2008-11-11
42
1
3
REPS
0
0
2008-11-11
The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers.
REMEMBRANCE DAY: 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMISTICE
10465
Miscellaneous
10465
14:01:00
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
0
Mr RUDD
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: today the Leader of the Opposition and I attended the Remembrance Day commemoration activities at the Australian War Memorial. I believe it is important for the parliament to reflect on Remembrance Day, this being the 90th anniversary of the Armistice. It is important for the parliament to reflect on the extent of Australian casualties in the First World War—casualties which, as I reflected this morning, are mind numbing in their dimensions. There were 60,000 Australian dead and 150,000 Australians wounded in the First World War. The implications and the impact which that had on families and communities across Australia were profound and continue to be profound.
As we gathered again today, we had the opportunity to meet with the families of some of the more recently fallen. This was a moving occasion for us all. It reminds us afresh of the continuing service of our men and women in uniform. It reminds us afresh of the fact that there is no higher calling in Australia than to wear the uniform of our nation. It reminds us afresh of the fact that we have our troops still in harm’s way in many theatres around the world.
Also on this, the 90th anniversary of the Armistice, it is important for us as a parliament to reflect again publicly on our friends and allies with whom we have fought for the better part of a century in so many theatres around the world—in difficult theatres and in dark days for our nation and, indeed, in dark days for the world. It is, furthermore, important for the parliament to reflect on the significance of the Armistice and its aspirations for the peace of the world. We know from the history of the 20th century that the aspirations for peace following the Armistice of 1918 were not realised, that within a generation the world was again at war. Again, following the Second World War, since 1945, peace has not been the order of the day.
I think that if those whose names we revere and honour as we walk through the corridors of the War Memorial—and see their names inscribed in the Hall of Honour—have one message for us all today it is not simply to remember their sacrifice, which we must do; it is not simply to honour their heroism, which we must do; it is also to hear their voice to us today telling us to be ever vigilant, not just in the defence of the nation but in the prosecution of peace. There is nothing more horrific for any nation, any community or any family than the direct experience of war. Let us resolve afresh as a parliament to maintain the vigilance which they would expect of this generation of Australians, but to be equally vigilant in the prosecution of peace.
10465
14:03:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I wish to associate the opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister and compliment him on his very eloquent address at the Remembrance Day ceremony at the War Memorial. When we look back on the First World War at the scale of the casualties the horror is mind boggling—almost beyond our comprehension. The numbers were staggering in a world, a society, much greater than the country from which those brave fallen men came.
We contemplate an Australia a quarter the size of what it is today in population and then the horror of Fromelles, that most cataclysmic of Australian military campaigns, where 5,533 Australians would die between one nightfall and the next. It was possibly the worst 24 hours in our nation’s history. We think of the mighty struggles undertaken and the thousands of men whose lives were lost to gain a few metres ground, only to lose it again. We think of Villers-Bretonneux, the village where Australian and French forces had to fight literally door-to-door to drive their enemy into retreat. And we think of the 1,200 Anzacs who died to rescue that village, to liberate it, three years to the day after the landing at Gallipoli. Over 320,000 Australians volunteered for the First World War—this from a nation of five million. There were 61,000 killed and 155,000 wounded. ‘There were so many of them but we never saw them,’ wrote Les Carlyon in The Great War, his epic study of the Australian deployment to the Western Front. We never really knew them, or perhaps never knew enough about their lives or deaths. What we have are memories: faded photographs, bits and pieces brought back from the war.
Perhaps the one war relic that is most evocative for me is a German button brought back by my grandfather. He no doubt found it on the battlefield. I remember it has written on it ‘Gott mit uns’: God with us. I wonder sometimes whether that was a proud boast by the aggressor nation saying, ‘God is on our side and not on the side of our opponents,’ or whether it was perhaps just a prayer—a silent prayer every day as that soldier buttoned up his greatcoat, hoping that God was indeed with him in the horror of the trenches and indeed with the men he was fighting against on the other side.
The Prime Minister spoke today about peace, and that of course is what we must never lose sight of. I am reminded too of Psalm 34, where King David wrote, ‘Seek peace and pursue it’. It is not enough just to look for it or be aware of the virtues of peace, to be in favour of peace; we must pursue it. In that passage, in the original Hebrew, ‘pursue’ means relentlessly, tirelessly chasing, with the passion of the hunter. That is the challenge that comes to leaders in every age: not simply to be vigilant, not simply to stand up for peace, not simply to seek it, but to chase after it, to pursue it relentlessly, tirelessly, with all our heart.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
10466
14:08:00
Questions Without Notice
Economy
10466
14:08:00
10466
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government’s unlimited deposit guarantee and its consequences: the frozen savings of hundreds of thousands and indeed the hundreds of car dealers that are struggling to finance the sale of automobiles. I ask the Prime Minister: does he take any responsibility for today’s collapse in business confidence, or is it, like all bad news, somebody else’s fault?
10466
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the honourable member for his question. Firstly, on the question of business confidence, business confidence is bad here as it is in practically every other developed economy in the world. If you look at the surveys of business confidence in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Germany and Italy, as produced in the relevant indices, you will see they are all heading downwards, and that is because of the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis has impacted on global financial markets, which have in turn affected equity markets, which have in turn affected property markets, which have in turn affected the real economy and jobs. Businesses looking at these developments around the world have become pessimistic about the possibility of investment and growth.
The key challenge in responding to that is to ensure that, first of all, we maintain the stability of the Australian financial system. The stability of the Australian financial system was underpinned by the two bank guarantees which we delivered about a month ago—and we did so, I understand, with the complete, bipartisan support of the opposition on that occasion, but I am not so sure that that is the case today. It seems to be a case of their agreeing one day and then disagreeing the next—not looking at what the opposition say but in fact what they then do. They say that they are bipartisan but then, if you look at what they do the next day, they seek to undermine that bipartisanship.
These are tough and difficult economic times, but what is required is, firstly and fundamentally, the stability of the Australian financial system; secondly, governments around the world putting their shoulder to the wheel and supporting appropriate fiscal and economic stimulus for the economies; and, thirdly, governments around the world cooperating on a new regulatory arrangement for the financial systems which landed us in this difficulty in the first place. That is very much the charge which this government has taken on. It is a charge which the government will prosecute into the future. There will be difficult times ahead, not just for Australia but for the rest of the world, but we are determined to act and determined to continue to take all necessary action to ensure that we can do everything possible to support positive growth in this economy in the future, when the rest of the world is already experiencing the ravages of global economic recession.
Economy
10467
10467
14:11:00
Danby, Michael, MP
WF6
Melbourne Ports
ALP
1
Mr DANBY
—My question is also to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of the government’s Economic Security Strategy as part of Australia’s response to the global financial crisis?
10467
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question. The key challenge is what governments do around the world in support of fiscal measures and broader economic measures to support growth at a time when the International Monetary Fund tells us that global economic recession is looming across the major economies. If we look across the world at the stimulus packages which have been embraced by various economies, we begin to see evidence of governments rising to this challenge and taking appropriate action.
Yesterday I made reference to the stimulus package which has been embraced by the government of China. Upon further examination of the detail of that package, this is a major package indeed, one of relevance not just to us but also to the wider region and to the world economy. I support fully the actions taken by the Chinese government, obviously, mindful of their domestic circumstances but, I believe, equally mindful of the importance of their growth to the wider regional and global economy. This is an important economy for Australia—important given the extent to which our external account and our trade account are dependent on future access to Chinese markets and the sale of Australian goods and services into that market. We will continue to work as closely as possible with our friends in China to ensure that we maintain maximum access to those markets in the future. It is of relevance to Australia, of relevance to jobs in Australia, of relevance also to our future prosperity.
Fiscal stimulus action has of course been taken elsewhere in the world as well. You see large fiscal stimulus packages in Germany, €23 billion; in the United States, US$170 billion; in Japan, something approaching ¥40 trillion; and, in Korea, $10.98 billion or KRW14 trillion. You see governments around the world embarking on fiscal stimulus packages, as we have done in Australia.
It is important for the government of Australia to embark upon a war against unemployment because if we look at what is happening around the world we see rising jobless data in many of the developed economies. Unemployment in the United States is already running at 6.5 per cent; in the UK, 5.7 per cent; in France, eight per cent; in Germany, 7.5 per cent; and it is rising in other economies as well. That is why we have embraced an Economic Security Strategy, a stimulus package of some $10.4 billion, and that is why we believe it is necessary in our current circumstances to support growth but also to support jobs. That package of $10.4 billion, we are advised, will help to create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year. It is a $10.4 billion package aimed at helping to create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year.
On top of that, the government announced yesterday a long-term strategy of $6.2 billion in support for the Australian automobile industry. This industry already directly generates a large number of jobs. If you add the indirect generation of unemployment, there are some 200,000 jobs in Australia dependent on the future success and transformation of that industry. That is the second step that we have embarked upon.
The third step, of course, lies in what we will do on infrastructure. Infrastructure investment, both through the Building Australia Fund and more broadly, is very much on this government’s agenda and has been from day one. Infrastructure investment, investment in the future of our auto industry and investment through the payment systems we have provided to families and pensioners for the future as well are designed to underpin growth and jobs growth into the future—all part of this government’s war on unemployment—and that is something we need to embrace more fully.
Opposition members interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Those opposite seem to think that this is unimportant.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Those on my left will come to order!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I regard war on unemployment as the government’s highest priority. Those opposite, presumably, would have us stand idly by as the world at large experiences increased unemployment.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order, the member for Moncrieff!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—This government will not stand idly by. It will take necessary action through an economic stimulus strategy and necessary action through our automobile strategy and infrastructure strategy, and we are doing these measures in addition to what is already equivalent to a two per cent interest rate fall in recent months—a two per cent interest rate fall which, if you have an average mortgage of some $251,000, results in a $314 a month reduction in your mortgage.
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase interjecting—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order, the member for Kalgoorlie and the member for Moncrieff!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Those opposite catcall because they obviously do not believe it is necessary for government to act on supporting the economy and supporting jobs in the face of a global financial crisis and in the face of the global economic downturn which flows from the crisis. This government has a course of action for the future. This is the strategy that we are embarked upon and the government remains determined to take whatever additional action is necessary for the future in order to support the economy, to support growth and to support jobs. It is a responsible course of action for the future and I ask those opposite to join us in a bipartisan spirit. I ask those opposite not simply to say one day that they offer the government bipartisan support and then the next day seek to undermine it.
84T
Haase, Barry, MP
Mr Haase interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order, the member for Kalgoorlie!
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—It would be useful for the first time in recent times for the opposition to actually do what they say, because this nation looks on all of us to provide leadership through what is a period of great economic challenge flowing to our economy off the back of a global economic and financial crisis.
Honourable members interjecting—
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
10469
Distinguished Visitors
10469
14:17:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—Order! While I have a slight semblance of control of the House, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Kenya led by the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Hon. Kenneth Marende. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
10469
Questions Without Notice
Economy
10469
10469
14:17:00
Hockey, Joe, MP
DK6
North Sydney
LP
0
Mr HOCKEY
—My question is to the Prime Minister. How does it improve business confidence around Australia to have a New South Wales Labor government that is dumping infrastructure projects, sacking employees, increasing taxes and running the biggest budget deficit in 15 years? Does the Prime Minister agree with his own finance minister that the future of the New South Wales economy will ‘depend on what we do’? Does he agree that the Rudd government now owns the New South Wales economy?
10469
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—This government has embarked upon a course of action which does not simply perpetuate the blame game of the past. This government believes that when it comes to the nation’s future challenges you work with state and territory governments, Labor and Liberal. We intend to work as closely with the state government of New South Wales as we will do with the state government of Western Australia. The state government of Western Australia has an interest when it comes to the future—it is in how we partner with them in infrastructure investments—and that is the interest of all responsible state governments.
The difference is this: state governments in the past, when they approached the previous Liberal government for assistance on infrastructure, were simply given the cold shoulder. The previous Liberal government was not interested. The previous Liberal government—and the member for Higgins will recall this very well—said that when it came to infrastructure that was exclusively a state responsibility.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, a point of order that goes to relevance: I asked the Prime Minister whether he will accept responsibility for anything.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and he will respond to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member for North Sydney’s question was about the extent to which Commonwealth governments work or do not work with state governments. I have responded to that question by saying we have an approach on infrastructure. We have an approach when it comes to COAG. We have an approach when it comes to the future of health and education expenditure and we will seek to work cooperatively with the states for the future. What is at stake here is the nation’s economy and the national interest in which the states and territories also have a significant part.
The other part of responsibility, I would say to the member for North Sydney and to the member for Wentworth, is this: it lies also, at times of global financial crisis, in supporting our major economic and financial regulatory institutions. Once again the Liberal Party has been off the leash today, this time in relation to the Secretary of the Treasury. Comments by Mr Don Randall today—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance which comes back to the question: will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for anything? He has got a war against everything but no responsibility.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to the Prime Minister.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The member for North Sydney’s question goes to the matter of economic responsibility, and economic responsibility in turn depends on whether you are going to support the independence of the economic institutions of this country, including the Reserve Bank and the Secretary of the Treasury, and including the independence and integrity of the regulators. Once again we have the member for Canning out there today hooking into the Secretary of the Treasury. It says here:
When asked about the Secretary of the Treasury the member for Canning says that he is an ‘activist’. It is unusual for a head of the Treasury to behave in this way. He is probably the first one to show those tendencies.
We then go on to the member for O’Connor who goes on to say:
What is going on down at the Treasury? John Howard in a conversation going back to the opposition days said to me, ‘If in doubt, take Treasury’s advice.’ That was because in the past they put policy before politics. They really need to take a close look at themselves. They used to be one department that was held in high regard even in opposition.
So today, on this day when the debate on the future of the economy is again central to our concerns in this parliament, we have the attack dogs of the Liberal Party out there attacking once again—
SJ4
Tuckey, Wilson, MP
Mr Tuckey interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for O’Connor will not encourage the Prime Minister.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—the independence and the integrity of the Secretary of the Treasury. The member for Canning stood up in this place recently—I presume at his own initiative—to recant on his attack on the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Barely a week or two later—
849
Sidebottom, Sid, MP
Mr Sidebottom
—I’m the attack dog!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I remind the honourable member for Braddon that I might be the attack dog.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister cannot talk about ending the blame game and then use this kind of language in the parliament. He really should be brought—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The question went to the matter of economic responsibility. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. As I said earlier to the member for O’Connor: no further encouragement.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Again, the member for North Sydney’s question goes to the matter of economic responsibility, which again hangs on the independence of our regulators and the integrity of those regulators. Our responsibility as the government is to defend the regulators. Those opposite seem to believe it is their mandate to attack the regulators or, as they have done today again, authorise an attack on the regulators. That is what has occurred not just through the member for Canning and not just through the member for O’Connor but also from the member for Goldstein.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, again on relevance. This matter is no more authorised by the Leader of the Opposition than the Prime Minister authorised the leak to the Australian about George Bush.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. A point of order is not an opportunity to debate or interrupt.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—Then we have the member for Goldstein, who is quoted in today’s Australian online as saying about Treasury’s role in the production of MYEFO documents:
It’s got the smell of manipulation about it.
So we have, therefore, not just the attack dogs from the backbench but the attack dog from the frontbench unleashing on the integrity and the independence of the Secretary of the Treasury. Does the member for Goldstein stand by that attack?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb interjecting—
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—He nods his head. He has accused the Secretary of the Treasury of manipulating MYEFO. This is an extraordinary statement. We had also a report in the Australian newspaper online about what appears to have been an active debate in the Liberal Party party room, because the member for Kooyong told the party room, it is said, to be ‘very, very careful about attacking Treasury or their institutional representatives’.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes back to relevance—about whether the Prime Minister, the guy that wanted the job, will accept responsibility for anything happening in Australia.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will bring his answer to a conclusion.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—So, on the question of the integrity of the institutions, we have the Leader of the Opposition saying:
I’ve never criticised Dr Henry, and in fact, I spoke about him in such glowing terms yesterday in the house that even his mother would blush. So I have very high regard for Dr Henry.
Yet today we have an orchestrated attack by three members of the Liberal Party on the Secretary of the Treasury. Again, with the member—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! Has the Prime Minister concluded?
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Goldstein has not got the call.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Leader of the House and the member for Goldstein will resume their seats. I think that it would be better if everybody could just calm down slightly and if the Prime Minister would now bring his answer to a conclusion.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The question for the Leader of the Opposition is not what he says but what he does on the question of the independence of the regulators. The question from the member for North Sydney was about taking responsibility for the economy. I would say this to the member for North Sydney: as Prime Minister of Australia, I take responsibility for the good news and the bad news, and when the bad news comes I will take responsibility for that as well, because what the nation wants is not some political game plan whereby you flick responsibility to someone else all the time—where you flick responsibility to the states and territories. What the nation wants is national leadership in the national interest. What the nation wants is tough decisions in tough economic times. This government is prepared to take them.
Economy
10472
10472
14:28:00
Burke, Anna, MP
83S
Chisholm
ALP
1
Ms BURKE
—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of recent interest rate cuts and how monetary policy and fiscal policy are working together to help Australia withstand the global financial crisis? Are these policies receiving broad support?
10472
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
Mr TANNER
—I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. Australia is facing an enormous economic challenge emerging from the flow-on effects of the global financial crisis, and both the government and the Reserve Bank have taken strong and decisive action to strengthen growth and support households. Later on today I will be introducing the government’s legislation—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister for finance will resume his seat. It would assist the proper conduct of the chamber if ministers were at least listened to and half the membership of the chamber did not speak over the ministers.
4V5
Moylan, Judi, MP
Mrs Moylan
—Well, it would be nice if they said something worth listening to.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Pearce is warned.
YU5
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
Mr TANNER
—Later on today I will be introducing the government’s legislation to deliver an Economic Security Strategy of substantial one-off payments to pensioners, families, carers and, of course, first home buyers. If the member for Pearce does not find that worth listening to, then I suspect she is in a small minority. These initiatives will strengthen jobs and economic growth and they will help the government to push back against the downward pressures on our economy emerging from the international financial crisis.
Over its past three meetings the Reserve Bank has cut interest rates by 200 basis points—a full two percentage points reduction in interest rates since September. That means, on average, about $400 per month in relief on interest rates for people with mortgages around $300,000. After years of coping with ever-increasing interest rates under the former government—the government that told Australians they would keep interest rates at record lows—this is welcome relief for homebuyers in Australia.
The government guarantee of deposits and wholesale borrowing by banks has also assisted. That has been acknowledged both in the Reserve Bank’s statement on monetary policy and by the Australian CEOs of both the ANZ Bank and the NAB. They have acknowledged that has helped to put downward pressure on market interest rates as well. I note also that the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Greg Gailey, wrote to the Prime Minister a few days ago on both of these matters—the Economic Security Strategy and the government’s approach to protecting our banking system—saying: ‘The BCA supported the government’s economic security initiative as timely, targeted and temporary. We support the amendments to the deposit and wholesale lending guarantees for the same reasons.’
Unfortunately, the support for the government’s strategies has not been completely universal. It has been very broad, but it has not been entirely universal. The opposition, on both occasions when these initiatives were announced, stated that it would offer them bipartisan support. But in practice the opposition has done nothing other than attack and undermine and snipe against the government’s initiatives. We saw a lot of statesmanlike posturing by the Leader of the Opposition at the time about how he would give all this bipartisan support and so forth but, unfortunately, we cannot trust what the Leader of the Opposition says—we have to watch what he does. He is a very clever politician but, unfortunately, the investment banker gene runs very strong: you spin the story, you do the deal, you take your cut and then you move on—that is the Leader of the Opposition. That is why, in a few short months in the job, he has been against cutting the fuel excise, in favour of cutting the fuel excise and then against cutting the fuel excise. He was against increasing pensions; now he is in favour of increasing pensions. He described the global financial crisis as the greatest economic crisis in our lifetimes and then he said that it was being overhyped. That is why we do not take the pious platitudes about bipartisanship all that seriously.
Last night the member for Curtin really let the mask slip, because she was on Good News Week—I am not quite sure why but she was on Good News Week: they clearly were a bit light on for talent that week—and she was asked to do a word association test. When the word ‘bipartisanship’ was put to her, her response on the spot was ‘Overrated.’ I can understand why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have some problem with copying something the government is doing and not giving credit for it. Given her recent experiences, I can understand why she would have some problem with that, but now today we have seen the consequences from the signal that was given on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition by the deputy leader last night. We have seen it in a coordinated, concerted attack on the Secretary of the Treasury—not a one-off, isolated instance but a coordinated, orchestrated attack on the Secretary of the Treasury by no less than three members of the Liberal Party, one of whom is a senior frontbencher—alleging manipulation of the Treasury forecasts in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, alleging that the Secretary of the Treasury is an activist and alleging that the Treasury has lost all of its credibility and that it should take a close look at itself. That last one, of course, was from the member for O’Connor.
There is one honourable, decent person on the opposition benches, and that is the member for Kooyong, who is widely respected in the community on both sides of parliament. You can see why: he understands what is going on here—he realises how appalling this is. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to immediately repudiate these attacks by his three members on the Secretary of the Treasury and to stick to his statements of 22 October when he indicated the Secretary of the Treasury was held in his highest regard.
Diplomatic Protocol
10473
10473
14:34:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the account in the Australian on 25 October of a highly confidential telephone conversation between him and the President of the United States, an account which acclaimed the Prime Minister’s diplomatic knowledge as much as it denigrated that of the US President. Given the Prime Minister now says the Australian article was factually wrong, why did he take no steps to correct the record until after the White House took the unprecedented step of expressly rejecting this self-serving story in the Washington Post three days later?
10473
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. The purpose of my call to the President of the United States was to discuss the importance of the G20. The President was fully aware that was what the conversation was about. We supported the decision by the President to host that meeting, which I will be attending over the course of this weekend—on Saturday. It is an important meeting, it is important for the country’s future, and we will be cooperating closely not just with the government of the United States but with other governments on the key challenges on the global agenda, namely, the global financial crisis, global financial regulation and global economic growth. We will get on with the business of conducting what is an appropriate level of policy coordination with our friends and partners. We will do so in the future. It is the right course of action and we have our sleeves rolled up and intend to get on with it.
Pensions and Benefits
10474
10474
14:37:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
Ms NEAL
—My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister outline how the government’s Economic Security Strategy will deliver extra support to pensioners, carers and working families and any response to that support?
10474
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
Ms MACKLIN
—I thank the member for Robertson for her question. As she knows, there are more than 27,000 pensioners and 11,000 families in her electorate who are going to benefit from the government’s Economic Security Strategy. Pensioners, carers and disability support pensioners are all going to get a helping hand in the lead-up to Christmas. Four million pensioners, in fact, and 1.9 million families will all get some extra help from the $10.4 billion extra that is going into the economy. This will be $4.8 billion as a down payment on pension reform through lump sum payments to pensioners. That will mean $1,400 each for single pensioners and $2,100 for pensioner couples. It will apply to those on the age pension, disability support pensioners, carer payment recipients, wife and widow pensioners, partners, veterans and self-funded retirees holding a Commonwealth seniors health card. All of these people will receive a payment from 8 December. People who are receiving the carer allowance will also get $1,000 for each eligible person that they are caring for.
Unlike those opposite, we will not be pitting pensioner groups against each other. We certainly will not be excluding two million carers, people with disabilities or pensioner couples. We recognise that all of these people are doing it tough. For the first time, disability support pensioners will be getting a lump sum payment. This strategy, which will be introduced into the parliament this afternoon, will bring new spending on pensioners to $12.3 billion since the last election. As I said before, one of the most important things is that this is a down payment on our pension reforms for the future, intended to provide the additional support that pensioners need and that they have been waiting for for a very long time, in the nine months between now and when long-term reforms are introduced from the next financial year.
It is also the case that, as a result of this package, Australian families who are under significant pressure will get some extra help. Families who are receiving family tax benefit part A will get a one-off payment of $1,000 for each eligible child in their care. That will mean extra money for around four million children in Australia before Christmas. There are about 190,000 families with dependent children who receive youth allowance, Abstudy or a benefit from the veterans’ children scheme, and they also will receive the $1,000 payment.
There have certainly been a lot of groups indicating their support for the government’s strategy. The Fair Go for Pensioners Coalition has said that this is very welcome news that builds confidence and security amongst pensioners and seniors. Those from disability organisations have recognised that this is much needed assistance at a particularly vulnerable time for pensioners. They have also said that it goes some way towards addressing the neglect of the previous federal government over the past 10 years. Carers Australia have said that they are very pleased to see that the government has listened and is now taking real action. They also said that this is an important victory for those left out of previous proposals and that this extra money will provide desperately needed relief for Australia’s hardest working families. That is certainly the case for those who are doing the very tough job of caring.
Of course, the responses that we get from these groups representing carers, people with a disability and families is that they all understand what the government is doing. What is not clear is what the opposition believe. We had the Leader of the Opposition on 14 October saying that the opposition were not going to argue or quibble with the government’s proposal. It seems to be the case that the Leader of the Opposition cannot hold onto a position for more than a day and some people say he cannot even hold onto one for an even shorter period than that. But, in this case, on 14 October he was in full support with no quibbling. The next day—
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey interjecting—
PG6
Macklin, Jenny, MP
Ms MACKLIN
—I have no idea what the member for North Sydney thinks either—whether he supports the proposal or not. One day later the Leader of the Opposition said, ‘We would no doubt have designed it differently.’ All we got from the opposition in the past was that they were going to exclude carers, people on the disability support pension and pensioner couples. They will get the opportunity in the House this week to indicate whether or not they are going to support this package. They can either provide the support that families, people on disability support pensions, carers, coupled pensioners and single pensioners need or continue to do what they have been doing and play politics instead of what the government intends to do and provide the support that these people deserve.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
10475
Distinguished Visitors
10475
14:43:00
SPEAKER, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The SPEAKER
—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Honourable members—Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
10475
Questions Without Notice
Diplomatic Protocol
10475
10475
14:43:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to my previous question and his answer. Given that the account of the leak of the telephone conversation with the US President has been published around the world and given the inescapable implication in every publication that the Prime Minister or his office were responsible for that leak, how will the Prime Minister convince world leaders he is a person who can be relied on to keep a conversation confidential when he has repeatedly failed to deny any responsibility for that leak?
10475
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—On the part of the question which refers to my conversation with the President of the United States, I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to my earlier answers. On the question of Australia’s engagement with the global negotiations leading up to the G20 meeting in Washington and beyond Washington, the government has been engaged for quite some weeks in high-level coordination with other governments on how we approach the future regulation of the global financial system. We have been doing that at official levels. At present, the Treasurer is in Washington and has just been at a G20 meeting in Sao Paulo in Brazil. The purpose of these meetings—
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders require the answer to be relevant to the question that was asked, not the question the Prime Minister would like to ask himself.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Prime Minister is responding to the question.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—The honourable gentleman’s question went to the government working with other governments, and that is what I am responding to. It goes to the question of the agenda which is being framed for the G20 meeting in Washington and the intense preparatory work which is underway in relation to that between us and the other governments participating in this meeting. One of the things on the agenda will be the future regulation of the global financial system, and that will also deal with the future, I believe, of executive remuneration and other such considerations. Long term we have to look at appropriate regulation under the Basel arrangements and, beyond that, we also need to look at the capacity for coordinated action on fiscal policy and, where possible, on monetary policy. These are the big agendas for the future. We will be participating in this meeting, as we have been at an officials and a ministerial level in the preparatory meetings. This is important for Australia. We are playing a positive role and will continue to do so.
Housing Affordability
10476
10476
14:46:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
Mr SULLIVAN
—My question is to the Minister for Housing. How has the government’s decision to boost the first home owners grant been received by the community?
10476
Plibersek, Tanya, MP
83M
Sydney
ALP
Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women
1
Ms PLIBERSEK
—I want to thank the member for Longman for his question. The government recognised the importance of a strong and stable housing market and acted very early and decisively to commit $1½ billion to the first home owners boost. The homeowners boost was increased to $14,000 for existing homes and $21,000 for newly built homes. The increase in the grant has been very well received by the broader community and by the housing industry. The Reserve Bank, in its statement on monetary policy released recently, said that recent falls in interest rates in the fiscal stimulus package, which includes an increase in the first home owners grant for purchases of existing and new dwellings, are expected to boost conditions in this sector in the coming year.
On the visits I have made to a number of members’ electorates, we have had very good early indications of increased interest in the residential construction area. Recently I visited the member for Longman’s electorate and met builders and developers in Caboolture at a meeting that the member for Longman organised. Those builders, developers and others told me that they had certainly seen a lot of renewed interest from first home buyers, particularly in the smaller, more modest homes that they were able to build in some of those areas. I met also with builders, architects and real estate agents in Launceston recently during the visit that the member for Bass organised. Again, they are seeing very high levels of inquiries and certainly a spark of interest. In Seaford Downs in Kingston and Bianco Constructions in Port Adelaide—all these places—our members of parliament have been engaged very actively with constituents in their electorates. Builders, developers and construction supply companies all report increased activity and interest, and we are very hopeful that, over time, this will translate into increased sales. We have seen on the weekend in Sydney reports that Landcom sold 46 house and land packages in Sydney recently, while in the previous nine months activity had been, as they said, dead. More recently one development in Newbury sold seven out of eight available properties in just one weekend. So we are seeing the beginnings of increased interest returning to the market.
Many first home buyers are considering bringing forward purchases that they intended to make. We have seen a lot more traffic through places like HomeWorld in Kellyville, the Home Buyer Show in Sydney and in other places. All of them report a degree of increased traffic. In fact, in HomeWorld in Kellyville I spoke to a very lovely young third-generation builder there, Michael King, who told me that his dad and his grandad said to him that they had never seen a quieter time in the building industry. Yet, in the hours after we made our announcement, they were already receiving increased numbers of phone calls and, certainly in the first weekend after the announcement was made, they were seeing a lot more young couples, a lot more people going through looking at his display homes. They are very hopeful that they will see that translate into increased sales. I am very pleased to report that the legislation to support the Economic Security Strategy is being introduced today into the parliament.
Diplomatic Protocol
10477
10477
14:50:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer again to the leak to the Australian of the conversation between the Prime Minister and the United States President. I note that, if that conversation were leaked by a public servant other than with the authority of the Prime Minister, this could constitute an offence under section 70 of the Crimes Act and, if by a ministerial staffer, an offence under section 79. I ask the Prime Minister: why hasn’t the Federal Police been asked to investigate these leaks? Is it because, in truth, it was the Prime Minister who was the leaker?
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr Albanese
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 100(d)(vii) has clearly been breached by the opening half of that question.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I have more problem with the last part of the question than the earlier part. I would be happy to rule the first part in order, but the last part involved an inference and accusation which I think is—
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—I can rephrase the question, Mr Speaker.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I think we can take the first part as in order but the last part, about the inference and accusation, is ruled out of order. I call the Prime Minister.
10477
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—As I indicated in earlier answers to the member for Wentworth, the purpose of my call to the President of the United States was to—
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am very happy to refer to the gentleman opposite as the member for Griffith, if he would like to do that; if he wants to be ‘the Prime Minister’ he should address me as ‘the Leader of the Opposition’.
4T4
Melham, Daryl, MP
Mr Melham
—Where is it in the Constitution, Malcolm?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Banks!
Honourable members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The House will come to order!
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr Randall interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Canning is not assisting. The member for Banks, if giving constitutional advice, will act more like a High Court judge! On the point raised in the point of order by the Leader of the Opposition, members must be referred to by their titles, and it has been the practice of the House that the appropriate title is the parliamentary title or the ministerial title that they hold. It would suit the practices of the House for that to continue, that those who have a parliamentary title be referred to by that title.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean
—There was another practice—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! I simply say to the Minister for Trade that I am not interested in other practices, I am interested in the practice used now.
DT4
Crean, Simon, MP
Mr Crean interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Minister for Trade is incorrigible! The Prime Minister has the call.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—I thank the Right Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the Right Honourable Leader of Her Majesty’s most loyal opposition, for his question—and the member for Wentworth. As I have made clear and the White House has made clear and the US ambassador has made clear, the reported comment was never made and was inaccurate. Any suggestion that the President was not fully aware of the role of the G20 is not accurate. And that has been my position throughout.
885
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
Mr Turnbull
—Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question related to the Federal Police. The Prime Minister did not even refer to the Federal Police—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has concluded his answer and the member for Kingston is eagerly awaiting the call.
Child Care
10478
10478
14:55:00
Rishworth, Amanda, MP
HWA
Kingston
ALP
1
Ms RISHWORTH
—My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the minister update the House with regard to the government’s work in providing stability and certainty for Australian parents particularly in relation to ABC Learning?
10478
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
Ms GILLARD
—I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I know that as a representative of a young and growing community she is particularly concerned about the circumstances of childcare provision in her electorate and around the nation. Yesterday I updated the House on the government’s response to ABC Learning moving into voluntary administration last week, after which, almost immediately, a receiver was appointed by the creditors of ABC Learning. I take the opportunity to update the House today on some developments that happened yesterday.
The government’s childcare industry task force yesterday met with the receiver and was updated on the receiver’s plans. The receiver of ABC Learning is now undertaking a detailed review of the operational data of each and every ABC Learning Centre. During this period of time the government has been assisted by members of PPB, an insolvency and corporate recovery practitioners firm.
Today I can announce, as a consequence of yesterday’s discussion between the government’s childcare industry task force and the receiver, it has been agreed that government representatives, including members of PPB, the insolvency and corporate recovery practitioners, will be embedded working with the receiver in undertaking this work of a detailed review of the operational data of each and every ABC Learning Centre. Of course, this work is essential and necessary in order to determine the best way forward for all ABC centres. In some cases this may create opportunities for not-for-profit and for-profit entities to operate local childcare centres that were previously operated by ABC but were not viable under the ABC current business model.
As members of the parliament would be aware and would have seen media reports in relation to, a number of organisations have already contacted the receiver and others have contacted various arms of government with a view to expressing their interest in potentially buying or otherwise operating individual or a number of ABC Learning Centres. It is important to note that at this stage the receiver expects that most centres will continue to operate into the new year. There is currently no sale process being conducted for ABC assets. However, the receiver will need to be as well informed as possible when making decisions about the future of each centre and the care arrangements for families.
Today I can announce that an expression of interest process has commenced to ensure that the receiver has the best available range of options for considering the future operation of ABC Learning Centres. I encourage any parties, be they for profit or not for profit, to register their interest in participating in the future of ABC with the receiver. Once the review process has identified the likely future arrangements for each centre, the receiver, working with the government, will map and sort the registrations of interest against the identified local need.
In addition to the registration of interest process, the government and the receiver are continuing to consult with stakeholders with an interest in the provision of early learning and care. The Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Child Care, the member for Bennelong, is also in regular contact with early childhood education and care stakeholders. The member for Bennelong has been involved in discussing and consulting about the government’s reform agenda in child care and early learning. Since the election of the government, she has conducted more than 50 stakeholder meetings and visited 25 childcare centres, and quality forums have been conducted in each state and territory. Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary, the member for Bennelong, attended a forum here in Canberra with around a dozen peak national childcare organisations. This forum had been arranged as part of the government’s ongoing consultation processes in relation to its reform agenda in child care. Of course, the agenda of the forum included a discussion of the ABC Learning situation. This is a challenging situation for parents, communities, the government and the corporate parties involved. The government will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to maximise certainty and stability in the provision of childcare services because we understand how vital that is for mums and dads around this country.
Diplomatic Protocol
10479
10479
15:01:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
0
Mr TURNBULL
—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister deny that he or anyone in his office leaked details of the telephone conversation with the United States President to the Australian newspaper?
10479
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr RUDD
—On the question of my conversation with the President of the United States, the Leader of the Opposition will be aware of my earlier answers—that is, that the purpose of my call to the President of the United States was to discuss the relevance of the G20 to the global financial crisis. Secondly, the President of the United States was entirely aware of the role of the G20. In fact, I would draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to a statement I think I made in this place prior to the publication of the article that he refers to where I said that the G20 meeting was also attended by President Bush, referring to a meeting which the finance minister was attending of G20 finance ministers in Washington. That was attended by the US President at the time. Furthermore, as I have said, and as the White House has said, any suggestion that the reported comment relating to the President of the United States not being familiar with the operation of G20 was never made and was never enacted.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—On a point of order: relevance. The Prime Minister cannot bury this with blather.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Warringah will resume his seat.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—He has to answer the direct question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Warringah is warned. That is not the appropriate manner in which to raise a point of order.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr RUDD
—That statement was made by me in the parliament prior to the article in the Australian appearing. That obviously referred to the President himself attending a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Washington. What I said in this House prior to that article appearing was that the G20 meeting was also attended by President Bush. I went on to say that the President, together with others, had been providing important leadership in this area by calling for appropriate coordinated international action. That was my view then, it has been my view since then, it was certainly my view following the conversation with President Bush and my view has never changed.
Broadband
10480
10480
15:04:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
Mr DREYFUS
—My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. What are the benefits to small business and the service economy of a national broadband network? Are there any alternative policy perspectives on the role of the digital revolution?
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Before calling the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, I remind the House that I do not look favourably upon the wording used in the second part of the question. It should be more specific.
10480
Emerson, Craig, MP
83V
Rankin
ALP
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation
1
Dr EMERSON
—I thank the member for Isaacs for his question and for the opportunity to visit the South East Melbourne Manufacturing Alliance with him in Dandenong, just outside his electorate, before the last federal election, which gave me extra perspectives on the challenges facing small businesses. A high-speed national broadband network will be of particular benefit to small businesses. About 93 per cent of small businesses are connected to the internet. The government’s national high-speed broadband network will provide fast broadband services to 98 per cent of Australia. The government broadband rollout will provide real opportunities for small businesses, especially those in the service economy, to expand into new markets while also keeping upfront costs and risks to a minimum.
HWP
Marino, Nola, MP
Ms Marino interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Forrest is warned!
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—High-speed broadband also provides opportunities to reduce the cost of doing business by cutting administrative costs and increasing productivity through the adoption of new technologies. I was asked about alternative policy perspectives. A speech delivered to the Sydney Institute in 1999 provides such perspectives. The speech says:
The fusion of computing and communications, especially through the internet, have broken the bounds of time, cost and distance.
I was fascinated to see that this is a perspective shared in its entirety with the United Nations Human development report published in that same year, which said:
The fusion of computing and communications—especially through the internet—has broken the bounds of time, cost and distance …
The speech went on to observe:
In biotechnology, the ability to identify and move genetic materials across species types has broken the bounds of nature, creating totally new organisms with enormous but unknown implications …
Now, the Human development report says:
In biotechnology the ability to identify and move genetic materials across species types has broken the bounds of nature, creating totally new organisms with enormous but unknown implications.
The speech went on to say:
… both the communications technologies and the biotechnologies are fuelling globalisation, opening new markets and giving rise to new actors.
I thought that was familiar, because it says in the UN Human development report:
Both technologies are fuelling globalization, opening new markets and giving rise to new actors.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. How is this possibly relevant to information technology, the nondelivery of broadband or small business? It has nothing to do with it.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Moncrieff will resume his seat, and along with the rest of us he will listen to find the relevance—because I am sure that the minister is coming to it.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—Mr Speaker, it is coming—it is on its way. The final point that was made in this learned speech to the Sydney Institute in 1999, and it is the final point, was:
… but my point is that, compared with most traditional tools for—
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is ignoring your comments earlier. He needs to be relevant to the question that was asked. This is completely irrelevant.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order, I have indicated to the member for Moncrieff that I am listening very carefully to where the minister is going; and I am assuming that he is coming to a conclusion.
83V
Emerson, Craig, MP
Dr EMERSON
—I am indeed, Mr Speaker. The learned speech to the Sydney Institute says:
… but my point is that, compared with most traditional tools for development, information and communication technologies can reach many more people, go geographically deeper, work faster and at lower cost.
Well, was it the author’s point, Mr Speaker? Was it indeed the author’s point, because in the Human development report it says:
Compared with most traditional tools for development, information and communications technologies can reach many more people, go geographically deeper, work faster and at lower cost.
Who is the author? The shadow Treasurer—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She has been caught out copying again. She is a serial offender. At that time the now shadow Treasurer was a backbencher, and she delivered that speech at the same forum on the same day with me. We did not have chiefs of staff—we were backbenchers. It was not the fault of a chief of staff this time. The member for Curtin, the shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is a serial offender and she has been caught red-handed yet again.
PRIME MINISTER
10482
Miscellaneous
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
10482
10482
15:10:00
Turnbull, Malcolm, MP
885
Wentworth
LP
Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Mr TURNBULL
—I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That this House censures the Prime Minister for failing to deny allegations that he or his office leaked information about a high security telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. In particular that:
-
this security breach compromises the credibility and integrity of Australia’s diplomatic relationships with key international partners; and
-
the Prime Minister has failed, over numerous days, to fully explain to the Australian people the details in relation to the leak and his involvement in it; and
That the matter be referred to the Australian Federal Police for a full investigation as to whether there has been any breach of the Crimes Act or other relevant legislation.
The urgency of this motion is very clear. We have seen a Prime Minister who has been given the opportunity not once, not twice but again and again to deny that he leaked a self-serving account of a conversation between himself and the President of the United States—an account so self-serving that it presented him as a diplomatic encyclopaedia, a font of all knowledge, and the President of the United States, the chief executive of our greatest ally, as a fool. That was the impression he set out to create; and he leaked that to the Australian newspaper, which naturally gave it great importance. Then when he got the Australian newspaper, did the Prime Minister have second thoughts? No, he was pleased with the outcome because it gratified his vanity. It made him feel clever. He thought, ‘That’s good, people will know how smart I am.’ He did not care that he offended the President of the United States. He did not think that around the world prime ministers and presidents, chancellors, treasurers and officials would say, ‘You can’t talk to the Prime Minister of Australia—you can’t have a conversation with the Prime Minister of Australia unless you want to read about it on the front page.’
It was not until the White House, in an absolutely unprecedented step, went on the record in the Washington Post three days later and denied it, and the issue was taken up here. The Prime Minister did not deny that he had leaked the information but sought to deny that he alone had been aware of the existence of the G20. He tried to walk away from the libel of the President of the United States but he never denied that he was responsible for that leak. Let us consider what the Australian article said. This was not just a little bit of gossip that was picked up. It tells us:
KEVIN Rudd was entertaining guests in the loungeroom at Kirribilli House in Sydney when an aide told him George W. Bush was on the telephone.
It was 10.40pm on Friday, October 10.
The article goes on:
The Prime Minister, still clad in the suit he had worn to a business dinner in the city—
he works so hard that he had not had time to change into his black tie; he normally has dinner in formal wear, of course—
was polite and calm. “Have another drink while I take this call,”—
ever the gracious host—
Rudd told his guests as he slipped into the adjacent study.
The reporter wrote:
What followed was an extraordinary exchange in which Rudd—
the great polymath, he who knows all, told—
… the most powerful man in the world that a plan to address the global financial crisis through the G7 group of leading industrialised nations was wrong. Rudd, the former diplomat and Mandarin speaker—
Was he speaking Mandarin to the President of the United States? It is amazing what you discover when you read these articles with great care. He:
… advised Bush that the G7 plan … was out of touch with the reality of the Asia-Pacific century.
The article goes on to say:
Rudd was then stunned to hear Bush say: ‘What’s the G20?’
During the spirited 30-minute discussion that followed, Rudd continually brought Bush back to his contention that political imperatives and economic common sense demanded the involvement of China in any response to the crisis.
… … …
Rudd’s view on China was probably better informed than he let on to the US President.
He was modest! It goes on to say:
Just four days earlier, the fluent Mandarin speaker had discussed the global turmoil on the telephone with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are all over this. Every paragraph—every letter—is dripping with his DNA. This is his work. But we have given him every opportunity to deny it, and he has failed to do so. There has never been a more serial or more eloquent plea of guilty heard than the Prime Minister’s on this charge of leaking the conversation with the US President.
That demonstrates yet again that the Prime Minister’s claim to be a proficient diplomat is hollow. This is the Prime Minister who on his first international outing went out of his way to gratuitously offend Japan. This is the Prime Minister who fails to recognise that the people of the United States have an extraordinary respect for their head of state; for the office of the President. Even though a president may be unpopular—and George W Bush’s ratings are far from high—until he steps down from office every American will regard him as their commander in chief and as someone who demands respect.
What the Prime Minister has done in his vanity, in his naivety, in his lack of trust, in his lack of professionalism and in his betrayal of Australia’s reputation is offend not just George W Bush—not just one president—but the people of the United States. President Obama and presidents in years to come will, when being called by a Prime Minister of Australia, be told by somebody from the state department—the same department that called in our ambassador for a dressing down; the same department whose ambassador made a personal protest about this to the Prime Minister—‘Do not forget that you can’t trust those Australians; remember what Kevin Rudd did to George W Bush.’
The Prime Minister has trashed our reputation. Many of the journalists watching us today have discussed this and heard the views of the diplomatic community in this city. Right around Canberra there are diplomats unbelieving that the Prime Minister could do this and repeating this comment: ‘You can’t say anything to this man unless you want to read about it the press.’
Confidence is a fragile thing. We have seen in the financial world how readily it has been shattered and how hard it is to restore. We have seen confidence undermined in the financial markets around the world. Just as with the world of finance, so with the world of politics and diplomacy. Nobody will speak to the Prime Minister of Australia now unless they want to read about it in the press. He has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to keep confidential a conversation with the most powerful world leader. Every other head of government—such as the Prime Minister of England, the President of France and the Prime Minister of Italy—will say, ‘If he is going to peddle a self-serving story about a conversation with the President of the United States to denigrate the President’s reputation and inflate his own sense of self-importance then what will he do to me?’ Around the world, Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, is marked ‘not to be trusted’. This has been a shocking betrayal of our nation’s reputation.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Is the motion seconded?
10484
15:20:00
Bishop, Julie, MP
83P
Curtin
LP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
0
0
Ms JULIE BISHOP
—I second the motion. The Prime Minister has failed the fundamental test of national leadership. The Prime Minister has failed the fundamental standards expected of a Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister, by his repeated failure to deny it, has effectively admitted that he or his office leaked a false version of a confidential telephone conversation with the President of the United States of America to the Australian media. This has much broader implications than just a breach of trust and a breach of faith with the President of the United States. This has ramifications around the world. This conversation has been reported in newspapers across the globe: in Beijing, in the United Kingdom, across the United States, in Asia and in Europe. The false account of a confidential conversation between the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States has been news around the world.
What does this say about the Prime Minister of Australia and the office of the Prime Minister of Australia? What does this say to world leaders? For as long as the Prime Minister remains in this office, what does it say to world leaders about their ability to have a conversation with the Prime Minister about matters of confidence? Can they trust him not to give a version of a confidential conversation to the Australian media—and not only a confidential version but a false version of the conversation? This has implications for Australia in terms of diplomatic circles around the world.
What we do know is that there was a dinner at Kirribilli on 10 October. We know that there was a dinner and a prescheduled call between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. What we do not know is who was listening to that telephone conversation, who was there. It was on loud speaker, so we are now told. Who was taking notes? Who was listening? Who else was at dinner at Kirribilli on that evening that could have possibly overheard a telephone conversation between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States? If we are to believe the Prime Minister and a staffer were present for the conversation and only they heard the conversation, then it narrows the field, does it not, to who could have told the Australian newspaper a false account of the telephone conversation?
After 10 October we heard nothing until an article that appeared in the Weekend Australian on 25 October. As the Leader of the Opposition has explained in excruciating detail, this version of the events was the Prime Minister big-noting himself. This was the Prime Minister saying that he had to inform the leader of the free world about what the G20 was; that he, the Prime Minister, was the only one in this conversation who knew what the G20 was, and that the President, who had, incidentally, just met with the G20, said to the Prime Minister, ‘What’s the G20?’ This is a version of the events that denigrated the President of the United States to build up the reputation, in the eyes of the media, of the Prime Minister of Australia. We can just imagine how the Prime Minister would have gone back into the dining room and big-noted himself—he has just had George on the phone and he had to tell George what the G20 was.
This version of the story appeared on Saturday, 25 October on the front page of the Weekend Australian. The Prime Minister can hardly say that he was not briefed on this one. It was on the front page of the Weekend Australian. Was there a public retraction and apology by the Prime Minister on the Saturday evening? No. Was there a public retraction and apology on the Sunday? No. Was there a public retraction and apology on the Monday? No. It was not until The Washington Post carried the unprecedented rejection by the White House of the Prime Minister’s version of this telephone conversation that we heard anything from the Prime Minister, and he was embarrassed into having to admit that the version of events that ended up on the front page of the Weekend Australian was not in fact true, but not once has the Prime Minister denied—having been given every opportunity yesterday in question time, having been given three opportunities in question time today—that he or his office were the source of this embarrassing diplomatic gaffe that will embarrass the Australian nation. (Time expired)
10485
15:25:00
Smith, Stephen, MP
5V5
Perth
ALP
Minister for Foreign Affairs
1
0
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Mr Speaker—
Opposition members interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will resume his seat.
FU4
Robb, Andrew, MP
Mr Robb interjecting—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Goldstein will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for Goldstein then left the chamber.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the call.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—Mr Speaker, I am responding to a suspension. I did not hear or see the Leader of the Opposition move a censure motion.
DK6
Hockey, Joe, MP
Mr Hockey
—Don’t be a coward!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for North Sydney will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a).
The member for North Sydney then left the chamber.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I saw and heard him move a suspension, and I am responding to the suspension. What a surprise that we might have a distraction to cover up for the plagiarism of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—not the bishop of plagiarism, the queen of plagiarism.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you have just suspended for one hour two members of the opposition. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it would assist the management of the House if you asked the Prime Minister to respond to this motion. It looks gutless—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I am responding to the suspension, and what a surprise that we have a stunt from the Leader of the Opposition, covering up for the plagiarism of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—the queen of plagiarism. I assume that when the Leader of the Opposition—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, this is a suspension motion. If the minister is responding in place of the Prime Minister he should strictly deal with the suspension motion. He should show why standing orders—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Warringah will resume his seat. I will say two things to the point of order. I will use the same latitude that I allowed the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in their approach to this motion, but it would assist if members were to sit quietly and listen to the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that I can understand and be able to appreciate the points that he is making. I cannot hear him.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—I assume that, when the Leader of the Opposition read the Weekend Australian on Saturday, 25 October, the reason it was not raised at all by the Liberal Party until 29 or 30 October, and not raised by him until after that, was that he assumed, as did I when I read the same paper, that the central tenet of the report could not possibly be correct, that the central tenet of the report—which was that the President of the United States did not know about the G20—could not possibly be correct. The whole conversation was about the G20. So I assumed the Leader of the Opposition’s failure to raise the matter publicly for days or a week or more after the publication of the report reflected the fact that, like me, he thought there was nothing in it.
What have we seen since then to bring about the high dudgeon of the opposition in question time today? We have seen the White House say, ‘The central tenet of the article is incorrect.’ We have seen the Prime Minister’s office say, ‘The central tenet of the article is incorrect.’ We have seen the Prime Minister himself say, ‘The central tenet of the article is incorrect.’ We have seen the United States ambassador say: ‘These things happen from time to time. We’ve moved on from this. It’s not a problem.’
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Just say you think the Australian lied!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson!
00AKI
Dutton, Peter, MP
Mr Dutton
—Just say you think the Australian lied!
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—The member for Dickson is warned!
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—And it is not a problem for the Australian government’s dealings with the current Bush administration and it is certainly not a problem for dealing with the new Obama-elect administration.
The argument of the Leader of the Opposition is that this has done damage to Australia’s standing in public relations—that no leader would contact Australia with confidence. Last time I looked, President-elect Obama had a telephone conversation with the Prime Minister as one of his first 10 conversations with world leaders. Let us go to the substance of this. There are two substantive issues—firstly, whether as a matter of foreign or public policy utilising the G20 as the international financial institution to deal with this international crisis was the correct thing to do or not the correct thing to do. We are very pleased that President Bush, President Barroso and President Sarkozy effectively chose the G20. Do you know why? That was due to Australia’s very strong argument, mounted by the Prime Minister when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly. We are very pleased that that was chosen and made no secret of the fact that the Prime Minister, I as Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Trade and the Treasurer spoke respectively to various colleagues throughout the world making precisely that point. Do you know why? It was in Australia’s national interest to make that point.
Secondly, the assertion that this erroneous report, which the White House says is wrong, the Prime Minister says is wrong, the Prime Minister’s office says is wrong and the US ambassador says is wrong and is of no consequence, has somehow damaged the framework of our relationship with the Bush administration. Let me make a couple of central points. The relationship between a government and an administration is one thing. That is not as high or as important as the relationship between nation-state and nation-state under the alliance between Australia and the United States and our very strong policy position, articulated from day one. We deal with whatever administration the United States people throw up. We do not choose. We do not choose McCain; we do not choose Obama. We deal with what the democratic process in the United States throws up. That is also unambiguously in our national interest. We have had a very good positive, constructive working relationship with the Bush administration, and that will continue until 20 January.
On the central issue in respect of which we disagreed with the Bush administration in the run-up to the election and on which we were voted in by the Australian people with support for this policy position—withdrawal of our troops from Iraq—we satisfied that commitment in constructive, positive engagement with the United States and we withdrew our troops from Iraq in a very successful and positive manner, conducted professionally and cooperatively with the United States administration. So the second tenet of the assertion, that this has somehow damaged our relationship with the Bush administration, is fallacious.
Let’s now come to what has damaged the standing of Australia in the United States and put at risk the relationship between Australia and the United States. That is the Liberal Party saying that President-elect Obama was a terrorist. That is what happened. When you were a minister in the previous government, when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was a minister in the previous government, when the former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, was Minister for Defence in the previous government and when the former Treasurer was a minister in the previous government, the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, said that if President-elect Obama were elected as President of the United States that would be a red-letter day for terrorists. The Liberal Party actively supported the election of McCain and derogated and abused the President-elect. The Liberal Party’s assertion was that to elect Obama was to elect—
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate your earlier statement that you would allow some latitude in this, but really he is ranging very widely—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I know he has been warned, but I am happy to allow the minister to have his last minute in this debate.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—This is what John Howard said:
If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.
That is what the former Prime Minister said, and the then defence minister, the former Leader of the Opposition, went out the next day and supported it—and not you as a minister, nor you as a minister nor anyone else as a minister disassociated themselves from those remarks. That was the Liberal Party’s position—that President-elect Obama was a candidate for the terrorists. Your senior senator, Senator Fifield, said on Sky in October:
I do think it’s a very serious matter when you have a presidential candidate who thinks it’s okay to hang around with people who supported and sponsored murder and terrorist bombings. I think that’s a very legitimate point.
I did not see you debunking or rebuking him.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The minister will refer his remarks through the chair.
5V5
Smith, Stephen, MP
Mr STEPHEN SMITH
—The fact that Senator McCain was the Liberal Party candidate was shown on their website. Here is a printout of the Liberal Party of Australia website the day before the election, with a link to the McCain campaign. On the day President-elect Obama was elected, it disappeared. Talk about damage to our standing! The government—
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to.
15:39:00
The House divided.
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
56
AYES
Abbott, A.J.
Andrews, K.J.
Bailey, F.E.
Baldwin, R.C.
Billson, B.F.
Bishop, B.K.
Bishop, J.I.
Briggs, J.E.
Broadbent, R.
Chester, D.
Ciobo, S.M.
Cobb, J.K.
Costello, P.H.
Coulton, M.
Dutton, P.C.
Farmer, P.F.
Forrest, J.A.
Georgiou, P.
Haase, B.W.
Hartsuyker, L.
Hawke, A.
Hawker, D.P.M.
Hull, K.E. *
Irons, S.J.
Jensen, D.
Johnson, M.A. *
Keenan, M.
Laming, A.
Ley, S.P.
Macfarlane, I.E.
Marino, N.B.
May, M.A.
Mirabella, S.
Morrison, S.J.
Moylan, J.E.
Nelson, B.J.
Neville, P.C.
Pearce, C.J.
Ramsey, R.
Randall, D.J.
Robert, S.R.
Ruddock, P.M.
Scott, B.C.
Secker, P.D.
Simpkins, L.
Slipper, P.N.
Smith, A.D.H.
Somlyay, A.M.
Southcott, A.J.
Stone, S.N.
Truss, W.E.
Tuckey, C.W.
Turnbull, M.
Vale, D.S.
Washer, M.J.
Wood, J.
81
NOES
Adams, D.G.H.
Albanese, A.N.
Bevis, A.R.
Bidgood, J.
Bird, S.
Bowen, C.
Bradbury, D.J.
Burke, A.E.
Burke, A.S.
Butler, M.C.
Byrne, A.M.
Campbell, J.
Champion, N.
Cheeseman, D.L.
Clare, J.D.
Collins, J.M.
Combet, G.
Crean, S.F.
D’Ath, Y.M.
Danby, M.
Debus, B.
Dreyfus, M.A.
Elliot, J.
Ellis, A.L.
Ellis, K.
Emerson, C.A.
Ferguson, L.D.T.
Ferguson, M.J.
Fitzgibbon, J.A.
Garrett, P.
Georganas, S.
George, J.
Gibbons, S.W.
Gillard, J.E.
Gray, G.
Grierson, S.J.
Hale, D.F.
Hall, J.G. *
Hayes, C.P. *
Irwin, J.
Jackson, S.M.
Katter, R.C.
Kelly, M.J.
King, C.F.
Livermore, K.F.
Macklin, J.L.
Marles, R.D.
McClelland, R.B.
McKew, M.
McMullan, R.F.
Melham, D.
Murphy, J.
Neal, B.J.
Neumann, S.K.
Oakeshott R.J.M.
O’Connor, B.P.
Owens, J.
Parke, M.
Perrett, G.D.
Plibersek, T.
Price, L.R.S.
Raguse, B.B.
Rea, K.M.
Ripoll, B.F.
Rishworth, A.L.
Roxon, N.L.
Rudd, K.M.
Saffin, J.A.
Shorten, W.R.
Sidebottom, S.
Smith, S.F.
Snowdon, W.E.
Sullivan, J.
Symon, M.
Tanner, L.
Thomson, C.
Thomson, K.J.
Trevor, C.
Turnour, J.P.
Windsor, A.H.C.
Zappia, A.
4
PAIRS
Gash, J.
Swan, W.M.
Markus, L.E.
Griffin, A.P.
Pyne, C.
Kerr, D.J.C.
Schultz, A.
Vamvakinou, M.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
83T
Rudd, Kevin, MP
Mr Rudd
—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
EZ5
Abbott, Tony, MP
Mr Abbott
—Oh, you coward.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! The member for Warringah will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a), which is very generous on my part.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
10489
Auditor-General's Reports
Report No. 8 of 2008-09
10489
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 8 of 2008-09 entitled National Marine Unit: Australian Customs Service.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
DOCUMENTS
10489
Documents
Mr ALBANESE
(Grayndler
—Leader of the House)
15:45:00
—Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
10489
Matters of Public Importance
Rural and Regional Australia
10489
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wide Bay proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The impact of government policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australians
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—
10489
15:46:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—The town of Bourke is one of those few places whose very name resonates in the minds of all Australians. When someone says they are going to the back of Bourke, we know they mean that place of myths and legends—the Australian outback. When Henry Lawson visited in 1893 he said, ‘If you know Bourke, you know Australia.’ I have been to Bourke on a number of occasions and I found its 2,500 people to be resilient, proud and hardworking. They battle through drought, the latest resulting in a loss of about a third of their population. The closure of the railway line some years ago and the decline of the Darling River as a method of transport have both dramatically changed the town. Bourke has survived almost two centuries in one of Australia’s most inhospitable regions, beautiful but harsh, through natural disasters like drought, flooding and changing lifestyles which have seen people move en masse to coastal towns or to larger regional centres.
However, what I see now is the Rudd Labor government, which came to power less than a year ago, trying to outdo all of those natural and demographic calamities and working hard to kill Bourke and so many of the important regional towns and communities around Australia. What this government and its state Labor counterpart are doing to Bourke and other places like it is, frankly, cruel and heartless and uncaring—but it is real. Labor’s decision to change the focus and direction of the coalition’s $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rehabilitation plan has devastated regional communities. Instead of restoring and modernising the basin’s infrastructure, as we intended to do, so that there would be more water available for the rivers, for the environment and for irrigators, Labor is buying the water entitlements from drought stricken, desperate farmers. It is buying pieces of paper. It is the cheap and lazy way out. It is not delivering water to the environment, but it is hurting, permanently, many rural towns, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria.
There is no account being taken of the long-term social and economic impact on local communities. The promised economic impact assessments before the water purchases have simply not been undertaken. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, will not even talk to these people; she will not even meet the very communities that are being decimated by the government’s actions. The government has no concern for these rural communities; it is interested in cheap headlines in the city. But they are just headlines. It is not actually delivering any water. As one of my colleagues said, ‘It is buying air because there is no water there to underpin the water entitlements.’ The decision to purchase the historic Toorale Station at Bourke and effectively turn it into a national park and to channel its water rights back into the Murray-Darling system is a classic example of this action.
We saw on Four Corners just a few weeks ago the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, clearly demonstrating that she had not even been there and that she knew nothing about the property that she had bought. She was prepared to spend $23.75 million of taxpayers’ money without even looking at what she was buying. She said she was going to buy water to restore the river’s environmental health, but she overestimated the amount of water that was available fourfold. She did not know at the time of the purchase that Toorale had virtually no water to send back into the system. She was buying just clear air. She did not know that this vast, once productive property would have to be managed for pests and weeds if it was going to be any kind of useful national park in the future. Senator Wong and her Labor government colleagues did not know or did not care about the hundred direct and indirect jobs that would be lost in Bourke and district. That is 10 per cent of Bourke Shire’s GDP. The minister did not even bother to ask what the impact would be. There was no economic impact assessment and there has been nothing offered from the Labor government for this community to compensate for the water entitlements that have been taken away.
Yesterday, Regional Express airlines—Rex—announced it would be stopping its air services to Bourke. Other services that are to be cut are going to include Dubbo to Cobar, to Coonamble, to Lightning Ridge and to Walgett, and Mudgee to Sydney. I know there is nothing easy about regional aviation, and Rex acknowledged this in its press statement, but it laid the blame for the cancellation of these services clearly at the feet of the government and the government’s decision to axe the en-route subsidy program. The Labor government did not announce this decision in the budget. There was no reference to it in the budget. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government quietly wrote to the airlines concerned to tell them that this scheme was going to end and that they should start looking at whether or not any of these services could be maintained.
The reality is that this scheme is going to be phased out by the Rudd government. This scheme, introduced following the collapse of Ansett and the events of September 11, provided help to 40 operators who run services to regional towns that otherwise might be unprofitable. The decision to phase out the rebate was not announced in the budget or even in a press release. The airlines were quietly told by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that he was doing this because the routes were now in ‘a significantly stronger position’. Those were the exact words that he used. Tell that to Rex, Minister. Tell the people of Bourke, Dubbo, Coonamble, Lightning Ridge, Walgett and Mudgee that their air services are in better condition.
The rebate is to be phased out over a period of time but, immediately, no new services are eligible for this assistance—no new services. So now that the Bourke services have been cut, no airline that seeks to introduce new services to Walgett or to Bourke will actually be eligible for this support. How, Minister, are these poor regional communities going to manage without air services? How are their children going to get to school? How are people going to do business in the cities without air services? How could a government in the middle of this drought, in the middle of the water buyback, be so cold and heartless as to withdraw support for people’s air services, withdraw support for their connection to the rest of the country? What sort of an uncaring government do we have in these times of difficult economic circumstances in regional communities?
Bourke was originally a port where paddle steamers would ply their trade up and down the Darling. That form of transport was replaced by a more efficient railway until the line was destroyed by flood and never replaced. Now the airlines are going too. The need for good transport links is surely evident to everybody. Surely, it ought to be a priority for a government that cares about people who live outside the capital cities to provide some of these basic services for these small and remote drought stricken, troubled rural communities. It seems it is too much to ask from this government.
This matter of public importance also relates to the government’s policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australia. We saw a torrent of taxation in the last budget that will affect all Australians, including people who live in regional areas. They will have to pay these extra taxes. The reintroduction of indexation of diesel excise for truckies and the new car tax are examples of the farcical response that this government is taking to the problems in regional areas. A farmer’s top of the range LandCruiser is now going to be taxed at 25 per cent because a concession was negotiated for farm owners’ vehicles, but if that same vehicle is owned by a shearing contractor he will pay 33 per cent even though he is driving onto the same farm. If he is a doctor visiting remote country patients on dusty or flooded roads, he has to pay the full 33 per cent tax. If the farmer leases the LandCruiser, he has to pay the 33 per cent. He has to pay eight per cent more tax if he leases it than if he buys it direct. What is the logic of this?
What kind of sound financial advice did the Treasury give to the government that concocted this ridiculous scheme? The family Tarago still cops the 33 per cent luxury tax. A large Australian built Holden, which the government is now about to provide $6 billion worth of subsidies for, will attract the 33 per cent tax, but if you go and buy some imported Jaguar, Mercedes, Audi or BMW—the kinds of cars you will see double-parked in Double Bay—you will pay no car tax, none at all. What is the fairness in that, Minister? How do you logically defend that as transport minister? This is an example of the way in which this government cannot see through the impact of its policies and devises a new luxury car tax scheme that subsidises imported cars but taxes Australian produced vehicles.
Talking about the car industry, car buyers and dealers are amongst those who have been critically affected by the government’s mishandling of its support for the banking system and the financial system at the present time. It has been estimated that perhaps half the nation’s car dealers might have to close because of the unavailability of finance for their floor plan and finance for their customers. This issue was simply overlooked by the Rudd government in its rush to guarantee bank deposits and it has done nothing since to repair the damage. How many car dealers, how many car employees, how many workers in the workshop have got to lose their jobs before this government will take the situation seriously?
Let us turn to the shameful situation of our public hospital system. In August last year the opposition leader, Kevin Rudd, was saying that, if he were elected to government, the buck would stop with him. The Greater Western Area Health Service, which administers hospitals in regional New South Wales, is so poorly funded that meat has been pulled from the menus of hospitals because the health service cannot afford to pay the butcher. Suppliers of security, taxis and fresh fruit and vegetables have been threatening to stop doing business because they are not being paid. A baby was born by the side of the road because an expectant mother was told to drive from Cobar hospital to Dubbo hospital. Doctors are paying for patient procedures out of their own pocket. Nurses are being forced to borrow bandages from the veterinary clinic. Surgery is being rescheduled because hospitals have run out of basic items like surgical gloves.
What is the Rudd government’s response to this appalling crisis? The Prime Minister said in parliament in answer to a question from the member for Parkes that he did not know about the situation even though it was in all of the Sydney newspapers that very day. But the government has just changed the rules which encouraged people to take out private health insurance. Treasury says that, as a result, 492,000 people will drop out of private health insurance. Those who remain in private health insurance will see their premiums rise and those who can no longer afford it will drift into the public hospitals, placing enormous new pressures on the already stretched system.
I remind you again that the Prime Minister said that the buck would stop with him. Before the election, the Prime Minister used the phrase 36 times. Thirty-six times he said the buck would stop with him. Since the election, now nearly a year ago, he has used the words only once. The buck stopped with him before the election, but now it is over he has forgotten the commitments and promises he made. The services are not being delivered. The health system is worse than ever.
At the last election we promised to return the management of hospitals to local boards. Local people running their local hospitals would never tolerate the kind of mismanagement that has been evident in so much of country New South Wales. We also said that there would be a fair share of the Commonwealth’s hospital funding dedicated to regional health care as a condition of the next Commonwealth-state health agreement.
We all know about the drought. It is the cruellest we have seen in this country’s history. We all know also of the suffering, how it affects people socially and environmentally. Now Labor want to reform drought aid because they say that exceptional circumstances provisions are not appropriate for assisting those dealing with drought. The theory Labor are trying to promote is that the cause of the present drought is climate change and there is nothing exceptional about it so therefore no-one should get any assistance. They even want to get rid of the word ‘drought’. A government report has suggested it be replaced by the word ‘dryness’. Apparently, Australia will always be dry and it makes people feel bad when the word ‘drought’ is used. This is politically correct nonsense. They are trying to change reality for a political purpose.
The government must continue to be prepared to stand by people in regional communities. They have contributed mightily to our nation’s wealth, our growth and our prosperity over the years and still do today. Do not kill off the communities that mean so much to our country. Give them a fair go. (Time expired)
10493
16:01:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on the MPI. It is quite extraordinary how weak the Leader of the National Party was—or is it the Liberal-National Party? They are not quite sure what political party they belong to, so it is not surprising that they do not know where they are going. It is clear that following last year’s election I inherited a portfolio which for 12 long years had been overseen by a string of National Party ministers who were consistent in some things. They were consistent in their inaction, in their drift, in their nepotism and in the corrupt way they handled the Regional Partnerships program. They were consistent in that all of them failed to have any policy of reform and failed to deliver for regional Australia. The National Party ministers viewed regional programs as nothing more than barrels of pork for doling out to mates and business associates. That was the way that they saw regional administration.
I have informed the House before about what went on under this program. We know about the ethanol plant at Gunnedah that was never built. There was $1.1 million of taxpayers’ money funded for that project. The proponent of that project said in a Sunday newspaper many months ago that they would pay the money back to the Australian taxpayers. I took up that offer and wrote to the proponent. The department took action on this issue, but there was no response. The money has not been returned.
Then there was the Indigo Cheese Factory in the electorate of Indi, which got $22,000 of taxpayers’ money three months after it closed its doors. Then there was approval for a toilet in Lock—$60,000. There are 290 residents in the town of Lock, so there was $206 for every man, woman and child in that town. That was approved by the former government. Minister De-Anne Kelly, the former member for Dawson, approved 16 projects, worth $3 million, in just 51 minutes prior to an election being called. Their definition of ‘regional Australia’ was very broad. Funding was given under their regional roads program to Campbell Parade, Bondi Beach, which is in the electorate of Wentworth. That was under their ‘regional’ program.
They had the Sustainable Regions Program that plucked out marginal seats and said that they were special and deserved funding. We know that the electorate of Macarthur was plucked out. Not Wollongong, not Goulburn, not Campbelltown and not Liverpool but Macarthur was plucked out as a sustainable region. When they defined the North Coast sustainable region, it began at the electorate of Lyne, which was then held by the Leader of the National Party—it now has better quality representation with the new member for Lyne—and went up the coast and around the electorate of Richmond. Why did it go around the electorate of Richmond? Because they voted Labor. Therefore, the good electorate of Richmond were not regarded as being part of a regional community. They also had the Darling Matilda Way sustainable region that excluded the electorate of Kennedy. It just stopped at the border of that electorate. That program is quite extraordinary.
In the past couple of weeks there has been another clanger in Sustainable Regions that I have not yet had the opportunity to inform the House of. I am very pleased to have been given this opportunity. Barlil Organic Poultry Pty Ltd is a company that has recently had substantial difficulties. It is in Cherbourg in the electorate of Wide Bay, which is held by the Leader of the National Party. On 5 July 2005 this private company got Sustainable Regions funding of almost half a million dollars—$495,000. The now Leader of the National Party became the Minister for Transport and Regional Services the very next day. Notice the timing there? You get your grants out to particular seats and then you become the minister the next day so the previous minister made that decision.
Indeed, the member for Wide Bay opened the project and wrote about it in his newsletter on his achievements between 2004 and 2007 to his electorate. It was a 37-page achievements document—37 pages paid for by the Australian taxpayer. In it he said that the Wide Bay Burnett Sustainable Regions program:
… will leave a legacy of significant projects which will continue to have a positive impact in the region for years to come.
That is what he said about this project—funding a private company. It has now gone bust. It owes a million dollars to creditors, many of them local businesses. Dozens of staff have not been paid their superannuation entitlements. We have half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money down the drain. We have a worker there quoted as saying on Channel 7 news—about the program they regard as top-notch:
I did not want anything to do with it. The bacteria spores were starting to grow on the chickens and they were still quite willing to use them for human consumption.
They are not talking about the bacteria growing on the carcass of the National Party. They are talking about a program in which chicken that was going green was being processed and sent out for sale, so Woolworths cancelled the contract. But what did the leader of the National Party say not beforehand but after this event? On Channel 7 news, in response to this collapse, he said, ‘It showed a lot of promise.’ That was their response, but because of the way the program is structured we are unable to get any of our money back. When I say ‘our’, I am talking about the taxpayers of Australia who have funded this largesse from the National Party opposite.
The fact is that we had the Leader of the National Party stand up here and complain about a number of issues that have occurred. One of the issues that he raised, which is a very serious issue, is Rex Airlines closing their regional routes. That is a serious issue. What did the Leader of the National Party do? I tell you what. Do you know which airline had the highest profit ratio in Australia last year? Was it Qantas? No. Was it Virgin? No. It was Rex. The Rex airline had a 14 per cent profit. I met with the CEO in Singapore two weeks ago. He did not raise the closure of any of these routes, and I say that, if the Leader of the National Party was fair dinkum about representing regional Australia, he should join me in condemning the actions of Rex in closing these routes. It is a betrayal. The fact is that the subsidy that was there, which was introduced in 2001 in the wake of the Ansett collapse as a temporary subsidy, is being withdrawn in 2012. Yet they are shutting the routes now, and the Leader of the National Party wants to score a political point rather than represent the people of regional New South Wales and join me in calling for Rex to reconsider its decision which people in regional Australia will quite rightly be angered about.
The people of Rex have good connections to the National Party. Let me tell you that the Leader of the National Party can pick up the phone and make a difference, and I call upon him to join with me in doing so. What is the contrast?
GT4
Truss, Warren, MP
Mr Truss interjecting—
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—It is there until 2012—you nong—and they are shutting routes today. I say to the Leader of the National Party that he has really lost the plot. They did nothing over 12 years to truly represent regional Australia. Now they are part of the problem—never part of the solution—as opposed to the new government, which has been moving very swiftly to put its programs in place.
I met with the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia and with Regional Development Australia just on Monday. We are rolling out our commitments, which we are fulfilling under the Better Regions program. We are concluding all of the arrangements for the Regional Partnerships program. We are delivering some $1.75 billion over five years to extend the Roads to Recovery program—an extra $250 million for local roads. We are contributing $26 billion over the next six years for road and rail projects—the biggest ever infrastructure program. We are establishing the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program. But one thing that we will not do, and it is in accordance with the report done by the House of Representatives committee, is fund private, for-profit businesses for mates. That is what we will not do. The report clearly recommended that, but we have a minority report from the National Party on that committee stating that they—
00AN1
Cobb, John, MP
Mr John Cobb
—Reflecting what people want. Read the evidence.
R36
Albanese, Anthony, MP
Mr ALBANESE
—Reflecting what National Party mates want, which is for the rorts for the private sector to continue. The fact is that we are truly representing regional Australia. The fact is that we are working with people of goodwill. Next Monday night and next Tuesday there will be mayors and shire presidents from all over the nation coming to Canberra and being treated with respect like never before from a national government. That is why they have responded so positively.
But those opposite who are not quite sure what they stand for, whether it is the National Party, the Liberal Party or what have you, are so confused. The Leader of the Nationals essentially stated again that he was against the purchase of overallocated water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin. I say: is that the position of the coalition? They have been all over the shop on this. If you do not address overallocation in the Murray-Darling Basin, you cannot possibly provide a long-term solution. But it is not just the Labor Party that they are opposed to. They have deliberately stopped any of the three Independent members speaking in this debate. It is not just the Labor Party that they do not want to hear from. When we sat on that side of the House the Independents were given a fair go. I have raised with the Leader of the Opposition the issue of the Independents being allowed to speak in this debate. They have raised it with the Opposition Whip and they have been excluded. Anyone who is fair-minded and independent would regard the 12 years of betrayal by the National Party as a blight on regional policy development and would look towards what the new government has done in just 12 short months to correct the imbalance which was there.
10496
16:16:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Calare
NATS
0
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—I rise to talk on behalf of regional Australia. We have just heard the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government spend a lot of time talking about what we did but could not really put his mouth to anything that his government was doing in a practical sense. I recall that the very first thing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation did for regional Australia—probably by January of this year, two months after they were elected and long before the May budget—was when he decided to cut $640 million worth of programs from the existing budget, and guess where three-quarters of that money came from? About $400 million of it came out of regional Australia.
It is wonderful to hear the minister for infrastructure talk about all the things his government has done in 12 months. I will tell you something else his government did for regional Australia: he has been spending a lot of time talking about the National Party and Regional Partnerships. I travel a bit, and I was in Tasmania 10 days ago with Senator Guy Barnett. One of the things I kept getting asked was: how do we get the money to do a sporting thing for a school or help with a hall—whatever it might be—in a regional town? I said, ‘We can’t help you now; all those programs have been canned. The Labor Party doesn’t like anything that helps regional Australia.’ In fact, that is something the Labor Party really did for regional Australia. It got rid of the program that did more and provided more seed money for more programs than anything that had ever been done in this nation’s history.
To me, it is quite phenomenal that the minister for infrastructure could stand there a few minutes ago skiting about something he knows is a terrible lie. He talks about bad programs. He has not mentioned the fact that he had to admit to David Koch on the Sunrise program that he had not realised that there were a lot of good programs for regional Australia and that he would have to have a look at them. ‘I didn’t realise all these good programs were there,’ he said. Well, they are not there now because he cut them dead. The report he was talking about a minute ago totally ignored the evidence, totally ignored the fact that people want the same program as that which exists now. The government are saying that if they ever bring another program back it will not be for regional Australia; it will be for the whole country. And they want to have it in tight rounds, so it will only be so much money every three months, which means that Tibooburra will have to compete with Sydney. That means that Orange or Mudgee—or any country town—will have to compete with the city for money within that round. But that is doing something for regional Australia, according to the minister for infrastructure!
Let us talk about communications. Today during question time we heard one of the ministers opposite talk about broadband, as well they might—but not if you live in regional Australia. Next year, in 2009, virtually everybody was going to have access to broadband under the contract this government signed with Optus and Elders, but they have absolutely canned that. Now we have—what?—eight years before we might get something. In fact, they have done so much for regional Australia that they took back $3 billion which was targeted for regional Australia. They took $2 billion out of the Communications Fund, which was to keep regional people who were outside the competitive commercial area up with the latest, and another billion dollars from the contract with Optus and Elders which was going to provide broadband for nearly everybody by next year. Now, if they are lucky—after Sydney, after Melbourne, after Brisbane, after Perth, after Adelaide—by about 2015 regional Australia might get something. Mind you, the government does not know what it is going to do with broadband at this stage, and it does not seem to have anyone who wants to tender for it.
A short while ago you heard the Leader of the Nationals talk about water. These are more things that Labor have done for regional Australia. They are so good to us in regional Australia! They have now earmarked $3.6 billion to buy water out of regional Australia. And, yes, there will be people who will buy because, after six years of drought, a lot of them are in deep trouble—and, yes, they have banks on their back. Let us talk about that for a minute—about all these wonderful things the government are doing for regional Australia and how they are going to be situated. Yes, people may sell water—and they do not want a plan. They had an opportunity to do a plan. Now they are saying, ‘Maybe in 2011 or 2012 we will have a plan for regional Australia.’
Deputy Speaker, let me tell you something. They now only care about making Sydney and Melbourne once again think they are dealing with an issue of overallocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are simply buying. They bought Toorale Station—10 per cent of the turnover of the Bourke shire, four per cent of its rates. That is how good they are to regional Australia! Instead of that station being a bonus for that shire in western New South Wales, it is now a burden on everybody left to deal with it. That town has been hurt by drought for six solid years, it is in its seventh year of exceptional circumstances drought, and yet it has been totally devastated by that policy. As you heard the member for Wide Bay say a minute ago, the Minister for Climate Change and Water had no idea who she was buying the station from, what effect it might have on the town and what it would do. They are so good to us in regional Australia! They are going to buy the lifeblood of the Murray-Darling Basin. They are going to devastate towns. Instead of investing $11 billion or $12 billion to fix it, to make it better and to get savings, they are going to simply go out there and buy it and take it from people—not just the people who have the water who use it to produce the best food in the world, but everybody around them, the towns and everybody who lives there. They are so good to us out there! I just cannot believe how they are so proud of it.
I remember many years ago when Simon Crean became the minister for agriculture—he had come straight into parliament from being the unions’ secretary—and the then president of the New South Wales Farmers Association said, ‘It’s like putting Ned Kelly in charge of the banks.’ Well, I think having the current minister for infrastructure and transport responsible for regional Australia is like having Attila the Hun in charge of a nunnery. He is so good to us! And the Prime Minister and his colleague the minister for climate change are so good to us! If ever there was a time to invest in regional Australia it is now, as the world hits an equity crisis and a credit crisis. They are investing in the car industry, I notice—they found $6 billion for the car industry. Why wouldn’t you invest the $10 billion in the industry, in the water, to hold the productivity? Why would you not do that? You heard the member for Wide Bay, the leader of the Nationals, talking about health, and what he said is correct. He spoke on 25 August last year and said, ‘The buck stops with me on health and hospitals.’ I tell you what: not in the seat of Calare it does not; not in the Orange hospital—the only serious medical centre west of the Blue Mountains and from May to October they did not pay surgeons and visiting specialists. Yet when asked that question by the member for Parkes, what did the Prime Minister do? That is nothing to do with me: he ran a hundred miles an hour. We are so lucky to have you taking every damn thing you are taking out of regional Australia!
10498
16:26:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—I rise to speak on this MPI, which is on a good subject. Normally when MPIs come before us they are fairly awfully worded and read more like motions from a Young Liberal Party conference. But this is a good MPI: ‘The impact of government policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australians’. It is an absolute pity for regional Australia and the National Party that the modern National Party is simply not up to a half decent debate on this subject. There are clearly significant issues in rural and regional Australia that need attention. But they did not get it for 12 years, they will not get it from the current National Party and they will not get it from a leadership so mired in its own past. That has been the weakness of its own public administration and its own inability to serve the needs of its own voters. Most importantly, it is not even capable of seeing the national interest, let alone serving it.
As the global financial crisis tightens its grip, we must be prepared to stand by our regional communities. That is why I had some optimism that in this debate there would be substance on the table and matters debated that went to real issues concerning regional Australia, farming communities and the economic health of our regions. But, no, what we get is another limp-wristed defence of poor, failed regional partnerships and pathetic policies that were designed to do nothing more than pork-barrel their own electorates. There is a common cause: that our government, this parliament, our nation, marshal its financial resources, its intellectual capacity and deals with the current global financial crisis. It is why the government has announced its $10.4 billion fiscal stimulus package. It is why we have taken swift action to deal with bank deposit guarantees. It is why we have been accepting the advice of our prudential regulators, proceeding with skill and with speed. That is in clear contrast to the approach of those members opposite when they were in charge of the prudential regulators. When the HIH collapse came along, not only did they ignore the signals and ignore the advice of the regulators, they did simply nothing, causing massive dislocation in regional Australia as sporting events, community activities and the very fabric of regional society fell apart because of the inability simply to get insurance. It was not something that particularly bothered members opposite. Their concern was the obtaining of donations from HIH, and the prudential regulation which was cared for by those members opposite was merely the prudential interests of the Liberal Party.
I learned something yesterday. Frequently you do learn something in this place. You learn by listening to what is being said. It had not occurred to me that in one of the more tragic and consequential events of the last few days—the difficulties of ABC Learning—the relationship between ABC Learning, Eddy Groves and the National Party was as close as it has turned out to be. It had not occurred to me, although it should have. Why was I surprised to discover that, at the same time the former government put its own donors on the Reserve Bank board shortly after the 2004 election, Larry Anthony had been appointed to a position with ABC Learning and shortly after that to the board of ABC Learning? What we learned yesterday in this place was the size of the donation made by ABC Learning to the National Party. In some of the documents, which I will table here today, that donation is $50,000. According to Eddy Groves, it is a donation from Edmund Stuart Groves, but according to the National Party it is simply a donation from ABC Learning Centres. I make this point: the National Party—a once great political party, a party that gave us people like Ian Sinclair, a party that gave us people like Doug Anthony, a party that used to know and understand the needs and the interests of rural and regional Australia—no longer simply does not represent the interests of rural Australia but does not know what those interests are. It only knows its own interests, and it only knows its own financial interests at that.
I said at the start of speaking in this debate that I was optimistic that we would have a debate that addressed some of the crushing difficulties and issues facing rural and regional Australia. We saw yesterday the launch of Diabetes Australia’s online mapping facility showing the incidence of diabetes across regional Australia. There are health issues to do with stress, to do with youth suicide, to do with diabetes, to do with health care and to do with the delivery of health care in rural and regional communities. Do they get mentioned or acknowledged in this place? No, they do not. What the members opposite go back to, time and time again, is merely Regional Partnerships. In 1996, there were 18 members of the National Party in this place. By 1998, there were 16 members of the National Party in this place. By 2001, there were 13 members of the National Party in this place. By 2004, there were 12. By 2007, there were 10 members. Currently, we have nine. What does that tell you? It tells you that the people of rural and regional Australia are on to something, and what they are on to is the fact that the National Party today is not up to the task of representing rural and regional Australia.
I had a fascinating insight in the past month. It was to watch the election in Western Australia, the election which saw the defeat of the Carpenter government. What we saw in that election was a vigorous campaign by the Western Australian National Party—a campaign around regional Western Australia, a campaign under the tag of ‘Royalties for Regions’. It matters not whether you support the National Party’s campaign in Western Australia or even whether you understand it. What is insightful is that following the election it became clear that the National Party would hold the swing votes in that parliament—the National Party could decide who would become a government, whether it would be Colin Barnett and the Liberal Party or Alan Carpenter and the Labor Party. So the Leader of the Western Australian National Party did the right thing. He said: ‘I will represent the interests of those people who voted for our members of parliament. I will negotiate with both major parties and get the best deal for regional Western Australia.’ It was not an unreasonable proposition, not an unreasonable thought. It was a completely honourable motivation. But what happened? He got a phone call from the Leader of the National Party in this place, Warren Truss, to say, ‘You will not do a deal with the Labor Party.’ What he said was, ‘You will form a coalition with the Liberal Party.’
The Liberals knew that this heavy-handed approach would come. The Liberals in Western Australian knew that, when it came down to it, the National Party would not stand up for their constituency, they would not stand up for the people who voted for them and they would not stand up for the farmers and communities that need the support; the National Party would merely support the Liberal Party. That is why in this place we see a once great political party reduced to not only a rump but a pathetic rump that knows not where it is going and only looks in the rear-view mirror to see the once great members, frankly, laughing at the underperformance of the current members of the National Party.
When I travel around regional Australia, I am stunned at the inability of the National Party to understand the needs of regional Australia. I am forever thankful that in just 10 months what the new Australian government has done is confirm that a new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program will be created to help address the infrastructure needs of local communities. It will not be a pork barrel. We started rolling out the biggest ever federal investment in the nation’s rail and road networks—$26 billion over the next six years. We have already delivered $1.75 billion over five years to extend Roads to Recovery and an extra $250 million for local roads. We have provided $1.9 billion this year to help councils and shires deliver important local services. We have announced the first-ever assembly of all of our mayors and executive officers from all around Australia to come to Canberra next week to speak with the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers and to engage in a dialogue that will be productive and in the interests of regional Australia. (Time expired)
10500
16:36:00
Ramsey, Rowan, MP
HWS
Grey
LP
0
0
Mr RAMSEY
—In following the member for Brand in this debate, I am pleased to tell him that he should observe his home town of Whyalla—where the goodly residents of Grey have called upon a Liberal to represent them. I am sure he would be pleased with that result. It is appropriate that 12 months after Kevin Rudd committed to govern for all Australians we should look at what his commitment to regional Australia has been. It is time to match the rhetoric with the achievement. What has been done to support regional Australia in the last 12 months? Well, right at the top of the list, Regional Partnerships, as we know, have been axed. We have just listened to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government taking a broad slam at the Regional Partnerships program. But let us ask: what has replaced it in 12 months? Absolutely nothing has replaced that program. One thing that the minister can never find is supporters in regional Australia who say this was a bad program. The people of regional and rural Australia would like to see a return of the program.
While I am talking about the minister, I might point out that he also took a broadside at the coalition for not allowing an Independent to speak on this motion. The Independents of course can put an MPI up at any time. On this particular MPI they did not rise to support the motion. Having said that, they approached our whip after the start of debate and asked to displace one of our speakers—which, I might point out, would probably have been me—to speak in their place. We look forward to a cooperative relationship with the Independents.
The government have axed the Investing in Our Schools Program and the Community Water Grants program. They have raised taxes, registration and compliance costs for long-haul transport and extra taxes on farm work vehicles, such as the ubiquitous LandCruiser; and they have tightened assets test guidelines for qualification for exceptional circumstances. Peter White, the President of the South Australian Farmers Federation, or SAFF, said just the other day that South Australian farmers are facing the worst situation for 80 years—since the Depression. It shows just how attuned this government are to the needs of regional Australia when, in the worst drought in recorded history, they slash community water grants and tighten the assets test for applying for exceptional circumstances.
Now we find that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is either asleep at the wheel or has no regard for those under pressure in the need to respond to the shortfalls in the exit grants program. It has just come to my attention in the last few weeks that in fact the $150,000 exit grants which were brought in last year in September, before the fall of the last government, are not quarantined from creditors. This means that, as land prices are falling and as farmers are under pressure, this incentive that was put in place to try to entice farmers off their properties so they can make a dignified exit from agriculture is in danger of being just gobbled up by the banks. The intention was never for this to be a support mechanism for the banking system; it was to help farmers make the decision to leave the farm with dignity.
The previous Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was interrupted by the election and at this stage there has been no quarantining of those grants. That means this current minister has either refused to act on this quarantining measure or he does not care. I do not know which one it is, but either is pretty unpalatable to the constituents in my electorate of Grey in South Australia. If you destroy an economy, you will in the end destroy the community. This government has signalled its intention that it is willing to invest in urban infrastructure to support transport systems and to support failing state governments around Australia—to bail them out—but at this stage it has sat on its hands for the last 12 months and not lifted a finger to help rural Australia at a time when it is being challenged by the worst drought in 100 years. There is this discrepancy in the $150,000 exit grants, and I am asking Minister Burke to step up and fix that by making these grants off limits to the banks. (Time expired)
10501
16:41:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
0
Mr TREVOR
—It is of some interest to note that the honourable member for Wide Bay and Leader of the National Party has moved this MPI in this House. The honourable member for Wide Bay and Leader of the Nationals certainly should above all be aware of the impact of government policies on the physical, social and economic health of rural and regional Australia. The reason he should know about this is that it his party’s impact—or lack thereof, I should say—that lost his party and the previous coalition government the seat of Flynn, my seat in central Queensland. Before the last election this seat was considered a safe rural National Party seat with a margin of 7.7 per cent. That was before it fell into the safe hands of Labor. The National Party abandoned the people of the bush and they paid for it in Flynn. As I move throughout my electorate of Flynn as its proud Labor member and chairman of the Prime Minister’s task force, two things are clear: (1) the previous government’s policies as they relate to rural and regional Australia did not work, as was shown in the last election, and (2) our policies are being welcomed in the electorate, no matter what colour jersey you wear.
On a recent visit to Longreach and Winton in outback Queensland as chairman of the Prime Minister’s country task force, it became clear that our policies were being welcomed by all when it came to rural and regional Australia. The people of rural and regional Australia in that part of the world in my electorate of Flynn welcomed the government’s commitment of $1 billion to the public health system since we were elected; improvements to the dental health system since we were elected; investment, finally, in infrastructure—roads, rail and ports; announcements in relation to tourism, including the western tourism growth corridor; and our Economic Security Strategy policy, which will stimulate rural and regional communities throughout the whole of Australia.
What has become patently clear is that people in the bush feel that the previous government, including the National Party, deserted the bush. Lest there be any argument in relation to their belief in this regard, one only has to look to this side of the House and observe who the members for Leichhardt, Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn are. They are all Labor members and they all hold rural and regional seats. The previous government not once to my knowledge ever looked at the social impact of drought, including the physical and mental aspects and the effects on rural and regional Australians. We acknowledge the social as well as the financial impact that the drought is having on rural and regional Australians.
The Rudd Labor government, my government, is totally committed to rural and regional Australia. We will forge a new direction with local governments. We will give them a seat at the table, rather than rip them off like the previous government did by cost shifting local government costs onto rural and regional Australian ratepayers. We will create a new local community infrastructure program to assist in local infrastructure needs. We will build on Roads to Recovery, roads being a major issue in rural and regional Australia. We will deliver on our rail, road and port bottlenecks, which have held rural and regional Australia to ransom for so long and cost the Australian economy billions. We will keep all our election promises. There is nothing here about ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises; we will keep all our election promises and deliver for rural and regional Australia and for all Australians.
Regional Development Australia will be established specifically for rural and regional Australia. We will create Infrastructure Australia and look at giving due and long overdue recognition to the backbone of government in rural and regional Australia—namely, local government throughout Australia.
The previous government abandoned the bush. They failed the bush when it came to rural and regional health, ripping $1 billion out of the public hospital system. They failed the bush when it came to roads, they failed the bush when it came to climate change and they failed the bush when it came to infrastructure, water and broadband. (Time expired)
10502
16:46:00
Albanese, Anthony, MP
R36
Grayndler
ALP
Leader of the House
1
0
Mr ALBANESE
—I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the members for Lyne, Kennedy and New England from speaking forthwith to the matter of public importance debate for a period for each speaker not exceeding five minutes and for the time limit for the total debate to be extended accordingly.
I do so because of the failure of the opposition to permit Independents to contribute to this debate which occurred in the last parliament. I really would call upon the opposition to reconsider their attitude. They are attempting to block the voices of members elected to the House of Representatives in these seats.
10502
16:47:00
May, Margaret, MP
83B
McPherson
LP
0
0
Mrs MAY
—Contrary to what the Leader of the House says, we would never stand in the way of any Independent speaking in this House. They only had to approach us to ask. They can speak.
Question agreed to.
10502
16:48:00
Katter, Bob, MP
HX4
Kennedy
IND
0
0
Mr KATTER
—We thank you. It is extraordinary that people from the last government come in here and criticise the Labor Party on this issue. Be my guest; I am an expert in the field of criticising the Labor Party. But they were the government of Australia for 12½ years—
83B
May, Margaret, MP
Mrs May
—Eleven and a half years.
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—Whatever it was. I will give them 11½ years.
HVM
Bidgood, James, MP
Mr Bidgood
—What did they do?
HX4
Katter, Bob, MP
Mr KATTER
—They did things. I do not want you to think that they did not do things; they most certainly did things. I sit in my office under a picture of Ted Theodore, who built all our sugar mills and our grain silos in Queensland and sold them to the farmers. We thank him. He was a great hero of Queensland. I sit under a picture of Jack McEwen. Jack McEwen, as soon as he was appointed a minister, fought the battle of the pound. He got stuck straight into Menzies and said, ‘There’ll be no going back to the old value of the pound, because that will cheat our farmers out of huge amounts of income.’ And Menzies agreed with him because three times the Country Party had walked out of coalition over the issue of the value of the pound. Doug Anthony, a great Australian, said in 1972 to the Australian press, ‘McMahon will bring down the dollar or I will bring down the government.’ They knew that these were not men to trifle with. These were men who believed in the people who they were sent here to look after and protect.
For 11 years, the National Party sat in this place and presided over the dollar rising from 60c to 95c, and they actually skited about it. They said to us what a wonderful thing it was and that it was a demonstration of how successfully they were running the economy. Well, it was very successful for city Australia and it was very damn painful for those of us who live outside of the cities of Australia.
I cannot speak for the rest of Australia, but for 11 years we went on bended knee and pleaded with the former government, now opposition, to restrain the dollar. Do you know what was holding the dollar up? We all know now what was holding the dollar up, because the minute interest rates went down 0.1 of a per cent the dollar collapsed through the floor. It was the interest rates imposed by the last government that pushed the dollar up through the roof and deprived all of the primary producers of Australia of 50 per cent of their income. They were cheated out of 50 per cent of their income for 10 years. Even the most cursory glance at the history books of Australia tells you what wonderful and great men we were led by in the days of the Country Party under Earl Page, under Artie Fadden, under Jack McEwen and also under Doug Anthony. They were men that made that the issue of government. If that was the issue of government, then these people, the Nationals, stand condemned.
The people of country Australia once gave them 19 seats. When Doug Anthony left we started on our career downhill, where we never took a stand on anything, and we are now down—you are now down—to nine seats. We have gone from 19 seats to nine seats. But did you get the message? No. The man that was responsible for the deregulation of the sugar industry and for handing over every single sugar seat in this parliament to the ALP and to the Independents is now their leader. They rewarded him! In a way, I suppose, if you are a team of losers, you put the best loser up front. He is their chief loser.
I have not got time to speak about Woolworths or Coles or the fact that, within two years of the dairy deregulation, every four days in Australia a farmer commits suicide—the great shame of our nation. Who was responsible for it? These hypocrites that are standing up over here—that is who is responsible.
Time is running out for the people on this side. You have got a chance to introduce ethanol. If you do not, then just remember those six seats went in that direction. (Time expired)
10504
16:53:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I also thank the member for Grayndler, the Leader of the House, and the member for Fairfax for agreeing to allow the three Independent members in this place to speak. I do note that, as a new member in this chamber, as I work my way through MPIs, committees, speeches and processes in this House in particular, I am increasingly fascinated at the control that the two major political parties have over the process of the chamber. It is a live discussion that is currently taking place with the Speaker. I encourage everyone to participate in it, to think about it and to think about the rights that individual, non-aligned private members within this chamber have as a voice for the people that they represent, as much as anyone else in this chamber.
I also wanted to speak in this debate because there are entrenched matters within regional areas that are reflected within my electorate. I represent an area with some of the lowest individual household or family incomes compared with anywhere within Australia. I represent one of the highest unemployment regions by comparison with anywhere in Australia. This is why so many people, on 6 September this year, chose a different style of representation for the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, because they do genuinely want to get out of the entrenched position that we are in by comparison with the rest of Australia. There is a lot of work to do, both for the coalition that has just gone into opposition and for the new government, the Labor Party, that is currently in charge.
The three issues I want to raise that will be, I guess, a test of faith for the communities of the mid-North Coast are, firstly, Regional Partnerships, which we have already heard discussed in this chamber. The last 12 months in particular were a disgusting period of life on the mid-North Coast, where we saw handshakes done—the old ‘men of honour’ doing the handshakes for the photos—yet behind their backs and not in the photos were the crossed fingers and the broken promises that were never fulfilled. The Lake Cathie Medical Centre, the Wauchope-Bonny Hills Surf Club, Visiocorp Taree—a car industry manufacturing plant—are all key parts of life on the mid-North Coast. They are now filthy with the way they were treated over the last 12 months, and all I might say are incredibly valuable projects for life on the mid-North Coast. That is for the coalition to reflect on—the handshake with one hand and the fingers crossed behind the back with the other. But also, I say to the government, reflect on the importance of these projects to community life, because they are of value and I, as the new member, will continue to chase them. Again, I would hope that the old handshake contract is one that does mean something. Surely the last thing that professional politics needs is more cynicism towards the promises given by members of parliament, particularly ministers, even deputy prime ministers, regardless of who they are personally.
As well, I would raise the issue of anomalies in GP services within my area. It astounds me, as I try to get my head around why we are a region that struggles so much to get GPs into our area, that a GP setting up a practice in a place such as Hastings Street in Noosa—one of the most sought-after streets in Australia—receives a $60,000 incentive to do so; yet for a GP to go to my area, which has one of the lowest incomes, one of highest unemployment rates and one of the highest ageing demographics in Australia, there is absolutely no incentive. This RRMA scale is an absolute anomaly that is still alive and creating inequities and unfairness right throughout this country. It is creating winners and losers. It is creating a region against region situation—the battle of the Hastings: Hastings Street, Noosa versus the Hastings Valley on the mid-North Coast. I would hope that the government can overturn what is an outrageous GP program that was left to us by the coalition.
Likewise, I have got a struggle on the ground with the Australian technical colleges. My area was one that actually did get two colleges up and running. We have had to struggle to get 350 students, 43 staff and $17 million of taxpayers’ money resolved in the Port Macquarie community, and we are still unresolved when it comes to Taree. It is looking like a padlock job at the moment. There was no long-term sustainability in education from the opposition and there is no plan as yet from the government. (Time expired)
10505
16:58:00
Windsor, Antony, MP
009LP
New England
IND
0
0
Mr WINDSOR
—In this matter of public importance debate I would like to give a little bit of history. Since Federation, there has not been a parliament that has been able to form a government without a country member in it. There has been a lot of preoccupation today about the fairly dismal performance of the National Party in the last parliament. I think there is a message in this, and the member for Kennedy touched on it, for the current government as well. There has not been a government formed in this parliament without a country member. Some people, particularly some people in the country—and the poor old National Party are going through this problem themselves—are assuming that they are a minority and therefore can never really make a contribution to the parliament.
We are in a unique period of our political history. The two sides of parliament—the city based dominant factions on both sides of the parliament—are almost identical. So this is a unique period, and I think that is one of the reasons that people in the country are looking for alternatives such as Independents and some of the minor parties in the Senate. Given that unique period of our political history—the sameness of the city based parties—the country could express itself in a different fashion. The former member for Gwydir, who has just carried out an inquiry recommending that the National Party merge with the Liberal Party, is betraying the very power that that once great party may well have had. That will be up to others. I think there is a warning to all country members in the parliament: do not ever forget that a government has never been formed without a country member as part of it.
Another issue that I would like to touch on is the hypocrisy demonstrated here earlier. I agree again with the member for Kennedy that the Labor Party is at a crossroads. You have been able to buy 12 months and there are a number of commitments out there, and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia alluded to some of those. They are all well and good—and they are particularly good in terms of infrastructure—but they have not been delivered yet. The next 12 months are going to be very important in terms of the delivery of some of those, particularly the major infrastructure items. But I point out the hypocrisy that the Leader of the Nationals and others demonstrated—as did the Leader of the Opposition in an earlier debate, if I may mention that. The Fuel Sales Grants Scheme was brought in by the former government to compensate country people for the difference in the goods and services tax that they would have to pay in relation to fuel, because the price of fuel was higher in the country than in the city and we were obviously facing a dual tax system. The Fuel Sales Grants Scheme was brought in to compensate for that and the compensation offered amounted to up to 3c a litre.
That government—not the current government, the previous government—removed that, so now there is a dual system. Country people pay more GST on their fuel than their city cousins. When you look back at that, the hypocrisy in accusing any government about taxation and the way it is operating at the moment is stark. When he was Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the current Leader of the Opposition promised the people of the Liverpool Plains, in front of a television camera that went to news that night, that he would fund an independent study into the potential impact of mining on the groundwater systems of the Namoi Valley—and then betrayed those people by giving a directive to the departmental head to do nothing. The hypocrisy of suggesting that the new government has not done anything yet when these sorts of things were going on behind the scenes is stark.
The final nail was the new member for Calare. This week is the 12-month anniversary of the death of the former member for Calare. To listen to that man, the new member for Calare, and compare him to the former member for Calare—and to hear him say about the Regional Partnerships program and the absolute rorting that went on that it reflected what people want—is staggering. If that does not demonstrate a party and a philosophy that has absolutely betrayed its constituency and its integrity and any capacity to represent country people in the future, I do not know what does.
10000
Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Hon. BC Scott)—Order! The time allotted for the discussion has expired.
TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
10506
Bills
R3043
Consideration of Senate Message
10506
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist upon its amendments (2) and (5) disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the further amendments made by the House.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM (ANNUAL FEES) AMENDMENT (GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE) BILL 2008
10506
Bills
R3027
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM (REGISTRATION FEES) AMENDMENT (GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE) BILL 2008
10506
Bills
R3029
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM (SAFETY LEVIES) AMENDMENT (GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE) BILL 2008
10506
Bills
R3028
Returned from the Senate
10506
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (DE FACTO FINANCIAL MATTERS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
10506
Bills
R3041
Consideration of Senate Message
10506
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate, with further amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
SCHEDULE A
(1) Schedule 1, item 50, page 23 (lines 3 to 21), omit section 90RB, substitute:
90RB Meaning of child of a de facto relationship
For the purposes of this Part, a child is a child of a de facto relationship if the child is the child of both of the parties to the de facto relationship.
Note: To determine who is a child of a person see Subdivision D of Division 1 of Part VII.
(2) Schedule 1, item 50, page 29 (line 24), omit “application time.”, substitute:
application time;
or that the alternative condition in subsection (1A) is met.
(3) Schedule 1, item 50, page 29 (after line 24), after subsection 90SD(1), insert:
(1A) The alternative condition is that the parties to the de facto relationship were ordinarily resident in a participating jurisdiction when the relationship broke down.
(4) Schedule 1, item 50, page 29 (lines 27 to 31), omit subsection 90SD(3), substitute:
(3) If each State is a referring State, the Governor‑General may, by Proclamation, fix a day as the day on which paragraph (1)(b), and the alternative condition in subsection (1A), cease to apply in relation to new applications.
Note: Paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (1A) will continue to apply in relation to applications made before the proclaimed day.
(5) Schedule 1, item 50, page 39 (line 25), omit “application time.”, substitute:
application time;
or that the alternative condition in subsection (1A) is met.
(6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 39 (after line 25), after subsection 90SK(1), insert:
(1A) The alternative condition is that the parties to the de facto relationship were ordinarily resident in a participating jurisdiction when the relationship broke down.
(7) Schedule 1, item 50, page 39 (lines 28 to 32), omit subsection 90SK(3), substitute:
(3) If each State is a referring State, the Governor‑General may, by Proclamation, fix a day as the day on which paragraph (1)(b), and the alternative condition in subsection (1A), cease to apply in relation to new applications.
Note: Paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (1A) will continue to apply in relation to applications made before the proclaimed day.
(8) Schedule 1, item 85, page 81 (after line 6), after the definition of commencement, insert:
designated agreed matters, in relation to 2 persons, means the following:
(a) how all or any of the:
(i) property; or
(ii) financial resources;
of either person, or both persons, at the time when the agreement is made, or at a later time and during a de facto relationship between them, is to be distributed;
(b) the maintenance of either of the persons;
in the event of the breakdown of a de facto relationship between them, or in relation to a de facto relationship between them that has broken down, as the case requires.
(9) Schedule 1, item 85, page 81 (before line 7), before the definition of earlier participating jurisdiction, insert:
designated State/Territory financial agreement, in relation to 2 persons, means a written agreement:
(a) signed by both of them with respect to matters that include any designated agreed matters; and
(b) made under a preserved law of a State or Territory; and
(c) in relation to which, either:
(i) a court could not, because of that preserved law, make an order under that law that is inconsistent with the agreement with respect to any of the designated agreed matters; or
(ii) a court could not, because of that preserved law, make an order under that law that is with respect to any of the designated agreed matters.
(10) Schedule 1, heading to Division 2, page 81 (lines 22 to 24), omit the heading, substitute:
Division 2—Application of new Act to de facto relationships breaking down before commencement
(11) Schedule 1, item 86, page 81 (line 27), omit “Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB of the new Act do not extend”, substitute “Subject to item 86A, Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB, and subsection 114(2A), of the new Act do not apply in relation”.
(12) Schedule 1, page 82 (after line 17), after item 86, insert:
86A Opting into the new regime
Choosing the new regime
(1) The parties to a de facto relationship that broke down before commencement may choose for Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB, and subsection 114(2A), of the new Act to apply in relation to the de facto relationship.
Note 1: Whether the parties will be able to obtain an order under those provisions of the new Act, or make a Part VIIIAB financial agreement, will depend on whether the tests found in those provisions are satisfied for the de facto relationship.
Note 2: Divisions 3 and 4 of this Part, and section 90UE of the new Act, are not affected by a choice under this item. Those Divisions, and that section, relate to de facto relationships that (if they are to break down) will break down after commencement.
When a choice can be made
(2) A choice under subitem (1) can be made if:
(a) the choice is unconditional; and
(b) subitems (3), (4) and (5) are satisfied for the choice.
A choice is irrevocable.
(3) This subitem is satisfied for the choice if no order (other than an interim order) under a preserved law of a State or Territory has been made by a court in relation to either of the following:
(a) how all or any of the:
(i) property; or
(ii) financial resources;
that either or both of the parties to the de facto relationship had or acquired during the de facto relationship is to be distributed;
(b) the maintenance of either of the parties to the de facto relationship.
(4) This subitem is satisfied for the choice if:
(a) the parties have not made a designated State/Territory financial agreement in relation to their de facto relationship; or
(b) if the parties have made such an agreement, that agreement has ceased to have effect without:
(i) any property being distributed; or
(ii) any maintenance being paid;
under the agreement.
(5) This subitem is satisfied for the choice if:
(a) the choice is in writing and signed by both of the parties to the de facto relationship; and
(b) each of the parties was provided, before the choice was signed by him or her, with:
(i) independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to the party of making the choice; and
(ii) a signed statement by the legal practitioner stating that this advice was given to the party.
(6) For the purposes of Part VIIIAB of the new Act, a choice can be included in a Part VIIIAB financial agreement for which the parties are the spouse parties.
Setting aside a choice
(7) A court may make an order setting aside a choice if the court is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances in which the choice was made, it would be unjust and inequitable if the court does not set the choice aside.
(8) A court setting aside a choice under subitem (7) may make such order or orders (including an order for the transfer of property) as it considers just and equitable to, so far as is practicable, return the rights of:
(a) the parties to the de facto relationship; and
(b) any other interested persons affected by the choice;
to their position immediately before the choice was made.
(9) Subsections 90UM(8) and (9) of the new Act apply in relation to setting aside a choice as if:
(a) a reference in those subsections to subsection 90UM(1) or (6) of the new Act were a reference to subitem (7) or (8); and
(b) the reference in those subsections to section 90UM of the new Act were a reference to this item.
(13) Schedule 1, item 89, page 85 (line 5), omit “extend”, substitute “apply in relation”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 89, page 85 (line 6), omit “extend”, substitute “apply in relation”.
(15) Schedule 1, item 89, page 85 (line 8), omit “Note”, substitute “Note 1”.
(16) Schedule 1, item 89, page 85 (line 12), omit “extend”, substitute “apply in relation”.
(17) Schedule 1, item 89, page 85 (after line 13), after the note, insert:
Note 2: The cases covered by paragraph (a) include a case where a de facto relationship has broken down before the transition time for the State and the parties to the relationship make a choice under item 90A.
(18) Schedule 1, item 90, page 85 (line 35), omit “Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB of the new Act do not extend”, substitute “Subject to item 90A, Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB, and subsection 114(2A), of the new Act do not apply in relation”.
(19) Schedule 1, page 86 (after line 17), after item 90, insert:
90A Opting into the new regime
Choosing the new regime
(1) The parties to a de facto relationship that broke down before the transition time for the State may choose for Parts VIIIAB and VIIIB, and subsection 114(2A), of the new Act to apply in relation to the de facto relationship.
Note 1: Whether the parties will be able to obtain an order under those provisions of the new Act, or make a Part VIIIAB financial agreement, will depend on whether the tests found in those provisions are satisfied for the de facto relationship.
Note 2: Items 91 and 92 are not affected by a choice under this item. Those items relate to de facto relationships that (if they are to break down) will break down after the transition time for the State.
When a choice can be made
(2) A choice under subitem (1) can be made if:
(a) the choice is unconditional; and
(b) subitems (3), (4) and (5) are satisfied for the choice.
A choice is irrevocable.
(3) This subitem is satisfied for the choice if no order (other than an interim order) under a preserved law of a State or Territory has been made by a court in relation to either of the following:
(a) how all or any of the:
(i) property; or
(ii) financial resources;
that either or both of the parties to the de facto relationship had or acquired during the de facto relationship is to be distributed;
(b) the maintenance of either of the parties to the de facto relationship.
(4) This subitem is satisfied for the choice if:
(a) the parties have not made a designated State/Territory financial agreement in relation to their de facto relationship; or
(b) if the parties have made such an agreement, that agreement has ceased to have effect without:
(i) any property being distributed; or
(ii) any maintenance being paid;
under the agreement.
(5) This subitem is satisfied for the choice if:
(a) the choice is in writing and signed by both of the parties to the de facto relationship; and
(b) each of the parties was provided, before the choice was signed by him or her, with:
(i) independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to the party of making the choice; and
(ii) a signed statement by the legal practitioner stating that this advice was given to the party.
(6) For the purposes of Part VIIIAB of the new Act, a choice can be included in a Part VIIIAB financial agreement for which the parties are the spouse parties.
Setting aside a choice
(7) A court may make an order setting aside a choice if the court is satisfied that, having regard to the circumstances in which the choice was made, it would be unjust and inequitable if the court does not set the choice aside.
(8) A court setting aside a choice under subitem (7) may make such order or orders (including an order for the transfer of property) as it considers just and equitable to, so far as is practicable, return the rights of:
(a) the parties to the de facto relationship; and
(b) any other interested persons affected by the choice;
to their position immediately before the choice was made.
(9) Subsections 90UM(8) and (9) of the new Act apply in relation to setting aside a choice as if:
(a) a reference in those subsections to subsection 90UM(1) or (6) of the new Act were a reference to subitem (7) or (8); and
(b) the reference in those subsections to section 90UM of the new Act were a reference to this item.
(20) Page 108 (after line 17), after Schedule 3, insert:
Schedule 3A—Children
Family Law Act 1975
1 Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
child: Subdivision D of Division 1 of Part VII affects the situations in which a child is a child of a person or is a child of a marriage or other relationship.
Note: In determining if a child is the child of a person within the meaning of this Act, it is to be assumed that Part VII extends to all States and Territories.
2 Before section 60F
Insert:
60EA Definition of de facto partner
For the purposes of this Subdivision, a person is the de facto partner of another person if:
(a) a relationship between the person and the other person (whether of the same sex or a different sex) is registered under a law of a State or Territory prescribed for the purposes of section 22B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as a kind of relationship prescribed for the purposes of that section; or
(b) the person is in a de facto relationship with the other person.
3 Paragraph 60F(1)(c)
After “subsection 60H(1)”, insert “or section 60HB”.
4 After subsection 60F(4)
Insert:
(4A) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this Act, a child of a marriage is a child of the husband and of the wife in the marriage.
5 Subsection 60G(2)
After “paragraph 60F(4)(a)”, insert “, or paragraph 60HA(3)(a),”.
6 Subsection 60H(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) If:
(a) a child is born to a woman as a result of the carrying out of an artificial conception procedure while the woman was married to, or a de facto partner of, another person (the other intended parent); and
(b) either:
(i) the woman and the other intended parent consented to the carrying out of the procedure, and any other person who provided genetic material used in the procedure consented to the use of the material in an artificial conception procedure; or
(ii) under a prescribed law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, the child is a child of the woman and of the other intended parent;
then, whether or not the child is biologically a child of the woman and of the other intended parent, for the purposes of this Act:
(c) the child is the child of the woman and of the other intended parent; and
(d) if a person other than the woman and the other intended parent provided genetic material—the child is not the child of that person.
7 Subsection 60H(4)
Repeal the subsection.
8 At the end of Subdivision D of Division 1 of Part VII
Add:
60HA Children of de facto partners
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a child is the child of a person who has, or had, a de facto partner if:
(a) the child is a child of the person and the person’s de facto partner; or
(b) the child is adopted by the person and the person’s de facto partner or by either of them with the consent of the other; or
(c) the child is, under subsection 60H(1) or section 60HB, a child of the person and the person’s de facto partner.
This subsection has effect subject to subsection (2).
(2) A child of current or former de facto partners ceases to be a child of those partners for the purposes of this Act if the child is adopted by a person who, before the adoption, is not a prescribed adopting parent.
(3) The following provisions apply in relation to a child of current or former de facto partners who is adopted by a prescribed adopting parent:
(a) if a court granted leave under section 60G for the adoption proceedings to be commenced—the child ceases to be a child of those partners for the purposes of this Act;
(b) in any other case—the child continues to be a child of those partners for the purposes of this Act.
(4) In this section:
this Act includes:
(a) the standard Rules of Court; and
(b) the related Federal Magistrates Rules.
60HB Children born under surrogacy arrangements
(1) If a court has made an order under a prescribed law of a State or Territory to the effect that:
(a) a child is the child of one or more persons; or
(b) each of one or more persons is a parent of a child;
then, for the purposes of this Act, the child is the child of each of those persons.
(2) In this section:
this Act includes:
(a) the standard Rules of Court; and
(b) the related Federal Magistrates Rules.
9 Application
Application to children
(1) Subject to subitems (2) to (8), the amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a child born before, on or after the commencement of this item.
Application to the Aged Care Act 1997
(2) To the extent that the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affect subparagraph 44‑11(2)(a)(i) of the Aged Care Act 1997, they apply in relation to that subparagraph on and after 1 July 2009.
Application to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
(3) To the extent that the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affect paragraph 22(2)(b) of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, they apply in relation to that paragraph on and after 1 July 2009.
Application to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
(4) To the extent that the amendment of subsection 60H(1), and the repeal of subsection 60H(4), of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affect paragraph (b) of the definition of parent in subsection 5(1) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, they apply in relation to that paragraph on and after 1 July 2009.
Application to the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988
(5) To the extent that the amendment of paragraph 60F(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affects the definition of child of a marriage in subsection 4(1) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988, it applies in relation to that definition on and after 1 July 2009.
Application to the Health Insurance Act 1973
(6) To the extent that the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affect paragraph (a) of the definition of dependent child in subsection 10AA(7) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, they apply in relation to that paragraph on and after 1 January 2009.
Application to the National Health Act 1953
(7) To the extent that the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affect paragraph 84(4)(b), and paragraph (a) of the definition of dependent child in subsection 84B(4) of the National Health Act 1953, they apply in relation to those paragraphs on and after 1 January 2009.
Application to the Social Security Act 1991
(8) To the extent that the amendments of the Family Law Act 1975 made by this Schedule affect paragraph 5(2)(a), subparagraph (b)(i) of point 1067G‑B3AA, subparagraph (b)(i) of subpoint 1067G‑G9(2) and subparagraph (a)(i) of point 1068‑B1B of the Social Security Act 1991, they apply in relation to those provisions on and after 1 July 2009.
SCHEDULE B
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Schedule 1, items 1 to 4
A single day to be fixed by Proclamation.
However, if any of the provision(s) do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the first day after the end of that period.
2A. Schedule 1, item 5
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
2B. Schedule 1, items 6 to 20
At the same time as the provision(s) covered by table item 2.
2C. Schedule 1, item 21
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
2D. Schedule 1, items 22 to 93
At the same time as the provision(s) covered by table item 2.
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:
6A. Schedule 3A
The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 25), before “the property”, insert “the distribution of”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (line 27), before “the vested”, insert “the distribution of”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (line 6), omit “or de facto relationship”, substitute “, de facto relationship or former de facto relationship”.
(6) Schedule 1, item 45, page 20 (lines 28 and 29), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement (that is binding on the person)”.
(7) Schedule 1, item 50, page 23 (after line 31), at the end of the definition of de facto financial provisions in subsection 90RC(1), add:
; (d) subsection 114(2A).
(8) Schedule 1, item 50, page 24 (line 21), after “State”, insert “or Territory”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 50, page 24 (line 27), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on the parties”.
(10) Schedule 1, item 50, page 27 (line 18), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement”.
(11) Schedule 1, item 50, page 45 (lines 14 and 15), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement (that is binding on the person)”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 50, page 45 (line 23), omit “binding financial agreement”, substitute “financial agreement (that is binding on the person)”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 50, page 57 (lines 26 and 27), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on them”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 50, page 58 (line 21), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on them”.
(15) Schedule 1, item 50, page 59 (line 12), before “de facto relationship”, insert “former”.
(16) Schedule 1, item 50, page 59 (line 15), before “de facto relationship”, insert “former”.
(17) Schedule 1, item 50, page 59 (line 16), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on them”.
(18) Schedule 1, item 50, page 59 (line 20), before “de facto relationship”, insert “former”.
(19) Schedule 1, item 50, page 59 (line 27), before “de facto relationship”, insert “former”.
(20) Schedule 1, item 50, page 60 (lines 19 and 20), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on them”.
(21) Schedule 1, item 50, page 61 (line 4), omit “Note”, substitute “Note 1”.
(22) Schedule 1, item 50, page 61 (after line 6), at the end of subsection 90UE(1), add:
Note 2: Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008 deems certain agreements, made under a law of a State that is or becomes a participating jurisdiction, or made under a law of a Territory, to be Part VIIIAB financial agreements.
(23) Schedule 1, item 50, page 61 (line 31), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement”.
(24) Schedule 1, item 50, page 62 (lines 28 to 30), omit “(or last signed by a spouse party to the agreement, if both spouse parties to the agreement have signed)”.
(25) Schedule 1, item 50, page 63 (line 3), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement”.
(26) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 80 (after line 9), at the end of the Part, add:
84A After subsection 114(2)
Insert:
(2A) In a de facto financial cause (other than proceedings referred to in, or relating to, paragraph (e) or (f) of the definition of de facto financial cause in subsection 4(1)) the court may:
(a) make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to the use or occupancy of a specified residence of the parties to the de facto relationship or either of them; and
(b) if it makes an order or grants an injunction under paragraph (a)—make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to restraining a party to the de facto relationship from entering or remaining in:
(i) that residence; or
(ii) a specified area in which that residence is situated; and
(c) make such order or grant such injunction as it considers proper with respect to the property of the parties to the de facto relationship or either of them.
Sections 90SB and 90SK apply in relation to an order or injunction under this subsection in a corresponding way to the way in which those sections apply in relation to an order under section 90SM.
Note 1: This subsection does not apply to proceedings referred to in paragraph (g) of the definition of de facto financial cause that relate to proceedings referred to in paragraph (e) or (f) of that definition.
Note 2: The same requirements in sections 90SB (length of relationship etc.) and 90SK (geographical requirements) for section 90SM orders must be satisfied for orders and injunctions under this subsection.
(27) Schedule 1, item 89, page 85 (line 4), after “VIIIB”, insert “, and subsection 114(2A),”.
(28) Schedule 1, item 91, page 86 (lines 38 and 39), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on them”.
(29) Schedule 1, item 92, page 88 (lines 15 and 16), omit “binding Part VIIIAB financial agreement”, substitute “Part VIIIAB financial agreement that is binding on them”.
(30) Schedule 3, item 16, page 101 (lines 24 to 26), omit “(or last signed by a spouse party to the agreement, if both spouse parties to the agreement have signed)”.
(31) Schedule 3, item 17, page 102 (line 3), omit “binding financial agreement”, substitute “financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement”.
(32) Schedule 3, item 17, page 102 (line 6), omit “binding financial agreement”, substitute “financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement”.
(33) Schedule 3, item 30, page 104 (line 6), omit “binding financial agreement”, substitute “financial agreement that is binding on the parties to the agreement”.
(34) Schedule 4, page 109 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:
1A Paragraph 60I(5)(a)
Omit “the date fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of this paragraph”, substitute “1 July 2008”.
Note: The heading to subsection 60I(5) is altered by omitting “first proclaimed date” and substituting “30 June 2008”.
1B Subsection 60I(6)
Omit “the date fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of this subsection”, substitute “1 July 2008”.
Note: The heading to subsection 60I(6) is altered by omitting “second proclaimed date” and substituting “1 July 2008”.
Mr MURPHY
(Lowe
—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade)
17:05:00
—I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AMENDMENT (GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE) BILL 2008
10515
Bills
R3030
Consideration of Senate Message
10515
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 3), after item 10, insert:
10A Section 6
Insert:
closure assurance period has the meaning given by section 249CZN.
(2) Schedule 1, item 81, page 22 (line 21), at the end of the definition of significant risk, add “, 15FA, 15FB, 15FC or 15FD”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 109, page 36 (line 23) to page 38 (line 7), omit section 15F, substitute:
15F Significant risk of a significant adverse impact—approval of key petroleum operations
(1) For the purposes of sections 79A, 79B, 114A, 114B, 138A and 138B and paragraph 435B(2)(a), the question of whether there is a significant risk that a key petroleum operation will have a significant adverse impact on:
(a) operations for the injection of a greenhouse gas substance; or
(b) operations for the storage of a greenhouse gas substance;
is to be determined in a manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations.
(2) A manner ascertained in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must take into account:
(a) the probability, or range of probabilities, of the occurrence of the adverse impact; and
(b) the economic consequences of the adverse impact; and
(c) the economic consequences of the adverse impact relative to the potential economic value of the operations referred to in whichever of paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is applicable.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(5) For the purposes of sections 79A, 79B, 114A, 114B, 138A and 138B and paragraph 435B(2)(a), a key petroleum operation will have an adverse impact on:
(a) operations for the injection of a greenhouse gas substance; or
(b) operations for the storage of a greenhouse gas substance;
(the relevant greenhouse gas operations) if, and only if, the key petroleum operation will result in:
(c) an increase in the capital costs (other than prescribed costs) of the relevant greenhouse gas operations; or
(d) an increase in the operating costs (other than prescribed costs) of the relevant greenhouse gas operations; or
(e) a reduction in the rate of injection of the greenhouse gas substance; or
(f) a reduction in the quantity of the greenhouse gas substance that will be able to be stored.
(6) For the purposes of sections 79A, 79B, 114A, 114B, 138A and 138B and paragraph 435B(2)(a), if there is a risk that a key petroleum operation will have an adverse impact on:
(a) operations for the injection of a greenhouse gas substance; or
(b) operations for the storage of a greenhouse gas substance;
then that risk is not to be treated as significant, and that adverse impact is not to be treated as significant, if the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the probability‑weighted impact cost of the key petroleum operation is less than the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the threshold amount.
15FA Significant risk of a significant adverse impact—grant of production licence
(1) For the purposes of sections 145 and 146, the question of whether there is a significant risk that any of the operations that could be carried on under a production licence will have a significant adverse impact on operations that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) a greenhouse gas assessment permit; or
(b) a greenhouse gas holding lease; or
(c) a greenhouse gas injection licence;
is to be determined in a manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations.
(2) A manner ascertained in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must take into account:
(a) the probability, or range of probabilities, of the occurrence of the adverse impact; and
(b) the economic consequences of the adverse impact; and
(c) the economic consequences of the adverse impact relative to the potential economic value of the operations that are being, or could be, carried on under the permit, lease or licence referred to in whichever of paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) is applicable.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(5) For the purposes of sections 145 and 146, an operation that could be carried on under a production licence (the production licence operation) will have an adverse impact on operations (the relevant greenhouse gas operations) that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) a greenhouse gas assessment permit; or
(b) a greenhouse gas holding lease; or
(c) a greenhouse gas injection licence;
if, and only if, the production licence operation will result in:
(d) an increase in the capital costs (other than prescribed costs) of the relevant greenhouse gas operations; or
(e) an increase in the operating costs (other than prescribed costs) of the relevant greenhouse gas operations; or
(f) a reduction in the rate of injection of the greenhouse gas substance; or
(g) a reduction in the quantity of the greenhouse gas substance that will be able to be stored.
(6) For the purposes of sections 145 and 146, if there is a risk that an operation that could be carried on under a production licence (the production licence operation) will have an adverse impact on operations that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) a greenhouse gas assessment permit; or
(b) a greenhouse gas holding lease; or
(c) a greenhouse gas injection licence;
then that risk is not to be treated as significant, and that adverse impact is not to be treated as significant, if the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the probability‑weighted impact cost of the production licence operation is less than the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the threshold amount.
15FB Significant risk of a significant adverse impact—approval of key greenhouse gas operations
(1) For the purposes of sections 249AF and 249BD and paragraph 435B(2)(b), the question of whether there is a significant risk that a key greenhouse gas operation will have a significant adverse impact on petroleum exploration operations, or petroleum recovery operations, that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) an existing exploration permit; or
(b) an existing retention lease; or
(c) an existing production licence; or
(d) a future exploration permit; or
(e) a future retention lease; or
(f) a future production licence;
is to be determined in a manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations.
(2) A manner ascertained in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must take into account:
(a) the probability, or range of probabilities, of the occurrence of the adverse impact; and
(b) the economic consequences of the adverse impact; and
(c) the economic consequences of the adverse impact relative to the potential economic value of the petroleum exploration operations, or petroleum recovery operations, that are being, or could be, carried on under the permit, lease or licence referred to in whichever of paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) is applicable.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(5) For the purposes of sections 249AF and 249BD and paragraph 435B(2)(b), a key greenhouse gas operation will have an adverse impact on petroleum exploration operations, or petroleum recovery operations, that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) an existing exploration permit; or
(b) an existing retention lease; or
(c) an existing production licence; or
(d) a future exploration permit; or
(e) a future retention lease; or
(f) a future production licence;
if, and only if, the key greenhouse gas operation will result in:
(g) an increase in the capital costs (other than prescribed costs) of the petroleum exploration operations or petroleum recovery operations; or
(h) an increase in the operating costs (other than prescribed costs) of the petroleum exploration operations or petroleum recovery operations; or
(i) a reduction in the rate of recovery of the petroleum; or
(j) a reduction in the quantity of the petroleum that will be able to be recovered.
(6) For the purposes of sections 249AF and 249BD and paragraph 435B(2)(b), if there is a risk that a key greenhouse gas operation will have an adverse impact on petroleum exploration operations, or petroleum recovery operations, that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) an existing exploration permit; or
(b) an existing retention lease; or
(c) an existing production licence; or
(d) a future exploration permit; or
(e) a future retention lease; or
(f) a future production licence;
then that risk is not to be treated as significant, and that adverse impact is not to be treated as significant, if the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the probability‑weighted impact cost of the key greenhouse gas operation is less than the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the threshold amount.
15FC Significant risk of a significant adverse impact—grant of greenhouse gas injection licence
(1) For the purposes of sections 249CI and 249CR and paragraph 435B(2)(c), the question of whether there is a significant risk that any of the operations that could be carried on under a greenhouse gas injection licence will have a significant adverse impact on operations that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) an existing exploration permit; or
(b) an existing retention lease; or
(c) an existing production licence; or
(d) a future exploration permit; or
(e) a future retention lease; or
(f) a future production licence;
is to be determined in a manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations.
(2) A manner ascertained in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must take into account:
(a) the probability, or range of probabilities, of the occurrence of the adverse impact; and
(b) the economic consequences of the adverse impact; and
(c) the economic consequences of the adverse impact relative to the potential economic value of the operations that are being, or could be, carried on under the permit, lease or licence referred to in whichever of paragraph (1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) is applicable.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(5) For the purposes of sections 249CI and 249CR and paragraph 435B(2)(c), an operation that could be carried on under a greenhouse gas injection licence (the injection licence operation) will have an adverse impact on operations (the relevant petroleum operations) that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) an existing exploration permit; or
(b) an existing retention lease; or
(c) an existing production licence; or
(d) a future exploration permit; or
(e) a future retention lease; or
(f) a future production licence;
if, and only if, the injection licence operation will result in:
(g) an increase in the capital costs (other than prescribed costs) of the relevant petroleum operations; or
(h) an increase in the operating costs (other than prescribed costs) of the relevant petroleum operations; or
(i) a reduction in the rate of recovery of the petroleum; or
(j) a reduction in the quantity of the petroleum that will be able to be recovered.
(6) For the purposes of sections 249CI and 249CR and paragraph 435B(2)(c), if there is a risk that an operation that could be carried on under a greenhouse gas injection licence (the injection licence operation) will have an adverse impact on operations that are being, or could be, carried on under:
(a) an existing exploration permit; or
(b) an existing retention lease; or
(c) an existing production licence; or
(d) a future exploration permit; or
(e) a future retention lease; or
(f) a future production licence;
then that risk is not to be treated as significant, and that adverse impact is not to be treated as significant, if the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the probability‑weighted impact cost of the injection licence operation is less than the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the threshold amount.
15FD Significant risk of a significant adverse impact—power of responsible Commonwealth Minister to protect petroleum
(1) For the purposes of section 249CZC and paragraph 435B(2)(d), the question of whether there is a significant risk that any of the operations that are being, or could be, carried on under a greenhouse gas injection licence will have a significant adverse impact on:
(a) operations to recover petroleum; or
(b) the commercial viability of the recovery of petroleum;
is to be determined in a manner ascertained in accordance with the regulations.
(2) A manner ascertained in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must take into account:
(a) the probability, or range of probabilities, of the occurrence of the adverse impact; and
(b) the economic consequences of the adverse impact; and
(c) the economic consequences of the adverse impact relative to the potential economic value of the operations or recovery referred to in whichever of paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is applicable.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to subsections (5) and (6).
(5) For the purposes of section 249CZC and paragraph 435B(2)(d), an operation that could be carried on under a greenhouse gas injection licence (the injection licence operation) will have an adverse impact on:
(a) operations to recover petroleum; or
(b) the commercial viability of the recovery of petroleum;
if, and only if, the injection licence operation will result in:
(c) an increase in the capital costs (other than prescribed costs) of the recovery of the petroleum; or
(d) an increase in the operating costs (other than prescribed costs) of the recovery of the petroleum; or
(e) a reduction in the rate of recovery of the petroleum; or
(f) a reduction in the quantity of the petroleum that will be able to be recovered.
(6) For the purposes of section 249CZC and paragraph 435B(2)(d), if there is a risk that an operation that is being, or could be, carried on under a greenhouse gas injection licence (the injection licence operation) will have an adverse impact on:
(a) operations to recover petroleum; or
(b) the commercial viability of the recovery of petroleum;
then that risk is not to be treated as significant, and that adverse impact is not to be treated as significant, if the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the probability‑weighted impact cost of the injection licence operation is less than the amount that, under the regulations, is taken to be the threshold amount.
(4) Schedule 1, item 169, page 103 (after line 32), after section 249AJ, insert:
249AJA Retention lessee or production licensee to be notified of proposal to advertise blocks
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the responsible Commonwealth Minister proposes to publish a notice under subsection 249AJ(1) specifying a block that is the subject of a retention lease or production licence; and
(b) at the time of the proposal, the lessee or licensee is entitled to make an application for the grant of a greenhouse gas holding lease over the block.
Notification
(2) The responsible Commonwealth Minister must, at least 60 days before the proposed publication of the subsection 249AJ(1) notice, notify the lessee or licensee of the proposed publication.
Deferral of publication of notice
(3) If, during the period:
(a) beginning when the lessee or licensee is given the notification under subsection (2); and
(b) ending at the end of the day of proposed publication of the subsection 249AJ(1) notice;
the lessee or licensee makes such an application, the responsible Commonwealth Minister must not publish the subsection 249AJ(1) notice until:
(c) the application lapses; or
(d) the lessee withdraws the application; or
(e) the responsible Commonwealth Minister refuses to grant the greenhouse gas holding lease or greenhouse gas injection licence.
(5) Schedule 1, item 169, page 104 (after line 21), at the end of section 249AK, add:
Decision must be made within 12 months
(3) The responsible Commonwealth Minister must make a decision under subsection (2) within 12 months after the end of the period specified in the relevant notice under subsection 249AJ(1).
(6) Schedule 1, item 169, page 111 (after line 12), after section 249AP, insert:
249APA Retention lessee or production licensee to be notified of proposal to advertise blocks
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the responsible Commonwealth Minister proposes to publish a notice under subsection 249AP(1) specifying a block that is the subject of a retention lease or production licence; and
(b) at the time of the proposal, the lessee or licensee is entitled to make an application for the grant of a greenhouse gas holding lease or a greenhouse gas injection licence over the block.
Notification
(2) The responsible Commonwealth Minister must, at least 60 days before the proposed publication of the subsection 249AP(1) notice, notify the lessee or licensee of the proposed publication.
Deferral of publication of notice
(3) If, during the period:
(a) beginning when the lessee or licensee is given the notification under subsection (2); and
(b) ending at the end of the day of proposed publication of the subsection 249AP(1) notice;
the lessee or licensee makes such an application, the responsible Commonwealth Minister must not publish the subsection 249AP(1) notice until:
(c) the application lapses; or
(d) the lessee withdraws the application; or
(e) the responsible Commonwealth Minister refuses to grant the greenhouse gas holding lease or greenhouse gas injection licence.
(7) Schedule 1, item 169, page 189 (lines 30 to 34), omit paragraph 249CR(c), substitute:
(c) either:
(i) the responsible Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that all of the greenhouse gas substance injected into the identified greenhouse gas storage formation or formations concerned will be obtained as a by-product of petroleum recovery operations carried on under the production licence; or
(ii) the responsible Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that some or all of the greenhouse gas substance injected into the identified greenhouse gas storage formation or formations concerned will be obtained as a by-product of petroleum recovery operations carried on under any production licence, and that the grant of the greenhouse gas injection licence is in the public interest; and
(8) Schedule 1, item 169, page 219 (lines 13 and 14), omit subsection 249CZF(8), substitute:
Decision must be made within 5 years
(8) If an application for a site closing certificate has been made under section 249CZE, the responsible Commonwealth Minister must make a decision on the application within 5 years after the application was made.
(9) Schedule 1, item 169, page 219 (lines 15 to 22), omit section 249CZFA.
(10) Schedule 1, item 169, page 219 (before line 23), before section 249CZG, insert:
249CZFB Acknowledgement of receipt of application for site closing certificate
Scope
(1) This section applies if an application has been made under section 249CZE for a site closing certificate.
Acknowledgement of receipt of application
(2) The responsible Commonwealth Minister must give the applicant notice of receipt of the application.
(11) Schedule 1, item 169, page 223 (after line 16), at the end of Part 2A.4, add:
Division 8—Long‑term liabilities
249CZN Closure assurance period
(1) If:
(a) a site closing certificate is in force in relation to an identified greenhouse gas storage formation; and
(b) the responsible Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that operations for the injection of a greenhouse gas substance into the formation ceased on a day (the cessation day) before the application for the site closing certificate was made; and
(c) on a day (the decision day) that is at least 15 years after the issue of the site closing certificate, the responsible Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that:
(i) the greenhouse gas substance injected into the formation is behaving as predicted in Part A of the approved site plan for the formation; and
(ii) there is no significant risk that a greenhouse gas substance injected into the formation will have a significant adverse impact on the geotechnical integrity of the whole or a part of a geological formation or geological structure; and
(iii) there is no significant risk that a greenhouse gas substance injected into the formation will have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and
(iv) there is no significant risk that a greenhouse gas substance injected into the formation will have a significant adverse impact on human health or safety; and
(v) since the cessation day, there have not been any operations for the injection of a greenhouse gas substance into the formation;
the responsible Commonwealth Minister may, by writing, declare that the period:
(d) beginning at the end of the cessation day; and
(e) ending at the end of the decision day;
is the closure assurance period in relation to the formation for the purposes of this Act.
(2) A copy of a declaration under subsection (1) is to be given to the holder of the site closing certificate.
249CZO Indemnity—long‑term liability
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a site closing certificate is in force in relation to an identified greenhouse gas storage formation; and
(b) when the application for the certificate was made, the formation was specified in a greenhouse gas injection licence; and
(c) there is a closure assurance period in relation to the formation; and
(d) the following conditions are satisfied in relation to a liability of an existing person who is or has been the registered holder of the licence (whether or not the licence is in force):
(i) the liability is a liability for damages;
(ii) the liability is attributable to an act done or omitted to be done in the carrying out of operations authorised by the licence in relation to the formation;
(iii) the liability is incurred or accrued after the end of the closure assurance period in relation to the formation;
(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations.
Indemnity
(2) The Commonwealth must indemnify the person against the liability.
249CZP Commonwealth to assume long‑term liability if licensee has ceased to exist
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a site closing certificate is in force in relation to an identified greenhouse gas storage formation; and
(b) when the application for the certificate was made, the formation was specified in a greenhouse gas injection licence; and
(c) there is a closure assurance period in relation to the formation; and
(d) a person who has been the registered holder of the licence (whether or not the licence is in force) has ceased to exist; and
(e) if the person had continued in existence, the following conditions would have been satisfied in relation to a liability of the person:
(i) the liability is a liability for damages;
(ii) the liability is attributable to an act done or omitted to be done in the carrying out of operations authorised by the licence in relation to the formation;
(iii) the liability is incurred or accrued after the end of the closure assurance period in relation to the formation;
(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations; and
(f) apart from this section, the damages are irrecoverable because the person has ceased to exist.
Commonwealth to assume liability
(2) The liability is taken to be a liability of the Commonwealth.
(12) Schedule 1, item 274B, page 372 (before line 12), before subparagraph 435B(2)(f)(i), insert:
(ia) the powers conferred by section 249AK;
(ib) the powers conferred by section 249AL;
(13) Schedule 1, item 274B, page 372 (after line 23), after subparagraph 435B(2)(f)(ix), insert:
(ixa) the making of a declaration under section 249CZN;
10523
17:07:00
Ferguson, Martin, MP
LS4
Batman
ALP
Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
1
0
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON
—I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
In agreeing to the amendments, on behalf of the government I would like to make a few comments because this is world-first legislation. Also, I welcome the member for Groom to the House, because of the constructive contribution made by the opposition in facilitating the progress of what is world-first legislation.
It is important to note that those discussions were assisted firstly by the valuable work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources which involved detailed consultations with industry and all other stakeholders. Many of the amendments suggested by the House committee were incorporated in the initial legislation to be considered by the House with the support of the opposition. The bill was also referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. Could I indicate that the bill incorporates an amendment to reflect the government’s acceptance of a recommendation of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee relating to the better definition of the minister’s regulation-making power.
Broadly, the amendments agreed to in the Senate have the following important outcomes. Firstly, petroleum retention leaseholders are to be given a priority to apply for the grant of a greenhouse gas holding lease in relation to areas covered by the retention lease. The objective of this is to allow the retention leaseholders to consider their own need to sequester their greenhouse gases arising from petroleum operations. Similar arrangements apply to petroleum production licence holders. Secondly, the holder of a petroleum production licence will be given priority to apply for a greenhouse gas injection licence where (a) all of the greenhouse gas proposed to be injected will be obtained as a by-product of petroleum recovery operations carried out under the production licences and (b) some or all of the greenhouse gas substance to be injected will be obtained as a by-product of petroleum recovery operations carried out under any production licence and the responsible Commonwealth minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest for this to occur. This is to allow the production licensees to use a storage area in their production licence area for their own sequestration needs, but it will also provide an ability for the injector to sequester gas from their own or other petroleum operations or, potentially, additional greenhouse gas from other sources to mutual benefit.
The amendments also provide for a closure assurance period of a minimum of 15 years to be established. This period commences on the issue of a site-closing certificate—a process estimated to take five years after injection ends and which ceases when the responsible Commonwealth minister is satisfied that there is, inter alia, no significant risk that a greenhouse gas substance injected into the formation will have a significant adverse impact. On the cessation of the closure assurance period, the injector’s liability against claims for negligence et cetera ceases. This is effectively a 20-year limit on liability of the injector, with the Commonwealth assuming liability thereafter.
I also address the concerns raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The bill has been amended to define the impacts that will be regarded as adverse impacts. The amendment will allow the regulations to set threshold criteria that may be taken into account in determining whether a significant risk of a significant adverse impact exists. Thresholds will be determined on the basis of the probability of occurrences and consequences.
The facilitation of this bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate has represented a constructive engagement between the government and the opposition, and so it should be. As we all appreciate, Australia as a nation is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for energy purposes. In actual fact, 80 per cent of our electricity comes from coal fired power stations. Whilst the government has a significant challenge in terms of our renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020, the truth of the matter is that we are still going to be heavily dependent on fossil fuel for energy security in Australia. We therefore understand that the issue of technology is the key to guaranteeing energy security and our economic future. For those reasons this legislation, side by side with working with industry and like-minded governments on actually putting in place carbon capture and storage capacity, is of the utmost importance not only to Australia but also to the global community. (Extension of time granted)
A recent International Energy Agency report reinforced that point and clearly indicated that throughout the global community coal fired power stations are also going to be central to energy security in both developed and developing nations. For that reason the legislation that is currently before the House is being watched closely by the international community. A range of governments have actually sought briefings from my department with respect to the nature of the legislation, especially going to the complex issue of liability and also the question of ensuring closure in a safe and proper way.
In conclusion I say that, on the basis of this Commonwealth legislation going to our responsibilities for offshore areas, it is now a priority that state and territory governments proceed to actually finalise consideration of their onshore legislative regime, because the issue of sequestration is not only capable of being achieved in offshore waters for which the Commonwealth has responsibility but also being closely pursued by a range of businesses with respect to onshore capacity.
I say to all those involved in the debate, within the House and the Senate and from the private sector of the Australian business community: thank you for your cooperation. It is a world first and without your constructive input Australia would not be best-positioning itself to actually confront the challenge of climate change in the 21st century. I commend the bill to the House.
10525
17:14:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—I am going to have to tread very carefully here. It has been accused by my colleague behind me of that it is some sort of love-in every time the minister and I get to our feet. I have to say that this process is incredibly important, and it could have been overlooked as just another boring piece of resources legislation. In fact, as the minister has just said, this is world first legislation. It is legislation that I congratulate the minister on completing; it is legislation that I began in my previous life. Australia can hold its head high and be very proud with the passage of this legislation. It is legislation which, as the minister said, not only sets the blueprint for terrestrial sequestration here in Australia—and hopefully the state governments will take the lead and not fiddle around with it too much and not waste too much time—but also shows that Australia can do it better than anywhere else in the world when it comes to technology.
The Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008 will ensure that the opportunity is presented for those producers of energy from fossil fuel to sequester their CO2. That is incredibly important. But, just as important, it is a partnership between the Commonwealth government and the commercial operators of these fields. In doing so, Australia will be able to offer them an alternative to emitting that CO2 into the atmosphere. There are still a significant number of hurdles to step over before geosequestration—initially perhaps from oil and gas fields but ultimately from power stations—takes place. Those challenges cannot be underestimated. There is an enormous cost associated with geosequestration and an even greater cost associated with the development of the engineering and technology to actually perform it. This legislation creates that opportunity and it is legislation which is a world first and of which Australia can be very proud.
Question agreed to.
SAFE WORK AUSTRALIA BILL 2008
10525
Bills
R3058
Consideration of Senate Message
10525
Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate insists on its amendments disagreed to by the House.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Page 5 (after line 6), after clause 5, insert:
5A Objects
The objects of the establishment of Safe Work Australia are, through a partnership of governments, employers and employees, to lead and coordinate national efforts to:
(a) prevent workplace death, injury and disease; and
(b) harmonise occupational health and safety laws and associated regulations and codes of practice; and
(c) improve national worker’s compensation arrangements.
(2) Clause 10, page 9 (lines 10 to 13), omit paragraphs (1)(d) and (e), substitute:
(d) 3 members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions;
(e) 3 members nominated by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;
(3) Clause 15, page 11 (line 16) to page 12 (line 1), omit subclauses (2) to (5), substitute:
(2) The Minister can only make the appointment if the person has been nominated for the appointment by the Australian Council of Trade Unions.
(4) Clause 16, page 12 (lines 8 to 21), omit subclauses (2) to (5), substitute:
(2) The Minister can only make the appointment if the person has been nominated for the appointment by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
(5) Clause 26, page 16 (lines 18 and 19), omit “Division 4 allows the Ministerial Council to direct Safe Work Australia to amend either of the final plans.”.
(6) Clause 28, page 17 (line 24) to page 18 (line 24), omit subclauses (2) to (5).
(7) Clause 28, page 19 (lines 1 to 4), omit subclause (8).
(8) Clause 30, page 21 (lines 1 to 31), omit subclauses (2) to (5).
(9) Clause 30, page 22 (lines 8 to 11), omit subclause (8).
(10) Division 4, clauses 31 and 32, page 23 (line 1) to page 25 (line 27), omit the Division.
(11) Clause 38, page 28 (lines 21 to 29), omit subclause (2).
(12) Clause 42, page 31 (lines 15 to 29), omit subclause (2).
(13) Clause 42, page 31 (line 31), omit “or (2)”.
(14) Clause 42, page 32 (line 7), omit “and subparagraph (2)(a)(i)”.
(15) Clause 43, page 33 (line 13), omit “any direction”, substitute “certain directions”.
(16) Clause 45, page 34 (lines 14 to 16), omit paragraph (3)(a).
(17) Clause 46, page 35 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:
(a) about the performance of the CEO’s functions but not in relation to operational matters; or
(18) Clause 46, page 35 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:
(5) In this section, operational matters are matters addressed in the strategic and operational plans of Safe Work Australia.
(19) Clause 57, page 39 (lines 27 to 29), omit subclause (3).
(20) Page 45 (after line 9), after clause 67, insert:
67A Audit committee
(1) Safe Work Australia may establish an audit committee.
(2) The functions of the audit committee shall be:
(a) to receive reports and request information from the CEO on the Safe Work Australia Special Account and the financial management of Safe Work Australia;
(b) to make recommendations on the financial management of Safe Work Australia.
10527
17:17:00
Gillard, Julia, MP
83L
Lalor
ALP
Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion
1
0
Ms GILLARD
—I move:
That the House insists on disagreeing to the amendments insisted upon by the Senate.
I hate to spoil the atmosphere of the moment generated by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy and his opposition friend, but the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 is an important piece of legislation and the government does insist that it be passed in its original form. It has been a long-held view of the business community in this nation that the single biggest regulatory reform they seek is to have uniform occupational health and safety laws around the country. Whether you are operating a business in Townsville, Tamworth or Traralgon, the laws would be the same. In the middle of this year the government entered into a historic intergovernmental agreement with all states and territories to achieve just that. We are on track to achieve model laws, and in May next year there will be model laws available. Central to that agreement is the creation of a new body to be called Safe Work Australia. Its composition, membership, voting structures and methods of operation were closely negotiated firstly between the Workplace Relations Ministers Council members and then at COAG itself. Not everybody got everything they wanted—such is the nature of intergovernmental discussion—but everybody was prepared to sign off on this.
The Liberal Party has insisted on seeking amendments to the legislation which are inconsistent with the intergovernmental agreement, thereby jeopardising the whole ability of this government, working with our state and territory counterparts, to ensure that we have this major agenda worked through and we achieve those uniform laws. Right across the country people are calling on the Liberal Party to get out of the way and to pass the safe work legislation in its original form. I would refer you in that regard to a media release from the Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, Ms Katie Lahey, where she said:
In the current climate businesses need every help to get on with the job. The amendments sought by the Senate jeopardise moves to make business operations and employment of workers simpler across our jurisdictions … The amendments sought by the Senate in the last sitting are inconsistent
She goes on to talk about how business has fought hard for this reform. The Business Council of Australia, representing Australia’s 100 biggest businesses, is saying clearly to the Liberal Party: ‘Get out of the way. Pass the legislation in its original form.’
They are joined by the Chief Executive of the Australian Mines and Metals Association—not an organisation without consequence in the state from which the shadow minister for workplace relations comes. Steve Knott, the chief executive, has made it absolutely clear through his media release of 10 November that they want the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 passed without delay.
When this matter was last before the House, the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations maintained that if the Commonwealth went to the effort of checking the acceptability of these amendments with states and territories then the Commonwealth would find that they were acceptable. Well, that view from the shadow minister is not correct. The Workplace Relations Ministers Council has met. I informed them of the amendments and they have said the following things in a joint communiqué. Whilst I would indicate that the incoming Liberal minister in Western Australia did express some sympathy with the amendments moved by the shadow minister, he joined without reservation with every other minister around the country in the following statement:
Ministers highlighted that Senate amendments to the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 were inconsistent with the historic commitment for governments to uniform national occupational health and safety laws as reflected in the intergovernmental agreement … by COAG. … Ministers noted with much concern that the amendments threatened the harmonisation of national OHS legislation, thereby delaying a significant and long overdue economic reform which would enhance OHS outcomes, reduce red tape for business and strengthen Australia’s productive capacity.
State ministers, including a Liberal minister, have spoken; the business community has spoken. We will return this bill to the Senate and we will say yet again to the Liberal Party: in these uncertain global economic times, do not jeopardise this reform.
10528
17:22:00
Keenan, Michael, MP
E0J
Stirling
LP
0
0
Mr KEENAN
—I do agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that this is an important national reform. That is why it would be extraordinarily stupid for the government to place that reform in jeopardy by insisting that they are right when everybody else is telling them that they are wrong. In the Senate every Green and Independent senator joined with us in saying to the government that this legislation was fundamentally flawed.
These amendments were supported by ACCI and the ACTU, an organisation not necessarily considered to be a pawn of the Liberal Party. They joined with us in saying that these amendments were sensible and they improved on the legislation that the government has introduced into this House. It takes an incredible kind of arrogance just to turn around and say, ‘No, we’re not remotely interested in looking at these amendments; we’re going to insist on having our way.’ I have news for the government and I have news for the Deputy Prime Minister: parliament is more than just the executive and the government. Yes, government is formed in the lower House here, but we have a bicameral system and the idea that the Senate should not have any say on the way legislation is formed in Australia is unbelievably arrogant and also flawed.
The Deputy Prime Minister insists on talking about the intergovernmental agreement. The reality is that the new state government of Western Australia does not have a problem with most of the amendments as moved by the Senate. Indeed the Deputy Prime Minister herself through her own legislation has not even facilitated all of the intergovernmental agreement as agreed. For instance, she has failed to include within that legislation something agreed within the intergovernmental agreement, which was that the legislation provide for the new body to supply an annual report on its progress to the parliament. That has not been included within the government’s legislation but was insisted on within the intergovernmental agreement.
What is so terrible about these amendments? They are actually relatively simple amendments; they improve on what the government have done. If the government insist on having their own way then they are the ones who will put this national OH&S system in jeopardy. The amendments do relatively simple things. For instance, they outline the objectives of the new body—hardly terribly controversial. They restore effective levels of representation to the employer and the employer representative bodies and they name who those bodies are. Most members of this House would agree that ACCI and the ACTU are the appropriate bodies to represent both the employer and employee groups in Australia. They also free these partners from unnecessary ministerial interference. If the chief executive of Safe Work Australia is going to fulfil their role then they should be able to do so without the threat of unnecessary ministerial interference. Freeing the CEO of Safe Work Australia from this interference is particularly important. They hardly have the freedom to do the job properly if they have the minister breathing down their neck with the threat of sacking them if they do not do what the federal government wants.
Finally, the amendments establish an audit committee to examine the finances and the expenditure of Safe Work Australia. These are hardly controversial things, in my view. They are relatively simple amendments that improve the government’s legislation. They are amendments that every other senator except Labor Party senators can agree on as being sensible. It is quite an unlikely alliance when you team the Liberal Party with the Greens and the Independent senators.
Yet the government is far too arrogant, even in the face of this combined opposition, to consider these amendments. I know that this went to the ministerial council last Wednesday in Melbourne and the reality is that there was very little discussion. I understand the discussion lasted for some 10 minutes and the view was expressed that the partners should insist on the intergovernmental agreement. We believe that this is the wrong strategy. We believe that the Senate has a right to amend government legislation. I would genuinely urge the government to consider their approach or they will be the ones that place in jeopardy this important national reform.
Question agreed to.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ECONOMIC SECURITY STRATEGY) BILL 2008
10529
Bills
R4001
First Reading
10529
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin, for Ms Plibersek.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10529
10529
17:28:00
Macklin, Jenny, MP
PG6
Jagajaga
ALP
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
1
0
Ms MACKLIN
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is responding to the global economic crisis by taking strong, decisive action to strengthen the economy and provide immediate financial support for Australian pensioners and families.
Four million pensioners and two million families will benefit from measures included in this bill—the key legislative component in the government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy.
It delivers a $4.8 billion down payment to pensioners in the lead-up to comprehensive reform of the pension system to give them long-term security and certainty.
The bill provides $3.9 billion to help Australian families—recognising that global difficulties are placing increasing pressure on family budgets already stretched by the rising cost of living.
Payments to pensioners and families will be made over the fortnight starting on 8 December 2008 and most will be made automatically.
The payments to pensioners are an immediate down payment on long-term pension reform. They are intended to give additional support before we make essential long-term reforms in the context of the 2009-10 budget.
These Economic Security Strategy payments will be made to people who received one of a range of social security and veterans entitlements qualifying payments on 14 October 2008 (the date the Economic Security Strategy was announced).
These include people receiving age, disability support, wife, widow B and veterans service pensions; income support supplement; carer payment; and partner, widow and bereavement allowances.
For the first time, disability support pensioners will get a lump sum payment. The government recognises that they are doing it as tough as other pensioners.
People who, on 14 October 2008, were of age pension age and received parenting payment, special benefit, Austudy payment or Abstudy living allowance are also eligible for payments.
The payment will also go to self-funded retirees who, on 14 October 2008, held a current Commonwealth seniors health card, and to holders of the Veterans’ Affairs gold card who were also eligible for seniors’ concession allowance on that date.
Those pensioners and seniors not actually receiving a qualifying payment on 14 October 2008 will still get the Economic Security Strategy payment if they had claimed the qualifying payment by that date and later have their qualifying payment backdated to cover that date. Similar backdating arrangements will apply for qualifying cardholders.
The Economic Security Strategy payment for this group of Australians will be $1,400 for singles, $2,100 combined if both members of a couple receive a qualifying payment and $1,050 if only one of the couple does.
A separate Economic Security Strategy payment will go to people receiving the non-means tested social security income supplement—carer allowance.
People who were receiving carer allowance on 14 October 2008 will be paid $1,000 for each eligible person they care for. If the carer allowance for one care receiver is shared between two or more carers, the Economic Security Strategy payment will be similarly shared. Where receipt of one payment of carer allowance depends on the person providing care for two care receivers, the payment will also be $1,000.
The bill also provides for Economic Security Strategy payments to deliver immediate financial support to around two million Australian families with dependent children.
A payment of $1,000 will be made for each child eligible for family tax benefit part A at 14 October 2008. The same $1,000 payment will be made for each dependent child who, at 14 October 2008, was either eligible for or received youth allowance, Abstudy living allowance or an education allowance under the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme.
If any of these qualifying payments for families is shared between two people under the usual rules for that payment, the payment will be similarly shared.
There will be provision for payments for families to be made where the qualifying payment is not actually being received on 14 October 2008 but is subsequently backdated to cover that date. For example, the small number of families who claim their family tax benefit part A annually as a lump sum will get their Economic Security Strategy payment when their 2008-09 income assessment has been finalised and their family tax benefit lump sum is paid.
The bill will make further amendments to allow payments for pensioners, seniors, carers and families to be made with no need for a claim. As well, they will not count as income for social security, family assistance and veterans entitlements purposes, and will be tax free.
The payments will be 100 per cent income managed where an income management regime is in place.
Lastly, the bill will allow the relevant ministers to establish, by legislative instrument, administrative schemes to provide payments in circumstances where the statutory regime does not produce an appropriate result.
Through this bill the government is moving decisively to make the already strong Australian economy more resilient—at the same time supporting pensioners and families through the global financial crisis.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pearce) adjourned.
APPROPRIATION (ECONOMIC SECURITY STRATEGY) BILL (NO. 1) 2008-2009
10531
Bills
R4005
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
First Reading
10531
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10531
10531
17:37:00
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
0
Mr TANNER
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The global financial crisis has caused a dramatic shift in Australia’s macroeconomic outlook since the 2008-09 budget. In response, the government is implementing swift, targeted and prudent policy responses to reduce the possibility of a severe slowdown in the Australian economy, and to shield Australians from the impact of the global financial crisis.
As part of a coordinated response to the global financial crisis, the government has taken swift and decisive action to deliver a $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy to strengthen the Australian economy and support Australian households through these difficult times.
The Economic Security Strategy is a discretionary fiscal stimulus package that is overwhelmingly focused on the first half of 2009 and tightly targeted at key aspects of the economy—household consumption and dwelling investment.
The strategy also provides relief to those people in the community who have been struggling in the past couple of years to meet rising costs for housing, petrol and food, particularly those on low incomes or with children and other family members to support.
In the absence of the government’s Economic Security Strategy, economic growth would have been significantly weaker than currently forecast. The strategy is expected to result in a boost to the level of real GDP growth of between half and one percentage point over the next several quarters, providing a significant boost to household consumption and supporting a recovery in dwelling investment over the forecast horizon.
There are two supplementary estimates appropriation bills being introduced as part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy. They are Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bills Nos 1 and 2.
These supplementary estimates bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in order to implement a number of measures in the government’s strategy.
The total appropriation being sought through the supplementary estimates bills is $1.33 billion. The total appropriation being sought in bill No. 1 is $146 million. I shall introduce bill No. 2 shortly.
Bill No. 1 provides for an investment of over $117 million to create 56,000 additional places in the Productivity Places Program in 2008-09. This funding for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is for places at Certificate II, III and IV levels. In the next two years, this government will provide for a total additional commitment of over $187 million to help job seekers develop skills in areas needed by Australian industry.
This funding injection will effectively double the Productivity Places Program from 57,000 to 113,000 in 2008-09. The new places will take the Rudd government’s total commitment to the Productivity Places Program to more than $2 billion with over 700,000 new training places created over five years.
By expanding the Productivity Places Program, we are building on a program that has already proved its worth. More than 50,000 job seekers have enrolled, and over 11,000 have already completed training in an area of skills shortage. When combined with other measures, this investment means that the Economic Security Strategy is expected to create about 75,000 additional jobs for Australians. For job seekers, it means improved opportunities for training and employment. For industry, it means better employees with the skills they need to build a more competitive and productive Australian economy—for today and for the future.
As well as investing in Australia’s economic future, the Economic Security Strategy provides critical measures which recognise the impact the global financial crisis is having on the budgets of seniors, pensioners, carers and families.
For Australian families, the Economic Security Strategy means $3.9 billion in immediate financial support. Around two million families will be eligible for a $1,000 bonus payment for each child. The bonus payment is recognition that many Australian families are doing it tough, particularly as the global financial crisis comes off the back of rising living costs.
For pensioners, the Economic Security Strategy brings $4 billion in additional payments. Those in receipt of age, disability, carer and veterans pensions, as well as self-funded retirees with a Commonwealth Seniors Health Care Card, will receive a $1,400 payment for singles and $2,100 for couples. These payments are one way the government can support pensioners during these difficult economic conditions.
The legislation before the House will facilitate these payments. Funding of $17.2 million is proposed for the administrative costs in implementing the one-off lump sum payment to Australian pensioners and families I have outlined. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will receive some $16.5 million, with almost $0.64 million going to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. This funding will enable the payment from 8 December 2008 of immediate financial support to Australia’s four million pensioners, carers and seniors and around two million low- and middle-income Australian families.
The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will also receive $11.55 million to conduct a public information campaign to ensure that those eligible recipients of the one-off lump sum payment and the first home owners boost are advised of their entitlement.
Through the Economic Security Strategy, we have acted swiftly and decisively to support the Australian economy.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pearce) adjourned.
APPROPRIATION (ECONOMIC SECURITY STRATEGY) BILL (NO. 2) 2008-2009
10533
Bills
R4004
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
First Reading
10533
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
10533
10533
17:43:00
Tanner, Lindsay, MP
YU5
Melbourne
ALP
Minister for Finance and Deregulation
1
0
Mr TANNER
—I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Economic Security Strategy will strengthen the Australian housing market by providing $1.5 billion over two years through the first home owners boost.
The first home owners boost will stimulate housing construction and provide assistance to first home buyers to give them a better chance of owning their own homes.
In addition to the first home owners scheme grant, first home buyers who purchase established homes will receive an extra $7,000 to take their grant to $14,000. First home buyers who purchase a newly constructed home will receive an extra $14,000 to take their grant to $21,000.
The first home owners boost will be available to eligible first home buyers who enter into a contract between 14 October 2008 and 30 June 2009.
To implement the measure, Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009 proposes an appropriation of some $1.2 billion for the Department of the Treasury to pay to the states and territories. Those payments will cover the increased costs that the states and territories are expected to incur during 2008-09.
This initiative will help strengthen the Australian economy during difficult global economic times. It will build a stronger Australian housing market and make home ownership accessible to more Australians.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Pearce) adjourned.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (EDUCATION REFUND) BILL 2008
10533
Bills
R3074
Second Reading
10533
Debate resumed from 10 November, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10533
17:45:00
Neal, Belinda, MP
B36
Robertson
ALP
1
0
Ms NEAL
—Students in Australia are already being helped to move further into the digital technology revolution that is happening around us. To help achieve this goal, the government’s digital education revolution allocated $1.2 billion over five years to bring computers and broadband access technology to secondary schools. This program is well underway. In my own electorate of Robertson, the computers in schools program has already seen an investment of $2.4 million for schools in my local area. This information communications and technology initiative has so far formed one of the major platforms of the Rudd Labor government’s education revolution.
The education tax refund is another of the government’s commitments, one which will transform working families’ access to quality education in Australia. By providing help for working parents with their everyday educational expenses, including the costs of purchasing computer technology, the measures contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 will ensure that kids have access to the revolution that is at hand in Australia’s classrooms.
The costs of quality education are forever increasing. A survey by the Brotherhood of St Laurence in 2007 found that 72 per cent of respondents could not afford items that would ‘improve the education experience of their children’. Two-thirds of these respondents did not have a home computer with internet access. About 60 per cent had difficulty paying for books and almost half reported difficulty paying for educational equipment. These figures illustrate quite clearly the difficulties encountered by low-income families in particular when faced with the costs of schooling their children. The ETR plan seeks to address these pressing needs. Not only will the plan bring practical educational tools such as books and computers into the homes of millions of Australian students, it will enhance equity in access to quality education across Australia.
While the bill before us today does not cover all educational expenses, it provides a valuable level of support for more than 2.7 million students in need of educational equipment. Under the ETR plan, eligible expenses for the purposes of the education tax refund include laptops, home computers, printers, paper, education software, school textbooks and associated materials and trade tools. This includes the purchase, lease, hire or hire-purchase costs of these items. Another significant element of the package is that expenses associated with establishing and maintaining a home internet connection are also included.
The criteria for eligibility for the ETR have been made as broad as possible to include as many categories of students and families as possible. Parents and others entitled to family tax benefit part A and who have children undertaking primary or secondary school studies will be eligible for the ETR. In addition, those who would be eligible for family tax benefit part A in respect of a child but for the fact that they or the child are in receipt of other payments, such as youth allowance, disability support pension or Abstudy living allowance, are also eligible. Students who are living independently from their parents may also be eligible for the education tax refund for their own education expenses.
The ETR will apply to eligible expenses incurred from 1 July 2008 and will be claimable when income tax returns are submitted. Therefore, the ETR will be claimable from 1 July 2009 for the 2008-09 tax income year. With this in mind, I will be and have already been reminding the constituents in my electorate of Robertson to hang onto their tax receipts which they have already collected so they can claim the expenses in their next return. People who do not pay tax can still access the education expenses refund. Those people who are not required to lodge an income tax return will be able to claim ETR entitlements by lodging a separate form at the end of each year.
As I have already mentioned, the ETR plan has been designed to allow as many families as possible to gain a tax offset under the scheme. In accordance with this principle, students living independently from their parents may also be eligible to claim a refund for their education expenses. The bill has also made provision for home-schooled students to access ETR benefits, and there are in-built provisions that cater for families that have shared care arrangements for children undertaking education. Provision is also made for situations where children leave or enter schooling during a given financial year and for those students in transition from primary school to high school.
In a climate of growing pressures on working families, the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to easing the burden on these families is to be commended. Access to quality affordable education is one of the hallmarks of a civilised, equitable and productive society. By ensuring that the education expenses incurred by working families—and especially low-income families hit hard by increasing cost of living pressures—are offset by these tax refunds, the Rudd Labor government is demonstrating its commitment to strengthening and improving Australia’s education system.
The measures contained in this bill will do much to increase the participation of our young people in education and training. They will assist students to remain in education for longer and to participate more productively in the full ambit of learning activities provided in our schools. The benefits to students of having access to the full range of information and computer technologies—including home computers, internet access, quality books and all the other things I have mentioned—will, over time, bring great benefit to our society.
The benefits to a low-income family of receiving a tax refund to offset the costs of buying and maintaining a home computer with internet access are clear and demonstrable. Such home-based educational facilities are no longer luxuries for Australian families putting their kids through school. Rather, in this digital age, they are now vital tools for full participation in quality education. In accordance with commitments given to the Australian people, it is this government’s intention that every Australian family have access to these tools.
The education tax refund will increase the productivity of the nation by ensuring that our students are better skilled and fully able to take their place in the education revolution. This bill is framed with participation and productivity as its major goals, but the measures provided by this bill are also a means to promote equity in access to education, a goal that is uppermost in the policy formation of the Rudd government.
For the working families in my electorate of Robertson, the issue of education expenses and other cost-of-living stresses is very much a major concern. My office has dealt with many inquiries from concerned parents about the cost pressures of educating their children, and one of their most worrying concerns is ensuring that their kids keep abreast of the new developments in computing, the internet and information technology that are now so integral to school based education. The ETR scheme will ease the burden on these families. These measures will be particularly welcomed by low-income families. The bill also has the potential to break the intergenerational cycles of poverty that afflict so many families, by making it easier for families to maintain children in education. And it is education and training which provide the life pathways out of disadvantage and into fuller participation in society.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 is legislation that puts in place a fundamental building block of the Rudd government’s education revolution and therefore better participation. It is another commitment by this government to strengthening the nation’s education system and equipping our students for the future. The measures deserve the full support of all members, and I commend the bill to the House.
10535
17:55:00
Champion, Nick, MP
HW9
Wakefield
ALP
1
0
Mr CHAMPION
—I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. My electorate of Wakefield has a great many qualities and attributes, but it also has its share of problems, particularly in terms of access to education and opportunity. The 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas make it alarmingly clear that there are parts of the urban area of my electorate that are profoundly disadvantaged, and low educational qualifications are a key indicator of that profound disadvantage. At just 11 per cent, my electorate of Wakefield has the third lowest higher education participation rate in the country, which is also, I think, a disturbing indicator of disadvantage. University education is not for everyone, and that is why we are obviously putting resources into trades education and technical careers. In the north of Adelaide, my electorate is fortunate enough to have had the issue around the northern Adelaide technical college resolved and its future secured.
So we know a trade is as good as a degree and that educational qualifications can be a key determinant of people’s incomes and opportunities. But I know that there are many people in my electorate who are prevented from going to university or TAFE, or even year 12, and attaining educational qualifications simply due to their economic circumstances or, frequently, their geographical circumstances. Many country kids face a pretty big commute or have to leave home to do tertiary study. So geography can be a barrier to education, as can economic reasons. We know that there are many families who simply cannot afford some of the basic resources their kids need to really make a go of it at school. This bill is about removing some of those early barriers to people gaining a year 12 qualification.
This bill fulfils a $4.4 billion budget commitment to create a new education tax refund, a refundable tax offset of 50 per cent of eligible education expenses for children undertaking primary and secondary school studies. As I said before, it aims to knock out the barriers that exist for some schoolchildren and their families. Eligible families will be able to claim 50 per cent of relevant education expenses, up to $750 for each child undertaking primary school, to provide a maximum tax offset of $375 per child per year. For children undertaking secondary school studies, families will be able to claim 50 per cent of their eligible expenses, up to $1,500 per child, with a maximum tax offset of $750 per child per year. The measures outlined in this bill will help about 1.3 million families—that is about 2.7 million students—to afford the basics of a good education: textbooks, stationery, trade tools, laptops and home computers. Importantly, the bill also allows for home internet connections to be claimed. This is a particularly important issue, I think. Increasingly, the divide in the future will be not just about income but also about access to information. We do risk a divide in that area, and it is one of the reasons we are so passionate about broadband.
To give you an idea of how this gap is already there, one of the local primary schools in my electorate did a survey of their school population. That survey revealed that only 25 per cent of children in the school population had a computer at home and just 12 per cent had access to the internet at home. That is a figure which is staggeringly low given the importance of the internet and it obviously has a massive impact on their future opportunities and their ability to utilise the information technology present at their school as well.
This bill does go some way to address that problem. Families who may be eligible include: families who receive tax benefit part A in respect of one or more children undertaking primary or secondary school studies; those parents with one or more children who would be eligible for the purposes of family tax benefit part A but for the fact that they or their child receive certain payments or allowances, for example, youth allowance, disability support pension or Abstudy; those students undertaking primary or secondary school studies and receiving an independent rate of income support payments.
There are also measures which allow the refund to be taken up by families who have shared care arrangements and those families who choose to home-school their children. Particularly with the shared-care arrangements, I think that this is a really good recognition that many families now are living very differently from the way they did in the past. We now have the phenomenon of constellation families where people often have very complex shared-care arrangements often between one or more former partners and they may have arrangements that are even more different. So it is good to see the new government acknowledging that reality. In addition, students who go from primary school to high school in a single financial year can claim the full education tax refund based on the secondary school rate.
For Labor, and for this government, education and access to opportunity are the foundations of any decent society. As I said before, in my electorate, there are pockets of profound disadvantage and intergenerational unemployment. After 12 years of inaction, there is great cynicism in some of these areas about government solutions, and this bill does represent real practical assistance which will go directly to families. It provides also real tax assistance to those people who already do the right thing and support their children’s education.
The reasons behind the ABS statistics, which I talked to before, are complex. They need a concerted approach. This bill is a beginning to that, I think. But more broadly the government’s education revolution will play a big role in addressing educational disadvantage in my electorate and I look forward to seeing progress in the future. So I commend the bill to the House and I certainly acknowledge that this bill will help struggling families in my electorate.
10537
18:03:00
Saffin, Janelle, MP
HVY
Page
ALP
1
0
Ms SAFFIN
—I speak in support of the government’s Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008, a bill that amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and, among other things, introduces the education tax refund. I have to say as a bit of a side issue when looking at the fact that it does amend the Income Tax Assessment Act, that we all know the income tax assessment acts have grown bigger and bigger over the years. This bill also makes consequential amendments to a range of other acts, but it is really to the education tax refund that I will direct my comments.
The purpose is to give expression to government policy and government objectives on educational matters that put more resources in the hands of students and also some extra money into the pockets of families and carers. The education tax refund will provide a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses up to $750 for children in primary studies and $1,500 for children in secondary studies. Eligible expenses are defined as follows: computers and computer related equipment such as printers and disability aids and also associated costs; home internet connection; school textbooks and other paper-based school learning material including stationery; and course prescribed tools of trade. And I imagine that there will be some working-out in that last area because it would be impossible to list all course prescribed tools of trade in the amending bill. That definition will become obvious as parents and carers put in their claims, otherwise the amending bill could be quite lengthy.
The bill also sensibly makes provision for a transition period when a student transitions from primary to secondary education during a financial year. The education tax refund will apply at the secondary rate for the entire year, which is a really important provision. Most importantly, education expenses in excess of the taxpayer’s offset limit for a financial year can be transferred to the subsequent income year, and this is a welcome provision.
What I did not say at the outset was that as long as the primary and secondary studies are recognised, the tax offset will apply. This of course will include distance education such as home schooling, which is a good thing. It has to apply to all of the approved areas of primary and secondary studies. It also applies to families and parents and carers and also to shared care. That is important given the arrangements that we have in families these days. Again, that aspect often takes some negotiation, as we all know, but it is very important that it is provided for in this bill.
Some other key features of this bill are as follows. It is a tax refundable offset, which means any part of the offset that cannot be used to reduce tax liability is paid out to the taxpayer. An approved care organisation is also eligible to claim the tax offset—that is, obviously, if a child in their care makes them eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A payments. It extends to families whose child would entitle them to family tax benefit A except that they are in receipt of payments such as youth allowance or disability support pension. Also, students in receipt of certain payments such as youth allowance and disability support pension who satisfy the independence requirement relevant to the amount of payment they receive are eligible for their own education expenses—another important provision in the bill.
I would add that it is important to note that, in terms of what is eligible, there are expenses that are not eligible expenses for the purposes of the tax offset, as we would rightly expect. They include school fees, and I have a view about school fees. My view is not related to this bill, but I just do not think that school fees should exist at all because, when we are talking about inclusion in education, wherever it is, school fees can put an enormous burden on some families and cause some social exclusion. Expenses that are not eligible also include school uniform expenses and student attendance at school based extracurricular activities such as excursions. Again, my personal view on this is the same as the comment I made about school fees, but that is not related directly to the bill. Other expenses that are not eligible are tutoring costs, game consoles and school subject levies—for example, payment for consumables for particular subjects et cetera. The tax offset cannot be claimed for an educational expense to the extent that the expense is tax deductible or subject to another tax offset. That is to be expected as well—that there would be no double dipping, as we call it.
I have been listening to other members in the debate, and I listened the other day to the member for Mayo. He was talking about the importance of education and also, as a general comment, about the importance of preschool education. What I would say there is that preschool is certainly an important component of lifelong learning and education, and it is part of the Rudd Labor government’s education revolution policy agenda to provide 15 hours per week in preschool for four-year-olds. That is a matter that will be worked out over the next period, and it is being worked on now by the parliamentary secretary. I just wanted to make the point that it is a key part of education and the education revolution.
In my concluding comments on this bill, I would like to say that education is important, and all members agree. What we disagree about is how we achieve it. Education is what gives us individual opportunities in life regarding work, careers and the way we live, and it is what gives society and communities within society opportunities to be prosperous, productive and peaceful. Each government and each major party has a view about our education system and how it should be, and that is always the issue around which we have contestation and debate, although there is a lot that we can agree on. We disagree about the way certain things should operate. In the Labor Party there is a strong commitment to education as a means, in a sense, to achieving inclusion, equity, access to opportunities and, indeed, a better life. Education has given us opportunities to better ourselves, as many of us have done, and as I have done.
We are committed, as well, to social inclusion, for reasons that are obvious, and we in the Rudd Labor government match this commitment with action. The education revolution is evidence of this. Other examples are this bill that is being debated now, computers in high school, transparency and accountability from all schools, a national curriculum, the preschool commitment and the tax offset. We are committed to making sure that families can better educate their children and provide their children with better opportunities and better access, and this is precisely what this bill does. With those comments, I commend this bill.
10539
18:12:00
Oakeshott, Rob, MP
IYS
Lyne
IND
0
0
Mr OAKESHOTT
—I rise to strongly endorse the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 and to put it on record that I believe that on the mid North Coast of New South Wales this will make a significant difference in many households within our region and therefore will make a significant difference in building a better Australia. In the year 2008 I do not think we can claim the title of the clever country, nor do I think that we in the region of the mid North Coast of New South Wales can claim the title of the clever coast. It is unfortunate, and I do think we have some substantial challenges before us with regard to increasing the investment and the value placed on education both for individuals within regions and within Australia and in communities in general.
I say that looking at some of the figures with regard to the challenges in education for Australia, and I concur that they are a mirror image of life on the mid North Coast—issues such as Australia struggling to lift school completion rates. By comparison, other OECD countries have managed to progressively improve school completion rates, but these rates have barely shifted in Australia over the past 15 years. A dimension of this is reflected in the fact that amongst 25- to 34-year-olds Australia now ranks 20th amongst the OECD countries in terms of school completion. That should be a stark reminder to everyone in this place of the challenges ahead. Some other figures that are reflected both Australia-wide and region-wide on the mid North Coast are that the ABS recently estimated that 46 per cent of adults, or seven million Australians, had poor or very poor skills across one or more of the five skill domains of prose literacy, document literacy, numeracy, problem solving and health literacy. This means that they did not attain the skill levels regarded by most experts as a suitable minimum for coping with the increasing and complex demands of modern life and work.
Early school leavers are especially likely to have lower levels of literacy and numeracy skills. They also have much more difficulty in changing jobs within a working life, something that all of us should recognise is happening more and more in the average working career. I also raise the issue of Australia’s total public spending on education, which, at 4.8 per cent of GDP, is below the OECD average of 5.4 per cent and well below countries such as the Scandinavian countries, France, New Zealand, the UK and the USA.
I think it is fair to say not only as the representative of a region like the mid-North Coast but also as a member of parliament contributing to the future of Australia that we have got some enormous challenges in front of us in lifting standards of education across the board. That is why I strongly endorse this legislation. I think it will make a difference on the ground in a number of different ways. I am particularly pleased to see that it provides a tax rebate of up to $750 per child for primary school families and of up to $1,500 per child for secondary school families.
I concur with what the member for Wakefield mentioned: the key part of this legislation is that it provides assistance for internet connections. I have just recently been through an election campaign. I walked into a house in what was a relatively urbanised community at North Haven on the mid-North Coast. I was surprised to find the family—which had a year 9 student at one of the local high schools, Camden Haven High School—on dial-up. That is technology which is at least 15 years off the pace. It makes it incredibly difficult for this young woman to compete in the education market and therefore to compete for jobs into the future. Compare her existence with the internet speeds which we have got in this building, for example. It is shameful that we have that inequity in places within Australia. I am particularly pleased that home internet connections are part of the tax refund and I will certainly be encouraging as many people within my region as possible to take that up.
The taxpayers who are entitled to the ETR include those in receipt of a family tax benefit part A payment for a child; taxpayers or their child who receive other payments that preclude them from receiving family tax benefit part A; or taxpayers who are independent students and receive payments such as youth allowance, disability support pension or Abstudy living allowance. The ETR will apply to eligible expenses incurred from 1 July this year and will be available when income tax returns are submitted. Therefore, the ETR will be claimable from 1 July 2009. I am just flagging these for my electorate. Some of the eligible expenses include the purchase, lease or hire-purchase of equipment, including computers and computer related equipment such as printers, disability aids and associated costs; as I mentioned before, a home internet connection; computer software; school textbooks and other paper based school learning material, including stationery; and course prescribed tools of trade. This is of great value to a lot of households within my region and, I suspect, right throughout Australia.
I have been in this job for seven weeks and I think that every second public comment I have made is in regard to education. I talked at length about skills based training and the importance of it on the mid-North Coast. I have some issues with regard to the future of Australian technical colleges in Port Macquarie and Taree and the role that TAFE and the school system play in delivering a better skills based training model for our region. I have talked about Indigenous education and participated in some very good and well attended Deadly Days throughout the region within the North Coast Institute of TAFE, and I have tried to get better Indigenous engagement in the delivery of education generally. I have just put my name down to go on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training. I spoke at length during my first speech about the importance of education on the mid-North Coast and the motto that I want drive home to as many young people in my area as possible: ‘study for a job, study for a job, study for a job’.
I am doing this because I believe this is a critical factor in getting our region out of some entrenched disadvantage. This disadvantage sees our area as one of the lowest on income any way you look at it—whether it is individual income, household income or family income. We have very low education retention rates. We have very low post secondary education rates; therefore, to be honest, the challenges to lift the region certainly sound like the challenges of the nation. That is why I am really pleased to see this legislation come through the parliament. I will certainly be one promoting it far and wide and, hopefully, getting as many people on the mid-North Coast to benefit from a tax break from government as possible. I hope that we then see some assistance for better education standards for individuals, within the region and, by logical extension, within Australia.
10541
18:21:00
Hale, Damian, MP
HWD
Solomon
ALP
1
0
Mr HALE
—I rise today to voice my strong support for the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Lyne. I sat through his first speech and he is very passionate about education. It is great to see the support coming from the crossbenches and I acknowledge as well those on our side of the House who have spoken during this debate.
This bill introduces a 50 per cent education tax refund aimed at assisting families with children undertaking primary and secondary school studies to meet the costs of school education through assistance with certain educational expenses. Under the education tax refund, eligible families will be able to claim a 50 per cent refundable tax offset every year for up to $750 of eligible expenses for each child undertaking primary school—a refund of up to $375 per child per year—and up to $1,500 of eligible expenses for each child undertaking secondary school—a refund of up to $750 per child per year. Families in receipt of family tax benefit part A in respect of one or more children undertaking primary or secondary school studies are eligible for the education tax refund. Those parents with one or more children who are eligible for the family tax benefit part A but for the fact that they or their children receive certain other payment or allowances will also be eligible for the education tax refund. Those students undertaking primary and secondary school studies and receiving an independent rate for income support payments may also be eligible for the education tax refund for their own expenses.
By way of my own background, education is a subject that has always been and continues to be very close to my heart. As I have said before, both my parents were teachers, my grandmother was a teacher, my sister is a teacher and I have almost finished a teaching degree myself. So collectively that is a combined teaching experience of over 80 years. I have to say though that having teachers as parents was not always good, particularly when I was growing up. I remember as a young fellow maybe wanting to be a bit slack. I remember often having early nights on parent-teacher nights just in case the teachers were not glowing in their terms when they spoke about me to my parents. But as a parent now I understand where they were coming from. One of the not negotiable issues for me as a father is ensuring my children receive a great education. I often say, ‘You cannot take anything with you when you’re gone but you sure can leave a lot.’ If there is one thing I want to make sure I leave my children it is the knowledge that they have received a solid education.
This bill is vital to thousands of families in my electorate of Solomon because it provides very important financial assistance in this critical area. Having doorknocked extensively around my electorate in Darwin and Palmerston, I know that education is a galvanising issue that people are passionate about. It does not matter what side of politics you are from, it is one of those not negotiable issues. I have never had anyone say to me that we spend too much money on education or that education is overrated. For Labor, better education is the cornerstone of a decent society. Education is at the forefront of our government’s commitment to the Australian people. An education revolution to create one of the most highly educated and skilled nations on earth is the mandate that Kevin Rudd asked the Australian people for on 24 November last year, and they gave it.
During the election campaign, Labor made it clear that Australia needed nothing less than an education revolution, a substantial and sustained increase in the quality of our investment in education for Australian youth. This is required at every level of education, from early childhood education through to the education of mature age students. Just on that point, as we go through life we have many different forms of education and we never stop learning. In my background, having left school to do an apprenticeship as a greenkeeper, and having studied at the TAFE college in Brisbane as well as doing a university course to become a teacher, learning has been a lifelong exercise. Education is the platform of our economic future; our prosperity rests on what we commit to education now. One thing I have learned from my parents is that education is not something that you just go through the motions with. Education is not something that you just talk about to win an election. Education is the commitment we set for the society we want to become. We need an ambitious national strategy to improve our schools, driven by the goal of higher quality. To thrive in the future we need a schooling system which delivers high-quality education for all students, regardless of their address and regardless of their schools.
During the campaign, I know this election commitment was received really well by all parents and kids that I spoke to. I speak to students, parents and teachers all the time. They tell me about their schools and their communities and I am always impressed by the quality of the young people our schools produce, the professionalism of our teaching staff and the dedication of our parents. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of all the schools in my electorate of Solomon. They do a fantastic job. I am excited to speak in support of this bill because I know that mums and dads and families are doing it tough in Solomon. I know that mums and dads and families in Solomon welcome the Rudd Labor government’s initiative.
This bill will assist with the expenses associated with providing a solid education. It will take a bit of pressure off the family budget. This bill will assist with costs of things such as laptops, home computers, printers, paper, education software, school textbooks and associated materials as well as trade tools. The Rudd Labor government is delivering on its election commitment by providing this education tax refund. Around 1.3 million Australian families will be eligible for this education refund. $4.4 billion will be invested in financial support to help working families meet the growing costs of educating their children. It will put money back into the pockets of the many Australian families with school aged children. I am sure that the eligible parents of the children in the 50-odd schools in Solomon will appreciate being able to claim this rebate. In fact, it is estimated that this measure will help the families of around 2.7 million school aged children to meet the costs of their education.
As a parent of kids in both primary and secondary school, I am acutely aware of the costs associated with properly equipping your kids for school. These costs are particularly evident after Christmas and during the Christmas school holidays when families need to start buying necessary items for the start of the new school year. As children progress through primary school to secondary school, the cost of schooling over those years is certainly significant, particularly in recent times.
Delivery of education has changed dramatically. We all know technology plays a huge role in how we educate our children. The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that computers are the toolbox for the 21st century. Through computers and the internet, primary and secondary students are linked to the world. Computer and internet technologies continue to evolve at a fast pace and we must ensure that the education of our kids keeps up. We have to make sure our kids are not left behind; Australian children must be computer literate.
The digital economy is a fundamental component of every aspect of business and of our daily lives. ABS data tells us that around three-quarters of Australian households have a computer at home. Unfortunately, figures also tell us that less than 50 per cent of low-income households have a computer. This has been termed the ‘digital divide’, a divide between those who have access to a computer and the internet at home and those who do not. It is sad that this divide means that some children in our community are disadvantaged by not having access to a computer or the internet at home. Thankfully, this bill will help turn this sad situation around. It will help break down the digital divide by supporting low- and middle-income households with assistance to provide the educational equipment needed for their children to perform at school. That is why the expenses of establishing and maintaining a home internet connection are also included in this bill. The refund will apply to eligible expenses incurred from 1 July 2008. I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the good people in Solomon eligible for the education tax refund to keep their receipts so that they can claim them on their tax return from 1 July 2009. And those people who are not required to lodge an income tax return will be able to access their entitlement through the tax office at the end of the financial year.
This bill goes a long way towards providing relief to hardworking families who are struggling to pay their household expenses. Rising petrol prices, mortgage repayments and grocery bills all add up and can leave families wondering how they will pay for the necessities associated with their children’s education. It is particularly important in times like today, when we are in the midst of a global financial crisis, that we continue to focus on and provide relief to families. The $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy will assist Australians who need it most. I know that pensioners and families in Solomon can now look forward to some much-needed relief before Christmas. The Economic Security Strategy, alongside this bill, demonstrates just how committed we as a government are to helping families deal with the cost of living. I will quote what the Prime Minister said in his address to the National Press Club in August this year to demonstrate our commitment to the delivery of an education revolution. He said:
… I want people to understand that our reforms are essential to Australia’s future—because quality education is good for our economy, good for our community and good for individuals. It will help create jobs and higher wages, and will create better opportunities for all Australians.
The Government wants the next generation of Australians to be the best educated, best skilled, best trained in the world.
We don’t apologise for this ambition.
Today, we take one further practical step towards achieving the education revolution that Australia needs.
One step further to building a stronger, fairer and more secure Australia, and one capable of handling the great challenges of the 21st century that now lie before us.
I could not agree more. I commend the bill to the House.
10544
18:33:00
Bradbury, David, MP
HVW
Lindsay
ALP
1
0
Mr BRADBURY
—It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 and recognise that the contents of this bill relate to one of the key commitments that was made by the Labor Party before the last election, and that relates to the education tax refund. I wish to add my comments to the comments of those who have preceded me in this debate in supporting this initiative, one that I think will have a tremendous impact in easing the squeeze of the cost-of-living pressures that families right throughout this country are facing, particularly parents with children of school age.
This initiative, the education tax refund, is very much targeted towards providing support for families on the home front when it comes to the educational challenges that students inevitably go through. The Rudd Labor government’s education revolution has many facets, and I have talked about many of those in this place consistently. The education revolution includes our initiatives in relation to computers in schools and our initiatives in relation to trades training centres in schools. But this particular proposal will, if passed, allow parents to have a tax refund on some of the expenditure that they incur in relation to educational costs for their children. The maximum limit for secondary students is to claim a 50 per cent tax refund on expenditure up to $1,500 and, for primary school students, a 50 per cent tax refund on expenditure up to $750. So the total benefit in relation to a secondary school student is $750 and the total benefit in relation to a primary school student is $375. Of course, these benefits are available to parents whose families would otherwise be eligible for family tax benefit part A.
In terms of the scope of this particular measure, I should note that, in commenting on the thresholds and the limits, one of the significant components that I noted in considering the bill was that those students who might be in year 6 transitioning into year 7 through the course of the present financial year will be able to obtain the benefit of the higher figure, so they will be eligible for a 50 per cent refund on up to $1,500 worth of expenditure. What types of expenditure are considered to be eligible for the education tax refund? They include expenditure on laptops, home computers and associated costs, whether they be in the form of repairs, running costs or leases, if the equipment is leased, and, significantly, home internet connection, printers and paper. It also includes educational software, school textbooks and other material, including prescribed textbooks and associated learning materials, study guides, stationery and prescribed trade tools.
One of the criticisms that has been levelled by those on the other side is that the range of expenses that fall within the scope of the education tax refund is quite limited. There is an interesting observation that should be made in relation to those criticisms, and that is simply that those on the other side had a very long period of time in government—11½ years—and in that time we did not at any stage see any moves towards the implementation of a tax refund for educational expenses of any kind. In fact, it was only after the announcement by the Labor Party in opposition that, if elected, we would implement an education tax refund that the former Prime Minister, the then member for Bennelong, sought to come up with an alternative proposal, an education tax refund that was said to be much more wide-ranging than the one that is presently before the House for consideration. The costings at the time indicated that the coalition proposal was in the order of three times the cost of the Labor Party’s proposal, but let us just put those cost issues to one side—although I note that the coalition, with their determination to block key measures of our budget over the past six months, have done their level best to erode any surplus that is at the government’s disposal. Of course, that surplus is now showing its worth and just how significant it is to us as a nation as we prepare to dip into it in order to protect our economy against the emerging challenges associated with the global financial crisis and the flow-on effects that will come from that.
Whilst the education tax refund is limited, it is limited in a very targeted way. The refund is limited towards direct educational expenses incurred by parents in relation to their students at home, such as the cost of a laptop, the cost of an internet connection, the cost of cartridges. It never ceases to amaze me just how expensive some of these items are. Cartridges can cost anywhere from $25 to $50, depending on the nature of the printer. And that is just for a cartridge for a printer. Printers can range in price anywhere from $150 to $500 for a fairly basic model. One of the most significant aspects of the coverage of this particular initiative is internet access. I note that a fairly basic broadband internet package with fairly minor establishment costs is most likely to cost anywhere upwards from around $650—which is probably about the cheapest package you are likely to find. So the education tax refund will allow many families to receive some tax relief, a 50 per cent refund, on expenses incurred in relation to those costs. They are key costs, vital and essential costs, in the education and development of students as they go through an education system in the 21st century.
Another significant element of this proposal is that the tax offset that constitutes the education tax refund is a refundable tax offset. The significance of that is that there are refundable tax offsets and there are non-refundable tax offsets. The benefit of a refundable tax offset is that those taxpayers who do not pay tax or have not paid sufficient tax in order to get the benefit of an offset are still able to receive the offset in the form of a rebate or a refund. This design feature of this proposal will ensure that those at the lower income level, those that are least able to afford the educational expenses required to provide the necessary support to their children, will still be able to obtain the full benefit of this refund. It is significant that the benefit has been provided in the form of a tax refund rather than a tax deduction. A tax deduction will always be slanted in favour of those on higher tax rates and, by definition, those on higher incomes. So these are significant design elements of this particular proposal. I think they will go a long way towards addressing some of the disadvantage that exists within families across this country and addressing the digital divide we have heard so much about, most recently, in this debate, from the member for Lyne, the member for Solomon and member for Wakefield.
I believe that the benefit of this measure will be great. I note that it relates to the current tax year, so I hope that parents out there are keeping their receipts from 1 July this year, because at the end of the financial year they will be eligible, provided they meet the eligibility requirements, to obtain the benefit of that tax refund. It is also relevant to reflect upon the government’s decisive action in relation to the fiscal stimulus provided through the Economic Security Strategy and I think it is important that we do this from the perspective that, from the first week in December, families eligible for family tax benefit part A will receive a payment of $1,000 per child. I would like to encourage many families out there that might be in a position to take advantage of that one-off payment to utilise that payment to go out and purchase a laptop computer or some equipment that will assist their children in progressing their educational opportunities. I do that because I think it is a good deal for any parent who is in a position to do that. I know that many people will be using that money for some much more basic and necessary items that the household budget might not otherwise provide for, but I think it is important to note just how important it is that children and students have the opportunity to further their learning through the use of a laptop or a computer at home.
The double benefit that will be provided to parents is that if they use that payment they receive in the first week of December—that is a payment that in the household budget should be considered to be something of a windfall—they will still be entitled to the education tax refund on that expenditure. So, apart from the fact that they will be getting $1,000 from the government in the first week of December, they will then be able, provided that they qualify, to expend that money on an education related purpose for their child, and then at the end of the tax year they will get the benefit of a 50 per cent refund on that expenditure up to the limits.
From my discussions with many parents in my electorate, I think it will be taken up by many families, particularly those families that have a couple of children. Let us assume you have two children who are secondary school students and you do not have a computer at home—and the reality is that there are still many families in my electorate that do not have a computer in their home—and you are eligible for family tax benefit part A. The $1,000 per child that is likely to be coming in in the next month or so may give you the ability to purchase a computer while the leftover money, the surplus funds, might be spent on an internet connection and the ongoing costs of maintaining that connection for the rest of the financial year. If a family were to do that, they would be taking that $2,000 windfall and spending it, and that money would be doing what we want it to do, which is provide further stimulus to the economy. In doing so, it would also be leaving that family the option of claiming the education tax refund, which would amount to $1,000 of that $2,000. So it is quite a good deal.
There are a lot of people out there saying we should not be telling families how they should be spending their money and, in the end, families will spend their money as they think most appropriate. But this is something I will definitely be encouraging many parents within my electorate to consider, because I think it is a very good and very wise means by which these two initiatives of the government can be taken advantage of for the benefit of their children.
Throughout the course of this debate there has been a lot of discussion about education issues more generally. I know that those on the other side have singled out a few areas of criticism of the government’s approach. I wish to respond to some of those, but let me begin by saying that there has been an interesting chorus of critical comments coming from the other side in relation to the Investing in our Schools program. There is one slight difference in the approach that has been taken by most of the speakers on that side as compared to the shadow Treasurer, who in her contribution to this debate made comment on Investing in our Schools but importantly did not suggest that this government had cut that program. She did that because she is very aware of the history of that program. Whilst there are some on the other side that are prepared to turn a blind eye to the facts of this matter, it is important to reflect on that history. The history of the Investing in our Schools program shows that the former government had not made any provision to continue that program into the future and, as a result, had evinced a clear intention to not continue with that program.
Let us have a look at Investing in our Schools. It was announced as part of the 2004 election campaign. The first round of funding opened up in 2005. Rounds 2 and 3 occurred in 2006. On 9 May 2006, Ms Julie Bishop, who was then the Minister for Education, Science and Training, issued a press release stating that the program would conclude in 2008. On 19 February 2007, the then Prime Minister announced the final round of Investing in our Schools funding, worth $181 million. Let me quote from his comments on his weekly radio address, which is where this announcement was made:
To ensure that every school community has an opportunity to benefit from this program, we are providing an additional $127 million to government schools and an additional $54 million to non-government schools in 2007—
wait for it—
for a final round of funding.
It was always the intention of the government to bring this program to its conclusion. So it is far from merely being disingenuous for those on the other side to suggest that the Rudd government has brought this program to an end; it is downright misleading. Notwithstanding that, there are measures that we have already implemented in relation to computers in schools. We are beginning to see the first round of applications approved for the trades training centres in our schools. It will not be long before we start to see some of those centres delivered in schools right across the country.
I acknowledge that there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the computers, but for all of that controversy I see nothing but good news in this proposal. Recently I visited one of the local schools that has been a beneficiary of this initiative. I should note that 2,135 computers have been delivered to schools in my electorate. That is 2,135 computers for which, had the Rudd Labor government not been elected, funding would not have been allocated. Had the Rudd Labor government not been elected, computers would not be sitting on desks in classrooms in my electorate. There have been massive benefits to the local community, including schools such as St Dominics College, Jamison High School, Xavier College, McCarthy Catholic College, Penrith High School, Cranebrook High School, Kingswood High School, Colyton High School, Glenmore Park High School, Nepean High School, Penrith Christian School and Penrith Anglican College. You can see that there are government and non-government schools in that list. Being beneficiaries under the first round reflects the fact that their ratios had been greater than one to eight—more than eight students for every one computer. So there was a real need in many schools in my electorate, and that need in large part is being met as a result of the early implementation of the Rudd government’s Computers in Schools initiative.
When I visited Xavier College at Llandilo recently, a number of comments were made by those teachers and the principal that I met. The IT coordinator, Mr Andrew Wonson, said: ‘You’re bringing the whole world into the class. Learning’s not limited to the four walls.’ I will read from the Penrith Press:
Xavier College principal Tricia Maidens said the cost of security and electricity associated with the computer grants is far outweighed by the advancements in education. “In the future we would have had to incur that cost anyway,” Mrs Maidens said.
“It’s such a natural part of their (the students) lives. They’re very comfortable with the technology.
“It’s anywhere anytime.”
So we are seeing real benefits being delivered into schools within my community. Let me conclude by making an observation that emerged from my visit to Xavier College—that is, at the time that I visited I had a discussion with the principal and some of the students in relation to the national curriculum. Some students were at that point sitting the HSC. It emerged as a real issue to me that we should not be conducting our examinations requiring kids to hand write their responses—as we implement computers in schools more and more the emphasis should be on examining them through the same medium that they have learnt. That is where I think there is a real opportunity as part of the move towards a national curriculum to ensure that into the future we not only move our classrooms into the future but also ensure that the examination rooms are fit for what is occurring and what is the norm in the 21st century. (Time expired)
10548
18:53:00
Ferguson, Laurie, MP
8T4
Reid
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services
1
0
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
—I would like to thank all those members who have taken part in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. The measures contained in this bill honour the government’s election commitment to assist families with the costs of education by offering them a refundable tax offset for 50 per cent of certain education expenses for children undertaking primary and secondary studies. From 1 July 2008, eligible parents and guardians will be able to claim a 50 per cent refund each year on up to $750 of eligible education expenses for each child undertaking primary studies. This will provide a maximum refund of up to $375 per child per year. For children undertaking secondary studies, families will be able to claim a 50 per cent refund on up to $1,500 of education expenses per child. This of course will provide a maximum refund of up to $750 per child per year.
The education tax refund can be claimed on certain costs of education, which may include: the purchase, lease, hire or hire-purchase costs of laptops, home computers, printers and computer software; trade tools for use at school; and school text books and stationery. The expenses associated with establishing and maintaining a home internet connection are also eligible for the offset. Parents and others entitled to family tax benefit part A who have children undertaking primary or secondary studies will be eligible for the education tax refund. In addition those who would be eligible for family tax benefit A in respect of a child but for the fact that the child or they on the child’s behalf are in receipt of other payments such as youth allowance are also eligible for the education tax refund. Students who are living independently from their parents may also be eligible for the education tax refund in respect of their own expenses.
Eligible parents and guardians will be able to claim the tax offset through their tax return at the end of the financial year. For those who are not required to lodge a tax return, a separate form will be available from the Australian Taxation Office. Therefore I encourage those eligible for the education tax refund to start keeping their receipts to enable them to claim the tax offset, with the first claims being accepted from 1 July 2009. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
10549
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON
(Reid
—Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services)
18:56:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2008
10549
Bills
R3079
Second Reading
10549
Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10549
18:57:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—I am pleased to speak this evening on the Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. This is an important bill because it continues Australia’s strong record of maritime and aviation security, clarifying regulatory arrangements for maritime safety at Australia’s most important access points and giving greater flexibility and certainty to industry players in their own security arrangements. The bill provides a consistent regulatory security framework for the maritime and offshore industries. As we have heard, this bill amends both the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, better known as MTOFSA, and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, ATSA, in response to a 2007 review by the Office of Transport Security, to enhance security procedures at our ports, airports and offshore facilities. The measures provided for in this bill have significant practical effect and make for a more cohesive regulatory framework. When we talk about the security of our borders, the Australian people and our infrastructure, nothing is more important. The world changed after September 11, 2001. New threats emerged which required, and will continue to require, vigilance, determination, responsiveness and foresight.
In government, the coalition responded swiftly. Following September 11 2001, the international community had to implement systems to protect the maritime transport sector and the aviation sector against the threat of terrorism. In response to the new threats, the International Maritime Organisation developed the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, providing that all security regulated ports, port facilities, offshore facilities, port and offshore service providers and ships were required to implement security plans and to undergo security risk assessments.
In Australia, the coalition government did not hesitate to meet these international best practice standards. It introduced the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003, which implemented that code. In the following year, it was amended to include offshore facilities and renamed the Maritime Transport Security and Offshore Facilities Act. Similarly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, ATSA, requires aviation industry participants to have approved transport security plans and implements Australia’s obligations under the convention on international aviation, the Chicago convention.
This bill before us today proposes amendments to security regulations for maritime participants, including offshore bodies, and aviation participants. It is vital for national security and safety that maritime and aviation industry participants have security plans and programs in place detailing security measures and procedures—which they already do. These measures are designed to be preventative. Following extensive risk assessments, the security plans lodged by those participants must detail safeguards against unlawful interference. The legislation operates on the premise that those in the industry are best positioned to know their own weaknesses and what security measures are required to protect their facilities, people and resources. This is done through their own risk assessments and security planning.
As I have mentioned, existing legislation requires certain industry participants to have security plans or programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Infrastructure. However, as currently drafted, there is ambiguity in both MTOFSA and ATSA as to whether industry participants may legally hold multiple approved plans at any one time. This is obviously of great practical significance in both the maritime and aviation industry given that participants may operate more than one operation at several different locations around Australia.
Amendments in schedule 1 of this bill will enable the department secretary to approve both aviation and maritime industry participants to hold multiple security programs or plans at once. Also, the amendment validates those participants who operated with multiple plans prior to the commencement of this act. This makes sense and gives legal certainty to participants. There are a number of industry participants who have a number of operations throughout this country as well as offshore. It is simply not practical or indeed possible to have one security plan applicable to several sites. For example, an offshore drilling facility will likely have facilities at another offshore location or possibly even in port. The security needs will be different at the different sites.
Regarding amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2004 specifically in relation to the maritime and offshore participants, the bill includes an amendment to change the definition of ‘Australia’ to include its external territories. As the act presently stands, it is unclear whether a foreign regulated ship visiting an external Australian territory would be obligated to comply with the requirements of the MTOFSA. There is no doubt that ships visiting Norfolk Island, Christmas Island or Cocos Island should have to comply with the same security measures and reporting information as those destined for mainland Australia.
Furthermore, this legislation will allow maritime, ship and offshore security plans to be operative for up to five years. The act presently stipulates that security plans can be approved by the department secretary for a period of five years only. The change will mean that they can be approved for up to five years as opposed to only five years. The amendment will allow security plans to last anywhere between one and five years. This means that Australia’s maritime security systems can respond appropriately to changes in our security environment within a five-year period and more readily adapt to the operational requirements of industry stakeholders. Since September 11, we are more aware that we have to have the capacity and the flexibility to respond appropriately to emerging threats and to make improvements in counterterrorism technology. This amendment provides for that flexibility.
One of the major amendments to the existing legislation creates a consistency in mapping standards. This is important for maritime and offshore participants. Currently, there is a lot of variation between the format, quality and accuracy of maps that must be submitted during the approval process of a security plan. Through the introduction of nationally consistent mapping standards, the accuracy and integrity of Australia’s maritime security plans will be vastly improved. The bill provided for regulations to be made prescribing appropriate mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries. This amendment will improve clarity and consistency in security plans across Australia and will improve the overall operation of the act.
Strong economic management meant that over recent years there was more to invest in national security and better infrastructure. In government, the coalition showed its commitment to making sure that threats to security were met before they reached the shores, quarantining Defence cuts from the budget. Following 9/11, to better secure Australia at home, the coalition invested more than $10 billion in improving security capabilities, including intelligence and the protection of vital infrastructure. No-one can disagree that maritime and aviation security is paramount. Our economy relies heavily on trade—imports and exports—and as such protection of these important assets is vital. In fact, Australia, in terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled, is the world’s fifth largest shipping nation.
We must be vigilant in meeting internationally recognised standards. Every threat must be considered and planned for. The International Maritime Organisation reports that maritime security experts believe potential threats to security could come in the form of hijacking located oil tankers and grounding them in environmentally significant areas or using tankers to cause chaos at ports and large anchorage areas. With regard to aviation security, there is no question that security has improved tenfold over recent years. Airline passenger traffic is constantly rising. For example, airport passenger traffic for the year ended July 2008 was 23.4 million people, which is a 5.2 per cent increase on the year ended July 2007. We cannot afford to be haphazard in approaching national security. Procedures for access, screening, checking in and baggage handling must all be detailed in security plans.
This bill makes practical changes to existing legislation, enabling operators to better streamline existing security measures and administrative requirements. Consultation with the industry, including the Australian Shipowners Association, Shipping Australia Ltd and the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities have seen full support for these legislative changes as they are conforming to existing industry practices. With a large number of security plans and programs up for renewal in July 2009, this legislation is timely.
We are obliged to make sure Australia’s transport system is as safe as possible. Since 2001 Australia’s counterterrorism framework has improved. The Office of Transport Security plays a vital role, acting as a regulator for the aviation and maritime industry. An efficient and safe transport system is the key to our country’s prosperity.
The coalition supports this bill’s amendments to existing legislation and is proud of our track record on matters of national security. I commend the bill to the House.
10551
19:08:00
Trevor, Chris, MP
HVU
Flynn
ALP
1
0
Mr TREVOR
—I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, which amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. This bill will clarify that regulated industry participants may hold more than one approved security plan or program at the same time. This bill will also recognise the validity of all existing plans held prior to the commencement of this bill.
The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No.1) Bill 2008 will make further amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 by: allowing for maritime, ship and offshore security plans to be approved for less than the current five-year period but no less than 12 months; enable regulations to be made to prescribe mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries and standards for the presentation of information detailing offshore security zones; insert a definition of ‘Australia’ to clarify that the operation of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 extends to external Australian territories such as Norfolk Island and to ensure terms and definitions are used consistently throughout the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act.
Under the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 certain maritime industry participants are required to have approved maritime security plans. Similarly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 requires certain aviation industry participants to have approved transport security programs. As currently drafted in both acts it is unclear whether industry participants may hold more than one approved plan at any one time. This can be problematic given that many industry participants, especially within the maritime industry, conduct multiple operations. A stevedoring company, for example, may operate at several different ports around Australia.
Take, for another example, the port of Gladstone, in my electorate of Flynn, where I live, which is located 525 kilometres north of Brisbane. The port is just south of the Tropic of Capricorn. Gladstone port has a naturally deepwater harbour; protected waters sheltered by harbour islands; stable weather patterns; an abundance of nearby available land for industrial development; a nearby hinterland rich with natural resources, linked by an efficient transport network; abundant energy sources, including coal, natural gas and water; and is a short sailing time of 10 to 12 days to the Asia-Pacific region. The port is a convenient point for the worldwide distribution of the wealth of Central Queensland. Rail links to the rich hinterland to the west of the city provide access to the coalmining, agricultural and pastoral areas of the Callide-Dawson valleys, Central Highlands and Bowen Basin. The port also serves important regional mineral and timber resources.
The port’s facilities cater for the import of raw material and the export of finished product associated with major industries in the region. Multi-user facilities cater for the export of the region’s coal, mineral and agricultural resources. The Queensland government has earmarked the port of Gladstone as Australia’s future major industrial centre for the 21st century. The port already plays a vital role in the economy of the region, state and Australia. The port faces a bright future, with its 50-year strategic plan forecasting an ultimate port shipping capacity of more than 300 million tonnes per annum.
Gladstone Ports Corporation is unique among Australian port authorities as it not only conducts the functions of a ‘landlord’ port authority but also owns and operates cargo-handling facilities in the port. The Gladstone Ports Corporation Port of Gladstone’s operations include but are not limited to: operating bulk loading facilities at RG Tanna coal terminal and Gladstone Port Central—Auckland Point and Barney Point, operating Gladstone Marina and Auckland Inlet facilities, quarrying and land reclamation and leasing port lands. The Gladstone Ports Corporation was established to manage and operate effective and efficient port facilities and services in the port of Gladstone and Port Alma. It is a corporatised entity with shares held equally by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations on behalf of the Queensland government.
The Gladstone Ports Corporation self-funds its operations and capital works programs through day-to-day activities and borrowings. The Gladstone Ports Corporation plays an integral role in planning the future of the port of Gladstone and Port Alma. In consultation with the community, industry and government, they have undertaken a strategic approach to planning, setting the vision and direction for the port of Gladstone and Port Alma in both the short and the long term.
The port of Gladstone can accommodate vessels of up to 220,000 deadweight tonnes and Port Alma shipping terminal, due to its sheltered location, can only take vessels of up to 180 metres in length. Each year more than 1,200 vessels visit the port of Gladstone, with over 50 visiting Port Alma shipping terminal. The Gladstone Ports Corporation manages and operates the port of Gladstone, including the Gladstone Marina and its recreational parklands and Port Alma shipping terminal. The port of Gladstone is Queensland’s largest multi-commodity port, housing the world’s fourth largest coal export terminal. Port Alma shipping terminal facilitates the import and export of niche market products including ammonium nitrate, explosives, general cargo, salt, frozen beef, tallow and scrap metal. Both ports are secure and sheltered. The Port Alma shipping terminal is located 62 kilometres east of Rockhampton on the southern tip of the Fitzroy River delta. The port’s storage land totals 140 hectares and is situated at nearby Bajool, approximately 20 kilometres from the shipping terminal along the Bruce Highway.
The effect of the amendments will clarify that the port may hold more than one plan at the same time, with the approval of the secretary of the department. The amendments will also provide legal certainty to the validity of all multiple existing plans held prior to the enactment of the bill. The regulatory frameworks for both the maritime and the aviation security regimes centre on the development of preventive security plans or programs. The plans and programs set out security measures and procedures to be implemented to safeguard against acts of unlawful interference with maritime and aviation transport.
It is common for industry participants to operate at more than one geographical location, especially in the maritime industry. As I said earlier, presently it is not clear whether the maritime or aviation security acts allow for industry participants to hold more than one security plan or program. To remove all doubt, the bill will clarify in the relevant maritime and aviation legislation that industry participants may hold different security plans or programs for each location or operation, with the approval of the secretary of the department. The amendments also ensure that the operation of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 in their current forms do not prevent maritime or aviation industry stakeholders from operating one or more maritime or offshore security plans or aviation transport security programs at the same time.
The measures in this bill are an example of the continued and successful cooperation between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and Australia’s maritime, offshore and aviation industry stakeholders. It is a relationship based on consultation and cooperation. The amendments provide greater clarity and certainty for industry participants. The bill increases flexibility for industry participants in their approach to implementing their security obligations and enhances current measures in both maritime and aviation security acts to deliver effective security outcomes now and into the future.
I commend this bill to the House and I congratulate the Rudd Labor government for its leadership on this issue.
10554
19:20:00
Sullivan, Jon, MP
HVS
Longman
ALP
1
0
Mr SULLIVAN
—It is a pleasure for me to rise in support of this legislation. The provisions of the bill itself have been fairly thoroughly outlined by my colleague the member for Flynn in the contribution that he just made. It was interesting for me to listen to some of the issues that relate to his electorate of Flynn and to see just how vital the maritime industry is for him and how well he understands it. The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 does a couple of things. My background is in the aviation industry. Most importantly to that industry, the bill sets out to assist the industry by making the security measures and security plans flexible enough to react to the various security threats that might arise from time to time. It is in relation to the aviation industry that I want to make my contribution this evening—and I promise the House that it will be blessedly short. So, if there are others who wish to speak on the bill, it might be time for them to make their way to the House.
In particular, the issue that I wanted to canvass today relates to security screening of passengers at domestic transport terminals. In early May this year, I was contacted by the wife of a Vietnam veteran who lives in my electorate. That veteran was travelling to Canberra for the commemoration services later that month in relation to Coral and Balmoral. Her concern at the time was that her partner was quite perturbed that he would have to give up his medals to checked luggage because of the way in which the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 would deal with those medals. He was unwilling to entrust those medals to the checked luggage system, judging that the very small prospect that his luggage may go astray during the journey was too great a risk for the medals that he cherished quite dearly. The problem is that the pins on medals are, in the language of the regulation, ‘sharp things that are not weapons, but are capable, with or without modification, of causing harm by penetration’. For that reason they could be prohibited items under 1.07 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.
Because of the proximity of the inquiry with my office to the actual date of travel to be in Canberra, my constituent contacted the airline on my advice and arrangements were made to allow her partner to carry his medals in the cabin on that occasion. In fact, Australian domestic airlines have traditionally exercised that same sensitivity in relation to Australian veterans and ex-servicemen travelling to events on Anzac Day. However, because of the increasing number of commemorative events being conducted these days, I wrote to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs seeking his assistance to have a protocol established through which war medals, service medals or campaign medals can be carried by veterans and ex-servicemen in the passenger cabin of aircraft operating in Australia. The minister quite properly referred that request to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. With support for my request, the minister for transport responded to me. Among the other points he raised in his letter, he indicated that ultimate responsibility in this matter rests with the screening authorities at individual airports.
As a consequence of receipt of that letter, I wrote to the CEOs of airlines operating domestic services in Australia, asking them to extend their Anzac Day courtesies to all veterans’ commemorative events. I have received a reply from only one—and I am happy to name them: Qantas—who advised me that Qantas had in fact issued such a direction to their security contractors in March of this year, certainly prior to the Coral event and prior to my interest being aroused in this matter. In that letter they suggested that, for a nationally consistent approach, an amendment to the actual regulations could be considered. I have subsequently written to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government suggesting an addition to 1.07(6) of the regulation which exempts certain specific items from the more general list in item 2 of table 1.07. I also note that Qantas have forwarded our correspondence—that is, my letter to them and, I gather, their letter back to me—to the Office of Transport Security, who are currently reviewing the prohibited items list in the regulation, for their information. Minister Albanese, in his letter mentioned earlier, also referred to the comprehensive review of aviation security that is underway.
My purpose in making this brief contribution today is to call on the Office of Transport Security and the minister to make the changes necessary to allow our veterans and ex-servicemen to travel by air within Australia at all times of the year with their valuable and treasured medals in their possession, either on their person or within their cabin baggage.
I think the bill makes sensible arrangements in relation to security at both marine ports and airports. In my professional life prior to entering politics, I had a lot of experience in the aviation industry. In recent months, I had a great deal of involvement as a member of the parliamentary committee that looked into coastal shipping, which released its report just a few weeks ago. That said, I commend the bill to the House and trust that the minister and the Office of Transport Security will take on board the request that I make.
10555
19:27:00
Gray, Gary, MP
8W5
Brand
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia
1
0
Mr GRAY
—The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 strengthens the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 by allowing for maritime, shipping and offshore security plans to be approved for less than the current five-year period but for no less than 12 months. It enables regulations to be made to prescribed mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries. The bill also clarifies the operation of the maritime security act to external Australian territories and ensures the consistent use of terms and definitions throughout the act.
The amendments further strengthen the maritime security act, as well as the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, by clarifying that industry participants may hold more than one approved security plan or program at the same time and recognising the validity of all existing plans held prior to the commencement of the bill. The bill does not propose to vary any of the policy settings underpinning Australia’s transport security regimes. The passage of this bill will assist industry participants by providing greater clarity and certainty in the fulfilment of their security obligations. It will enhance their capacity to get on with what they do best: keeping our transport industries moving.
The government looks forward to the passage of this bill within the current sittings of parliament to enable all industry participants to focus on implementing and maintaining the security measures outlined in its security plans and programs, contributing to the strengthening of Australia’s transport security arrangements. The bill has the support of both sides of this House and the significant support of industry as a consequence of the stakeholder engagement and consultation measures that were put in place to ensure a good bill that reflects the practical needs of industry and plans that work effectively to keep safety and security pragmatically deliverable. I commend the bill to the House.
10556
19:30:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to streamline some legal terms and conditions that will enhance the effectiveness of security outcomes. The bill does not merge the security arrangements of the aviation, maritime and security sectors. Rather, the bill seeks to ensure that a similar regulatory framework is in place for each industry to enhance the overall efficiency of transport security.
Following the events of 11 September 2001, the international community recognised a need to implement systems to protect the maritime and aviation transport sectors against the threat of terrorism. As a result the International Maritime Organisation developed the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code in December 2002. Under this code, all security regulated ports, port facilities, offshore facilities, port and offshore service providers and ships are required to implement security plans and undergo security risk assessments.
In Australia, the Maritime Transport Security Act was introduced by the coalition government in 2003. It sought to implement international guidelines developed by the International Maritime Organisation. After subsequent amendments, the act was amended and renamed the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The Aviation Transport Act 2004 establishes a regulatory framework which requires that certain aviation industry participants have approved transport security plans and implements Australia’s obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known as the Chicago convention. In 2007, a task force was established within the Office of Transport Security, a division of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The review was designed to examine ways in which the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 could be improved to increase flexibility and clarity in maritime security planning. The outcome of the review led to a series of policy and legislative proposals. The legislative proposals are sought to be implemented in this bill.
The coalition supports the bill as drafted. The bill amends both the Aviation Transport Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act to clarify that the department secretary may permit both aviation and maritime industry participants to hold multiple security programs or plans at once and that, prior to the commencement date of the amendments, the operation of the ATSA and the MTOFSA did not prevent industry participants from holding multiple security programs and plans. Additionally, in relation to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act, this bill is intended to insert a definition of ‘Australia’ into the act so that the act’s operation is extended to include our external territories, such as Norfolk Island, and to allow the department secretary to approve a maritime or offshore security plan for up to five years but no less than 12 months. The bill enables regulations to be made to stipulate mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries and standards for the presentation of information detailing offshore security zones required to be produced by industry participants. The bill ensures the consistent use of definitions and terms throughout the act.
The coalition government created a single organisation body, the Border Protection Command, to coordinate the planning, surveillance, intelligence and deployments of Coastwatch and the Australian Defence Force, which adds teeth to border protection, with around 450 personnel and tougher rules of engagement. I congratulate the officers in the Border Protection Command for the work that they do and query, as I have in the past, the number of flying hours that our Customs Dash 8s are now reduced to as a result of the current government’s cuts. The coalition increased funding for Customs from $357 million in 1995-96 to $1 billion in 2007, which is an increase of 98 per cent in real terms. The coalition increased funding for the Australia Federal Police from $205 million to $976 million—an increase of 238 per cent in real terms—to tackle smuggling and substantially boost our quarantine controls, as well as the other good work that the AFP does. The coalition took practical measures to boost our intelligences agencies and law enforcement bodies that work towards improving maritime and aviation security. ASIO’s staff was boosted from 580 at the end of 2000-01 to around 1,860 by 2010-11. The coalition gave our law enforcement agencies teeth by strengthening the legislative framework for terrorist related offences. The coalition increased regional and global cooperation in law enforcement activities and legal assistance in order to boost the fight against maritime and aviation security threats, such as terrorism, piracy and transnational crime.
The criteria for issuing people a security clearance to work on Australia’s wharves must be upgraded immediately to make our ports more secure. Workers who obtain a maritime security identification card, MSIC, can have a criminal record as long as they have not been convicted of a maritime security relevant offence and have not been sentenced to imprisonment. This is not good enough. The arrangements that are currently in place are inadequate and will continue to pose a threat to Australia’s customs regime and security unless they are changed. This view has been expressed by our law enforcement agencies and other bodies who know, if I may put it like this, the character and the quality of some of those who work on our wharves today. Recent figures quoted show that approximately 10 per cent of those who are approved for MSICs have a criminal history. This is allowed because their conviction has not been for a maritime security relevant offence. Sea containers house the largest volumes of illicit drugs that come into Australia and criminals and organised crime groups rely on workers in the maritime environment to move illicit drugs from one country to another.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission heard last month that about five per cent of sea cargo that arrives in Australia is X-rayed and, of that five per cent, only one-tenth is physically inspected. I reiterate my remarks about the resources that Customs has to carry out the checks that I believe it needs to do. Background checks need to be rigorous and it is critical that the issuing body can enforce stricter criteria for denying approval of an MSIC.
I hold an aviation security identification card myself as a commercial pilot and I am familiar with the strict regulations and rules that need to be adhered to in order to obtain and keep the so-called ASIC. I would commend those who manage the process and there is nothing wrong with that process. We do all have to jump through a certain amount of hoops and so we should. With ASICs and MSICs we need to set the criteria and the bar higher so that those who have been involved in criminal activities in the past can be excluded. I am not saying every single criminal activity needs to be excluded—some, with the benefit of distance and hindsight, were perhaps not particularly relevant or serious offences in the first place.
There has to be some sense brought to the decision, but we do not have the balance where it needs to be in terms of excluding those with criminal records from holding the maritime safety identification card in particular, given the access that they have to containers and freight coming into Australia, onto our wharves, and the high level of contract labour that is employed. Customs is not able to fulfil all these activities itself. It needs to employ the services of contractors, and of course there is contract transport available. I mean to cast no aspersions on those who do their jobs very well in these contract organisations, but I think it is an area where security is lax.
In conclusion, as I have mentioned previously, our position on this bill is that we do support it. It is integral to continue to improve national maritime and aviation security and make the necessary amendments to do so. The coalition recognises that threats to our security are increasingly complex and unpredictable and that we must get on the front foot with a coordinated and uncompromising approach to protecting our maritime borders and our aviation spaces. Ultimately, it is of vital importance to Australia that our maritime and aviation security measures are amended to ensure that we are best able to respond to changes in our overall security environment. I commend the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
10558
Mr GRAY
(Brand
—Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia)
19:40:00
—by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
NATIONAL MEASUREMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2008
10558
Bills
R3088
Second Reading
10558
Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Dr Emerson:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10558
19:40:00
Macfarlane, Ian, MP
WN6
Groom
LP
0
0
Mr IAN MACFARLANE
—The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is not an exciting piece of legislation but it is a piece of legislation that is, all the same, very important and one that I have a strong attachment to from my previous life. It has been around in various guises for many years and it was the previous coalition government that finally got this issue into a shape such that it could be brought to this House.
The objective of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is to introduce a national system of trade measurement. Annually, the trade measurement system in Australia underpins transactions worth more than $400 billion, 75 per cent of which are business to business. While the Commonwealth has constitutional responsibility for weights and measures, the Australian government has responsibility only for defining measurement units and standards, traceability of measurement, and the pattern approval of instruments used for trade or legal purposes.
Inspection and enforcement powers and the setting of the various regulations surrounding trade measurement reside with the various state and territory governments, and therein begins the problem that needed addressing because we then saw eight different sets of trade measurement regimes. This bill will establish a national system of trade measurement to formally commence on 1 July 2010. It will override state based legislation which will eventually be repealed by the various states.
The national trade measurement system will be run by the National Measurement Institute, or NMI, in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. All current regulation, licensing and enforcement measures surrounding trade measurements will be run by the Australian government from 1 July 2010. This will entail some 240 state based inspectors formally being transferred to the Commonwealth and made APS employees. This is a direct cost-shift from the states, which will no longer have any trade measurement costs. Funding of $31.65 million was provided to the department of innovation for the transition to a national trade measurement system.
The majority of the bill is given over to setting out appropriate offences, penalties and enforcement powers for Commonwealth trade measurement offences. According to the EM and the government, these various clauses reflect those which already exist in the states and territories. There are only two differences of significance. The first is that inspectors will now be able to seize materials other than measuring equipment. Second, the bill explicitly creates a right to silence defence based on the grounds of self-incrimination which did not previously exist.
The bill establishes three levels of offences: fault, strict liability and infringement notices for all offences. Penalties under this bill are most commonly 200 penalty units or around $22,000 for fault offences, 40 penalty units or around $4,400 for strict liability and five penalty units or $550 for infringement notices. These penalties largely reflect existing state legislation.
As well as implementing a national system in Australia for the first time this bill introduces the option for manufacturers to use on a voluntary basis the average quantity system rather than the current minimum quantity system. The AQS is the international standard in trade in prepacked goods and is used in nations that are important trading partners of Australia such as Canada, China, the EU, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America. The AQS provides a statistical measure that a batch of goods would be on average within statistical normal distribution. Adopting the AQS will increase efficiencies in production and measurement while ensuring that customers remain protected. It will also make Australian prepacked items more accessible to international trade. By making this voluntary, those producers who wish to remain within the current system, for cost or other reasons, will still be able to do so.
It has been a long and winding road to get to the cusp of establishing the national trade measurement system. As I indicated in my opening comments, this has been a very long process. It started to reach its conclusion in April 2007, when I was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. COAG agreed, under the stewardship of then Prime Minister, John Howard, to establish a national system of trade measurement to be administered by the Commonwealth to start from 1 July 2010. This bill implements that agreement.
That may seem fairly simple as I say it, but establishing a single national system of trade measurement has been on the agenda for more than 20 years. In 1995 under the last Labor government the Kean inquiry was established. That review recommended that the Commonwealth assume full responsibility for trade measurement. But it took until February 2006 for COAG to identify six priority regulatory hot spots, of which trade measurement was one. COAG requested that the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, which is known as the MCCA, develop a recommendation for a national system of trade measurement. That was subsequently agreed to in April 2007.
There is no doubt that a national system of trade measurement will eliminate common and difficult to quantify business concerns such as legislative differences, the need for multiple licences and different enforcement regimes. It is in this context, though, that we need to understand that in a 2006 report relied on by COAG, the MCCA undertook a series of cost-benefit analyses of implementing a national trade measurement system. Perhaps surprisingly it was unable to quantify significant benefits for the economy, with an overall net positive value to the economy of $5.7 million and with a $16.2 million cost to government and a $22 million cost to business. In view of this, it is disappointing that this government has failed to produce a regulatory impact statement for this bill.
According to advice from the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, the Office of Best Practice Regulation review determined that an RIS was not required as this bill does not change the regulatory burden on business—it merely transfers powers from state and territory governments to the Commonwealth and in some cases the burden is reduced. However, as seen from the cost-benefit analysis that I mentioned earlier, it is not clear that the national trade measurement system will have a significant net positive value. In this context, it is therefore surprising that further analysis was not done through an RIS.
Labor talks a lot about cooperative federalism, yet it tried twice in the 1980s and then again in the 1990s to deliver a national trade measurement system and it failed on both occasions. It took the coalition in government to deliver this historic agreement in 2007. As the minister responsible I am proud of that achievement. Labor is now implementing the coalition’s hard work. Labor has failed to provide a regulatory impact statement on the basis that this bill merely transfers powers. This is disappointing seeing that there is not a clear indication of the benefit that may come from the implementation of this legislation. Nonetheless, the coalition are of the view that the national trade measurement system will be of benefit to all Australians. On the basis of assurances given by the government that this bill does accurately replicate existing state laws and does provide sufficient safeguards to individuals involved in weights and measures, we support this bill.
10560
19:50:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to speak in support of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008, which amends the National Measurement Act 1960. I agree with the member for Groom about the significance which can be attached to this bill—it is a very significant reform indeed—but I disagree with his attempt to portray that this is a conservative initiative and that there is some divergence between Labor and the conservatives on this issue. In fact, measurement in Australia has a 100-year history, which I intend to take you through briefly. You will see through that that it has really been quite bipartisan. This long, drawn-out history has led us to this point.
This bill introduces a national system of trade measurement based on the existing state and territory systems. This bill will bring certainty and consistency to interstate traders by instituting uniform systems of trade measurement, rectifying the current fragmented systems of trade measurement which we have across eight separate jurisdictions. In doing that we move significantly to providing consistency in this area across all jurisdictions in Australia, which will remove the regulatory burden for business and reduce the cost for business.
This bill comes in response to the COAG reports of 2006 and 2007 which identified trade measurement as one of the 10 regulatory hot spots in Australia today. The inconsistency associated with this area has acted as an inhibitor to national economic prosperity. Uniform trade measurement will enable greater clarity for both buyers and sellers of products, increase trade confidence and ensure much greater transparency in national trade practices. The government sees this bill as an important step in national economic growth, and it is very much consistent with the government’s agenda of building one seamless national economy.
Initially, looking at this with a fresh set of eyes, one may say that a bill in relation to weights and measures—a trade measurement system—is a little dry and perhaps goes to a little detail. But in actual fact, systems of weights and measures go to the heart of the building of a nation. In this bill we are talking about cooperative federalism. This is an act of trying to create greater consistency across our Federation. When we look at another great federation in the world, the United States of America, we see that adopting a consistent set of weights and measures was one of the very first things that the United States of America did after its formation.
The authority to legislate for national weights and measures is prescribed in their constitution and is afforded to the federal congress. In George Washington’s very first State of the Union address, in January 1790, during his very first administration, he said, ‘Uniformity in the currency, weights and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.’ The task of implementing a national system of weights and measures in America in 1790 then fell to the first Secretary of State of the United States—a man who went on to become the third President of the United States—Thomas Jefferson. He regarded the implementation of a national system of weights and measures as being one of his great achievements in his time as Secretary of State. He presented to the congress on 13 July 1790 the plan for establishing uniformity in the coinage, weights and measures of the United States. After years of deliberation, his proposal to adopt the imperial system of weights and measures across the entirety of the United States became, in his own mind, one of his great achievements as Secretary of State. That system is still in use today within the US.
I say that because you cannot overstate the importance of having a consistent set of weights and measures. It represents one of the key pieces of architecture in building a nation. America dealt with this in its first two years of existence and whilst one may think we have been a little slow in this—we are now sitting 108 years after the commencement of our Federation—that would be unfair, because where we have got to at this moment in time represents the culmination of some significant work over 108 years within our Federation to come up with a consistent set of weights and measures. Our initial system was inherited, of course, from England. In 1824, New South Wales commenced research into implementing a standardised system of weights and measures within Australia. Other states soon followed after that, so by the time of Federation it was the opinion of all of our founding fathers, as they were at that time, that it would be advantageous to have a single system of weights and measures in our country. So, like in the United States, it found its way into of our Constitution as a Commonwealth power. Section 51(xv) provides for the Commonwealth to have the power ‘to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to … weights and measures’.
From there we see a significant series of steps under governments from both sides of politics to come to where we are today. In 1926 the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the precursor to what is now the CSIRO, was charged with, among other duties, ‘the testing and standardisation of scientific apparatus and instruments’. Cabinet authorised the creation in 1938 of the National Standards Laboratory, which was built on the grounds of the University of Sydney. In 1947, the Chifley government signed Australia to the Convention du Metre, or the Metre Convention, which made metric measurements legal in Australia. In 1948, again under the Chifley government, the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act came into effect, which created the National Standards Commission. In 1950, under the Menzies government, the National Standards Commission was appointed to administer weights and measures legislation. In 1960, again under Sir Robert Menzies, the National Measurement Act was passed, which is the act which this bill now seeks to amend. That act defined Australia’s measurement and weight standards. It also outlined the roles in this area for the CSIRO, the National Standards Commission and the National Measurement Institute in relation to Australia’s weights and measurement systems.
In 1970 the Metric Conversion Act was passed, which moved Australia from the imperial system to the metric measurement system for all transactions and uses. Despite that history and the appearance of a kind of controlled standardised system across our nation, the staggered implementation of agreed legislation at a state level, as was afforded by the National Measurement Act 1960, gave rise to a number of inconsistencies and mixed interpretations about that act. It is those inconsistencies which this bill seeks to rectify. In response to that situation, the Council of Australian Governments requested the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs develop a recommendation and a timeline for the implementation of a national trade measurement system to deal with that. Acting on the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs’ response in April of last year, COAG agreed that the Commonwealth should assume responsibility in this particular area of trade measurement. Subsequently, a discussion paper was developed and a consultative process undertaken around that discussion paper. This bill that we are debating this evening is the outcome of those processes.
This bill creates a national trade measurement system. It replaces the current state and territory systems, systems that, as I say, have had inconsistency within them and acted as inhibitors to business prosperity. Some of the specific measures of this bill, which are introduced within it, include transitional arrangements between existing state systems and this new national system of trade measurement, and provisions for accuracy and reliability of measurement instruments. There are provisions in this bill regarding the reporting of weights and measurements of prepackaged goods. The bill provides for the appointment of trade measurement inspectors at a Commonwealth level and also provides for licensing arrangements for public weighbridges. There are provisions in the bill that allow individuals and businesses to be licensed to utilise trade measuring equipment.
The bill also introduces an average quantity system which will assist production line packing companies, enabling them to more easily comply with regulations by efficiently demonstrating that they have complied with those regulations. Similar systems to that currently exist internationally—in New Zealand, in Japan, in the EU and, as I said earlier, in the United States of America. Within the bill there are also associated provisions in relation to offences which provide for different types and categories of offences. There are three tiers of related penalties which can be implemented according to circumstances.
As noted by the minister in his second reading speech, there is approximately $400 billion in trade, based on trade measurement systems, that occurs annually in Australia. That represents a very large proportion of our national economy. It is very important that we have this trade based on an accurate system of weights and measurements. This bill will help to meet that objective by strengthening our overall weights and measurement system while also reducing the inconsistency between our jurisdictions and, in doing that, reducing the regulatory burden on business and strengthening individual consumer confidence. As I said earlier, the Rudd government is committed to creating one seamless national economy in Australia. This is a very important step in doing that. By breaking down unnecessary inconsistencies and regulatory burdens that inhibit our growth, this is an important step in that process. I very much commend the bill to the House.
10563
20:02:00
Baldwin, Robert, MP
LL6
Paterson
LP
0
0
Mr BALDWIN
—I rise today to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008. This bill seeks to amend the National Measurement Act 1960 and will establish a single trade measurement system for Australia. The Commonwealth has the responsibility for weights and measures under section 51(xv) of the Constitution. Under the National Measurement Act 1960 the Australian government has responsibility for defining measurement units and standards, traceability of measurement, and pattern approval of instruments used for trade or legal purposes. Inspection and enforcement powers, except for utility meters, reside with the various state and territory governments, as do the setting of various regulations surrounding trade measurement.
The trade measurement system in Australia refers to all activities carried out by government and authorised private sector bodies in the application and enforcement of state and territory trade measurement acts and regulations. The system covers the approval and usage of measuring instruments for trade, such as weight scales, flow meters, tanks and beverage dispensers; the sale of goods by measurement, of quantity or quality; packaging and labelling of prepackaged articles; licensing of operators for public weighbridges; licensing of measuring instrument servicing organisations that have personnel nominated to certify measuring instruments; and inspection of trade measuring instruments and prepackages, and penalties for breaches of the law. Presently each state has had a separate system of measurements which has created a disjointed structure of interstate relations. On 13 April 2007, under the Howard government, COAG agreed to establish a national system of trade measurement, administered by the Commonwealth, from 1 July 2010. This bill implements that agreement. This is a project very dear to my heart. I was sworn in as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources on 27 January 2006. One of my areas of responsibility as part of that portfolio was the National Measurement Institute.
I would like to reflect on the work of the former CEO of the National Measurement Institute, Dr Barry Inglis, who gave me an education in measurement. Having been a fitter and toolmaker apprentice and having studied metrology, I thought I had an understanding of measurement but, after meeting Barry Inglis and going through the whole metric system of measurement, I realised how little I understood. You see, a kilo is not necessarily a kilo. Our kilo, a round sphere, is one of many by which comparative measurements are done. Those measurements of that sphere relate back to a sphere which sits in Paris in a controlled environment. Every so often our sphere has to travel to Paris to be compared against the sphere in Paris. But, on a more local issue, I think about the area of the Hunter and the coal exports that leave our ports. One of the things that were put to me that I had not thought about is how we sell coal. We think about coal in tonnage, but tonnage is not necessarily the unit of measurement, because, if it has been raining, are purchasers paying for water or are they paying for dry coal? And what of the calorific value of the coal? So there is a composite measurement to make sure that we do not undersell Australia or, more importantly, that we do not overcharge for the products we export. We had further discussions about the measurement of time and the measurement of length. Dr Inglis is quite a fascinating gentleman and, when I had listened to his revelation of facts, it brought a deep understanding of how critical people involved in the measurement system are to the economic viability of Australia.
However, the issue of establishing a single national system of trade measurement has been on the agenda for more than 20 years. In 1985 the Department of Science commissioned a review of the trade management system, known as the Scott report. The review recommended that federal weights and measures legislation be amended. However, the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers, with the exception of Western Australia, decided instead that each jurisdiction should implement uniform trade measurement legislation.
In February 2006 the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, identified six priority regulation hot spots where overlapping and inconsistent regulatory regimes were impeding economic activity. Trade measurement was one of those six hot spots. COAG requested the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs develop a recommendation for a national system of trade measurement, which was subsequently agreed to by COAG on 13 April 2007. Labor talks a lot about cooperative federalism, yet it tried twice, in the 1980s and 1990s, to deliver national trade measurement and failed. It took the coalition in government to deliver this historic agreement in 2007. Labor is merely implementing the coalition’s hard work.
I support the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008, which is important when considering Australia’s industry and export potential. It will provide a truly national approach to measurement and will give confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate. Given that an estimated $400 billion worth of trade based on some kind of measurement takes place in Australia annually, this bill is in the interests of Australia, the trade industry and the farmers and manufacturers in the Paterson electorate that I represent. During the Howard government’s term, we played a key role in increasing prosperity for all Australians through creating internationally competitive and sustainable business opportunities. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is most certainly an initiative of the Howard coalition government, and I am passionate about having this bill passed as it will benefit all Australians. The benefits will include eradicating costs to businesses that operate across borders, different cost recovery procedures in different jurisdictions, different processes for licensing private sector verifiers of trade measuring instruments and inconsistent advice being provided about trade measurement requirements.
As well as implementing a national system, for the first time in Australia the bill introduces, on a voluntary basis, the option for manufacturers to use the average quantity system rather than the current minimum quantity system. The AQS is the international standard in international trade in prepackaged goods, used in nations including Canada, China, the EU, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA. The AQS provides a statistical measure that a batch of goods would be, on average, within statistical normal distribution, while the current minimum quantity system and its associated testing regimes require many producers to overfill their products in order to meet the minimum quantity requirements. Adopting AQS would increase efficiencies in production and measurement while ensuring consumers remain protected. It would also make Australian prepacked items more accessible to international trade—and making it voluntary enables those producers who wish to remain with the current system, for cost or other reasons, to do so.
On 14 November 2006, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Tourism and Resources, I opened the new National Measurement Institute laboratory in Western Australia. The NMI laboratory had been based in Cottesloe, Western Australia, since 1954 and was relocated to the Australian Resources Research Centre in Kensington, WA. The relocation of the NMI to the ARRC and the refocusing of the NMI’s WA business plan and activities towards the needs of the resources industry were undertaken within the broader context of maximising the return to Australia from the investment in the NMI. Western Australia is the leading exporting state in Australia, accounting for more than 25 per cent of Australia’s total exports. Resources and commodities are major components of these exports. The relocation to the ARRC provided the NMI with the opportunity to build on its relationships with the main players in the resources industry. The then CEO of the National Measurement Institute, Dr Barry Inglis, oversaw the relocation. Ernest—also known as Ernie—Bartels, a dedicated laboratory analyst, unveiled the plaque on that day. The NMI’s vital role in Australia’s future cannot be understated and it gives confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate and can be relied upon.
I have seen firsthand the valuable work done by the NMI and support the bill’s intention to streamline this system. However, I do raise a number of concerns regarding the administration of the bill and the cost shifting from the states to the Commonwealth. Under this new agreement, the Commonwealth will take responsibility for the existing 140 state trade measurement inspectors and officials, as well as state based trade measurement instruments of a yet to be defined value. Administration of the national trade measurement system will be the responsibility of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, with powers exercised by or under the delegation of the secretary. The administrative functions will be implemented by a division of the department, the National Measurement Institute.
Funding of $31.65 million was provided to the department of innovation for the transition to a national trade measurement system and its first year of operation, 2007-08 to 2010-11. The bill provides for ongoing funding of $23.653 million, which will be provided from 2011-12. This is a direct cost shift from the states, who will no longer have any trade measurement costs. These costs, which I understand are significant, will now be directly borne by the taxpayers of Australia.
The bill proposes that, from 1 July 2010, NMI will maintain a national system to licence appropriately qualified businesses and individuals to verify compliance of measuring instruments, and one licence will be valid for use across Australia. The bill further proposes that the current inconsistent fee regimes will be replaced by one licence fee based on cost recovery principles. I understand that the processes for licensees to report on verification of trade measuring instruments will be unified and streamlined. Licensees will be encouraged to use internet based submission of data to achieve best productivity, but other forms of submission will be provided for. The bill provides that NMI will conduct compliance monitoring activities through a national network of inspectors who will carry out marketplace audit and inspection activities like those currently carried out by the states and territories. As of 1 July 2010, the inspectors will be trade measurement staff who have transferred from state and territory employment.
The bill sets out that, under the national trade measurement system, the compliance strategy will employ a variety of mechanisms. I am told that emphasis will be placed on informing traders, licensees and the public about the practices that ensure fair measure and on securing compliance through education. Further, minor noncompliance, typically because a trader was unaware of an inappropriate measurement practice, will initially be dealt with by a warning. I am advised that continuing offences or failure to heed an official warning will result in an infringement notice and escalation in risk based monitoring and that intentional, persistent and serious offences will lead to the most severe prosecutions.
I have previously raised concerns about which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce and which court will be the appellate court. I am told the enforcement options will depend on the circumstances of the offences and that the court used will be a matter for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Further, the appellate court will depend on the jurisdiction in which the original court proceedings were launched. Under proposed section 19K, jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of enforceable undertakings and injunctions.
I have also raised my concern about the need for arms-length separation of the enforcement and compliance arms of NMI itself, which I believe is necessary for the successful implementation of this bill. I am apprehensive to support having the standards and enforcement in the same body. Whilst I can appreciate that the functions of inspectors in checking measuring instruments require technical skills and support from specialised laboratories which are linked to NMI, I am uneasy about the actual operation of this system and the confidence the industry will have, given the perceived potential conflict of interest. There will need to be—pardon the pun—a number of checks and balances in place to ensure a smooth transition to this new scheme and due diligence applied to the transparency of the operational system. I will be taking a watching brief on this issue into the future and look forward to the implementation of a system that benefits all Australians.
10567
20:16:00
Bidgood, James, MP
HVM
Dawson
ALP
1
0
Mr BIDGOOD
—I rise to speak in favour of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 amends the National Measurement Act 1960 to introduce a national system of trade measurement based on the current trade measurement systems of the states and territories. The National Measurement Institute within the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has responsibility for implementing the national system of trade measurement and for the ongoing operation of the new system, which is due to commence on 1 July 2010. The funding provided for the transition to a national system of trade measurement in its first year of operation is $28.65 million in 2008-09, with ongoing annual funding of $23.65 million from 2010-11.
Trade measurement involves the exchange of goods at a price determined by volume or weight or other types of measurement. A robust system of trade measurement underpins confidence in the trading transactions in our economy. The new national trade measurement system will replace state and territory systems. The bill incorporates key features of the existing state and territory laws, which are based on model legislation. We take for granted that a litre of milk is a litre of milk, that a kilo of sugar is a kilo of sugar, that a scale is always correct and that a stated portion is a stated portion. We do so because we trust our system of measurements. We trust the system because governments have laws to ensure that the description matches the product therein. Whether we buy a tonne of topsoil from the local landscaping business or a 50-gram Mars bar, we rightfully expect that what is on the label is what we actually receive. When we fill up our car and pay for 30 litres of fuel, we expect that we have received 30 litres of fuel. We cannot afford to have uncertainty in this regard, and with this bill the government is ensuring even greater certainty and confidence in our measurements regime.
This is something that the federal and state governments through COAG have highlighted as an issue of great importance. I want to stress that this is of true great importance. Under the current system, each state and territory governs their own measurement legislation. The Australian government is introducing this bill to provide a single law for the entire nation. This is something that we constantly hear as we go around the country talking to our constituents. I know that many of the constituents of Dawson are transient people from other parts of Australia, and I am asked, for example, ‘Why are the laws different in WA than they are in Queensland?’ So this idea of a single law for the entire nation has a lot of value, because it is about continuity. Continuity is efficiency, and efficiency is cost saving. And cost-saving efficiency equals productivity, which ultimately adds to the bottom line of this nation’s economy. So when we consider this, we need to consider that requiring businesses operating across state borders to comply with different state and territory laws increases compliance costs and is totally unnecessary.
In my electorate of Dawson, having a system in place that provides for accurate, nationwide measurements is of absolute critical importance for the exports of coking coal, for raw and refined sugar, and for meat. If there were anything other than absolute certainty in the measurements, it would erode confidence and our sterling reputation in the market. The new national trade measurement system will benefit businesses by reducing cost. Firms that trade across borders will only need to implement one set of practices to meet trade measurement requirements. So it is logical.
Accurate measurements give confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements are accurate and this reduces transaction cost in each trade. This regulatory system brings extra confidence to trade and commerce in Australia. Imagine how onerous it would be if traders had to prove to every customer that they had weighed each purchase accurately. Similarly, imagine how difficult it would be for a packing house to prove to each purchaser that their bag of flour was filled with the stated amount without the confidence that good measurement laws provide?
The bill inserts general trade measurement provisions into the act, which will provide the legislative framework for the national trade measurement system. This includes six key points: (1) provisions to ensure the accuracy and reliability of trade measuring instruments such as scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges; (2) provisions to ensure prepacked articles contain the stated quantities; (3) the appointment of trade measurement inspectors and their powers—replicating the current powers of state and territory trade measurement inspectors; (4) licensing provisions for the verifiers of measuring instruments and the operation of public weighbridges; (5) provision for private sector firms or individuals to be licensed to verify trade measuring instruments; and, finally, (6) transitional provisions to ensure a seamless transfer from the states and territories to a national system.
There are, of course, offence provisions in the bill. The offence provisions in the bill will apply in a wide variety of circumstances. The bill provides for different categories of offences in relation to particular conduct, for a range of responses depending on the circumstances of a particular suspected offence, and for three tiers of penalties. The new national system will continue to ensure the accuracy and reliability of traditional trade measuring instruments such as scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges. However, it provides the flexibility for new technologies to be introduced as businesses or consumers require additional assurance.
In conclusion, the bill puts in place a law that replaces the current fragmented situation in which each state and territory has a separate system, with a single national system. No clearer can the need for this be seen than in the electorate of Dawson, because in the electorate of Dawson we know how important it is to have a unified Australian system for coal, sugar and even within our tourism market as well. By introducing this law, the Rudd Labor government is proving it is serious about creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary duplication, overlap and differences in regulation. In particular, we are proving that we are determined to remove those inconsistencies that create unnecessarily complex and costly burdens on business. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
10568
Adjournment
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Calare Electorate: Economy
10569
10569
20:30:00
Cobb, John, MP
00AN1
Calare
NATS
0
0
Mr JOHN COBB
—For some time, the jewel in the crown of what was previously Parkes but which is now the Calare electorate has been the town of Cobar. It has a proud tradition in pastoral management but also in mining and in the mining of copper in particular. It has been mining since the 19th century and has done it very successfully. In recent times, Cobar has become the town in my region and probably in the whole of western New South Wales with the youngest population. It is a dynamic town. Officially, it has 5,000-odd people, but due to the mining growth and the stability that has come from that it has probably at times exceeded 6,000 people quite easily. It is a town that has provided to the state government untold royalties over recent time.
But at this point in time Cobar is in trouble. In the last 40 days, the price of copper has gone from around $3.20 to around $1.85, a drop of over 40 per cent, and zinc has gone from around $1.20 to 50c in a very short space of time. The mine with the greatest number of people working at it, Endeavour mine, which is owned by CBH, has in the past six months put off in excess of 400 people, including contractors plus their own staff. In a town of 6,000 people, this has obviously had a huge effect. The town is very wary of what is going to happen in the future.
There is no town like this one. It is 460 kilometres west to Broken Hill and 300 kilometres east to Dubbo. It is a major staging post in western New South Wales. But it obviously revolves very much around the price of copper and to a lesser extent that of zinc. One mine there is mainly gold dependent, so it is in a much happier position.
I believe that the time has come for the state government and the federal government—which has been able to help the car industry at this time—to look at what is happening in western New South Wales and the profound effect recent events have had there. When you look at what is happening, the reserves of copper around the world are something like a week’s worth; there is only a week’s reserve. There is no obvious reason why the price should have dropped to that extent—40-odd per cent—in 40 days. Obviously, it is not related so much to the usage as it is to the liquidity situation—the credit situation—around the world. It is having an enormous effect at this time in my electorate, particularly in that region—more than any other mining situation I have seen. I would hate for this to be a forebear of things to come, but if the price of copper drops much more then more mines in Australia will feel the effect. And there are more mines in my region that we are worried about.
Governments, both state and federal, have to look at this situation. Hopefully, it will be a short-term one, but we have no guarantee of that. The indications at the moment are not good. The mayor of Cobar, Lilliane Brady, has called upon the state and federal governments to look at their situation. While there is not much that can be done about the price of copper, there are a lot of things that can be done about infrastructure and about helping the region by investing in it. That is what must happen. I call upon federal and state governments to take notice of the situation. And the federal government is the one that can help.
Remembrance Day
10569
10569
20:35:00
King, Catherine, MP
00AMR
Ballarat
ALP
1
0
Ms KING
—I am pleased to stand here on this Remembrance Day to recognise those who sacrificed so much for our country. I missed very much being in my own community today to commemorate due to our parliamentary duties. Remembrance Day is a time when we can come together as Australians and reflect on our past. Every day, millions of Australians busily go about their day-to-day lives. Yet on Remembrance Day we pause together at 11 am. We stop to pay our respects to those who served our country with the highest honour. This year is especially significant as today marks 90 years since the end of World War I; 90 years since the German government agreed to an armistice to withdraw their forces. At 11 am on the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the conflict ended.
Remembrance Day is a time to reflect on many things. Like many Australians, my own family has been touched by losing a loved one overseas. My uncle, Edmund Geoffrey Mears, was a leading aircraftsman in the Royal Australian Air Force who died on his 21st birthday in 1942 and is buried in Ambon. Remembrance Day gives me an opportunity to reflect on Geoff’s service in World War II and the impact his death had on his family. Some 66 years on, as the only surviving member of that generation, my mother still misses her brother very much. Geoff’s story is reflected across the country: brothers who never came home; uncles never known; sons lost. All those beautiful boys—and some girls—who never came home and who never got to live full lives. People across the country commemorate Remembrance Day at our many shrines and memorials.
Perhaps because of our strong sense of history Ballarat is home to a number of significant memorials. Great landmarks in Ballarat, such as the Ballarat Arch of Victory and Avenue of Honour, Bacchus Marsh Avenue of Honour, and the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial, help us honour those who have served so bravely for our country. During the election I had the pleasure of announcing $500,000 for the Bacchus Marsh Avenue of Honour and then reaffirming this commitment during the May budget. The Bacchus Marsh avenue is one of the most magnificent and important elm avenues in the country, and this funding will help to maintain it for future generations.
Also in September I had the pleasure of standing with the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and announcing the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a national memorial, something long overdue. This national status reflects a strong desire of the Australian people to appropriately honour our ex-POWs.
I would also like to give mention to the Ballarat Avenue of Honour. The Ballarat Avenue of Honour is the earliest known memorial avenue to have been planted in Victoria. Planting commenced in 1917 and was completed two years later in 1919. The avenue stretches for some 22 kilometres and includes over 3,700 trees—all of the fallen from World War I. At the entrance to the Avenue of Honour is a magnificent victory arch. In 1919 the employees of the Lucas factory began to collect money to build the Arch of Victory. They pledged two shillings in every pound of their wages, sold souvenirs and held fundraising drives. On 2 June 1920, the Prince of Wales opened the arch and was presented with a pair of silk pyjamas embroidered with Australian emblems, with each of the 500 ‘Lucas Girls’, as they were known, having put in a stitch. The arch stands as a significant tribute to the men and women of our district who lost their lives in WWI.
Over recent years, the state of the Ballarat Arch of Victory has declined. In recent months we have found that the basic repairs could cost between $80,000 and $100,000, with a full restoration in the vicinity of $200,000. It is unfortunate that such a significant structure has degraded to such an extent, although I guess not unexpected given that it is 88 years old and that it is a very large structure. The Arch of Victory is an important memorial and is close to the hearts of Ballarat residents. After becoming aware of the state of the Arch through the Ballarat Courier I have written to the Minister for Veteran’s Affairs to see if there is any assistance the federal government is able to give. Memorial funding tends to be of much smaller amounts than that required to restore the arch, but given its important status I would hope that we can as a community work together to ensure its survival for another 88 years.
On this Remembrance Day we remember the fallen and the potential they never got to fulfil. We remember the families who have mourned their loss for generations. On behalf of Joycelyn King, nee Mears, I remember Edmund Geoffrey Mears—‘Geoff’—by placing his name in the historic records of this place on this Remembrance Day in 2008.
Remembrance Day
10571
10571
20:39:00
Robert, Stuart, MP
HWT
Fadden
LP
0
0
Mr ROBERT
—The lone bugler’s haunting melody of The Last Post resounded today—at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month. This is when we Australians commemorate those diggers who lost their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today. Daniel Webster said, ‘Although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honoured.’
In 1993 the government brought ‘home’ the body of a fallen warrior. Today he rests in the Hall of Memory as the Unknown Soldier. In his prime he left Australia to fight for his country and today he represents over 100,000 of his brothers and sisters killed in war for the freedoms we enjoy. He represents over 10,000 Australian soldiers who lie in unmarked graves. Freedom is never free. It is purchased through the blood of the martyrs and maintained through eternal vigilance.
Compared to many other countries Australia is still a fledgling nation but boasts a proud and rich military history. Her military have trained and fought with pride and valour. World War I was the first time Australia had gone to a significant conflict as a federated nation. With enthusiasm and a longing to serve, over 416,000 men and women enlisted out of a population of under five million. The urge to serve meant many lied about their ages; they were boys entering a man’s world.
In 1914, with little training, our boys marched into battle. For more than four years they fought with allied nations, for a freedom in far away countries, on the battlefields of Europe, seeing death, hearing the dying and seeing the dead lying around. Over 60,000 Australian soldiers would not come home; over 135,000 were wounded—for a war that would end all wars.
On 11 November 1918, 90 years ago, the Armistice treaty was signed at five o’clock in the morning and at the 11th hour on that same day the French and Belgium battlefields fell silent. At its conclusion the First World War had cost more Australian lives than any other war in our history. As the red poppy sprouted in Flanders field, it became a timely reminder of the blood that so freely flowed. As Eric Bogle once sang:
The sun’s shining down on these green fields of France;
The warm wind blows gently, and the red poppies dance.
The trenches have long vanished under the plow;
There’s no gas and no barbed wire, no guns firing now.
But here in this graveyard it is still No Man’s Land.
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man’s blind indifference to his fellow man,
And a whole generation who were butchered and damned.
After the Second World War Armistice Day was renamed Remembrance Day to include commemoration of the over 19,000 men and women who died during World War II. This day now commemorates all of our military who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. While the lone bugler trumpets the losses of war we remember the boys and men, the girls and women that left Australia to defend their nation and we honour their sacrifice.
Remembrance Day is also the day that the names of the fallen are added to the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial. This morning six Australian heroes were added to the Roll of Honour: Private Dennis Michael Millane, who died in Borneo during confrontation; and five brave soldiers who died in Afghanistan—Sergent Matthew Raymond Locke, Private Luke James Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Paul Marks, Trooper David Ronald Pearce and Signaller Sean Patrick McCarthy. Today at the 11th hour we added these men to our thoughts as we stood like the guns of the Western Front, silent and still.
As a former Army officer I feel a special affiliation with these men and their families. My family has fought in most of our wars, starting with the ultimate sacrifice when a cousin, a young lieutenant, led his men to their death at the Nek in Gallipoli in August 1915. Likewise I am very conscious that, of the six names added to the Roll of Honour, two of these heroes have families in the electorate of Fadden. Trooper David Pearce, loving husband to Nicole, father to Stephanie and Hannah, was tragically killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on 8 October 2007. Signaller Sean Patrick McCarthy, loving son of David and Mary, brother of Leigh and Clare, was killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan on 8 July 2008. Their families should be very proud and our nation is forever grateful for their courage. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten. It will be remembered.
I acknowledge the men and women who are today overseas serving their county. They help those who cannot help themselves. Today, just as they did 90 years ago, regardless of the danger, our military men and women risk their lives. We will remember them. (Time expired)
Ms Emma Mary Griffin
Her Excellency Maria Theresa Lazaro
Blacktown Hospital
10572
10572
20:45:00
Price, Roger, MP
QI4
Chifley
ALP
1
0
Mr PRICE
—On Sunday I did a couple of things that were absolutely delightful. I visited the home of Emma Mary Griffin. Her family had organised a wonderful birthday party and invited family members, of course, and neighbours. Emma has lived at Rooty Hill for 30 years and prior to that lived on a farm at Marsden Park. On Sunday, Emma turned 100 years old. I think it is a wonderful accomplishment not only to turn 100 but to be still living in your own home at that wonderful age. I asked Emma what the secret was to her longevity, and in a flash she said, ‘Hard work,’ as family members chorused, ‘Hard work,’ so obviously it is a philosophy that is well imbued in her family.
I also attended a farewell party organised by the Sydney Australian Filipino Seniors. President Elvira Gacis said that I must attend because they were honouring the service of our Philippines Consulate General, Her Excellency Maria Theresa Lazaro, who will shortly complete more than five years service as the consul general in New South Wales. She has been an outstanding success. It is no secret, of course, that the Blacktown local government area in my electorate has the highest number of Australians of Filipino descent who call Australia home—something like 11,500, or 7.5 per cent of the electorate. I am pleased to say that my colleague the honourable member for Werriwa and I, together with the member for Lindsay and the member for Parramatta, hosted a lunch for the consul general and the ambassador. She is a marvellous lady who dedicated herself to the community she sought to serve. I am pleased to say that her service has been recognised by the government of the Philippines and that she is ambassador-elect to Switzerland. I am looking forward to the opportunity of perhaps catching up with her there next year.
Not so happily, I want to talk about Blacktown Hospital because I am really concerned about a series of distressing statistics. Blacktown LGA has the highest number of early adult deaths, 637, in New South Wales, which is higher than rural Australia. For people aged below 75, the potentially avoidable deaths table provided by the New South Wales Chief Health Officer identifies Blacktown as having the worst smoothed estimate of standardised mortality, at 121.1.
Blacktown has the highest heart attack, or acute myocardial infarction, rate in New South Wales at 560, which is double the number of Nepean. The Blacktown rate is approximately 50 per cent worse than the New South Wales average. Blacktown has the worst cardiovascular disease death record and the highest number of smoking or alcohol related hospital separations. The number of heart patients having to be transferred to Westmead Hospital because of the unavailability of cardiac catheterisation at Blacktown has increased by 67 per cent. The delay associated with transfers is unnecessarily increasing the amount of heart tissue being damaged. Blacktown Hospital is the only major metropolitan level 5 or 6 hospital which does not have immediately available nuclear medicine services.
In 2005, 27 per cent of patients from Blacktown LGA had to be transported to Westmead to have non-tertiary services because of the lack of facilities that should be at Blacktown, and that number will increase to 40 per cent in a decade. I certainly hope that the state Minister for Health and our federal Minister for Health and Ageing will sympathetically review measures to rectify this situation.
Swan Electorate: Underground Power Program
10573
10573
20:49:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—I rise this evening to talk about current developments with underground power in my electorate of Swan. I appreciate that within our system of government underground power is considered to be constitutionally a state and a local issue. However, the volume of constituents that contact me regarding the issue makes me feel that I must raise this in the House. The constituents of Swan often remind me that they do not mind which level of government I am in; they just want some help in getting answers and ideas on where they stand on these issues. I have had inquiries on this issue as well as on the underground sewerage program since the day I was elected and I will continue to provide updates and information as they become available.
According to the Office of Energy, the government of Western Australia has a long-term goal to have at least half the houses in Perth supplied with underground power by 2010. Forty-seven per cent of the metropolitan area is now serviced by underground power and the Underground Power Program has reached round 4. In a city bursting at the seams due to an influx of people who have come to WA to work, including in our resource sector, it is vital that we continue to provide the necessary infrastructure to keep our city up to date with essential services that are as reliable as possible. Underground power is preferable not just on aesthetic grounds; underground powerlines are more reliable and less susceptible to failure after weather events. In fact, the state government’s policy was developed following an inquiry into the May 1994 storms. These storms were widespread and caused significant power outages throughout the metropolitan and outer metropolitan areas of Perth. Eighty per cent of the damage to powerlines was caused by trees, and therefore a program to introduce underground power was promoted.
As I previously stated, the program is now in round 4—it has operated in a series of rounds and all Western Australian local governments have been invited to submit expression of interest proposals for funding. The program has proven popular with areas of my electorate. The scheme has led to plans for major residential projects in Como, which was round 1; Rivervale, South Perth and East Victoria Park-Carlisle, which was round 2; Victoria Park south and Como east, which was round 3; and Wilson west, which was round 4. Additionally, the scheme has led to plans for localised enhancement projects in Albany Highway, Victoria Park and Belvidere Street, Belmont as part of round 4.
Today I want to update the House on the information I requested and have received from the WA Minister for Energy, the Hon. Peter Collier MLC, about this program in Como East and Wilson West. In round 3, the City of South Perth submitted a proposal for the Como east area, which was short-listed for further development as part of the detailed proposal stage, with a view to approval and eventual implementation.
Part of the condition of state government funding is clear evidence of substantial support from the ratepayers within the project area. I am informed by the minister that a City of South Perth survey conducted by a reputable research firm demonstrated that almost 80 per cent of the respondents chose to replace the overhead powerlines with an underground system. I would like to inform concerned members of my electorate that the City of South Perth is offering discounts on the rates of those eligible for a pensioner or senior discount.
One of the most common concerns I receive from my constituents is that seniors will not be able to afford to pay the council charges. Despite the City of South Perth’s survey indicating that a higher proportion of pensioners, 82.8 per cent, than nonpensioners, 79.6 per cent, would prefer to pay for underground power, we must remember the minority who have been particularly affected by the global financial crisis. I therefore would urge local councils to provide as significant a discount as possible to pensioners who are struggling at present. Councils can provide a discount to pensioners of up to 50 per cent under this scheme.
Next I want to mention the City of Canning’s proposal for the major residential project in Wilson West, which has been short-listed and is currently undergoing further development through the detailed proposal stage, with a view to approval and eventual implementation. Further development will determine the scope, budget, community support and other essential aspects of the proposal.
In conclusion, the installation of underground power has been a goal of successive governments in WA. Although it is a necessary development for the local area, it is important to ensure that vulnerable groups like seniors, pensioners and disabled pensioners are properly subsidised. I will continue to provide support to those who need it.
Adelaide United Football Club
10575
10575
20:54:00
Georganas, Steve, MP
DZY
Hindmarsh
ALP
1
0
Mr GEORGANAS
—I rise to pay accolades to and congratulate one of Adelaide’s, and South Australia’s, favourite institutions: the Adelaide United Football Club, which has been participating within the Asian Champions League. The Adelaide United Football Club is based at Hindmarsh Stadium and it has reached the finals. Over the past eight months we have seen something quite remarkable in the progress of club sport within Australia. Commencing what at times has been a gruelling procession of travel and play, Adelaide United has managed what I think no other Australian club has done to date: making the final of this prestigious international event.
At the Hindmarsh Stadium in Adelaide tomorrow night, Adelaide United faces the Gamba Osaka team of Japan in the second leg of the final. After the first leg of the final, held in Japan last Wednesday, Gamba Osaka has a 3-0 lead on goal aggregate. To get to this point alone is truly remarkable. Adelaide United, or the Reds, faced six teams from around the region. From early March this year, they faced and were victorious over Korea’s Pohang Steelers, 2-0 and again 1-0; they defeated Vietnam’s Binh Diong, 2-1 and 4-1; and they drew with Changchun Yatai of China twice. Being at the top of their group’s table at that point, Adelaide United proceeded to enter the knockout stage in September. Adelaide United succeeded over Japan’s Kashima Antlers, scoring two goals to one on aggregate. The semifinal saw Adelaide United defeat Uzbekistan’s Tashkent by three goals to one on aggregate, leading to the competition in which the club is engaged at this point, facing Gamba Osaka in this week’s final.
Tomorrow night’s competition at Hindmarsh Stadium is sold out, with an anticipated 17,000-strong crowd expecting to see what is being dubbed in today’s Advertiser as ‘one of the biggest sporting matches in the state’s history’. The success of Adelaide United Football Club in reaching this final is more than enough to put pride in the heart of any Australian football fan. The achievement of this Adelaide team in playing this final is enough in itself to command the respect of all Australians interested in sport and the success of Australian teams in international events.
I would like to congratulate the team, coach and support staff on what they have already achieved and what they have proven to all Australians, retired players and juniors alike: Australian teams can make the grade. The Australian club environment is, of course, totally different to that of the teams Adelaide United has faced in this competition. For instance, within the Gamba Osaka team two players earn a combined income from their club of $7 million per season. Yasuhito Endo earns $4 million per season and Lucas earns $3 million per season. Australian teams simply do not compare due to the nature of the Australian club environment and the competition within which they compete.
While Gamba Osaka spends an estimated $24 million per season on the wages of its senior team alone, Australian teams have a salary cap of $1.9 million per club per season. Adelaide United as a whole has a salary cap that is less than half the price commanded by just Mr Endo himself. With the capacity to pay very big money, clubs naturally have the capacity to attract the brightest talent from around the world. This puts the achievement of Adelaide United Football Club even more sharply into focus. United needs to beat Gamba by four goals, or at least achieve a score of 3-0 at the conclusion of ordinary time to give itself any chance in extra time. I think this could quite reasonably be considered a big task. I am sure that, in front of a crowd of screaming Adelaide United supporters and well-wishers pouring in from around the country, the Reds will do very well.
Irrespective of the outcome tomorrow night—to again put the success of Adelaide United into context—the fact that they have made the final automatically qualifies them for the Club World Cup to be held in Japan in December. In this competition we have the opportunity to play against Manchester United as the Continental Club Cup winner and other clubs that have won the cup in their continental region. This proves just how far these players have come.
Again, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the coach and each of the team members all the best for tomorrow night’s deciding final. I am sure they have already succeeded and will continue to achieve great things in the months and years ahead. Adelaide United Football Club has fielded the following players during this remarkable campaign: the coach, Aurelio Vidmar, who has done an outstanding job and is one of the best coaches in Australia; the goalkeepers, Mark Birighitti, Daniel Beltrame and Eugene Galekovic; the defenders, Cassio, Robert Cornthwaite, Angelo Costanzo, Sasa Ognenosvki, Scott Jamieson, Daniel Mullen, Michael Valkanis and Richie Alagich; the midfielders, Fabian Barbiero, Diego, team captain Travis Dodd, Lucas Pantelis, Kristian Sarkies, Paul Reid, Jonas Salley, Jason Spagnuolo and Nathan Burns; and the forwards, Cristiano, Paul Agostino, Robert Younis, Bruce Djite and Dez Giraldi. Good luck to all of the team tomorrow night. Win or lose, they have done all South Australians, and Australians, proud.
10000
SPEAKER, The
The SPEAKER
—Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted.
10576
21:00:00
House adjourned at 9.00 pm
NOTICES
10576
Notices
The following notices were given:
848
Secker, Patrick, MP
Mr Secker
to move:
That the House notes that:
-
currently low flow conditions and over allocations are having an extreme impact on the River Murray, Lower Lakes and Coorong;
-
the region is fast approaching environmental collapse, industries are being lost and communities are suffering;
-
current predictions of low inflows indicate that the Lakes will drop to even lower levels and that River flow to the Coorong will not occur in the foreseeable future;
-
the short term challenge under current and likely low flow conditions for 2008 is to use what water is available, after critical human needs, to prevent irretrievable damage to the river systems; and
-
the long term challenge is to implement strategies that protect the environment and maximise the productive use of water resource while maintaining a sustainable river from source to mouth.
IYU
Briggs, Jamie, MP
Mr Briggs
to move:
That the House:
-
condemns the Rudd Government for its handling of the water crisis;
-
demands the Government release a minimum of 30 gigalitres into the Lower Lakes and Coorong as recommended by the Senate inquiry;
-
notes that:
-
low water levels in the Goolwa area are seriously affecting small business and tourism operators;
-
flooding the area with sea water would destroy the natural environment; and
-
the trade for some businesses has dropped by nearly 90 per cent; and
-
calls on the Government to:
-
provide immediate financial assistance to the affected communities; and
-
stop playing the blame game and take decisive action.
DZY
Georganas, Steve, MP
Mr Georganas
to move:
That the House notes that:
-
25 November 2008 marks White Ribbon Day in Australia;
-
in 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared November 25 the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the White Ribbon has become the symbol for the day; and
-
the White Ribbon Foundation of Australia aims to eliminate violence against women by promoting culture change around the issue.
83E
Ripoll, Bernie, MP
Mr Ripoll
to move:
That the House:
-
notes that:
-
the automotive industry worldwide is witnessing a trend of falling car sales;
-
the global financial crisis has placed unprecedented pressure on automotive manufacturers who have already been doing it tough and have had to contend with high petrol prices, changing consumer preferences and intense global competition; and
-
the automotive industry directly employs 64,000 Australians and makes a huge contribution—both direct and indirect—to Australian output, jobs, exports, innovation and skills; and
-
supports:
-
the Government’s decisive action on the problems currently faced by the automotive industry;
-
the injection of significant co‑funding arrangements to strengthen the market and protect jobs in these times of economic uncertainty; and
-
policies such as the Green Car Innovation Fund and Automotive Transformation Scheme which show a continued commitment to research and development and greener alternatives in the automotive industry.
00AN0
Ciobo, Steven, MP
Mr Ciobo
to move:
That the House:
-
condemns the Rudd Labor Government for abandoning Australia’s best and brightest musicians by axing funding for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM), forcing it to close at the conclusion of 2008;
-
notes that the Rudd Labor Government has forced the ANAM to close, without offering any alternative training program for Australia’s elite classical musicians; and
-
acknowledges that this decision will leave the 55 Australian musicians who were enrolled to study at ANAM in 2009 with nowhere to go.
HWQ
Marles, Richard, MP
Mr Marles
to move:
That the House:
-
acknowledges the importance of the Australian car industry and recognises its important role in the economy as a:
-
provider of employment;
-
major exporter; and
-
basis of high technology manufacturing; and
-
supports the Government’s initiative for a package of measures for the car industry designed to improve the international competitiveness of the Australian car industry and to promote the manufacture of greener cars.
848
Secker, Patrick, MP
Mr Secker
to move:
That the House notes that:
-
a group of dedicated Australians has established the Zimbabwe Outreach Program and Orphanages Mutare (ZOPOM) Foundation;
-
the Murwira Orphanage caters for children from a few months old to twelve years of age in Mutare, an area of desperate need in Zimbabwe where one in five children are orphans and 100 babies become HIV positive every day;
-
Paula Leen, a 74 year old United States citizen, single‑handedly runs the Murwira Orphanage and her outreach program feeds over 2,000 destitute people a month;
-
the ZOPOM Foundation in Australia under the umbrella of the Global Development Group aims to fund Paula Leen’s work with donations;
-
the ZOPOM Foundation provides Australians with a chance to assist in a small way with all funds going directly to the Murwira Orphanage and Outreach program; and
-
the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is presently so critical that the immediate ZOPOM Foundation aim is to urgently purchase food from South Africa to send to the Murwira Orphanage.
2008-11-11
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer) took the chair at 4 pm.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
10579
Constituency Statements
Remembrance Day
10579
10579
16:00:00
Neville, Paul, MP
KV5
Hinkler
NATS
0
0
Mr NEVILLE
—It is appropriate today, Remembrance Day, that I should recount my past fortnight of pleasant and inspiring engagements with the veteran communities of Hinkler. On 27 October I had the pleasure of attending the opening of Legacy House in Hervey Bay along with the veterans’ affairs minister, Alan Griffin. This project is testament to the dedication of the Hervey Bay Legacy President Ian Bryant and his team as well as Rubicon, the principal donor to the restoration of the building which will serve Hervey Bay, Maryborough and the Burnett.
Last Monday I attended the official opening of the Baycrest RSL Remembrance Garden in Hervey Bay, which was held in conjunction with that retirement facility’s Remembrance Day service. Later in the week I attended a breakfast and AGM of Hervey Bay’s very dedicated TPI Association where President Keith Walker presented me with my patron’s badge, which I accepted with great pride and humility. I later presented two Defence Medals to David Thornley and Anthony Nichol at the Hervey Bay RSL Club, a wonderful organisation which does a stellar job for its members and the community. I have also had the honour of catching up with William Sheehan, whose uncle, Able Seaman Teddy Sheehan, was an extraordinarily brave man who kept firing his guns on Japanese fighters whilst his torpedoed ship, HMAS Armidale, slipped beneath the waves—an act of exceptional defiance and bravery.
The following day I had the honour of joining Squadron Leader Bruce Graham from Amberley to present Australian Defence Medals to recipients in Bundaberg—Ronald Brumley, Arthur Waters, and a posthumous medal to Judith O’Connor, who received it on behalf of her late husband, James Douglas O’Connor. Mr O’Connor’s medal was pinned to his son James, who, along with his two siblings, is a Legacy ward. Seeing young James wearing his father’s medal with pride was the living embodiment of the Legacy movement and a tribute to people like Rudy Valzan, who is the Legatee of the Bundaberg Legacy organisation. To round out the week, on Saturday I had the honour of attending the opening of extensions to Bundaberg’s RSL club, the Coral Sea Function Centre.
As we remember the 90th anniversary of Armistice Day we might reflect on the care of our elderly and our damaged veterans, as well as the role of Legacy. As we look into the eyes of little James O’Connor well might we say: lest we forget.
Mr Christopher Mullins
10579
10579
16:03:00
Shorten, Bill, MP
00ATG
Maribyrnong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services
1
0
Mr SHORTEN
—I would like to draw the House’s attention to the efforts of Essendon resident and athlete Chris Mullins, who recently won gold in the 2008 Beijing Paralympics. Chris is an inspiration to all Australians.
Beijing 2008 was Chris’s first Paralympics and, judging by his efforts, I am sure he is set for a bright future. He won gold in the men’s four by 100 metre relay in world record time and finished sixth in the 400 metres. Chris is just 21—in fact he turns 22 this month—and was born with cerebral palsy. He has dedicated most of his life to athletics, beginning in under sixes.
He was encouraged to start athletics by his physiotherapist at the Royal Children’s Hospital as a form of early intervention. Early intervention, as the Rudd government knows, is vital for the development of children with cerebral palsy. The vast proportion of learning occurs in the first five years of life and these are the most important years for brain development and maturation, and I draw the House’s attention to the great work done by the Cerebral Palsy Education Centre in Melbourne.
Appropriate and adequate early intervention capitalises on the plasticity of brain development, with greater functional outcomes. In other words, children who receive help in those first five years are better equipped for life. Tragically, many children with cerebral palsy receive little or no early intervention and grow up to require 24-hour care as immobile adults.
Athletics has helped Chris’s development from a young age and his training regime as an elite athlete has only become more rigorous. In the five weeks leading up to the Paralympics he was training twice a day with running, cycling and weights. What makes his efforts all the more impressive is that Chris is in the second year of his Bachelor of Nursing and also works as a lifeguard at the Maribyrnong Aquatic Centre.
Now Chris is inspiring the next generation of Australians. I had the pleasure of meeting Chris last month at Rosehill Secondary College, a great school in my local electorate. Chris spoke to a group of year 7 students as part of Wheelchair Sports Victoria’s Wheel Talk program, with coordinator Sean Corcoran. This is a fantastic initiative which improves disability awareness in the community and particularly amongst school children. I must report that I was a signal failure at wheelchair basketball when invited to participate.
However, the way that Chris spoke to the children about prevention of spinal cord injuries, health and physical activity for people of all abilities was inspirational, as indeed is the whole program and the athletic performances in Beijing. This reinforces both my perception of Chris and my belief that all Australians can learn a great deal from Paralympians. Indeed, I have repeatedly said that business should get behind our Paralympians and support them to be champions in their industry as motivational role models for companies, both internally for employees and also for customers. You do not find a harder working, more determined role model than a Paralympian.
I congratulate Chris Mullins on his gold medal winning performance in Beijing, his commitment to the community and the great example he sets for all Australians. I would like to wish him happy birthday for Sunday 23 November—congratulations, Chris.
Swan Electorate: Small Business
10580
10580
16:06:00
Irons, Steve, MP
HYM
Swan
LP
0
0
Mr IRONS
—The Belmont Small Business Association will be presenting its annual awards tomorrow night in my electorate of Swan. The manager of the BEC in Belmont is Carol Hanlon, who also is a councillor of the City of Belmont. Carol won an award in Melbourne recently for the best Australian BEC manager. Carol has also been nominated for the 2008 annual Diversity at Work award to be announced in Melbourne by Sir Bob Geldof. I wish her well with that award as well.
Another small business association that operates in my electorate, and has its state head office near my office, is the Armadale Chamber of Commerce. This association is headed up by CEO Charles Bellow, and his wife, Shirley, runs the office on a day-to-day basis. Two of the Bellow’s children work for the chamber as well. Both Sarah and Charles Jr will, I am sure, go on to support local business in my electorate for a long time into the future.
The local chamber also runs annual awards for successful and innovative businesses in Western Australia. These awards are recognition of the hardworking average Australians who usually put everything on the line to start their business—and then some more—in the true Australian entrepreneurial spirit of having a go. The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines small businesses as those employing fewer than 20 people. According to this definition there are 12,800 small businesses in my electorate of Swan. This represents a significant proportion of the Australian population that small businesses benefit in electorates like mine. Small business is a major employer in Australia and is a driver of many community groups in Swan through volunteer work and sponsorship. It is these small business people, who are in the community supporting these groups 24/7 for 365 days a year, who need to be recognised for the work they do in supporting our local communities.
As members will be aware, I have a long history of association with small business. I have owned my own small business for the last 25 years, and I was appointed as the state vice president of the local chamber of commerce and industry for a year prior to my election to this place. I am concerned on a number of fronts for small business at the moment. Business confidence has been steadily falling since the Rudd government came to power a year ago. I spoke with the patron of the local chamber today, Mr Keith Ellis, and he was disappointed with the strategies of the Rudd government. He said a lot of small businesses were not going to invest any more capital into their businesses due to the uncertainty caused by the Rudd government’s strategies.
This was also confirmed by the BEC manager, Carol Hanlon, in the Southern Gazette, saying that small businesses are hurting. Today’s monthly business survey and the economic outlook from the National Australia Bank show that business confidence fell a record 21 points in October to a new record low of minus 29 points on the NAB index.
The individual tax management plans announced in the policy are not a new initiative. The individual tax management plans are ordinary conventions for small businesses that are experiencing cash flow problems, and these were announced in the government’s small business rescue package. The additional $4 million for the Business Enterprise Centres is negligible, given that the Rudd government axed nearly $1 billion of small business support programs, including the successful small business field officer advisory service and the Commercial Ready program.
In conclusion, the Rudd government’s mishandling of the financial crisis is having severe ramifications for small business confidence in my electorate. Kevin Rudd’s media opportunities are doing little to help the situation. (Time expired)
Museum of Contemporary Art
10581
10581
16:10:00
McKew, Maxine, MP
BP4
Bennelong
ALP
Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare
1
0
Ms McKEW
—We all need beauty in our lives. Beauty, along with friendship, is what sustains us. Most especially, our children need the richness of art and challenging artistic experiences to fire their imagination and to help them dream. I am very conscious, however, that there is, these days, a very wide gap between those children who enjoy a culturally rich experience and those who do not. We talk about the digital divide but I think also, sadly, there is a cultural divide. One outstanding Sydney institution that is actively working to eliminate this divide is the Museum of Contemporary Art. Under the leadership of Liz Ann Macgregor and a wonderful team of curators and educators, the MCA takes the view that art is for the people. The MCA is, I think, reinventing the notion of an arts museum for the 21st century.
It is the MCA’s learning programs that I want to particularly praise today, because these are programs that connect Sydney schools with the best in contemporary visual arts and culture. All of the MCA’s rich material will soon be available online for use by schools and educators right across the country. I was at the MCA recently and part of the joy was in seeing so many schoolchildren from outer Sydney suburbs discovering the wonders of the MCA. For many of these children this was their very first trip into the city. They were seeing, along with the treasures of the MCA, the natural wonders of our iconic Sydney Harbour for the very first time.
There is one project above all others that I think merits special attention, and that is the Bella project—a lovely name for one of the best arts programs that I have come across. The brainchild of the diminutive but generous-hearted Cynthia Jackson, the Bella project was established in 1993 to honour the memory and artistry of Cynthia’s beloved artist daughter, Belinda. Bella offers free programs to young people aged five to 18 who have special needs—children who may have physical, intellectual, emotional or behavioural disabilities, or who are disadvantaged due to financial factors. Programs are tailor-made to suit the particular needs of children. For instance, multisensory learning is a wonder for children who may not be able to see or hear or walk but whose other senses are awakened by the MCA’s wonderful band of dedicated artists.
Equally, I will never forget Cynthia Jackson telling me of the behavioural changes that can take place in otherwise aggressive, disengaged children when someone taps their artistic intelligence and, for the first time, they start to see the world in a very different way. One young boy, labelled a bit of a troublemaker, was taken in hand by Cynthia, who noticed his paintings and the uniqueness of what he was trying to express. Months later, on a trip to the boy’s school, Cynthia was bowled over to see that this boy’s attitude had been transformed, so much so that he was chosen as the host student for the MCA team’s visit. That is the power of art: it is transformative and unforgettable. His story is a tribute to the creative spirit and energy of the Museum of Contemporary Art.
Remembrance Day
10582
10582
16:13:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—Ninety years ago today, at 11 am on 11 November 1918, an armistice brought an end to four years of brutality, hostility and total destruction. Nations around the world were able to celebrate the return to peace. Today I, as the federal member for Ryan, representing nearly some 100,000 constituents in the western suburbs of Brisbane, want to honour all those brave Australians who sacrificed the ultimate—their lives—in our name. We cherish so much today the features of our great country: our democracy and freedom, our liberty and our capacity to go about our daily lives in peace and harmony. Today, as my constituents would want me to, I very profoundly honour those brave Australians.
During World War I more than 60,000 Australians died and an additional 156,000 Australians were wounded or taken prisoner of war. We understand that until 1939 the anniversary of the end of World War I was called Armistice Day. Following the Second World War, the British and Australian governments changed the name to Remembrance Day, making it a day when we commemorate and honour all those who died in terrible war. Those of us living today can only just imagine the horror of what it might have been like.
I know that the people of Ryan will be paying tribute to and remembering in their own way, both formally and officially at ceremonies in the western suburbs of Brisbane and informally at home and in their place of work, the lives lost. I know that they will pay tribute to the 102,000 Australians who have died in war by placing a single poppy flower in their local community memorial. I want to also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the RSL, which has a very special place in the architecture of our community organisations because it takes on the responsibility—but, I think, also the burden—of reminding the rest of the country of how significant it is to honour those whose lives have been lost. I want to pay tribute to all those in the western suburbs who, year in and year out, in the shopping centres and streets of the western suburbs, ask their fellow citizens to buy a poppy, which of course marks in a very profound but very simple way the sacrifices of Australians in generations past.
Isaacs Electorate: Carrum Downs Primary School
10583
10583
16:16:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—I want to speak about the recent 100th anniversary of the Carrum Downs Primary School in my electorate and the fantastic work that principal Cecilia Stone is doing to best prepare the school for its second century. I was fortunate to be invited to speak last week at the 100th anniversary assembly in front of teachers, parents, nearly 600 of the school’s current students and a number of former students, some of whom still live in the area. It was wonderful to see the school’s hall packed to mark this significant milestone, and it was a great touch that many of the students and teachers were dressed up in period clothing to recall how the very first students of Carrum Downs Primary School would have dressed. The school’s leaders, Adam Calvert, Jacob Dalton and Rathina Srinivasaragavan, spoke about the school’s history, and there was a beautifully prepared display of old photos and news clippings from throughout the school’s existence. One of them dated all the way back to 1914. There is one student who I would particularly like to mention, Amber Simson, who is in grade 6. At the special assembly I presented her with the 2008 Community Spirit and Leadership Award for her leadership qualities, which see her held in high esteem by fellow students, staff and the wider community.
After the assembly I was taken on a tour of the school by Cecilia Stone, who showed me the little building that housed the school on the Frankston-Dandenong Road before the building was moved to the present site of the school and carefully restored. It is still in use today as a literacy centre for the students. I was also shown more modern school facilities at the school; how the school has remodelled its playground; how they have laid cement paths instead of the dirt they used to have; and the new computers, which the students love learning on. At the foot of the school there is a new wetland environment that is being created, which is going to provide a terrific learning environment for the students.
There are not many schools in Victoria which are celebrating their centenary. It is even more unusual to see a centenary for a school in an area of new housing developments like Carrum Downs. It is fantastic to see a school in a growth area of my electorate able not only to celebrate its long history but also to look ahead and plan for the future. I congratulate the Carrum Downs Primary School on its 100th anniversary. I congratulate the school community of Carrum Downs, and indeed the whole community of Carrum Downs, which has worked to make the school the great school that it is today, and I look forward to working with the staff, the students, the parents and, in particular, the principal, Cecilia Stone, to make this great school even better in the future.
Cowan Electorate: Cowan Challenge Basketball Competition
10584
10584
16:19:00
Simpkins, Luke, MP
HWE
Cowan
LP
0
0
Mr SIMPKINS
—Last Friday, 7 November, I held an interschool mixed basketball competition for primary school students, which I called the Cowan Challenge. I came up with the idea in order to help promote competitive sport and healthier living and to enable schools across the length of the electorate to compete against each other. These schools would not normally have any involvement with each other.
The competition took place across the whole school day, with schools competing in two pools before the successful schools rose through the semifinals and then ultimately to the finals. I am pleased to report that a strong and consistent effort saw the top teams in each pool make it through to the final, with Camboon Primary School taking the gold medal by defeating Kingsway Christian College. Canboon Primary School was well represented by Naalia Tearoa, Tashreeq Babier, Mohamed Jammaloodien, Skye Leigh, Kevin Labib, Steven On, Nick Maurer, Jarvis Chan, Tiah Berryman and Liam McKay. Camboon was led by teacher Jodie Willox.
The silver medal was taken by Kingsway Christian College, and I congratulate Matt Elliot and the staff of the college. For their great effort, I also congratulate the players: Brendon Armstrong, Tyson Armstrong, Michaela Brouwer, Elise Dodd, Kaleb Elliot, Lauren Le Coultre, Joel Offereins, Rachel Spencer and Brandon Walker.
The bronze medal game was won by Neerabup Primary School, which defeated Ashdale Primary School in a close game. A great job was done by Jarred Foote and his enthusiastic team of Tyhara Garlett, Tsyon Feleke, LeShaye Hill, Tamika TeWano Grainger, Jasmine Kohli, Connor McKenna, Shaun Evans, Zach Will, Laufiso Lemuelu and Adrian Hill.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the referees from Woodvale Senior High School and their teacher, Kelvin Browner, for the outstanding support they provided on the day. I was surprised to hear that the referees were only in year 10, given the maturity and skill shown by them. Tyler Sinclair, Harrison Lovell, Kate Hedley, Ashleigh Cole, Grace Connell and Tayla Wellsteed all did a great job of keeping control of the game and assisting the teams to a better understanding of the sport.
As a former Australian and state representative in rowing, I am a firm believer in the value of competitive sport. It is good on many levels. It is good for health and fitness, it is good as a learning experience and it is good for children to exercise control and good conduct despite being under a degree of pressure. To that end, I was very pleased that the competition was conducted in a competitive yet friendly manner. Once again, I thank the schools for their support and the competitors for their efforts on the day.
Blair Electorate: Churches
10584
10584
16:22:00
Neumann, Shayne, MP
HVO
Blair
ALP
1
0
Mr NEUMANN
—Last Sunday, I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of my side of politics at the 22nd annual national prayer service, which was held in the Great Hall at Parliament House, and of attending the breakfast on the following Monday. This event led me to think about matters of faith and politics. I want to mention and thank four churches, in particular, from my area of Blair which I have visited since the election and which do great work.
Firstly, I want to congratulate the Ipswich Region Community Church for taking the initiative of having a day of honour every year, which I have attended. This year, the day of honour was on 2 November. On this day of honour, they recognise leaders in the community—not just political leaders but firefighters, police officers and other people involved in the emergency services. The senior pastor is Mark Edwards, the son of the former Liberal Deputy Premier of Queensland Llew Edwards. He is a personal friend of mine. It is a great church of about 500 people who do great work.
The second church I want to recognise is Whitehill Church of Christ. Pastor Darryl Seip is the senior minister of that church. They have taken the initiative of employing a full-time social worker, Wendy Turnour, the sister-in-law of the member for Leichhardt, Jim Turnour. Wendy is a pastor in the congregation, and she uses her social work skills in a tremendous way to help women, particularly in disadvantaged circumstance. The Whitehill community church has taken upon itself the idea of presenting Bibles to people who become citizens of Australia. Pastor Darryl Seip always leads in prayer at the start of citizenship ceremonies. Both Whitehill and Ipswich Region Community Church do a tremendous amount of good work in the local area.
My own church, Ipswich Baptist Church—it is really in need of a senior pastor at the moment—does a lot of great work in vacation care, men’s groups and women’s groups. It is also involved in children’s ministry, with a full-time children’s pastor, June Lambourne. She does a lot of great work, particularly amongst disadvantaged children and also with RE. Pastor Tim Everett does great chaplaincy work.
There is another church I want to mention; I think it is the most extraordinary church. Pastor Fred Muys is from Harvest Rain Christian Care and the Rivers of Life Christian Church. This is a congregation of about 65 people. They run literacy programs and numeracy programs. They have converted an old drive-in theatre into a church complex for the local community. They do wonderful work in terms of providing food parcels to the disadvantaged and those in need.
The four churches I have mentioned make a huge communitarian contribution to my area. I commend all of them and congratulate the pastors of the congregations.
Mitchell Electorate: Jasper Road Public School
10585
10585
16:25:00
Hawke, Alex, MP
HWO
Mitchell
LP
0
0
Mr HAWKE
—I rise to highlight and encourage the community, parents, teachers and kids of Jasper Road Public School in Baulkham Hills. In recent weeks, the school community has rallied to try and save the school’s physical disabilities support unit, which caters for children with physical and learning disabilities, including things like muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy. This unit is now under threat. In September of this year, the school found out that it may lose one of its four special classes, along with the teacher and learning support officer, owing to a drop in enrolments. The New South Wales Department of Education and Training has increased the ratio of six to 10 students per teacher to eight students per teacher. After year 6 recently graduated, numbers have fallen just short of these requirements, and urgent attention is needed.
Today we learnt in the state minibudget that New South Wales have slashed $3 billion of spending out of services. We learnt that there will be a budget deficit in this financial year of almost $1 billion, they are cutting the infrastructure building program by $890 million and, locally, there is a negative impact on my community, as tolls over the Harbour Bridge rise, raising an extra $12 million. People from my community are being asked for more and more of their tax dollars, and in return we are seeing a reduction in services, especially vital services such as this school’s physical disabilities support unit. I am pleased to say there has been a meeting with education minister Verity Firth, and the minister has agreed that they have until the end of the year to find more enrolments.
I can record here that I visited Jasper Road Public School earlier this year, and the integration of students with physical disabilities with other students is a great success. It is a wonderful working model. The benefits are immense to the children and to our society as those generations grow up. I hear that the department is looking to move away from this model. The school only received two enrolments through the department in the previous two years.
I want to commend the Parents and Citizens Association president, Anne Dunshea, on coordinating a massive effort to help save this unit. I also want to commend Mr Ross Newcombe, the concerned parent of Daniel, aged 11, who has muscular dystrophy and is in year 5. To quote Mr Newcombe on Daniel, from an article in Hills News:
He was isolated there—
at his previous school—
and looked like he was getting worse and worse. But now his reading, confidence, happiness and progress has gone up—
that is, after going to Jasper Road Public School and the disabilities support unit there. It does seem that some schools in my area are spending more and more money on upgrading facilities for disabled children, even though we have a fully functioning and equipped unit at Jasper Road Public School that is underenrolled and now under the threat of being cancelled. I call on the minister to allow common sense to prevail and allow these enrolments to proceed and save this disabilities support unit.
Newcastle Electorate: University of Newcastle
10586
10586
16:28:00
Grierson, Sharon, MP
00AMP
Newcastle
ALP
1
0
Ms GRIERSON
—I would like to share with the House the continuing success of the University of Newcastle in the field of research. It remains one of the top 10 research universities in Australia, confirmed in October this year by the awarding of more than $9 million in new funding from the Australian Research Council. Twenty-four new projects received funding, including investigations into improving the performance of the mobile telecommunications network, unexplained chronic pain, the culture of excessive alcohol consumption in sporting clubs and steel corrosion. Amongst these research grants, Newcastle university also secured the one and only Indigenous researcher’s development grant in New South Wales. It was a grant to investigate the success of workplace programs for Indigenous people and develop a benchmark for improving Indigenous workplace programs across the labour market. Engineering and science projects dominated, reflecting the great strength of Newcastle university in those areas of study and research.
I would like to congratulate the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Barney Glover, on his leadership and on his appointment as Vice-Chancellor to Charles Darwin University, an appointment he will take up next year. The Northern Territory’s gain is indeed Newcastle’s loss, but I wish him well in his new endeavours.
I would also like to draw attention to the record $14.8 million received by Newcastle university from the National Health and Medical Research Council last month, supporting 18 projects, with projects on asthma, breast cancer, stroke and mental illness representing almost 50 per cent of grants. Of particular significance is one presented to Professor Peter Gibson and his team for a study to explore a new way of treating inflammation in asthma patients. Professor John Forbes, a world leader in breast cancer research, has obtained more than $1.6 million to continue his work. Professor Schall has received more than $1.5 million for his work on mental illness in young people, and Associate Professor Chris Levi has received $1.1 million to study the role of genetic and environmental factors in strokes.
I take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Peter Gibson. He was also awarded a five-year practitioner fellowship this week, one of only 15 in the nation. I would note that Professor Peter Gibson is also a conjoint professor at the University of Newcastle and a Hunter New England Health respiratory specialist. He is co-director of the university’s Priority Research Centre for Asthma and Respiratory Diseases and conducts research in collaboration with the Hunter Medical Research Institute. The Hunter Medical Research Institute is an outstanding partnership between Newcastle university, John Hunter Hospital and the Newcastle community, and I know that their bid for funding for a medical research centre is one that is sound. I strongly support it and look forward to it complementing the research efforts of Newcastle and the Hunter region.
10000
Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Dr MJ Washer)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIA-CHILE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2008
10587
Bills
R3077
Cognate bill:
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIA-CHILE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2008
10587
Bills
R3076
Second Reading
10587
Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Debus:
That this bill be now read a second time.
10587
16:31:00
Ley, Sussan, MP
00AMN
Farrer
LP
0
0
Ms LEY
—I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008. The coalition government began negotiations with Chile that have now been concluded with a comprehensive free trade agreement. The coalition government intended that the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement be an agreement between the governments of Australia and Chile that would remove most barriers to Australia’s export of goods and provide economic integration for markets through commitments in a range of areas, including trade in services, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, electronic commerce and competition policy. Whilst bilateral trade with Chile is modest, involving $856 million in 2007, Australia is the fourth-largest source of foreign investment in Chile, with investments amounting to US$3 billion in 2007.
The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2009. In order for the agreement to take effect, both the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 need to be amended. The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 contains the necessary amendments to the Customs Act. These amendments provide the rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile and establish powers to allow Customs to obtain manufacturing records from Australian producers and exporters. The amendments in this bill give effect to Australia’s obligations under chapter 4 of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 4 outlines the rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile or Australia. The rules are integral for determining whether imported products from Chile are eligible for preferential customs duty rates under the agreement.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement part of the agreement by: providing duty-free access for certain products and preferential rates of customs duties for other goods that originate in Chile; phasing the preferential rates of customs duties for certain products to nought by 2015; and creating a new schedule 7 to the tariff to accommodate those phasing rates of duty. The bill aims to complement the amendments contained in the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008.
After Brazil, Chile is Australia’s second-largest merchandise export market in South America, with approximately 120 Australian companies actively trading with Chile. In commercial terms, Chile’s importance to Australia derives from our significant investment links. Over 50 Australian companies have registered offices and over $2 billion in direct investment in Chile, including activities by AGL, AMP, BHP, Hoyts and Orica. Major Australian exports to Chile in 2007 were coal, at $A94 million, civil engineering equipment at $21 million, specialised machinery at $7 million and transport vehicles at $6 million. The major Australian imports from Chile in 2007 were copper, $97 million; pulp and wastepaper, $57 million; non-ferrous base metal waste, $43 million; and pig iron $21 million.
The coalition supports the agreement, as I have said. Some of the benefits include the elimination of Chile’s tariffs on 91.9 per cent of lines covering 96.9 per cent of trade; a harmonised and simplified system of customs procedures; a commitment by Chile to maintain an open and non-discriminatory market for Australian service suppliers, including in education, professional services, mining and telecommunications services; non-discriminatory access to Chile’s government procurement market; the right of Australian investors to protect their investments through investor-state dispute settling procedures; and temporary access rights for business visitors to Chile.
This will be Australia’s fifth free trade pact and our first with a Latin American country. Australia has implemented four free trade agreements all of which were initiated by the coalition: the United States, Thailand, Singapore and New Zealand. The coalition government recognised that two-way trade between Australia and Chile is growing fast, up from $574 million in 2006 to $856 million in 2007. Australia is the fourth largest foreign investor in Chile with around $3 billion of direct investment. The coalition understood that a free trade agreement with Chile would offer Australian exporters opportunities across the board which will be particularly valuable in services and investment areas. Other areas will benefit, including energy, agriculture and food and beverages.
I will say a few words on the horticulture industry. Whilst the coalition supports free trade agreements, particularly this agreement, there have been some concerns that are worth noting regarding the horticulture industry. Horticulture Australia’s submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties points out that because Chile and Australia are both in the southern hemisphere they share common seasons. This means that Chilean horticultural products can be imported to Australia at the same time as Australian horticultural products are on the market. Horticulture Australia anticipates that the price of the Chilean products will be less than the Australian products because of the cheaper labour costs in Chile. For example, Mr Peter McPherson from the Australian Blueberry Growers Association advised the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that Chilean labour costs 40 per cent of Australia’s.
The treaties committee tabled a report on 16 October 2008 in which it recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade undertake and publish a review of the operation of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement no later than two years after its commencement in order to assess the ongoing relevance of concerns expressed about the agreement such as the maintenance of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the impact on the horticulture industries, intellectual property, 457 visas and labour and environmental standards.
In conclusion, the coalition believes that free trade agreements are good for this country. They promote stronger trade and commercial ties between participating countries and they open up opportunities for our exporters and investors to expand into key markets. Free trade agreements help secure Australia’s competitiveness with key trading partners and they significantly enhance Australia’s broader economic, foreign policy and strategic interests. As mentioned previously, our position on these bills is that we support the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement as initiated by the coalition government and concluded by the present government and we support the necessary amendments in order to implement the agreement.
10589
16:39:00
Hall, Jill, MP
83N
Shortland
ALP
1
0
Ms HALL
—The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and cognate bill are very important pieces of legislation. On 30 July 2008 Australia and Chile signed the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. The Australia-Chile FTA is expected to commence on 1 January 2009 and will provide Australia and Chile with, among other things, preferential access to each other’s goods. To give effect to the agreement, Customs will need to arrange for amendment of the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 and for the creation of regulations.
The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901 to introduce rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile and the requirement for Australian producers and exporters to keep and present to Customs records associated with the origin of the goods exported to Chile under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement and to answer questions from Customs in relation to these goods.
The agreement was considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and I fully support the report that was tabled in the House by the committee. We considered a number of issues when we looked at the agreement, and it was the feeling of the committee that the agreement should be supported. Some concern was expressed about horticultural matters—and I think the previous speaker referred to those concerns—but overall it was felt that the agreement would be quite beneficial to Australia. One concern was that the Australian market would be flooded with goods from Chile. It was felt that this was one area that needed to be watched very carefully. However, on the balance of trade and the benefits that would come to Australia, it was decided that it was well and truly worth while for Australia to enter into this agreement.
The free trade agreement is a comprehensive and wide-ranging agreement that provides for Australia and Chile to have much more liberal access to each other’s goods and services. The agreement reaffirms the close relationship between Australia and Chile. I see the member for Isaacs to my left; he has a very close relationship with Chile, given that his wife is Chilean. Earlier, he was espousing to me the virtues of Chile. The relationship between our two countries will flourish with this agreement. It will contribute to greater growth, prosperity and security in the region. It will be a great breakthrough for both countries.
In order to implement the agreement, two pieces of legislation require amending: the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill contains proposed amendments to the Customs Act 1901. These amendments provide rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile, and introduce powers to allow Customs to obtain manufacturing records from Australian exporters and producers. The amendments will give effect to Australia’s obligation under chapter 4 of the Australia-Chile FTA. Chapter 4 provides the rules for determining whether goods originate in Australia and whether goods originate in Chile. The rules are essential in determining whether goods imported from Chile are eligible for preferential customs rates under the agreement. I feel that this agreement, properly entered into with the right spirit from both countries, will really benefit both countries.
The bill will be complemented by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008. Goods will be considered to originate in Chile for the purpose of providing a preferential duty rate if they are wholly obtained or wholly produced in Chile or if they meet the product-specific rules of annex 4-C of the agreement. The product-specific rules use the ‘change in tariff classification’ concept, as used in previous Australian free trade agreements. Under the changes in tariff classification rules, as I said, origin will be conferred on a product where the tariff classification of the non-originating material—in this case, material from outside Chile and Australia used in the manufacture of the product—is different from the tariff classification of the goods. The rules are a means of demonstrating that there has been a substantial transformation of the non-originating material inputs, so it looks at the materials as well as the product. Customs will also have the power to obtain manufacturing records of Australian exporters and producers to verify that the goods that they export to Chile were produced in Australia.
Overall, I believe that there are safeguards in this legislation that will ensure that this agreement works and works well. I think that the treaties committee, as I mentioned, examined all aspects of this treaty, and I am very, very confident that the legislation will ensure that the agreement between our two countries operates and operates effectively.
10590
16:46:00
Truss, Warren, MP
GT4
Wide Bay
NATS
Leader of the Nationals
0
0
Mr TRUSS
—The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 will give effect to the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement, and so they are significant in the history of the relationship between our two countries. I was the Minister for Trade at the time that these negotiations commenced, and on 18 July 2007 I was very pleased to be announcing that Australia had decided to proceed with the free trade agreement negotiations with Chile. I said at the time:
These negotiations offer an excellent opportunity to develop a comprehensive and ambitious bilateral free trade agreement … which would eliminate barriers to trade in goods, improve conditions for services exports and investment, and offer meaningful commercial opportunities for Australian exporters.
The Government’s decision comes after consultations with Australian industry, states and territories and federal agencies, and bilateral officials’ meetings.
The trade between Australia and Chile is not huge, but it is our third largest trading partner in Latin America. The two-way trade in goods and services was valued at A$574 million in 2006 and A$856 million in 2007. Perhaps the most significant part of our relationship, however, has been in relation to investment in Chile. Australian companies have significant investments in Chile, valued at an estimated $3 billion.
The decision to undertake free trade discussions with Chile came after extensive early discussions. These discussions followed an announcement by the government on 8 December 2006 of in-principle support to commence a bilateral FTA negotiation process with Chile with a view to developing a comprehensive free trade agreement to strengthen and deepen the trade relationship. The initial stage of the FTA process was conducted in the first half of 2007 and involved officer-level bilateral meetings with Chile and consultations with domestic stakeholders. Preliminary meetings were held in Santiago in February and April 2007 to discuss the time frame for negotiations and the scope of the agreement and in particular to compare the detail of our respective FTAs with the United States. Consultations were held with Australian industry at about that time as well in many of our capital cities, and there were teleconferences held with businesses in Tasmania. In total, 76 stakeholders were consulted, and the then department received 13 written submissions. Domestic consultations at the time showed that there was considerable support from Australian businesses for an FTA with Chile, particularly from the mining and energy sectors, which participate in Chile’s strong minerals industry, particularly in copper and gold. The growing market for energy—coal, renewable energy and possibly LNG—was also of considerable interest.
It is important to note that Chile has trade agreements involving between 50 and 60 countries. They have more free trade agreements than any other country in the world. Australia has also had considerable experience in negotiating free trade agreements. We are one of only a handful of countries that have agreements with the United States. That meant that a lot of the fundamental framework discussions, which often take many years in negotiations with other countries, were essentially already done. It was a matter of checking notes and sharing our experiences in relation to our dealings with the United States, and it was therefore possible to take significant chapters from the agreements that we both had with countries like the United States to form the basis of this FTA. So the negotiations proceeded very quickly indeed and then finally came to fruition only about 12 months after they originally began. That was a remarkably short period for trade negotiations and agreements to take—in fact I suspect unprecedented in our discussions. As I said, both countries have existing FTAs. We both have well-developed legal systems. We have an understanding of the issues and therefore speedy negotiation was possible.
There has been a high level of support in Australia for this free trade agreement but it would be unfair not to acknowledge that there are industries that have had concerns. Those industries have been particularly in the horticulture and salmon sectors. I am not saying that there are not other industries that have had some concerns, but those two have been the groups which have been most vocal in expressing concern. The member for Mallee in his supplementary statement to the treaties committee report drew attention to some of those issues. He said:
Opposition to this Free Trade Agreement with Chile has a lot to do with its timing and its potential damage to the horticultural industries of regional Australia. This Australia-Chile agreement has been processed hastily and the interests of an important commodity sector ignored as a result.
The signing of an Australia FTA has the potential to force fast tracked negotiation for phytosanitary access for fresh Chilean horticultural produce into Australia (particularly table grapes).
He went on to emphasise that Horticulture Australia had expressed this concern in its submission where they said:
It is the firm expectation of the Australian Horticultural Industry that signing of the Australia-Chile FTA will bring considerable pressure for Australia and Chile to negotiate and substantially grant phytosanitary access for Chilean fresh horticultural produce in Australia. This view is supported by direct advice provided by the Chilean horticultural industry and traders.
I have to say that all through the negotiations there were reports coming from Chile that the horticulture industry in that country felt that the negotiation of an agreement of this nature would give them some priority access through the Australian biosecurity arrangements, that their products would gain a priority over others, and that we might make in Australia concessions in relation to our quarantine requirements arising from this agreement.
I hope that the minister in his summing up will place some emphasis on this concern. I believe that Australia gives the highest priority to science in determining its market access decisions. I hope that we will not make decisions that would put in danger the pest- and disease-free status that our domestic industries enjoy and that we would not endanger our natural wildlife or environment by risking the introduction of a disease. That has been a bipartisan position in relation to biosecurity issues. We may have disagreements sometimes about the science and the way in which it is developed, but I believe that both sides of politics have accepted this as a fundamental principle. It is an extraordinarily valuable asset to be disease and pest free and we must do whatever we can to preserve that. I would be very surprised if the minister, my successor in the trade portfolio, would have agreed to anything which would have in any way compromised Australia’s positions in that regard. If he has, I would be very angry with him.
I think it would be important for the record for him to state very clearly and give the assurance to the people in the horticulture sector that no special favours will be given to Chile and that no concessions will be made in relation to our pest- and disease-free status as a result of this agreement. We had an extensive chapter in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement that dealt specifically with these issues. It put in place a consultation process but, very clearly, Australia was not prepared to make concessions to the US, nor were we prepared to make them in any of the other FTAs that we have made. I think it is important that those assurances be given again in our relationship with Chile.
The Australian horticulture industry has been concerned about the potential impact of imports from Chile on the Australian horticulture sector. Indeed, there is a reference in the honourable member for Mallee’s report about the number of jobs that there are in the Australian horticulture sector. The summer fruit industry—the peaches, plums and nectarines, a lot of which are grown in his electorate—employs about 10,000 workers, with 6,000 in the Swan Hill area alone. It has a $300 million gross value of product, so it is quite a significant industry. They are concerned about the potential for imports into Australia as a result of this FTA.
As a result of the FTA Australia is giving a commitment to reduce our tariffs, but it needs to be emphasised that there is little or no tariff barrier now for horticultural exports from Chile to Australia. For instance, the biggest single export in the horticultural sector from Chile to Australia is, in fact, frozen raspberries. In 2006 nearly $4½ million worth of frozen raspberries were exported to Australia. They were tariff free before this agreement was negotiated, so there will be no impact on the biggest single horticultural export to Australia—it will continue to be tariff free, as it has in the past. Other significant exports include products like dried grapes and dried prunes, and the tariff there is four per cent—again, quite a small level, and that is on a declining scale too. The currency movements over recent times would have a much greater impact on the competitiveness of those exports than the tariff. I think the concerns about the reductions in tariff have been somewhat overstated.
The salmon industry is another industry that has been concerned. We imported in that same year, 2006, about $2.2 million worth of salmon. Again, there is no tariff on Chilean salmon and there has not been for quite some time. This agreement will have no impact on the volume of salmon coming into Australia—it is already tariff free.
I think that some of these concerns may be a bit overstated. The primary concern, in addition to summer fruits, has been table grapes. We all know that Chile is a major supplier of table grapes and grows them quite well. There are a range of pest and disease issues but, subject to conditions, Chilean table grapes have had access to Australia since about 2005, and none have come. Even though Chile has had the access and there has been no tariff barrier, they have not chosen to export them to Australia. I think the main reason for that is the difficulty in actually transporting them from Chile to Australia. One of the things that we do not have much of is regular freight transport between Chile and Australia. Ships rarely ply the route; there are daily air services but there is limited hold capacity in an aircraft, and if you are going to airfreight grapes or something like that to Australia it will be very difficult to price them competitively. These natural barriers of distance are going to be the most significant deterrents to increased trade between Australia and Chile in that area of horticultural products.
Having said that, it is a fact that this is only the second free trade agreement that Australia has negotiated with a country that is not counterseasonal to Australia. Our other free trade agreements are with Northern Hemisphere countries and so fruit, vegetables and other products grown there are counterseasonal to what is grown in Australia. The only other free trade agreement that we have with a Southern Hemisphere country is with New Zealand. Of course there has been extensive trade, including in horticultural products, between Australia and New Zealand. That is part of the reason the Australian horticultural industry has some concern—the very time that Australian, particularly southern states, grapes and other products are in the market place is the time the Chilean producers will also be in the peak of their season and therefore be able to supply grapes perhaps at competitive prices.
There were concerns when US grapes were allowed into Australia—that that would devastate our local industry. But in practice that did not happen. In fact, the US grapes are arriving here at such a price that any Australian farmer would be happy to get that kind of return for their product. It is somewhat counterseasonal for the southern industry, but not for grapes grown in Western Australia or in Queensland; in those states there is some competition but it has not had a significant adverse effect on the local industry. So we need to be conscious and aware of the concerns of the horticulture sector and indeed other industries that are anxious about the level of competition. But in reality I am confident that Australian producers have the quality and the capacity in the industry to be able to produce and supply these products competitively.
The biggest threat to the Australian horticultural industry is not imports from Chile; it is the availability of water, from the Murray-Darling system in particular, to water the orchards and vineyards. The current buyback that is being instigated by the government is a genuine threat to our horticultural production capabilities in the future. The dryness in the river system at the present time is also a threat because even those people who have got allocations, particularly in Victoria, are getting only a very small proportion of their entitlement, and that is a very serious threat to the industry. Those are issues we ought to be addressing in Australia. I am deeply disturbed about the way in which the government is approaching the rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling Basin system. Instead of spending the allocated money on improving the infrastructure, both off-farm and on-farm, so that we in fact make more water that can then be used in the environment and through the whole of the system, the government is taking the lazy way out by simply buying up entitlements, even though there is no water to match them at the present time, and permanently putting out of production some of those keys areas. Those are the real threats to the industry in my view rather than this particular free trade agreement.
The final comment I would like to make is in relation to the strength of the relationship between Australia and Chile, particularly in an economic sense. Australian companies are really significant investors these days in Chile. We have been involved in a large number of very significant projects. BHP Billiton holds a 57.5 per cent stake in the world’s largest copper mine at Escondida, located in northern Chile, and that is a very substantial project. They have announced a tender to build a 340 megawatt coal-fired power plant—again real opportunities for Australian industry to be involved in this plant, its design and construction and eventually presumably the supply of coal. The Santa Barbara mine in which Admiralty Resources has a 50 per cent stake has commenced production of iron ore in Chile. The Australian company SMC Gold has had success with its Cinabrio mine north of Santiago and is at last returning a profit. Equatorial Mining Limited has a 39 per cent interest in the Chilean company Minera El Tesoro. Pacific Hydro has a 50 per cent stake in the joint venture constructing the 155 megawatt La Higuera plant in Chile. There are a number of other significant investments of that nature.
Our major exports to Chile include coal, civil engineering equipment, specialised machinery and optical instruments. Australian imports from Chile include copper, nonferrous base metal waste, pulp, wastepaper, pig iron and wood. The two-way trade favours Chile. They export more to us than we do them. There is also a two-way trade in services, which in 2007 was valued at over $300 million. Again, that is in Chile’s favour, but this agreement will, hopefully, open up new opportunities for Australian firms to supply to the Chilean government and other agencies and help boost the relationship in that regard.
Australia and Chile are firm friends. This agreement has been sought particularly by the Chileans for quite some time. The negotiations were smooth and have come to what I believe is a satisfactory outcome. As the minister who commenced the discussions I am very pleased to now speak in support of the necessary legislation to give effect to this agreement.
10595
17:06:00
Dreyfus, Mark, MP
HWG
Isaacs
ALP
1
0
Mr DREYFUS
—The Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and cognate bill give effect to the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement, negotiations for which were concluded on 27 May this year by the Minister for Trade and the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs. It was signed on 30 July by the Australian and Chilean foreign ministers. I had the pleasure of meeting the Chilean Foreign Minister, Alejandro Foxley, in July on the occasion of the signing and I was impressed by his deep interest in and knowledge of Australia and also by his pursuit on that visit to Australia of bilateral educational links between our two countries.
I would like to start by congratulating the Minister for Trade on his leadership in concluding these negotiations and for his leadership more generally in advancing Australia’s trade liberalisation agenda. This is the Rudd government’s first free trade agreement and it is a high-quality free trade agreement. As the Minister for Trade has said previously, the last free trade agreement of this quality with an agriculture producing country, as Chile of course is, was the closer economic relations agreement also concluded by a Labor government in 1983, 25 years ago. I have a deep interest in this bill as a proponent of trade liberalisation and, as the previous government speaker, the member for Shortland, mentioned, I am someone who has deep ties and indeed a deep affection for Chile.
This is an excellent free trade agreement. It takes us beyond our World Trade Organisation commitments. This is a bilateral free trade agreement that will support Australian efforts for further trade liberalisation at both a multilateral level through the Doha Round as well as at a regional level. It is consistent with the principles of multilateralism that will deliver further trade liberalisation.
As the Minister for Trade said at the time of the completion of negotiations, this first free trade agreement concluded by the Rudd Labor government is the most comprehensive free trade agreement Australia has ever negotiated. It will eliminate all tariffs on existing merchandise trade by 2015 and it will immediately eliminate tariffs on around 92 per cent of lines covering around 97 per cent of trade in each direction on the free trade agreement’s entry into force. It will lock both countries into a liberal services regime and liberal investment regime and will provide certainty for Australian investors in Chile. It ensures non-discriminatory access for Australian suppliers of goods and services, except financial services, to Chile’s government procurement market and it is fair to say that this free trade agreement will deliver new opportunities for trade and investment on the part of both Australian and Chilean companies, bringing benefits to consumers in both nations.
This agreement provides for both Australia and Chile to lock in future trade liberalisation measures by, firstly, a ratchet mechanism which locks in any liberalisation achieved within Chile on services and investment and, secondly, by a most favoured nation clause which extends to Australia any liberalisation Chile grants to any new free trade agreement partner. And Chile has already negotiated quite a number of free trade agreements with countries throughout the world and is actively working on free trade agreements, particularly in Asia.
Although current bilateral trade between Australia and Chile is modest in global terms, it is growing rapidly—up from $547 million in 2006 to $856 million in 2007. Perhaps more significantly, Australia is the fourth largest source of inward investment in Chile with around $3 billion of direct investment. Chile is Australia’s third largest merchandise trading partner in Latin America. Merchandise exports to Chile of A$200 million and services exports of A$120 million occurred in 2007.
The current economic relationship that Australia has with Chile is based primarily on mining, engineering, agribusiness and energy, but the services sector is increasingly important. There are over 70 Australian companies which have invested in Chile or are providing services, notably BHP Billiton, which operates in Chile the largest copper mine in the world, Escondida. Other Australian companies include AGL, which is involved with gas distribution, and Pacific Hydro in power generation. It is right to say that although Chile and Australia have many things in common, one thing that the two countries do not have in common is a water shortage. Chile has an abundance of water, which is used in particular for hydroelectric generation.
Particular service sectors that are likely to benefit from this free trade agreement include education, professional services, mining, engineering services, telecommunications and management consulting. The free trade agreement includes access for financial services suppliers to Chile’s pension funds system. Chile has been increasing its focus on the Asia-Pacific region, particularly through the APEC forum meetings. This free trade agreement has an accession clause which will enable other APEC members to join.
Over the last 50 years, world trade has grown three times faster than world output. This simple statistic is an ample sign of the increased interconnectedness in the increasingly globalised economy. While the focus of our economic activities will inevitably be on the economic powerhouses of China and India and on our longstanding trading partners in Europe, the United States and Japan, we must constantly seek new opportunities to engage with new markets in emerging economies. As well as strengthening the relationship between Australia and Chile directly, this free trade agreement will provide a bridge to Latin America for Australia and a bridge to Asia for Chile.
Australia has many shared values with Chile, most notably a democratic tradition. At this particular time Chile has a social democratic government which is deeply interested in the reform of public administration, the health system and the education system, and in that direct sense there are many similarities and matters in common between the present government of Australia and the government of Chile, presently led by Michelle Bachelet, who was elected in 2006.
It is worth mentioning that Chile has a long history of congressional democracy, sadly and notoriously interrupted in 1973 by a brutal military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. In the weeks immediately following that coup in September 1973, many thousands of Chileans perished and many thousands of others were forced to flee the country. Australia has, in a sad way, been the beneficiary of the flight of many wonderful Chileans to this country seeking refuge from that brutal military regime. We now have a situation in Australia where there are some 23,000 Chilean-born Australians. They have made their lives in Australia and they are here to stay. Their children, in turn, perhaps see themselves as Chilean-Australians, being born here but nevertheless with many strong links back to the country from which their parents came.
Representative democracy was returned to Chile, happily, in 1989 with the re-establishment of a democratic government led by Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin. There have been successive elections since 1989. Ricardo Lagos was elected president in March 2000 and the present President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, was elected in March 2006. It is worth noting that Michelle Bachelet, the first woman president of Chile, has very strong links with Australia. She sought refuge from the military regime of General Augusto Pinochet by coming to Australia in 1975 and remained here into 1976. President Bachelet is a paediatrician and has, as you might gather from these few short details, a remarkable life story. She had to flee from a military regime, she managed to educate herself and acquire specialist qualifications as a paediatrician, she practised as a paediatrician for many years when she was able to return to Chile and she found time to become a mother. She managed all of that and eventually rose to the highest elected position in her own country, that of president.
There is a strong and vibrant Chilean community in Melbourne. In particular, there are a number of Chileans in my electorate in south-east Melbourne, including, as I mentioned previously, many second and third generation Chilean-Australians. It is worth noting that there has been an acceleration of visits between our two countries, particularly in this past decade. In this year alone, there have been a number of parliamentary and ministerial visits. This year Minister Garrett, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, has been to Santiago for talks on whaling. The Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare, Maxine McKew, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, John Murphy, have also visited Santiago this year. I have mentioned the visit by Minister of Foreign Affairs Alejandro Foxley to sign the agreement in July. If we go back to last year, the president herself, Michelle Bachelet, visited Australia during APEC in 2007. We have had visits from Chilean ministers for finance, agriculture, foreign affairs and mining and energy during 2006 and 2007. There was another presidential visit by former President Ricardo Lagos to Australia in 2005. Going back a year before that, Prime Minister Howard and the ministers for foreign affairs and trade in the former government visited Chile in November 2004. That same year, the then Minister of Defense, now President, Michelle Bachelet, also came to Australia. There have been parliamentary delegations from both countries returning visits.
The two countries are working on strengthening links not just through this free trade agreement. It is worth mentioning a memorandum of understanding, signed in July 2005, which established a work and holiday visa program between the two countries. Chile and Australia have also signed a bilateral social security agreement. And, as I mentioned at the start of this speech, there is work proceeding—work which was carried forward by the Chilean foreign minister when he came to Australia in July—pursuing bilateral education linkages. These linkages are intended to build on the announcement by the Chilean government in May of an expanded international scholarship program. Under this program, Chile will fund Chilean students in their thousands to study in the United States, Canada and Australia. Very many Chilean students are choosing Australia from among the countries that they can go to, apparently recognising the excellence of Australian universities. I know that the Chilean Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Jose Balmaceda, has done great work in forging links with Australian universities to provide places for the students from Chile who are going to take up places in the international scholarship program announced by the Chilean government earlier this year.
I should perhaps declare a little more directly my interest, as mentioned by the member for Shortland, which is of course that my wife was born in Chile and lived there for the first 15 years of her life. I have visited Chile with her for two lengthy periods—the first in 1981, when my wife and I backpacked to the very far south of Chile and also to the far north. As most people would be aware, it is a very long country—7,000 kilometres of coast facing the South Pacific. It ranges from the hot north, with what is said to be the driest desert in the world, the Atacama Desert, down to the frozen south and Tierra del Fuego, if one goes to the bottom of the continent. The Chileans, of course, claim a Chilean Antarctic territory, which is something else that they have in common with our country, in that they have a deep and abiding interest in the protection of the Antarctic. On that visit, I spent time in the beautiful lakes district and on the historic island of Chiloe and walked in the spectacular Torres del Paine National Park in the far south, going as far south as the quaintly named town of Porvenir in Tierra del Fuego, but we did not get all the way south to the Antarctic territory.
In 1981, Chile was still ruled by the brutal and repressive military regime of Augusto Pinochet, with a curfew and tight military control. It was a relief to be able to return to Chile in 1995, this time with my wife and three children, for some five months and find that democracy had been well and truly restored. There was a very marked contrast, as you might expect, between the atmosphere of the country in 1981, at a time when political activity was effectively banned and many, many people had been detained by the military regime and remained in detention, and the environment of 1995, with a fully functioning congressional democracy. We lived in Santiago for those five months, visiting again the lakes district. My children went to school for a term in Santiago, and it enabled us to well and truly participate in the life of the country and gave me a much deeper understanding of just how much Australians and Chileans have in common. They have in common not only a commitment to democracy but a love of fine food, a love of fine wine and a love of sport. They are almost as mad sports followers in Santiago, Chile, as the people are in the city I come from, Melbourne—even down to having a football team that wears the same colours as the Collingwood football team and has a name that is very similar: Colo Colo.
The two countries have much to look forward to in terms of building on those shared links. There are shared links in trade, there will be I hope shared links in a cultural sense and I hope there will be shared links in education. Australia has found, over the past four decades or so, the education of students from Asian countries leading to permanent links with people who have been educated in Australia and have returned to their countries; so too I hope with Chile. I hope that thousands of students from Chile will come to Australian universities. Some of them may stay, as occurs with students from Asian countries, but many more of them will return home to Chile and it will be possible to build on those links.
The Labor Party has a longstanding commitment to trade liberalisation. The government is continuing discussions with the Gulf states and with China, Korea, Malaysia, Japan and India in relation to trade liberalisation. Most importantly, the Minister for Trade has continued to push for a successful conclusion to the Doha development round. As the minister has said:
If we have the right political will, I am convinced we can conclude a Doha package which would have major benefits for the world economy and for Australia’s future trade and prosperity.
I congratulate the Minister for Trade on the conclusion of this excellent free trade agreement and commend the bill to the chamber.
1000
Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER
(Mr S Sidebottom)—I thank the member for his contribution, soured somewhat towards the end with a reference to the Collingwood Football Club! I now call on the member for Forrest.
10599
17:26:00
Marino, Nola, MP
HWP
Forrest
LP
0
0
Ms MARINO
—I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008. The explanatory memorandum notes that Australia’s trading relationship with Chile is $856 million in Australian dollars, ranked as Australia’s 41st largest merchandise trading partner and our 28th largest services trading partner in 2007. Basically underpinned by a solid investment relationship, Australian companies have significant investments estimated at about $US3 billion in 2007, the fourth largest source of foreign investment in Chile. With a major presence in the mining sector, Australia’s top goods exports to Chile in 2007 were coal, civil engineering equipment, specialised machinery and transport vehicles. Australia’s main imports from Chile were copper, pulp, wastepaper, non-ferrous base metal waste and pig iron.
Australian business sees significant potential in the Latin American market and considers Chile, with its relatively stable and transparent commercial environment, to be the practical stepping stone into other markets in Latin America. In addition to Australia’s exporters of coal and possibly LNG in the future, Australia’s mining services companies see increasing opportunities in Chile’s buoyant mining industry. There is also increasing interest in Chile’s agriculture, entertainment and education sectors as well as in professional services, particularly engineering.
The coalition began negotiations with Chile in a formal sense in 2006 with a view to developing a comprehensive agreement. This process has now concluded with a comprehensive free trade agreement. It was the intention of the coalition government that the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement remove most barriers to Australia’s exports of goods and provide economic integration for markets. The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2009. In order for the agreement to take effect, both the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 need to be amended. The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 contains the necessary amendments to the Customs Act 1901. These amendments provide the rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile and establish powers to allow Customs to obtain manufacturing records from Australian producers and exporters. The amendments in this bill will give effect to Australia’s obligations under chapter 4 of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 4 outlines the rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile or Australia. The rules are integral for determining whether imported products from Chile are eligible for preferential customs duty rates under the agreement.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement part of the agreement by providing duty-free access for certain products and preferential rates of customs duty for other goods that originate from Chile; phasing the preferential rates of customs duty for certain products to 0 by 2015; and creating a new schedule 7 to the tariff to accommodate those phasing rates of duty. The bill aims to complement the amendments contained in the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008.
After Brazil, Chile is Australia’s second largest merchandise export market in South America, with approximately 120 Australian companies actively trading with Chile. In commercial terms, Chile’s importance to Australia derives from our significant investment links. Over 50 Australian companies have registered offices with over $2 billion in direct investment in Chile, including activities by AGL, AMP, BHP, Hoyts and Orica. Major Australian exports to Chile in 2007 were coal, civil engineering equipment, specialised machinery and transport vehicles. The major imports from Chile in 2007 were copper, pulp and waste paper, non-ferrous base metal waste and pig iron.
The coalition supports the agreement, with some of the benefits to include the elimination of Chile’s tariffs on 91.9 per cent of lines covering 96.9 per cent of trade; a harmonised and simplified system of customs procedures; a commitment by Chile to maintain an open and non-discriminatory market for Australian service suppliers, including in education, professional services, mining and telecommunication services; non-discriminatory access to Chile’s government procurement market; the right of Australian investors to protect their investments through investor-state dispute settling procedures; and temporary access rights for business visitors to Chile.
This will be Australia’s fifth free trade pact and our first with a Latin American country. Australia has implemented four free trade agreements, initiated by the coalition: the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement, and the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. The coalition government recognised that two-way trade between Australia and Chile is growing quickly—up from $574 million in 2006 to $856 million in 2007. Australia is the fourth-largest foreign investor in Chile, with around $3 billion of direct investment. The coalition understood that a free trade agreement with Chile would offer Australian exporters opportunities across the board which will be particularly valuable in services and investment areas, including: mining and energy; technology and services; engineering and consulting services; franchising; education and training; information technology; and tourism and infrastructure. Other areas that will benefit include: energy, including coal, LNG and renewables; agriculture, including dairy, meat, ovine and bovine genetics production and technologies; and food and beverages, including wine. Our Australian agricultural sector contributes significantly to our economy as one of the largest exporters of beef, mutton and lamb and as one of the world’s largest producers of wool. The dairy industry is a major exporter and one of our biggest agriculture producers.
While I support the free trade agreement, I understand the potential effects of the agreement on the horticulture industry. There have been some concerns that should be noted regarding the horticulture industry. Horticulture Australia’s submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties pointed out that because Chile and Australia are both in the Southern Hemisphere, they share common seasons. This means that Chilean horticultural products can be imported to Australia at the same time as Australian horticultural products are on the market. The submission notes that Chile and Australia are global competitors in horticultural products and Chile is a major producer and global trader of table grapes, apples, avocados, kiwifruit, stone fruit, pears, berries and cherries. It also noted that Chile’s global horticultural exports in 2007 were valued at US$3.2 billion while Australia’s were valued at US$800 million.
Horticulture trade is defined in the submission as covering nursery, vegetables excepting legumes, fruit and nuts and further processed horticultural produce. Industries that could be affected are table grapes, apples, pears, summerfruit, cherries, strawberries, blueberries, avocados, prunes, dried grapes, citrus fruits and other fruits. Many of these are grown in my electorate, and I am very concerned about the effects on my producers, particularly on the new avocado venture by Advance Packing and Marketing Services, owned and run by growers in Manjimup and Pemberton. The new venture, which was badly impacted by the scrapping of the Regional Partnerships program, has in spite of this allowed nothing to stand in its way after years of planning and development. The growers have funded and built a $2 million packing shed totally dedicated to packing avocados for the 30 growers in the region.
The south-west now produces the majority of avocados in Western Australia, 20 years since the first commercial plantings commenced in the region. The crop this year will more than double to a million trays of avocados. Horticulture Australia’s submission stated that the avocado industry has a base of 1,100 growers, with a GVP of A$120 million, and considered that a significant share of the domestic market, potentially 25 per cent or more, could be lost to the Chileans. It was noted that Chilean avocados have a much lower cost of production than Australian avocados, and at certain times of year there are large spikes in production, which means growers have trouble moving into the US and Europe and could find a market in Australia.
Apples and pears are also grown in my electorate, mostly around the town of Donnybrook. Horticulture Australia’s submission noted that, because there is a base of 1,400 growers and a GVP of approximately $450 million, there would be a significant negative impact on price returns to Australian growers and it could result in the loss of up to 40 per cent of the domestic market. Chile, it said, is a substantial global producer, heavily geared to export markets, with the key advantages of cheap labour and water.
Horticulture Australia anticipates that the price of the Chilean products will be less than that of the Australian products because of the cheaper labour costs in Chile, and stated that labour comprises approximately 70 per cent of the total domestic cost of production in Australia. The submission also states that Australia’s imports of horticultural produce from Chile were valued at A$17 million in 2007, while Australia’s horticultural exports to Chile were minimal, at just A$300,000.
Australian Pork Ltd also expressed concerns about phytosanitary issues, stating in its submission that, in terms of food safety, the agreement should not negotiate on specific SPS measures or on trade-offs between market access and the application or lowering of SPS measures and standards. It also stated that DFAT should:
… recognise Australia’s unique health status as superior over those Chile has confirmed equivalence with its meat inspection systems with the US and Canada.
A submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties from the Queensland government noted:
… the Queensland Government would not like to see any changes to Australia’s scientifically-based Import Risk Assessment processes as a means to provide additional access for fruit from Chile.
Clearly the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties acknowledged the concerns of the horticulture industry and other submissions. Their report 95, tabled on 16 October 2008, recommended that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade undertake and publish a review of the operation of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement no later than two years after its commencement in order to assess the ongoing relevance of concerns expressed about the agreement, such as the maintenance of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, the impact on the horticulture industries, intellectual property, 457 visas, and labour and environmental standards. I will certainly be monitoring these issues during the two-year process. I have no doubt those in the horticulture industry will also be monitoring them, given their concerns with regard to biosecurity and phytosanitary issues and given the concerns expressed by horticulture leaders during the recent melamine problem in China. According to the Countryman of 9 October, media reports from China claimed that ‘excessive’ amounts of melamine had been found on Chinese lettuce, tomato, mushroom, watercress and potato. In the article, AUSVEG chairman David Anderson, consumer advocate Choice and Apple and Pear Australia manager Tony Russell called for more testing of Chinese produce. According to the article, Mr Anderson also said that ‘testing of imported produce should be increased at least to the level Australian growers are tested’.
Almost 53, 000 children had been taken to hospital after drinking milk thought to have been contaminated by the industrial chemical melamine. Melamine, normally used in making plastics, was first found in infant milk formula but has since been detected in a range of products with dairy ingredients, prompting a string of countries to ban or recall Chinese dairy imports. The Chinese scandal stems from the practice of adding melamine to watered-down milk to give a reading of higher protein levels. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand issued a media statement on 9 October, which stated:
At this stage we can find no evidence that fruit and vegetable imports are unsafe but it’s certainly something we’re looking at.
I, along with the rest of the coalition, believe it is important that the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties are taken very, very seriously and given due and major consideration when the free trade agreement is reviewed, given how critical agriculture and horticulture are to Australia. Our top agricultural exports in 2007 were beef, wine, wool, meat excluding beef, wheat, milk and cream. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry report Australian Food Statistics 2007 said Australian farmers produce almost 93 per cent of Australia’s domestic food supply—and, I would say, by majority, some of the highest quality food in the world. But we all seem to take the farmers and our access to this quality food for granted. We assume farmers will always be there and we assume they will keep producing high-quality food even when they are not making commercial returns for their efforts.
ABARE in 2007 stated that Australia also exports 61 per cent of total agricultural production. In terms of value, this represents around 80 per cent of the total gross value of Australian agricultural production. ABARE also said: ‘Despite the worst drought on record, Australia’s farm exports earned the country $27.6 billion in 2006-07. This represents 20 per cent of total commodity exports and 16.3 per cent of all Australian merchandise exports.’
Farmers are now facing a review of drought assistance measures by the Productivity Commission, having to seek independent advice to determine whether their business is viable in the long term before being considered for drought aid. The NFF states that Australia remains among the least subsidised farming nations on earth. According to the NFF, by comparison overseas farmers enjoy unbelievable levels of government assistance as a matter of course. For example, among our major trading partners, in Korea it is 63 per cent; Japan, 53 per cent; the European Union, 32 per cent, Canada, 23 per cent; and the United States, 11 per cent.
According to modelling by Econtech in their report titled Australia’s Farm-Dependent Economy Report 2005, Australian farms and their closely related sectors generate $103 billion a year in production. The Productivity Commission, in its research paper Trends in Australian Agriculture 2005, shows that over the last 30 recorded years Australian farms have consistently achieved average multifactor productivity growth of 2.8 per cent a year. According to the NFF website, no other industry, with the sole exception of telecommunications and information technology, comes close to this achievement. Australian farms drive $28 billion dollars a year in exports and support 1.6 million jobs across our cities and regions.
What is not well understood is that Australian farmers, according to the NFF, invest $237 million dollars a year in research and development. This is farmers actively pursuing innovative technological and environmental advances to be efficient, competitive and sustainable. Make no mistake, Australian farmers are some of the best in the world. They have had to be to survive, particularly when they compete in such highly subsidised international markets. But they often do not receive the respect they deserve. Recently an article in the Busselton Dunsborough Times quoted young dairy farmer Brynley Jenkins talking about the good and bad points of being a farmer. In part, he said: ‘In reality it’s one of the hardest businesses to run. The perception is the other way around.’
The NFF also acknowledges that farmers occupy and manage 61 per cent of Australia’s landmass, contributing over $3 billion of their own money to the environmental management of Australia’s natural resources and ecosystems. It says farmers are meeting growing community and consumer expectations about quality, choice and affordability while meeting Australia’s mounting food security needs.
But farmers are concerned that the fluctuation of the Australian dollar is impacting on their bottom lines in international markets—for instance, in Japan. In a recent issue of WA Business News, Margaret River Premium Meat Exports director John McLeod said:
It’s been quite difficult actually, in that trying to fix contracts with Japan for instance, we would normally be doing contracts for six-month periods …
We were in the process of negotiating the next six-month period when all this happened and the dollar started falling out of bed.
Therefore, the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties must be followed through and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should publish a review of the operations of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. What will the process be if the concerns are upheld? How will this be covered in the legislation? What additional government resources have been allocated in the budget and forward estimates to cover the additional phytosanitary measures required to monitor the imported produce and what additional resources and scrutiny will be applied?
I support the free-trade agreement. It will promote stronger trade and commercial ties between participating countries and open up opportunities for Australian exporters and investors to expand their business into key markets. As mentioned previously, our position on these bills is that we support the free trade agreement. Whilst I strongly believe this, we need to adhere to the recommendations of the standing committee.
10604
17:46:00
Thomson, Kelvin, MP
UK6
Wills
ALP
1
0
Mr KELVIN THOMSON
—Having chaired the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquiry into the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and cognate bill in a little more detail. In the course of the evidence we received it struck me that there are a number of features of the present trade negotiations arrangements which need to be discussed in some detail. I want to go through some of those. Firstly, I will go to the question of transparency. The parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has recommended that the government, before commencing negotiations for any future trade agreement, should table in parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives. The document should include independent assessments of the costs and benefits. Such assessments should consider the expected economic, regional, social, cultural, regulatory and environmental impacts.
I believe that such an arrangement would improve transparency in trade agreement negotiations and address the legitimate concern that people have that the community gets presented with faits accompli when it comes to trade agreements. Trade negotiations at present are a bit like a train going into a dark tunnel. We do not know what is going on in there, and when something magically emerges out the other side it is a bit late to change any aspects that we might disagree with.
I mentioned the question of labour rights and environmental standards. The Labor Party national platform says that there should be an obligation in all trade agreements to respect core labour standards. It further states that all major trade agreements into which Australia enters—bilateral or multilateral—should be assessed to ensure that they are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection for all regions of Australia. We need to ensure that trade agreements respect this; otherwise environmental protections can be challenged and overturned by the World Trade Organisation. As an example, in 1996 the World Trade Organisation ruled against a provision in the United States Clean Air Act on the grounds that the application of domestic emission standards to imported fuel discriminated against countries whose fuel did not meet those standards.
Of particular importance and salience are efforts to tackle the challenge of global warming. Measures such as emissions trading, carbon taxes and emissions labelling are all capable of being challenged in the WTO. The Bush administration, when pressuring the European Union to drop provisions in its cap and trade scheme that would require importers of carbon intensive goods to buy credits, referred to the possibility of WTO violations. I believe that Australia must not undermine its ability to tackle climate change by way of trade agreements. We should lobby the WTO to recognise the primacy of United Nations agreements on climate change and other environment protection treaties and to acknowledge that governments have the right to regulate to mitigate climate change.
Another specific area needing attention in trade agreements is the question of migrant workers. There is clear evidence that the Howard government’s section 457 visa arrangements have led to the exploitation of vulnerable temporary workers. The parliament’s treaties committee was told of workers not getting paid at all, of them owing migration or labour hire agents large fees and of inadequate occupational health and safety standards. Trade agreements should not fetter the power of government to put in place proper labour standards. As the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network has pointed out, workers are not commodities and the rules that govern trade in goods and services should protect their rights. The position of the previous government that workers rights should be excluded from trade agreements is wrong and should be overturned.
Furthermore, arrangements to allow in temporary workers should not be part of trade agreements. I understand that China wants an expansion of the 457 visa entry to broader categories of unskilled workers as part of a trade agreement with Australia. It is a recipe for exploitation. It has been suggested that we should not be in the business of regulating the 457 visa scheme as this is an important thing for us to trade off in trade negotiations, given that we have so little left in the way of tariffs to give away. I do not agree with such an approach.
I further believe that we will need to look more critically in future at the general tendency of trade agreements to hamstring and limit the power of governments. We have seen recent crises such as the global financial crisis, the climate crisis and the food crisis. They have all forced governments to act and, in many cases, to take drastic action hitherto considered unthinkable. Governments need to have the flexibility and capacity to take strong and decisive action. Trade agreements should not stand in the way of governments being strong and decisive when the times and circumstances demand it.
The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement will remove most barriers to Australia’s exports of goods to Chile and provide economic integration for markets through commitments in a range of areas, including trade in services, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, electronic commerce and competition policy. As previous speakers have noted, Horticulture Australia has expressed concern about the potential impact of the free trade agreement on their industries, including the risk of added pressure from Chile for Australia to weaken our biosecurity measures or to expedite Chilean requests for biosecurity assessments. The trade union movement has expressed concern that short-term labour movements from Chile under Australia’s 457 visas conditions, which have attracted controversy and are currently under review, could be locked in by the free trade agreement.
To address these concerns, the treaties committee has recommended that the department undertake and publish a review of the operation of the agreement no later than two years after its commencement to assess the ongoing relevance of the concerns expressed. Furthermore, we have recommended that the government before commencing negotiations for any future trade agreement should table in parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives. As I indicated earlier, this sort of assessment should consider economic, regional, social, cultural, regulatory and environmental impacts which are expected to arise. I think that would represent a significant improvement in terms of transparency.
The committee heard evidence that, while the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement contains chapters that refer to ILO and United Nations standards on labour rights and the environment, the agreement with Chile does not and that environmental and labour standards in the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement were inserted at the insistence of the United States. During the hearing, I asked the department’s trade development assistant secretary whether we had an objection to ILO conventions such as the abolition of child labour being included in free trade agreements. She said:
It is not our preferred position that they be included.
I think members of the House can expect that the question of relevant ILO conventions in future free trade agreements will be the subject of detailed scrutiny.
The governments of Australia and Chile signed this agreement back on 30 July this year. It is scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2009. It is the first free trade agreement with a Latin American country. It is expected to deliver new trade and investment opportunities to Australia, and it should provide us with growing links with the Latin American market. Tariffs on all existing merchandise trade will be eliminated by 2015. The vast majority of goods exported in both directions will be duty free once the free trade agreement comes into force. It will secure a liberal services regime, it will lock in a liberal investment regime and it will guarantee both sides high standards of intellectual property protection for patents, trade marks, geographical indicators and copyright. The free trade agreement secures national treatment for Australian goods, services and suppliers in the Chilean market for procurements above agreed value thresholds.
I think it has been noted in debate already that trade between Australia and Chile is growing rapidly. Two-way trade was $856 million in 2007, up from $574 million in 2006. Australian exports to Chile include coal, civil engineering equipment, specialised machinery and vehicles. Our merchandise exports to Chile in 2007 were valued at $200 million and our services exports in 2007 reached $120 million.
The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill will provide the rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile and will introduce powers to allow Customs to obtain manufacturing records from Australian exporters and producers. The amendments will give effect to Australia’s obligations under chapter 4 of the free trade agreement. This provides the rules for determining whether goods originate in Australia or Chile. The rules are essential for the purposes of determining whether imported goods from Chile are eligible for preferential Customs duty rates under the agreement.
This bill is being complemented by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008, which amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 by creating free and preferential phasing rates of duty on goods that are Chilean in origin. Goods will be considered to originate in Chile for the purposes of providing a preferential duty rate if they are wholly obtained or wholly produced in Chile or if they meet the product specific rules of annex 4-C of the agreement. Those product-specific rules use the ‘change in tariff classification’ concept as used in previous Australian free trade agreements. Under the change in tariff classification rules, origin will be conferred on a product where the tariff classification of each non-originating material used in the manufacture of the product is different from the tariff classification of the goods. Those rules are a means of demonstrating that there has been substantial transformation of the non-originating material inputs. Customs will also have the powers to obtain manufacturing records of Australian exporters and producers to verify that the goods that they export to Chile were produced in Australia.
The free trade agreement contains commitments on both sides going beyond the commitments both countries have made in the WTO. It is an important step forward in Australia’s relations with Chile and, more broadly, with the Latin American region. It eliminates, on entry into force, Chile’s tariffs on lines covering something like 97 per cent of trade, including for coal and priority dairy tariffs, all meat and wine tariffs and all other industrial tariffs of interest to Australian industry. It will provide a harmonised and simplified system of customs procedures which aims to facilitate trade and a system of advanced rulings which will enable exporters to ascertain whether their exports will qualify for preferential tariff treatment before shipment. Areas I have talked about which will potentially benefit include energy, such as coal and LNG. I have made the point a number of times in the House that Australia’s vast natural gas resources have a potentially vital role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the region. All of these areas will potentially increase as a result of the agreement.
I ought to note that there were concerns raised with the treaties committee by the trade union movement and the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network. It was noted that there is concern in the community about inconsistency in policy which allowed issues like labour standards to be included in the US free trade agreement but not in other bilateral agreements. In particular, there was strong support, in submissions to the treaties committee, for some of the International Labour Organisation’s declarations on fundamental principles and rights at work. These standards include the right of workers and employers to freedom of association and the effective right to collective bargaining, ILO conventions 87 and 98; the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour, ILO conventions 29 and 105; the effective abolition of child labour, ILO conventions 138 and 182; and the elimination of discrimination against women in respect of employment and occupation, ILO conventions 100 and 111.
Concerns were also raised about the inclusion of 457 visas in the agreement, particularly given some of the concerns that have more generally been expressed about the application and operation of 457 visas. In outlining these concerns, it is my intention, as I have mentioned before in the parliament when presenting the treaties committee reports, to encourage the government to table in parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives before commencing negotiations for any future trade agreements. These priorities should be looking at the inclusion of relevant ILO conventions in future trade agreements.
This particular free trade agreement represents a significant achievement for the government. I believe that it will facilitate trade and investment between Australia and Chile and that it creates a framework of cooperation that builds on existing relationships and facilitates further opportunities for trade and investment that will promote economic growth and development. I commend the bills to the House.
10607
18:01:00
Randall, Don, MP
PK6
Canning
LP
0
0
Mr RANDALL
—I am pleased to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008. One of the reasons I am very pleased to speak on these cognate bills is that I have had the opportunity to spend some time in Chile. Like others who have had the opportunity to represent the government in parts of the world, I have been very fortunate to have been in a number of the countries in South America over the last few years. Chile is probably one of the most impressive countries that I have visited in that region. In fact, the delegation that I was lucky enough to be involved in was led by the former Speaker, the member for Wannon, and, dare I say, the former member for Isaacs before she retired. In addition to those there was the member for Lyons, who was also one of the then opposition members of the delegation.
At the outset I say that I was very lucky to have met our ambassador to Chile, Mr Crispin Conroy. I put on record that Mr Crispin Conroy is an outstanding representative of Australia in the Latin American region. His ability to weave his way through the Latin American countries and to be accepted with such a welcoming embrace everywhere we went was testament not only to his ability but to the staff who represented him in Santiago. Besides the fact that he is fluent in Spanish and that his wife is a Colombian, he obviously has a great affection for the region, and I understand that he has now been deployed to a further role in that region. I just wanted to make sure that people understood what a great representative in opening up opportunities for us in South America we have in Mr Crispin Conroy.
I am sure that other speakers have gone into much of the detail of the bills, and I want to speak to some tangential issues associated with the bills. Realistically, of course, the coalition supports this Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement, because it was on the drawing board and its implementation commenced while we were the government. I am sure ex-Minister Truss, the member for Wide Bay, would have said that in his contribution, and it is pleasing to see that the Labor Party, now in government, have finalised this free trade agreement with Chile.
The fact is that Chile in itself is an outstanding country in the region because it is a good strong democracy. Since the demise of the military rule of Augusto Pinochet it has been a beacon of democracy in the South American region and it has been a modernised economy which is an example to the rest of the economies in South America, probably second only to Brazil in terms of its ability to have modernised. Brazil is obviously a huge economy not only in size as a country but also in size and volume and GDP et cetera. But Chile has got its parliamentary infrastructure in place. I was also lucky enough to visit the parliament in Valparaiso and to meet in the chamber with many of its deputies, and we were made very welcome as Australians. From that point of view, we do have a very good relationship with Chile.
For example—and I know that it is not recorded everywhere in the documents that we were given—there is a huge and increasing education trade between Australia and Chile. I am sure that it will benefit from this free trade agreement because it takes away so many impediments. We met representatives who were organising the cross-pollination of our students, and largely their students, to Australian universities. This is a very big income earner for Australia. Australia is a very popular destination for Chileans to further their tertiary education in particular.
This is a milestone because it is the first Latin American country, as I am sure many others have outlined, to have a free trade agreement with Australia. When this was initially proffered the argument was—and we could go into it further—that it really was not a good opportunity in some respects because we are in the southern hemisphere and many of the goods and tradeable items with Chile are ones that mature in the southern hemisphere at the same time as ours. Whether grain crops or other agricultural produce, obviously it is beneficial to us if we can trade with somebody in the northern hemisphere in the opposite cycle of the seasons.
The other huge impediment is the distance. Anyone who has ever flown to Santiago from Australia will know what a long and arduous trip it is. Lan Chile is probably one of the better airlines around the world, and certainly in South America, but it is a long trip. You have to break your trip in Auckland and then spend a long time over the water across the Pacific. If it takes that long by air, imagine how long it takes by ship. It puts a huge impost on the cost of transporting goods because we are such a distant trading partner.
But, as I said, we do have a great relationship and it is growing all the time. The trade at the moment is relatively modest, something like $856 million in 2007, coming off a base of $574 million in 2006. We are the fourth largest investor in Chile, with over $3 billion invested from Australian companies. I believe that we are something like 29th in terms of our trading volumes with Chile and 27th in terms of their trade with us. Once this agreement is implemented, as I understand, in January 2009, it will take away the tariff barriers and this will make it far more acceptable and attractive to trade with Chile.
While I am on South America, I was also lucky enough recently to go to Colombia. We know that Colombia wished to have a free trade agreement with the United States. That might be somewhat circumvented by the election of the Obama government, not for any other reason than that the Obama government, according to some commentators, is predicted to be more an insular government than an expansionist government. There are a lot of outstanding issues. For those who want to continually say, ‘What a terrible country Colombia is because it is racked by drug lords and cocaine and all these sorts of things,’ I put on the record that we had something like a three-quarters of an hour meeting with their President, Dr Uribe Velez, who is an outstanding gentleman. That was the delegation led by Senator Steve Hutchins. President Uribe Velez is one of the outstanding leaders of the world at the moment in terms of what he has done for Colombia.
I know I am digressing from the debate but I am talking about the fact that Colombia would like to have a free trade agreement with us as well. They would be very keen to get that off the ground. In some respects, they would probably be highly attractive to us because of their location in South America. It is tropical and they have a whole range of different, attractive trading items that Australia would probably be interested in. The FARC has largely been driven back deep into the jungle in Colombia, and that is testament to President Uribe’s strong policy on narcoterrorism. Apparently he has a popularity rating with his people of 80 per cent; some of our political figures would certainly like to get even close to that. They are actually having to change the constitution to let him run for a third term to continue what he is doing in modernising Colombia.
People in Australia have little concept of what South America has to offer. Being born of the Commonwealth of nations and English speaking, we seldom venture into Latin American parts of the world, where there are opportunities to find new and other trading partners. I will try to stick to the reasons why we should have a free trade agreement with Chile!
One of the large trade items that Australia will likely be trading with Chile is coal. Chile is very deficient in energy resources. It is such a beautiful country, starting way in the north at the bottom of Bolivia and going right down to Tierra del Fuego in the south, as far as you can go in terms of landmass. It has a huge range and we know that it is, at its widest, hundreds of kilometres wide, backing up onto the Andes mountain range. It is very diverse in what it offers, but what it does not have is energy resources. From that point of view, Australia is playing a very interesting role in Chile, because the Australian based company Pacific Hydro has a number of sites in what they call run-of-river hydroschemes: you do not dam the river but divert some of the river through the hydroelectric station. It is very environmentally friendly because the river barely gets disturbed. You have these very fast-flowing rivers out of the Andes, and they generate an enormous amount of electricity. As a result, they provide great, clean, green energy to not only the inhabitants of Chile but the industries. For example, at the Coya power plant on the Cachapoal River, where they have a run-of-river project, they produce a huge amount of electricity for the copper mines in that region, which we know are very energy intensive—so a great big tick to the Pacific Hydro company. Pacific Hydro, as we know, has a whole range of wind farms in Australia. We are very proud of Pacific Hydro and the contribution it is making in Chile.
Chile had a problem in that it was getting most of its gas from Argentina. Argentina’s economy—and I had better not say too much, because I am supposed to be going to the Argentinean embassy tonight—has been in a bit of disarray and, as a result, it cut off the gas, and this nearly caused a war. Chile did not want the gas to be suddenly cut off, due to its energy requirements. There was a pipeline across the Andes to Chile providing large amounts of natural gas, which was highly desirable. But, without much notice, it got cut off. For those who do not know, Chile is a very strong country militarily. It is well armed and it has seldom lost any wars that it has gone into. They tell me that Bolivia would like to pick a fight with Chile but, as it has never won one, it cannot bring itself to do it. Bolivia is the same as Argentina: it has a large amount of gas and it is not allowing it to go into Chile.
Australia has some very good interests in Chile. BHP, for example, is the largest owner of the Escondida copper mine, which we visited, in the Atacama Desert. For those who know their high school geography, the Atacama Desert has barely had a drop of rain ever. When you drive across it, it is just like driving across a moonscape. There is not one blade of grass. We drove across the Atacama Desert and finally got to the mine, which is located at a high altitude, which the member for Lyons found a little challenging. At this high altitude they mine the world’s largest reserves of copper at the Escondida mine. Escondida means something to the effect of ‘hidden’. The story is that a geologist begged and pleaded with his company for one more drill hole—a regular theme in all of the mining stories of the world—and they finally hit pay dirt when they hit a good copper reserve. There are copper mines all around Escondida now. Escondida itself is expanding and even now, with a huge hole in the ground, the mine has something like a 40-year life, so BHP is certainly in there.
When you hop on a plane, the number of Australian engineers and mining engineers who are off to Chile is amazing. We flew from Santiago to a place called Antofagasta, which is a staging point to the Escondida mine. You would think you were home in Australia because of the amount of Australian expertise that is going into the mining industry in Chile. So Australia has certainly a great interest there, and we very much appreciate the opportunity to share our expertise with the Chileans. As we know, major international companies swap executives and they end up in places like Alcoa in Western Australia, which has the same sort of makeup as these nationally owned mining companies.
What Chile can offer us is obviously copper, as well as non-ferrous based metals, pig iron, pulp waste and, as I said, a range of agricultural products. Interestingly—and I know most people have covered the detail of this bill, but I think it is interesting to put some of these things on the record—Chile has a huge and unique wine industry.
848
Secker, Patrick, MP
Mr Secker
—Not bad wine either!
PK6
Randall, Don, MP
Mr RANDALL
—Yes. If the member for Barker, who is from the largest wine growing region in Australia, flew north from Santiago, he would spend a long time flying over vineyards. President Clinton, when he visited Chile, spent a fair bit of time looking through the wine areas because they were so impressive. Their wines, particularly their white wines, are world class. On that note, there is an interesting wine the Chileans have—and I would like Australian wineries to think about this, and the member for Barker might be able to mention it to them—called caminera. The caminera wine variety was thought to be lost to mankind because it had been wiped out in Europe through some fungal disease. However, the early Spanish invaders had brought it to South America. It was considered a weed as a wine and it was only ever used as a base mix—a bit like merlot, which I hate. They put that in some good shirazes and cabernets and mess them up. They put caminera into some of their other wines, and caminera is now viewed as one of the best wines in the world—good red wine. You are lucky if you can get hold of it, and of course Crispin made sure we had some good examples of caminera. I have tried to suggest to people like Lamont’s in Western Australia that they might want to do a trial planting of this unique wine that was rediscovered in Chile after 500 years.
The opportunity for tourism is huge in Chile as well. As I said, you start in the north. You might think the Atacama Desert, being so dry, is a place that you just would not want to be, but as you drive across it to the foot of the Andes there is a place called San Pedro de Atacama. When you first get there, you think, ‘My God, what have I arrived at?’—it is all mud adobe huts and it is a real frontier town that you would have seen in a spaghetti western—but it is a sensational place because it is where the Incas settled in their southern drive through South America.
You still see there a lot of historical and cultural artefacts left behind by the Incas and the original inhabitants. There is a fort just outside of San Pedro de Atacama where they held out against the invaders for years and years before they eventually succumbed. You can go into the mountains, and dormant and semidormant volcanos surround the region. So as a tourist destination Chile is quite outstanding.
I have not talked a lot on the detail of the bills—there probably has not been any need to—but I have talked up the fact that Chile is a great destination and a great country for Australia to do business with. It is a democratic country and it has a lot to offer, and we have a lot to offer them. By taking away the impediments that exist in terms of tariffs, there will be a huge increase in trade. Cross-government and cross-industry relationships will also develop from this free trade agreement. I look forward to seeing more of the Chilean people come to Australia and promote their destination, as I am sure they will promote Australia. I endorse this legislation.
10611
18:21:00
Marles, Richard, MP
HWQ
Corio
ALP
1
0
Mr MARLES
—I rise to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and the related bill, which amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 for the purpose of implementing the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. This free trade agreement represents the most significant partnership between Australia and Chile since the member for Isaac’s marriage. It was, until now, clearly the most significant partnership between Australia and Chile, as I think he indicated in his own speech!
The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement was signed on 30 July 2008 by our foreign minister, the member for Perth, and the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Alejandro Foxley, during Mr Foxley’s visit to Australia. This followed a process of negotiation, undertaken by the Minister for Trade, the member for Hotham, on Australia’s part, which commenced in February of last year under the former government and concluded in May of this year. This bill will allow both nations increased access to goods and services by breaking down the trade-inhibiting conditions which currently exist between the two countries. In doing so, it will further strengthen the ties between our two nations, enhance the growth and prosperity of both Chile and Australia and enhance security in our region.
The Rudd government sees this legislation as providing increased opportunity for Australian business particularly on the South American continent, which is one of the fastest growing regions in the world. This policy is indicative of the Rudd government’s trade policy of open engagement. It is a policy which is consistent with the government’s commitment to the Doha Round of trade talks and the APEC Bogor goals to foster ‘further global trade and investment liberalisation’.
In recent times, Australia has engaged in an increasing number of free trade negotiations. We have signed agreements with Singapore, Thailand and the United States of America. We have the longstanding Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement with New Zealand, and negotiations are underway to transform that into a fully-fledged free trade agreement. There are free trade agreement negotiations currently underway with Japan, China, Malaysia, the ASEAN group of countries and the Gulf Cooperation Council, and there are also free trade agreement feasibility studies examining the possibility of agreements with India, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. So there is a great deal of activity on the free trade negotiation front, on both a multilateral and a bilateral basis, between us and other countries and also between us and regional groups of countries.
The government has also undertaken the Mortimer review, which was commissioned by the Minister for Trade in February of this year. It is a review into Australia’s export policies and programs. Among its 70 recommendations are:
-
Market access: opening up export and investment opportunities by removing impediments and distortions imposed in other markets.
… … …
Accord a high priority to the Council of Australian Governments’ efforts to construct a seamless national economy for goods and services that delivers a truly consistent regulatory environment.
… … …
Adopt a future approach to the negotiation of double taxation agreements that supports the internationalisation of Australian business.
In addition to that, the trade minister will also give the government’s response to the Mortimer review shortly. Indeed, he is speaking to the Press Club on 26 November.
These recommendations, or at least some of them, are already embodied in legislation which has recently passed through this parliament or which is in fact being debated in this parliament, not only in the context of this bill but in other bills, as we speak. For example, the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008, which is to come up in the House of Representatives later today, is a bill introduced at the request of COAG and which decreases unnecessary regulatory burdens in the form of inconsistencies around our weights and measures system. We have the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 going through the parliament, which removes the system of double taxation that currently exists between Australia and South Africa. And, of course, we have the present bill.
Taken in their totality, these facts indicate that this government is absolutely committed to removing the restrictions on Australia’s export growth. This is a government which is all about trying to assist Australian businesses to grow their exports while at the same time growing our national economy. That is being done with considerable success. In September of this year, for example, Australia recorded its second largest trade surplus on record, $1.5 billion, and that was up 18 per cent on the revised August forecast.
That stands in stark contrast to the efforts and achievements of the former Howard government, which had a legacy of ineptitude and laziness when it came to Australia’s trade performance. We saw under the Howard government 72 consecutive trade deficits, which culminated in the worst three-month trade figures in Australia’s recorded history, being the last three months of the Howard government. In only two of the 12 years of the Howard government did we see net exports grow. By contrast, we saw net exports grow in 10 of the 13 years of the Hawke-Keating government.
The Rudd government is working to support Australian trade. It is building upon a very strong Labor history when it comes to promoting Australia’s trade with other countries. We intend to reverse the neglect of the Howard years. We absolutely understand the critical importance of international trade to a country which has a relatively small domestic market like ours. We also understand how important international trade is to our national interest and indeed how important this free trade agreement will be to the national interest of the people of Chile. But, even though we and indeed the people of Chile can see that, unfortunately those opposite failed to see that in the 12 years of the Howard government, and they fail to see it now they are in opposition.
Like Australia, Chile is pursuing free trade agreements. It currently has 54 preferential trade agreements, including benchmarks for any future negotiations. But our ties with Chile do not simply end with free trade. Nor do they simply end with the marriage of the member for Isaacs. There have been multiple official visits between Australia and Chile, particularly around the 2002 APEC meeting which was held in Chile and the 2007 APEC meeting which was held in Sydney. In 2005, the Chilean President, Ricardo Lagos Escobar, made an official visit to Australia. This was the first by a sitting president of Chile in over a decade and only the third in our history. Both countries are also members of the Cairns Group.
There are approximately 40,000 Chileans currently residing in Australia, contributing in a great way to Australia’s multicultural society through organisations and events such as the Chilean film festival in Melbourne, the Chilean Australian Club here in Canberra, the New Chile Social Club in Western Australia and many other folk dance and sporting clubs scattered across our nation. In the business context we also see this occurring through the professional network of Chileans in Australia.
The business and economic ties between Australia and Chile are strong and we hope to build upon them through this free trade agreement. In 2007-08 Australia imported $563 million worth of goods from Chile, and that meant that Chile ranked 37th in terms of bilateral merchandise trade with Australia. It accounted for 0.3 per cent of Australia’s total imports. The principal items that we imported from Chile included copper, pulp and wastepaper, pig iron and wood. At the same time, Australia exported to Chile $210 million worth of goods, which meant that Chile ranked 44th in terms of our export markets and accounted for about 0.1 per cent of our total exports. Our principal exports to Chile include coal, civil engineering equipment, measuring and analysing instruments and rubber tyres, treads and tubes.
In addition to goods, in 2007 Australia exported $120 million worth of services to Chile and at the same time imported $195 million worth of services from Chile. In recent times the Chilean economy has grown exponentially—in 2003 the Chilean GDP was $74 billion and the forecast for the Chilean GDP in 2008 is $181.5 billion. For Australian businesses in the context of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement it means that, as the Chilean economy continues to grow, they will have increased opportunities and links in a very significantly growing market. This is one of the reasons why the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill is so important.
This bill and the complementary Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to give effect to Australia’s obligations under chapter 4 of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. This chapter provides for the rules in relation to identifying goods of Chilean origin and whether those goods are then eligible for preferential custom duty rates in accordance with the free trade agreement. To meet this eligibility requirement, the goods must be wholly obtained or produced in Chile. That obviously makes sense, but it does not stop there in terms of those goods which will meet the eligibility requirements. If they meet the specific requirements of annex 4-C of the agreement, then they also qualify. Consistent with other Australian free trade agreements, that provides for goods which satisfy the grounds of demonstrating Chilean origin—which essentially is the case where there is a significant alteration of non-Chilean materials, with that alteration occurring in Chile. The legislation also allows Customs to obtain manufacturing records from Australian producers and exporters. In a sense, that provides for the reciprocity of the agreement to verify that goods exported to Chile were, indeed, produced in Australia.
It is important that these bills are passed in this current sitting because that will enable the free trade agreement to take effect on 1 January 2009, which is the current scheduled date. The Australian government values its relationship with Chile and values very much the significant two-way trade which currently exists between Chile and Australia. The agreement and these bills are aimed at trying to boost that trade. The government sees that the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement is an opportunity for Australian businesses to expand into one of the growing markets in the world and also to advance overall the principles of trade liberalisation, which are key to allowing greater markets for Australian goods.
In doing that, the government are absolutely committed to rectifying the appalling legacy of the Howard government in relation to trade. We are dedicated to improving Australia’s international trade position, which is already occurring within the first year of the Rudd government. We are dedicated to providing a greater opportunity for Australian businesses to find markets around the world in what is now, of course, a global economy. We are committed to engaging in dialogue with other nations to advance this cause of trade liberalisation not only on a bilateral basis—which, of course, is the subject of this legislation—but also on a multilateral basis. With those comments, I would certainly say that these bills support all those objectives and I commend the bills to the House.
10614
18:35:00
Johnson, Michael, MP
00AMX
Ryan
LP
0
0
Mr JOHNSON
—I am pleased to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and cognate bill on behalf of the people of the electorate of Ryan, whom I represent in the Australian parliament. This legislation is all about exports and jobs and creating economic prosperity for the people of Ryan as well as, of course, our fellow Australians who, through the length and breadth of this country, are involved in trade, commerce and business. On 27 May 2008 the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement negotiations were concluded. On 30 July 2008 the agreement was signed. Both sides are aiming for entry into force of the agreement on 1 January 2009. Australia has commenced the domestic processes to ratify the treaty.
In December 2006 the former Howard government agreed in principle to commence a bilateral negotiation process with Chile with a view to developing a comprehensive free trade agreement to strengthen and deepen the trade relationship. In the first half of 2007 officials conducted a series of consultations with Australian industry, state and territory governments and other interested stakeholders to assess barriers to trade with Chile that could be addressed by a free trade agreement. Australian officials also met with Chilean officials to determine the scope for achieving a comprehensive, fully liberalising trade agreement. In July 2007 Australia agreed to enter into FTA negotiations with Chile. Four negotiating rounds were held between August 2007 and April 2008 along with two intersessional meetings in March this year to advance negotiations in particular areas. Negotiations were concluded at the end of May 2008.
This will be Australia’s fifth free trade pact and our first with a Latin American country. The agreement will deliver new trade and investment opportunities to Australia and it will be an important milestone in our growing engagement with the wider Latin American market. The FTA covers trade in goods, services and investment and is truly liberalising, with commitments that go beyond both countries’ WTO commitments. This is consistent with Australia’s policy that free trade agreements should support and complement our efforts to promote further multilateral and regional trade liberalisation. It is a WTO-plus initiative. The Howard government when in office was not exclusively of an ideological mindset that it would only pursue free trade agreements. It was very much a team that batted for multilateral trade liberalisation but took the view in government that it could not stake everything exclusively on the Doha Round’s completion. Anyone with an interest in international trade will know that the Doha Development Round has spectacularly failed and prospects for its success in the near future are grim indeed. The Howard government shone the spotlight on regional trade agreements, some of which have been very effective, and I will come to those in a moment.
This legislation is consistent with Australia’s general trade policy. It introduces a high-quality FTA into the APEC region—a model for other bilateral and regional trade and economic integration efforts among APEC members. Australia is a very important member of APEC and Prime Minister Rudd will go to Latin America to participate in the next APEC meeting, which will be hosted by Peru. The FTA delivers the most comprehensive outcome on goods in any such agreement negotiated with another agricultural producing country since the CER agreement with New Zealand, our very close friend and neighbour, who now has an even stronger advocate in new Prime Minister Key for more liberalised trade with the wider world.
Tariffs on all existing merchandise trade—in both directions—will be eliminated by 2015. The vast majority of Australian goods exported into Chile—and Chilean goods exported to Australia—will enter duty free from entry into force of the FTA which, as I touched on earlier, is expected to be 1 January 2009. Chile is Australia’s third largest trading partner in Latin America. It has a population of 16.6 million and a GDP of US$164 billion. I note the latter figure in order to compare it with Australia which, as the 13th largest economy in the world, has a GDP of some $1.1 trillion plus. Chile is seen to be Latin America’s most stable and transparent market, a commercial and dynamic place to do business. It is a country that buys our coal. We have a lot of engagement in the engineering area with civil engineering equipment, specialised machinery and vehicles.
Australian merchandise exports to Chile totalled some $200 million in 2007. Chile is a country that buys our services exports, valued at some $120 million in 2007. It is an area that we very much hope will expand. It is a country with over 70 Australian, or Australian affiliated, companies, mainly in the area of mining services, gas distribution and power generation. It is a country that has significant natural resources as well. Two-way trade between Australia and Chile is growing fast—up from some $574 million in 2006 to some $856 million in 2007. Our nation is the fourth largest foreign investor in Chile with around US$3 billion of direct investment. All this is very positive and it provides a base, I think, from which we can expand. It is an investment which we hope will encourage all those who engage in free enterprise, all those who want to see Australia on the global stage in international business, to seize these opportunities with one of Latin America’s most dynamic countries.
The free trade agreement will offer Australian exporters opportunities across the board. This will be particularly valuable in the areas of services and investment in mining and energy technology, engineering and consulting services, franchising services, education and training, information technology, tourism and infrastructure. It is, of course, generally known that the Asia-Pacific region is a part of the world that is very much plugged into our education system. We should acknowledge and value that, but we should also have one eye to diversity. We should also try to diversify the markets and the regions of the world by bringing in students from those parts of the world to be exposed to our values and the quality and excellence of the Australian education system—students from not only the likes of Asia, the subcontinent and the Middle East but also places in Latin America. Chile is, I think, a good place in which to start an aggressive campaign. I am sure that many of the fantastic entrepreneurs of our country will take advantage of this FTA agreement.
Other areas that will benefit include the areas of coal, LNG, renewable energy—hopefully—and agriculture. Our country has a superb reputation in agriculture and we must do what we can to ensure that the perception—and reality—of Australia as a clean, healthy place where agriculture flourishes must be maintained. It must be expanded upon and promoted so that the consumers of increasingly prosperous parts of the world, and increasingly prosperous parts of the developing world, can with confidence continue to buy products—such as our dairy products and meat—which will give our people extra revenue and which will benefit the country overall. Let me not forget wine. The Australian wine industry is one that is increasingly becoming one of global regard. All of us, in both formal and informal capacities, should continue to be advocates for the wine industry.
I want to touch on the FTAs that Australia successfully negotiated during the time of the Howard government, because I think that they provided a terrific platform for the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement that has now been successfully concluded. The Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement is one which, for those of us who are for freer trade with the region and with Singapore—one of our strongest allies and friends in Asia—we can be proud of. SAFTA negotiations were launched following an announcement by both countries at the APEC leaders meeting in November 2000. Ten full rounds of negotiations were held between April 2001 and October 2002. On 17 February 2003, SAFTA was signed. I had the pleasure of being at the occasion of the signing and I recall having an opportunity to discuss the success of the agreement with the then Singaporean Minister for Trade and Industry, George Yeo. George Yeo is now, of course, Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. The final agreement was subject to a parliamentary consultation processes and entered into force on 28 July 2003 following an exchange of diplomatic notes.
The other agreement that I think should be complimented is the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, a major document that opened access for Australian businesses to the Thai market. That agreement has substantially improved the area of environmental business. I know of some businesses in the Ryan electorate that have a very fine record in environmental technology and are doing business in Thailand, and I am delighted with their success. Australian businesses are urged to take a close look at the opportunities created by the Thailand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The reduction of Thailand’s high tariff barriers, which for some tariffs were up to 200 per cent, means that exports may now become viable for a range of products. Opportunities are increasingly there for service providers, investors and Australian manufacturers.
The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement was hotly contested. It is a comprehensive agreement that covers goods, services, investment, financial services, government procurement—importantly—as well as standards and technical regulations, telecommunications, competition related matters, electronic commerce, intellectual property rights, labour and the environment. The key outcomes of the agreement include that, upon entry into force, the United States eliminated duties on Australian goods on 82-plus per cent of its tariff lines. By 2010, this will rise by an additional 4.1 per cent and by 2015 a further 10-plus per cent. So that is very positive indeed. By 2022, it is expected that nearly 99 per cent of tariff lines and 99.9 per cent of imports will be duty free. The US remains the most significant country and the world’s most significant economy. The global financial crisis has shown us that what happens in the United States economy affects pretty much every country in the world—from the great and the good to the middle powers of the world to, unfortunately, developing economies that depend on a stable global economic framework.
I want to briefly touch on the free trade agreements being negotiated at the moment. The Australia-ASEAN-New Zealand free trade agreement is of immense significance. ASEAN, with a population of some 550 million people, is not a market to be sneezed at. It is one that we must engage in more than we have even in previous decades. That part of the world will, in decade’s time, show its collective strength. Of course, the countries that make up ASEAN are diverse and at different stages of development, but no-one should underestimate the political will within the ASEAN nations and no-one should underestimate the psychological and emotional determination of the people of ASEAN to improve their economies and to create opportunities for their people, as they rightly should.
The Gulf Cooperation Council is another part of the world that we are talking to. Japan is a country that Australia has had a very strong and very warm relationship with since the end of the Second World War, and it is a country that we should always count amongst our best friends in Asia. Australia has a relationship with Malaysia, which is Muslim but which has a very strong view about how its people can be plugged into the world economy. Last, but certainly not least, on the Australia-China free trade agreement that continues to be discussed, I have said both publicly in the media and privately that I am proud of the fact that the Prime Minister of the country I am a citizen of has the capacity to speak Chinese and has strong links with this very significant country. I hope that his links and his language skills will be an asset for our country. I encourage him very strongly to use that priceless asset to promote a successful conclusion on the Australia-China free trade agreement because it is something that is in our country’s interest.
I think I am the only member of the House of Representatives with part-Chinese heritage and, for the record and for the benefit of the people of Ryan, the marriage of my personal background and my professional position is one that I am pleased about and one that I would like to take advantage of to play a role in pushing for Australia’s 21st century prosperity and our place in the region. In all the great debates of the 21st century—be they about energy, the environment, the geopolitical area or whatever—China will be front and centre. It is absolutely in the interests of this country to sit right by the leadership of China. I congratulate all Australian businesses that are doing fantastically well in China and in the rest of Asia. I also compliment the Chinese businesses that are investing in our country. It is in the mutual interests of both of our countries and for the prosperity of both of our peoples.
In the couple of minutes left to me I want to make some observations about global trade generally. The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement is one that I wholeheartedly support and I congratulate all those involved in concluding it. It goes to a broad philosophy that we all share in this parliament—that is, having an open world economy, having a freer world economy and having opportunities for Australians to engage with the world. That is in our interests and also in the interests of alleviating global poverty. Countries that close their economies, that close their peoples off to others, give themselves no benefit whatsoever. India is developing but, like China, will stand front and centre in the world. In 1960, life expectancy in India was limited. It has risen by more than 20 years. Closer to home, in South Korea illiteracy was once widespread but is now pretty much nonexistent because it has engaged with the world; it has become a global country.
No country that has succeeded in the past five decades has succeeded or made progress by ignoring the signature theme of our times: globalisation. Whether we like it or not, we live in a globalised world and we live in globalised times. Our country is one of some 21 million people. We are thousands of kilometres from any large developed market. There are no two cities in Australia with a population of over one million that are closer together than 600 kilometres. By way of comparison, the state of California has a population of some 35 million in an area around one-twentieth of the size of Australia. That gives a taste of how vast our country is and of the distance between our country and others of economic and political significance. It is absolutely in this country’s interest to be plugged into the international community, to be on the world stage and to be an advocate for freer trade, for open economies and for a greater engagement with the world around us. (Time expired)
10618
18:55:00
Moylan, Judi, MP
4V5
Pearce
LP
0
0
Mrs MOYLAN
—I would like to take the opportunity right at the outset to acknowledge the work of the member for Ryan. I had the great pleasure of working with the member for Ryan in the previous parliament. I was the chair of the Australia-China Parliamentary Group and the member for Ryan was the secretary of that group. I have witnessed the considerable energy and enthusiasm that he has given to developing trade not just between China and Australia but also further afield. And, indeed, he is a very capable Mandarin speaker. I know that in his electorate he has held trade forums on many occasions, inviting people from China to meet potential trade partners in Australia. He is a young, vigorous member of parliament who is doing his bit to promote trade, which is a very fine contribution to the work of this parliament.
I am pleased to speak on the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 and cognate bill, legislation that actually had its genesis under the coalition government. Considerable work was done to bring the legislation to its fruition but it has reached its finality under the current government. The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement should commence early next year—I think on 1 January. It is a comprehensive and wide-ranging agreement that provides Australia and Chile with more liberal access to each other’s good and services.
The Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008 contains proposed amendments to the Customs Act 1901. These amendments provide the rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile and introduce powers to allow Customs to obtain manufacturing records from Australian exporters and producers. The amendments will give effect to Australia’s obligations under chapter 4 of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. This chapter provides the rules for determining whether imported goods from Chile are eligible for preferential customs duty rates under the agreement. The bill will usher in a new and exciting period for Australia-Chile relations that have the potential to be mutually beneficial for both countries. From an Australian national interest point of view, there are likely to be many benefits from a closer alliance with Chile.
Over the last 15 years Chile’s economy has grown at an average rate of almost 5.5 per cent a year and is estimated to reach a total GDP of US$170 billion this year—but I am not quite sure how it is faring in the current financial circumstances. Chile is Australia’s second largest export market in Latin America, with coal, civil engineering equipment, lead, optical equipment and refined petroleum accounting for the majority of exported goods. Imports from Chile into Australia also increased by 125 per cent between 2006 and 2007. The majority of those imports are of copper, nonferrous base metal waste, pulp and waste paper, pig iron and wood. Having served on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Subcommittee in the last few parliaments, I know the work of the former member the Hon. Bruce Baird, who fostered closer ties with South America, including Chile, and led a delegation. Unfortunately, I was not able to go on that delegation at that time, but I commend that report to anyone who has a long-term interest in export into the South American countries, because there was a lot of very good information encompassed in that report.
According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australia is the fourth largest foreign investor in Chile, with around US$3 billion of direct investment. Chile already has a number of existing free trade agreements with most Latin American countries, the European Union, India, the United States of America, Canada, Japan and China. The Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement will put Australia on an equal footing with competitors from these countries—in particular with Canadian coal exporters, who have increased their market share following the elimination of tariffs under the Canada-Chile FTA in 1997. Australian coal exporters will therefore be more competitive and increase their market share in Chile. I expect that the falling of the Australian dollar might also advantage them.
Through trade, Australia’s abundant resources and the skills of our people are building wealth at home and abroad. While the global marketplace is highly competitive, it abounds with opportunities. By exporting, Australian businesses access a global marketplace of more than six billion consumers. And, by participating in the global marketplace, Australia’s businesses are more likely to be innovative, to enhance their productivity and to integrate into global supply chains. In fact, I think it is fair to say that, in a country such as Australia with a population of 22 million, it is essential for many kinds of businesses to look to market their products further afield and to expand their marketplace. The domestic market in Australia is relatively small in global terms and we have many highly competitive and innovative businesses that benefit from seeking markets outside the domestic market and getting into the export market.
Strong and responsible budgets by the coalition government, I might say, delivered perhaps the longest period of sustained low-interest rates since the 1960s. This, coupled with low inflation and very low unemployment, allowed our businesses to grow and take further advantages in seizing export opportunities. In the 2006-07 period, Australia’s exports grew 10 per cent to a record $216 billion—more than double the level of a decade ago. Exports of manufactured goods, resources and services all reached record levels in this period. Resources exports rose nine per cent to $72.8 billion and services exports grew 11 per cent to $46.2 billion. Manufacturing exports increased 11 per cent to $44.1 billion, with strong growth in exports of metals, machinery and other manufactures.
An open and dynamic economy is the key to delivering the benefits of trade to all Australians. The nation is now reaping the rewards of two decades of wide-ranging structural reforms that have improved the functioning and flexibility of our goods, services, labour and capital markets and delivered 15 years of uninterrupted economic growth. In fact, the export of services is rapidly growing, and it is something that we are seeing in this decade as being highly beneficial—Australia having some good services to trade. Australia continues to pursue high-quality free trade agreements which offer the prospect of worthwhile gains for Australia—faster and more extensive gains than can sometimes be achieved through the World Trade Organisation process, which can be a bit cumbersome, a bit slow and a bit unwieldy. The Australia-Chile FTA will generate export opportunities for Australian companies in many services and investment areas, such as mining and energy technology, engineering and consulting services, information technology, tourism, agriculture, and the food and wine industry.
In an era when improving technology is seeing the world become a smaller place, free trade agreements are vital to continued prosperity and provide stimulus to both economies. While a good free trade agreement is recognised for what it offers, a great FTA should be applauded for what it protects. For this reason, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in the final shaping of this agreement, especially in its intentions to keep an eye out for the Australian horticulture industry. I suppose I have a vested interest in this, because in the electorate of Pearce we have a very substantial number of growers across the horticultural sector. In securing the economic wellbeing of our country we must make sure we do not destroy our local producers. We have an obligation to our own industries to ensure their safety and longevity. For an electorate such as mine, where almost anything you can imagine can be eaten is produced, this is very important.
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties tabled report 95 on October 16, which included three recommendations on the Australia-Chile FTA. These were that the committee supports a review of its operation in two years to assess the ongoing relevance of concerns regarding phytosanitary measures, the impact on Australian horticulture, and labour and environmental standards. Phytosanitary measures protect plant life in the territory of each party to a free trade agreement and are usually considered in conjunction with sanitary or animal related measures. These are more commonly known as quarantine measures. With horticulture and agriculture playing such a vital role in the Australian economy, particularly in the electorate of Pearce, these measures are more than welcome. We need to make sure that, as I said, we are looking after our producers, pests and diseases that this country has not seen are not introduced and, indeed, the public have an opportunity to be sure that the produce they are purchasing is clean and healthy to consume.
This agreement has already made and will continue to make many horticulturalists nervous. I have to say that. Horticulture Australia’s submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties pointed out that, because Chile and Australia are both in the Southern Hemisphere, they share common seasons. This means that Chilean horticultural products can be imported to Australia at the same time as Australian horticultural products are on the market. Horticulture Australia anticipates that the price of the Chilean products will be less than that of the Australian products because of the cheaper labour costs in Chile. These are not unreasonable considerations. You cannot blame our producers for being a little nervous. There have been warnings in Western Australia that rising costs of fertiliser, chemicals and fuel have increased the cost of planting a crop by more than a third and are threatening next year’s grain plantings in relation to farm incomes.
The Australian government is committed to bilateral and multilateral free trade or trade-liberalising agreements which aim to open up global markets as rapidly as possible. Horticulture, like other agricultural commodities, is and should be a part of these agreements. However, from these agreements horticulture needs and seeks tariff outcomes into target markets which are equivalent to those granted into Australia and at least equivalent or superior to those granted to other suppliers under similar agreements into those markets. On top of this, there must be a deep and mutual understanding of the sanitary and phytosanitary measures adopted by each country and there should be strengthened cooperation between the governments of Australia and Chile over sanitary and phytosanitary matters. In any free trade agreement the aim must be to facilitate bilateral trade in food, plants and animals while protecting as a priority the human, animal or plant life of each country.
While it should be remembered that free trade agreements can be beneficial to local farmers and producers, with export opportunities for their own goods, a way of promoting free trade with Chile while protecting our own growers and producers is through urgent amendments to Australia’s country-of-origin labelling laws. This is something I have been on about quite a lot lately, particularly in my electorate. If the current government listened to what growers wanted—clearer and simpler country-of-origin labelling for processed food and enforced compliance with these labels for fresh food—it could be a win-win situation. I think it is only fair, I say once again, that when the Australian public are buying products for consumption they fully understand whether those products are safe and where they have come from and that they have a choice of whether they buy imported products or Australian products. The government promised to overhaul its country-of-origin labelling laws, but the truth in labelling remains hidden. We have not seen evidence that there is any strong intent right at this point in time to deal with this matter of truth in labelling.
We as legislators need to examine how government can provide policy to assist farmers through difficult times and, at the same time, ensure the continuity of food supply, because it is a matter of national priority. We need to strike a balance between the need to have a vigorous trading system while understanding the pressures on our domestic producers and valuing their contribution in bringing clean, high-quality produce to the market and in providing a level of food security in this country which, to my mind, is greatly undervalued. Striking the right balance is particularly important during these times of drought, low market prices and high input costs. We cannot leave our growers to continually take a hammering without providing them some support.
That being said, we would not be looking after our long-term interest if we ignored the need to take sensible steps to remove trade barriers. Australia’s GDP has increased dramatically and has been a contributing factor in seeing us become one of the most financially secure nations in the world. At no time in our history has that been more apparent than today. So how does one manage the balance between foreign trade and looking after domestic producers? Some may say, ‘You can’t have your cake and eat it too.’ The recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will allow Australia to keep tight measures over this agreement. Having the option to assess the operation of the FTA after two years will provide the government with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that the Australian horticulture industry, phytosanitary measures and labour and environment standards are not negatively affected.
I have long been a strong supporter of the agriculture and horticulture industries in Australia, particularly those within the Pearce electorate. That support has extended to pork producers seeking to ensure that we keep our industry free of disease and expand our export opportunities, to the table and wine grape industry, to olive growers and to those who produce high-quality fruit and vegetables for both domestic and export consumption. I fully understand the anxieties that they sometimes have about free trade agreements and believe our first obligation is to ensure the health and future of our own home-grown Australian industries. But the two objectives are not always mutually exclusive. It is a balancing act.
It is undeniable that at times there are tensions, but for a vast and productive country like Australia with a small population export is vital to our continued economic success and the growth and continuation of our commercial interests. I believe this FTA has the potential to be beneficial to all concerned, and there is some assurance that there will be opportunities within two years to make the necessary changes.
Some were of the view that the Minister for Trade could have made a more thorough assessment of the costs and benefits of this free trade agreement, but I am reassured with the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that we will be able to manage this and that a proper review of the operation of this agreement will be carried out, as was recommended. I support the bill. But I look forward to seeing the results of the review and, hopefully, to the bill providing greater opportunities for Australian producers.
10622
19:14:00
Debus, Bob, MP
8IS
Macquarie
ALP
Minister for Home Affairs
1
0
Mr DEBUS
—in reply—I do thank all of those members who have contributed to the debate tonight. All of them were in support of this legislation to establish a treaty with Chile, which is indeed one of the leading democracies of South America. There are two pieces of legislation: the Customs Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008, which amends the Customs Act, and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2008, which contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act.
The customs related legislation amends rules for determining whether goods originate in Chile. The amendments are the result of the free trade agreement that was signed on 30 July this year. The amendments commence on the day that the agreement enters into force, which is expected to be 1 January next year. The rules are essential for the purpose of determining whether goods imported from Chile are eligible for preferential rates of customs duty under the agreement. The bill requires Australian exporters or producers that wish to claim preferential treatment in Chile to keep certain records. The amendments to the tariff legislation provide duty-free access for certain goods and preferential rates of customs duty for other goods that are Chilean originating goods. They provide for phasing the preferential rates of customs duty for certain goods to zero by 2015, and they create a new schedule 7 to the tariff to accommodate those phasing rates of duty.
I should mention several matters that have arisen during the debate. I refer to the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties which were mentioned by the chair of the committee, the member for Wills, and were mentioned again just moments ago by the member for Pearce. Of course I will undertake to draw those recommendations to the attention of the Minister for Trade. I would just observe, in any event, that the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement does contain specific articles on cooperation on the issues of both labour and the environment. The provision on labour, which is article 18.2.4, provides for cooperation between Australia and Chile on labour matters of mutual interest. That cooperation is to be based on the concept of decent work, including the principles embodied in the International Labour Organisation Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The provision on the environment, which is article 18.2.5, provides that cooperation between the two parties on the environment will reflect both parties’ commitment to strengthening environmental protection and promotion of sustainable development in the context of strengthening the parties’ trade and investment relations. The government’s present approach to these sorts of matters is to consider the inclusion of labour and environment provisions in free trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. These provisions are considered to be appropriate in the particular context of the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement and Australia’s existing trading relationship with that country.
A number of members have drawn attention to concerns that were raised by Horticulture Australia concerning this particular free trade agreement—that Australian horticultural industries may be adversely affected in relation to the phytosanitary measures to protect plant life in this country. Obviously those matters are of great concern. Australia’s quarantine arrangements are amongst the most stringent in the world, as they should be, and of course the Australian government will in fact make no concessions on those strong quarantine and biosecurity arrangement under this treaty. Indeed, I draw attention to the work of the Treaties Committee, where it points out that the measures contained in the treaty at chapter 6 are limited to improving cooperation and communication between Australia and Chile over sanitary and phytosanitary measures within the framework of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The committee points out:
In real terms, this means that the Agreement does not override Australia’s quarantine barriers that prevent the spread of pests or diseases, whether in existence at the time the Agreement is made, or imposed during the life of the agreement.
So I hope that the committee’s analysis does give some comfort to horticulturalists who, understandably enough, are concerned about protecting the circumstances of their own industry.
I also point out, particularly in relation to some observations I heard made by the member for Forrest concerning the avocado industry, that the Australian government has been very careful indeed not to put horticultural producers at a disadvantage in economic terms. I would point out that at the present time there is no duty on avocados. There will be no duty on avocados under the terms of the agreement. But the avocado industry, as an example that was raised in the debate, is not disadvantaged by the new agreement in terms of tariff levels.
I say again that we are grateful, and the Minister for Trade is grateful, that members from both sides of the House have been supportive of the legislation to implement this free trade agreement with Chile. It is one that we very much hope will be to the advantage of both countries; obviously, that is the reason why the negotiations to sign the agreement proceeded. I commend the bills to the committee as a consequence.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIA-CHILE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2008
10624
Bills
R3076
Second Reading
10624
Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Debus:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
10624
19:23:00
Main Committee adjourned at 7.23 pm
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
10625
Questions in Writing
Dr Peter Hollingworth
10625
10625
156
10625
Melham, Daryl, MP
4T4
Banks
ALP
1
Mr Melham
asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 25 June 2008:
What sum of money has been provided to the former Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, since 1 June 2006 for, but not limited to: (a) facilities; (b) accommodation; (c) staff; and (d) travel arrangements.
10625
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr Rudd
—I am advised that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has paid the following amounts on behalf of the former Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth since 1 June 2006:
-
Facilities - $32,981
-
Accommodation - $232,841
-
Staff - Dr Hollingworth, like all other former Governors-General, is entitled to an Executive Assistant at the APS6 level. The salary range for an APS6 level staff member in PM&C is $64,206 - $72,152
-
Travel arrangements - $49,769
Australian Army Cadets
10625
10625
337
10625
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
Mr Lindsay
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 18 September 2008:
-
What are the applicable weapons handling procedures for Australian Army Cadets when using weapons, real or replica, in the context of training, drills and ceremonial parades.
-
Could he provide an inventory of weapons, real or replica, held by all Australian Army Cadet units across Australia; including the ownership and licensing details of such weapons, as well as the procedures that apply to cadet units for storage, security and access to these weapons.
-
Which cadet units have trained or paraded with real or replica weapons in the past 12 months and on average, how often does this occur in each unit each year.
-
Did the 14th Army Cadet Unit of North Rockhampton accept a monetary donation from the Capricornia RSL sub-branch for the purchase of replica weapons for the unit; if so, will it be used for the intended purpose.
10625
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
Mr Fitzgibbon
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
Procedures for Australian Army Cadets are identical to those for regular Army personnel.
-
Given the sensitivity of weapons’ repositories, a copy of the Firearms Register has been passed on to the honourable member. The security policy relating to the Australian Defence Force Cadets holding, and storing of weapons and ammunition is located within the Defence Security Manual, Part 8, Chapter 5, Annex A. As the policy is contained in a ‘Restricted’ document, a copy has been passed on to the honourable member.
-
A list of units who have trained and/or paraded with a real or replica weapon in the past 12 months has been provided to the Table Office. The amount of times this occurs varies between units. Please note the average number in some cases includes rehearsals.
-
Yes. The donation will not be used for the intended purpose. The unit is in the process of returning the money with an appropriate letter of thanks.
The following list contains details of units that have trained and/or paraded with a real or replica weapon in the past 12 months.
Unit Abbreviation
Unit Name
State /
Territory
Trained or
paraded
in the
past 12
months
Average
Number
of
occasions
122 ACU DET Dysart
122 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Dysart
QLD
Yes
4
122 ACU Mackay
122 Army Cadet Unit Mackay
QLD
Yes
4
124 ACU DET Biloela
124 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Biloela
QLD
Yes
4
124 ACU Gladstone
124 Army Cadet Unit Gladstone
QLD
Yes
4
125 ACU Rockhampton
125 Army Cadet Unit Rockhampton
QLD
Yes
4
130 ACU DET Charters Towers
130 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Charters Towers
QLD
Yes
4
130 ACU DET Heatley
130 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Heatley
QLD
Yes
4
131 ACU Sarina
131 Army Cadet Unit Sarina
QLD
Yes
4
132 ACU DET Yeppoon
132 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Yeppoon
QLD
Yes
4
132 ACU Rockhampton
132 Army Cadet Unit Rockhampton
QLD
Yes
4
134 ACU DET Cairns
134 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Cairns
QLD
Yes
4
14 ACU DET Blackwater
14 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Blackwater
QLD
Yes
4
14 ACU Rockhampton
14 Army Cadet Unit Rockhampton
QLD
Yes
4
143 ACU Mount Isa
143 Army Cadet Unit Mount Isa
QLD
Yes
4
144 ACU Atherton
144 Army Cadet Unit Atherton
QLD
Yes
4
145 ACU Winton
145 Army Cadet Unit Winton
QLD
Yes
4
146 ACU Bamaga
146 Army Cadet Unit Bamaga
QLD
Yes
4
15 ACU Townsville
15 Army Cadet Unit Townsville
QLD
Yes
4
200 ACU 1 PL Grenfell
200 Army Cadet Unit South West Slopes 1 Platoon Grenfell
NSW
No
0
200 ACU 2 PL Cowra
200 Army Cadet Unit South West Slopes 2 Platoon Cowra
NSW
No
0
200 ACU 3 PL Young
200 Army Cadet Unit South West Slopes 3 Platoon Young
NSW
No
0
200 ACU 4 PL Boorowa
200 Army Cadet Unit South West Slopes 4 Platoon Boorowa
NSW
No
0
201 ACU Dee Why
201 Army Cadet Unit Dee Why
NSW
Yes
46
202 ACU Blacktown
202 Army Cadet Unit Blacktown
NSW
Yes
17
203 ACU Lancer Barracks Cumberland
203 Army Cadet Unit Lancer Barracks Cumberland
NSW
Yes
2
204 ACU Parramatta
204 Army Cadet Unit Parramatta
NSW
Yes
14
205 ACU 4 PL Mendooran
205 Army Cadet Unit 4 Platoon Mendooran
NSW
Yes
17
205 ACU Mudgee
205 Army Cadet Unit Mudgee
NSW
Yes
17
206 ACU North Sydney
206 Army Cadet Unit North Sydney
NSW
Yes
6
207 ACU Glen Innes
207 Army Cadet Unit Glen Innes
NSW
Yes
3
208 ACU Hastings Valley
208 Army Cadet Unit Hastings Valley
NSW
Yes
5
209 ACU 1 PL Quirindi
209 Army Cadet Unit 1 Platoon Quirindi
NSW
Yes
10
209 ACU Tamworth
209 Army Cadet Unit Tamworth
NSW
Yes
10
21 ACU Penrith
21 Army Cadet Unit Penrith
NSW
Yes
2
211 ACU Newcastle
211 Army Cadet Unit Newcastle
NSW
Yes
13
213 ACU Cronulla-Sutherland
213 Army Cadet Unit Cronulla-Sutherland
NSW
Yes
3
216 ACU Lismore
216 Army Cadet Unit Lismore
NSW
Yes
2
217 ACU Lake Macquarie
217 Army Cadet Unit Lake Macquarie
NSW
Yes
7
218 ACU 1 PL Campbelltown
218 Army Cadet Unit Macarthur 1 Platoon Campbelltown
NSW
Yes
9
218 ACU 2 PL Picton
218 Army Cadet Unit Macarthur 2 Platoon Picton
NSW
Yes
9
218 ACU 3 PL Moss Vale
218 Army Cadet Unit Macarthur 3 Platoon Moss Vale
NSW
Yes
9
219 ACU Wagga Wagga
219 Army Cadet Unit Wagga Wagga
NSW
Yes
6
22/29 ACU Holsworthy
22/29 Army Cadet Unit Holsworthy
NSW
Yes
5
220 ACU Lithgow
220 Army Cadet Unit Lithgow
NSW
No
0
221 ACU Cobar
221 Army Cadet Unit Cobar
NSW
Yes
4
221 ACU DET Bourke
221 Army Cadet Unit Detachment Bourke
NSW
Yes
4
222 ACU Ulladulla
222 Army Cadet Unit Ulladulla
NSW
Yes
1
223 ACU Leeton
223 Army Cadet Unit Leeton
NSW
No
0
224 ACU Canberra
224 Army Cadet Unit Canberra
ACT
Yes
12
225 ACU Murwillumbah
225 Army Cadet Unit Murwillumbah
NSW
Yes
3
226 ACU Normanhurst
226 Army Cadet Unit Normanhurst
NSW
Yes
8
229 ACU South Lakes
229 Army Cadet Unit South Lakes
NSW
Yes
2
23 ACU Camden
23 Army Cadet Unit Camden
NSW
Yes
4
230 ACU Norfolk Island
230 Army Cadet Unit Norfolk Island
Norfolk IS
No
0
233 ACU St George
233 Army Cadet Unit St George
NSW
Yes
11
234 ACU Maitland
234 Army Cadet Unit Maitland
NSW
No
0
235 ACU Dubbo
235 Army Cadet Unit Dubbo
NSW
No
0
236 ACU Toukley
236 Army Cadet Unit Toukley
NSW
No
0
24 ACU Grafton
24 Army Cadet Unit Grafton
NSW
Yes
7
25 ACU Erina
25 Army Cadet Unit Erina
NSW
Yes
1
256 ACU Cootamundra
256 Army Cadet Unit Cootamundra
NSW
Yes
6
26 ACU Wollongong
26 Army Cadet Unit Wollongong
NSW
Yes
9
27 ACU Coffs Harbour
27 Army Cadet Unit Coffs Harbour
NSW
Yes
15
28 ACU Manning Valley
28 Army Cadet Unit Manning Valley
NSW
Yes
8
AACB (S)
Australian Army Cadet Band (Sydney)
NSW
Yes
4
Barker College CU
Barker College Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
17
Baulkham Hills High School CU
Baulkham Hills High School Cadet Unit
NSW
No
0
Chevalier College Bowral CU
Chevalier College Bowral Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
6
Hurlstone Agricultural High School ACU
Hurlstone Agricultural High School Army Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
1
James Ruse Agricultural High School CU
James Ruse Agricultural High School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
2
Kinross Wolaroi School CU
Kinross Wolaroi School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
3
Knox Grammar School CU
Knox Grammar School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
2
Newcastle Grammar School CU
Newcastle Grammar School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
4
Newington College CU
Newington College Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
5
Pittwater House ACU
Pittwater House Schools Army Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
6
Shore CU
Shore Cadet Unit
NSW
No
0
St Aloysius' College CU
St Aloysius' College Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
7
Sydney Boys' High School CU
Sydney Boys' High School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
11
Sydney Grammar School CU
Sydney Grammar School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
1
The Armidale School CU
The Armidale School Cadet Unit
NSW
No
0
The King's School Cadet Corps
The King's School Cadet Corps
NSW
Yes
21
The Scots College CU
The Scots College Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
3
The Scots School Bathurst CU
The Scots School Bathurst Cadet Unit
NSW
No
0
Trinity Catholic College CU
Trinity Catholic College Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
5
Trinity Grammar School CU
Trinity Grammar School Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
21
Waverley College CU
Waverley College Cadet Unit
NSW
Yes
3
70 ACU Larrakeyah
70 Army Cadet Unit Larrakeyah
NT
Yes
6
71 ACU Palmerston
71 Army Cadet Unit Palmerston
NT
Yes
6
72 ACU Marrara
72 Army Cadet Unit Marrara
NT
Yes
6
73 ACU Tennant Creek
73 Army Cadet Unit Tennant Creek
NT
Yes
2
74 ACU Alice Springs
74 Army Cadet Unit Alice Springs
NT
Yes
2
76 ACU Tiwi Islands
76 Army Cadet Unit Tiwi Islands
NT
Yes
2
77 ACU Wadeye
77 Army Cadet Unit Wadeye
NT
Yes
2
40 ACU Noarlunga
40 Army Cadet Unit Noarlunga
SA
Yes
5
41 ACU Whyalla
41 Army Cadet Unit Whyalla
SA
Yes
5
410 ACU Berri
410 Army Cadet Unit Berri
SA
Yes
5
411 ACU Clare
411 Army Cadet Unit Clare
SA
Yes
5
412 ACU Woodside
412 Army Cadet Unit Woodside
SA
Yes
5
413 ACU (Pipes and Drums)
413 Army Cadet Unit (Pipes and Drums) Keswick
SA
Yes
5
414 ACU Port Pirie
414 Army Cadet Unit Port Pirie
SA
Yes
5
416 ACU Port Lincoln
416 Army Cadet Unit Port Lincoln
SA
Yes
5
418 ACU Kingston SE
418 Army Cadet Unit
SA
Yes
5
42 ACU Broken Hill
42 Army Cadet Unit Broken Hill
NSW
Yes
5
420 ACU Waikerie
420 Army Cadet Unit
SA
Yes
5
423 ACU Victor Harbor
423 Army Cadet Unit
SA
Yes
5
424 ACU Kadina
424 Army Cadet Unit
SA
Yes
5
426 ACU Ceduna
426 Army Cadet Unit
SA
Yes
5
43 ACU Warradale
43 Army Cadet Unit Warradale
SA
Yes
5
44 ACU B COY Gilles Plains
44 Army Cadet Unit B Company
SA
Yes
5
44 ACU Hampstead
44 Army Cadet Unit Hampstead
SA
Yes
5
45 ACU Murray Bridge
45 Army Cadet Unit Murray Bridge
SA
Yes
5
46 ACU Port Augusta
46 Army Cadet Unit Port Augusta
SA
Yes
5
47 ACU Keswick
47 Army Cadet Unit Keswick
SA
Yes
5
48 ACU Mount Gambier
48 Army Cadet Unit Mount Gambier
SA
Yes
5
49 ACU Smithfield
49 Army Cadet Unit Smithfield
SA
Yes
5
10 ACU Southport
10 Army Cadet Unit Southport
QLD
Yes
10
11 ACU Logan
11 Army Cadet Unit Logan
QLD
Yes
8
12 ACU A Coy Bulimba
12 Army Cadet Unit A Company
QLD
Yes
2
12 ACU B Coy Wacol
12 Army Cadet Unit B Company
QLD
No
0
120 ACU A COY Chinchilla
120 Army Cadet Unit A Company
QLD
Yes
4
120 ACU B COY Dalby
120 Army Cadet Unit B Company
QLD
Yes
4
121 ACU Wynnum/Manly
121 Army Cadet Unit Wynnum/Manly
QLD
Yes
4
123 ACU A COY Caboolture
123 Army Cadet Unit A Company
QLD
Yes
8
123 ACU B COY 1 PL Kilcoy
123 Army Cadet Unit B Company 1 Platoon
QLD
Yes
5
123 ACU B COY 2 PL Yarraman
123 Army Cadet Unit B Company 2 Platoon
QLD
Yes
5
126 ACU DET Banyo
126 Army Cadet Unit B Company
QLD
Yes
11
126 ACU DET Pine Rivers
126 Army Cadet Unit A Company
QLD
Yes
11
127 ACU Ipswich
127 Army Cadet Unit Ipswich
QLD
No
0
128 ACU Yandina
128 Army Cadet Unit Yandina
QLD
No
0
129 ACU Enoggera
129 Army Cadet Unit Enoggera
QLD
Yes
12
13 ACU Toowoomba
13 Army Cadet Unit Toowoomba
QLD
Yes
8
133 ACU Palm Beach
133 Army Cadet Unit Palm Beach
QLD
Yes
6
135 ACU Wondai
135 Army Cadet Unit Wondai
QLD
Yes
2
136 ACU Redlands
136 Army Cadet Unit Redlands
QLD
Yes
14
137 ACU Monto
137 Army Cadet Unit Monto
QLD
Yes
2
138 ACU Rosedale
138 Army Cadet Unit Rosedale
QLD
Yes
4
139 ACU Lockyer
139 Army Cadet Unit Lockyer
QLD
Yes
4
142 ACU St George
142 Army Cadet Unit St George
QLD
Yes
2
16 ACU Redcliffe
16 Army Cadet Unit Redcliffe
QLD
No
0
17 ACU A COY Warwick
17 Army Cadet Unit A Company
QLD
Yes
3
17 ACU B COY Stanthorpe
17 Army Cadet Unit B Company
QLD
Yes
3
18 ACU A COY Bundaberg
18 Army Cadet Unit A Company
QLD
Yes
5
18 ACU B COY Hervey Bay
18 Army Cadet Unit B Company
QLD
Yes
5
19 ACU Pittsworth
19 Army Cadet Unit Pittsworth
QLD
Yes
3
Anglican Church Grammar School CU
Anglican Church Grammar School Cadet Unit
QLD
Yes
18
St Pauls School CU
St Pauls School Cadet Unit
QLD
Yes
9
The Southport School CU
The Southport School Cadet Unit
QLD
Yes
5
Toowoomba Grammar School CU
Toowoomba Grammar School Cadet Unit
QLD
Yes
3
A COY 601 PL Launceston
A Company 601 Platoon Launceston
TAS
Yes
4
A COY 602 PL Scottsdale
A Company 602 Platoon Scottsdale
TAS
Yes
4
A COY 603 PL Youngtown
A Company 603 Platoon Youngtown
TAS
Yes
4
A COY 624 PL Deloraine
C Company 624 Platoon Deloraine
TAS
Yes
4
B COY 611 PL Warrane
B Company 611 Platoon Warrane
TAS
Yes
4
B COY 612 PL Pontville
B Company 612 Platoon Pontville
TAS
Yes
4
C COY 621 PL Devonport
C Company 621 Platoon Devonport
TAS
Yes
4
C COY 622 PL Burnie
C Company 622 Platoon Burnie
TAS
Yes
4
TAS AAC BN P & Ds
TAS AAC Battalion Pipes and Drums
TAS
Yes
4
TAS AAC BN, D COY
Tasmanian AAC Battalion, D Company
TAS
Yes
4
30 ACU Sunshine
30 Army Cadet Unit Sunshine
VIC
No
0
300 ACU Ballarat
300 Army Cadet Unit Ballarat
VIC
Yes
6
301 ACU Echuca
301 Army Cadet Unit Echuca
VIC
Yes
1
302 ACU Oakleigh
302 Army Cadet Unit Oakleigh
VIC
Yes
4
303 ACU Stawell
303 Army Cadet Unit Stawell
VIC
No
0
304 ACU Newborough
304 Army Cadet Unit Newborough
VIC
Yes
7
305 ACU Surrey Hills
305 Army Cadet Unit Surrey Hills
VIC
Yes
5
306 ACU Monash
306 Army Cadet Unit Monash
VIC
No
0
307 ACU Deniliquin
307 Army Cadet Unit Deniliquin
NSW
No
0
308 ACU Bairnsdale Det
308 Army Cadet Unit - Bairnsdale Detachment
VIC
Yes
1
308 ACU Sale
308 Army Cadet Unit Sale
VIC
No
0
309 ACU Bendigo
309 Army Cadet Unit Bendigo
VIC
Yes
5
31 ACU Norwood
31 Army Cadet Unit Norwood
VIC
No
0
310 ACU Dandenong
310 Army Cadet Unit Dandenong
VIC
Yes
9
311 ACU Mildura
311 Army Cadet Unit Mildura
VIC
No
0
312 ACU Broadford
312 Army Cadet Unit - Broadford
VIC
Yes
1
32 ACU Geelong
32 Army Cadet Unit Geelong
VIC
Yes
6
33 ACU Wangaratta
33 Army Cadet Unit Wangaratta
VIC
Yes
1
34 ACU Colac
34 Army Cadet Unit Colac
VIC
Yes
1
35 ACU Essendon
35 Army Cadet Unit Essendon
VIC
No
0
36 ACU Frankston
36 Army Cadet Unit Frankston
VIC
No
0
37 ACU Albury/Wodonga
37 Army Cadet Unit Albury/Wodonga
VIC
No
0
38 ACU Shepparton
38 Army Cadet Unit Shepparton
VIC
No
0
39 ACU Watsonia
39 Army Cadet Unit Watsonia
VIC
Yes
7
Beaconhills ACU
Beaconhills Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
Braemar College ACU
Braemar College Army Cadet Unit
VIC
Yes
2
Brighton Grammar School ACU
Brighton Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
VIC
Yes
7
Camberwell Grammar School ACU
Camberwell Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
Ivanhoe Grammar School ACU
Ivanhoe Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
VIC
Yes
2
Ivanhoe Grammar School ACU Plenty Det
Ivanhoe Grammar School Army Cadet Unit - Plenty Detachment
VIC
Yes
1
Melbourne Grammar School ACU
Melbourne Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
VIC
Yes
3
Melbourne High School ACU
Melbourne High School Army Cadet Unit
VIC
Yes
5
Mentone Grammar ACU
Mentone Grammar Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
Monivae College ACU
Monivae College Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
Scotch College ACU
Scotch College Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
Sebastopol College ACU
Sebastopol College Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
The Peninsula School ACU
The Peninsula School Army Cadet Unit
VIC
No
0
50 ACU Midland
50 Army Cadet Unit Midland
WA
Yes
5
501 ACU Como
501 Army Cadet Unit Como
WA
Yes
5
502 ACU Karrakatta
502 Army Cadet Unit Karrakatta
WA
Yes
5
503 ACU Esperance
503 Army Cadet Unit Esperance
WA
Yes
5
504 ACU Mandurah
504 Army Cadet Unit Mandurah
WA
Yes
5
505 ACU Albany
505 Army Cadet Unit Albany
WA
Yes
5
506 ACU Geraldton
506 Army Cadet Unit Geraldton
WA
Yes
5
507 ACU Joondalup
507 Army Cadet Unit Joondalup
WA
Yes
5
508 ACU Karratha
508 Army Cadet Unit Karratha
WA
Yes
5
509 ACU Lynwood
509 Army Cadet Unit Lynwood
WA
Yes
5
509 ACU 4 PL Canning Vale
509 Army Cadet Unit Lynwood 4 Platoon
WA
Yes
5
51 ACU Drum Corps Karrakatta
51 Army Cadet Unit Drum Corps Karrakatta
WA
Yes
5
510 ACU Merredin
510 Army Cadet Unit Merredin
WA
Yes
5
511 ACU South West
511 Army Cadet Unit South West
WA
Yes
5
512 ACU Narrogin
512 Army Cadet Unit Narrogin
WA
Yes
5
513 ACU Eastern Hills
513 Army Cadet Unit Eastern Hills
WA
Yes
5
514 ACU Port Hedland
514 Army Cadet Unit Port Hedland
WA
Yes
5
515 ACU Bunbury
515 Army Cadet Unit Bunbury
WA
Yes
5
518 ACU Katanning
518 Army Cadet Unit Katanning
WA
Yes
5
52 ACU Armadale
52 Army Cadet Unit Armadale
WA
Yes
5
53 ACU Wanneroo
53 Army Cadet Unit Wanneroo
WA
Yes
5
55 ACU Eastern Goldfields
55 Army Cadet Unit Eastern Goldfields
WA
Yes
5
56 ACU Fremantle
56 Army Cadet Unit Fremantle
WA
Yes
5
57 ACU Morley
57 Army Cadet Unit Morley
WA
Yes
5
58 ACU Carine
58 Army Cadet Unit Carine
WA
Yes
5
59 ACU Rockingham
59 Army Cadet Unit Rockingham
WA
Yes
5
Christ Church Grammar School CU
Christ Church Grammar School Cadet Unit
WA
Yes
5
Guildford Grammar School CU
Guildford Grammar School Cadet Unit
WA
Yes
5
St Josephs College ACU
St Josephs Army Cadet Unit - 519 ACU
WA
Yes
5
Defence Force Reserve and Cadet Units
10630
10630
340
10630
Lindsay, Peter, MP
HK6
Herbert
LP
0
Mr Lindsay
asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 22 September 2008:
Could he provide a list of all: (a) Army and Air Force Reserve units across Australia and their addresses; and (b) Air Force, Army and Navy Cadet units across Australia and their addresses.
10630
Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP
8K6
Hunter
ALP
Minister for Defence
1
Mr Fitzgibbon
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
-
and (b) Please refer to the tables below. The honourable member should note, for Army Reserve units, only the addresses of each unit’s headquarters are provided.
ARMY RESERVE UNITS
UNIT NAME
POSTAL ADDRESS
1st Commando Regiment (Headquarters (HQ))
Randwick Barracks, RANDWICK NSW 2031
51st Far North Queensland Regiment (HQ)
Porton, Swallow Road, EDMONTON QLD 4869
North-West Mobile Force (HQ)
Larrakeyah Barracks, DARWIN NT 0820
Pilbara Regiment (HQ)
Taylor Barracks, KARRATHA WA 6714
2nd Division (HQ)
Randwick Barracks, RANDWICK NSW 2031
4th Brigade (HQ)
Simpson Barracks, MACLEOD VIC 3085
2nd/10th Field Regiment (HQ Battery)
8 Chapel Street, ST KILDA VIC 3183
4th/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse (HQ B Company & Operation Support Squadron)
Simpson Barracks, MACLEOD VIC 3085
4th Combat Engineer Regiment (HQ)
56 Dublin Road, RINGWOOD VIC 3135
5th/6th Royal Victorian Regiment (HQ 5th/7th Royal Victorian Regiment)
202 Burwood Road, HAWTHORNE VIC 3122
8th/7th Royal Victorian Regiment (HQ 8th/7th Royal Victorian Regiment)
Ranger Barracks, BALLARAT VIC 3350
Monash University Regiment
Whitton Street, MT WAVERLEY VIC 3149
Melbourne University Regiment
65 Gratton Street, CARLTON VIC 3053
5th Brigade (HQ)
Holsworthy Barracks, HOLSWORTHY NSW 2173
1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers (HQ & C Squadron)
Lancer Barracks, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150
1st/19th Royal New South Wales Regiment (HQ & Combat Service Support Company)
Romani Barracks, ORANGE NSW 2800
4th/3rd Royal New South Wales Regiment (HQ & A Company)
Sutherland MUD, SUTHERLAND NSW 2232
5th Combat Engineer Regiment (HQ, 27th Support Squadron, 5th Combat Engineer Squadron)
The Cresent, PENRITH NSW 2750
5th Combat Service Support Battalion
Banksmeadow Depot, BANKSMEADOW NSW 2019
23rd Field Regiment (HQ & HQ Battery)
Rockdale MUD, KOGARAH NSW 2217
Sydney University Regiment
City Road, DARLINGTON NSW 2008
8th Brigade (HQ)
Stewart Street, DUNDAS NSW 2117
2nd/17th Royal New South Wales Regiment (HQ, A Company & Administration Company)
Pymble MUD, PYMBLE NSW 2073
7th Field Regiment (HQ & HQ Battery)
Pymble MUD, PYMBLE NSW 2073
8th Combat Engineer Regiment (HQ & 14th Combat Engineer Squadron)
Bullecourt Barracks, ADAMSTOWN NSW 2289
12th/16th Hunter River Lancers (HQ & C Squadron)
Beersheba Barracks, TAMWORTH NSW 2340
41st Royal New South Wales Regiment (HQ & Administration Company)
108 Military Road, LISMORE NSW 2480
Royal New South Wales Regiment
Day Street, KENSINGTON NSW 2033
8th Signal Regiment (HQ)
Randwick Barracks, RANDWICK NSW 2031
9th Brigade (HQ)
Keswick Barracks, KESWICK SA 5035
3rd/9th Light Horse (South Australian Mounted Rifles) (A Squadron)
Elizabeth Training Depot, SMITHFIELD SA 5114
9th Combat Service Support Battalion (HQ)
Warradale Barracks, WARRADALE SA 5046
10th/27th Royal South Australian Regiment (HQ, B Company)
Keswick Barracks, KESWICK SA 5035
12th/40th Royal Tasmanian Regiment (HQ, C Company & Support Company)
Derwent Barracks, GLENORCHY TAS 7010
Adelaide University Regiment
Hampstead Barracks, GREENACRES SA 5086
11th Brigade (HQ 11th Brigade)
Lavarack Barracks, TOWNSVILLE QLD 4813
25th/49th Royal Queensland Regiment (HQ, C Company & Support Company)
Enoggera Barracks, ENOGGERA QLD 4051
141st Signal Squadron
Lavarack Barracks, LAVARACK QLD 4810
Queensland University Regiment
24 Walcott Street, ST LUCIA QLD 4067
13th Brigade (HQ)
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
11th/28th Royal West Australian Regiment (HQ, D Company Support Company & Administration Company)
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
13th Combat Engineer Regiment (13th Field Squadron)
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
16th Royal West Australian Regiment (HQ, B Company, Support & Administration Company)
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
West Australian University Regiment
Artillery Barracks, FREMANTLE WA 6160
13th Combat Signal Regiment (109th Signal Squadron)
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
31st/42nd Royal Queensland Regiment (HQ 31st/42nd Royal Queensland Regiment)
Lavarack Barracks, TOWNSVILLE QLD 4813
4th Combat Service Support Battalion (HQ 4th Combat Service Support Battalion)
Maygar Barracks, BROADMEADOWS VIC 3047
11th Combat Service Support Battalion (HQ 11th Combat Service Support Battalion)
Lavarack Barracks, TOWNSVILLE QLD 4813
13th Combat Service Support Battalion
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
Army Personnel Agency - Perth
Leeuwin Barracks, EAST FREMANTLE WA 6158
Army Personnel Agency – Adelaide
Keswick Barracks, KESWICK SA 5035
Army Personnel Agency – Darwin
Robertson Barracks, PALMERSTON NT 0821
Army Personnel Agency - Brisbane
Victoria Barracks, BRISBANE QLD 4000
Army Personnel Agency – Melbourne
Victoria Barracks, SOUTHBANK VIC 3006
Army Personnel Agency – Hobart
Anglesea Barracks, HOBART TAS 7000
Army Personnel Agency – Townsville
143 Walker Street, TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
Army Personnel Agency – Sydney
Victoria Barracks, PADDINGTON NSW 2021
HQ 1st Field Regiment
Gallipoli Barracks, ENOGGERA QLD 4051
2nd Combat Engineer Regiment
Gallipoli Barracks, ENOGGERA QLD 4051
2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (Queensland Mounted Infantry)
Gallipoli Barracks, ENOGGERA QLD 4051
7th Combat Service Support Battalion
Gallipoli Barracks, ENOGGERA QLD 4052
10th Light Horse (Reconnaissance) (A Squadron)
Irwin Barracks, KARRAKATTA WA 6010
17th Combat Service Support Brigade (3rd Health Support Battalion)
Keswick Barracks, KESWICK SA 5035
17th Combat Service Support Brigade (3rd Health Support Battalion)
Oakleigh Barracks, OAKLEIGH SOUTH VIC 3167
17th Combat Service Support Brigade (HQ 2nd Field Support Battalion)
Derwent Barracks, GLENORCHY TAS 7010
22nd Construction Regiment
Gallipoli Barracks, HOLSWORTHY NSW 2173
AIR FORCE RESERVE UNITS
UNIT NAME
POSTAL ADDRESS
Reserve Training Wing
RAAF Amberley, QLD 4306
No 13 Squadron
RAAF Darwin, NT 0800
No 21 Squadron
RAAF Williams, VIC 3028
No 22 Squadron
RAAF Richmond, NSW 2755
No 23 Squadron
RAAF Amberley, QLD 4306
No 24 Squadron
RAAF Edinburgh, SA 5583
No 25 Squadron
RAAF Pearce, WA 6084
No 26 Squadron
RAAF Williamtown, NSW 2314
No 27 Squadron
RAAF Townsville, QLD 4810
No 28 Squadron
HMAS Harman, CANBERRA ACT 2600
No 29 Squadron
Anglesea Barracks, HOBART TAS 7000
No 1 Airfield Defence Squadron
RAAF Edinburgh, SA 5583
AIR FORCE CADET UNITS
UNIT NAME
POSTAL ADDRESS
No 101 Squadron
PO Box 7652, GARBUTT QLD 4814
No 102 Flight
105 Maple Drive Andergrove, MACKAY QLD 4740
No 103 Squadron
PO Box 238, INGHAM QLD 4850
No 104 Squadron
PO Box 1033N, NORTH CAIRNS QLD 4870
No 105 Squadron
4 English Street, MACKAY QLD 4740
No 106 Squadron
PO Box 528, MAREEBA QLD 4880
No 107 Squadron
PO Box 1699, INNISFAIL QLD 4860
No 108 Squadron
PO Box 1020, CHARTERS TOWERS QLD 4820
No 109 Squadron
PO Box 449, AYR QLD 4807
No 110 Squadron
PO Box 1295, BOWEN QLD 4805
No 1 Wing
PO Box 7289, Garbutt Business Centre, GARBUTT QLD 4814
No 201 Squadron
PO Box 83, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 202 Squadron
PO Box 2109, WELLINGTON POINT QLD 4160
No 203 Squadron
GPO Box 2951, BRISBANE QLD 4000
No 204 Squadron
50 Northern Road, ROMA QLD 4455
No 205 Squadron
70 John Street, ROSEWOOD QLD 4340
No 206 Squadron
PO Box 765, GYMPIE QLD 4570
No 207 Squadron
PO Box 658, NAMBOUR QLD 4560
No 208 Squadron
PO Box 65, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 209 Squadron
Army Aviation Centre, OAKEY QLD 4401
No 210 Squadron
PO Box 1683, TOOWOOMBA QLD 4350
No 211 Flight
PO Box 647, ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108
No 212 Squadron
PO Box 52, REDCLIFFE QLD 4020
No 213 Squadron
PO Box 764, PALM BEACH QLD 4221
No 214 Squadron
23-27 Lancewood Street, GREENBANK QLD 4124
No 215 Squadron
Cavendish Road, HOLLAND PARK QLD 4121
No 216 Squadron
36 Bertram Street, MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650
No 217 Squadron
PO Box 414, CLEVELAND QLD 4163
No 218 Squadron
PO Box 347, CORINDA QLD 4075
No 219 Squadron
PO Box 336, ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108
No 220 Squadron
PO Box 1355, TOOMBUL QLD 4012
No 221 Squadron
PO Box 254, ASHMORE CITY QLD 4214
No 222 Squadron
The Southport School, Winchester Street, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215
No 223 Squadron
PO Box 1116, CALOUNDRA QLD 4551
No 224 Squadron
PO Box 83, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 225 Squadron
1 Apurla Court, KARANA DOWNS QLD 4306
No 226 Squadron
PO Box 336, ARCHERFIELD QLD 4108
No 227 Squadron
1 Campbell Street, ROCKHAMPTON QLD 4700
No 228 Squadron
PO Box 5699, BUNDABERG WEST QLD 4670
No 229 Flight
C/- PO Box 83, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 231 Squadron
40 Goondoola Street, REDBANK PLAINS QLD 4301
No 232 Squadron
Saint Michaels College, Jondique Avenue, MERRIMAC QLD 4226
No 233 (Ceremonial) Flight
PO Box 83, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 234 (Fieldcraft and Firearms) Flight
C/- HQ 2WG AAFC RAAF Amberley, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 2 Wing
PO Box 83, AMBERLEY QLD 4306
No 301 Flight
PO Box 576, UNANDERRA NSW 2526
No 302 Squadron
70 Smith Street, YAGOONA NSW 2199
No 303 Squadron
45 Jenkins Street, DOUGLAS PARK NSW 2569
No 304 Squadron
C/- SHORE School, PO Box 1221, NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2055
No 305 Squadron
The Pittwater House Schools, PO Box 244, MANLY NSW 1655
No 306 Squadron
Sydney Grammar School, College Street, DARLINGHURST NSW 2010
No 307 (City of Bankstown) Squadron
PO Box 242, REGENTS PARK NSW 2143
No 308 Squadron
PO Box 393, MAITLAND NSW 2320
No 309 (Flying Training) Flight
PO Box 119, LEPPINGTON NSW 2179
No 310 (City of Tamworth) Squadron
PO Box 2015, TAMWORTH NSW 2340
No 311 Squadron
13 Nelimah Close, NARARA NSW 2250
No 312 Squadron
PO Box 40, WILLAWARRIN NSW 2440
No 313 (City of Dubbo) Squadron
PO Box 6194, DUBBO NSW 2830
No 314 (City of Wollongong) Squadron
PO Box 1133, WOLLONGONG NSW 2500
No 315 (City of Canberra) Squadron
PO Box 137, JERRABOMBERRA NSW 2619
No 316 (City of Lake Macquarie) Squadron
PO Box 771, CHARLESTOWN NSW 2290
No 317 (City of Taree) Squadron
PO Box 157, TAREE NSW 2430
No 318 Squadron
PO Box 409, SUTHERLAND NSW 1499
No 319 Squadron
4 Woodland Avenue, INVERELL NSW 2360
No 320 (Specialist Training) Flight
PO Box 4329, MARAYONG NSW 2148
No 321 (City of Newcastle) Squadron
PO Box 380, KOTARA NSW 2289
No 322 (City of Ryde) Squadron
49 Pine Road, CASULA NSW 2170
No 323 Squadron
29 Great Western Highway, GLENBROOK NSW 2773
No 324 (City of Randwick) Squadron
PO Box 813, KINGSFORD NSW 2032
No 325 (City of Goulburn) Squadron
6 Cressy Street, GOULBURN NSW 2580
No 326 Squadron
PO Box 322, LISMORE NSW 2480
No 327 (Gliding) Flight
176 Macquarie Grove Road, CAMDEN NSW 2570
No 328 Squadron
PO Box 852, BATHURST NSW 2795
No 329 Squadron
PO Box 8060, EAST ORANGE NSW 2800
No 330 (City of Shoalhaven) Squadron
6 Chittick Avenue, NORTH NOWRA NSW 2541
No 331 Squadron
PO Box 2031, COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450
No 332 (City of Wagga Wagga) Squadron
PO Box 94, ADELONG NSW 2729
No 333 Squadron
PO Box 1334, PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444
No 334 Squadron
25 Ruthven Street, GOWRIE ACT 2904
No 335 Squadron
PO Box 87, RAAF Williamtown, WILLIAMTOWN NSW 2318
No 336 Squadron
PO Box 707, RICHMOND NSW 2753
No 337 Squadron
PO Box 2015, TAMWORTH NSW 2340
No 338 Squadron
C/- PO Box 5351, WOLLONGONG NSW 2500
No 339 Squadron
PO Box 363, MOREE NSW 2400
No 3 Wing
PO Box 1506, STRAWBERRY HILLS NSW 2012
No 401 Squadron
PO Box 252, MONT ALBERT VIC 3127
No 402 Squadron
C/- BLDG 209, Simpson Barracks, MACLEOD VIC 3085
No 404 Squadron
RAAF Williams, POINT COOK VIC 3030
No 405 Squadron
PO Box 1042 Robinson LPO, South Road, BRAYBROOK VIC 3019
No 406 Squadron
Mount Erin College, Robinsons Road, FRANKSTON VIC 3199
No 407 Squadron
PO Box 3219, Broadmeadows Post Office, BROADMEADOWS VIC 3047
No 408 Squadron
C/- 4 CER Army Depot, 56B Dublin Road, RINGWOOD EAST VIC 3135
No 409 Squadron
PO Box 28, RAAF East Sale, EAST SALE VIC 3852
No 410 Squadron
PO Box 2242, Bendigo Delivery Centre, BENDIGO VIC 3550
No 411 Squadron
C/- Messines Barracks, Corner Gray & Yana Streets, SWAN HILL VIC 3585
No 412 Squadron
PO Box 1256, ALBURY NSW 2640
No 414 Squadron
C/- Melbourne Girls College, Yarra Boulevard, RICHMOND VIC 3121
No 415 Squadron
Melbourne High School, Forrest Hill, SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141
No 416 Squadron
127 Pascoe Vale Road, MOONEE PONDS VIC 3039
No 417 (City of Bayside) Squadron
Labuan Barracks, 67 Royal Avenue, SANDRINGHAM VIC 3191
No 418 Squadron
Mount Erin College, Robinsons Road, FRANKSTON VIC 3199
No 419 Squadron
PO Box 1183, SHEPPARTON VIC 3630
No 420 Squadron
CMB 5227, Macs Cove, MANSFIELD VIC 3722
No 421 (Aeromodelling) Flight
Building L607, RAAF Williams, LAVERTON VIC 3028
No 422 Squadron
PO Box 1292, HORSHAM VIC 3400
No 423 (Flying Operations) Flight
PO Box 6041, POINT COOK VIC 3030
No 424 Squadron
PO Box 3412, Gippsland Mail Centre, MORWELL VIC 3840
No 425 Squadron
1806-1812 Sturt Street, BALLARAT VIC 3350
No 426 Squadron
PO Box 786, TRARALGON VIC 3844
No 427 (City of Greater Geelong) Squadron
60 Curletts Road, LARA VIC 3212
No 428 Squadron
Sherbourne Terrace, NEWTOWN VIC 3220
No 429 Squadron
40 Gumbowie Avenue, CLIFTON SPRINGS VIC 3222
No 430 Squadron
10 Market Street, KYNETON VIC 3444
No 4 Wing
RAAF Williams, POINT COOK VIC 3030
No 501 Squadron
78-79 Anglesea Barracks, Davey Street, HOBART TAS 7000
No 502 Squadron
Building 78-79 Anglesea Barracks, Davey Street, HOBART TAS 7000
No 503 Squadron
GPO Box 1081, HOBART TAS 7000
No 504 Squadron
PO Box 3019, Burnie MDC, SOUTH BURNIE TAS 7320
No 505 Squadron
Patterson Barracks, 2 St John Street, LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
No 507 Squadron
Kokoda Barracks, Gunn Street, DEVONPORT TAS 7310
No 508 Squadron
Patterson Barracks, 2 St John Street, LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
No 5 Wing
GPO Box 1081, HOBART TAS 7000
No 601 Squadron
Keswick Barracks, KESWICK SA 5035
No 602 Squadron
PO Box 129, EDINBURGH SA 5111
No 603 Squadron
PO Box 2160, BERRI SA 5343
No 604 Squadron
PO Box 13, RAAF Edinburgh, EDINBURGH SA 5111
No 605 Squadron
15 Crittenden Road, MORPHETT VALE SA 5162
No 606 Squadron
Keswick Barracks, KESWICK SA 5035
No 607 Flying Training Flight
PO Box 2000, SALISBURY SA 5108
No 608 Squadron
11 Stithians Drive, GAWLER EAST SA 5118
No 609 Squadron
PO Box 565, PLYMPTON SA 5038
No 610 Squadron
PO Box 565, PLYMPTON SA 5038
No 611 Ground Engineering Flight
67a/b Finniss Street, MARION SA 5043
No 612 Squadron
PO Box 2789, MOUNT GAMBIER SA 5290
No 613 Squadron
PO Box 48, EDINBURGH SA 5111
No 614 Squadron
PO Box 179, PORT PIRIE SA 5540
No 615 Squadron
134 Cartledge Avenue, WHYALLA STUART SA 5608
No 617 Squadron
Unley High School, Kitchener Street, NETHERBY SA 5062
No 619 Squadron
PO Box 165, WOODCROFT SA 5162
No 620 Squadron
42 Waring Street, KADINA SA 5554
No 623 Squadron
PO Box 3578, MILDURA VIC 3500
No 6 Wing
RAAF Edinburgh, EDINBURGH SA 5111
No 701 Squadron
RAAF Pearce, BULLSBROOK WA 6084
No 703 (City of Fremantle) Squadron
PO Box 569, FREMANTLE WA 6160
No 704 Squadron
PO Box 3034, Kingsley Shopping Centre, KINGSLEY WA 6026
No 705 (City of Albany) Squadron
PO Box 794, ALBANY WA 6330
No 706 (Ground Training) Flight
Locked Bag 6, Post Office, GUILDFORD WA 6055
No 707 Squadron
PO Box 22, MANDURAH WA 6210
No 708 Squadron
PO Box 150, NORTHAM WA 6401
No 709 (City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder) Squadron
PO Box 2271, BOULDER WA 6432
No 710 Squadron
PO Box 262, BUNBURY WA 6230
No 711 (Mid-West) Squadron
PO Box 2141, GERALDTON WA 6530
No 712 Squadron
Locked Bag 6, Post Office, GUILDFORD WA 6055
No 713 Squadron
PO Box 883, CANNINGTON WA 6107
No 714 Squadron
PO Box 2088, CLAREMONT NORTH WA 6010
No 715 Squadron
Locked Bag 6, Post Office, GUILDFORD WA 6055
No 716 (Flying Training) Flight
RAAF Pearce, BULLSBROOK WA 6084
No 717 (Parachute Training) Flight
PO Box 3121, MYAREE WA 6154
No 718 (Drum Corps) Flight
Locked Bag 6, Post Office, GUILDFORD WA 6055
No 719 Squadron
PO Box 8298, WARNBRO WA 6169
No 721 Squadron
PO Box 37, KINGSWAY WA 6065
No 722 Squadron
PO Box 840, DERBY WA 6728
No 723 Squadron
PO Box 280, JOONDALUP D.C. WA 6919
No 7 Wing
RAAF Pearce, BULLSBROOK WA 6084
No 801 Squadron
PO Box 37664, WINNELLIE NT 0821
No 802 Squadron
PO Box 3707, PALMERSTON NT 0831
No 803 Squadron
PO Box 82, TINDAL NT 0853
No 804 Squadron
PO Box 2055, ALICE SPRINGS NT 0871
No 8 Wing
PO Box 37664, WINNELLIE NT 0821
Air Training Wing
16 Federico Court, RINGWOOD NTH VIC 3134
Ground Training Wing
Unit 3, 9-15 Gardere Street, CARINGBAH NSW 2229
Headquarters AAFC
3 Robin Crescent, HURSTVILLE NSW 2220
Logistics Support Wing
30 Duffield Street, GAWLER EAST SA 5118
ARMY CADET UNITS
UNIT NAME
POSTAL ADDRESS
205 Army Cadet Unit Mudgee
PO Box 670, MUDGEE NSW 2850
206 Army Cadet Unit North Sydney
8/55 Pacific Highway, ROSEVILLE NSW 2069
207 Army Cadet Unit Glen Innes
57 Lambeth Street, GLEN INNES NSW 2370
208 Army Cadet Unit Hastings Valley
PO Box 5208, Delivery Centre, PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444
209 Army Cadet Unit Tamworth
PO Box 1690, TAMWORTH NSW 2340
21 Army Cadet Unit Penrith
5 CER, The Crescent, LEMONGROVE NSW 2750
211 Army Cadet Unit Newcastle
3 Carlwood Close, WARNERS BAY NSW 2282
213 Army Cadet Unit Cronulla-Sutherland
C/- Unit 17, 9-15 Mansfield Avenue, CARRINGBAH NSW 2229
216 Army Cadet Unit Lismore
PO Box 5200, EAST LISMORE NSW 2480
217 Army Cadet Unit Lake Macquarie
PO Box 6023, MT HUTTON NSW 2290
218 Army Cadet Unit Macarthur
17 Warriewood Street, WOODBINE NSW 2560
219 Army Cadet Unit Wagga Wagga
PO Box 1389, WAGGA WAGGA NSW 2650
22/29 Army Cadet Unit Holsworthy
6 Sassafras Close, BRADBURY NSW 2560
220 Army Cadet Unit Lithgow
1835 O'Connell Road, O'CONNELL NSW 2795
221 Army Cadet Unit Cobar
41 Elizabeth Crescent, COBAR NSW 2835
222 Army Cadet Unit Ulladulla
15 Lakewood Grove, BURRILL LAKE NSW 2539
223 Army Cadet Unit Leeton
15 Forest Street, Lake Albert, WAGGA WAGGA NSW 2650
224 Army Cadet Unit Canberra
PO Box 4771, HIGGINS ACT 2615
225 Army Cadet Unit Murwillumbah
PO Box 704, MURWILLUMBAH NSW 2484
226 Army Cadet Unit Normanhurst
PO Box 607, CHERRYBROOK NSW 2126
229 Army Cadet Unit South Lakes
PO Box 246, MORISSET NSW 2264
23 Army Cadet Unit Camden
PO Box 300, CAMDEN NSW 2570
230 Army Cadet Unit Norfolk Island
PO Box 914, NORFOLK ISLAND NSW 2899
233 Army Cadet Unit St George
PO Box 878, MARRICKVILLE NSW 1475
234 Army Cadet Unit Maitland
PO Box 320, KURRI KURRI NSW 2327
235 Army Cadet Unit Dubbo
PO Box 4486, DUBBO NSW 2830
236 Army Cadet Unit Toukley
PO Box 4610, LAKE HAVEN NSW 2263
24 Army Cadet Unit Grafton
17 Davey Avenue, GRAFTON NSW 2460
25 Army Cadet Unit Erina
The MUD, The Entrance Road, ERINA NSW 2257
256 Army Cadet Unit Cootamundra
PO Box 249, COOTAMUNDRA NSW 2590
26 Army Cadet Unit Wollongong
PO Box 343, FAIRY MEADOW NSW 2519
27 Army Cadet Unit Coffs Harbour
PO Box 796, COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450
28 Army Cadet Unit Manning Valley
PO Box 1024, TAREE NSW 2430
Australian Army Cadet Band (Sydney)
PO Box 21, CAMPBELLTOWN NSW 2560
Barker College Cadet Unit
91 Pacific Highway, HORNSBY NSW 2077
Baulkham Hills High School Cadet Unit
419a Windsor Road, BAULKHAM HILLS NSW 2153
Chevalier College Bowral Cadet Unit
14 Wyong Street, HILL TOP NSW 2575
Hurlstone Agricultural High School Army Cadet Unit
PO Box 159, PANANIA NSW 2213
James Ruse Agricultural High School Cadet Unit
James Ruse Agricultural College, Felton Road, CARLINGFORD NSW 2118
Kinross Wolaroi School Cadet Unit
Locked Bag 4, ORANGE NSW 2800
Knox Grammar School Cadet Unit
7 Woodville Avenue, WAHROONGA NSW 2076
Newcastle Grammar School Cadet Unit
PO Box 680, NEWCASTLE NSW 2300
Newington College Cadet Unit
Newington College, Stanmore Road, STANMORE NSW 2048
Pittwater House Schools Army Cadet Unit
PO Box 244, MANLY NSW 1655
Shore Cadet Unit
15 Flinders Place, MT COLAH NSW 2079
St Aloysius' College Cadet Unit
St Aloysius' College, 47 Upper Pitt Street, MILSONS POINT NSW 2061
Sydney Boys' High School Cadet Unit
C/- Sydney Boy's High School, Moore Park, SURRY HILLS NSW 2010
Sydney Grammar School Cadet Unit
Sydney Grammar School, College Street, DARLINGHURST NSW 2010
The Armidale School Cadet Unit
The Armidale School, Douglas Street, ARMIDALE NSW 2350
The King's School Cadet Corps
PO Box 1, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124
The Scots College Cadet Unit
The Scots College, Victoria Road, BELLEVUE HILL NSW 2023
The Scots School Bathurst Cadet Unit
The Scots College Bathurst, Oberon Road, BATHURST NSW 2795
Trinity Catholic College Cadet Unit
St Patricks Campus, Clinton Street, GOULBURN NSW 2580
Trinity Grammar School Cadet Unit
School of Science, PO Box 174, SUMMER HILL NSW 2130
Waverley College Cadet Unit
131 Birrell Street, WAVERLEY NSW 2024
70 Army Cadet Unit Larrakeyah
PMB 13, WINNELIE NT 0822
71 Army Cadet Unit Palmerston
PMB 13, WINNELIE NT 0822
72 Army Cadet Unit Marrara
Marrara Christian School Amy Johnston Drive, MARRARA NT 0812
73 Army Cadet Unit Tennant Creek
NORFORCE Depot, TENNANT CREEK NT 0860
74 Army Cadet Unit Alice Springs
NORFORCE Depot, ALICE SPRINGS NT 0870
76 Army Cadet Unit Tiwi Islands
Nguiu, TIWI ISLANDS NT 0822
77 Army Cadet Unit Wadeye
OLSH PMB 144, WINELLIE NT 0822
40 Army Cadet Unit Noarlunga
16 Marla Crescent, NOARLUNGA DOWNS SA 5168
41 Army Cadet Unit Whyalla
8 Lindsay Street, WHYALLA NORRIE SA 5608
410 Army Cadet Unit Berri
PO Box 913, MONASH SA 5342
411 Army Cadet Unit Clare
26 King Street, CLARE SA 5453
412 Army Cadet Unit Woodside
11 Matha Street, BIRDWOOD SA 5234
413 Army Cadet Unit (Pipes and Drums) Keswick
6 North Railway Terrace, NAIRNE SA 5252
414 Army Cadet Unit Port Pirie
PO Box 1273, PORT PIRIE SA 5540
416 Army Cadet Unit Port Lincoln
15 Grantala Road, PORT LINCOLN SA 5606
418 Army Cadet Unit Kingston SE
PO Box 371, ROBE SA 5276
42 Army Cadet Unit Broken Hill
PO Box 682, BROKEN HILL NSW 2880
420 Army Cadet Unit Waikerie
Lot 157, Sunlands North, RAMCO SA 5322
423 Army Cadet Unit Victor Harbor
28 Harbor View Terrace, VICTOR HARBOR SA 5211
424 Army Cadet Unit Kadina
21 Wood Street, PORT PIRIE SA 5540
43 Army Cadet Unit Warradale
62 Hamilton Avenue, WARRADALE SA 5046
44 Army Cadet Unit Hampstead
85 Burnbank Way, MOUNT BARKER SA 5251
45 Army Cadet Unit Murray Bridge
27 Long Island Road, MURRAY BRIDGE SA 5253
46 Army Cadet Unit Port Augusta
4 Stuart Terrace, PORT AUGUSTA SA 5700
47 Army Cadet Unit Keswick
26 Lindsay Street, VICTOR HARBOR SA 5211
48 Army Cadet Unit Mount Gambier
PO Box 95, GLENCOE SA 5291
49 Army Cadet Unit Smithfield
25 Laver Avenue, GULFVIEW HEIGHTS SA 5096
10 Army Cadet Unit Southport
PO Box 885, ASHMORE CITY QLD 4214
11 Army Cadet Unit Logan
PO Box 2109, RUNCORN QLD 4113
12 Army Cadet Unit
23 Kynance Street, LEICHHARDT QLD 4305
120 Army Cadet Unit
PO Box 53, CHINCHILLA QLD 4413
121 Army Cadet Unit Wynnum/Manly
2 Lauralyn Court, BRAY PARK QLD 4500
123 Army Cadet Unit
PO Box 955, CABOOLTURE QLD 4510
126 Army Cadet Unit
18 Ming Dynasty Court, DAKABIN QLD 4503
127 Army Cadet Unit Ipswich
4 Dudman Street, COLLINGWOOD PARK QLD 4301
128 Army Cadet Unit Yandina
PO Box 239, YANDINA QLD 4561
129 Army Cadet Unit Enoggera
PO Box 52, CORINDA QLD 4075
13 Army Cadet Unit Toowoomba
PO Box 7290, TOOWOOMBA QLD 4352
133 Army Cadet Unit Palm Beach
PO Box 1201, NERANG QLD 4211
135 Army Cadet Unit Wondai
PO Box 47, MUNDUBBERA QLD 4626
136 Army Cadet Unit Redlands
PO Box 5082, ALEXANDRA HILLS QLD 4161
137 Army Cadet Unit Monto
PO Box 177, MONTO QLD 4630
138 Army Cadet Unit Rosedale
19 Claytons Road, LOWMEAD QLD 4676
139 Army Cadet Unit Lockyer
PO Box 4189, RACEVIEW QLD 4305
142 Army Cadet Unit St George
PO Box 444, ST GEORGE QLD 4487
16 Army Cadet Unit Redcliffe
13 Portico Place, BALD HILLS QLD 4036
17 Army Cadet Unit
42 Shearing's Road, BERAT VIA ALLORA QLD 4362
18 Army Cadet Unit
PO Box 5154, BUNDABERG WEST QLD 4670
19 Army Cadet Unit Pittsworth
MS 43, Wiemers Road, SOUTHBROOK QLD 4363
Anglican Church Grammar School Cadet Unit
Anglican Churchill Grammar School, Oaklands Parade, EAST BRISBANE QLD 4169
St Pauls School Cadet Unit
St Paul’s School, 34 Strathpine Road, BALD HILLS QLD 4036
The Southport School Cadet Unit
The Southport School, Winchester Street, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215
Toowoomba Grammar School Cadet Unit
Toowoomba Grammar School, PO Box 2900, TOOWOOMBA QLD 4350
A Company 601 Platoon Launceston
C/- 16 Field Battery Paterson Barracks, St John Street, LAUNCESTON TAS 7310
A Company 602 Platoon Scottsdale
DSTO, George Street, SCOTTDALE TAS 7620
A Company 603 Platoon Youngtown
C/- Youngtown Depot, Hobart Road, YOUNGTOWN TAS 7249
C Company 624 Platoon Deloraine
PO Box 178, DELORAINE TAS 7304
B Company 611 Platoon Warrane
B Company, C/- 12th/40th Royal Tasmanian Regiment, Corner Quarry & Cambridge Roads, WARRANE TAS 7018
B Company 612 Platoon Pontville
PO Box 315, BRIGHTON TAS 7030
C Company 621 Platoon Devonport
C/- 44 Transport Squadron, Gunn Street, DEVONPORT TAS 7310
C Company 622 Platoon Burnie
PO Box 866, BURNIE TAS 7320
Tasmanian Australian Army Cadet Battalion, Pipes and Drums
C/- 16 Field Battery, Paterson Barracks, St John Street, LAUNCESTON TAS 7310
Tasmanian Australian Army Cadet Battalion, D Company
C/- 12th/40th Royal Tasmanian Regiment, Keopang Lines Derwent Barracks, DOWSING POINT TAS 7010
30 Army Cadet Unit Sunshine
1/19 Stanlake Street, FOOTSCRAY VIC 3011
300 Army Cadet Unit Ballarat
300 Army Cadet Unit, Ranger Barracks, 1806-1812 Sturt Street, BALLARAT VIC 3350
301 Army Cadet Unit Echuca
301 Army Cadet Unit, Bobdubi Barracks, Ogilvie Avenue, ECHUCA VIC 3564
302 Army Cadet Unit Oakleigh
302 Army Cadet Unit, Oakleigh Barracks, 1318 North Road, SOUTH OAKLEIGH VIC 3167
303 Army Cadet Unit Stawell
23 Jennings Street, STAWELL VIC 3380
304 Army Cadet Unit Newborough
304 Army Cadet Unit, 39 Const Squadron Training Depot, Monash Road, NEWBOROUGH VIC 3825
305 Army Cadet Unit Surrey Hills
3 Parkstone Avenue, PASCOE VALE SOUTH VIC 3044
306 Army Cadet Unit Monash
306 Army Cadet Unit, Monash University Regiment, Whiton Street, MT WAVERLEY VIC 3149
307 Army Cadet Unit Deniliquin
269 Noyes Street, DENILIQUIN NSW 2710
308 Army Cadet Unit - Bairnsdale Detachment
PO Box 98, PAYNESVILLE VIC 3880
308 Army Cadet Unit Sale
308 Army Cadet Unit, 4th/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse Regiment, RAAF East Sale, EAST SALE VIC 3852
309 Army Cadet Unit Bendigo
309 Army Cadet Unit, Passchendaele Barracks, 101 Atlas Road, JUNORTOUN VIC 3550
31 Army Cadet Unit Norwood
31 Army Cadet Unit, 56B Dublin Road, EAST RINGWOOD VIC 3135
310 Army Cadet Unit Dandenong
310 Army Cadet Unit, Army Depot, 65 Princes Highway, DANDENONG VIC 3175
311 Army Cadet Unit Mildura
C/- 26 Gunn Street, WENTWORTH NSW 2648
312 Army Cadet Unit Broadford
PO Box 208, BROADFORD VIC 3658
32 Army Cadet Unit Geelong
32 Army Cadet Unit, 198 Myers Street, GEELONG VIC 3220
33 Army Cadet Unit Wangaratta
33 Army Cadet Unit, Beersheba Barracks, Sisely Avenue, WANGARATTA VIC 3677
34 Army Cadet Unit Colac
34 Army Cadet Unit, 2nd/10th Field Regiment, Queen Street, COLAC VIC 3250
35 Army Cadet Unit Essendon
35 Army Cadet Unit, Maygar Barracks, Camp Road, BROADMEADOWS VIC 3047
36 Army Cadet Unit Frankston
4 Fig Court, CRANBOURNE NORTH VIC 3977
37 Army Cadet Unit Albury/Wodonga
37 Army Cadet Unit, ALTC, Building 105, Gaza Ridge Barracks, NORTH BANDIANA VIC 3694
38 Army Cadet Unit Shepparton
380 Madill Road, UNDERA VIC 3629
39 Army Cadet Unit Watsonia
Building 209, Simpson Barracks, Greensborough Road, MACLEOD VIC 3085
Beaconhills Army Cadet Unit
Beaconhills College, 30-34 Toomuc Valley Road, PAKENHAM VIC 3810
Braemar College Army Cadet Unit
Benloch Farm, 628 Burke and Wills Track, BENLOCH VIC 3435
Brighton Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
Brighton Grammar School, 90 Outer Crescent, BRIGHTON VIC 3186
Camberwell Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
Camberwell Grammar School, PO Box 151, Deepdene Delivery Centre, BALWYN VIC 3103
Ivanhoe Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
Ivanhoe Grammar School, Ridgeway Campus, The Ridgeway, IVANHOE VIC 3079
Ivanhoe Grammar School Army Cadet Unit - Plenty Det
Ivanhoe Grammar School, Plenty Campus, Bridge Inn Road, MERNDA VIC 3754
Melbourne Grammar School Army Cadet Unit
1473 Burke Road, KEW EAST VIC 3102
Melbourne High School Army Cadet Unit
Melbourne High School, Forrest Hill, SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141
Mentone Grammar Army Cadet Unit
Mentone Grammar, 63 Venice Street, MENTONE VIC 3194
Monivae College Army Cadet Unit
Monivae College, PO Box 423, HAMILTON VIC 3300
Scotch College Army Cadet Unit
Scotch College, 1 Morrison Street, HAWTHORN VIC 3122
Sebastopol College Army Cadet Unit
Sebastopol College, PO Box 49, SEBASTOPOL VIC 3356
The Peninsula School Army Cadet Unit
The Peninsula School, Wooralla Drive, MOUNT ELIZA VIC 3930
50 Army Cadet Unit Midland
C/- JLU-W, Locked Bag 6, GUILFORD WA 6935
501 Army Cadet Unit Como
Como Secondary College, Bruce Street, COMO WA 6152
502 Army Cadet Unit Karrakatta
PO Box 867, NEDLANDS WA 6909
503 Army Cadet Unit Esperance
PO Box 4129, KALGOORLIE WA 6433
504 Army Cadet Unit Mandurah
PO Box 4184, MANDURAH NORTH WA 6210
505 Army Cadet Unit Albany
C/- Army Depot, Brunswick Road, ALBANY WA 6330
506 Army Cadet Unit Geraldton
PO Box 1376, GERALDTON WA 6531
507 Army Cadet Unit Joondalup
22 Downing Crescent, WANNEROO WA 6065
508 Army Cadet Unit Karratha
PO Box 1470, KARRATHA WA 6714
509 Army Cadet Unit Lynwood
17 Formosa Pass, CANNING VALE WA 6155
51 Army Cadet Unit Drum Corps Karrakatta
5/128 Forrest Street, PEPPERMINT GROVE WA 6011
510 Army Cadet Unit Merredin
42 Endersbee Street, MERREDIN WA 6415
511 Army Cadet Unit South West
PO Box 475, BUSSELTON WA 6282
512 Army Cadet Unit Narrogin
PO Box 528, NARROGIN WA 6312
513 Army Cadet Unit Eastern Hills
PO Box 2394, MIDLAND WA 6936
514 Army Cadet Unit Port Hedland
PO Box 308, PORT HEADLAND WA 6721
515 Army Cadet Unit Bunbury
PO Box 4037, EAST BUNBURY WA 6230
518 Army Cadet Unit Katanning
Katanning Senior HS, Golflinks Road, KATANNING WA 6317
52 Army Cadet Unit Armadale
PO Box 119, ARMADALE WA 6992
53 Army Cadet Unit Wanneroo
60 San Rosa Road, WANNEROO WA 6065
55 Army Cadet Unit Eastern Goldfields
PO Box 4129, KALGOORLIE WA 6433
56 Army Cadet Unit Fremantle
42 Dean Road, BATEMAN WA 6150
57 Army Cadet Unit Morley
17 Gerard Street, EAST VICTORIA WA 6101
58 Army Cadet Unit Carine
22 Downing Crescent, WANNEROO WA 6065
59 Army Cadet Unit Rockingham
1 Stipling Gardens, LEDA WA 6170
Christ Church Grammar School Cadet Unit
C/- CCGS Queenslea Drive, CLAREMONT WA 6010
Guildford Grammar School Cadet Unit
C/- GGS, 11 Terrace Road, GUILDFORD WA 6055
St Josephs Army Cadet Unit - 519 Army Cadet Unit
PO Box 260, NORTHAM WA 6041
NAVY CADET UNITS
UNIT NAME
POSTAL ADDRESS
Training Ship (TS) ANZAC
PO Box 170, ROCKINGHAM WA 6168
TS BROOME
PO Box 2062, BROOME WA 6725
TS BUNBURY
PO Box 546, BUNBURY WA 6230
TS CANNING
PO Box 178, CANNINGTON WA 6108
TS CHALLENGER
PO Box 1967, MIDLAND WA 6936
TS GASCOYNE
PO Box 773, CARNARVON WA 6701
TS KYBRA
PO Box 1925, ESPERANCE WA 6450
TS MANDURAH
PO Box 5297, FALCON WA 6210
TS MARMION
PO Box 550, HILLARYS WA 6923
TS MORROW
PO Box 954, GERALDON WA 6531
TS PERTH
PO Box 137, MELVILLE WA 6156
TS COCKBURN
PO Box 137, MELVILLE WA 6156
TS PILBARA
PO Box 855, PORT HEDLAND WA 6721
TS VANCOUVER
PO Box 919, ALBANY WA 6330
TS ADELAIDE
PO Box 3275, PORT ADELAIDE SA 5015
TS AUGUSTA
PO Box 111, PORT AUGUSTA SA 5700
TS FLINDERS
PO Box 641, PORT LINCOLN SA 5606
TS GAMBIER
PO Box 1158, MOUNT GAMBIER SA
TS NOARLUNGA
PO Box 219, MORPHETT VALE SA
TS STUART
PO Box 301, ELIZABETH SA 5112
TS STURT
PO Box 670, RENMARK SA 5341
TS WHYALLA
PO Box 2261, WHYALLA NORRIE SA
National Commander Australian Navy Cadets
9 Lisa Road, AUSTRALIND WA 6233
Senior Officer WA Area
Leeuwin Barracks, FREMANTLE WA 6160
Senior Officer NQLD Area
C/- Bulimba Barracks, Apollo Road, BULIMBA QLD 4171
Acting Senior Officer SQLD Area
Bulimba Barracks, Apollo Road, BULIMBA QLD 4171
Senior Officer NSW/ACT Area
HMAS PENGUIN, Middle Head Road, MOSMAN NSW 2088
Senior Officer VIC Area
HMAS CERBERUS, WESTERNPORT VIC 3920
Senior Officer TAS Area
Anglesea Barracks, HOBART TAS 7000
Senior Officer, SA Area
Keswick Barracks, MILE END SA 5031
Senior Officer, NT Area
Defence Estate Berrimah, COONAWARRA NT 0820
Director General, Australian Navy Cadets
CP3-7-146, Campbell Park Offices, CANBERRA ACT 2600
Director Cadet Systems Centre, Australian Navy Cadets
Gunroom, HMAS CERBERUS, WESTERNPORT VIC 3920
Director, Australian Navy Cadets
CP3-7-094, Campbell Park Offices, CANBERRA ACT 2600
TS ALBATROSS
PO Box 601, DAPTO NSW 2530
TS ARMIDALE
PO Box 711, ARMIDALE NSW 2350
TS CANBERRA
HMAS HARMAN, CANBERRA ACT 2600
TS CONDAMINE
HMAS PENGUIN, Middle Head Road, MOSSMAN NSW 2088
TS CULGOA
PO Box 206, SOUTH WEST ROCKS NSW 2431
TS HAWKESBURY
PO Box 6148, WEST GOSFORD NSW 2250
TS JERVIS BAY
Central Registry, HMAS CRESWELL NSW 2540
TS LISMORE
PO Box 434, LISMORE NSW 2480
TS MANOORA
PO Box 200, TAREE NSW 2430
TS NEPEAN
PO Box 157, PENRITH NSW 2750
TS RUSHCUTTER
PO Box 527, PORT MACQUARIE NSW 2444
TS SHOALHAVEN
PO Box 646, NOWRA NSW 2541
TS SHROPSHIRE
PO Box 456, GRAFTON NSW 2460
TS SIRIUS
PO Box 662, KOGARAH NSW 2458
TS SYDNEY
PO Box 343, DRUMMOYNE NSW 2047
TS KANIMBLA
PO Box 6051, HAMMONDVILLE NSW 2170
TS TOBRUK
PO Box 303D, NEWCASTLE NSW 2300
TS VAMPIRE
PO Box 238, TWEED HEADS NSW 2485
TS VENDETTA
PO Box 184J, COFFS HARBOUR NSW 2450
TS BUNDABERG
PO Box 4212, SOUTH BUNDABERG QLD 4670
TS CARPENTARIA
PO Box 802, THURSDAY ISLAND QLD 4875
TS CENTAUR
PO Box 900, MALENY QLD 4552
TS CORAL SEA
PO Box 1478, TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810
TS CORAL SEA, Sub Unit Magnetic Island
PO Box 192, MAGNETIC ISLAND QLD 4819
TS ENDEAVOUR
PO Box 1009, CAIRNS QLD 4870
TS GAYUNDAH
PO Box 179, FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4005
TS KOOPA
PO Box 917, BRIBIE POINT QLD 4507
TS NORFOLK
PO Box 2516, WELLINGTON POINT QLD 4163
TS MAGNUS
C/- ACGS, Oaklands Parade, EAST BRISBANE QLD 4169
TS MORETON BAY
PO Box 58, WOODY POINT QLD 4019
TS PALUMA
PO Box 1006, STAFFORD QLD 4053
TS DIAMANTINA
87 McMillan Road, ALEXANDRA HILLS QLD 4161
TS ONSLOW
PO Box 483, CALOUNDRA QLD 4551
TS SOUTHPORT
The Southport School, Winchester Street, SOUTHPORT QLD 4215
TS PIONEER
PO Box 5820, Mackay Mail Centre, MACKAY QLD 4740
TS ROCKHAMPTON
PO Box 698, ROCKHAMPTON QLD 4700
TS TYALGUM
32 Bushmead Street, NERANG QLD 4211
TS WALRUS
PO Box 3079, LOGANHOLME QLD 4129
TS TOOWOOMBA
PO Box 92, DRAYTON NORTH QLD 4350
TS IPSWICH
PO Box 774, BOOVAL QLD 4304
TS ENDEAVOUR
PO Box 1009, CAIRNS QLD 4870
TS MARYBOROUGH
PO Box 37, TINANA QLD 4650
TS GLADSTONE
PO Box 493, Gladstone Mail Centre, GLADSTONE QLD 4680
TS MELVILLE BAY
PO Box 87, NHULUNBUY NT 0881
TS DARWIN
PO Box 38960, WINNELLIE NT 0820
TS ALBURY
AWMA Cadet Facility, C/- 4th/19th Prince of Wales Light Horse A Squadron, Building 105, NORTH BANDIANA VIC 3694
TS BARWON
4 Settlement Road, BELMONT VIC 3216
TS BENDIGO
PO Box 876, BENDIGO VIC 3552
TS HENTY
PO Box 1202, PORTLAND VIC 3305
TS LATROBE
PO Box 857, MOE VIC 3825
TS MELBOURNE
48 Kingston Road, SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
TS MILDURA
49 Kearn Street, MILDURA VIC 3500
TS TINGIRA
The Gunroom, Dampier Road, HMAS CERBERUS VIC 3920
TS VOYAGER
146 Nelson Place, WILLIAMSTOWN VIC 3016
Hampton Park Secondary College
Fordholm Road, HAMPTON PARK VIC 3976
Norwood Secondary College
Byron Street, RINGWOOD VIC 3134
TS EMU
PO Box 1029, BURNIE TAS 7320
TS ARGONAUT
PO Box 379, ST HELENS TAS 7216
TS DERWENT
GPO Box 1591, HOBART TAS 7001
TS MERSEY
PO Box 538, DEVONPORT TAS 7310
TS HOBART
Australian Navy Cadet Band, C/- Anglesea Barracks, Davey Street, HOBART TAS 7001
TS LEVEN
PO Box 92, ULVERSTON TAS 7315
TS TAMAR
PO Box 796, LAUNCESTON TAS 7250
TS YORK
PO Box 102, GEORGE TOWN TAS 7253
Caring for our Country
10642
10642
349
10642
Stone, Dr Sharman, MP
EM6
Murray
LP
0
Dr Stone
asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 23 September 2008:
In respect of the first round of funding under Caring for our Country Open Grants, for which applications closed on 1 August 2008:
-
how many applications were received;
-
when will applicants be advised of whether their applications were successful; and
-
what funding options are currently available for local community environment groups working on important projects which, due to the volunteer nature of their labour, cost less than the minimum of $80,000 required for grant eligibility.
10642
Garrett, Peter, MP
HV4
Kingsford Smith
ALP
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
1
Mr Garrett
—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
In respect of the first round of funding under Caring for our Country Open Grants, for which applications closed on 1 August 2008:
-
over 1200 applications were received;
-
applicants will be advised whether their applications were successful by early November 2008; and
-
other funding options available for local community environment groups include:
-
the $28 million package of Caring for our Country: Landcare Sustainable Practice grants involving landcare, industry and/or volunteer community groups (announced in July 2008).
-
the Caring for our Country: Community Coastcare grants, including around $10 million for small grants up to $50,000 and a further $10 million for larger Coastcare grants up to $250,000 ( these are currently being assessed).
-
The Australian Government is providing $159 million in 2008/09 to NRM regional bodies to deliver NRM activities at the regional level. These funds enable a wide range of incentive programs and other funding initiatives that are specifically designed to cater for local community groups and small scale activities.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Merbein Facility
10643
10643
353
10643
Forrest, John, MP
NV5
Mallee
NATS
0
Mr Forrest
asked the Prime Minister, in writing, on 25 September 2008:
-
Does he realise that the impending closure of the CSIRO Horticultural Research facility in Merbein, in the electorate of Mallee, has occurred as a result of substantial Federal Government cuts to the CSIRO research budget, and that this decision is expected to result in the loss of 30 local jobs for agricultural scientists.
-
Can he explain how the closure of this facility will assist horticulturalists given the enormous challenges of climate change.
-
Would the Government consider funding options to ensure this facility remains open in its current location.
10643
Rudd, Kevin, MP
83T
Griffith
ALP
Prime Minister
1
Mr Rudd
—I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
-
The decision to close the Merbein facility was made by CSIRO in light of its science investment process, broad direction setting, and in view of its overall budget, which is made up of both Australian Government appropriation and industry funding for specific projects.
While the site is being closed, most staff are being offered transfers to Adelaide where they will continue work on issues relating to wine grapes. The process of closure will be staged over approximately 30 months to allow for the completion of existing projects.
-
Although the Merbein site is to close, CSIRO will retain activities in the Sunraysia district through continued use of a leased site at Koorlong. At that site CSIRO will continue work on wine grapes as well as completing existing projects on dried and table grapes. Horticulturists in the area will also benefit from other research conducted by CSIRO, particularly in relation to improving soil and agricultural productivity.
CSIRO is assisting horticulturists meet the challenges of climate change through two major initiatives: the Climate Adaptation Flagship and the Agricultural Sustainability Initiative (ASI). The Climate Adaptation Flagship aims to deliver the best available scientific information and expertise to support Australia’s efforts to adapt to climate change today in a practical and effective way. The Flagship’s research is led by some of Australia’s pre-eminent climate scientists, and will add significant value to how we adapt.
ASI will help horticulturalists by seeking to increase the economic value to Australia from agricultural landscapes, reduce the ecological footprint of Australian agriculture and increase the resilience of Australian rural and regional communities.
-
Since CSIRO’s intention to close Merbein was announced in May 2008, senior staff in CSIRO have held several meetings with industry representatives to discuss the future of the site and related research matters. In early August CSIRO agreed to receive and review any proposition provided by the industry and/or the local community on the understanding that any such proposition would need to be received by late September 2008 and address directly the funding problem that the Merbein laboratory faces. As at 13 October no proposal had been received by CSIRO.