moved from the incubator to mainstream commercial premises and is a perfect example of the TEBDC’s success. This very successful business has been a long-term tenant of the TEBDC and has recently moved into some very large premises of its own.
Other people and businesses currently taking advantage of the program are Will Tinapple and Danielle Green from Formation Studios, Mike Walker from Financial and Bookkeeping Services, Tim O’Donnell from Disability Works Australia, Dave Rumball from Western Advance, Adrian Lucas from Data Visual Link and Kate Pickering from Eventuate. Clearly, the BEC is a force to be reckoned with and will greatly add to the enhancement of small business in the Territory. In particular, I thank Jack Hughes, the manager of the BEC, and his staff for their efforts in helping Top End business. I congratulate the BEC on its work in creating new jobs and protecting existing jobs in the Territory. I commend to the parliament the work of this organisation and associated businesses and I look forward to the even greater success of small business in Darwin.
In visiting this organisation some weeks ago, I had the wonderful opportunity of meeting all of the people who work in that centre and of seeing the way in which businesses are being incubated. They are all pioneers of the Territory. They show the pioneering spirit and are emblematical of everything that the Territory was built on. They are entrepreneurial and dedicated to the cause—and they are out there, having a go. Without organisations like these and the people who go into their making, the Territory would be a much poorer place. As I said, I commend the work that the BEC is doing and I wish it every success in the future.
Question agreed to.
Main Committee adjourned at 1.10 pm, until Wednesday, 9 August 2006 at 9.30 am, unless in accordance with standing order 186 an alternative date or time is fixed.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
191
Questions in Writing
Defence: Employment
191
191
3010
191
McMullan, Bob, MP
5I4
Fraser
ALP
0
Mr McMullan
asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 9 February 2006:
-
Does Defence have a policy limiting former civilian and ADF personnel from working for companies which operate in areas in which they had worked for Defence; if so, (a) will he provide a copy of the policy and (b) for how long do former civilian and ADF personnel have to wait before they may obtain employment in a defence related area.
-
Are there guidelines for former civilian and ADF personnel to follow when seeking employment after leaving Defence.
-
Does the policy cover current civilian and ADF personnel while they are on leave.
-
Who determines what constitutes a “related area” when authorising or refusing permission for civilian and ADF personnel to undertake employment while on leave.
-
Does Defence have guidelines for tenderers; if so, do the guidelines require tenderers not to employ anyone who has worked for Defence in a related area within the last 12 months or who is currently on leave from Defence.
-
In respect of the report in the Australian Financial Review on 14 December 2005 regarding an RAAF officer who, while he was on leave, was employed by a company preparing a tender bid, (a) did the RAAF officer have approval to work on the contract bid; if so, at what level was approval granted, (b) has this matter been the subject of an internal investigation; if so, has the investigation been finalised and, if it has, what was the outcome, (c) what is the value of the tender on which the officer worked, and (d) is the company which engaged the officer still eligible for the contract.
191
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:
-
Yes, Defence has personnel and procurement policies covering post separation employment which apply to ADF and civilian Defence personnel.
-
Yes. Copies of Defence Instruction (General) PERS 25-4 - Notification of Post Separation Employment, Defence Instruction (General) PERS 25-6 - Conflict of Interest and Acceptance of Offers of Gifts and Hospitality, the Defence Workplace Relations Manual and the Defence Procurement Policy Manual have been forwarded separately to your office.
-
There is no waiting period.
-
Defence’s policies in relation to post separation employment do not restrict former Defence personnel from taking up employment, but Defence provides guidance on their obligations regarding disclosure of official, commercially valuable or in-confidence information gained in the course of their employment with Defence prior to their separation. The policies encourage personnel to submit a letter of notification through their chain of command if they receive an offer of employment which could give rise to a perceived or actual conflict of interest.
-
Separate policies exist that refer specifically to undertaking outside employment while on leave.
-
For ADF personnel, the approving authority is the Commanding Officer or Branch Head, with the exception of applications where the employment is to be undertaken outside Australia. The approving officer in this circumstance is the Deputy Service Chief or an officer not below the rank of Brigadier. For civilian personnel, the approving authority is the employee’s line manager or, in the case of a request for long service leave, the Civilian Personnel Administration Centre delegate.
-
Yes. Defence has procurement policy which requires tenderers to seek prior written approval from Defence in certain circumstances before allowing former Australian Public Service and ADF personnel to contribute to a tender response for a Defence requirement or to contribute to, or perform, a Defence contract.
-
-
The RAAF Officer did not have approval to work in off-duty hours at the time that the work in question was undertaken. The member’s Commanding Officer has since provided retrospective approval for this off-duty employment.
-
The matter was investigated by the Inspector-General and the Regional Information and Communication Technology Market Testing project’s probity adviser and legal counsel. It was concluded that the company received no improper or unfair advantage through employing the officer in the preparation of the tender response. All tenderers have been advised that the company would not be excluded from the tender process.
-
This is a market testing project. The possible outcomes are that the in-house option is successful or the services are outsourced to a private provider. A formal contract would be entered into only under the latter outcome. The value of the contract would depend on a number of factors, but is likely to be in the range of $30m to $37m per year for possibly up to nine years.
-
Yes.
Media Training
192
192
3337 and 3339
192
Bowen, Chris, MP
DZS
Prospect
ALP
0
Mr Bowen
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, 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.
192
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—On behalf of the Minister for Trade and myself, the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
DFAT
-
Yes; 14.
-
$12,100
ACIAR
-
No, nil.
-
n/a
AJF
-
No, nil.
-
n/a
AusAID
-
No, nil.
-
n/a
Austrade
-
Yes; 55.
-
$12,113
EFIC
-
No, nil.
-
n/a
Export Market Development Grants Scheme
193
193
3411
193
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 30 March 2006:
-
For the years 1996 to 2005, how many applications under the Export Market Development Grants program were received from businesses in the electoral division of Banks.
-
For the years 1996 to 2005, how many applications under the Export Market Development Grants program were successful in the electoral division of Banks.
-
What was the industry category of each recipient of a grant and what was the average grant received under the Export Market Development Grants program in the electoral division of Banks.
193
Vaile, Mark, MP
SU5
Lyne
NATS
Minister for Trade
1
Mr Vaile
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (2) The following table provides details of the number of EMDG grant applications received, the number of EMDG grants paid and the average grant received in the electoral division of Banks for each of the financial years 1995-96 to 2004-05.
EMDG grant applications received, EMDG grant recipient and average EMDG grant paid in the electorate of Banks, 1995-96 to 2004-05
Financial Year
No. of Applicants (1)
No. of Recipients (1)
Average Grant Payment
Total Value of Grants Paid
1995-96
21
20
$77,250
$1,544,997
1996-97
25
25
$71,778
$1,794,444
1997-98
21
22
$46,230
$1,017,068
1998-99
25
23
$29,215
$671,948
1999-00
16
17
$36,098
$613,674
2000-01
18
18
$44,126
$794,259
2001-02
19
18
$48,089
$865,607
2002-03
20
19
$44,430
$844,179
2003-04
19
18
$50,063
$901,133
2004-05(2)
17
13
$43,580
$566,543
Total
201
193
$49,813
$9,613,852
(1) Not all applicants are assessed and paid in the same financial year in which they apply.
(2) Assessment of EMDG applications for 2005-06 is still in progress
-
A list of EMDG grant recipients, including name of recipient, address, industry sector and grant amount, in the electoral division of Banks for the financial years 1995-96 to 2004-05 is provided below.
Notes:
The electorate that each business is located in has been determined using Australian Electoral Commission information and, where necessary, advice from relevant electorate offices.
Information sourced from Austrade EMDG database, April 2006.
Export Market Development Grants paid in the electorate of Banks: 1995-96 to 2004-05
Recipient Name
Address
Suburb
State
Pcode
Grant
Industry
Financial Year grant paid
A.E. DISPLAYS & SALES PTY LTD
26-28 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$26,305
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
1998-99
A.E. DISPLAYS & SALES PTY LTD
26-28 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$6,536
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
1999-00
A.E. DISPLAYS & SALES PTY LTD
26-28 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$19,368
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
2000-01
ACCENT HYDROPONICS PTY LTD
89 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$34,662
Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing
1999-00
ACCENT HYDROPONICS PTY LTD
89 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$13,582
Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing
2001-02
ACCENT HYDROPONICS PTY LTD
89 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$38,487
Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing
2002-03
ACCENT HYDROPONICS PTY LTD
89 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$20,800
Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing
2003-04
ACCENT HYDROPONICS PTY LTD
89 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$42,630
Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing
2004-05
AIRCOM SYSTEMS PTY LTD
Unit 1, 19 Daisy Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$25,781
Manufacturing
2002-03
AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT OVERHAULS & SALES (NSW) PTY LTD
29-33 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$19,684
Aircraft Manufacturing
1998-99
AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT OVERHAULS & SALES (NSW) PTY LTD
29-33 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$25,347
Aircraft Manufacturing
2002-03
AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT OVERHAULS & SALES (NSW) PTY LTD
29-33 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$15,478
Aircraft Manufacturing
2004-05
AUSTRALIAN DISPENSER PTY LTD
360 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$51,527
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
1995-96
AUSTRALIAN DISPENSER PTY LTD
360 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$26,081
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
1996-97
AUSTRALIAN DISPENSER PTY LTD
360 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$25,782
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
1997-98
AUSTRALIAN DISPENSER PTY LTD
360 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$8,181
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
1998-99
AVERY DENNISON AUSTRALIA LIMITED
95 Bonds Road
ROSELANDS
NSW
2196
$200,000
Photographic and Optical Good Manufacturing
1996-97
AZTEC ROSE PTY LTD
36-48 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$30,576
Clothing Manufacturing
1999-00
AZTEC ROSE PTY LTD
36-48 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$14,739
Clothing Manufacturing
2000-01
AZTEC ROSE PTY LTD
36-48 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$17,489
Clothing Manufacturing
2001-02
AZTEC ROSE PTY LTD
36-48 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$49,091
Clothing Manufacturing
2002-03
B&D INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
34-36 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$66,435
Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling
2003-04
BARRON AND RAWSON PTY LTD
35-37 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$44,309
Manufacturing
2000-01
BARRON AND RAWSON PTY LTD
35-37 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$5,295
Manufacturing
2001-02
BELL DIES PTY LTD
154 Beaconfield Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$7,515
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1997-98
BELL DIES PTY LTD
154 Beaconfield Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$8,782
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1998-99
BRICKBIZ AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
11a Beech Place
LUGARNO
NSW
2210
$70,373
Wool Wholesaling
1996-97
BRITE SOLUTIONS (NSW) PTY LTD
180-186 Carrington Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$3,821
Printing
2000-01
BRONX INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
111 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$137,959
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1995-96
BRONX INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
111 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$169,501
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1996-97
BRONX INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
111 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$64,287
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1997-98
BRONX INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
111 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$33,655
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1998-99
BRONX INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
111 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$63,858
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
1999-00
BRONX INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
111 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$72,260
Machine Tool and Part Manufacturing
2003-04
BURWELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
291 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$49,127
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2000-01
BURWELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
291 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$22,372
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2001-02
BURWELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
291 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$35,178
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2002-03
BURWELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
291 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$33,222
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2003-04
BURWELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD
291 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$11,724
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2004-05
CABA (AUST) PTY LTD
41 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$12,429
Pump and Compressor Manufacturing
1997-98
CABA (AUST) PTY LTD
41 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$3,839
Pump and Compressor Manufacturing
1998-99
CEGELEC AUSTRALIA LIMITED
373 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$14,210
Consulting Engineering Services
1995-96
CEGELEC AUSTRALIA LIMITED
373 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$21,650
Consulting Engineering Services
1996-97
CONTRANS EXPORTS PTY LTD
1st Floor, 208 Belmore Road
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$80,508
Shipbuilding
1995-96
CONTRANS EXPORTS PTY LTD
1st Floor, 208 Belmore Road
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$20,329
Shipbuilding
1996-97
CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Unit 9, 41-45 Lorraine Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$8,109
Professional and Scientific Equipment Manufacturing
2002-03
CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Unit 9, 41-45 Lorraine Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$5,000
Professional and Scientific Equipment Manufacturing
2003-04
CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
Unit 9, 41-45 Lorraine Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$5,000
Professional and Scientific Equipment Manufacturing
2004-05
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$41,440
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1996-97
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$23,577
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1997-98
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$52,259
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1998-99
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$38,084
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1999-00
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$46,792
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2000-01
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$57,924
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2001-02
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$47,013
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2002-03
CUTTING EDGES PTY LTD
25a Violet Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$71,300
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2003-04
DHS PTY LTD
12 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$22,694
Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing
1997-98
DHS PTY LTD
12 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$24,906
Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing
1998-99
DHS PTY LTD
12 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$7,867
Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing
2001-02
DHS PTY LTD
12 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$36,323
Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing
2002-03
DIPOLAR PTY LTD
21 Arcadia Street
PENSHURST
NSW
2222
$8,023
Computer Consultancy Services
1999-00
DOME EXCHANGE PTY LIMITED
36-48 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$24,444
Clothing Wholesaling
2003-04
EMERGENCY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
321 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$39,247
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
2002-03
EMERGENCY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
321 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$55,364
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
2003-04
EMERGENCY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY PTY LTD
321 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$88,372
Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
2004-05
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENTS & INVESTMENTSPTY LTD
62 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$38,599
Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing
1995-96
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENTS & INVESTMENTSPTY LTD
62 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$64,558
Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing
1996-97
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENTS & INVESTMENTSPTY LTD
62 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$32,694
Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing
1997-98
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENTS & INVESTMENTSPTY LTD
62 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$11,632
Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing
1998-99
EZY TUBE PTY LTD
113a Fairford Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$8,227
Prefabricated Building Manufacturing
2004-05
FERRO FINISHING PTY LTD
29 Skinner Avenue
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$23,543
Metal Coating and Finishing
1999-00
FERRO FINISHING PTY LTD
29 Skinner Avenue
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$17,691
Metal Coating and Finishing
2000-01
FERRO FINISHING PTY LTD
29 Skinner Avenue
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$9,860
Metal Coating and Finishing
2002-03
FERRO FINISHING PTY LTD
29 Skinner Avenue
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$21,798
Metal Coating and Finishing
2003-04
FERRO FINISHING PTY LTD
29 Skinner Avenue
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$24,719
Metal Coating and Finishing
2004-05
GRANDENO PTY LTD
9 Nelson Avenue
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$15,075
Toy and Sporting Good Manufacturing
2001-02
GULF RUBBER AUSTRALIA LTD
13 Green Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$5,000
Rubber Product Manufacturing
2002-03
HOME ENTERTAINMENT SUPPLIERS PTY LTD
126 Bonds Road
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$10,930
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Wholesaling
1999-00
HOTSON PTY LTD
1 Blaxland Place
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$4,547
Toy and Sporting Good Manufacturing
1998-99
INDUSTRIAL SEPARATION SYSTEMS & PROJECT PUMPING SYSTEMS PTY LTD
Unit 4, 92 Bryant Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$33,748
Manufacturing
2001-02
INNERSOUL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3/68 Roberts Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$13,587
Watch and Jewellery Retailing
2003-04
J & L QUALITY PAINTING CO PTY LTD
20 Springfield Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$32,615
Building Supplies Wholesaling
2000-01
J & L QUALITY PAINTING CO PTY LTD
20 Springfield Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$77,312
Building Supplies Wholesaling
2001-02
JAPAN FURNITURE NETWORK NO. 2
C/- Furnishing Industry Association, 76 Penshurst Street
PENSHURST
NSW
2222
$68,340
Furniture Manufacturing
1995-96
JAPAN FURNITURE NETWORK NO. 2
C/- Furnishing Industry Association, 76 Penshurst Street
PENSHURST
NSW
2222
$43,340
Furniture Manufacturing
1996-97
JSG INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
8 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$108,107
Manufacturing
1995-96
JSG INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
8 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$158,220
Manufacturing
1996-97
JSG INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
8 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$142,413
Manufacturing
1997-98
JSG INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
8 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$86,814
Manufacturing
1998-99
JSG INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PTY LTD
8 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$46,530
Manufacturing
1999-00
K LITE PTY LTD
16 Wiggs Road
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$5,431
Electric Light and Sign Manufacturing
1995-96
K LITE PTY LTD
16 Wiggs Road
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$23,007
Electric Light and Sign Manufacturing
1997-98
K LITE PTY LTD
16 Wiggs Road
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$18,886
Electric Light and Sign Manufacturing
1998-99
KEA CAMPERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
106-108 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$77,049
Motor Vehicle Hiring
2001-02
KEA CAMPERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
106-108 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$94,518
Motor Vehicle Hiring
2002-03
KEA CAMPERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
106-108 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$161,786
Motor Vehicle Hiring
2003-04
KEA CAMPERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
106-108 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$150,000
Motor Vehicle Hiring
2004-05
LUCKY COUNTRY INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
2/17 Fitzpatrick Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$10,724
Confectionery Wholesaling
2004-05
MACKIES BAKERY EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
112-116 Canterbury Road
BANKSTOWN
NSW
2200
$5,000
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
2003-04
MACKIES PTY LTD
112-116 Canterbury Road
BANKSTOWN
NSW
2200
$8,767
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
1998-99
MACKIES PTY LTD
112-116 Canterbury Road
BANKSTOWN
NSW
2200
$8,540
Food Processing Machinery Manufacturing
1999-00
MASON DUFLEX PTY LTD
60 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$3,596
Printing
1996-97
MATCON PACIFIC PTY LTD
Unit E12, 11-15 Moxon Road
PUNCHBOWL
NSW
2196
$22,351
Metal Container Manufacturing
1997-98
MATCON PACIFIC PTY LTD
Unit E12, 11-15 Moxon Road
PUNCHBOWL
NSW
2196
$10,101
Metal Container Manufacturing
1998-99
MAXITHERM BOILERS PTY LTD
329 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$5,901
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
1995-96
MAXITHERM BOILERS PTY LTD
329 Horsley Road
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$15,854
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
1996-97
MECHANICAL PLATING PTY LTD
12 Schofield Street
RIVERWOOD
NSW
2210
$13,261
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
1997-98
MIROTONE PTY LTD
21 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$47,550
Chemical Product Manufacturing
2000-01
MIROTONE PTY LTD
21 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$108,565
Chemical Product Manufacturing
2001-02
MIROTONE PTY LTD
21 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$55,869
Chemical Product Manufacturing
2002-03
MIROTONE PTY LTD
21 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$29,790
Chemical Product Manufacturing
2003-04
MURLFORM PTY LTD
116 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$36,098
Plastic Product Rigid Fibre Reinforced Manufacturing
1996-97
MURLFORM PTY LTD
116 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$16,787
Plastic Product Rigid Fibre Reinforced Manufacturing
1997-98
NOBBY EXPORTS PTY LTD
52-60 Belmore Road
PUNCHBOWL
NSW
2196
$47,818
Household Good Wholesaling
1995-96
NOBBY EXPORTS PTY LTD
52-60 Belmore Road
PUNCHBOWL
NSW
2196
$58,838
Household Good Wholesaling
1996-97
NOBBY EXPORTS PTY LTD
52-60 Belmore Road
PUNCHBOWL
NSW
2196
$29,266
Household Good Wholesaling
1997-98
NORFORD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Unit 6, 707 Forest Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$4,851
Manufacturing
1997-98
NORFORD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Unit 6, 707 Forest Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$5,893
Manufacturing
1998-99
NORFORD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Unit 6, 707 Forest Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$33,776
Manufacturing
1999-00
NORFORD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Unit 6, 707 Forest Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$51,610
Manufacturing
2000-01
NORFORD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Unit 6, 707 Forest Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$13,256
Manufacturing
2001-02
PENNINGTON SPEED EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
Unit 11, 112 Ashford Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$18,249
Toy and Sporting Good Manufacturing
1999-00
PIERLITE PTY LTD
112 Gow Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$53,552
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Wholesaling
1995-96
PIERLITE PTY LTD
112 Gow Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$81,729
Electrical and Electronic Equipment Wholesaling
1996-97
PROMPT WELDING SERVICES PTY LTD
Unit 3, 4 Stanley Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$12,701
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
2004-05
PYROSALES PTY LTD
4 Wordie Place
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$5,466
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
1998-99
PYROSALES PTY LTD
4 Wordie Place
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$4,460
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
2000-01
RAZORBACK VEHICLES CORPORATION LIMITED
Unit 5, 9-11 Pitt Street
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$200,000
Automotive Component Manufacturing
2000-01
RAZORBACK VEHICLES CORPORATION LIMITED
Unit 5, 9-11 Pitt Street
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$165,875
Automotive Component Manufacturing
2001-02
RAZORBACK VEHICLES CORPORATION LIMITED
Unit 5, 9-11 Pitt Street
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$86,167
Automotive Component Manufacturing
2002-03
RAZORBACK VEHICLES CORPORATION LIMITED
Unit 5, 9-11 Pitt Street
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$59,024
Automotive Component Manufacturing
2003-04
RAZORBACK VEHICLES CORPORATION LIMITED
Unit 5, 9-11 Pitt Street
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$30,762
Automotive Component Manufacturing
2004-05
ROSSMO AUSTRALIA
859 Henry Lawson Drive
PICNIC POINT
NSW
2213
$8,466
Mattress Manufacturing
1998-99
ROTARY ENGINEERING PTY LTD
21 Bullecourt Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$21,399
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1996-97
ROTARY ENGINEERING PTY LTD
21 Bullecourt Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$30,551
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1997-98
ROTARY ENGINEERING PTY LTD
21 Bullecourt Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$19,475
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1998-99
ROTARY ENGINEERING PTY LTD
21 Bullecourt Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$20,577
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
1999-00
ROTARY ENGINEERING PTY LTD
21 Bullecourt Avenue
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$7,400
Industrial Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
2001-02
SEBEL FURNITURE LTD
96 Canterbury Road
BANKSTOWN
NSW
2200
$95,368
Furniture Manufacturing
1995-96
SEBEL FURNITURE LTD
96 Canterbury Road
BANKSTOWN
NSW
2200
$12,427
Furniture Manufacturing
1997-98
SELLEYS CHEMICAL CO PTY LTD
1 Gow Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$192,703
Organic Industrial Chemical Manufacturing
1996-97
SELLEYS CHEMICAL CO PTY LTD
1 Gow Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$148,438
Organic Industrial Chemical Manufacturing
1997-98
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$234,440
Furniture Wholesaling
1995-96
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$250,000
Furniture Wholesaling
1995-96
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$200,000
Furniture Wholesaling
1996-97
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$200,000
Furniture Wholesaling
1997-98
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$198,519
Furniture Wholesaling
1998-99
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$200,000
Furniture Wholesaling
1999-00
SHELLFOX PTY LTD
18 Barry Avenue
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$130,496
Furniture Wholesaling
2000-01
SIGN ONE PTY LTD
35 Gow Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$15,579
Non-Building Construction
2000-01
SKINFAIRY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
4/79-81 Boundary Road
MORTDALE
NSW
2223
$24,110
Pharmaceutical and Toiletry Wholesaling
2000-01
SPA CONTRACTS PTY LTD
113a Fairford Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$63,847
Construction Services
1995-96
SPA CONTRACTS PTY LTD
113a Fairford Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$39,671
Construction Services
1996-97
SPA CONTRACTS PTY LTD
113a Fairford Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$62,171
Construction Services
1997-98
SPA CONTRACTS PTY LTD
113a Fairford Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$22,583
Construction Services
1999-00
ST GEORGE APPLIANCES PTY LTD
55-59 Norman Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$66,362
Household Appliance Manufacturing
1997-98
STAFFORD MILLER AUSTRALIA LTD
5 Enterprise Avenue
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$160,988
Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing
1995-96
STAFFORD MILLER AUSTRALIA LTD
5 Enterprise Avenue
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$186,594
Nut, Bolt, Screw and Rivet Manufacturing
1996-97
STARGAMES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
13 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$34,850
Gambling Services
2000-01
STARGAMES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
13 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$66,687
Gambling Services
2001-02
STARGAMES CORPORATION PTY LIMITED
13 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$72,361
Gambling Services
2002-03
STENCIL CONRETE INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
7/54 Fairford Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$44,662
Paper Product Wholesaling
1995-96
STRETCHTEX INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Unit 2, 40 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$30,691
Clothing Retailing
2001-02
STRETCHTEX INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Unit 2, 40 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$63,323
Clothing Retailing
2002-03
STRETCHTEX INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Unit 2, 40 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$42,064
Clothing Retailing
2003-04
STRETCHTEX INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
Unit 2, 40 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$51,045
Clothing Retailing
2004-05
STUD AND TRACK EXPORT PTY LTD
271 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$41,723
Wholesaling
2002-03
STUD AND TRACK EXPORT PTY LTD
271 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$51,104
Wholesaling
2003-04
TECHNATION PTY LTD
20 Springfield Road
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$83,796
Building Supplies Wholesaling
2003-04
THE FLOOD COMPANY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
4 Nelson Avenue
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$40,089
Paint Manufacturing
1998-99
THE HAPPY NUT PTY LTD
21 Charlescotte Avenue
PUNCHBOWL
NSW
2196
$42,047
Food Manufacturing
1996-97
THE MWM GROUP PTY LTD
4/113 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$34,527
Textile Product Manufacturing
1999-00
THE MWM GROUP PTY LTD
4/113 Boundary Road
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$41,654
Textile Product Manufacturing
2000-01
THOMAS ELECTRONICS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$81,245
Services to Transport
2001-02
THOMAS ELECTRONICS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$74,587
Services to Transport
2002-03
THOMAS ELECTRONICS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$84,359
Services to Transport
2003-04
THOMAS ELECTRONICS OF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$115,161
Services to Transport
2004-05
TRICK TRAYS PTY LTD
Unit 11, 39-41 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$64,175
Manufacturing
2001-02
TRICK TRAYS PTY LTD
Unit 11, 39-41 Marigold Street
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$36,195
Manufacturing
2002-03
UFUNG ENTERPRISES
Unit 20, Peakhurst Business Centre, 53 Lorraine Street
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$14,005
Wholesaling
1998-99
VIDCO DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
13 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$16,555
Toy and Sporting Good Manufacturing
1996-97
VIDCO DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
13 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$30,273
Toy and Sporting Good Manufacturing
1997-98
VIDCO DISTRIBUTORS PTY LTD
13 Sheridan Close
MILPERRA
NSW
2214
$25,507
Toy and Sporting Good Manufacturing
1998-99
VIRBAC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
15 Pritchard Place
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$12,680
Veterinary Services
1999-00
VIRBAC (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
15 Pritchard Place
PEAKHURST
NSW
2210
$15,488
Veterinary Services
2000-01
W WIN ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Suite 3, 1st Floor, 8a Fisher Place
NARWEE
NSW
2209
$23,632
Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling
1995-96
W WIN ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Suite 3, 1st Floor, 8a Fisher Place
NARWEE
NSW
2209
$31,001
Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling
1996-97
W WIN ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Suite 3, 1st Floor, 8a Fisher Place
NARWEE
NSW
2209
$25,932
Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling
1997-98
W WIN ENGINEERING PTY LTD
Suite 3, 1st Floor, 8a Fisher Place
NARWEE
NSW
2209
$36,170
Machinery and Equipment Wholesaling
1998-99
WHYTE HALL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3 Marigold Place
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$39,111
Grocery Wholesaling
1995-96
WHYTE HALL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
3 Marigold Place
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$29,862
Grocery Wholesaling
1996-97
YORKSHIRE FITTINGS PTY LTD
144 Milperra Road
REVESBY
NSW
2212
$20,997
Non-Ferrous Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
1995-96
ZENER ELECTRIC PTY LTD
28 Bryant Street
PADSTOW
NSW
2211
$23,005
Electrical and Equipment Manufacturing
1996-97
Total Grants Paid: 193
$9,613,852
Oil for Food Program
201
201
3417
201
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
Did he at any time tell the AWB not to pay bribes or kickbacks to Saddam Hussein.
201
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Government acted promptly to establish an open and transparent inquiry into Australian companies named in the United Nations Independent Inquiry Committee final report. The Government has cooperated fully with the Inquiry. It would not be appropriate to answer questions relating to the Inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme while the Inquiry is underway.
Oil for Food Program
201
201
3418
201
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
Who told Ambassador Thawley to tell the US Congressional Committee Chair, Senator Coleman, that there was no basis for investigating whether AWB had paid kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
201
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Government acted promptly to establish an open and transparent inquiry into Australian companies named in the United Nations Independent Inquiry Committee final report. The Government has cooperated fully with the Inquiry. It would not be appropriate to answer questions relating to the Inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme while the Inquiry is underway.
Oil for Food Program
202
202
3419
202
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
0
Mr Kelvin Thomson
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
When was the action of the US Senators who wrote to then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in November 2003 expressing grave concerns about reports that AWB had been paid inflated prices for wheat by the Iraqi regime brought to his attention, and what investigations did he undertake into the US Senators’ grave concerns.
202
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Government acted promptly to establish an open and transparent inquiry into Australian companies named in the United Nations Independent Inquiry Committee final report. The Government has cooperated fully with the Inquiry. It would not be appropriate to answer questions relating to the Inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme while the Inquiry is underway.
Foreign Fishing Vessels
202
202
3439
202
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
0
Mr Price
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
-
Has the Australian Customs Service (ACS) or AQIS developed a profile of animals, insects and marine pests that can be found on the illegal foreign fishing boats in Australia’s northern waters; if so, what are they, if not, why not.
-
Have (a) parrots, (b) monkeys, (c) dogs, (e) poultry, and (f) mosquitos been found on board illegal foreign fishing boats.
-
Can he explain the extent of the risks to Australia of (a) avian flu, (b) foot and mouth disease, (c) rabies, and (d) striped mussel infestation as a consequence of the landing of illegal foreign fishing boats.
-
Since the increase in the incidence of the landing of illegal foreign fishing boats, what additional testing has been undertaken to detect (a) avian flu, (b) foot and mouth disease, (c) rabies and (d) striped mussel infestation.
-
Are contingency plans in place to combat an occurrence of (a) foot and mouth disease in the feral pig population, (b) rabies in the wild dingo population, (c) avian flu amongst the bird population and (e) striped mussel infestation in the tidal creeks and rivers; if so, what are the details including the estimated cost of implementing each plan; if not, why not.
-
What is the estimated cost to Australia of an occurrence of (a) avian flu, (b) foot and mouth disease, (c) rabies, and (d) striped mussel infestation.
202
Ruddock, Philip, MP
0J4
Berowra
LP
Attorney-General
1
Mr Ruddock
—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
-
The Australian Customs Service (Customs) has not developed a profile of animals, insect and marine pests that can be found on the illegal foreign fishing boats. This is an issue for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). I am advised that my colleague Senator the Hon Eric Abetz, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation is responding to this under Question on Notice 3438.
-
This is an issue for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). I am advised that my colleague Senator the Hon Eric Abetz, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation is responding to this under Question on Notice 3438.
-
As for (2) above.
-
As for (2) above.
-
As for (2) above. There are very stringent AQIS protocols which are strictly followed by Customs and the Royal Australian Navy to ensure that any animals and birds that arrive in Australia on vessels, including vessels apprehended in Australian waters, do not present a risk to Australia’s health and biosecurity.
-
As for (2) above.
Diplomatic Relations
203
203
3469
203
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
0
Mr Melham
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 9 May 2006:
Which countries in and around the Pacific and Indian Oceans have diplomatic relations with (a) the government in Beijing and (b) the government in Taipei.
203
Downer, Alexander, MP
4G4
Mayo
LP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
Mr Downer
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Countries that recognise the People’s Republic of China
Pacific Ocean maritime countries
Indian Ocean maritime countries
Brunei Darussalam
Comoros
Cook Islands
Madagascar
East Timor
Maldives
Federated States of Micronesia
Mauritius
Fiji
Seychelles
Indonesia
Sri Lanka
Japan
New Zealand
Niue
Papua New Guinea
The Philippines
Samoa
Singapore
Tonga
Vanuatu
Pacific Ocean littoral countries
Indian Ocean littoral countries
Australia
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Burma
Canada
India
Chile
Iran
Colombia
Kenya
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Mozambique
Ecuador
Oman
Republic of Korea
Pakistan
Malaysia
Somalia
Mexico
South Africa
Peru
Tanzania
Russia
United Arab Emirates
Thailand
Yemen
United States of America
Vietnam
-
Countries that recognise the “Republic of China”
Pacific Ocean maritime countries
Indian Ocean maritime countries
Kiribati
Nil
Marshall Islands
Nauru
Palau
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
Pacific Ocean littoral countries
Indian Ocean littoral countries
Costa Rica
Nil
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua
Panama