2008-06-16
42
1
2
SENATE
0
0
2008-06-16
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Alan Ferguson) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX REDUCTION) BILL 2008
2117
Bills
R2922
In Committee
2117
Consideration resumed from 15 May.
2117
12:31:00
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
0
Senator MURRAY
—by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) to (14) on sheet 5438:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “150,000”.
(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(10) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “38%”, substitute “40%”.
(11) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “38%”, substitute “40%”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
I do not intend to delay the Senate much on these matters. I outlined my case in detail in my speech during the second reading debate. But, to recap very briefly, it is my view and the view of the Democrats that these tax cuts are probably desirable and warranted with respect to middle-income families. They are certainly desirable and warranted with respect to low-income families. They will indeed have the effect at the lower end—namely the lower-income and middle-income end—of improving workforce participation. They should contribute to easing pressure on wage claims. They will without doubt provide relief by lifting the disposable income of lower-income and middle-income families and they will, on balance, certainly advance the cause of trying to address many Australians’ living standards.
The tax cuts are very considerable, and certainly will not be understood by the Australian population until they see them in their actual pay packets, because they are comprehensive and quite wide-ranging. The question is whether the increase in aggregate demand that will be the result of these tax cuts—and increasing the maximum amount of the low-income tax offset—will have an inflationary effect. The government and the Treasury, in their advice to the committee that examined this matter, have indicated that their belief is that it will not.
There is that question, however, of how, if there is a judgement call to be made on these matters, the tax cuts intended for higher income Australians could or should be justified. The only reason I have really heard from the Labor government is that they are fulfilling a promise they made before the election. I have not heard them come out and say that they think these tax cuts to higher income Australians and wealthy Australians are a jolly good thing. Now, the conservative opposition may think that they are a very good thing and they would be happy to argue that case, but I have not heard that from the government. Therefore, if the only reason you are advancing those particular tax cuts at the higher end is because you made a promise, and if the economic circumstances in Australia have changed so that fulfilling that promise might not be wise, then our view is that you should reconsider. Consequently, we have put up two sets of amendments: the first one and the alternative, which I will move later because no doubt I do not have the numbers on this one. One is to delete some tax cuts and the other is to defer them.
The set of amendments on sheet 5438 defer some coalition tax cuts already passed in 2007: the 30 per cent band so that the upper threshold does not lift from $75,000 to $80,000 in 2008-09 but does that in 2009-10; the 40 per cent band so that the upper threshold does not lift from $150,000 to $180,000 in 2008-09 but does in 2010-11; and the 45 per cent band so that the upper threshold does not lift to $180,000-plus in 2008-09 but does in 2010-11. The effect of what we are doing is, of course, to reduce the amount of money which will be available in the marketplace—in other words, in increasing aggregate demand.
There is a question as to what you would do if this were successful. You could do one of a couple of things. You could put it into the surplus. In other words, you could use the equilibrium mechanism which the surplus provides by limiting the amount of money available for spending by effectively saving it in government hands, and that is an anti-inflationary measure. Those of the chamber who are economically literate will understand what I am alluding to. The alternative, if you thought you needed to spend it, is that you could take that money and increase the pension rate. That would be a possibility. You could increase the pensions with this amount of money that I am saving by about $15.75 per fortnight for a single pension, or $12.10 per fortnight for a couple, with the cost of $1.2 to $1.3 billion worth of expenditure.
I have not put that proposition to the chamber. I am not going to; these are rough calculations. The purpose of me mentioning that is to indicate that there are alternative ways in which the proposed tax cuts to better-off, wealthier Australians could be used for low-income Australians such as pensioners. I think the government would have been better going down that route than making some tax cuts which are gratuitous, unwarranted, not needed, may well be inflationary and are certainly not justified in this current economic climate. I do again, though, emphasise our opinion that the tax cuts and the low-income tax offset changes for low-income Australians and middle-income Australians are certainly warranted and justified.
2118
12:39:00
Brown, Sen Bob
QD4
Tasmania
AG
Leader of the Australian Greens
0
0
Senator BOB BROWN
—The Australian Greens will support these amendments because, for the reasons that Senator Murray has put forward so cogently, they deserve support. I have foreshadowed an amendment not simply to defer but to cancel these tax cuts. We very strongly believe that the billions of dollars going to the rich in the form of tax cuts—which, as Senator Murray has said, could well be inflationary and actually lead to an increase in interest rates, so that the money gets taken off people a little way down the line—ought to be going to providing services for the nation or, alternatively, to increasing pensions for those million-plus people in Australia who are living on or below the poverty line because of the inadequate pension system in this country. It is remarkable to us that we have a Labor government that is pouring billions into tax cuts for the rich in this economic climate but cannot find money for the poorest people in our society. Even if the government were not to allocate these billions to raising the pension by from $30 to $100 a week, it ought to allocate the money into the other areas where the government has a lot to do: tackling climate change and improving the health system and the education outcomes in Australia.
This is a knee-jerk policy reaction. Prime Minister Howard announced $31 billion or so in tax cuts over a number of years at the start of the last election campaign. On the Monday or Tuesday of that week, the press gallery went into orbit about that—there were some exceptions but not too many—and insisted that Kevin Rudd had to respond, as Leader of the Opposition, by the end of the week or he would be a dead duck. He did respond on the Friday. He said, ‘Me too; I’ll tick off.’ We are essentially dealing here with a Howard government proposal, which of course is going to service the big end of town, but, in so doing, it will take billions of dollars away from the much more important job of ensuring that pensioners, carers and people who are in real need in this country are assisted. As Senator Murray says, there is a much stronger basis for argument for tax cuts for people on low income and middle income, though the Greens believe that the billions being spent there could be much better targeted to providing services in this egalitarian nation of ours. However, we support the amendments.
2119
12:42:00
Coonan, Sen Helen
2M6
New South Wales
LP
0
0
Senator COONAN
—The opposition are supporting the government.
2119
12:43:00
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
0
Senator SHERRY
—I wish to make a few remarks about the comments from Senator Murray and Senator Bob Brown in support of Senator Murray’s amendments. I note that the Liberal opposition are not supporting the amendments. I want to make a couple of responses on behalf of the government. Senator Murray raised one argument in support of the amendments in relation to inflation and what he claimed would be a stimulatory expansionary consequence of the tax cuts. I point out to the Senate that, in this legislation and legislation that is before the Senate over the next fortnight, we are not just dealing with tax cuts in isolation; we are also dealing with the very important and central focus on and fight against higher inflation. We have presented a budget in which one of the primary principles is to tackle the issue of inflation and to put downward pressure on inflation because we know that increasing inflation puts upward pressure on interest rates. It is in that context that the budget as a whole puts downward pressure on inflation by delivering a stronger surplus, cutting wasteful expenditure and increasing the economy’s supply capacity for the future.
The surplus in the budget for 2008-09 is 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product, and all the tax receipt windfalls since the election are banked rather than being spent. Spending and taxation have been reprioritised to meet the needs of a modern Australia, with new spending in 2008-09 more than offset by cash savings of $7.3 billion in that year, and savings totalling $33.3 billion over four years. So I want to point out to Senator Murray that we are not just dealing with tax cuts in isolation; the total budget itself deals with the issue of the fight against inflation, which we recognise is very, very important.
Senator Murray very briefly brushed over the fundamental reason why we are putting forward these tax cuts when he said words to the effect that the Labor government in opposition gave a promise. We actually do believe—and the Prime Minister has made it very, very clear—in delivering on our election promises, and that is what this bill does. This bill delivers on the election promise in respect of income tax cuts that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, gave on behalf of the Labor Party at the commencement of the election campaign last year. Certainly the Labor Party and the Labor government believe it is very important to deliver on election promises. The commitment was made and we are delivering. Therefore, I do not accept the argument of Senator Murray that by supporting tax cuts you are undermining the fight against inflation. That has to be seen in a whole-of-budget context, which I have already touched on. This is an election commitment, an election promise, and we are delivering.
Senator Brown said as part of his contribution on the legislation—he is supporting Senator Murray’s amendments—that it is pouring billions into tax cuts for the rich and that this is just an example of a ‘me too’ promise by the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, made at the commencement of the last election campaign. Well, it is not correct to describe the legislation before the chamber as pouring billions into tax cuts for the rich. If you look at the measures—and this was well debated in the second reading debate—the tax cuts are focused on low- and middle-income earners. For example, from July this year the government will increase the 30 per cent marginal tax threshold so that the 15 per cent marginal tax rate will apply up to $34,000 of income, an increase in the threshold of $4,000. In addition, the low-income tax offset will be increased from $750 to $1,200 and will continue to phase out at 4c for every dollar of income above $30,000. And there are other examples that have been well canvassed in the second reading debate. So it is just not correct to describe this as pouring billions into tax cuts for the rich, full stop.
When the Labor Party announced these tax cuts at the commencement of the election campaign, of course, it was not ‘me too’. The Labor Party in fact announced a significant difference in its tax cut package compared to that put forward by the previous government. We indicated that the Labor government has deferred further tax cuts for those taxpayers on the top marginal rate of tax, in line with our election commitment. So we deferred those tax cuts. I do not refer to that group of people as the rich. Senator Brown does, but I do not. We deferred those tax cuts, Senator Brown. We believe that that was appropriate. The Labor government, then in opposition, believed it was appropriate to focus on low- and middle-income families, and the budget papers show that the decision to defer the reduction in the top marginal tax rate—the so-called ‘rich’ that Senator Brown refers to—releases some $5.3 billion for the government’s other priorities. So, firstly, the package does not represent a tax cut package for the rich and, secondly, it does not represent an example of so-called ‘me too’ politics. Our tax package is quite different from that put forward by the Liberal Party.
To finish, what it does represent is part of a fiscally responsible approach to ensuring we keep downward pressure on inflation and therefore keep downward pressure on interest rates, and, very importantly, in a responsible way it honours the election promise given to the Australian people. There are many things this government are determined to do as a government, and one of them is to honour our election promises. You could not have a more categorical, precise and detailed example of an election promise that we are determined to deliver to the Australian people. For that reason the government oppose the amendments moved by Senator Murray.
Question negatived.
2120
12:52:00
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
0
Senator MURRAY
—by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 5442 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “150,000”.
(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(10) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “38%”, substitute “40%”.
(11) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “38%”, substitute “40%”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(15) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(16) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 3), omit “37%”, substitute “40%”.
(17) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(18) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(19) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 3), omit “37%”, substitute “40%”.
(20) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
I want to recap briefly the position with respect to these amendments. The coalition’s election promise tax cuts, adopted by Labor, were proposed when the Reserve Bank, Treasury and others were forecasting lower inflationary prospects and more stable economic times than now. In the evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics inquiry that examined this bill, the top Treasury officials confirmed two points with respect to fiscal policy and inflation: having no tax cuts would represent significant fiscal tightening, and any negative effects of tax cuts by stimulating aggregate demand would need to be balanced out by reductions elsewhere in government spending, meaning that the promised tax cuts that will contribute to inflation will likely lead to cuts to government spending on services. If such services are essential, that would hardly seem in the national interest.
The minister has made two good points. One is that the government did indeed have a different view to the coalition at the top end and had a different tax package at that end. The second is that their budget overall has attempted to balance out the effect of this fiscal stimulus. The question, of course, is whether they will succeed in that prospect. Through the chair: as the minister well knows and the members of the chamber debating this well know, these things are matters of judgement, and you will only find out later on if your judgement has been right.
I want to say particularly on this matter that, although the figure of $31 billion worth of tax cuts is the one that is commonly run out, we should remember that the tax cuts that will increase aggregate demand and will increase Australians’ disposable income for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11 actually total $57 billion. That is what is going into the marketplace—$26.2 billion is already locked in from the 2007 coalition budget, and there is a whole whack of tax cuts coming in on 1 July 2008 which are in fact a consequence of the coalition’s 2007 budget. That should not be forgotten. Labor intend to add $30.8 billion more in tax cuts.
We have heard, both from me and from the minister, that large tax cuts will go to low- and middle-income earners, and both of us have indicated that we think they do need tax cut relief and do merit an increase in their disposable income. But this should not be overstated. Of the $30.8 billion worth of Labor’s new tax cuts, approximately $11.3 billion, or 37 per cent of the cost, is accounted for by low-income offset changes, so that goes to low-income people. Of the $57 billion total cost—that is, the coalition tax cuts legislated in 2007 and the Labor tax cuts which we are now debating—those earning less than $34,000, which I think is a reasonable measure of low income, will only get approximately 26 per cent of the tax cuts, so about a quarter. In contrast, at the top end, wealthy Australians will do very well. The reputable journalist—probably you would describe her as eminent—Michelle Grattan recently wrote, on 6 May, in the Age:
An analysis by Treasury shows that families with an earner in the top 3% of taxpayers have enjoyed an 85% increase in their disposable incomes since 1996 —about 1.7 times the rise for families with an average income earner.
The point of that, of course, is that better off Australians have been doing very well.
So we think there is merit in accepting the low-income tax offset changes and lower income tax cuts. They will provide income relief. They will assist workforce participation. There does remain the danger of increasing aggregate demand with tax cuts to such an extent that it increases inflationary pressure and results in higher interest rates. The government are aware of that. They believe their budget package adjusts for that. We think that maybe that is a little hopeful, and we think the tax cuts quantum needs to be cut or the tax cuts timing needs to be changed to be sure—or, as the Irish would say, to be sure, to be sure.
The set of amendments on sheet 5442 that I propose now as an alternative to the set of amendments I proposed on sheet 5438 would do the following things. With respect to the 30 per cent band, it would defer the changes so that the upper threshold does not lift from $75,000 to $80,000 in 2008-09 but from $75,000 to $80,000 in 2009-10. For the 40 per cent band, it would cancel the upper threshold lifting from $150,000 to $180,000 in 2008-09, so it is a tougher amendment than the one previously put, and, for the 45 per cent band, it would cancel the threshold lifting to $180,000 plus in 2008-09. In other words, wealthy, wealthier and better-off Australians—and, of course, the rich and very rich—would not get the benefit of those changes, but the vast majority of Australians would get the benefit of the proposals before us. Accordingly, we also move in these amendments to cancel the 40 per cent rate dropping to 38 per cent in 2009-10, and we cancel the 38 per cent rate, which would come in later on, dropping to 37 per cent in 2010-11. So it is a much more modest and a more conservative approach than has been taken in the bill.
2122
12:59:00
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
0
Senator SHERRY
—I just want to draw the attention of Senator Murray to two matters. I do not want to be unkind, but he did go back to 1996 in his reference to better-off Australians having been doing very well—saying that the wealthier and the richer are better-off. I know these are his last two weeks, and I am actually going to say some very complimentary things about him in the valedictory speeches later in the week. However, I take this opportunity briefly to say, Senator Murray: if your figures are correct and if better-off Australians have been doing very well—and I think you quoted a figure of 86 per cent—I would have to say that I think the GST was a bit of a help to wealthier and better-off Australians. We know the part you played in that. I am not going to be unkind, and I am not going to take the time of the chamber, but if those figures are correct—and I do not know the 86 per cent figure—the debate around the GST and its implementation and the general favouring of the higher income earner by the introduction of the GST is a debate we have canvassed up hill and down dale in this place for many years. I think that would be a factor if your figures are true.
The only other issue I want to touch on is, again, that the tax cuts should not be seen in isolation. I referred to the government’s fiscal approach in the budget and our determination to be fiscally conservative, to have a significant surplus, to put downward pressure on inflation, to fight inflation and to put downward pressure on interest rates. Another component of the budget that was announced was significant investment in education, health and infrastructure, which in turn helps to address one of the issues that Senator Murray raised, about inflation and lack of investment in public infrastructure, broadly defined. As part of the budget, again looking at the totality of economic measures that the government have put forward, we are investing $11 billion in a new Education Investment Fund, we are allocating a further $10 billion in establishing a Health and Hospitals Fund and we are allocating $20 billion, I think, for the infrastructure fund—I will get an accurate figure. It is a significant investment in infrastructure. So we are dealing with some of the critical areas of neglect in investment in infrastructure, broadly speaking, and I include within that education and health. I put that on the record in terms of the fight against inflation.
Finally, Mr Glenn Stevens, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, when questioned about the issue of inflation and inflationary impact, said:
It strikes me that in the popular discussion about fiscal policy, many participants talk past each other because they are looking at different time dimensions. It is not unreasonable to say that if the budget is perpetually in surplus, there is no debt to speak of and no other looming large unfunded liability, taxes should probably, over some long‑run horizon, be lower. This, it seems to me, is the economic case for structural reductions in taxes, which some observers articulate. Others argue that such reductions should be delayed, for cyclical reasons, given that demand needs to slow to contain inflation. So there is a structural case for taxes to fall, and a cyclical case for them not to. It is no doubt difficult for any government to reconcile these two, equally valid, points of view, the more so if the same tension persists for a number of consecutive years.
We believe the government’s approach as a whole, the budget as a whole, the surplus we are delivering, the fiscal conservatism, the fight against inflation, the downward pressure on interest rates, the tax cuts and the investment in the various areas of infrastructure that I have outlined, are a balanced and appropriate package. I will reserve any further remarks, if needed, until the Green amendments that we will get to shortly. We will oppose these amendments.
Question negatived.
2123
13:04:00
Brown, Sen Bob
QD4
Tasmania
AG
Leader of the Australian Greens
0
0
Senator BOB BROWN
—I ask that the Greens support for Senator Murray’s amendments be recorded. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) to (28) on sheet 5480 together.
Leave granted.
QD4
Brown, Sen Bob
Senator BOB BROWN
—I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(7) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “150,000”.
(8) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(9) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(10) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(11) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(12) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 3), omit “38%”, substitute “40%”.
(13) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(14) Schedule 1, item 14 page 5 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(15) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(16) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(17) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 3), omit “38%”, substitute “40%”.
(18) Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(19) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(20) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(21) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(22) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 3), omit “37%”, substitute “40%”.
(23) Schedule 1, item 23, page 7 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(24) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 2), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(25) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 3), omit “$80,000”, substitute “$75,000”.
(26) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 3), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
(27) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 3), omit “37%”, substitute “40%”.
(28) Schedule 1, item 24, page 7 (table item 4), omit “$180,000”, substitute “$150,000”.
This is a hugely important matter, as far as the Greens are concerned. The government and the opposition are supporting a package of $30.8 billion in tax cuts over the coming years, in a country which desperately needs investment in areas which are not going to be funded at the same time. I have already raised here, in the second reading debate, the plight of pensioners in Australia. I find it close to unbelievable that this first Labor budget has overlooked the 1.2 million pensioners in Australia who are living below the poverty line. Their income is around $270 a week. Let those of us who are on well over $1,000 a week reflect on that. Their income is about $270 a week and they were totally overlooked in the budget except for a repeat of the Howard government’s $500 payment and some support for paying service bills. As far as their income is concerned, it was, once again, essentially ignored. I cannot allow that to pass and nor will the Greens allow that to pass. It is simply wrong.
One would have expected that a socially oriented Labor government would have not only been ensuring that pensioners got an increase but also had that as part of the election presentation last year. This must be the thinking of both big parties, because the Howard government neglected pensioners too. They have essentially had no great increase in their pensions compared to the cost of living since 1993—for the whole of the 11 years that those budgets were brought in. There was some adjustment for the GST, and that was about it. Pensioners stayed stuck at about the level of increasing costs, while parliamentarians’ salaries, for example, increased by something like 85 per cent from the levels of the mid-1990s. It is incredible that we are here with the first major initiative by the government in the area of social structure being legislation which is going to accelerate the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in Australia.
The minister seems concerned about the word ‘rich’, so let’s talk about the ‘wealthy’ if that is easier. But the fact is we have seen a growth in the gap between the haves and have-nots in this country through the Howard years and we are now seeing a continuation of the economic rationalist policies which say that those people at the top deserve even greater rewards. Listening to the debate this morning, the tenor from the government at least is in line with that quote that the minister read out of the Governor of the Reserve Bank saying—looking at the long horizon, nothing to do with this legislation before us—that there may be room for tax cuts. That is a very generalised statement, because there are a lot of clouds on that long horizon. We are elected here to make sure our society works justly. This is unjust legislation. There is no argument that this can be seen as just. Certainly it extends tax cuts across the board but, as Senator Murray pointed out, they are absolutely loaded to give much greater advantage to people who are on high incomes than to people on low incomes—and pensioners get left out altogether. We cannot and will not accept that. I can tell the government that over the coming years we will be pointing back to this moment, this great lost opportunity to redress something of the imbalance that grew over the Howard years.
What about the need for carers in this country? They live on a pittance. They provide enormous services to those of us who want to see people who are ill, disabled or disadvantaged looked after. They provide the nation with billions of dollars of voluntary service, those people who care for fellow Australians, and yet the budget bypassed them, essentially. The government did not move to recognise that they too are citizens who deserve time off, who deserve to be able to enjoy the freedom of life that so many people, who are going to have massive amounts of money go into their pockets because of these tax cuts, take for granted. There is a failure of understanding here. There is a failure of understanding the difference between the plight of people in our society who are struggling on a pension or caring for others and the unprecedented advantage that the wealthy—and that includes all us members of parliament—have in Australia in 2008. There has never been anything like it before in history. But this government is doing much like the Howard government would have done were it still occupying the government benches. The policies are look-alikes, and it is the Greens who are going to continue to argue—the Democrats have a wonderful track record on this—for social justice in this country with a capital S and a capital J, because it is not in this legislation. This is unjust legislation.
We are not talking about peanuts. As Senator Murray said, put it together with the last Howard tax cuts and we are talking about $57 billion of what should be collected revenue, if not for the pensioners and carers of this country, for hospitals, for remote and rural health services, for public education, for fast and efficient public transport, and for dealing with climate change. Look at the proposal from Senator Milne on behalf of the Greens to retrofit all houses in Australia, starting with the poorest people first, and adding insulation and renewable energy. Cut their power bills. There is more for poor Australians in that proposal than there is in this legislation. But this legislation means the funding is not there to take on that option coming from the Greens which not only advantages us now but will advantage our grandchildren. Argue that about this legislation, if you will.
Then we see, at the other end of the spectrum from the poorer people I have been talking about, these merchants taking home millions of dollars—some of them tens of millions of dollars—each year for their contribution to the country. It is excruciating. Even Republican candidate John McCain has said in the last few days we should stop this. There has to be government intervention on these massive takings of moneys from society by people at the top end of the corporate sector. It does not come out of thin air; it comes out of other people’s pockets. Pay people well for their service. Pay people well for their innovation. Pay people well for their contribution to the nation and to the world. But this has become a massive rort. We, as parliamentarians, have to look at it. That is our responsibility.
If the Republican candidate for the US election says, ‘I’m going to look at that,’ why aren’t the Labor Party looking at this in this country? Because they have lost their way as a party of social justice. So here we are, the Greens, following the Democrats’ worthy amendments, saying: for people on over $75,000 a week, the taxation system is very advantageous as it is. We’re not going to support these further megamillion dollar tax breaks. We will not support them; we will oppose them. We will take the government on in any forum to argue this, and I hope we do not hear down the line, in the coming three years, that the government cannot afford this amount for some struggling Australian group or institution who need proper government support. I will be reminding them about this day in this chamber. This proposal is unfair, unwarranted and unjust. This is simply an echo of the Howard government years. I have put forward these amendments seriously. They are what the Labor Party should be doing, and I ask, even at this late moment, that Labor reconsider.
2126
13:16:00
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
0
Senator MURRAY
—Senator Bob Brown’s amendments put on behalf of the Australian Greens retain the threshold lift in the 15 per cent rate from $30,000, which is what applies now, to $34,000, then $35,000 and then $37,000 by the year 2010. They also retain the low-income tax offset, which is an increase from $750 now—these are Labor proposals, by the way—through to $1,500 in July 2010. Senator Brown’s amendments retain—again the Labor proposal—the lift in the senior Australians tax offset, single, from $28,867 now to $30,685 in July 2010 and the lift in that tax offset for a couple from $24,680 to $26,680 from the period 2008 to 2010. So, like us, Senator Brown has retained the benefit of the low-income tax cuts. We should also recognise that raising the threshold of the 15 per cent rate to $37,000 by 1 July 2010 does flow through to all income levels; we do recognise that.
Where he has been tougher than the Democrats is with respect to the $75,000 to $80,000 threshold movements—and these days that is pretty well middle income. But I am not going to quarrel, as I think the thrust of Senator Brown’s remarks as to the amendments are right, primarily because the climate has changed. It has changed absolutely remarkably since the election campaign. There was no statement from Treasury, from the Reserve Bank of Australia, from the Treasurer at the time, from the Leader of the Opposition or from anyone that forecast in November 2007 the sorts of economic circumstances we are now facing. Frankly, it is tough for the new Labor government, given all their hopes, dreams, campaigning and plans, because the climate has changed significantly. So, on the basis of the arguments that I have made previously and the remarks that I have made now—even though I personally and my party are very wary of your $75,000 to $80,000 area, Senator Brown—I think on balance the Democrats support the Greens’ amendments.
2127
13:19:00
Coonan, Sen Helen
2M6
New South Wales
LP
0
0
Senator COONAN
—The opposition will be supporting the government in relation to this bill, and I made that very clear in my speech in the second reading debate. I thought it not really appropriate to cavil with every proposition put forward by Senators Murray and Bob Brown. However, I do think it is both extravagant and outrageous to claim that the former Howard government neglected pensioners and carers. That is simply not true, and I think it is appropriate that I put on the record a couple of facts as to that.
Quite apart from the issues that took up a lot of this year, in particular the issue of the carers’ bonus, which was largely agitated by the opposition and supported by various pensioners and carers’ groups, the Howard government’s record as to both pensioners and carers is, I think, a sound one. That is quite apart from the fact that the Howard government decreased unemployment, through 2.2 million new jobs, increased real wages by 21 per cent and doubled on average the real net wealth per head of every person in this country. Of course Senator Brown would say that things got pretty bad, and let me tell you that things got so bad under the Howard government that we actually paid carers and senior Australians bonuses that had never been paid before—and we did that for four years. We increased pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and in fact we legislated that percentage increase, which had never been put into legislation before.
What carers and pensioners can trust is of course the record of the coalition. We did not just talk; we delivered. Between 1996 and 2005 the real disposable income of the poorest 20 per cent of our society, who are very important to us—the carers, the pensioners and seniors—increased by 25 per cent. There was a 25 per cent real increase in the effective income of carers and pensioners. That statistic does not come from me; that comes from the independent and authoritative National Centre for Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra.
We can obviously disagree about points of emphasis. That is not to say that pensioners and carers do not deserve better; they clearly do. However, rearranging or attempting to rearrange the government’s priorities on the tax cuts by an amendment of this kind is hardly a way to put pensioners and carers on a more sustained footing that I think would satisfy Senator Brown. We are in opposition; we are not the government. We are the opposition with a proud record—we think—of caring for pensioners and understanding the specific needs of carers. Under the current circumstances, we think Australian families who are the subject of this bill that we are considering deserve these tax cuts. They have worked hard; they have earned them. I am not making any qualitative comments about pensioners and carers other than to say that in a different setting and context we might be able—as an opposition and on the crossbenches—to urge the government to take better care of them and to look further at what needs to be done for them. But doing so in the course of this bill is not the place.
2127
13:23:00
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
0
Senator SHERRY
—I will be brief because much of the contribution from Senator Brown traversed the issues that were raised in the second reading debate and have been raised in the earlier committee debate. Like Senator Coonan, I want to make a comment about carers and seniors, the group which Senator Brown has focused on in the discussion this afternoon.
We have before us the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Reduction) Bill 2008. I agree with Senator Coonan. There may be changes that benefit carers and age pensioners. Indeed the Labor government has established a process, through the total review of the tax system, to include a review of the age pension and retirement incomes more broadly. I accept the point made by Senator Brown that if you are on approximately $14,000 a year—I think he gave the figure of $270 a week as an age pensioner—it is tough. I accept that point, Senator Brown. We have established a process to consider the issues around the age pension. That is not the issue before us directly today; that is to do with the income tax reduction bill.
I have a minor point of correction. I have followed retirement incomes issues and pension and superannuation matters for a long time, and no doubt there have been significant improvements in a whole range of areas for retirees who have personal private income, whether it be superannuation income or non-superannuation income. As a general observation, it is correct to say that—and this is where I depart from Senator Coonan—if you look back over the last 12 years of the previous government there was not a great deal of attention paid to age pensioners. I am talking about full age pensioners who do not have private income. That is one of the reasons, Senator Brown, for including a thorough examination of the age pension within that tax review.
Much was made of this by the previous government. They claim that they indexed the age pension up to 25 per cent of MTAWE—I think Senator Coonan referred to average weekly earnings; it is male total average weekly earnings. I made that mistake once a couple of years ago, Senator Coonan, and I certainly read about it. It is MTAWE—male total average weekly earnings. But it was the Hawke Labor government that introduced that provision. As a matter of policy, it introduced 25 per cent of MTAWE, male total average weekly earnings. I accept that the Liberal government legislated, but it was actually the Hawke government that introduced that indexation method, and that was maintained by the Hawke-Keating governments and the previous government.
3M6
Murray, Sen Andrew
Senator Murray interjecting—
10000
Forshaw, Michael (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
(Senator Forshaw)—Senator Murray, there is no point of order or point of clarification.
Honourable senators interjecting—
10000
TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
—Order! Senators, we are almost at the end of this debate and I think we can get there without too many interjections or disorderly conduct.
ZW4
Sherry, Sen Nick
Senator SHERRY
—I think this is what we call the last hurrah on the GST, Senator Murray.
10000
TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN, The
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
—Senator Sherry. I know Senator Murray is listening intently to your laudatory remarks, but you will direct them through the chair, please.
ZW4
Sherry, Sen Nick
Senator SHERRY
—Yes, I am sorry, Chair. We are dealing with income tax reductions. They are focused on low- to middle-income earners. That was the election promise we have given; that is the election promise we are committed to delivering and are debating here today. I acknowledge the important role of carers and age pensioners. Frankly, I am not surprised, Senator Brown, that we are having the debate generally around age pensions. Having looked back at the history over the last 20 years around the age pension, I am not surprised at the community debate that is occurring.
I acknowledge the very significant cost pressures that age pensioners are under, as well as that of low- to middle-income earners more generally in society. I acknowledge that cost pressure, Senator Brown. It is real struggle street for a person. I think it is very tough if you are on a single age pension of $14,000 a year. We have established a process that will comprehensively consider all those factors. It is a separate process, Senator Brown. I hope that solutions will come out of that that we will deal with some time in the near future, Senator Brown.
2129
13:29:00
Brown, Sen Bob
QD4
Tasmania
AG
Leader of the Australian Greens
0
0
Senator BOB BROWN
—I thank all contributors to this little debate. We have an agreement. Senator Coonan, on behalf of the opposition, has said that carers and pensioners really do deserve better. The minister has said that pensioners are on struggle street and they are finding it very tough. We all know that, and we have an obligation to fix it. My point here is that the priorities are wrong. We are giving people on lower incomes and middle incomes a well-deserved break in this legislation. But the biggest break of the lot goes to people who are already wealthy. We ought to have given the priority to those who are on struggle street and who really deserve better. The Greens strongly support these amendments, with that in view.
Question put:
That the amendments (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.
13:34:00
The committee divided.
(The Deputy President—Senator JJ Hogg)
7
AYES
Allison, L.F.
Bartlett, A.J.J.
Brown, B.J.
Milne, C.
Murray, A.J.M.
Nettle, K.
Siewert, R. *
42
NOES
Barnett, G.
Bernardi, C.
Birmingham, S.
Boyce, S.
Brown, C.L.
Bushby, D.C.
Campbell, G.
Chapman, H.G.P.
Colbeck, R.
Collins, J.
Coonan, H.L.
Cormann, M.H.P.
Crossin, P.M.
Ellison, C.M.
Fierravanti-Wells, C.
Fisher, M.J.
Forshaw, M.G.
Hogg, J.J.
Humphries, G.
Hurley, A.
Hutchins, S.P.
Kirk, L.
Lundy, K.A.
Macdonald, I.
Marshall, G.
McEwen, A.
McLucas, J.E.
Moore, C.
O’Brien, K.W.K.
Parry, S.
Payne, M.A.
Polley, H.
Ronaldson, M.
Scullion, N.G.
Sherry, N.J.
Stephens, U.
Sterle, G.
Troeth, J.M.
Trood, R.B.
Watson, J.O.W.
Webber, R. *
Wortley, D.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Third Reading
2129
Senator SHERRY
(Tasmania
—Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law)
13:38:00
—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
WHEAT EXPORT MARKETING BILL 2008
2129
Bills
R2986
WHEAT EXPORT MARKETING (REPEAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2129
Bills
R2987
First Reading
2129
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
2130
13:38:00
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
0
Senator SHERRY
—I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
2130
2130
13:39:00
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
0
Senator SHERRY
—I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
WHEAT EXPORT MARKETING BILL 2008
Australia’s wheat export marketing arrangements are not working effectively.
The previous government’s wheat export marketing arrangements failed to protect the interests of growers.
First, there was no effective separation of the management of the listed company AWB Limited and the subsidiary AWB International.
Second, the export monopoly resulted in a lack of contestability in services.
This meant that returns to growers from the National Pool were not maximised because the costs of operating the pool were not minimised.
And third, the body established by the former government to protect the interests of growers – the Wheat Export Authority, as well as its successor – the Export Wheat Commission, – was not given the powers it needed to do its job.
Worse, the government failed to ensure it used the limited powers it had effectively.
These failures were highlighted over the years during a range of inquiries and reviews, including the Cole Commission.
For example, the 2000 National Competition Policy Review of wheat marketing arrangements, the study by ACIL Tasman in 2006 and a recent analysis by ABARE, all failed to find any compelling evidence that single desk marketing can deliver price premiums in the international market.
These studies provided convincing evidence that the old single desk had an inhibiting effect on both innovation in marketing and the realisation of cost savings in grain transport and handling.
The research found any price premiums were largely attributable to freight advantages or to the provision of services associated with the sale of wheat – not the single desk arrangement.
In addition to those authoritative reports, successive ‘Grower Reports’ produced by the Export Wheat Commission suggest that growers were not getting the best financial deal under the old single desk arrangements.
For example, the 2007 report raised concerns about the financial risk faced by growers under AWB Limited’s hedging practices relating to the 2005-06 and 2006-07 pools and chartering rates charged by AWB Chartering.
The failings of the previous government’s wheat marketing policies are well documented.
Risks to growers were increased by forcing them to rely on a single exporter. For example, by forcing growers to export through AWB International, Australian growers temporarily lost access to the Iraq market, a critically important market which has only recently resumed Australian wheat imports.
The former government’s policy reduced incentives for much needed investment in rail and port infrastructure.
It stifled innovation by restricting growers’ capacity to invest in their own marketing options.
It prevented growers from being able to take full advantage of high-premium niche export markets.
It restricted growers’ marketing choices.
And it prevented industry from working collaboratively to maximise supply chain efficiencies.
An evidence-based assessment clearly demonstrates the failings of the old single desk system.
In the wake of the Cole Commission, the previous government had an unprecedented opportunity, indeed a clear responsibility to act, and to act decisively.
But it failed to do so.
It failed to do so because the Liberal National Coalition was paralysed by division.
Instead, in response to Cole, the previous government put in place a series of half-hearted temporary measures which were nothing more than a patch up job.
The temporary measures, which remain in place today, not only failed to remedy the underlying defects but in fact exacerbated the problems.
Worse, the previous government politicised the complex arrangements by granting temporary veto powers for bulk wheat exports to the then Minister.
We now have the absurd situation where the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry decides who can and who can not export wheat in bulk.
Even the monopoly holder has described the current temporary arrangements as unworkable.
AWB Ltd Managing Director Mr Gordon Davis recently said, and I quote, “No responsible Board of Directors would agree to continue running a National Pool in these circumstances and in the current US sub-prime environment”.
The temporary arrangements are a stark reminder of just how badly the issue of wheat marketing has paralysed the Liberal-National Coalition.
Members on all sides of the House need to appreciate that this legislation is about providing choice to growers.
Under the old rules, growers who wished to export wheat in bulk outside of AWBI were prevented from doing so.
The purpose of this legislation is to give growers the choice of determining which exporter they wish to use.
This should not be considered an unreasonable step.
After all, it is their wheat.
This bill delivers on a key election commitment to establish a system that will provide Australian wheat growers and the grains industry with a structure that will maximise incentives, minimise costs, increase supply chain efficiencies, reduce risk and protect growers.
This bill will make marketing services more cost-efficient, and will open new markets for Australian wheat.
In developing the draft legislation, the Government has undertaken an extensive consultation process:
-
we have released an exposure draft of the legislation for public comment
-
the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee has inquired into the bills
-
we have established an Industry Expert Group which has consulted with industry and reported on the most effective delivery of industry development services
-
and I, and my Department, have consulted with a range of stakeholders, including growers, grower organisations, bulk handlers and potential exporters.
The Government has conducted several detailed private briefings with each of the state farm organisations.
And a significant number of non-government members and Senators also took up the offer of private briefings.
The Government is particularly pleased with the response to this consultation process and the willingness of industry to look to the future and work cooperatively with government to refine the legislation before you today.
The Government has listened to the views expressed by industry members and the Senate Committee, and has accepted arguments put forward on a number of issues.
The draft legislation has been amended accordingly.
The new arrangements will be in place by 1 July 2008, so that growers and other industry participants will know, with certainty, the arrangements that will apply for the 2008 harvest.
The Government will conduct an independent evaluation of these arrangements commencing in 2010.
By then, the scheme will have been operating for long enough to allow a true indication of its effectiveness.
This review will be conducted by the Productivity Commission, and will include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of the arrangements.
The new arrangements centre around the establishment of a new industry regulator, Wheat Exports Australia, which will control bulk wheat exports by managing an export accreditation scheme.
Wheat Exports Australia will be established as an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and will be subject to the provisions of that Act.
It will be comprised of a Chair, and between three and five other members who will be appointed based on their skills and experience in relevant areas.
I have established a selection committee to provide me with a list of candidates for consideration.
I expect the committee to provide its recommendations shortly.
The primary responsibility for Wheat Exports Australia will be to develop, refine and administer the accreditation scheme.
The scheme will be made as a legislative instrument under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
It has been done this way to make sure Wheat Exports Australia has the flexibility to manage the scheme effectively.
While Wheat Exports Australia will be given the power to make and administer the scheme, it will do so under broad policy parameters set out in the bill.
The final scrutiny will be by Parliament, as the Scheme must be tabled and is a disallowable instrument.
As well as granting accreditation, Wheat Exports Australia will have the power to suspend or cancel an accreditation if the exporter ceases to meet its probity requirements or is not complying with its conditions of accreditation.
Wheat Exports Australia will regularly review the financial conditions, and activities, of accredited exporters to make sure they are complying with the conditions of their accreditation.
Accredited exporters will be required to provide annual compliance reports and other relevant information to assist with this process.
Wheat Exports Australia will also be able to audit accredited companies.
There will be severe penalties for exporting wheat in bulk without accreditation, breaching the conditions of accreditation or providing false or misleading information to Wheat Exports Australia.
These will vary, depending on the breach.
These powers and related penalties will mean that, unlike its predecessors, Wheat Exports Australia will have the teeth to effectively perform its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities.
The bill contains an appropriate balance between the need to apply strict probity and performance tests to protect the interests of growers, while not applying an excessive regulatory burden on accredited exporters.
Any company or cooperative may apply for accreditation.
The Government does not believe it is necessary to extend accreditation rights to individuals, as prudent managers would operate as a company to reduce their exposure to risks associated with shipping, what are expected to be, high-value tonnages.
The bill sets out the criteria that Wheat Exports Australia must consider in assessing applications for accreditation.
Wheat Exports Australia will be looking at things such as the financial resources available to the company, its risk management systems and the demonstrated behaviour of the company and its executives including making sure that they are abiding by Australian law and complying with foreign laws and United Nations resolutions.
To ensure continuity of accreditation, exporters will be able to apply to have their accreditation renewed before it expires.
Wheat Exports Australia will apply the same criteria as it would with any application for accreditation.
However, as Wheat Exports Australia will already hold significant information relating to the applicant, the process should be less onerous.
While applicants will need to comply fully with some of those criteria, Wheat Exports Australia will be able to exercise some flexibility in respect of others.
There are some eligibility requirements that Wheat Exports Australia must consider, and it will have to make a judgment on whether the applicant’s record is likely to impact on its ability to fulfil its obligations as an accredited exporter.
Wheat Exports Australia has the discretion to make decisions based on the applicant’s particular circumstances and proposed export arrangements.
In determining whether an applicant is fit and proper for accreditation, Wheat Exports Australia is to have regard to a number of clauses as spelled out in section 13(1)(c) of the bill.
In reference to section 13(1)(c), I stress that the 17 clauses that follow are not of themselves the test, but are issues to which Wheat Exports Australia must have regard when determining whether or not the company, in the present, is a fit and proper company to be accredited to export wheat in bulk.
If a company does not meet one of the criteria to which Wheat Exports Australia is to have regard in determining whether an applicant is fit and proper for accreditation, it does not necessarily mean it will not be accredited.
For example, Wheat Exports Australia may also consider what action the applicant has taken to remedy the situation.
Wheat Exports Australia will need to exercise judgment as to whether the applicant is fit and proper to be accredited even though it may not pass all of the items in section 13(1)(c).
The assessment of the probity and performance of businesses applying for accreditation will go back five years.
All applicants will be treated the same under the assessment process.
However, different conditions of accreditation may be applied depending on the content of their application and their ability to deliver on their proposed activities.
AWB International will not hold any special status, and will need to apply for accreditation based on the same criteria as applied to other exporters.
These criteria are designed to make sure that growers are dealing only with companies or cooperatives of good standing and financial capability.
Growers need to know that exporters have the reputation and financial backing to pay for their crop.
I appreciate that growers will want to know as soon as possible who has been accredited and with whom they can deal.
A timely assessment of applications is essential.
I expect Wheat Exports Australia to assess applications as a priority, and I will make sure the Government provides any assistance needed to help it cope with the initial flurry of applications.
One of the concerns identified during consultation was the risk of a single wheat export monopoly being replaced by three regional monopolies.
There were varying views on how to manage this risk, and the Government considered a number of options to meet the principle of ensuring effective competition without imposing an unnecessary regulatory burden on business.
The Government was also mindful that imposing a significant regulatory burden on the supply chain would only result in increased costs being passed back to growers.
So we have decided to impose specific requirements on accredited exporters that operate bulk grain terminals at ports, as these are the facilities with natural monopoly characteristics and are the infrastructure bottleneck in the export supply chain.
Unless all exporters can obtain access to these critical facilities on fair and reasonable terms then one of the major objectives of the policy could be frustrated.
Compliance with these requirements will be a condition of accreditation.
If Wheat Exports Australia is satisfied that an exporter has breached these conditions it will have the power to suspend or revoke its accreditation.
For the period until 1 October 2009, accredited exporters who operate bulk grain terminals at ports will be required to publish the terms and conditions under which they will provide access to other users.
After 1 October 2009, they must have an approved access undertaking with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The reason for the different conditions for port terminal operators before and after 1 October 2009 is that, according to advice from the ACCC, it is unlikely that the ACCC could receive, process and approve access undertakings in time for the 2008-2009 marketing season.
The Senate Inquiry also identified concern in relation to the potential for bulk handling companies to restrict access to up-country storage facilities in a similar manner to concerns in relation to port facilities.
It is unclear from the evidence presented to the Senate Inquiry whether the problem would arise, and if so, the extent of legislation that would be required to correct it.
If the highest level of regulation were to be imposed on the more than 500 up-country facilities there is no doubt that this would create increased compliance costs which would almost certainly be passed back to growers.
The government will, therefore, continue to monitor the ability of exporters to access up-country storage facilities.
Let me say here, if any problems are identified then the government will take steps to remedy the situation including, if necessary, the development of a Code of Conduct.
Wheat Exports Australia will require an annual budget of around $4 million which will be funded through the existing Wheat Export Charge at its current rate of 22 cents per tonne of wheat exported.
This will be complemented by accreditation fees which will be determined on a cost-recovery basis.
Funds left over from the Export Wheat Commission will be transferred to the new regulator on its inception.
The Government recognises that these funds will be limited, as revenue from the 2007 crop has been well below expectations because of the drop in wheat exports as a result of the drought.
In addition, the funding streams for Wheat Exports Australia will not generate significant revenue until exports from the 2008 crop are fully underway.
Therefore, some additional start-up funding will be needed, particularly given that operational expenses are expected to be greater in the initial year.
The Government will provide up to $5 million to help Wheat Exports Australia through the transition period.
As part of the reforms, the Government established an Industry Expert Group to advise on the most efficient and effective delivery of industry development functions previously provided by AWB (International) Ltd.
For most of these services the Group recommended a mixture of commercial and industry-driven solutions that do not need to be set in legislation. The Government agrees with this assessment.
The exception is the availability of market information.
The success of the new arrangements will depend on all industry participants having equitable access to key market information.
The Government will facilitate delivery of this information by providing up to $2.52 million over three years for ABS to collect the necessary information and ABARE to prepare a monthly report which will be available to industry.
This approach is consistent with the IEG recommendation.
While I agree with the Group’s assessment that technical market support is a matter for exporters, I appreciate that it may take time for new entrants to develop support arrangements.
The Government will therefore provide funding of up to $600,000, over three years, to help new marketers develop arrangements to deliver effective technical market support.
The Government will be talking to relevant industry representatives on how to best utilise this assistance.
The IEG strongly supports the development of a code of conduct along the lines of that being developed by the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association (NACMA) and its members.
The NACMA code is aimed at improving clarity in prices posted at silos and thus allowing growers to make better-informed marketing decisions.
Among other things, compliance with the NACMA code would mean:
-
first, prominent listing and use of standardised language and means of expressions for all fees, charges and statutory deductions applicable to all types of transactions in grain
-
second, posting on silo boards and on the web, the transparent net return figures for all types of transactions
-
and third, expression of base marketing costs charged against all types of transactions.
The Government supports the IEG recommendation and will provide some funding to NACMA to help with the finalisation and promotion of the code.
There is also a need to help growers understand the proposed changes so that they may be able to take full advantage of the benefits the new system has to offer.
The Government will provide up to $1.15 million for information sessions for growers and major customers right across the country starting in July.
This will include informing wheat growers about the new arrangements and associated marketing options and financial dealings, and appropriate checks and balances that will be in place to protect growers’ interests.
The Government will work closely with the state farming organisations in developing and implementing this initiative.
The Government is also committed to finding solutions to problems associated with grain rail infrastructure and is providing up to $6 million for taskforces in Western Australia and New South Wales to investigate ways of stimulating investment in this critical transport industry for rural Australia.
The bill is accompanied by the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008.
This bill provides for amendments to other legislation to make it consistent with the provisions of the main Bill.
This is an exciting time for Australian agriculture.
Australia’s wheat export marketing arrangements must be changed if the Australian wheat industry is to realise its true potential in the global market place.
With grain prices at historically high levels, growers are now very well positioned to directly benefit from the changes the Government is introducing.
These benefits in turn, will flow back to regional and rural communities that depend on Australia’s grain growers.
Under these changes, for the first time in more than 60 years, Australian wheat growers will be able to choose who they sell their grain to based on the very best deal they can get.
Today’s farmers continue to benefit from the abolition of trade tariffs and the trade liberalisation reforms introduced by the Hawke-Keating Labor governments.
Today’s wheat growers also enjoy the benefits offered by the deregulation of the domestic wheat market in 1989.
Tomorrow’s farmers stand to benefit from the reforms introduced to the Parliament today.
WHEAT EXPORT MARKETING (REPEAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
To ensure the new wheat export marketing arrangements operate effectively, various amendments are needed to make other legislation consistent with the provisions of the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008.
The bill will help ensure an orderly transition to the new arrangements and make certain that growers are not disadvantaged because of arrangements entered into under the previous legislation.
It also repeals the existing Wheat Marketing Act 1989.
The key provisions include:
-
amending the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 to reflect the fact that the export of bulk wheat is prohibited without accreditation from Wheat Exports Australia
-
providing for the transfer of funds held by the Export Wheat Commission to Wheat Exports Australia
-
allowing the Export Wheat Commission to develop the accreditation scheme before 1 July 2008 so that it will be operational from the start of the new arrangements
-
allowing Wheat Exports Australia to finalise outstanding tasks of the Export Wheat Commission. For example, Wheat Exports Australia will finalise the report on the performance of AWB (International) Ltd in relation to the benefits delivered to growers from its management of the 2007-08 National Pool
-
allowing AWB (International) Ltd to continue marketing of wheat from the 2007-08 National Pool, and for those exporters who have been granted bulk export permits to complete shipments under those consents, without needing accreditation up to 30 September 2008
-
amending the Criminal Code Act to make it an offence to provide false information to Wheat Exports Australia in an application for accreditation under the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008
-
amending the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 and the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to ensure that provisions contained in them that refer to the Wheat Marketing Act 1989 will still apply despite the repeal of the Wheat Marketing Act 1989.
2135
13:39:00
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
0
Senator MINCHIN
—I inform the Senate that Liberal senators will not be opposing the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. As is well known, this legislation creates an exporter accreditation scheme for the export of bulk wheat and represents the formal shift in our export wheat-marketing arrangements. Although progressive change has meant that the single desk has not been functioning for at least a couple of years in the manner in which it was established, this legislation removes the single desk and creates a scheme to accredit multiple exporters. It is a significant formal change, and we well understand that not everybody in the wheat industry supports this change. But the Liberal Party, on balance, believes that this change is inevitable.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
10000
Murray, Andrew (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Murray)—Order! Members of the public gallery might not be acquainted with the rules of the Senate, but interjections are disorderly. I prefer you not to make them; otherwise, you will be removed.
JX4
Minchin, Sen Nick
Senator MINCHIN
—So the Liberal Party will not oppose this bill in the Senate as we do believe these changes will create new opportunities for Australia’s wheat industry. There are a range of views on this issue. We are well aware of that, and I pay my respects to those in the gallery who wish to see the past arrangements continue. But the parliament does have to make a decision about the future of export wheat marketing, which is of course a function of legislation passed by this parliament. We do need to make a decision on this now, because something has to occur by 30 June 2008, the point at which the temporary arrangements put in place by the former coalition government expire. Those current arrangements were put in place by our government following the AWB scandal, the arrangements that were entered into with respect to Iraq and the effective collapse of those arrangements.
It was clear to the Liberal Party then, as it is now, that the single desk arrangements, with a monopoly exporter in the form of AWB, simply could not continue. If we were not to pass legislation of this kind now, we believe that would be going backwards. We do have to address the realities that we face and do our utmost to create new opportunities for Australia’s wheat industry.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
10000
ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
—Order! I would really rather that members of the public gallery attended the debate and listened to it. But, if you continue to interject in that manner, you will be removed by the attendants. So please accept that as a warning. We would prefer you to remain.
JX4
Minchin, Sen Nick
Senator MINCHIN
—I acknowledge and understand the passions that this issue arouses. But it is the Liberal Party view that competition will ultimately deliver better prices to farmers, and farmers of course will have more choice in how they market their wheat. We do see this legislation as positive for the wheat industry, and I hope that those who are reluctant to accept these changes will look at the opportunities this new system will create. These bills have been examined by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I thank Liberal senators on that committee for their involvement and work throughout the inquiry, and I commend them on their additional comments in the report. They were right to highlight the flaws in the exposure drafts of this legislation, particularly the fact that they did not actually formally recognise wheat growers in the legislation. The government have adopted many of the points raised in the Senate committee report that were mentioned by Liberal senators and we welcome those changes.
I have to express my disappointment at the second reading speech of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on this legislation, as he sought to politicise this issue and attack the former coalition government. We are grappling with a difficult issue and we are trying to find the best way forward for this industry, but this is not the time to be politicising this issue. But the minister spent 20 per cent of his speech attacking the former coalition government instead of talking about the legislation and how he and his government see it benefiting growers. Labor’s only position in opposition was of course to attack the coalition. They opposed the AWB operated single desk and were also opposed to the interim arrangements that the former government put in place to deal with the outcome of the Iraq wheat scandal. They opposed a ministerial veto, yet never presented an alternative. I think most disturbing, particularly for wheat growers, is the fact that Labor went to the election quite clearly promising to retain the single desk but have now broken that promise. They have not explained that to growers, who still want a single desk, or explained why they have broken that promise.
It is important to place on record that the coalition, as such, is very proud of its record on rural and regional issues. We well understand—better than any other political entity in this country—the contribution of rural and regional Australians to this country, and we are proud of what we did in government for many, many years in this country. We know that during tough times like the droughts, which my own state of South Australia feels as much as anywhere else, rural communities are the hardest hit and need support. That is why, as finance minister in the former government, I was happy to support our measures to provide more than $3½ billion in drought assistance and other measures to help rural and regional families and communities during what has been the worst drought in living memory. All we see from this government—the new Labor government—is that rural and regional Australians are a target for its razor gang funding cuts. We are very disappointed with the sorts of cuts that Labor has made to rural and regional programs. I ask those present to contrast that with the work that Liberal members and senators do to support rural and regional Australia in this place.
My own state of South Australia contributes around 20 per cent of Australia’s export wheat production. As a South Australian senator, I am well aware of the farmers who passionately support deregulating the wheat industry as well as those who oppose it. There is a range of views on this matter and South Australian Liberal senators have listened consistently to those views. The Liberal Party have always, in hand with our National colleagues, been concerned with the plight not only of wheat growers but of other rural producers in Australia, and we acted in government in their best interests. Although wheat production in recent years of course has been affected by drought, we are still dealing with a significant agricultural industry, with production in the order of some several billion dollars. We understand and respect the importance of that industry to Australia and the importance of sustainable and prosperous rural communities, and our record in government reflects that.
The legislation surrounding wheat marketing has a long history in this country, involving a progressive change to less regulatory arrangements, going back to the Hawke and Keating governments, which of course deregulated the domestic market nearly 20 years ago. Following the Cole inquiry, the coalition government removed the AWBI monopoly on bulk exports. It was our government that deregulated the export of non-bulk wheat. In December 2006, the coalition government announced that an extensive consultation process would be undertaken to gather industry views on the future of the Australian wheat export industry. In January 2007, the coalition government announced the appointment of the Wheat Export Marketing Consultative Committee to consult with industry, particularly growers, and report back on their export marketing needs. That committee delivered its report to the government in March 2007. In May of that year, Prime Minister Howard announced the way forward for our government:
... growers will be given by the government until 1 March 2008 as the time within which to establish a new entity to manage the single desk completely separate from AWB Ltd. This may be a completely new entity or a demerged AWB International and it will take over management of the single desk.
But he went on to add:
If growers are not able to establish the new entity by 1 March next year—
that is, this year—
the government will propose other marketing arrangements for wheat exports.
Prime Minister Howard said:
Let me make this clear to the House. The options available would include further deregulation of the wheat export market.
So, certainly from the Liberal Party’s point of view, our position has always been clear and we have always held out that one of the options is further deregulation of bulk wheat exports. I would ask those present and those listening to contrast that clear and honest position with the position of the Labor Party. The Labor Party’s 2008 election policy stated:
Labor proposes a new model for exporting wheat which retains a single desk for the control of wheat exports ...
Not surprisingly, in our view, Labor has said one thing and delivered another. But Mr Burke, the minister, still claims that he is delivering on an election commitment. We of course expect the Labor Party to seek to play politics on this and point to the different views which the Liberal and National parties have on this. But Labor’s hypocrisy knows no depths when it seeks to abandon its own pre-election statements on the matter.
I mentioned that the National Party has a different position on this, and we respect its position. We understand that the longstanding position in the National Party is of support for a single desk. On this occasion, that is one issue with which Liberal senators and Liberals in the House of Representatives cannot find agreement with the National Party. The National Party opposed Labor’s initial deregulation of the domestic wheat market in 1989. The Liberal Party at that time supported that deregulation and we voted separately on that matter. But our coalition has gone on from strength to strength since that time. Our coalition is strong enough for us to understand and respect differences on matters of this kind. The National Party has, as I said, indicated it is not in a position to support this legislation.
We have—as Liberal senators and members of the House of Representatives from all over Australia—listened to the great variety of views that have been expressed to us on this matter. As representatives in this great parliament, we have had reference to our fundamental philosophies and policies in order to determine our position forward. We have come to the view that, in relation to the legislation which the government has brought to this chamber, we will not oppose it. We believe that further relaxing of the regulations surrounding the export of bulk wheat will provide new opportunities for innovation and competition in this industry and will improve choice, clarity and certainty for growers. We believe that this bill will ensure, ultimately, a better future for Australian wheat growers. We do not believe that the old monopoly on bulk wheat exports held by AWB was in the long-term interests of this country. We believe as Liberals that monopolies typically are very bad, and we believe that it was inherent in having a monopoly exporter that corrupt practices would occur and develop. That is one of the reasons why everybody has to face the reality of the situation the country is now in.
There are those who think that you can continue to have this monopoly export arrangement, where people have no alternative but to sell to one exporter. We do not believe that can continue, and that was itself reinforced by AWB’s evidence to the Senate committee, in which they said:
… it is not commercially feasible for AWB to go back to the old arrangements. Let us remember the default set of conditions is a national pool—not a single desk—with bulk permits and deregulated bags and containers. It would not be commercially feasible to manage under those arrangements.
What you are reverting to … is the 2007 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, where the veto will transfer from the minister to the regulator, but there have not been additional legislative measures introduced that would spell out how the regulator would apply that veto, and that is the missing part of the picture at the moment.
So AWB made it quite clear that it is simply not possible to go back to the old arrangements, and they were the ones, of course, who held the single desk.
The Liberal Party is looking at some amendments to this bill, which were flagged by our leader, Dr Brendan Nelson, in the House in the earlier debate. We do believe those amendments will improve the position for growers under this legislation. We have put those amendments to the government and asked them to consider them in the hope that they may adopt them as their own or indicate their support for them. We await a response from the government on those amendments, and that will determine our position in relation to whether or not we move the amendments in the committee stage.
I pledge that Liberal senators and our members in the House of Representatives will closely monitor this new scheme to ensure it is meeting the needs of the Australian wheat industry. We will be closely watching Labor to ensure that it does not in any way seek to politicise the new body, Wheat Exports Australia, including through its appointments to that body. We will of course closely monitor the ramifications across the whole industry. We acknowledge that it is a very big change and we acknowledge the fact that many do not want to see it occur, but we do believe that ultimately it will be best for the industry.
I want to close by saying I have the greatest respect for our National Party colleagues in this chamber and understand why they are not in a position to support the legislation, but as Liberals we have to face the reality of the position that the industry is in and the fundamental unworkability of the current arrangements and recognise that it is time for this industry to move forward.
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
10000
ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
—I will ask the attendants to remove anyone who persistently interjects in the manner in which some members of the gallery have been interjecting.
2135
13:55:00
Siewert, Sen Rachel
E5Z
Western Australia
AG
0
0
Senator SIEWERT
—The Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and related bill represent a major shift in export wheat marketing in Australia. This legislation sees the final dismantling of the single desk marketing arrangements that have been a feature of bulk wheat exporting in this country for many years. However, this reform is not unexpected. The domestic wheat market has been deregulated for more than 20 years, and the export of wheat in bags and containers was deregulated last year. The export of all other grains has been progressively deregulated. Furthermore, the single desk as it existed at the time of the AWB Iraq scandal has been compromised. The previous government allowed other exporters to enter the market, moving the veto from AWB to the minister. Since then, the single desk has really not been operating as a genuine single desk. The current wheat-exporting legislation needs to be amended, as we all know, one way or another by the end of this month. The present situation is untenable.
This is a very complex issue and one the Greens have not taken lightly. We have recognised the passion on all sides of this important debate, and I wish to thank all those wheat farmers who have taken the time and trouble to write to and meet with me to discuss this matter. I acknowledge their very real and deep concerns about the proposed changes in this legislation.
The Greens have in the past always been supportive of the principles that underlie a single desk for bulk export wheat marketing. We do not automatically believe that the market will provide and are suspicious of deregulation for its own sake. We are also aware of the compromised international wheat market, with Australian farmers competing with farmers who receive substantial subsidies from their governments. We understand the appeal and very strongly believe in the strength of collective bargaining. We think this is particularly important when competing in such a compromised market.
We are conscious of the concerns about large multinational companies coming to dominate wheat marketing in Australia to the detriment of wheat farmers. Similar concerns about the nature of the market and about company behaviour led the Greens to oppose the corporatisation of AWB, believing that the conflict of interest inherent in a corporate holder of a single desk was not in the public interest or the interests of farmers. We were unfortunately shown to be right in the subsequent scandal involving AWB and Iraq and the evidence that AWB did not always operate to maximise returns to farmers. The way that the AWB was structured meant that it could not always put the interests of farmers at the forefront.
We also understand that there is a difference between the principle of a single desk and what happened under the corporate AWB. However, we are not convinced that it is a realistic option at this time to recreate the single desk underwritten by government because government are not convinced that that is the approach to take and are unwilling to put in the funding that would be required to establish a single desk. We believe that the best approach in an ideal world would be a single desk and we have articulated that argument on many occasions. However, as I said, we are aware that the government would not favour a single desk and would not put resources into it, and we do not believe there are resources currently in the farming community to establish a single desk that would operate effectively. In looking at this legislation, the Greens therefore saw their role as one of seeing what would be in the best interests of farmers if we could not have the ideal world and achieve a single desk.
The Greens are very conscious that some wheat farmers, particularly those in my home state of Western Australia, did not support the continuation of the single desk. Many farmers in my home state are in fact supportive of wheat export arrangements that provide them more control and choice as to how they sell their wheat. The views of the WA wheat growers are important in this debate, we believe, as nearly all the wheat grown in Western Australia is exported rather than sold into the domestic market. This in no way diminishes the evidence and arguments of the wheat farmers who are opposed to this bill. The Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport heard passionate defences of the single desk, and I received correspondence from numerous farmers arguing their position very strongly. They not only argued their position but also articulated the effect this would have on their communities.
Debate interrupted.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
2135
Ministerial Arrangements
2135
14:00:00
Evans, Sen Chris (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Leader of the Government in the Senate
1
0
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—by leave—Could I just indicate to the chamber that Senator Kim Carr, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, and Senator Stephen Conroy, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, will be absent from Senate question time this week—from 16 to 19 June—due to their ministerial commitments overseas. This week, Senator Carr is in San Diego leading a delegation of over 450 Australian corporations, universities and public research agencies at Bio-08, the world’s largest biotechnology convention, and has a series of other commitments. Senator Conroy is the vice chair of the OECD conference on the future of the internet economy in Korea. This meeting is a once in a decade opportunity for Australia to take a leading role in shaping the international digital economy.
The ministerial and representational responsibilities for this week will be undertaken in the following manner: Senator Nick Sherry will represent the Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer; Senator Ludwig will represent the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy; Senator Faulkner will represent the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government; I will represent the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy; and Senator Wong will represent the Minister for Education. In advising the chamber, I apologise to senators that they were not notified until this morning of the changes of arrangement. That was an error on my part.
2135
14:02:00
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
0
0
Senator MINCHIN
—by leave—As the former government, we do understand that on occasion it is unavoidable to have senior ministers absent from parliament, and it was always our view that it is not good practice to have senior ministers absent unless absolutely necessary. So I do want to record our disappointment that we have today an announcement that two senior ministers will be absent from this Senate for not one or two days but the full week. I accept Senator Evans’s apology for the fact that we only got the notice this morning. The notice itself does not give any indication of what the ministers are doing except to say that they are overseas. So I thank Senator Evans for at least informing us now of their activities overseas. But I do record, given this absence, that it is surprising that Senator Kim Carr is not present to answer questions about the government’s $35 million handout to Toyota. We are even more surprised that Senator Conroy, who has responsibility for Treasury matters in this place, is not here to handle his responsibility for Treasury bills in this Senate during this week. So we express our disappointment and hope that this is not indicative of how the government intends to treat the Senate for the next 2½ years.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
2135
14:03:00
Questions Without Notice
Hybrid Vehicles
2135
14:03:00
2135
Abetz, Sen Eric
N26
Tasmania
LP
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
0
Senator ABETZ
—My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Can the minister confirm that the engine for the hybrid Toyota Camry to be built in Australia will be fully imported from Japan?
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I thank the senator for his question. As the senator would know, the government made a very important announcement about innovation and the attempt to modernise our economy and lift our productivity capacity. The future of the Australian automotive industry lies in its ability to innovate, to meet changing consumer preferences and to respond to the challenge of climate change. The Green Car Innovation Fund which we have announced aims to support strategic investments that introduce and adapt new technology to reduce carbon emissions and improve fuel efficiency in the automotive industry. That support from the government was a critical factor in Toyota Australia’s decision to build and produce a hybrid Camry locally in Australia. That is the government’s understanding and it is Toyota’s understanding.
We want to be clear about what industry programs seek to achieve, and we must ensure these programs are effective. The Productivity Commission’s report will be a valuable input to the Bracks review and the government’s response to it. The commission is a first-class body; it has produced more than 100 publications in the last three years, but I do not expect to agree with all of the views and all of the publications. The government will look closely at the evidence and the views before us. The hybrid Camry, though, will be the first green vehicle of its kind commercially made in Australia. It will produce lower emissions than any other Australian made model and it will lead the way for cleaner, greener Australian produced vehicles.
Toyota’s announcement is a coup for the Australian automotive industry and one which stands the industry in a better stead for a competitive and sustainable future. I hope that the opposition supports this important development.
YW4
Macdonald, Sen Ian
Senator Ian Macdonald
—Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This is all very interesting but we have read it all in the papers. The question was very simple: is the engine imported from Japan? It had nothing to do with what Senator Evans is talking about. On the grounds of relevance, Mr President, could I ask you to indicate to the minister that we want the question answered, not a general ramble about government policy that we have seen in the papers over the last week.
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Senator Evans, I remind you of the question.
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I was trying to explain to the Senate what an important decision this was, and I was hoping that the opposition was going to support this important development for the Australian car industry. This contribution of $35 million for the hybrid Camrys will be part of a package that will be negotiated with Toyota and that will support their decision. They have made it very clear that this has been helpful in them coming to their decision about where to invest. As a condition of the capital, the Commonwealth will require the $35 million to be invested in research and development and retooling the plant and equipment to produce the hybrid
The government will work with Toyota on a contract that builds in R&D and innovation milestones. The contractual arrangements are yet to be entered into, but Toyota welcomed the government’s decision. We think it is a very important step in providing more fuel efficient cars. I do not know whether the interjection reflects the fact that the opposition have a policy decision today to oppose the decision. Like all of their policies at the moment, I am never quite sure what they are in favour of or what they are against, and we never seem to find out until the vote. I notice from Mr Nelson’s comments this morning, some of the things he opposed in the budget seem to have dropped off the list. But this is a very important development.
YW4
Macdonald, Sen Ian
Senator Ian Macdonald
—Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is of no relevance what other people might be saying. There was a question we wanted some information about and that was whether this engine is imported. The minister has not even tried to answer that. If question time is just going to be a ramble that ignores the questions the opposition are legitimately asking, we may as well give question time away. We are here to get information.
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—You are starting to debate the question. Senator Macdonald, I am conscious of answers that have been given over a long period of time by ministers. However, Senator Evans, I would suggest that referring to what Mr Nelson said about other issues is not relevant to the question, so I would remind you of the question.
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—Thank you, Mr President. I am surprised you rule Senator Nelson’s comments not relevant, but I guess you share the view of the majority of the Australian Senate.
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—It is not relevant to the question, Senator Evans.
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—This is an important announcement. This is an important commitment by the Australian government to the development of a hybrid vehicle. The negotiations between the government and Toyota will ensure this development money is well used and that we develop an alternative car capacity in this country that benefits consumers with lower fuel costs and benefits the economy as a part of our attack on the high level of carbon emissions.
14:09:00
2135
Abetz, Sen Eric
N26
Tasmania
LP
0
Senator ABETZ
—Mr President, I assume that the answer to my question is, in fact, yes. I ask a supplementary question of the minister: how does fully importing an engine made in Japan help Australian innovation and what guarantees has the government sought from Toyota, in particular that it will not reduce production of its all Australian made four-cylinder Camry engine, which uses the company’s latest improved fuel economy and lower emissions technology in favour of the fully imported Japanese hybrid engine?
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—As I indicated to the Senator, the $35 million is a capital grant. Toyota and the Australian government will develop an appropriate contract with milestones for payments. As a condition of the capital grant, the Commonwealth will require the $35 million to be invested in research and development, retooling the plant and equipment to produce the hybrid. Quite frankly, this means that this investment will occur in Australia, not in Thailand. I would have thought that the opposition would have welcomed this commitment by Toyota to support the ongoing development of Australian car manufacturing. This government will work with Toyota on a contract that builds in R&D and innovation milestones and helps ensure the development of the hybrid vehicle in Australia.
Economy
2135
14:11:00
2135
Wortley, Sen Dana
E6C
South Australia
ALP
1
Senator WORTLEY
—My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Sherry. Can the minister please update the Senate about how the Rudd government is going about achieving a fiscally responsible approach to economic management and what threats does this important policy face?
2135
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
Senator SHERRY
—I thank the Senator for her very important question. There are few more important issues currently before this parliament, particularly the Senate, than the issue of budget responsibility and fiscal discipline, particularly given the uncertain international economic times that we are witnessing at the present time. The government’s first budget is one built on delivering on our commitments to the Australian people. The Labor Party put forward a comprehensive set of commitments and promises that a Rudd Labor government would be economically and fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative. We gave those commitments before the election and we are going to deliver on it as outlined in the budget. The Rudd government’s first budget is about repairing the legacy of overspending left to us by the previous Liberal government.
JX4
Minchin, Sen Nick
Senator Minchin interjecting—
ZW4
Sherry, Sen Nick
Senator SHERRY
—Senator Minchin laughs, but he is one of those at least partly responsible in that last year of a discredited and divided former Liberal government who took his eye off the ball when it came to ensuring fiscal conservatism. The budget is also about delivering a record surplus that puts downward pressure on inflation because downward pressure on inflation will lead to downward pressure on interest rates. That is particularly important in the current circumstances. That is the series of commitments we made to the Australian people, the series of commitments we outlined in the budget and the series of commitments the Labor government intend to deliver on in our first budget.
The budget shows we are fair dinkum about assisting Australian families. We have just concluded and passed the income tax cuts. A typical young family will be $51.54 per week better off as a result of budget initiatives which commence in the next financial year beginning on 1 July 2008, in large part because of the income tax cuts. Another example is a couple with one primary schooler and one child in child care, earning a combined $87,000 a year. They will receive an extra $2,608 over 2008-09. This includes $1,050 in tax cuts or about $20 a week directed towards low- and middle-income earners. But, unfortunately, the irresponsible and reckless Liberal Party opposition have already indicated they will oppose several key budget measures. They include the condensate measures, the luxury car tax changes, the passenger movement charge, visa and passport fees and the better targeting of family tax benefit B and dependency offsets. If these measures are not passed by 1 July 2008, the next chance they will have to pass this Senate is in early September. The budget must be passed in full by the Senate by 1 July 2008 to maintain the integrity of the surplus, to keep downward pressure on inflation and to keep downward pressure on interest rates. Treasury have estimated that the cost of the irresponsible delays proposed by those opposite will be some $284 million. So it is time the Liberal Party recognise they are in opposition, recognise they should be fiscally and economically responsible, and pass the budget measures over the next fortnight.
Hybrid Vehicles
2135
14:15:00
2135
Fifield, Sen Mitchell
D2I
Victoria
LP
0
Senator FIFIELD
—My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Isn’t it a fact that, while the Australian government pays $35 million to import and assemble 10-year-old generation 1 hybrid technology from 2010, from the same year Japan, Europe and the United States will be accessing generation 2 plug-in lithium-ion battery hybrids?
00AOL
Colbeck, Sen Richard
Senator Colbeck
—You can’t use the same answer this time.
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I can and I will. I thank the senator for his question. I am not sure what the point of it is. As I say, I am not clear at all what the Liberal opposition stand for. Do they support the future of a hybrid car industry in Australia or don’t they? Do you support it or don’t you? It is a very simple question, but it seems to me that you do not, and I think that is a sad thing because we always had strong bipartisan support for the development of the Australian car industry. Senator Minchin used to be a very strong supporter of the car industry. I hope that extends beyond South Australian borders to Victoria as well.
I am concerned that the opposition seem unwilling to support what I think is a really important announcement. The $35 million government decision to support the hybrid Camry development is an important one. It is about developing new technology. It is about ensuring that we develop new technology, that we have increased research and development, and that we have retooling of Australian plants with equipment necessary to product the hybrid car. This will allow us to develop an alternative car and other initiatives through the Green Car Innovation Fund, which will reduce fuel consumption, will contribute to the fight against the growth in carbon emissions and, I think, will be welcomed by the Australian public as an important contribution.
We are also aware, of course, that the Bracks review is tasked with making recommendations on the broader delivery of the government’s Green Car Innovation Fund. That review reports on 31 July 2008 and, once we have that, we will be developing further measures which will look to use that serious amount of money we have allocated for this fund.
This first announcement has been welcomed by the Australian community. It does mark a new beginning for the Australian car industry and it is clear that this decision by the government has assisted Toyota in deciding to pursue these developments in Australia, to support Australian jobs, rather than pursue the option in Thailand. We think that is very important. Toyota have made it very clear that this decision was influential in them making this decision, and we think it is an important decision for the Australian economy. We think we have to maintain capacity for manufacturing in this country, and Toyota’s decision to produce 10,000 hybrid Camrys a year at Altona from 2010 very much gets us into the game. It gives local component makers a chance to develop new skills and new products and it gives us a head start in the race to win work on the next generation of hybrid and other green cars.
So I am not at all negative, as the opposition seems to be, about this development. I think it is a good thing for Australian industry, it is a good thing for the car industry and it is a good thing for motorists. It gives an opportunity for us to reduce fuel consumption, reduce the cost to them and also make a contribution to tackling carbon emissions. I know the opposition are not at all interested in the threat of climate change, but this government is. We are serious about it; we are contributing serious money to the efforts to build an economy where we emit less. I think this will be one of those steps along that path and the opposition ought to get on board and support what is a really important development.
2135
Fifield, Sen Mitchell
D2I
Victoria
LP
0
Senator FIFIELD
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I never thought I would miss Senator Carr! Perhaps the minister might like to have a second stab at answering whether, from 2010, Japan, Europe and the United States will be accessing generation 2 technology. The minister might also answer: when did the government seek to remove its much trumpeted research and development criteria for expenditure of funds from its so-called Green Car Innovation Fund? What conditions has the government put in place to ensure that new so-called green car research and development takes place at Toyota as a result of its grant? The minister could perhaps answer: was Kim Carr right when he told the Weekend Australian:
… it doesn’t have to be new research and development, it doesn’t have to be adopted off the drawing board, it doesn’t have to be newly patented technology …
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Order! Before calling Senator Evans, I would remind Senator Fifield he must refer to a senator by his proper title.
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—Thank you, Mr President. The key point is this: our contribution, the $35 million capital grant, will support Toyota in developing the hybrid Camry in this country. They will do the R&D, they will do the retooling and they will produce cars in Australia—a very important development. I do not know what your problem, particularly as a senator for Victoria, is with us actually securing these developments in Victoria that will help create jobs in your home state, Senator. I think it is very clear this is a really positive thing for Australia. We have, through the capital grant, the capacity to negotiate with Toyota the sorts of conditions that will apply, and we are focusing on research and development, the retooling of the plant and ensuring that we get as much flow-on benefit for suppliers out of this development as we can. (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
2135
14:21:00
2135
Brown, Sen Carol
F49
Tasmania
ALP
1
Senator CAROL BROWN
—My question is to Senator Wong, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Could the minister update the Senate on the government’s progress in developing a new, fair and flexible workplace relations system for Australia?
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator WONG
—Thank you, Senator Brown, for the question. She, like other senators on this side, is committed to fairness in the workplace. We of course stand in stark contrast to those on the other side, who made it their mission when in government to strip away the standards that working Australians had in place prior to the election of the Howard government. Today the government reaches yet another milestone.
Opposition senators interjecting—
00AOU
Wong, Sen Penny
Senator WONG
—It is interesting that they yell when we talk about fairness in the workplace. They on that side know that the Australian people fundamentally rejected—
Opposition senators interjecting—
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Order! We will resume question time when there is order.
00AOU
Wong, Sen Penny
Senator WONG
—Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, they on that side know that the Australian people rejected their so-called Work Choices legislation.
Today the government reaches another milestone in the development of our new, fair and balanced workplace relations system. This is the modern, flexible, fair and simple workplace relations system that so many Australians, both employers and employees, voted for at the last election. Today the government has released a copy of the final version of our National Employment Standards, meeting our election commitment—10 minimum entitlements which will provide a fair safety net for all Australian workers. These standards protect maximum hours of work, the right to request flexible work arrangements, parental leave, annual leave, personal leave, community service leave, long service, public holidays, notice of termination and redundancy and a fair work information statement. Those on the other side might like to remember which of these were not protected when they were in government.
What are these standards all about? These standards represent key community standards, what hardworking Australians are entitled to expect—things such as notice of termination, four weeks annual leave, personal leave and protection against excessive working hours. These standards represent what employers have been crying out for: simple entitlements and simple rules. This is 50 pages of legislation for 10 minimum standards. That stands in stark contrast to what was required under the previous government—149 pages to explain five minimum standards.
These standards represent what this government considers important. In addition to simplicity and fairness, we want to make sure that employees who are parents can request flexible work arrangements from their employer, working families can access up to two years unpaid parental leave and employees have information about their rights and entitlements at work, and we want to support employees to volunteer in our community. A range of organisations have responded to this. For example, the Australian Retailers Association said:
The ARA has considered the National Employment Standards Exposure Draft and its implications on retailers—both large and small. Overall the introduction of a NES will bring greater certainty and consistency in basic employment standards.
Unlike those opposite, this government clearly outlined our policy before the election. We did not hide our secret plans, like you did, prior to the preceding election. Unlike you, we put out an exposure draft for consideration and comment by the public. We did not develop our plans behind closed doors in secret, like you, and we have taken on board comments that were received by the government during the process. (Time expired)
Hybrid Vehicles
2135
14:26:00
2135
Bushby, Sen David
HLL
Tasmania
LP
0
Senator BUSHBY
—My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Given that the government has admitted that the funding made available to Toyota did not go to cabinet for discussion, which government departments, if any, made the recommendation to provide $35 million to Toyota?
JX4
Minchin, Sen Nick
Senator Minchin interjecting—
00AOU
Wong, Sen Penny
Senator Wong
—You spent $10 billion on water without going to cabinet.
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Order!
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I thank the senator for the question. I thought the interjection by Senator Wong, pointing to the fact that Senator Minchin was not consulted about a $10 billion program while finance minister, was a perfect response to the question. This is a decision of government. We take full responsibility for the decision. It is a decision of government that is the first instalment out of the $500 million green car fund—which, funnily enough, we took to the election and we delivered on, as distinct from your performance in government. The Australian public are noticing the difference. We committed to something and we delivered on it. We said we would have a $500 million green car fund and—guess what—we have. What have we done? Shock, horror: we have made the first instalment on that. We are actually delivering on our election commitments—and, if you pass the budget bills, we will deliver on them all, because we will be able to. So the weight will be on you in the next couple of days. We have all these things that you are opposed to, but you are going to have to put your hands up. If you are fiscally responsible, we will see you support the government’s budget. We are delivering on our budget commitments and our election commitments. We said we would have a $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund, and we have got it. The government has said that the first—
Opposition senators interjecting—
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Order! The Senate will come to order.
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, this is the first instalment out of that $500 million fund—$35 million to support Toyota doing this in Australia rather than in Thailand. I think that is quite important. Toyota publicly acknowledged that the government’s support was a critical factor in securing local production. So we stand very proudly behind the decision that has delivered that development to Australia and delivered those jobs to Victoria. We think this will serve Australia well and, more broadly, we think the development of a green car project is a very good thing. I point out to senators that industry commitment to this project has to be on at least a three to one basis. We are providing a capital grant, but the investment by Toyota will be much larger.
HLL
Bushby, Sen David
Senator Bushby
—Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I have not heard anything at all yet about departments or advice that he may have received, which was the point of the question. It was quite specific. The answer has not even touched on that yet, and we are 3½ minutes into it.
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Order! I remind senators, particularly those who have been here for a long time, that ministers’ answers have ranged far and wide for many, many years. It is important that they contain at least some sort of a response to the question that is asked and relate to the question. Senator Evans is in order.
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—As I said to the senator after he first asked the question: this is a government decision which has been publicly committed to, publicly announced and is being publicly defended by me and every other minister of the government. We are very confident that this is an appropriate decision. We are delivering on our election commitments. It is not core and non-core—it is not saying one thing to the public before the election and doing something different—we actually said we were going to deliver on a Green Car Innovation Fund and we were going to commit $500 million to make sure that happened, and that is what we are doing. While those opposite might be uncomfortable with this whole idea of delivering on one’s commitments, we are actually very proud of it. What we are doing is delivering. This is the first instalment. This is a contract with Toyota to ensure that they develop their hybrid Camry in Australia. I think it is a good thing. It is a good thing for jobs, it is a good thing for development of technology, it is a good thing for consumers in terms of fuel savings and it is a good thing in terms of the fight against carbon emissions. I hope you get on board and support it.
2135
Bushby, Sen David
HLL
Tasmania
LP
0
Senator BUSHBY
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the minister’s answer that, quite clearly, they took advice from no department—he made it quite clear that it was a government policy decision—so maybe the minister could inform me of the date Toyota was informed of the government’s policy decision to give them $35 million.
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—As I made clear to the senator, and I do not think he gets it, it is a government decision. We do not have the departments tell us what to do; we make decisions. Governments make decisions. The departments provide advice; governments make decisions. This government has made a decision and we will honour it.
HLL
Bushby, Sen David
Senator Bushby
—Mr President, on a point of order: he has answered the first question—
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Senator Bushby, there is no point of order because he has concluded his answer.
Stolen Generation
2135
14:33:00
2135
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
Senator MURRAY
—My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans: I want to follow up on the government’s apology to Indigenous Australians taken into care—known as the stolen generation—which was an apology I strongly supported. Is the minister aware that there were over 500,000 children taken or put into care last century? Is the minister aware they constituted between 7,000 and 10,000 child migrants from Britain, Ireland and Malta, 30,000 to 50,000 Indigenous Australian children and over 450,000 non-Indigenous Australian children? Does the government agree that the rape or abuse of an Indigenous child or of a non-Indigenous or foreign child in an institution or in care is horrific? Does the government agree that taking an Indigenous child, or a non-Indigenous child or foreign child, from their family and home was appalling if it ended up putting them in situations of neglect or abuse? Does the government plan to also deliver an apology to former child migrants and non-Indigenous Australians raised in institutional care last century?
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I thank Senator Murray for his question. Before I respond in detail, I note the recent apology by the Canadian government to their First Nation peoples regarding the treatment of their Indigenous people in their boarding school system. I think it was a very welcome development. Having met some of the First Nation peoples of Canada, I know how important that was to them. Hopefully, the Australian example was useful in that decision.
We are all aware that the abuse and neglect endured by the forgotten Australians is a tragedy. One of the best things that this Senate does is to hold committee inquiries into difficult issues. The cross-party work by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs in their two reports on the experiences of children abused in institutional care was groundbreaking and helped place this issue in the national consciousness but it was also a tremendous experience for so many who had suffered that they were now being taken seriously. Senator Murray played a leading role in that and has been an advocate for the forgotten Australians. Despite his pending retirement, I can assure the Senate that this government will not allow them to be forgotten again and I know there are many members of parliament who are prepared to continue the argument on their behalf.
Senator Murray, I also note you have discussed these issues with Ms Macklin, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. She is very committed to the healing process. It requires public awareness and education, ongoing support to affected families and a real engagement from the community services and health sectors. This government does understand that more needs to be done. As with the issues faced by the stolen generation, which you referred to, the experience of the forgotten Australians deserves to be recognised. Each group confronts its own history in its own way and both are worthy of consideration in their own right and in their own way. As you are aware, the government recently provided the alliance for the forgotten Australians with an additional grant of $100,000 to help them continue their work advocating, coordinating and providing a national voice for forgotten Australians. This is in addition to recent funding for the wider funding publication and distribution of an information booklet to raise awareness of the plight of forgotten Australians. The booklet is designed to improve community awareness, assist service providers in understanding the history of the forgotten Australians and to help address their unique needs.
The government continues to work with the alliance for forgotten Australians and other groups such as CLAN, and with families, community services and health sectors to ensure appropriate services are provided for forgotten Australians. The government is in the process of examining its response and the responses of the states and territories to determine what further action may be appropriate. The simple answer to your question, Senator Murray is: no decision has yet been made by government but we are very much engaged with the groups, engaged with the issues, talking through what an appropriate response would be. I know you and others may be a little impatient for the answer, but the answer is: no decision has been taken. But the minister and the government are very aware of issues, very engaged with the issues, and would not for a moment seek to underplay how important this issue is for these people and how important it is for Australia to resolve these issues and show real recognition of the terrible experience that so many people have endured.
2135
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
Senator MURRAY
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, I thank you for your answer. You would be aware that I am impatient because my time for advocacy in the Senate is running out, so I must use the time I have left. Do the Prime Minister and the government accept that the effects of harming a child are similar for all children? Does the Prime Minister understand why those who have been in care are upset that one group should get the apology they absolutely deserve but not the other group, who also think they absolutely deserve an apology? Can the government explain why tens of thousands of adults, who endured ruinous care experiences as children, get an apology but not hundreds of thousands of other adults? Will you please come to a decision soon so that I can see this issue put to bed in the name of all those hundreds of thousands of children?
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I thank the senator for his supplementary question. I apologise for the fact that the government decision-making process is not driven by the senator’s timetable and time left in the Senate, although it is an important consideration. But these are important matters, and we have indicated our real commitment to try and resolve and work through them. I do not think that saying all groups should be treated the same and, if you give one apology, you ought to apologise to everybody who might have had similarly bad experiences is the way forward. It is important to engage with the issues of the particular group and see what the solutions are, what support services there are and what is the best way of trying to provide some support, comfort and some resolution to the issues. That is what we are doing in a very serious way. I think it is important that it be done properly and seriously and, once the government has reached a conclusion on that, we will certainly be making that decision known. I am sure, Senator Murray, your advocacy will not end with your term in the Senate.
Hybrid Vehicles
2135
14:40:00
2135
Chapman, Sen Grant
FF4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator CHAPMAN
—My question is also directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Given the comments by Toyota chief, Mr Watanabe, that ‘we are not sure in what way we would like to use the amount’, can the minister explain what the Australian government’s $35 million grant to Toyota will be used for? Furthermore, given the minister’s failure to answer Senator Bushby’s question, on what date was Toyota advised of the $35 million grant?
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I am sure Senator Carr is regretting not being here, because he would have been—
Opposition senator—I’m sure you’re regretting he’s not here!
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—No, no. It has given me an opportunity to engage with issues in the car industry. You cannot have it both ways: when he is here, you say he is a disaster and, when he is away, you say he is not. The important thing is that there is an understanding that this is a capital grant to assist Toyota in the development of a hybrid Camry in Australia. We have indicated that as part of that development we will contribute $35 million as a capital grant. The conditions around that will be negotiated, milestones set et cetera. We have announced that it will be invested in research and development, and it will be invested in retooling the plant and equipment to produce the hybrid.
It will obviously be a commercial negotiation between the government and Toyota, but it is clear also that Toyota are going to have to invest a great deal themselves in order to facilitate this project. There is going to be huge investment by Toyota in Australia in developing the hybrid Camry. I think that is a good thing. It is a commercial decision by a major car manufacturer and it is a decision to develop this in Australia. I am surprised that the opposition are so critical of a significant measure, which allows us to provide for the longer term success of the Australian car manufacturing industry in this country.
In answering the question, I direct the senator to a press release released by Toyota on Wednesday 11 June, which said:
... Toyota’s decision to build a hybrid Camry in Australia was based on various business considerations, however the government support was a critical factor in securing local production.
So I think it is very clear that this has been a decision by the government, which will provide a large investment into the future of car manufacturing in this country. We will be negotiating the terms of the contractual arrangements, but it is very much focused on research and development. It is focused on developing car capacity that is more environmentally friendly, uses less fuel, emits fewer carbon emissions and provides benefits to consumers through lower fuel costs. We think it is an important development. I think it is clear that Toyota are making a long-term commitment to the Australian car industry, and they have publicly acknowledged that the Australian government’s commitment has been a critical factor in securing that local production. I hope that the opposition decide to rethink their position and support the future of the car industry in Australia.
2135
Chapman, Sen Grant
FF4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator CHAPMAN
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the minister’s failure to answer the questions, in particular the question I asked which followed up Senator Bushby’s question regarding the date as to when Toyota was advised of the $35 million grant, firstly, I again ask the minister to answer that question. Secondly, given his reference to Toyota’s press statement of 11 June, will the minister advise whether the industry minister, his staff or departmental officials or any other minister, their staff or departmental officials held discussions with Toyota between the time of Mr Watanabe’s original statement, which I quoted from in my first question, and Toyota’s press statement of 11 June?
2135
Evans, Sen Chris (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Leader of the Government in the Senate
1
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—I am not sure where the senator is going with this question. All I can tell him is that there has been a decision by the Australian government to support Toyota’s decision to invest in building a hybrid Camry in this country. The announcement was made last week. Toyota have issued press releases confirming that the government’s commitment was critical to their decision to invest in Australia. As I have said, we have indicated that our commitment of $35 million is part of our broader plan to develop green cars in Australia. We think it is an important long-term commitment to the car industry and to a more environmentally friendly car industry. I think the senator ought to focus on the fact that this is an important policy decision and a very important decision by Toyota to invest in Australia.
Zimbabwe
2135
14:46:00
2135
Forshaw, Sen Michael
656
New South Wales
ALP
1
Senator FORSHAW
—My question is to Senator Faulkner, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the minister update the Senate on developments in Zimbabwe? What action are Australia and the international community taking in response to recent reports of the extremely serious and deteriorating situation in that country?
2135
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
Senator FAULKNER
—I thank Senator Forshaw for his questions, and I am sure his concerns are echoed by all senators in the chamber. I can assure the Senate that the Australian government is gravely concerned about the situation in Zimbabwe. Over the weekend Robert Mugabe said that the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, the MDC, would never rule Zimbabwe and that he was prepared to go to war to prevent them doing so. I think this is a stark reminder of Mugabe’s blatant disregard for the democratic rights of the Zimbabwean people and his unwillingness to accept their will at the forthcoming presidential run-off election on 27 June.
The Australian government strongly condemns the intensifying and disturbing pattern of intimidation and terrorising of opposition leaders, civil society and ordinary Zimbabweans. The leader of the MDC, Morgan Tsvangirai, has been arrested no fewer than five times in the last week while campaigning, MDC Secretary-General Tendai Biti remains in detention on spurious grounds, and there is extensive state sponsored violence against the general population. Clearly, there are grave implications for the people of Zimbabwe and for the prospect of credible elections. Furthermore, I think the Zimbabwe government’s suspension of humanitarian NGO activity in Zimbabwe is immoral and represents a callous move by the Mugabe regime to use food security as a political weapon against its own people. Hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans risk hunger in the short term as a result.
Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Smith, have urged the international community, especially Zimbabwe’s neighbours in southern Africa, to take a stand and put pressure on Mugabe to accept the will of the people. We welcome reports that over 120 election observers from African countries have already arrived in Zimbabwe, with indications that around 400 more are to come. We also welcome the joint statement of 13 June by eminent Africans, including many former heads of state and also former heads of government, calling for elections to be conducted in a peaceful, free and fair manner.
Australia has been one of a number of countries at the forefront of efforts to put pressure on the regime through sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Since 2002 Australia has implemented targeted sanctions against the Zimbabwean government. The sanctions cover restrictions on visas for travel to Australia by Zimbabwean ministers and certain Zimbabwean officials, freezes on financial assets, suspension of non-humanitarian aid, prohibition of defence links, suspension of bilateral ministerial contact and downgrading of cultural links. The government continues to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Zimbabwe. I would say, as both the Prime Minister and the foreign minister have made clear, that Australia, with others in the international community, stands ready to participate in reconstruction in partnership with a Zimbabwean government that properly and fairly represents the democratic will of the Zimbabwean people and is committed to political and economic reform. (Time expired)
2135
Forshaw, Sen Michael
656
New South Wales
ALP
1
Senator FORSHAW
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Minister, you referred to the actions taken by the Mugabe regime to prohibit, suspend or prevent humanitarian aid by preventing NGOs from doing their work. Could you advise the Senate of the government’s views on that, particularly as to the potential impact that that will have on the people of Zimbabwe?
2135
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
Senator FAULKNER
—Yes, it is a critical issue. I note that, in a letter dated 4 June sent to aid groups in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwean Minister for Public Service, Labor and Social Welfare, Nicholas Goche, ordered NGOs to suspend their field operations until further notice on the basis that a number of NGOs were ‘breaching the terms and conditions of their registration’, namely being involved in domestic political activities. Multilateral agencies are advising NGO partners to comply with the directive while trying to have it reversed. I can say that the majority of Australia’s humanitarian assistance to Zimbabwe is provided through contributions to the World Food Program, which distributes food through registered NGOs. Australia expects to provide more than $13 million to Zimbabwe in 2007-08, around $10 million of which is for essential food aid through the WFP. (Time expired)
Member for Robertson
2135
14:52:00
2135
Brandis, Sen George
008W7
Queensland
LP
0
Senator BRANDIS
—My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Ludwig. I refer the minister to allegations concerning threats and demands made by the member for Robertson at Iguanas nightclub on Friday, 6 June. Has the Attorney-General considered whether any offence against Commonwealth law may have been committed by the member for Robertson? Has the Attorney-General referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to considering whether grounds exist for a prosecution to be brought, in particular under section 139.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code?
2135
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
Senator LUDWIG
—I thank the honourable senator for his question. As the honourable senator would be aware, this is a matter that is currently being investigated by the New South Wales authorities, and as such it would be inappropriate to comment on it.
2135
Brandis, Sen George
008W7
Queensland
LP
0
Senator BRANDIS
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that section 139.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code makes it an offence punishable by 12 years imprisonment for a member of either house of the Commonwealth parliament to make an unwarranted demand with menaces directly or indirectly related to any influence the member of parliament may have with the intention of causing a loss to a person and given what is already known of this incident, as acknowledged by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, does the minister not consider it is now appropriate for a reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions to be made?
2135
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
Senator LUDWIG
—As the honourable senator would know, these matters are currently seized by the New South Wales authorities and as such, as I have said, it would be inappropriate to comment on it any further. If there is anything that I can add to that, I will seek the Attorney-General’s advice and provide it subsequently.
Savannah Cats
2135
14:55:00
2135
Brown, Sen Bob
QD4
Tasmania
AG
Leader of the Australian Greens
0
Senator BOB BROWN
—My question is to do with the proposed importation of so-called Savannah cats—domestic cats interbred with wild African cats. Is the minister aware of the comments by Professor Tony Peacock of the invasive animals cooperative research centre that these cats would be able to jump up to two metres and the loophole in the Australian law that allowing them into the country would:
... effectively lead to fitting a nuclear warhead to our already devastating feral cat population.
Opposition senators interjecting—
10000
PRESIDENT, The
The PRESIDENT
—Order! Senator Brown is entitled to ask his question in silence.
QD4
Brown, Sen Bob
Senator BOB BROWN
—Has the minister made a definitive decision to prohibit the import of such crossbred cats and dogs and to close the loophole which has led to the placing in quarantine of animals on their way to Australia by order from a Gold Coast outlet?
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator WONG
—I thank Senator Brown for the question. As he would know but perhaps other senators might not, the Savannah cat is a relatively new hybrid—that seems to be a theme today—bred by crossing a serval with the domestic cat. There are none known at this stage to have been imported into Australia, although I understand several cat breeders are promoting the hybrid.
The government does recognise that it is essential that Australia’s environment be protected from new, potentially invasive predators. I am advised that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has initiated a process for the possible amendment of the live import list to prohibit Savannah cats. Senator Brown would be aware that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for protecting Australia’s biodiversity, and that extends to controlling the importation of live animals into Australia in order to protect the environment. As I have said, Savannah cats are a new hybrid species that are currently treated as domestic cats under the live import controls. This means that under present law they may potentially be imported subject only to quarantine control. I think the good senator was referring to this issue in his question.
The minister is aware of public concern that these animals may pose a threat to the Australian environment, although I have to confess I had not heard the term ‘nuclear’ in relation to it until that question was asked. I am advised the minister is aware of public concern. I can indicate that before any change can be made to the statutory import lists, the EPBC Act requires that a rigorous assessment process be undertaken, including the preparation of an assessment report and consultation with the public and with relevant stakeholders. The minister for the environment has initiated the required assessment process in relation to Savannah cats and their potential impact on the Australian environment. The government is also conscious of the concern expressed today by those opposed to the import of these cats, of whom Senator Brown is one. We are also, as a government, conscious of the concerns of potential importers. I am advised that the minister will therefore ensure that the assessment process is undertaken as quickly as is possible whilst maintaining proper legal processes.
2135
Brown, Sen Bob
QD4
Tasmania
AG
0
Senator BOB BROWN
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why is it that the government can make a decision without bureaucratic reference on the manufacture of hybrid cars, but the minister cannot make a decision without a bureaucratic process to save Australia from the import of dangerous hybrid cats?
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator WONG
—I was not aware that Senator Abetz and Senator Brown had a coalition going on the hybrid car issue. Senator Abetz, if I were you, I would be very worried given your comments in this place that you are actually on the same page as Senator Brown. But that is a matter for you.
As I have indicated in the answer, my advice is that, before any change can be made to such lists, the EPBC Act does require that rigorous assessment be undertaken, including the preparation of an assessment report and consultation with the public and stakeholders. I know Senator Brown and other members of the Greens have always taken quite a strict or robust view in relation to the EPBC Act. I would not assume that Senator Brown is suggesting in any way that the government should not be observing the provisions of that act in the consideration of this Savannah cat issue. I am advised that Minister Garrett has initiated the required assessment process—as I said, an assessment process that is required under the provisions, as I am advised, of the EPBC Act. That required assessment process has been commenced. (Time expired)
Whaling
2135
15:00:00
2135
Parry, Sen Stephen
E5V
Tasmania
LP
0
Senator PARRY
—My question is to Senator Ludwig, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Prior to the last election, Labor clearly proposed that it would take legal action against the Japanese government over whaling in the Southern Ocean. When will the government commence this legal action?
2135
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
Senator LUDWIG
—Australia, as the opposition knows, strongly opposes Japan’s so-called scientific whaling program. The government is very carefully considering international legal action. We will of course make a judgement about legal action at the appropriate time. In so doing, we will consider in an orderly and sensible manner the relevant legal advice and the evidence collected by the Oceanic Viking. The opposition should appreciate that we will do it in a considered way and in a way that ensures we examine all the relevant evidence and we then also examine legal action. Of course, legal action is only one possible element of our comprehensive package of initiatives to stop Japanese whaling.
We are, as the opposition would know, increasing our diplomatic pressure through a range of initiatives, and we will continue to engage in dialogue with the Japanese government. As clearly evidenced last week, we have engaged with the Japanese government. The government of course would prefer to find a diplomatic solution to the dispute. That would be the best and most appropriate course of action. However, the government has not given up on legal action. We continue, as I have said, to carefully consider it as an option. The outcomes of diplomatic initiatives, together with all other relevant considerations, will inform the government’s ultimate decision on legal action.
It is a matter on which we have examined other means, and of course they are diplomatic. One would expect that the opposition would allow those diplomatic courses to run prior to calling for legal action to be commenced. One would also expect that, in examining legal action, we would carefully consider all of those matters and carefully consider what our options are with that if we are minded to pursue those. The government has received advice about legal action, but it would be—as the opposition rightly recognises—inappropriate to reveal the contents of the advice that has been received. That advice will of course be taken into account by the government in deciding whether to commence legal action against Japan.
But we will consider all of these matters in due course. They are matters that we do need to be mindful of. The opposition want us to rush ahead into these matters, but this government is taking a responsible approach. The opposition, during their 12 long years in government, did not take the initiative and did not pursue these issues with the considered action that we have. The Oceanic Viking was sent down to the area to gather evidence and to examine it in a sensible and careful way. What the opposition did, when they were in government, was sit on their hands. We have also considered diplomatic approaches, unlike the opposition when they were in government. We think that we should let that course run.
2135
Parry, Sen Stephen
E5V
Tasmania
LP
0
Senator PARRY
—Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister indicated that the government has a considered and rational approach and other measures. Is it a fact then, Minister, that the inordinate delay in appointing the whaling envoy is due to the unavailability of the government’s chosen candidate, Mr Sandy Hollway?
2135
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
Senator LUDWIG
—The government, as I have said, is carefully considering international legal action against Japan. Obviously it would be counterproductive to the successful running of such a case to release details of its preparation and to talk about these matters of appointments and the like. This government is serious about ensuring that we bring an end to scientific whaling or whaling in those protected areas. I understand that there is conjecture around that; it seems to be from the opposition. If you press about what the current position is: under the whaling convention there is currently a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling, unlike what the opposition may think. In respect of the previous government’s position on this, they raised the issue of what former Senator Ian Campbell did. (Time expired)
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
Senator Chris Evans
—Mr President, it is with great pleasure that I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
2135
Answers to Questions on Notice
Question No. 373
2135
2135
15:06:00
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
Leader of the Australian Democrats
0
0
Senator ALLISON
—Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 373, which I asked on 17 March.
2135
15:06:00
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
0
Senator WONG
—I am afraid I have no information on that issue with me here today. I will endeavour to ascertain the answer to that question.
2135
15:07:00
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
Leader of the Australian Democrats
0
0
Senator ALLISON
—I move:
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
I point out that this question is in fact two months overdue; it was asked three months ago. My office contacted the minister’s office and advised that I would be asking when an answer would be forthcoming. It was my understanding that it was coming soon. I am sorry that Minister Wong does not have an explanation, but I will nonetheless make a few points about this question, because it is not the only one which is outstanding from the government for a very long period.
10000
DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
—Order! There are too many people moving around the chamber and too much talking. Senator Allison, you are entitled to be heard.
1M6
Allison, Sen Lyn
Senator ALLISON
—The question goes to some very important issues, including water efficiency and the very disturbing trend of taking water from the agricultural sector and putting it into the wasteful urban environment. Projects such as the Traveston Dam in Queensland and the southern Murray-Goulburn river pipelines are examples of this. We are talking here about proposals by the government that are worth billions—$13 billion over 10 years is the commitment by the federal government to projects like this and buybacks.
The purpose of my question is to find out just what work the government has done on benchmarking, on data and on statistics that have been collected. And what sort of analysis has taken place of water efficiencies, targets and alternatives to some of these massive projects that are currently on the books? It seems to me that policy is being developed and expenditure is being made in a vacuum and that these questions on notice go to the heart of the rationale for those expensive infrastructure projects. Of course, once the projects are in place there is no incentive for conservation or recycling initiatives, which we all know are much cheaper and much more sustainable in the long term.
I wrote to the minister on 4 December and I do not appear to have an answer to that letter, either. It seems that the government has not done this work—and that would be shocking if that were the case—but, if it has done the work, why not answer those questions? What benchmarks and assessments of water-saving potential have been undertaken? What is the current market, technological and theoretical water efficiency of Australian cities? How would such an analysis inform water efficiency targets? What water efficiency targets are being considered? How will the analysis of the targets inform national water policy? There are many questions within this question, but they are questions I would expect a government, prepared to spend $13 billion on water, to have answers to.
As I understand it, $1 billion is to be spent on the north-south pipeline from the Eildon Reservoir to Melbourne in order to deliver 75 gigalitres to the city. Eildon Reservoir is almost out of water. In May it had just a 14 per cent capacity, and the irrigators who use the water from Eildon Reservoir are simply not getting any water for their farming activities. We hear about spending on the efficiency of irrigation systems. But many people are saying that it just does not add up and that surely you make the savings in water first and then export whatever water farmers and the river no longer need. Instead of that, we are putting the cart before the horse. I expect that this is being done as a knee-jerk reaction to very low water storage in Melbourne and that the state and federal governments have not done the preparatory work which you would expect to be done for such massive infrastructure projects.
The water travelling along pipelines will require massive amounts of energy just to pump to Melbourne. As I said, the question is whether alternatives have been assessed, and I do not think they have. In fact, it is pretty clear that they have not. The state government will no doubt get help from the federal government to build its $3.1 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi. That will produce 150 gigalitres of water a year and cost $550 million, paid each year to private partnership contracts for 35 years, irrespective of whether Melburnians use the water. I do not think there is any doubt that Melburnians will use the water. There will continue to be wasteful uses of water because efficiency measures have not been put in place in the cities, any more than they have in irrigation systems in the country. There are no standards being imposed on industrial processes, on appliances. But thanks to the Democrats we have a rating system. However, that should have been converted into a standard system so that the amount of water that is currently wasted in urban areas is cut back. That would be far more efficient and effective than the massive projects that are being proposed.
Furthermore, the federal government plans to spend $3 billion on buying back water licences. This has been heavily criticised by various people who have looked very carefully at the question of buybacks and at how much water there is available to buy back and what impact it will have on the river. A report published by an Adelaide company on 2 June said:
… the Federal Government’s plan to save the Murray Darling basin river system won’t get back enough water.
The report further said:
… the plan to return 1,500 gigalitres to the river system, through a combination of buying farmers’ water and upgrading infrastructure, will also distort the water market and put some producers at a disadvantage.
And further:
… based on water trading patterns now, even if the Government bought up all the water available, it wouldn’t be enough to improve the health of the river system.
So here we have it: a number of groups, like Your Water Your Say in Wonthaggi, arguing strongly that water efficiency should be the first option, not the option that you have after you supply water that is desalinated. We have massive amounts of money being promised and expended in these areas and no real sense that this is being done on a careful assessment of the problem—on a serious look at all of the alternatives—or that this will actually work.
I am disappointed that the government has had three months and there is still no sign of an answer—although my office understood from conversation with the minister’s office that this question was imminent, so presumably it is sitting on the minister’s desk waiting to be released. I am disappointed that on such an important issue—an issue where decisions are being made pretty much on a daily basis, from what I can see—this kind of analysis, assessment, benchmarking and targeting has not taken place. If it is just another ad hoc approach to spending lots of money then I think Australians are going to be very, very disappointed.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
2135
Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers
Hybrid Vehicles
2135
2135
15:15:00
Abetz, Sen Eric
N26
Tasmania
LP
0
0
Senator ABETZ
—I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to funding to Toyota for the production of hybrid cars.
It is very hard to believe that the gentleman that gave the answers in relation to this matter was in fact the Acting Prime Minister of this country. The answers provided were an insult to the long-suffering Australian taxpayer and of course to this parliament. What they show is that Rudd Labor is in absolute and utter disarray, making policy on the run. When you do that, you make mistakes—and that has become very, very obvious. In fact, Australia has now become the object of international ridicule—throwing $35 million at one of the most profitable car companies in the world, if not the most profitable car company in the world. Toyota made billions of dollars of profit last year, and we are now led to believe it was enticed to come to Australia with a $35 million grant. In fact, Mr Watanabe of Toyota said, ‘It’s very nice to get the $35 million, but we still don’t know what we’re going to be doing with it.’ The very next day, Toyota issued its clarifying statement. But of course the fact that it did that would suggest that there was some contact between the Prime Minister or the government and Toyota to get that so-called clarifying statement.
When Senator Evans was asked about that very specifically during question time today he squibbed it, exactly like when he was specifically asked on what date the money was promised to Toyota—he squibbed it. This is from a government that said it would be open, it would be transparent and its policies would be evidence based. The only evidence we have is that the Labor Party is in disarray. The Prime Minister had problems in Japan and he had to go to Japan with some money as some sort of a peace offering to our major trading partner, Japan, which had been ignored for six months by this great expert on foreign affairs, one Mr Rudd.
We were told, for example, that the $35 million was coming out of the green car fund, which was budgeted for. Very interesting that—because on 13 May the budget came down and, on 13 May, the fund still had $500 million to start as of the year 2011. Yet, on 10 June, $35 million was allegedly advanced out of that fund to pay Toyota. We now know that Senator Carr claims that he has been in discussions with Toyota since December. If that is true—if that is to be believed—why wasn’t this $35 million talked about in the budget documentation? The fact that it was not clearly indicates that this was cobbled together as a matter of great urgency—to give the Prime Minister some sort of sensible photo opportunity.
But of course—as so often happens with the Prime Minister, be it on alcopops or whatever you like—it imploded on him because he is too clever by half. He thinks he can be smart. He has David Epstein, the man who used to run the National Media Liaison Service, called aNiMaLS, as his chief of staff, and the only business he knows is spin. What the Prime Minister and this Labor government need is substance. That is what has been sadly lacking in all of its decisions in recent times and what has been so clearly exposed in relation to this exercise on the Toyota $35 million fund.
What we have here is a decision that is clearly not transparent, clearly playing favourites. It is clearly spin over substance. What it shows is that this minister, Senator Carr, and the government are not in control of the portfolio—with no long-term vision. It is all about short-term, knee-jerk reactions, and it is about time Senator Carr came back to this country to explain exactly those things that Senator Evans was so incapable of explaining during question time today.
2135
15:20:00
O’Brien, Sen Kerry
8O6
Tasmania
ALP
1
0
Senator O’BRIEN
—It is interesting, isn’t it—here we have a very important industry for this country, here we have an industry that is faced with the challenges of high fuel prices and a motoring public that is looking for significant alternatives so that when they expend their dollars on cars they have the best options, and what the opposition is effectively telling us today is that they do not care if Australian manufacturing is relevant for the future of motoring in this country. That is the import of this attack on providing funding for Toyota to manufacture a hybrid vehicle for the first time in Australia.
Over two years ago, I went to Toyota’s Canberra launch of the Aurion. The Aurion was the new six-cylinder vehicle with very high fuel efficiency that Toyota was producing—the same fuel efficiency as the Camry but with a six-cylinder motor. At that meeting I spoke to the head of Toyota in Australia. At the same time, they were promoting an imported hybrid vehicle—not just the Prius but the SUV version of their hybrid, which is a very expensive vehicle—and the conversation between the head of Toyota and me was about the potential for production of hybrids in Australia. I asked about the Camry and the Aurion and the possibility that in the future they would be made as hybrids in Australia. The answer was: ‘No, that’s not going to happen. We’re going to manufacture those vehicles in the future, we are certain, but in Thailand.’
That is what Australia was facing until this government approached Toyota and said: ‘What do we have to do? How can we use our green car fund to get you to change your mind and produce the hybrid in some form in Australia?’ And this government has done it; we now have a commitment from Toyota that they will assemble the hybrid in Australia for the first time. In Australia we have seen the manufacture of four-cylinder vehicles decline over time and more and more four-cylinder vehicles imported. We have seen diesel take an important role in the domestic vehicle fleet, and I think all of the diesel domestic vehicles are now imported. We were going to see, with the growth in hybrids, exactly the same thing happen. Of course, those opposite would have us ignore that possibility, allow the industry here to dwindle and allow the types of vehicles we have been producing for years, which it is being found are harder and harder to sell to the public, to be the basis for our whole industry.
This government has nothing to be ashamed of in enticing Toyota to commence the production of the hybrid vehicle in Australia, because once they are here there is a chance to build on it. But once Toyota, or indeed others, firmly lock in to production of hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicles outside of this country it will be harder for that manufacture to occur in Australia. By making this decision, the government has done the right thing by Australia, the right thing by the motoring public, the right thing by the industries that service vehicle manufacturing in Australia and the manufacturing industry and the right thing by the 60,000 Australians who work in the industry. There is nothing to apologise about. Using $35 million from the half-billion-dollar green car fund to get this initiative ticking over is the best investment of that money at this time that is obviously available.
It will be great if that can be built on—if the government can now talk to General Motors and to Ford about versions of fuel-efficient vehicles that they can produce in Australia. Ford has been producing LPG factory fitted vehicles for some time, and clearly, on fuel prices at the moment, they are a very cost-efficient vehicle compared to those that use unleaded petrol. So that is another area in which there may be development. There may be developments in wholly electric vehicles; let’s wait and see. But unless there is a government that is prepared to use its initiative to back innovation in those areas and get the manufacturing done in Australia the only thing that we will be faced with is the demise of the industry in this country. Labor has nothing to apologise for. It is amazing that we are hearing these questions from the opposition at this time. It shows that they have very little vision for this country, and frankly it is a good thing that they are out of government. (Time expired)
2135
15:25:00
Chapman, Sen Grant
FF4
South Australia
LP
0
0
Senator CHAPMAN
—Like my colleague Senator Abetz, I take note of the answer given by Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, in relation to the government’s announcement of a $35 million photo opportunity—grant, should I say—to Toyota to build the hybrid Camry vehicle in Victoria.
We have just heard spin upon spin. Not only did we hear spin and no answers to questions during question time; we have now had that compounded by Senator O’Brien, who comes in here and makes up the story as he goes along. He is now suggesting that there were longstanding discussions between the government and Toyota on the production of this hybrid vehicle, when there is no evidence whatsoever to support that contention. If that were the case, why didn’t the government answer the question that was asked by my colleague Senator Bushby and reiterated by me in question time as to what date Toyota was advised of the $35 million grant? Because it was pulled out of the blue as a photo opportunity for the Prime Minister during his visit to Japan. Why couldn’t they answer what the $35 million would be used for? Because they do not know. It is quite clearly the case that there were no detailed discussions on this issue prior to the announcement.
We have heard nothing but spin. We have just heard it from Senator O’Brien. We heard it from Minister Evans in his answers during question time—spin and dissembling. Not only does he expect senators to swallow that but, more tragically, he expects the Australian public to swallow it. It is simply not good enough. Australian working families, which the Prime Minister promised to protect, are struggling under the pressure of increasing petrol prices, increasing interest rates, increasing grocery prices and, thanks to the most recent budget, increased taxes. What is the government’s response? To hand out $35 million of taxpayers’ hard-earned money for a project that was going to happen anyway and for technology that, by the time it is introduced, will be well behind the times. There is no better proof that this was nothing more than a $35 million photo opportunity for the Prime Minister when he was in Japan than the comments of the Toyota president himself when he said:
It was only recently that we heard about the amount so we are not sure how we would use it.
That was not all. Toyota confirmed it again the next day when its spokesman, Mike Breen, said:
It would have happened regardless and we wouldn’t bring it to market unless we’re going to make money.
In that context, Minister Evans’s response, the spin we have heard today, is absolutely offensive to Australian taxpayers. All of us know that this was nothing more than a stunt for the Prime Minister to try to appear to be doing something about petrol prices and to divert attention from that key issue in the Australia community. While the Toyota spokesmen, in every newspaper in the country, are confirming that this was nothing more than an overpriced photo stunt, Minister Evans comes to this place with the temerity to suggest otherwise.
We then have the issue of the actual vehicle and the actual technology. The fact is that the engine for this vehicle is entirely Japanese built. It will be simply shipped to Australia and dropped into an existing Camry body. So Toyota in Australia will not be producing a 21st-century vehicle. It will be a Fred Flintstone car, one without an engine, until its imported engine is dropped in. What is even worse is that it is replacing an engine currently made for the Camry in Australia. An engine that is made here, domestically, in Australia is going to be replaced by a fully imported engine. That would not be so bad if it were state-of-the-art technology, but Toyota has already announced that, in 2010, Japan, America and European countries will have access to second generation plug-in hybrids, which provide much improved performance. They have not only handed out $35 million for a project that was going ahead regardless but also handed out $35 million to ensure that Australia does not have access to the latest and most effective technology.
I am certainly not going to pat the minister or Senator Evans on the back for such a decision. It demonstrates the sheer hypocrisy of this government and its willingness to do anything to divert attention from its failure to deliver on its promises to the Australian community. That was highlighted still further by its failure to adhere even to its own statements and guidelines regarding the green car fund. (Time expired)
2135
15:30:00
Marshall, Sen Gavin
00AOP
Victoria
ALP
1
0
Senator MARSHALL
—How quickly this coalition opposition has moved to the point of being so inward looking—an opposition for the sake of opposition. This is a fantastic announcement by Toyota and one that actually came to the fore as a direct consequence of government intervention and government assistance. This is a serious coup for this country. We now have the future of the car industry completely secured in terms of Toyota. Constant work will be done in terms of the $500 million green car fund to work with other manufacturers to take us to the next level in this industry, being hybrid technology, and to reduce our emissions from vehicles across the board.
The vehicle industry is a great industry in this country. As the opposition have demonstrated today, instead of supporting this wonderful announcement by Toyota—they should be congratulating the government for its intervention—they have failed to acknowledge the real value of this industry, which gives 60,000 workers jobs. It not only does that but also provides a critical mass for research and development, the training of engineers, the training of tradespeople and flow-on effects such as high-tech plastics manufacturing. This only happens because we actually have a vehicle industry here. There are so many industries—whether it be glass manufacturing or tyre manufacturing—where we bring in skills to have the critical mass to provide state-of-the-art technology, which then flows through to the rest of the economy. A lot of the industries that hang off the vehicle industry in this country then provide a critical mass for other technologies, which benefits other industries. If we lose the vehicle industry in this country—and the opposition seem to take the view that we should sit on our hands doing nothing—it will not only affect the 60,000 whose employment is a direct result of the vehicle industry but also have the massive flow-on effect of reducing the skills and technologies available for other industries.
It is crucially important for this country to maintain a high-tech vehicle industry. We are going through a stage where, due to climate change, the shortage of oil and the cost of petrol, we are moving to cleaner, greener and more efficient technologies. It is absolutely essential for this country to be at the leading edge of that. It is amazing that the opposition seems to criticise this decision. This is a decision by Toyota in conjunction with this government—this proactive government—that should be applauded by those opposite. As someone who has had a long association with the Victorian car industry, I am just amazed at the cavalier attitude of the opposition in stooping to talk down this industry—to say that we should not be intervening—when they clearly have no understanding of the importance of this industry to us.
What does the opposition see as so wrong with an announcement that will produce 10,000 hybrid Camrys a year from 2010? What is wrong with that? Why aren’t they applauding that decision? It is a fantastic decision. It is a significant coup for Australia, and I am delighted that Toyota has decided to invest in the Australian car industry and build the hybrid car here. I am delighted with that aspect. It is not just doing so because of the $35 million from the Australian government; it is a commitment to this industry and recognition that we have the skills base and the innovation base to build those cars here. It is a great endorsement of that industry and it creates a massive investment from Toyota itself. This does not just go to $35 million; Toyota itself will be investing many times that amount in getting the plant ready.
It is a capital grant—it is $35 million—but let us put it into context: it is about a third of the amount that the coalition spent on advertising the Work Choices legislation. But this strategic amount of money has got us the development and the innovation that will come to Australia through Toyota to build this plant here. It is an absolutely amazing result for this government and it is one that should be applauded. It is being applauded by industry. (Time expired)
2135
15:36:00
Fifield, Sen Mitchell
D2I
Victoria
LP
0
0
Senator FIFIELD
—I also rise to take note of Senator Evans’s answers on Toyota and the Australian automotive industry. This side of the chamber and, I think, media commentators have increasingly noted during the last six months that this government pursues spin over substance. We have had the glossy brochure to mark the first hundred days of this government. We have had the 2020 Summit. We have had the Petrol Commissioner. We have had Fuelwatch. We have had the Asia-Pacific EU announcement. We have had the non-proliferation announcement and the revival of the Canberra commission.
These announcements were just window-dressing. They might have been empty announcements that were ill-conceived and usually did more harm than good, but at least they were not at any great cost to the taxpayer. But the announcement of a $35 million grant to Toyota to build a hybrid car is different. It does not deliver a benefit that would not have been delivered otherwise and it costs $70 million. I am annoyed about this, not just as a taxpayer to the Commonwealth but also as a Victorian taxpayer—$35 million from the Commonwealth and $35 million from the state government. The first outrage is that this was going to happen anyway but we are paying $70 million for the privilege.
When the grant was announced, the President of Toyota, Mr Watanabe—this has been mentioned many times today, but it bears repeating—said:
It was only recently that we heard about the amount, so we are not sure how we will use it.
They are not our words; they are the words of Toyota. The next day, Toyota spokesman Mike Breen said:
It would have happened regardless and we wouldn’t bring it to market unless we were going to make money.
That Toyota spokesman said that ‘it would have happened regardless’. Later that same day Toyota issued a statement saying that government support was ‘a critical factor’. I wonder what happened between Mr Breen’s comments to the press and the clarifying statement. It is echoes of ‘Iguanagate’: something is said publicly that a government does not agree with, a phone call is placed and there is a retraction of sorts. This sounds very similar to what happened in New South Wales; it is very similar indeed. This was a photo opportunity, pure and simple.
There was not even enough time before issuing the media advisory and making the announcement itself for this announcement to go to cabinet. In fact, so rushed was the announcement that the Prime Minister did not even have time to learn how to pronounce the word ‘Camry’. On radio interview after radio interview, he kept referring to a ‘Cam-rye’—and I do not know what a ‘Cam-rye’ is. That is how rushed it was. The Prime Minister did not even have the time to work out how to pronounce the name of the car that the Commonwealth was putting $35 million towards. In the budget handed down just four weeks ago, we were told that the $500 million green car fund would not start until 2011. Guess what? The PM thought: ‘It’s Tuesday. I’m in Japan. I need an announcement.’ So we get this $35 million announcement—a photo opportunity, pure and simple.
The government used to take quite a different approach to supporting the Australian car industry. Some may say that that different approach amounts to hypocrisy. Mr Deputy President, you might recall that the previous government put $20 million towards the Ford Focus project. When the current government was looking for savings for the budget and its razor gang had been established, guess what the government did—it sought to terminate that grant to Ford Australia. So serious was the government about doing that that it commissioned advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. I have a copy of it here. It is headed ‘Termination options: Commonwealth grant with Ford’. The response from the AGS to the commissioning person states:
You have requested our advice as to what the Commonwealth’s options are for terminating its existing grant deed with the Ford Motor Company of Australia. You have also sought further advice on what action Ford may itself take if the Commonwealth chooses to terminate the deed.
The advice also states:
You are advised that, with the recent change of government, a review is now being undertaken as to the government’s desire and obligation to pay to Ford the remaining $20 million in grant funding.
The conclusion of that advice is:
... in a practical sense, whilst the Commonwealth may be able to take action to terminate the deed for convenience thereby avoiding any ongoing obligation ... it could nevertheless become liable to Ford to pay compensation up to an amount which is equivalent to the remaining amount of actual grant funding.
In other words, the only reason the government did not go through with that is that the AGS advice said that it would have to pay the money if it went to court anyway. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Stolen Generation
2135
2135
15:41:00
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
0
Senator MURRAY
—I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Murray today relating to Indigenous Australians and the stolen generation.
During question time, I asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans, whether the government agreed that the rape or abuse of an Indigenous child or of a non-Indigenous or foreign child in an institution or in care was just horrific and whether the government agreed that taking an Indigenous child or a non-Indigenous or foreign child from their family and home was appalling if it led to their being put in situations of neglect or abuse. I asked the government whether it planned to deliver an apology to former child migrants and non-Indigenous Australians raised in institutional care last century and whether it can explain why tens of thousands of adults who endured ruinous care experiences as children get an apology but hundred of thousands of other adults do not.
Without verballing the response, my take on his answer was that the government basically said that it had not made up its mind yet—which is good, because it is better than no. The conservative estimate is that over 500,000 people fall into the three cohorts of child migrants, Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. It is the case that, as vulnerable children, these people endured childhoods often bereft of the nurturing and stability that family life can provide. Many were subjected to ongoing humiliation and systemic abuse that was often criminal in nature. No matter what the race or ethnic background of these children, their experiences were all too similar.
Whatever the reason and whatever the rationale underlying government policies concerning the removal and so-called protection of children last century, the downfall has undoubtedly been the poor execution of those policies. Just as the Bringing them home report recommended an apology, so too did the child migrant and forgotten Australians reports—unanimously, I might point out—recommend an apology. Although I recognise the political dimensions to another apology of this nature following the Stolen Generation apology, quite simply it is and remains just the right thing to do.
I acknowledge that the timing, content and presentation of an apology to child migrants and non-Indigenous Australians will matter greatly. I also acknowledge that consultation is necessary. But it is the right thing to do because the race based past policy of removing Indigenous children from their families has its counterpart in the race based child migrant schemes from Britain, Ireland and Malta last century. This history was also race based, as the policy was motivated by a desire to populate Australia with a potentially healthy and productive white workforce. While not race based, the removal of hundreds of thousands of Australian born non-Indigenous children had its foundations in families doing it tough. Children were made wards of the state after being charged in the courts with being uncontrollable, neglected or in moral danger. The children who went into those institutions were not always orphaned.
The appalling treatment of vulnerable kids had its match in prisoner of war camps. Places like Bindoon in Western Australia, Goodwood and The Pines in South Australia, Westbrook in Queensland, Box Hill and Bayswater in Victoria, and Parramatta and Hay in New South Wales were akin to concentration camps that incarcerated and brutalised far too many young people. Some beatings even resulted in physical impairments later in life and, of course, there were many rapes, assaults and abuses carried out in those institutions.
If the measure of society is the extent to which it protects and nurtures its children then, historically, we as a nation have little to be complacent about. If the Prime Minister, cabinet minsters and members of parliament took the time to read the submissions and reports of the three inquiries, I imagine there would be almost total support for the Prime Minister apologising to all of our citizens who suffered as children in care and who continue to carry these scars. The nation was set on a path of healing by the Rudd government with respect to the stolen generation; much more needs to be done with respect to former child migrants and forgotten Australians.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
2135
Condolences
Mr Milivoj Emil (Misha) Lajovic
2135
2135
15:46:00
PRESIDENT, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The PRESIDENT
—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 5 June 2008, of Milivoj Emil (Misha) Lajovic, a senator for the state of New South Wales from 1975 to 1985.
2135
15:46:00
Evans, Sen Chris (Leader of the Government in the Senate)
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Leader of the Government in the Senate
1
0
Senator CHRIS EVANS
—by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death on 5 June 2008 of Milivoj Emil ‘Misha’ Lajovic, former Senator for New South Wales, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Milo Lajovic was not someone I knew personally, but he was known to his friends as Misha and was born on 23 July 1921 in Slovenia, which was then Yugoslavia. At the age of 30 he left his homeland to come out to Australia and in fact his first job, as I understand it, was as an interpreter. He is another fine example of a migrant to this country making good. I am informed he was a strident anticommunist and was perhaps driven by his own history in Europe at the time. Before he entered parliament he was an accountant and marketing manager. He was also very active in the Good Neighbour Council of New South Wales from 1954. He was on their executive from 1969 to 1972 and he was also their vice-president from 1971. So he was very committed to the activities of the Good Neighbour Council.
Misha was elected to federal parliament in 1975 representing the Liberal Party. During his time as a senator he was a member of numerous parliamentary committees. These included the Senate Standing Committee on Publications from 1980 to 1983, the Senate Legislative and General Purpose Committee, the trade and commerce committee from 1976, the education and arts committee from 1981 to 1983 and the senate estimates committee from 1981 to 1983. He also served on the joint committee on public accounts and the joint Australian Capital Territory committee from 1983. He also participated in a number of parliamentary delegations, including the CPA annual group discussion in London, Edinburgh and the Isle of Man in 1979, and a parliamentary delegation to Japan in 1982. The senator also held various party positions inside the Liberal Party. He was a delegate to the New South Wales state council of the party, a member of their executive and president of the Liberal Party western metropolitan region in 1971. So he had a very active engagement in the Liberal Party and was very active in his work in the Senate.
I also understand that he was very well liked, was a popular senator and was known for being generous and good company. I think Senator Watson is probably the only senator who served with him, so he will be able to give a far better insight than I can into his contribution. Misha retired from the Senate in June 1985. Unfortunately he passed away on 5 June 2008, and his funeral was in Sydney on 11 June. On behalf of the government and all Labor senators, I offer condolences to his son and all of his close relatives. We note his very meritorious career and contribution to public life.
2135
15:50:00
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
0
Senator MINCHIN
—On behalf of the coalition I am pleased to support the motion moved by Senator Evans and offer our own sincere condolences on the passing of former Senator Misha Lajovic. Misha, which was his accepted nickname, was first elected here as a senator for New South Wales in 1975, as Senator Evans noted, and served here for 10 years. Indeed, it was my pleasure to have met Misha on several occasions, and a wonderful and engaging human being he was. As Senator Evans noted, he was born in Slovenia, which was then Yugoslavia, in 1921 and came here at the relatively old age for a migrant of 30, in that post-war migrant boom that Australia experienced. No doubt having lived in Europe from 1921 to 1951 had an enormous impact on him and shaped his personal views and ultimately his great contribution to this chamber. I think none of us should underestimate the challenges that someone in Misha’s position would have faced not only in that dreadful wartime period in Europe but also in coming here as a new migrant in the early fifties at the age of 30.
He was, I think, one of the singular postwar migrant success stories. He joined the Liberal Party in 1958, some seven years after migrating here. And, of course, given his background in war-torn Europe and his strong opposition to authoritarianism and totalitarianism, it was natural that he gravitated to the party that I and my colleagues are proud to represent.
He was a first in this place. He commented in his valedictory speech on his uniqueness at the time, in being a migrant who had arrived at an adult age and then being elected as a parliamentarian in a country like Australia—an extraordinary achievement. He was, indeed, the first migrant of a non-English-speaking background to be elected to this Senate and, certainly, we on this side are very proud that he was elected as a Liberal. He noted in his valedictory that his election was a credit to the Australian people and proof that this is a country of a fair go for all. He of course did not say in his final speech that he got there on merit and it was he who won his election as a senator, and he worked extremely hard as a senator in this place. I think his background, his experiences, his commitment to the party, his commitment to the parliament and his innate integrity were the reasons why he was a great success as a Liberal senator for his 10 years here. He described his swearing-in as a senator as the proudest day of his life and the 10 years that he spent in this chamber as the most exciting years of his life. He was exceptionally proud of the role he was able to play in this great Australian democracy.
As Senator Evans noted, he was a great supporter of the Senate committee system. He highlighted that this is one of the advantages that we have over the House of Representatives, with our committee system allowing people from all backgrounds and all walks of life and those on the back bench to make a very direct and significant contribution to improving the legislation that we pass through this place. He played an active role throughout his time as a senator in the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade and the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit. He was, unsurprisingly, a very strong supporter of the Fraser coalition government’s establishment of the Special Broadcasting Service and, while he was here, participated in a Senate review of the SBS. He was, of course, during his tenure in the Senate, a very strong voice on the issue of migration, an articulate advocate of its benefits to the country and of how new migrants could best be assisted.
After his retirement, he was a frequent visitor to the gallery. Our records show he was acknowledged some eight times after his retirement, most recently in June of last year. Obviously, he was extremely proud to have served his nation as a senator. So, to Misha’s son Tom and his family and friends, the coalition places on record its appreciation of Misha’s diligent public service and his loyalty to the party that he represented here, and it tenders its profound sympathy to them in their bereavement.
2135
15:55:00
Watson, Sen John
VJ4
Tasmania
LP
0
0
Senator WATSON
—As a close colleague of the former New South Wales Liberal Senator Misha Lajovic, I wish to be associated with this afternoon’s condolence motion. His passing marks the end of an era. The Senate does not have many accountants; Misha was one of them. Therefore, as accountants, we had a professional link. We also shared common membership of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit. But our friendship went far deeper than accounting or the JCPAA. He was the first non-Anglo-Saxon migrant in the Senate, where he served with great distinction for 10 years—from the 1975 double-dissolution election until 30 June 1985. A more loyal senator you could not find.
The senator was proud of the opportunities given to him in Australia, but he never forgot Slovenia, the land of his birth, or the troubles of the former Yugoslavia. He spoke often and passionately about the evils of totalitarianism. He urged our party to embrace migrants politically and he warned, even in those days, that failure to do so would make the party irrelevant.
Misha was a modest and a humble man. His first two years were as a labourer in Australia. In his maiden speech, he described his electoral success as one of the proudest moments of his life. And he described Australia as a country of a fair go, a fair go for anyone regardless of origin—a country which millions of migrants like himself had adopted as their home and the home of their children and their children’s children. He suffered under communism and, not surprisingly, when an opportunity offered itself, he sought refuge in Australia.
He had a delightful European sense of humour which, in the words of the late Don Chipp, enchanted us all. Former Senator Chaney, previously a leader of our party, spoke fondly of Senator Lajovic. In fact, Senator Chaney said that the remarkable thing was his survival powers, living in dangerous and difficult times and having been engaged at a top level in some bitter intellectual and military battles. Senator Chaney was indeed impressed with Senator Lajovic’s contribution to migration debates.
Former Senator Lajovic was indeed a great spokesman for the Liberal Party philosophy, where people’s individuality is protected and promoted and where the wishes of the majority are expressed by the government, which thus serves the people. Individuals are free to choose, free to learn and free to succeed. He learnt that, in contrast to his previous bitter experience. He described our committees in the Senate here, which he admired, as microparliaments.
The late former Senator Lajovic served his party, the Liberal Party of New South Wales, well. He joined it in 1958, was a delegate to the New South Wales Liberal Party council from 1968 and was on that state executive from 1971. He lived 86 productive years. He leaves behind a grateful son, Thomas. To the whole family, I express my heartfelt sympathy. Not surprisingly, his final request was that, in lieu of flowers, a donation be made to the Salvation Army. He has indeed enriched the lives of all who knew him. Vale, former Senator Lajovic.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
Mr Leonard Thomas Devine
2135
2135
15:59:00
PRESIDENT, The
10000
PO
N/A
1
0
The PRESIDENT
—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 29 May 2008 of Leonard Thomas Devine, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of East Sydney, New South Wales, from 1963 to 1969.
PETITIONS
2135
Petitions
10000
The Clerk
The Clerk
—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
Asylum Seekers
E4R
Senator Fielding
50
2135
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:
Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following motion:
“That this Synod regrets the Government’s adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;
and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
We, therefore, the individual, undersigned attendees at St. Agnes’ Anglican Church, Glen Huntly, Victoria 3163; Djerrnong Anglican Parish of Heethmont and Ringwood East Victoria; Monash Church of Christ, Glen Waverly, Victoria 3150 and Glen Iris Uniting Church, Glen Iris, Victoria 3146, petition the Senate in support of the above mentioned motion.
AND we, as in duty bound will ever pray.
50
E4R
Senator Fielding
Senator Fielding (from 50 citizens)
Marriage Legislation
D2I
WW4
Senator Fifield
Senator Kemp
81
2135
AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL MARRIAGE ACT 1961 TO INVALIDATE STATES’ AND TERRITORIES’ RELATIONSHIP REGISTERS
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Federal Parliament assembled: The petitioners and citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the Senate that
-
In 2004, the Commonwealth Parliament amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.
-
This reinforced the Biblical norm of heterosexual marriage, which has been the cornerstone of every civilization since the beginning of humanity.
-
The word ‘marriage’ is thus appropriate only for legally united heterosexual couples, who are able to model dual-parenting that is balanced (providing both father and mother role models), natural (as to male-female physical union), and morally acceptable to God (bringing up children within the marriage bond).*
-
The establishing of Relationship Registers in the States and Territories will inevitably expand the above definition of marriage (para. 1) into meaninglessness, and so compromise the purpose of the Marriage Act.
Your petitioners therefore pray that, with the powers vested exclusively in the Federal Parliament under Section 51 (xxi and xxii) of the Australian Constitution, you amend the Marriage Act 1961 to invalidate any present or future States’ or Territories’ Relationship Registers.
8
D2I
Senator Fifield
Senator Fifield (from eight citizens) and
73
WW4
Senator Kemp
Senator Kemp (from 73 citizens)
Petitions received.
NOTICES
2135
Notices
Presentation
2135
Senator Hogg to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate on Wednesday, 18 June 2008, and Wednesday, 25 June 2008, from 11 am to 1.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s review of Auditor-General’s reports.
Senator McEwen to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the report of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee on waste management in Australia and the Drink Container Recycling Bill 2008 be presented by 28 August 2008.
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to sexual offences against children, and for related purposes. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Child Protection from Predatory Tourism Offences) Bill 2008.
Senator Bernardi to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That there be laid on the table, no later than 5 pm on 23 June 2008, a list of the commitments made by the Government during the election period to provide grants for sports and recreation facilities, which are being administered by the Department of Health and Ageing and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, showing the recipients, locations and amounts of the grants.
Senator Ludwig to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That:
-
(1) On Tuesday, 17 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to adjournment; and
-
(b) the routine of business from 5 pm shall be:
-
(i) valedictory statements, and
-
(ii) after the conclusion of valedictory statements or at not later than midnight, whichever is the earlier, the Senate shall adjourn without any question being put.
-
(2) On Wednesday, 18 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment; and
-
(b) the routine of business from 5.30 pm shall be:
-
(i) valedictory statements, and
-
(ii) the Senate shall adjourn without any question being put.
-
(3) On Thursday, 19 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to 11.40 pm;
-
(b) the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm, and from not later than 3.45 pm shall be government business only;
-
(c) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) not be proceeded with;
-
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
-
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
-
(4) The Senate shall sit on Friday, 20 June 2008 and that:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to 4.25 pm;
-
(b) the routine of business shall be:
-
(i) notices of motion, and
-
(ii) government business only; and
-
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3.45 pm.
-
(5) On Monday, 23 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to 11.40 pm;
-
(b) the routine of business from 7 pm shall be government business only; and
-
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
-
(6) On Tuesday, 24 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;
-
(b) the routine of business from approximately 5.30 pm shall be:
-
(i) Senator Murray to make a valedictory statement, and
-
(ii) government business only; and
-
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
-
(7) On Wednesday, 25 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9 am to adjournment; and
-
(b) the routine of business from 6.50 pm shall be:
-
(i) valedictory statements, and
-
(ii) the Senate shall adjourn without any question being put.
-
(8) On Thursday, 26 June 2008:
-
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment;
-
(b) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;
-
(c) the routine of business from not later than 3.45 pm shall be government business only;
-
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
-
(e) if the Senate is sitting at 11 pm, the sitting of the Senate shall be suspended till 9 am on Friday, 27 June 2008.
-
(9) In making valedictory statements in accordance with this order, a senator shall not speak for more than 20 minutes.
Senator Ludwig to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the government business order of the day relating to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Communications Fund) Bill 2008 be discharged from the Notice Paper.
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate—
-
(a) notes that:
-
(i) despite the relative improvement in the security situation in Iraq, the Iraqi people continue to live in an atmosphere of general chaos including lawlessness, unbridled terrorism, insecurity and the spread of organised crime, and
-
(ii) Iraqi women are subjected to various forms of discrimination, oppression and exploitation and face violence on a daily basis, they are facing mass killings because of widespread terrorism targeting them and that heinous murders are committed against them in broad daylight with impunity;
-
(b) condemns the crimes of killing women in Iraq and denounces all forms of violations of their human rights; and
-
(c) calls on the Government to promote an international fact‑finding mission to Iraq, organised by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, with the participation of international human rights organisations, to investigate the crimes committed against women and to help the Iraqi authorities to identify the perpetrators and work to stop these crimes, and to:
-
(i) expose the criminals and those who stand behind them, and bring them to justice,
-
(ii) disclose the outcome of the investigations,
-
(iii) take measures to safeguard personal freedoms that are constitutionally guaranteed,
-
(iv) take deterrent measures to ensure the safety of citizens and to protect their lives, and
-
(v) act firmly to improve the conditions of women and facilitate their involvement in the reconstruction process.
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate—
-
(a) notes that the statement by the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Education Union, Group Training Australia and the Dusseldorp Skills Forum ‘Facing up to Australia’s Skills Challenge’, in which priorities are proposed for:
-
(i) a focus on improving the quality and increasing the number of Australians with vocational education and training qualifications which meet future industry and workforce needs,
-
(ii) the centrality of industry,
-
(iii) improved youth engagement and attainment,
-
(iv) the crucial role for student support and for intermediaries,
-
(v) national workforce development and existing worker strategies,
-
(vi) genuine competency-based progression and improved apprenticeship completions,
-
(vii) a review of traineeships,
-
(viii) a public and industry investment strategy for vocational education and training,
-
(ix) a clear vision for flexible and responsive vocational education providers, and for the future of technical and further education in particular, and
-
(x) a focus on the skills needed for a low carbon economy; and
-
(b) calls on the Government to adopt these priorities and to seriously consider the strategies suggested in the statement as soon as possible.
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate—
-
(a) notes that on 11 June and 12 June 2008 citizens and scientists came together in Canberra for the 2008 Manning Clark House Conference ‘Imagining the Real Life on a Greenhouse Earth’, in honour of former federal Minister, the Honourable Dr Barry Jones, AO, and concluded that:
-
(i) global warming is accelerating,
-
(ii) the Arctic summer sea ice is expected to melt entirely within the next 5 years, decades earlier than predicted in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007),
-
(iii) scientists judge the risks to humanity of dangerous global warming to be high,
-
(iv) the loss of the Great Barrier Reef now seems likely,
-
(v) extreme weather events, such as storm surges adding to rising sea levels and threatening coastal cities, will become more frequent,
-
(vi) there is a real danger that we have reached or will soon reach critical tipping points and the future will be taken out of our hands – the melting Arctic sea ice could be the first such tipping point,
-
(vii) beyond 2ºC of warming seems inevitable, unless greenhouse gas reduction targets are tightened, and we risk huge human and societal costs, and perhaps even the effective end of industrial civilisation,
-
(viii) we need to cease our assault on our own life support system and that of millions of species, and that global warming is only one of many symptoms of that assault,
-
(ix) peak oil, global warming and long‑term sustainability pressures all require that we reduce energy needs and switch to renewable energy sources and many credible studies show that Australia can quickly and cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions through dramatic improvements in energy efficiency and by increasing Australia’s investment in solar, wind and other renewable sources,
-
(x) the need for action is extremely urgent and the window of opportunity for avoiding severe impacts is rapidly closing, yet the obstacles to change are not technical or economic, they are political and social, and
-
(xi) democratic societies have responded successfully to dire and immediate threats, as was demonstrated in World War II and this is a last call for an effective response to global warming;
-
(b) thanks the delegates of this conference, including Professor Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins, Dr Geoff Davies, Dr Andrew Glikson and Mr Sebastian Clark for their efforts in drawing this warning to the Senate’s attention; and
-
(c) urges the Government to act on these conclusions.
Senator Allison and Senator Murray to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the Senate—
-
(a) notes the report by CHOICE on charities, published online in March 2008, that highlights the wide variability and inconsistency in the way that charities disclose information to the public; and
-
(b) acknowledges that the 27 recommendations from the inquiry into the definition of charities and related organisations, which reported in 2001, have not been implemented.
-
(2) That the following matters be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day of November 2008:
-
(a) to investigate the relevance and appropriateness of current disclosure regimes for charities and all other not‑for‑profit organisations;
-
(b) to identify models of regulation and legal forms that would improve governance and management of charities and not‑for‑profit organisations and cater for emerging social enterprises; and
-
(c) to identify other measures that can be taken by government and the not‑for‑profit sector to assist the sector to improve governance, standards, accountability and transparency in its use of public and government funds.
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate—
-
(a) notes that:
-
(i) United Nations (UN) efforts to accomplish the decolonisation process in Western Sahara have not been successful yet,
-
(ii) more than 165 000 Saharawis have been living in refugee camps in the south-west of Algeria for the past 33 years in dire conditions,
-
(iii) the UN Security Council adopted Resolutions 1754 and 1783 (2007) whereby it called on Morocco and the Polisario independence movement to enter into negotiations, in good faith and without preconditions with a view to achieving a peaceful solution that provides a genuine opportunity for the Saharawi people to exercise their right to self-determination,
-
(iv) Polisario has offered a reasonable and genuine proposal for a peaceful solution to the conflict which complies with international legality and was noted in Security Council Resolutions 1754 and 1783,
-
(v) a just, lasting and democratic solution to the question of Western Sahara can be achieved through the organisation of a free and fair referendum to allow the Saharawi people to exercise their right to self-determination, in accordance with the UN resolutions, and
-
(vi) a UN failure in Western Sahara would compromise its credibility and lead to instability in north-west Africa;
-
(b) calls on both parties in the conflict, Morocco and the Polisario, to cooperate fully with the UN in its efforts to find a speedy and peaceful resolution to the conflict in Western Sahara; and
-
(c) urges the Government to make representations to:
-
(i) the UN, urging it to proceed in organising the long overdue referendum of self-determination without further delays, and
-
(ii) the Moroccan Government, asking it to respect human rights in the occupied territories of Western Sahara.
Senator Allison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate—
-
(a) notes that remote area nurses are the mainstay of health service provision in remote Indigenous communities, often providing the only local health service available;
-
(b) recognises that remote area nurses provide an invaluable service to some of the most disadvantaged populations in Australia, while their work context and role put them at risk of emotional and physical burnout due to insufficient access to resources, limited professional support and social and cultural isolation; and
-
(c) calls on the Government to recognise the primacy of remote area nurses in providing health care to remote Indigenous communities and to improve remote area nurse representation in government efforts to develop long‑term plans of action to overturn existing inequalities in health services between Indigenous and non‑Indigenous Australians.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2008, together with the matter of the impact which the changes proposed by the bill will have on the tourism industry, be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report on 24 June 2008.
-
(2) That the committee hear evidence, inter alia, from the Australian Tourism Export Council, the Tourism Transport Forum, the Board of Airline Representatives of Australia and owners of major Australian airports.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That:
-
(a) the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report; and
-
(b) any related bill or bills that may be introduced to give effect to the recommendations of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s report Same Sex: Same Entitlements, dated May 2007, also be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report together with the following matters:
-
(i) the definition of ‘couple relationship’,
-
(ii) empirical evidence from the states concerning the existence, recognition and relative numbers of interdependent relationships, other than de facto (whether heterosexual or same-sex) and marital relationships,
-
(iii) whether the definition of ‘couple relationship’ should be amended to incorporate other interdependent relationships and, if so, whether the definitions should be broadened to include those relationships or whether a separate definition is required,
-
(iv) the fiscal implications of the statutory recognition of other interdependent relationships for superannuation and taxation purposes,
-
(v) the definitions of ‘child’ and ‘child of a couple relationship’,
-
(vi) the legal and fiscal implications of the definitions referred to in (v), particularly as they relate to the rights, obligations and liabilities of co-parents (i.e., the parent in a couple relationship that does not have a biological connection to a child of that relationship), and
-
(vii) all other matters considered necessary by the committee.
-
(2) That the committee is not to conclude its consideration of the matter contained in subparagraph (1)(a) until it has concluded its consideration of the matters in subparagraph (1)(b).
-
(3) That the committee must hear evidence, inter alia, from:
-
(a) the Attorney-General’s Department;
-
(b) the Department of Finance and Deregulation;
-
(c) the Relationship Registries of Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory;
-
(d) the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission; and
-
(e) the Law Council of Australia (Family Law Section).
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the provisions of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the number of people that will be affected by:
-
(i) changes to Baby Bonus eligibility,
-
(ii) changes to the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) part B eligibility,
-
(iii) changes to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) compliance regime, and
-
(iv) changes to the eligible age for the partner service pension;
-
(b) the anticipated financial impact on individuals:
-
(i) should their eligibility for a CSHC be revoked, and
-
(ii) if they are affected by changes to the partner service pension;
-
(c) how measures contained in the bill will be administered; and
-
(d) the empirical and financial modelling underpinning the introduction of these measures, particularly in relation to income testing for the Baby Bonus, FBT part B, changes to the Partner Service Pension age eligibility and CSHC.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Tax Laws Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2008 be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report on 24 June 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the impact of the changes to the fringe benefits tax (meal cards and eligible work-related items) on employees, employers and other businesses;
-
(b) the impact of the changes to the employee share schemes (election mechanism and removal of double taxation) on employees, employers and other businesses; and
-
(c) the impact of the changes to the depreciation of computer software on employees, employers and other businesses.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008 be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report not before 26 August 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the impact of changes to the thresholds on the number of Australians with private health insurance (PHI), including an examination of how many will abandon their policies as a result and how many will not take up PHI in the future;
-
(b) the modelling underpinning the decision and the veracity of that modelling;
-
(c) the anticipated impact on PHI premiums and PHI products offered;
-
(d) the impact of the change on the cost of living and the consumer price index;
-
(e) including the threshold, PHI rebate and lifetime health cover on increasing PHI membership;
-
(f) the anticipated impact of changes to the threshold on:
-
(i) the public hospital system including waiting lists and the financial requirements of state governments,
-
(ii) the ongoing viability of PHI, and
-
(iii) private hospitals.
-
(2) That the inquiry hear evidence in all capital cities and from, inter alia, the private health insurance sector about the impact of the measures in the bill on the industry and on the public hospital system.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report not before 18 August 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the impact of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) cost recovery on:
-
(i) patients’ timely and affordable access to medicines,
-
(ii) the Australian pharmaceutical industry,
-
(iii) new products and innovation, and
-
(iv) the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee;
-
(b) cost recovery mechanisms in other countries;
-
(c) how cost recovery will improve the timeliness and effectiveness of the current PBS process for listing new medicines; and
-
(d) the modelling and consultation underpinning the decision.
-
(2) That, in conducting its inquiry, the committee hear evidence, inter alia, from the pharmaceutical industry, generic medicines industry, consumer and patient health groups, the Department of Health and Ageing, the PBS Evaluation Units and the Australian Medical Association and other medical bodies.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the provisions of the following bills:
Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008
A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2008
A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2008 and
A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2008,
-
be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report not before 26 August 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the incidence of the luxury car tax (LCT) and the effect of the proposed increase in the LCT rate on rural and regional communities, small business families and tourism operators;
-
(b) the effect of the LCT increase on the prices of vehicles, the affordability of motor vehicles, the cost of living, and the consumer price index (CPI);
-
(c) the expected impact of the increase in the LCT rate on vehicle demand and the likely consequences for government revenues including from the LCT, goods and services tax (GST) and stamp duty;
-
(d) the growing incidence of the LCT over time and the adequacy of current arrangements for indexation of the LCT threshold, in comparison with alternative measures including the CPI, average weekly earnings and the increase in the retail price of motor vehicles;
-
(e) the rationale for taxing ‘luxury’ cars at a higher rate than other goods and services;
-
(f) the effect of the LCT and the proposed increase in the LCT rate on Australian vehicle manufacturers and vehicle importers and distributors;
-
(g) the overall taxation burden on ownership and operation of motor vehicles including customs duty, GST, LCT stamp duty and excise on fuel;
-
(h) the effect of the LCT and the proposed increase in the LCT rate on the adoption of vehicle safety features and environmental technologies; and
-
(i) the extent to which the LCT is viewed as a non-tariff barrier by other car exporting countries.
-
(2) That:
-
(a) as a minimum, the committee hold hearings in Melbourne and Adelaide and hear evidence, inter alia, from Australia’s vehicle manufacturers, importers and distributors as well as from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the Australian Automobile Association, the Motor Trades Association of Australia, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, the Motor Trades Association of Queensland and the tourism industry; and
-
(b) the committee also take into account submissions to, and recommendations of, the Bracks’ Review of Australia’s Automotive Industry.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the provisions of the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report not before 26 August 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the impact of the changes on retail prices of domestic gas and electricity in Western Australia, and any consequent effect on consumer prices;
-
(b) the impact of the decision on the industry generally and on the exploration for petroleum products in Australia; and
-
(c) the impact of the decision, and the decision-making process, on domestic and international investment confidence in Australia.
-
(2) That the committee must conduct hearings in Western Australia and hear evidence from, inter alia, industry bodies and joint venture partners on the North West Shelf.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
(1) That the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 and the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report not before 29 September 2008, together with the following matters:
-
(a) the impact of the proposed Fuelwatch scheme on the price consumers will pay for motor fuel (including unleaded petrol, diesel and LPG) in metropolitan areas, regional centres and rural Australia;
-
(b) the economic benefits and costs of the proposed Fuelwatch scheme to consumers in metropolitan areas, regional centres and rural Australia;
-
(c) other economic costs of the proposed Fuelwatch scheme, including the compliance costs of the scheme for industry, particularly independent retailers;
-
(d) the impact of the proposed Fuelwatch scheme on competition between motor fuel retailers and the operation and viability of independent motor fuel retailers;
-
(e) intraday price volatility in the retail market, established price cycles in each state and territory, and consumer awareness of price cycles;
-
(f) the impact of Fuelwatch on discounting, as well as the amplitude and duration of price cycles, including any penalties that will apply to motor fuel retailers for not fixing prices for 24 hour periods;
-
(g) the potential use under the Fuelwatch scheme of sophisticated pricing strategies by motor fuel retailers who have more than one retail outlet, and how they may take advantage of the 24 hour rule;
-
(h) independent analysis of the overall economic benefits and costs of the proposed Fuelwatch scheme;
-
(i) independent analysis of the differences in motor fuel prices between Western Australia and other Australian states and territories, with particular reference to volumetric or consumption-weighted prices; and
-
(j) the legal basis for the legislation.
-
(2) That, in conducting its inquiry, the committee:
-
(a) hear evidence in all capital cities and in such major rural and regional centres as may be determined by the committee; and
-
(b) hear evidence, inter alia, from independent retailers, motoring bodies with knowledge of the retail motor fuel market, business organisations with an interest in motor fuel prices and independent think tanks and economists who have knowledge of retail pricing arrangements in the motor fuel industry.
Senator Ellison to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the provisions of Schedules 1 and 2 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Bill 2008 be referred to the Economics Committee for inquiry and report not before 18 August 2008.
Senator Johnston to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to make provisions for the better operation of the solar rebate scheme. Save Our Solar (Solar Rebate Protection) Bill 2008.
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate—
-
(a) notes the high level of support in the Australian community for the Government to take international legal action to stop ‘scientific whaling’ in Australia’s Antarctic territorial waters;
-
(b) expresses its continuing deep concern at the killing of the whales in Australian waters; and
-
(c) urges the Government to immediately commence international legal action to stop the killing of whales in Australian waters.
Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
-
That the Senate declares its opposition to the rates of excise contained in the Excise Tariff Proposal No. 1 (2008) and the Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 (2008) tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 May 2008 unless and until the Government tables in the Senate a comprehensive and costed plan of new action to address the $10 billion per annum problem of alcohol abuse in Australia.
Postponement
2135
The following items of business were postponed:
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for today, proposing a reference to the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee, postponed till 17 June 2008.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for today, proposing a reference to the Community Affairs Committee, postponed till 17 June 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 94 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Minchin) for today, proposing an order for the production of documents relating to government appointments, postponed till 17 June 2008.
General business notice of motion no. 95 standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Minchin) for today, proposing an order for the production of documents relating to grants approved in each portfolio or agency, postponed till 17 June 2008.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
2135
Leave of Absence
Senator O’BRIEN
(Tasmania)
16:00:00
—by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senators Carr and Conroy for the period 16 to 20 June 2008 on account of ministerial business overseas.
Question agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2135
Ministerial Statements
2135
16:01:00
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
0
Senator LUDWIG
—I present ministerial statements.
The list read as follows—
Australia-New Zealand Leadership Forum and the WA gas disruption
Pensions and Benefits
2135
2135
16:02:00
Coonan, Sen Helen
2M6
New South Wales
LP
0
0
Senator COONAN
—by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
Yet again, with this ministerial statement, the government has proved to the Australian people that it is a government paralysed by inaction, putting off decisions with endless reviews and completely devoid of ideas to deliver certainty and security for pensioners and carers. The statement, so far as I can tell, contains nothing new. Frankly, I question why it was given, for it tells us nothing more than we already knew in the May budget. Prior to that, there were of course press leaks of budget cuts that would seriously affect our most vulnerable citizens—our seniors and carers. Both the current Prime Minister and his Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, hastened too slowly, may I say, to try to take the pressure off the government by assuring the pensioners and carers that the bonuses would be paid this year but would be subject to review as part of yet another review. Frankly, the only reason the government recanted on its proposals to cut the bonuses this year was the action of the opposition, backed by a very strong outcry from both pensioners and carer groups in the community, reflected in widespread media coverage.
Under the coalition’s so-called ‘neglect’ that has been referred to in the statement, the Howard government increased employment by up to 2.2 million new jobs, increased real wages by 21 per cent and doubled the real net worth per head of every person in the country, on average. We actually paid carers and seniors bonuses that were not paid before, and we did it for four years. We increased pensions to 25 per cent of MTAWE, male total average weekly earnings, which had never been legislated before. In the ministerial statement, the minister describes what the Howard government did for the last four years in paying bonuses to seniors and carers as ‘giving them no financial security by paying annual bonuses’. I would have thought that there was a lot more financial security from an annual bonus that you know will be paid and that lets you plan and purchase items from a lump sum that are simply unaffordable out of a pension than the uncertainty and insecurity which is inherent in the kind of review that the minister is now proposing. The promise of a review is, in short, a cruel blow to the most vulnerable.
The carers and seniors of this country had more security under the Howard government than they had before and, frankly, than they will likely have in the future under this Mr Rudd ‘review everything’ way of governing. Why was there no indication or even a glimpse of a policy on seniors and carers before the last election? If the then opposition truly cared about these very special Australians, surely they would have outlined prior to the election their policy views on how their payments should have been handled. But, no, silence reigned supreme on this issue, including at the 2020 Summit, after they had become the government. In fact, there was no real criticism of the Howard government’s actions in relation to annual payments to seniors and carers prior to the election. By tying any future policy to the outcome of the review that the minister has announced will report to her by next February 2009, the minister is again exposing carers and seniors to an uncertain future, quite the opposite to the claims in the ministerial statement.
Frankly, how can you trust this review? And how can you trust this government? What carers and pensioners can trust is the record of the coalition, which is real. We did not just talk; we delivered. Between 1996 and 2005 the real disposable incomes of the poorest 20 per cent in our society—the carers, the pensioners and seniors—increased by 25 per cent. There was a 25 per cent real increase in the effective income of carers and pensioners, and those statistics come from the independent and authoritative National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra. When we were in government we consistently delivered a better standard of living to Australia’s carers and pensioners. This is not the last word. I believe they deserve better. We in the opposition will do all we can to ensure that their financial futures are sustainable and to recognise the struggle they have to make ends meet. They are entitled to feel very let down by a do-nothing government addicted to reviews but paralysed when it comes to real action.
2135
16:08:00
Bernardi, Sen Cory
G0D
South Australia
LP
0
0
Senator BERNARDI
—I rise to also make some comments on the ministerial statement about certainty and security for seniors and carers. In associating myself with all of what Senator Coonan has said, I would like to also express some concerns on behalf of carers and seniors—firstly, on behalf of carers, who do such a magnificent job in our community. I genuinely believe that governments of all persuasions seek to ensure that carers are recognised for what they do in our community, but we have different ways of going about it. The fact is that the previous government, the Howard government, provided a great economic environment in which there was some security and some certainty that bonus payments would continue to be paid. It was our election commitment to increase allowances for carers and for seniors. Both policies having been adopted by this government, one of the problems that has not been faced is the complete lack of certainty that causes so much apprehension in the broader community. I think the government has underestimated the trouble and worry this lack of certainty and surety, in being able to plan for the future, causes for those who are amongst the least fortunate or are facing the most difficult circumstances.
The minister has recognised that rising fuel and grocery prices have had a severe impact on carers, pensioners and seniors. But in doing so she has also recognised that this government has done absolutely nothing about reducing the price of fuel, which was one of its election promises. It has done absolutely nothing about reducing the price of groceries, which was one of its election promises. We have a government that is simply committed to watching and having reviews. We have heard in this chamber, and we heard during Senate estimates, that this government is committed to making decisions and actually governing. But that is just rhetoric. What we have seen is review after review after review. And when they do not like the outcome of their reviews, or the advice that they receive, they make a completely different decision that suits their political agenda.
I believe that this government does not have a direction or a clear focus; it is simply looking to buy time as it finds what it would like to implement to satisfy its vested interest groups. I say that that is not good enough. Carers and seniors deserve more certainty. They certainly do not deserve the lip-service that is being given to looking after their interests by Minister Macklin. They deserve to know that in the future they are going to be able to afford to put food on the table, to be able to look after their loved ones, to be able to drive to the shops and that they are not going to be left in the lurch by a government that simply does not care.
Question agreed to.
World Intellectual Property Organisation: Nomination of New Director-General
2135
2135
16:11:00
Brandis, Sen George
008W7
Queensland
LP
0
0
Senator BRANDIS
—by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
On 3 May this year the Coordination Committee of the World Intellectual Property Organisation nominated Dr Francis Gurry, an Australian, to become the next Director-General of WIPO. The nomination awaits formal appointment by the WIPO general assembly at its next meeting in late September. On behalf of the opposition, I want to offer our congratulations to Dr Gurry, a very illustrious Australian intellectual property lawyer, on this prestigious international appointment—although, I must say, sadly, the circumstances giving rise to the need to make this appointment have been somewhat regrettable.
The vacancy in the presidency of WIPO arose with the resignation from that office last November of the pre-existing president Kamil Idris, a Sudanese national, in circumstances of great scandal. It was revealed that Mr Idris had been forced to resign as Director-General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation because of significant fraud in his credentials. Among other things, it was revealed that Idris had misstated his age by some nine years—not something that anyone in this chamber would be guilty of, Senator Faulkner.
5K4
Faulkner, Sen John
Senator Faulkner
—He didn’t try to make himself younger, did he?
008W7
Brandis, Sen George
Senator BRANDIS
—He tried to make himself older, in fact. Had he stated his true age, he would not have been considered eligible for appointment either to a more junior position with WIPO or to the director-generalship of WIPO in the first place. Secondly, it was revealed that in his application he claimed to hold a masters degree in international law from Ohio University. It has since been revealed that the degree he holds is a masters degree in African studies. Be that as it may, a campaign led by the United States and Switzerland for the removal of Idris culminated at the end of last year with him accepting a termination payment of more than $300,000 and full pension benefits.
I make those observations because quite commonly people on my side of politics are chastised for criticising the United Nations and its agencies. But here is a very clear case of a fraudulent appointment to a very senior body and the expenditure of a great deal of money in order to get rid of this plainly dishonest and unsuitable man. Let it never be thought that the United Nations or its agencies should be above criticism, when scandals of this kind occur with wearying regularity. Nevertheless, the disgrace of Kamil Idris has created a vacancy which, we are delighted to say, has been filled by an Australian.
Dr Gurry has a long and distinguished curriculum vitae. He was awarded his undergraduate degree in law by the University of Melbourne in 1974. He served articles at Arthur Robinson & Co.—as Allens Arthur Robinson was then known. In 1976 he completed his master’s degree, also at the University of Melbourne. He studied for his doctorate at Cambridge, at Gonville and Caius College, for which he was awarded a high distinction. Dr Gurry had the signal and rare honour for an Australian of being awarded the Yorke Prize from the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge. From 1979 to 1984, he was a senior lecturer in law at the University of Melbourne, and he was also a visiting professor of law at the University of Dijon in France.
He joined WIPO in 1985, initially as a consultant and senior program officer with responsibility for development cooperation in Asia and the Pacific. Over the next 20 years he rose steadily through that organisation with roles including head of the Industrial Property Division, Special Assistant to the Director General, Legal Counsel, Assistant Director General and Deputy Director General since 2003. This is an illustrious appointment for an Australian. Dr Gurry is obviously a man of both integrity and eminence, and the opposition welcomes his appointment and congratulates him.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
2135
Documents
Tabling
2135
10000
Forshaw, Michael (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Forshaw)—Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents, as listed below, which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and Temporary Chairmen of Committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.
The list read as follows—
(a) Committee reports
-
Economics Committee—Interim report—Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 [Provisions] (received 30 May 2008)
-
Economics Committee—Report, together with Hansard record of proceedings and submissions received by the committee—National Market Driven Energy Efficiency Target Bill 2007 [2008] and the Renewable Energy Legislation Amendment (Renewable Power Percentage) Bill 2008 (received 30 May 2008)
-
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills—4th report of 2008 and Alert Digest No. 4 of 2008 (received 5 June 2008)
-
Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee—Interim report—Effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice (received 6 June 2008)
-
Economics Committee—Final report, together with Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008 [Provisions] (received 11 June 2008)
(b) Government documents
-
Estimates of proposed supplementary expenditure for 2007-08—Portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements 2007-08. Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio (received 16 May 2008)
-
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority—Report for 2005-06 (received 19 May 2008)
-
Airservices Australia. Corporate plan July 2007 to June 2012 (received 19 May 2008)
-
Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2008-09—Portfolio budget statements—Defence portfolio—Correction (received 21 May 2008)
-
A new approach to homelessness: Which Way Home (Green Paper) (received 22 May 2008)
-
Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2008-09—Portfolio budget statements—Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio—Corrigendum (received 30 May 2008)
-
Australian vocational education and training system. Report for 2006 (received 6 June 2008)
-
Review of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) operational activities—Report of the Independent Review Team (received 11 June 2008)
-
Report of the Equine Influenza Inquiry—The August 2007 outbreak in Australia (received 12 June 2008)
(c) Reports of the Auditor-General
-
Audit report no. 34 of 2007-08—Performance audit—Administration of the pathology quality and outlays memorandum of understanding: Department of Health and Ageing (received 21 May 2008)
-
Audit report no. 35 of 2007-08—Performance audit—Building certification of residential aged care homes: Department of Health and Ageing (received 22 May 2008)
-
Audit report no. 40 of 2007-08—Performance audit—Taxpayers. charter . Follow-up audit: Australian Taxation Office (received 11 June 2008)
Ordered that the committee reports be printed.
COMMITTEES
2135
Committees
Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee
2135
Extension of Time
2135
Senator WORTLEY
(South Australia)
16:18:00
—by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts, Senator McEwen, I move:
That the final report of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee on the effectiveness of the broadcasting codes of practice be presented by 19 June 2008.
Question agreed to.
REPRESENTATION OF VICTORIA
2135
Miscellaneous
10000
Forshaw, Michael (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Forshaw)—I table the original certificate of the choice by the Parliament of Victoria of Jacinta Mary Ann Collins to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Robert Ray.
DOCUMENTS
2135
Documents
Airservices Australia
2135
2135
16:19:00
Barnett, Sen Guy
00AUF
Tasmania
LP
0
0
Senator BARNETT
—by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I refer to the corporate plan of Airservices Australia and in particular to concerns raised in recent times regarding safety at Launceston Airport. The corporate plan for Airservices Australia makes it very clear that it values the need for keeping safety first. The document states on page 3:
Under the Air Services Act 1995, the corporation is responsible for the provision of safe and environmentally responsible air navigation services (ANS) and aviation rescue and fire fighting services (ARFF) to aircraft operators and other airspace users in Australian-administered airspace, which represents approximately 11 per cent of the world’s airspace. In providing services to about three million aircraft movements annually …
I raise that in the context of what has been occurring and what has perhaps not been occurring at Launceston Airport over the last many months. Since early December there have been three significant major or minor incidents in and around Launceston Airport involving passenger aircraft landing at that airport. The most recent was at the end of April or the first week of May, when a passenger aircraft landing in fog at Launceston Airport was on a converging path. Just what is going on? When will the investigation into this incident be concluded and what is the recommendation? These are questions that need answering.
At the time I called for the federal government to ensure a full inquiry into this particular incident and, indeed, the recent incidents since early December last year. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the airport control tower can lock up for the night just as two passenger jets—loaded with more than 300 passengers—are about to land in partial fog. Then we hear, through the grapevine as it were, that they were on a converging path. This is serious and we need answers. Indeed, we need categorical assurances from the government and from Airservices Australia—in fact, a guarantee—firstly, that the manning levels in the air traffic control tower at Launceston Airport are adequate; and, secondly, we need a guarantee that safety has not been, and will not be, compromised in Launceston.
Launceston Airport is a rapidly growing gateway, with about 1.2 million passengers per year, or 3,000 passengers per day. The airport is undergoing a $20 million redevelopment and upgrade, and yet we are starting to witness a pattern of questionable air safety procedures and practices. We need answers as soon as possible.
I do not know whether the two aircraft in that incident at the end of April were too close, or were far enough apart and everything was okay. But we need clarification, and we need assurances with regard to that investigation. I have been advised that an investigation has been undertaken, and my questions are: when will it report, and when will these assurances be given by this government and by Airservices Australia?
On two separate occasions in February this year I raised concerns, and spoke directly to Airservices Australia about the incident in February, when Launceston’s airport control tower was not manned for 1½ days due to staff sickness. We know this sort of thing happens; that there are illnesses from time to time, and people cannot make it to work. But you need a backup system; you need a system where safety is ensured for the good of the public, the travelling public in particular. It is not good enough, whatever alternative procedures are in place, if the control tower is unmanned. The control tower was similarly left unmanned in December last year, due to staff shortages.
The front page of the Australian just a week or so ago referred to the staff shortages within Airservices Australia and within air traffic control towers right across the country. We can also understand the claim by the union for increased wages. Those claims need to be tested and considered very carefully, but air safety is too important to compromise, and we need the highest standards of air safety in Launceston. There are many people in the Launceston community who have expressed their concerns to me about this issue at Launceston Airport, and I am calling on the government to make it clear exactly where they stand, and to provide a guarantee that air safety is not being compromised and has not been compromised. Would the government please release the report of this investigation that has recently been completed?
Launceston is now used by four passenger airline carriers. There are smaller carriers that go in and out of Launceston, servicing the Bass Strait islands, the west coast and the east coast. I was there just last week, using Launceston Airport at night. Freight services also use the airport, of course. We have increasing air traffic arrangements. I just want to make it clear that I thank the people that are there who are working hard and working under difficult conditions. I thank them for their service, but I think we need guarantees as soon as possible to ensure that public confidence can be maintained with respect to air safety at Launceston Airport.
Question agreed to.
AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORTS
2135
Auditor-General's Reports
Report No. 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 2007-08
2135
10000
Forshaw, Michael (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Forshaw)—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General:
Report No. 36 of 2007-08: Performance audit: Australian Taxation Office: Australian Taxation Office’s strategies to address tax haven compliance risks
Report No. 37 of 2007-08: Performance audit: management of credit cards
Report No. 38 of 2007-08: Performance audit: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: administration of Job Network service fees
Report No. 39 of 2007-08: Performance audit: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: managing e-business applications: follow-up audit
DOCUMENTS
2135
Documents
13th National Schools Constitutional Convention
2135
10000
Forshaw, Michael (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Forshaw)—I table a communique from the 13th National Schools Constitutional Convention held at Old Parliament House from 29 April to 1 May 2008.
BUDGET
2135
Miscellaneous
Portfolio Budget Statements
2135
2135
16:28:00
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
0
Senator FAULKNER
—I table corrections to the 2008-09 portfolio budget statements for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts portfolio.
COMMITTEES
2135
Committees
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint
2135
Report
2135
2135
16:28:00
Wortley, Sen Dana
E6C
South Australia
ALP
1
0
Senator WORTLEY
—On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the Review of the Defence annual report 2005-06. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
Senator WORTLEY
(South Australia)
16:28:00
—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Question agreed to.
Membership
2135
10000
Forshaw, Michael (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT
(Senator Forshaw)—Order! The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking variation to the membership of committees.
Senator FAULKNER
(New South Wales
—Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary)
16:29:00
—by leave—I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
National Capital and External Territories Committee—Joint Standing Committee—Discharged—Senator Stott-Despoja
Community Affairs Committee—Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Murray to replace Senator Allison for the committee’s inquiry into ready-to-drink alcohol beverages.
Question agreed to.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3007
FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3002
INCOME TAX (FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS MISUSE TAX) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3008
FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3012
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2991
First Reading
2135
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator FAULKNER
(New South Wales
—Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary)
16:30:00
—I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
2135
2135
16:31:00
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
0
Senator FAULKNER
—I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME) BILL 2008
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is one of the cornerstones of our health system. It has provided Australians with affordable access to quality medicines for almost sixty years and is justifiably regarded as one of the best systems of its kind in the world. One of the reasons it is so successful is that PBS subsidies are provided directly to consumers at the point of purchase of medicines in the community.
At the same time, the PBS provides an efficient, transparent and predictable system for industry and the supply chain.
In 2006-07, Government expenditure on the PBS was approximately $6.4 billion and we expect it will be about $7 billion this year. This is a significant level of Government expenditure, but we believe that it is money well spent.
This bill contains a number of largely technical amendments to the National Health Act 1953, with the exception of a Safety Net measure that will provide great relief to families separated by poor health or working for the Government overseas. The changes will strengthen the PBS and improve access to PBS entitlements. I will now outline each, commencing with the Safety Net measure I just mentioned.
The PBS Safety Net protects individuals and families who need a large number of medicines from high cumulative costs.
Members of a family can combine certain PBS charges toward a joint Safety Net tally. In 2008, the PBS Safety Net thresholds are $290 for concession card holders and veterans, and $1,141.80 for general patients. The same threshold applies for a family unit, whether as an individual, a couple, or a family with dependent children. After a family reaches the Safety Net threshold amount, all members of the family benefit from reduced PBS charges for medicines for the rest of the calendar year. In 2008, the copayment charges reduce from $5 to free for concessional patients, and from $31.30 to $5 for general patients.
In broad terms, a PBS family for Safety Net purposes consists of a person, their spouse, and dependent children. Under the current rules, a legally married or de facto couple must be living together on a permanent basis to qualify as members of the same family. If a couple is living apart permanently, neither person meets the PBS definition of spouse to the other. In that case, each person is treated as an individual with a separate Safety Net for him or herself, together with any dependants in the person’s care, meaning a much higher threshold has to be reached by the couple.
This rule applies currently even if a couple is living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity; for example, if one partner is living separately for long-term nursing care. For such couples, the effect of having separate Safety Nets is that they may need to pay up to twice the amount in PBS contributions to reach the Safety Net threshold as they otherwise would.
The amendment in Schedule 3 removes this harsh rule and improves access to the PBS Safety Net for legally married and de facto couples living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity. It provides relief to couples, particularly elderly couples, at a difficult time in their lives. It will allow such couples, who are currently treated as individuals, to use the Safety Net as a family, in the same way as they would if still living together.
This amendment extends the PBS Safety Net definition of spouse so that a legally married or de facto couple living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity, of either or both persons, is not taken to be living separately on a permanent basis.
This will mean that such couples, often life long partners, can continue to be treated as members of the same family for the PBS Safety Net. They will be able to contribute PBS payments to the same Safety Net threshold; be included on the same Safety Net concession or entitlement card once the threshold is reached between them; and both will have access to reduced copayments for medicines supplied as Safety Net benefits.
In effect, this change will mean that the amount of eligible PBS payments required for both members of the couple to reach the Safety Net is the equivalent of one Safety Net threshold – not two. It has the potential to reduce the out-of-pockets costs for PBS medicines for such couples by an amount equal to the relevant Safety Net threshold amount.
This is an important measure that will provide significant financial relief and appropriate recognition to eligible couples struggling to afford their medicines. There is no good reason why people who, as a result of illness or infirmity are forced to live apart, should not have the same PBS entitlements as other couples. This is essentially a matter of fairness.
The new Safety Net definition for spouse also applies for couples accessing pharmaceutical benefits under the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS). The amendment is proposed to commence on 1 January 2009, as the PBS and RPBS Safety Nets operate by calendar year.
The proposed Safety Net arrangement can provide significant benefits for the people involved. I also note that this measure of fairness comes at a modest cost to the PBS. The overall cost is estimated to be around $1.1 million per year, which is a small fraction of total PBS expenditure.
Illness-separated couples are provided for in other Commonwealth legislation such as the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The change to the PBS reflects a similar approach and will apply to couples in similar circumstances to those already recognised under those other Acts.
This measure recognises that when couples need to live apart for reasons of ill health, frailty, or dependent care - they do not cease to be a family. The proposed amendment provides continuity for joint access to Safety Net entitlements for these couples despite their living circumstances having changed permanently. It will improve the affordability of PBS medicines for these people at a time when they may be most in need of the benefits of the PBS.
The amendment in Schedule 2 proposes changes to provide access to the PBS for people working overseas as government officers, and for accompanying spouses and dependants. Only people who are otherwise eligible to receive PBS medicines will be able to take advantage of this measure.
Under the current legislation, access to the PBS is restricted in the following way:
-
only Australian residents (or eligible overseas representatives), may receive PBS medicines;
-
pharmacists must not dispense a PBS medicine for a person who is not in Australia; and
-
it is prohibited to take or send PBS-subsidised medicines to a person overseas.
The existing provisions are appropriately designed to protect the PBS by making it hard for ineligible people, such as non-residents, tourists and visitors, to obtain PBS-subsidised medicines. However, these safeguards also affect the ability of Australian government officers to obtain supplies of PBS medicines when working outside Australia.
Accessing medicines in some overseas locations may be difficult or uncertain. In some places where officers are sent to perform duties for an Australian government, the range and quality of medicines available locally may not match that of PBS medicines, supply of medicines may be unreliable, or medicines may only be available at high cost.
This amendment provides that, for PBS purposes, a person who is working outside Australia as a Commonwealth, or a State or Territory officer, is taken to reside in Australia. This will enable pharmacists to dispense PBS prescriptions for medicines required by these officers. It also provides for PBS medicines to be supplied for accompanying spouses and dependent children of these officers. PBS medicines for these officers and their families will be able to be taken or sent out of Australia in quantities required for personal use.
Under the proposed changes, access to pharmaceutical benefits outside Australia is extended only to government officers, spouses and dependants who are otherwise eligible to receive these benefits when in Australia. Around 3,000 people will be eligible.
The present prohibitions on export of PBS medicines for or to other persons outside Australia remain in place. The new arrangements do not cover people working overseas for private companies, studying overseas, providing services as an independent contractor to governments, conducting personal business, travelling as tourists, or living overseas permanently.
Established compliance and surveillance activities by Medicare Australia and the Australian Customs Service will continue to ensure that controls on access to PBS medicines are enforced appropriately. Arrangements will be established to identify those eligible and to ensure that non-eligible people cannot benefit from the measure.
The proposed changes will provide people working overseas as government officers with access to pharmaceutical benefits. It is important that this access be implemented as soon as practicable.
The amendment in Schedule 1 expands the criteria for determining that brands of pharmaceutical items are co-marketed. This is to ensure that legislation in relation to co-marketing operates as was originally intended.
PBS amendments to the National Health Act in 2007 introduced the concept of co-marketed brands. This concept permits two or more brands of a pharmaceutical item that are prescribed in the regulations, or meet certain criteria, to be treated as one brand of the pharmaceutical item. This is important, because while these brands are co-marketed they are not subject to statutory price reductions that would otherwise apply to the brands as multiple brand medicines.
The criteria for determining co-marketed brands requires amendment so that co-marketed brands, in certain circumstances, may be co-marketed brands even if they are brands of more than one pharmaceutical item. As I said earlier, this simply ensures that the Act operates as intended.
I will use a fictitious example to show how this amendment works.
-
The drug Alpha 500mg tablet has the brands X and Y as co-marketed brands. The manufacturers of both X and Y want to list an Alpha 250mg tablet and want those brands to remain co-marketed.
-
Currently this would not be possible because the 500mg tablet is a different pharmaceutical item to the 250mg tablet. The listing of the 250mg strength of tablet would stop brands of either pharmaceutical item being co-marketed and the brands would be subject to statutory price reductions.
-
These amendments remove the requirement that there be no brands of other pharmaceutical items containing the same drug in order for brands of a new pharmaceutical item to be listed as co-marketed. This means brands X and Y could remain co-marketed in the 500mg strength, and be listed as co-marketed brands in the 250mg strength. However, brands X and Y for both the 500mg strength and the 250mg strength would also need to meet the other co-marketing criteria.
This amendment also contains provisions for the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, that co-marketed brands cease to be co-marketed. This is an important amendment as it allows the Minister’s determination ceasing a co-marketing arrangement to take precedence over the regulations which prescribe certain co-marketed brands. This is necessary to ensure that the co-marketed status of brands grandfathered into the regulations when the concept was introduced in 2007 can be adjusted in a timely fashion when new brands of pharmaceutical items are listed on the PBS. This will mean that once a determination ceasing co-marketing is made the prescribed co-marketed brands that no longer meet certain criteria for co-marketing can be treated as multiple brands.
And finally, two miscellaneous amendments:
-
make minor changes to two PBS-related definitions; and
-
remove provisions for the gazettal of determinations made in relation to pharmaceutical benefits which may be prescribed by participating dental practitioners and authorised optometrists.
With regard to provisions for gazettals, the legislation currently requires that the determinations which specify the pharmaceutical benefits that can be prescribed by participating dental practitioners and authorised optometrists, be published in the Gazette. The amendment removes this requirement and provides that these determinations are legislative instruments.
Under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the registration of legislative instruments on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments generally replaces the requirement for gazettal. The changes bring the requirements for the PBS determinations I mentioned into line with the Legislative Instruments Act. Inclusion of these determinations on the Register is already occurring. There are no implications for consumers, business, or regulatory procedures associated with this change.
In conclusion, the bill contains amendments which recognise that the way the PBS operates is important to the health of Australians. The proposed changes demonstrate this Government’s determination to ensure that the PBS continues to meet the needs of Australians as users of PBS medicines, while providing workable requirements for the pharmaceutical industry. This bill contains fair, sensible and practical changes which maintain that balance between the cost of the PBS for the community as a whole and the cost of medicines for individuals and families.
FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS BILL 2008
First Home Saver Accounts will help bring the dream of home ownership closer to a reality for many thousands of young Australians.
Rising house prices have increased financial pressures on households and made it harder to save a deposit for a first home.
Home ownership is vital to the economic and social wellbeing of Australians.
It is a stable base from which to participate in society, and the primary asset for most families.
In recognition of this, we committed in the election campaign to introducing First Home Saver Accounts.
Today, the Government is delivering on that promise.
First Home Saver Accounts are the first of their kind in Australia and will provide a tax effective way for Australians to save for a first home to live in, through a combination of Government contributions and low taxes.
For example, a couple each earning average incomes, both putting aside 10 per cent of their income into individual First Home Saver Accounts, would be able to save more than $88,000 after five years.
The introduction of the Accounts will also help spark a new savings culture amongst young Australians.
The Government has undertaken an extensive consultation process and has improved the accounts in line with industry and community comment. The result is a policy that is fairer and simpler to administer.
The legislation for First Home Saver Accounts is contained in three Bills.
-
The main Bill is the First Home Saver Accounts Bill 2008, which establishes the accounts, provides for the payment of the Government contribution and governs their operation and prudential regulation.
-
The First Home Saver Accounts (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 contains consequential amendments to other Commonwealth laws, chiefly the taxation and corporations law.
-
The Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Bill 2008 imposes the misuse tax to clawback benefits obtained by an account holder who improperly uses the accounts.
The main features of the accounts are as follows:
-
An individual can open an account if they are aged 18 or over and under 65; have not previously purchased or built a first home in which to live; do not have, or have not previously had, a First Home Saver Account; and provide their tax file number to the provider.
-
Personal contributions can be made by the account holder or a parent or grandparent, and can only be made from after-tax income.
-
The account is supported by Government contributions. The Government will contribute an extra 17 per cent on the first $5,000 of personal contributions made into the account each year. This will be indexed to average weekly ordinary time earnings. This means that an individual contributing $5,000 will receive a Government contribution of $850.
-
There is an overall account balance cap of $75,000, which is indexed to average weekly ordinary time earnings. Earnings can still accrue once the cap is reached.
-
In addition, earnings on account balances are taxed at the account provider level at the statutory rate of 15 per cent, rather than in the hands of the individual account holder at their marginal tax rate.
-
As a general rule, in order to access money to purchase a first home, personal contributions of at least $1,000 must have been made in each of at least four financial years.
-
Individual contributions are not taxed as they are made from after-tax income; Government contributions are not taxed and withdrawals to purchase a first home are not taxed.
From 1 October 2008, accounts can be offered by banks, building societies and credit unions, public offer superannuation providers, life insurance companies, and friendly societies.
The bill also provides a framework to prudentially regulate public offer superannuation providers.
Providers that are banks, building societies and credit unions; and life insurance companies will continue to be prudentially regulated under the Banking Act 1959 and Life Insurance Act 1995 respectively.
The Government is investing around $1.2 billion over four years in the First Home Saver Account policy, including administrative costs.
This is part of a package of measures costing $2.2 billion over four years to boost housing supply and assist those most in need; namely, first home buyers and renters on low and moderate incomes.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
INCOME TAX (FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS MISUSE TAX) BILL 2008
This bill is the last in a package of three bills that implements the Government’s election commitment to introduce First Home Saver Accounts to help home buyers save for their first home.
The purpose of the bill is to impose the First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax. Where account holders improperly use the accounts, the tax applies in specified circumstances to claw back benefits they have obtained.
In accordance with the Commonwealth’s usual legislative practice, the tax is imposed by a separate bill to safeguard the legislation against possible constitutional challenge.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
This bill is the second in a package of three bills that implements the Government’s election commitment to introduce First Home Saver Accounts to help home buyers save for their first home.
This bill supplements the main Bill, the First Home Saver Accounts Bill 2008, by proposing consequential amendments, chiefly to taxation and corporations law, that are necessary to implement the accounts.
The taxation amendments establish the tax treatment of first home saver accounts, which has the following main features.
Individual contributions to First Home Saver Accounts are not taxed when contributed to accounts because they can only be made out of post–tax income.
Government contributions to accounts are not taxed.
Earnings on First Home Saver Accounts are taxed to the account provider at the statutory rate of 15 per cent rather than to the individual account holders at their marginal income tax rates.
Withdrawals to purchase a first home are not taxed and other withdrawals are generally not taxed.
Where account holders improperly use the accounts, a tax, called the First Home Saver Account Misuse Tax, applies in specified circumstances to claw back benefits they have obtained.
The bill also contains amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions Act 2001 to ensure that the financial services licensing, conduct, advice and disclosure rules apply appropriately to first home saver accounts.
Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY AND MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2008
This bill will increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index. The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions will similarly be increased. These changes will ensure that low-income individuals and families will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy or surcharge.
The bill will also increase the Medicare levy threshold for pensioners below Age Pension age to ensure that where these pensioners do not have an income tax liability, they will also not have a Medicare levy liability.
The amendments will apply to the 2007-08 year of income and later income years.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend this bill.
Debate (on motion by Senator Faulkner) adjourned.
Ordered that the First Home Saver Accounts Bill 2008, the Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Bill 2008 and the First Home Saver Accounts (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 be listed on the Notice Paper as one order of the day, and the remaining bills be listed as separate orders of the day.
CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (1999 MONTREAL CONVENTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2970
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING BORDER CONTROLS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2967
CUSTOMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISING) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2968
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO CONTENT) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3010
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2966
FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2988
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD CARE BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3001
FARM HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT AMENDMENT (ADDITIONAL DROUGHT ASSISTANCE MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3006
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NEW GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2963
HEALTH CARE (APPROPRIATION) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2972
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (90 DAY PAY DOCTOR CHEQUE SCHEME) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2961
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3015
INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3003
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3005
LAW OFFICERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2985
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL AND OTHER BENEFITS—COST RECOVERY) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3014
PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3004
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2971
QUARANTINE AMENDMENT (NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2960
RESERVE BANK AMENDMENT (ENHANCED INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2965
SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS (EQUAL TREATMENT IN COMMONWEALTH LAWS—SUPERANNUATION) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3011
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EMPLOYMENT ENTRY PAYMENT) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3009
SYDNEY AIRPORT DEMAND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2959
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2957
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2989
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2990
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE THRESHOLDS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2992
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2962
DEFENCE HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE SCHEME BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2998
DEFENCE HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE SCHEME (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2997
EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONDENSATE) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2983
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (CONDENSATE) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2982
NATIONAL FUELWATCH (EMPOWERING CONSUMERS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3019
NATIONAL FUELWATCH (EMPOWERING CONSUMERS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3020
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BUNKER OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2955
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BUNKER OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2956
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (LUXURY CAR TAX) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2993
A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—GENERAL) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2994
A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2995
A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—EXCISE) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2996
First Reading
2135
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator FAULKNER
(New South Wales
—Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary)
16:32:00
—These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed on the Notice Paper as indicated at item 16(b) and (c) of today’s Order of Business. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
2135
2135
16:37:00
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister ofState and Cabinet Secretary
1
0
Senator FAULKNER
—I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (New Governance Arrangements for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and Other Matters) Bill 2008 and revised explanatory memoranda relating to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008, the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Bill 2008, and the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 and a related bill, and move:
That these bills be now read a second time
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
CIVIL AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (1999 MONTREAL CONVENTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
The Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (1999 Montreal Convention and Other Measures) Bill 2008 will modernise Australia’s arrangements for air carriers’ liability. It does this by implementing the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air done at Montreal on 28 May 1999, known as the Montreal Convention.
In addition, the bill will make amendments to modernise and update various legislative provisions related to scope of carriers’ liability.
The Montreal Convention updates the arrangements applying to the liability of air carriers during international carriage of passengers and cargo. This includes the liability arrangements for:
-
the death or injury of a passenger;
-
the loss or damage to a passenger’s baggage;
-
the loss or damage to a freight shipment, as well as:
-
delays to the scheduled arrival of a passenger, baggage or freight.
At the moment, liability arrangements for international travel are usually determined with reference to the ‘Warsaw Convention’, and its amending protocols and treaties. Under the Warsaw system, in some circumstances the amount of compensation is limited to a cap that was set in the 1920s. This cap has not been adjusted for inflation, and is set in a currency that no longer exists – that being the ‘franc poincare consisting of 65.5 milligrams of gold of millesimal fineness 900’.
The Montreal Convention modernises these arrangements to ensure that equitable compensation is available to injured passengers.
The Montreal Convention removes the cap on carriers’ liability, and provides for a two-tier system of liability. Applicants will be able to claim up to 100 000 Special Drawing Rights, equivalent to around $172 000 Australian dollars, as at 25 February 2008, on a strict liability basis. Up to this limit, the applicant will not need to prove that the carrier was at fault. Damages above the 100 000 Special Drawing Rights threshold are available to the claimant, unless the air carrier is able to prove that the damage was not caused by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents.
Another advantage of the Montreal Convention is that it provides for a ‘fifth jurisdiction’ to hear claims for damages. The ‘fifth jurisdiction’ allows passengers to bring an action for damages in the country where the passenger resided at the time of the accident, provided it is a country that is serviced by the carrier, and the carrier has premises in that country. This will make it easier for Australians to enforce their legal rights in Australia, rather than having to deal with the legal system in a foreign country.
The Montreal Convention has important benefits for business.
It will help business by creating efficiencies in the paperwork associated with the transportation of passengers and cargo. It does this by allowing simplified electronic records to be used for both freight and passenger air transport. This means that business will no longer have to use the old fashioned system of paper-based waybills, and can instead use improved electronic billing systems.
Finally, the bill will modernise the language associated with some of the legislative provisions dealing with carriers’ liability. It will do this by inserting a definition of family member into the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959, while removing references to children who are ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’. The new definition affects who can enforce liability under the Act in the event of a passenger death.
The categories of family member who will be able to enforce liability will be expanded. It will now include step-siblings and wards of the passenger; as well as any foster-sibling, foster-child or guardian who is wholly or partly dependent on the passenger for financial support. Additional categories of family member will be able to be prescribed by regulation. This will allow the Government to quickly implement any future Government policy decisions in relation to families.
The bill will implement these changes by making amendments to:
-
the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959;
-
the Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Act 1963; and
-
the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
The bill introduces a new Part IA to the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 to give the Montreal Convention the force of law in Australia. Part IA is modelled on Part II, but amended to give effect to the Montreal Convention. Like other parts of the Act, the bill includes provisions which give certain Articles of the Convention a particular application to suit Australia’s judicial system and legal policy.
The bill will not implement the Convention for the purposes of domestic carriage within Australia. Domestic carriers will continue to be governed by Part IV of the Carriers’ Liability Act, which provides for liability limits of $500,000 Australian dollars.
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has supported accession to the Convention. The Committee recommended binding treaty action be taken in its Report number 65, tabled on 20 June 2005. The implementation of the provisions of the Convention by this bill is a necessary step towards this. Australia is currently the only OECD country not to have signed the Montreal Convention. The countries most Australians travel to ratified the Montreal Convention years ago. The USA, Japan, China and New Zealand ratified in 2003, and the United Kingdom and most European countries ratified in 2004.
The Montreal Convention provides improved consumer protection to international air passengers and cargo consignors when the country of destination or origin is also a party to the Convention. It also facilitates important business efficiencies.
Acceding to it will maintain Australia’s international standing as a leading nation in international aviation reform. I commend the bill to the Senate.
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING BORDER CONTROLS) BILL 2008
I am pleased to introduce the Customs Amendment (Strengthening Border Controls) Bill 2008. It contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901 that will strengthen border enforcement powers for Customs officers and implement three new regimes to allow Customs greater flexibility in dealing with the importation of prohibited imports.
Presently, Customs officers may board a ship or aircraft under the Customs Act for various border enforcement purposes. These purposes generally involve the apprehension of suspected offenders against the Customs Act, the Criminal Code or any other prescribed act, like the Fisheries Management Act 1991 or the Migration Act 1958.
Personal search powers cannot be invoked until such time as officers on board a vessel can form a reasonable suspicion that it has been engaged in the commission of an offence.
However, there have been an increased number of occasions in more recent times where officers have faced resistance when boarding foreign ships suspected of being involved in illegal activities, and where evidence of illegal activities have been disposed of before they could be secured by the officers.
The proposed amendments in the bill will enable the officers to, immediately upon boarding a suspicious ship or aircraft, search persons on board for:
-
weapons;
-
items that may have helped a person escape; and
-
evidence of the commission of an offence.
The search powers are appropriate because they will significantly reduce the threat of harm to these officers while exercising their powers, help prevent the escape of persons detained on suspicion of committing an offence and help prevent evidentiary material from being disposed of.
Upon finding any of these items, an officer will be able to take possession and retain the item for 60 days until:
-
the reason for retaining the item no longer exists;
-
until the item is not used in evidence;
-
or any extension is granted from the court.
The bill also clarifies the use of the frisk powers for search by creating a single definition that applies to the whole Customs Act.
The bill also implements three new regimes to allow Customs greater flexibility in dealing with the importation of prohibited imports that are low value and low risk and provides Customs officers with additional powers to deal efficiently with prescribed prohibited imports of this sort.
Presently, Customs only has the power to seize imports, and that is a time consuming and resource intensive process.
This bill will enable Customs to establish a tiered response to sanctions for dealing with prohibited imports.
First of all, the bill allows a person to voluntarily surrender certain prohibited imports that have not been concealed.
Secondly, infringement notices might be issued for certain offences including importing certain prohibited imports and border security related offences; and, thirdly, it allows the granting of post-importation permissions for certain prohibited imports, rather than the automatic seizure of the goods.
This bill allows Customs officers to perform their role more effectively and more efficiently
CUSTOMS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MODERNISING) BILL 2008
This bill contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Legislation Amendment and Repeal (International Trade Modernisation) Act 2001 to improve the operation of:
-
the new SmartGate solution;
-
the Certificate of Origin requirements for the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement;
-
customs brokers’ employment arrangements; and
-
the duty recovery and payments of duty under protest.
Customs introduced SmartGate, a so-called automated passenger-processing solution, in August 2007. What SmartGate does is allow air passengers and crew to use an automated clearance process through the immigration point at the border.
This bill will amend the Customs Act to ensure that any false and misleading information provided using the SmartGate solution is covered by the existing offence provisions related to making false and misleading statements to an officer of Customs.
The bill also gives effect to recommendations of the first Ministerial Review of the Agreement by Australia and Singapore in July 2004. They would allow importers to provide less documentation to Customs when claiming preferential rates of duty on imported goods under that agreement.
To recognise the changing employment practices that are taking place in the customs brokers’ community, this bill will also remove the present restrictions in the Customs Act which prohibit individual customs brokers from being employed by more than one customs brokerage at the same time.
The bill further amends the Customs Act to limit the time for the recovery of customs duty to four years in all cases, except in the case of fraud or evasion where no time limit will apply. This proposed new regime is a response to the decision of the High Court in Malika Holdings Pty Ltd against Stretton, a case decided in 2001, and it is consistent with the existing regime for the recovery of other indirect taxes.
The bill will also clarify the process for making a payment of customs duty under protest. Further, the bill will amend the Customs Act to enable the chief executive officer, in certain circumstances, to offset an amount of unpaid duty on goods against any amount of refund or rebate the owner would be eligible for if the owner pays that duty.
This is a bill which assists the administration of Customs by making a number of provisions which will modernise the relevant legislation and, as I say, improve the administration of Customs in consequence.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO CONTENT) BILL 2008
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco Content) Bill 2008 contains a minor amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.
This bill will insert a definition of ‘tobacco content’ into the Customs Tariff Act. While ‘tobacco content’ is referred to in the Act, there is no definition of what this actually means. The amendment will specify that the existing references to ‘tobacco content’ include anything added to the tobacco leaf during manufacture or processing.
The amendment confirms that the customs duty payable on tobacco and tobacco products is based on the total weight of the goods.
The measure reflects what has been the practice of the Australian Customs Service and industry since the introduction of the term in 1999, however, the current lack of certainty about the definition poses a potential risk to revenue.
The introduction of this definition into the Customs Tariff Act will protect revenue by confirming and maintaining current practice with regard to imported tobacco products.
The term ‘tobacco content’ was first introduced into the Customs Tariff on 1 November 1999. As a result, the measure contained in this bill will apply from that date.
EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 2008
The Government went to the election with a plan to improve Australia’s export performance.
We made a clear commitment to revitalise Australia’s trade policies and structures.
The introduction of the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2008 represents a down payment in the process of restoring trade policy settings to a more sustainable position.
And further reforms will follow the major review of trade policies and programs I have already announced.
The Review will be chaired by well known businessman John Mortimer with the assistance of leading economist John Edwards.
Given the challenges we are confronting in the global environment, and given Australia’s poor performance on trade over the past decade, now is the time to review how we should be shaping our policy approach for the 21st Century.
This is a review for the future. It will assess how we can again improve our productivity and competitiveness to ensure we can take up emerging trade opportunities.
We need to learn from the success of the 80s and 90s in meeting the challenges of the future. We need to look at what is needed for the new millennium, with all the intervening challenges and opportunities.
One of my expectations for the Review of Export Policies and Programs is to receive advice on the formulation of a more strategic whole-of-government approach to advancing Australia’s international economic and commercial interests. We must look at how we formulate our domestic policy settings in a way that ensures they are all working towards enhancing our level of productivity, international competitiveness and export performance.
The Rudd Government is focusing on Australia’s level of international competitiveness and the review’s advice will be instrumental in that process. The review will also make an assessment of the challenges and opportunities currently facing Australian exporters and international business. It will assess the investment revolution that has been occurring within Australia and globally. It will look at what is happening in terms of both inward and outward investment in Australia.
Australian direct investment abroad now rivals foreign direct investment in Australia. In just 20 years the stock of Australian direct investment abroad increased from 32 per cent to 92 per cent of the stock of foreign investment in Australia. Given these trends it will not be long before Australian business assets abroad exceed foreign business assets in Australia.
This is not Australian companies exporting jobs. Rather it is ensuring that they are a part of the global production and supply chains.
The Howard Government’s failure to invest in the drivers of economic growth – skills, education, innovation and IT – their failure to develop an integrated trade and economic policy contributed to one of Australia’s worst trade performances in our history.
Under the last six years of the Howard Government – and despite the resources boom:
-
Total export revenues grew at an annual average rate of only 5.8 per cent compared with 10.7 per cent in the 18 years following the float of the dollar in 1983;
-
Goods exports grew at an average annual rate of 6.4 per cent compared with average growth of 10.3 per cent since 1983;
-
Services exports grew at about a third of their long term average;
-
Manufacturing export growth collapsed—growing at only 3 per cent compared to 13 per cent since 1983.
The Howard Government’s poor trade performance bequeathed Australia:
-
A trade deficit for more than five consecutive years;
-
A trade deficit for the December 2007 quarter of $6.9 billion which was the worst quarterly trade deficit on record;
-
69 consecutive months of goods and services trade deficits;
-
A current account deficit at record levels of around 6 per cent of GDP;
-
Soaring foreign debt of $554 billion in 2006-07; and
-
Net exports making a positive contribution to Australia’s economic growth in only two of the past 11 years while during the previous Labor Government net exports made a positive contribution to growth in 10 of the 13 years.
This is a sorry story and like so much of the Howard legacy a squandered opportunity.
In 2001 and then again at the 2004 election the Coalition promised to double the number of exporters. They failed to meet their own target by almost 50%.
It is critical that as part of the economic reform agenda the new Government does all it can to restore Australia’s trade performance:
-
to ensure that our trading sector once again becomes a positive contributor to economic growth
-
to ensure the Australian economy will be sustainable beyond the resources boom.
The Rudd Government is committed to the implementation of a trade policy that will restore Australia’s level of productivity, international competitiveness and export growth.
This will be pursued in the context of the twin pillars approach to trade policy for sustainable economic growth.
That is, trade liberalisation at the border will be complemented by economic and trade reform behind the border. There’s not much point making progress on the tough fight to secure improved market access opportunities if we are not productive and competitive enough to take them up.
Multilateral trade liberalisation will be a central component of the first pillar for sustainable economic management. We will be pressing for multilateral liberalisation across all sectors – agriculture, industrial products and services.
Since the establishment of the GATT, the international trading system has evolved and strengthened over the past six decades. The gains have been profound:
-
World trade growth has consistently outstripped world economic growth.
-
World trade is now worth around one-quarter of global GDP.
-
And world trade has been growing twice as fast as world output over the past five years.
-
Tariffs have been steadily reduced.
-
The Uruguay Round, which established the WTO, for the first time opened up trade in world agriculture and services, as well as establishing a regime to deal with trade-related intellectual property rights
-
The Uruguay Round also established the WTO’s dispute settlement system to rule on trade disputes and to enforce its rulings.
A successful conclusion to the WTO Doha Round would help to provide a much-needed degree of certainty and a confidence boost to the global outlook. As I have said on a number of occasions securing an outcome this year will be difficult, however I believe it is doable.
I am encouraged by the political commitment that was displayed at the Davos meeting I attended in January. The strength of that political commitment will be apparent over the next few months as we seek to make real progress.
I am committed to again providing strong leadership of the Cairns Group and effective representation of its interests, recalling that it was the last Labor Government which established the Group and provided it with the leadership it needed to pursue its interests in the Uruguay Round.
As Chair of the Cairns Group I will not only be working to press the group’s interests but will reach out to other groups to see where common positions lie and where differences remain.
Labor will seek to complement trade liberalisation gains derived from the multilateral process at the regional level through APEC and the ASEAN plus 6 - that is ‘WTO plus’.
We believe that the previous Government dropped the ball on APEC. It didn’t provide it with the attention, energy or drive necessary over the past decade. It squandered the opportunity last year as host of APEC to truly position APEC within the region.
Labor is committed to restoring APEC as the pre-eminent regional forum.
It was the last Labor government that initiated and sold the idea of APEC to the region, and drove its liberalisation momentum via the Bogor Goals.
We will also take every opportunity provided by the ASEAN plus 6 to pursue deeper integration into the region and use these forums to pursue our trade and economic objectives.
At the bilateral level comprehensive FTAs can further advance and deepen liberalisation measures – that is ‘WTO plus plus’.
We are currently engaged in intensive efforts, with New Zealand, to integrate with ASEAN, through the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA) negotiations.
We are also continuing FTA negotiations with Japan, China, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Chile and Malaysia.
FTA studies are also either being conducted or are under consideration with Korea, Mexico, Indonesia and India.
The Rudd Government has recalibrated Australia’s trade liberalisation policy back to where it should be - back to where Australia’s trading interests really lie.
The previous government reversed the order. They put all of their eggs in the FTA basket – squandering the opportunity to achieve substantial gains for Australian industry by making a real commitment to the Doha Round.
So this government will make the Doha negotiations our central trade priority – as they should be – complemented at the regional and bilateral level by the other liberalisation efforts.
Important as trade negotiations are, the real benefits of liberalisation will only be maximised if countries tackle ambitious reform agendas behind the border.
That is another key message I have been delivering in the bilateral visits I have undertaken since I have been the Trade Minister, the message that all arms of economic policy must be working together to drive productivity growth.
Productivity growth is central to international competitiveness. And international competitiveness is, in turn, key to a strong and prosperous trade performance.
When it comes to trade and economic reform Labor has form. The Hawke and Keating Governments modernised the Australian economy from 1983 to 1996 via comprehensive economic and trade reforms of which tariff cuts in 1988 and 1991 were significant components. We opened up the economy, we floated the Australian dollar, we cut tariffs, we deregulated the financial sector, we achieved wage restraint via the Accord with the trade union movement to lock in low inflation, we secured retirement income reform, we instituted a national competition policy, we made significant cuts to company and personal income tax and we won greater independence for the Reserve Bank.
Those measures achieved the strong productivity growth of the 1980s and early 1990s that contributed much to double digit growth in Australia’s exports. As a result Australia emerged as one of the most open, flexible and competitive economies in the world.
As the second pillar of sustainable economic growth, Labor will again build on our economic and trade reform record to restore our level of productivity and international competitiveness and to restore our trading performance.
Trade policy is more than trade negotiations. It is integral to our economic sustainability beyond the resources boom. It’s about ensuring that our nation diversifies and secures growth though the expanding opportunities presented in world trade.
And that means meeting the challenge of building a productive and competitive Australia.
Gaining market access through multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements is only part of the picture.
We are working hard to improve market access but we are also determined to improve the export facilitation programs available to assist Australian firms work in difficult international markets.
Under existing legislation, the Government is required to initiate a review of the Export Market Development Grants scheme by 2010.
Given the integral role of the EMDG in the current mix of export policies and programs the EMDG review will be brought forward and undertaken as part of the Mortimer inquiry.
Economic policies designed to assist Australia’s exporters were cut, or faced funding shortfalls under the Howard Government.
The Export Market Development Grant scheme – which enjoys significant support among Australia’s business community – was cut in half in real terms since 1995-96. A study of the scheme in 2000 concluded that it returns $12 of exports for every $1 of outlay.
The successful International Trade Enhancement Scheme and the Innovative Agricultural Marketing Program were abolished in 1996. A study of the ITES scheme in 2000 concluded that it returned $18 of exports for every $1 of outlay by the Government.
These schemes contributed to the success of export growth under Labor when it was last in government, with overall export revenues more than doubling throughout Labor’s time in office.
The former Government never really understood or valued these schemes.
In 1997-08 and in 2004-05 they made changes to both the eligibility criteria and the thresholds for the EMDG which made the scheme harder to access and, as a result, in six of the ten years following 1997-08 the scheme was underspent.
Business called for improved access to the scheme but those calls were ignored.
But Labor was listening and, during the election campaign last year, we committed to a number of improvements to the EMDG scheme.
By introducing the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2008 into the House today I am delivering in full on that commitment.
The provisions of this Bill represent a down payment, a start on improving the EMDG scheme to ensure that it better meets the needs of Australia’s export businesses.
Through this Bill we are delivering, in full, on key elements of the trade policy that we took to the election.
The measures I am announcing as part of the Bill before the House are unashamedly pro-business.
It amused me during the election campaign that the former government ran advertisements accusing me of being anti-business.
I have never been anti-business in my life.
I have always worked closely with business people and I have listened to them.
Business has been calling for the changes to the EMDG that are contained in this Bill for some time and we listened to business.
In all likelihood further improvements will be made to the scheme as a result of the work Mr Mortimer and Dr Edwards are doing.
They too are listening to business and their report will lead to further improvements to trade policies and programs.
The Rudd Government is a pro-business government.
This Bill provides a much needed boost to exporters by enabling businesses incurring eligible promotional expenses during 2008-09 to be able to claim grants under more generous assessment criteria than those in place in recent years.
The Bill increases the maximum grant by $50,000 to $200,000.
It lifts the maximum turnover limit from $30 million to $50 million.
It reduces the minimum expenditure threshold by $5,000 to $10,000.
It allows costs of patenting products overseas to be eligible for EMDG support
And it increases the limit on the number of grants able to be received by a business from 7 to 8.
The EMDG scheme will be more accessible to services exporters by replacing the current list of eligible internal and external services with a new ‘non-tourism services’ category which will provide for all services supplied to foreign residents whether delivered inside or outside of Australia to be eligible unless specified in the EMDG Act Regulations.
It also allows State, Territory and regional economic development and industry bodies promoting Australia’s exports to access the scheme. This provision has been warmly welcomed by a number of regional tourism authorities who, for the first time, will now be able to access the scheme.
Finally, business development programs like the EMDG scheme need good governance measures.
The previous Government removed the long-standing export performance requirements in 2006.
This Bill restores performance accountability by introducing a Net Benefit to Australia test.
It is one thing to expand the EMDG scheme’s assessment criteria. And it is another thing to fund an increased demand for grants.
This Government is committed to increase the funding for the scheme by $50 million for the 2009-10 financial year, when the changes I just referred to will first affect grant payments.
Unlike the previous Government, we have fully funded our commitments.
It is typical of the previous Coalition Government that two years ago when they finally made changes to the scheme they took the easy way out.
They didn’t adequately fund those changes.
Now as a result many businesses will this year receive much smaller EMDG cheques than they were expecting.
Not a word about this funding shortfall before the election although it must have been obvious to the former Trade Minister, now the Leader of the National Party, that he was going to short change EMDG recipients this year.
The Shadow Minister for Trade now says that he and former Trade Ministers the Members for Wide Bay and Lyne were “in absolute agreement that we needed more money for this area.”
Not a word in public at a time the changes were made. Not a word before the election.
If the former Ministers were calling for additional funding their calls must have been falling on deaf ears.
Unlike the former government we are fully funding our changes to the scheme.
And so any criticism from those opposite about funding shortfalls for 2007-08 and 2008-09 will be hollow words indeed.
I am confident that the amendments contained in the EMDG Amendment Bill 2008 will revitalise the EMDG scheme and will be warmly welcomed by the business community.
But this Bill is not the end of the story on reform and revitalisation of the EMDG scheme.
The business community can be assured that, through the Mortimer Review, every aspect of the Export Market Development Grants scheme will be examined.
We will continue to look for ways to improve the EMDG and other export facilitation programs.
And we will continue to deliver these programs as an important part of our ‘whole of government’ approach to trade policy.
FAMILIES, HOUSING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
This bill introduces amendments to the social security law, the family assistance law, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and related Acts to implement certain measures from the 2008 Budget and some minor amendments.
The Rudd Government’s first Budget delivered over $55 billion to support working families, seniors, carers and people with disability.
The Budget delivered our election commitments and invested responsibly in building a modern Australia.
It was carefully framed to meet challenging economic times. It recognised that many Australians are under increasing financial strain from rising cost of living expenses and high interest rates.
The Budget also reflected the economic reality that inflation is the number one enemy of families, pensioners and the vulnerable in our community.
Fighting inflation is essential to responsible economic management – this Budget delivers critical measures to achieve this.
Central is the better targeting of government payments, so that assistance is being directed to those who need it most.
The first of the Budget measures in this bill will establish a $150,000 limit on primary earner income for family tax benefit Part B. Claimants of related tax offsets will be subject to a similar income limit.
Family tax benefit Part B, along with Part A, is one of the two components that may make up a person’s rate of family tax benefit. The Part B rate for a single person is not currently subject to an income test. For a member of a couple, the Part B rate is currently subject to an income test on the secondary earner only. As a result, very high income singles and couples with children may currently be eligible for taxpayer-funded family assistance, a situation that has been of some community concern.
Under this measure, a family will not be eligible for family tax benefit Part B where the primary earner in a couple, or a sole parent, has adjusted taxable income of more than $150,000 for the financial year. Single-parent families with income at or below the $150,000 limit will continue to receive the maximum rate of payment. The limit will be indexed each year in line with movements in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Related dependency offsets delivered through the tax system (namely, Dependent Spouse, Housekeeper, Child Housekeeper, Parent/Parent-in-law and Invalid Relative tax offsets) will also be targeted to those on incomes of $150,000 or less per year.
There are four measures in the bill relating to baby bonus. Baby bonus is currently a flat rate, one-off, payment made on the birth of a child, or the adoption of a child under the age of two. The payment is currently indexed twice a year (in March and September). The baby bonus will increase to $5,000 on 1 July 2008.
The Government is committed to a child-centred approach to family policy and this bill will make baby bonus simpler and fairer, and help direct it to those families who need it most.
The first of the baby bonus measures in this bill will introduce an income test, limiting eligibility to families with incomes equivalent to $150,000 or less per year. The income test will be applied on a pro-rata basis for the six months after the birth. Families with estimated adjusted taxable income of over $75,000 in the six months following the birth (or following the commencement of care by an adoptive parent or a long-term carer) will no longer be eligible for the payment.
Families will need to provide a reasonable estimate of their income over this period. This can be easily provided through things like evidence of their income, their partner’s income, and any approved leave, including paid leave. The government’s emphasis in administering the income test will be on upfront verification of estimates. Families do not have to worry that a debt may be raised against them because their income changes. If false or misleading information is provided, then the usual sanctions will apply.
The new income test takes into account the fact that family income is often reduced when a new child arrives, and ensures that the timing of the birth or adoption within a financial year does not arbitrarily affect a family’s eligibility.
As with the family tax benefit Part B income limit, the baby bonus income limit will be indexed each year in line with movements in the CPI.
The second baby bonus measure will result in eligible families being paid their baby bonus in 13 fortnightly instalments from the date of claim. This will provide families with financial support and certainty over an ongoing period, providing families with the cash they need to pay the bills as they come in.
The third measure will change the indexation date for baby bonus to 1 July each year after the legislated increase to $5,000, in line with other family payments. The first application of annual indexation will be on 1 July 2009.
The fourth change will increase the age limit for baby bonus eligibility from two to 16 years where a child is adopted. A parent will now be eligible for baby bonus for an adopted child if the child is aged under 16 when adopted, and if the adoptive parent claims the bonus within 26 weeks of the child being placed into their care by the appropriate authority. The baby bonus will be available for a locally adopted child, regardless of whether this payment was previously made to the birth parent or other primary carer.
Extending the eligibility criteria for the baby bonus to allow more adoptive families to claim payment will create a fairer system and treat all new parents in the same way. It recognises that, as with a newborn, an adoptive parent incurs similar set-up costs and may need to spend periods of time out of the workforce to welcome and settle their child.
A further Budget measure recently announced will see the development of a compliance regime for the Commonwealth seniors health card. The card helps self-funded retirees of age pension, veteran pension or qualifying age, who pass an income test with living costs, by allowing access to transport and health services at a cheaper rate and providing entitlement to the seniors concession allowance and telephone allowance. There is currently no mechanism to determine ongoing eligibility for the card, unlike other concessions and benefits in the social security system.
The bill provides for the collection of tax file numbers to enable data-matching, similar to existing arrangements for social security payments and payments under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, to ensure compliance with the income test.
The bill also introduces amendments to the social security law to allow a person to enter into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person voluntarily agrees to be subject to income management.
Income management redirects a percentage of a person’s income support and family payments to meet costs associated with shelter, household essentials, food and clothing. Currently, income management is being implemented under three differing models, all with the objective of ensuring that income support and family payments which are paid for the benefit of children are used as intended. The three models are:
-
income management in the Northern Territory emergency response;
-
income management for child protection cases in Western Australia; and
-
the Cape York welfare reform trials.
The bill allows people to refer themselves for income management where they feel, for example, that this would assist them to manage their finances better. Anecdotal evidence from the Northern Territory and other areas within Australia has indicated that some people would like the option of using income management to ensure the priority needs for themselves and their children are met. The voluntary scheme of income management introduced by this bill will give people this option. Income management will provide an avenue for individuals to learn money management skills in the longer term and will assist in meeting any essential financial priorities.
The final Budget measure will align the minimum eligible age for partner service pension, paid under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, with that of veteran service pension age. This measure will increase the eligible age for partner service pension – for males, from 50 to 60 years of age and, for females, from 50 to 58 and a half years of age (as currently set under age equalisation rules).
Lastly, the bill will make some minor policy and technical amendments to portfolio legislation, including to the family assistance law in relation to the 1 July 2008 child support reforms, and to provide a discretion for the Child Support Registrar to deduct child support arrears from Centrelink and Department of Veterans’ Affairs payments at less than the full prescribed amount in cases of hardship.
FAMILY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CHILD CARE BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
Child care has become an integral part of modern Australian family life. More than 700 000 Australian families use child care each year. In the last five years child care costs have grown much faster than the price of other goods and services. In the 12 months to June 2007 alone, after factoring in Child Care Benefit, child care costs rose by 12.8 per cent, the fifth year in a row of double digit increases.
That’s why Federal Labor developed its Affordable Child Care Plan, a $1.5 billion investment in the future of Australian families and in Australia’s future economic prosperity.
Through this bill the Government is making good on its election commitments. This bill will increase the Child Care Tax Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, covering up to $7,500 of out-of-pocket costs per child; and pay the 50 per cent Child Care Tax Rebate quarterly, providing parents with assistance closer to the time of their child care expense.
The increase from 30 per cent to 50 per cent will make child care much more affordable for working families.
Quarterly payments will provide families with more timely assistance with their child care costs, closer to the time their child care expenses have occurred, and when they are really needed.
All of this means the Government will put larger payments back into parents’ pockets and into the family budget sooner.
Another election commitment was to provide greater support to the Child Care Management System. This bill contains a number of amendments which will enhance the operation of the Child Care Management System.
The Government is also making good on its commitment to responsible economic management by reducing the value of payments for those who can best afford it. From July 2008 there will no longer be a minimum rate of Child Care Benefit for Child Care Benefit approved care. This means that high income families will no longer receive any Child Care Benefit. However they will continue to receive Child Care Tax Rebate payments.
Overall families will gain more assistance through the Child Care Tax Rebate changes than they lose in Child Care Benefit.
This change will not affect Child Care Benefit for registered care, that is, care provided by relatives, friends, or nannies who have registered with the Family Assistance Office.
The additional benefit to the Australian economy through increased workforce participation and productivity is indisputable. It will help thousands of parents to get back into the workforce – and those already in the workforce to work a few more hours extra if they wish.
We expect that these measures will help over 34,000 Australians re-enter the workforce over the next five years, including many skilled workers. This includes over 16,000 single parents, and 15,000 mothers with partners.
Another important aspect of this bill is the expansion of the civil penalties and infringement notice scheme that was introduced in the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Management System and Other Measures) Act 2007. The civil penalties and infringement notice scheme provides for the imposition of pecuniary penalties on services that contravene civil penalty provisions.
Currently, family assistance legislation has only one provision for a civil penalty and infringement notice. These amendments will extend the civil penalties and infringement notice scheme to all service provider obligations where criminal penalties apply.
The Government recognises that the large majority of child care services are doing the right thing when it comes to compliance, however some services are not appropriately administering family entitlements for child care assistance.
The introduction of civil penalties and infringement notices to a wider range of service provider obligations will send a strong message of deterrence, and will discourage child care services from undertaking or continuing non-compliant behaviour. Keeping in mind that most contraventions relate to poor administrative practices, it also gives service providers the opportunity to rectify administrative non-compliance before court action and a possible criminal record.
The bill also includes other measures that make improvements to Child Care Benefit compliance. For example, powers of entry for Authorised Officers will be amended to improve their ability to determine if a service is complying with family assistance law. It will also introduce a number of other changes which will enhance the integrity of outlays of child Care Benefit by making child care service providers’ requirements clearer.
This bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to Australian families to make child care more affordable and to ensure taxpayers money is used correctly. It is an important step in the Government’s plan to provide access to affordable, high quality child care to all Australian children.
FARM HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT AMENDMENT (ADDITIONAL DROUGHT ASSISTANCE MEASURES) BILL 2008
Introduction
The Farm Household Support Act 1992 (FHS Act) was introduced in 1993 and allows farmers and some small business operators to access financial support or Exceptional Circumstances Relief Payments (ECRP) to help them manage through the drought.
Changes broadening access to the ECRP were introduced in September 2007.
We supported the former government’s introduction of these changes while we were in opposition and we will now honour that commitment by formalising them in legislation.
This bill will provide the legislative basis for these changes and will validate the payments people have received between then and when this legislation passes.
This bill amends the FHS Act to help more small rural businesses, who are suffering a downturn because of the drought, access relief payments. This not only supports rural business but also the communities that rely on them.
The bill will increase the income exemption for the ECRP income test from $10 000 to $20 000. This effectively doubles the amount of off-farm or non-business salary and wages that farmers and small business operators can earn without reducing their payment. This recognises that during this prolonged drought many farmers have had to seek some off-farm income to keep their business viable.
The bill will also remove an inequity between the treatment of Newstart Allowance recipients and recipients of the ECRP. Currently Newstart Allowance recipients may travel overseas for a limited number of humanitarian or family reasons and still receive their payments, ECRP recipients can not.
We see education and the welfare of young Australians as vital to the economic prosperity of this country. By amending the Social Security Act 1991 (SS Act), this bill will provide concessions under the Austudy and Youth Allowance means tests for newly eligible recipients of the ECRP. It will also ensure that all newly eligible recipients receive a Health Care Card.
The bill
Exceptional Circumstances assistance continues to be the Australian Government’s primary vehicle for providing direct assistance to eligible farmers and small business operators impacted by rare and severe (‘exceptional’) events, including drought events, which lie outside the scope of farmers’ and small business operators’ normal risk management strategies.
Extending the ECRP to more farmers and small rural business operators
This bill will amend the FHS Act to allow more farmers and small business operators to access the ECRP and the associated ancillary benefits. It will do this by increasing the level of exempted off-farm or non-business salary and wages earned by the applicant and their partner from $10 000 to $20 000.
It will also amend the eligibility criteria to extend the ECRP to more small business operators. These small business operators must be located in towns that have a population of 10 000 or less, are located in Exceptional Circumstances, prima facie, or interim assistance areas, and are substantially reliant on income sourced from providing products and or services to farms, farmers, farm workers, or their families.
These small business operators must also show they have experienced a significant downturn because of the drought.
Validation clause
This bill will amend the FHS Act by validating the payments made between the announcement on 25 September 2007 and the date the bill receives Royal Assent. This validation clause will provide a legislative basis to make these ECRP payments as if the bill commenced on 25 September 2007.
The validation clause will also provide a legislative basis for the provision of ancillary benefits such as the Health Care Card and exemptions from the Austudy and Youth Allowance means tests provided to recipients between 25 September 2007 and Royal Assent of the bill. Specifically, these amended provisions will provide automatic access to the Health Care Card to newly eligible recipients of the ECRP and exempt the Austudy and Youth Allowance payments of the dependant children of recipients of the ECRP from reductions through means testing of their parents.
Removal of the requirement to be ‘in Australia’ to receive ECRP
The bill will amend the FHS Act to allow ECRP recipients to continue to receive payments while temporarily absent from Australia for specific family or humanitarian reasons.
This measure treats ECRP recipients in the same way as those in receipt of the Newstart Allowance and means they can continue to receive benefits while they are overseas if their reason for travel is covered by an exemption.
Conclusion
The government will continue to support farmers and small business operators throughout the drought and give them the opportunity to have a sustained recovery. We want to maintain the long-term viability of our farming families, rural small businesses and our rural and regional communities.
The effects of climate change, prolonged drought and structural change present critical challenges faced by our farmers every day. Through the Exceptional Circumstances assistance measures, the Australian Government will enable the sector to meet and actively manage these challenges into the future.
FISHERIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NEW GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHER MATTERS) BILL 2008
The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (New Governance Arrangements for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and Other Matters) Bill 2008 (the Bill) will amend legislation to improve governance of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).
The Bill will also provide strong tools to help fight illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
AFMA is an Australian Government statutory authority set up to manage fisheries on behalf of the Commonwealth. As a body corporate, its functions and powers flow from the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991. AFMA also helps administer the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984.
The amendments will provide for changes to AFMA in line with good governance practices and the policy document Governance Arrangements for Australian Government Bodies.
The legislation will remove the AFMA Board and the Managing Director.
AFMA will remain a body corporate, but its functions and powers will be performed by a Commission and a Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
The Minister will be able to appoint the same person as both the Chairperson of the Commission and the CEO, but will also be able to make separate appointments.
Commissioners will have skills and expertise similar to current directors.
However, an important reform introduced by the Bill will be to minimise the potential for Commissioners to have conflicts of interest.
Mr John Uhrig’s Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders of June 2003 (The Uhrig Review) noted that independence and objectivity are important attributes for good governance and while it is possible to manage perceived and real conflicts of interest, it is preferable to minimise circumstances in which they could arise.
So this Bill will establish eligibility criteria to exclude anyone who holds an executive position in a fisheries industry association from becoming a Commissioner. The eligibility criteria will also exclude holders of a Commonwealth fishing concession, permit or licence, and majority shareholders or persons in executive positions in companies holding concessions, permits or licences.
There will be no Government representative on the Commission.
The amendments will provide for the selection and appointment of Commissioners to be conducted in accordance with the Rudd government’s policy on merit-based selection of statutory office holders.
After an open and transparent process, the Minister will make appointments for up to five years.
The Commission will have responsibility for domestic fisheries management.
A key change to AFMA’s governance will be that the CEO will have responsibility for exercising AFMA’s foreign compliance functions and powers.
Allowing the CEO to report directly to the Minister on foreign compliance matters acknowledges the need for direct government responsibility for matters that affect our border protection operations and important bilateral and international relations.
The Minister will also be able to direct the CEO in the performance of this role.
AFMA will cease to be regulated under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 and will become a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and a statutory agency under the Public Service Act 1999.
In accordance with the terms of those acts, the CEO will be responsible for financial management and human resource matters. The Commission will not be able to direct the CEO in carrying out these functions.
These reforms relate to improving governance structures and arrangements.
There will be no significant changes to the day-to-day functions of AFMA.
AFMA will:
-
keep its name,
-
retain its body corporate status,
-
retain its current objectives and functions,
-
continue to have its domestic fisheries management functions funded by cost recovery from industry, and
-
continue consulting with stakeholders, in accordance with existing legislative requirements.
In addition to these important reforms to AFMA’s governance arrangements, the Bill will strengthen the government’s ability to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in three areas.
Firstly, the amendments will improve compliance with international fisheries agreements and arrangements.
The amendments will make it an offence for Australian persons and corporations to breach an agreed fishing measure of an international fisheries management organisation or arrangement to which Australia is a party.
This Bill will make it possible for Australian nationals to be prosecuted in Australian courts for activities on board foreign vessels in waters outside the Australian Fishing Zone, where such activities are offences under the Fisheries Management Act 1991.
These amendments are consistent with Australia’s international obligations to ensure that our nationals do not engage in illegal fishing.
They are also in line with emerging international calls, that Australia supports, for States to control the activities of their nationals in the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
The amendments will restructure and strengthen the existing enforcement framework in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 relating to boarding and inspection procedures.
This will give effect to Australia’s obligations under international fisheries agreements and arrangements to which Australia is a party.
The amendments will maintain Australia’s rights and obligations in relation to the Implementing Agreement for the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement).
It will also enable Australia to give effect to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission boarding and inspection procedures.
The general enforcement framework being put in place by the amendments has been structured to enable Australia to more easily give effect to all future boarding and inspection procedures adopted by other international fisheries agreements and arrangements to which Australia is a party.
Secondly the amendments will clarify the ability of fisheries officers to exercise powers of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 outside the Australian Fishing Zone following a hot pursuit of a boat that was in the Australian Fishing Zone, or that has been providing support to foreign boats fishing illegally in the Australian Fishing Zone.
And the third way the amendments will strengthen the government’s ability to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing will be to further define and expand the stowage requirements in the Fisheries Management Act for foreign fishing vessels transiting through the Australian Fishing Zone.
Foreign vessels transiting our fishing zone will be required to have fishing equipment disengaged, secured and stored inboard, in a manner that does not allow for fishing gear to be readily deployed. This requirement will make it more difficult for foreign fishers to engage in illegal fishing in Australia’s fishing zone.
In summary, these amendments will improve the governance and resource management of Commonwealth fisheries.
And they will support our efforts to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and bolster Australia’s case for continued leadership in international fora to advocate sustainable access to the fisheries resource.
HEALTH CARE (APPROPRIATION) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
This bill proposes to amend the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998. That Act was made to permit the Minister for Health and Ageing to determine grants of financial assistance to a state, or to a hospital or other person, for the purpose of providing or paying for health and emergency services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically, provided by hospitals. As such, the Act provides the legislative basis for the Commonwealth to pay financial assistance under the Australian Health Care Agreements, including Health Care Grants to the states and territories and Commonwealth own purpose outlays for mental health, palliative care and the hospital information and performance information program.
The 2003-08 Australian Health Care Agreements expire on 30 June 2008. At the Council of Australian Governments meeting of 26 March 2008 it was agreed that new health care agreements would be signed in December 2008 and commence on 1 July 2009. This means, in effect, that 2008-09 will be a transitional year in which the new agreements will be developed and implemented.
At that COAG meeting the Commonwealth also agreed to commit an immediate allocation of $1 billion to relieve pressure for 2008-09 on public hospitals. This $1 billion is made up of the indexation of the previous Commonwealth allocation for 2007-08 plus a further $500 million in additional money.
That $1 billion is significant. It is significant because it is the first step in the long road towards rebuilding our health system after eleven years of neglect and funding cuts. It begins to reverse the trend of decline started under the Liberal Government.
It is significant because it is a major part of this year’s health and ageing budget – which for the first time ever will be above $50 billion.
And it is significant because it signals a change in the times - the end of the blame game, of an era of using political fights as a smokescreen for neglecting the health system, and the beginning of an era of co-operation, allowing us to deliver better health services across Australia in concert with the States and Territories.
These proposed amendments are a key step in enabling the Commonwealth to deliver on our commitments to families across Australia.
The Act currently provides that total grants of financial assistance must not exceed
$42.01 billion over the five year life of the 2003-08 Australian Health Care Agreements.
The bill proposes amendments that will increase the appropriation amount stated in the Act by $10.25 billion to $52.26 billion and change the appropriation period stated in the Act from 5 years from 1 July 2003, to 6 years from 1 July 2003. These amendments will ensure continuity of public hospital and related funding for the 2008-09 financial year, during which the new agreements will be developed and put in place. The terms and conditions of the current Australian Health Care Agreements will be rolled over for that year to provide a framework for the administration of the payments.
Of the $10.25 billion, $500 million is to be paid to the states and territories before the end of 2007-08. Around $9.75 billion, which includes indexation, will be paid to the states and territories during the 2008-09 financial year. The $9.75 billion includes an additional year’s funding for mental health, palliative care and the hospital information and performance information program established under the current Agreements.
By rolling over the terms and conditions of the current Agreements for another year, the Commonwealth can start delivering on our commitment to improve health care for all Australians.
There is much to do in health. When you are rebuilding after eleven years of neglect, that is an inevitable fact. But we have made a very strong start, and we intend to continue as we have begun.
HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (90 DAY PAY DOCTOR CHEQUE SCHEME) BILL 2008
This Bill will amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow specialists and consultant physicians access to the 90 Day Pay Doctor Cheque Scheme where the original claim is submitted to Medicare Australia using an electronic claiming channel. The existing 90 Day Pay Doctor Cheque Scheme only applies to general practitioners and will continue.
When a patient submits an unpaid claim to Medicare Australia, the patient is presented with a pay doctor cheque. A pay doctor cheque is a cheque for the amount of Medicare rebate that is made out to the medical practitioner that provided the service. This cheque is provided to the patient who is then responsible for forwarding the cheque on to the medical practitioner along with any co-payment required to satisfy the full account. This arrangement enables patients to use their Medicare rebates towards to the payment of their medical bill.
The majority of patients do present the pay doctor cheques to their doctor; however, some cheques are either presented very late or never received by the practitioner, leading to lengthy delays or bad debts which practices need to chase up, adding cost to their practice. The 90 Day Pay Doctor Cheque Scheme is currently only available to general practitioners. This scheme allows Medicare Australia to cancel the pay doctor cheque if it is not banked by the practitioner within 90 days and make direct payment via electronic funds transfer to the medical practitioner.
This amendment makes the scheme available to all specialists and consultant physicians where the original claim has been submitted to Medicare Australia via an electronic claiming channel. This amendment will be of benefit to patients, specialists and consultant physicians. Specialist use of the pay doctor cheque has been declining. Allowing these practitioners access to the scheme will encourage more specialists to accept payment through the use of this facility as it provides assurance that they will receive some payment for the services rendered.
Allowing access to the 90 Day Pay Doctor Cheque Scheme for specialists and consultant physicians will provide an incentive for specialists and consultant physicians to use electronic claiming of Medicare benefits. Electronic claiming allows the doctor’s office to submit a patient’s account directly to Medicare Australia on behalf of the patient. This will be of benefit to patients as they will not be required to visit a Medicare office to claim their pay doctor cheque.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the) to provide for the Government’s Education Revolution 2008-2009 Budget package that give effect to our election commitments. We have a range of immediate priorities for higher education, with the aims of enhancing higher education campuses and the quality of student life, improving equity of access and addressing skills shortages in critical areas.
These initiatives are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring higher education plays a leading role in equipping Australians with the knowledge and skills to make Australia a more productive and prosperous nation.
We want to get the higher education system right for the long term. To do this we have commissioned a major Review of Australian Higher Education aimed at making systemic improvement in the higher education sector for the benefit of students and the nation more broadly.
This bill makes important amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to address the immediate priorities.
One such priority is to amend the Act to provide considerable incentives for students to study mathematics and science at university.
The maximum annual student contribution amount for students studying mathematics (including statistics) or science units will be reduced from $7,412 a year to the lowest national priority rate of $4,162 in 2009 for an equivalent full time student load. Commencing maths and science students will enjoy the same rate as students studying education and nursing units of study. These are all areas of particular workforce need. Existing students will also benefit if they transfer into a mathematics or science course.
The bill also ensures that higher education providers’ funding for mathematics, statistics and science units will be maintained by compensating them for lost revenue associated with this measure. This will be through a new Transitional Loading under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme.
The bill will also provide incentives for maths and science graduates to pursue related careers through the new HECS-HELP benefit, which implements the Government’s policy for HELP debt ‘remissions’. The
HECS-HELP benefit will encourage graduates to pursue careers in mathematics and science, including teaching these subjects in secondary schools.
The HECS-HELP benefit will also encourage early childhood education teachers to work in areas of particular need. This is part of the Government’s bold early childhood education agenda that focuses on providing Australian families with high-quality, accessible and affordable early childhood education and child care.
The ‘HECS-HELP benefit’ will reduce an eligible person’s compulsory HELP repayment. For certain eligible persons, if no compulsory repayment is required to be made, the benefit may be a reduction in the person’s accumulated HELP debt.
The amendments to the Act provide the framework for the HECS-HELP benefit and for the details of the eligibility requirements and the amount of the benefit to be specified in HECS-HELP Benefit Guidelines, which will be a disallowable instrument.
It is proposed that the Guidelines will provide for the HECS-HELP benefit to be claimable for a total lifetime limit of 260 weeks (the equivalent of five years).
A person will receive a benefit for an income year based on the number of weeks in the year for which they are eligible. The HECS-HELP benefit will be claimable from the 2008-09 income year onwards. An application for the benefit will be made to the Taxation Commissioner, generally at the same time as a person lodges their tax return.
The maths and science HECS-HELP benefit will be available to people who graduate from a maths or science course from the second semester of 2008 onwards, having undertaken that course as a Commonwealth supported student, and who are employed in a related occupation, including the teaching of maths or science at secondary school.
The early childhood education HECS-HELP benefit will be available to eligible people who have graduated at any time from an early childhood education teaching course undertaken as a ‘HECS’ liable or Commonwealth supported student, and who are employed as a teacher in an early childhood setting in an eligible location -
regardless of whether their repayment income is such that they are required to make a ‘compulsory repayment amount’ in the income year.
Another of the Government’s key election commitments that is reflected in this bill is to ensure that students gain access to higher education on merit and not on ability to pay by phasing out full fee paying undergraduate places for domestic students in public universities from 2009.
From 1 January 2009, universities will not be able to enrol a new domestic undergraduate student on a fee paying basis, except in circumstances where the Act prohibits their enrolment as a Commonwealth supported student. Additional exceptions are for students who accepted a fee paying place this year but have deferred taking it up and for students who commenced their courses as overseas students but later become domestic students.
Fee paying students who began their courses before 2009 will be able to continue their courses on a fee paying basis.
The Government will allocate up to 11,000 new Commonwealth supported places by 2011 to replace the full fee paying places that will be phased out from 2009. Funding for the places will be ongoing.
If universities demonstrate that assistance is required to ensure the delivery of replacement Commonwealth supported places, the Government may provide additional funding, over and above that for the places, through the new Transitional Loading that is being introduced through this bill.
In addition to the measures I have already outlined, the bill will also provide for increased funding under the Act:
-
for additional Commonwealth supported places in early childhood education and nursing;
-
for the expansion of Commonwealth scholarships including the doubling of the number of undergraduate scholarships from 44,000 to 88,000 by 2012 and the doubling of the total number of Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) holders to nearly 10,000 by 2012;
-
for capital infrastructure, additional Commonwealth supported places and clinical outreach funding for the establishment of the James Cook University Dental School; and
-
for capital infrastructure and additional Commonwealth supported places in medicine, nursing and education at the University of Notre Dame Australia.
The measures in this bill, in addition to our commitment to the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million Better Universities Renewal Funding that are not covered by the Act, represent the start of the Government’s education revolution in higher education.
Together with addressing these immediate priorities, the Government is taking its reforms further and driving strategic policy change aimed at making
long-term, systemic improvement in the higher education sector through the Review of Australian Higher Education, led by Emeritus Professor Denise Bradley AC. This is important work. It will report on the future direction of the sector, its capacity to meet the needs of the Australian economy, and the options available for ongoing reform.
The Government’s response to the review will build on this legislative package that I present to you today.
INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
This bill makes amendments to legislation related to Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. The amendments are aimed at allowing greater flexibility in dealings with land which is owned or controlled by Aboriginal people, and at facilitating the provision of improved housing and infrastructure for Aboriginal people by better allowing for security of tenure to government providers of facilities.
The bill allows for additional flexibility in relation to township leases under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to encourage more communities to enter into township leases. In particular, a minimum term of leases will be set at 40 years and leases will be able to include provision for extension of the original term of the lease to a maximum of 99 years.
These changes will allow traditional owners to propose a lease tailored to the needs of a particular community. The Government sees many advantages to whole of township leases and will work with traditional owners through Land Councils to progress these leases where communities are interested.
The amendments will allow the finalisation of the Regional Partnership Agreement in relation to the Groote Eylandt region signed on behalf of the Australian and Northern Territory Governments and the Anindilyakwa people on 20 May 2008. That agreement includes township leases over the communities of Angurugu, Umbakumba and Milyakburra for an initial term of 40 years and a renewal period of 40 years. The flexible position which was taken on the term allowed agreement to be reached with people who were understandably concerned at committing future generations to a century-long land arrangement. The amendments will allow these leases which have been agreed to be put in place.
The bill also allows the Executive Director of Township Leasing to hold other types of leases or subleases over land held primarily for the benefit of Aboriginal people. This simply provides a further option to Aboriginal people in considering whether to grant leases over their land. Aboriginal people may prefer a position where a lease granted for the purpose of supporting housing and infrastructure is held by the Executive Director of Township Leasing that is a Commonwealth statutory office with a measure of independence.
This measure is an additional avenue for land owners to consider when leasing or subleasing their land to government to enable much needed housing and infrastructure construction to occur with certainty for both governments and land owners.
The bill contains some minor changes to the land-related provisions of the emergency response legislation. In particular, it provides streamlined processes for payments to landholders for the acquisition of five-year leases.
The bill amends Schedule 1 to the Northern Territory Land Rights Act to include 13 parks and reserves which were the subject of land claims under the Act. This arises from a land mark agreement struck in September 2003 between the Northern Territory Government and the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land about the future tenure and administration of the parks and reserves.
The Government is pleased to be able to finalise the agreement, and notes that the previous Government failed to do so in the more than two years between the request for scheduling and its losing office. Resolving Indigenous land claims by agreement where possible and not through the courts is the position this Government takes when approaching Indigenous land issues.
The Government recognises the foresight and determination of the Northern Territory Government and the Northern and Central Land Councils in reaching an agreement that provides lasting benefits for all Territorians.
As a result of the agreement, the land will be granted to the traditional owners on the basis that it will be immediately leased back to the Northern Territory Government to continue to operate as national parks. This is similar to the arrangements the Northern Territory Government has with the owners of Nitmiluk National Park and the Commonwealth has with the owners of Uluru Kata-Tjuta and Kakadu National Parks and ensures that Aboriginal people and other Australians can jointly enjoy the benefits of significant pieces of the national estate.
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT (2008 BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
In the first sitting week of this Parliament, the Rudd Government apologised to Indigenous Australians for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on our fellow Australians. At the time, the Prime Minister made the point that this is not the end of the Government’s commitment, but the start. If Australia is to be truly reconciled there must first be an acknowledgement of past wrongs, but this must be followed up with actions to close the gaps between Indigenous and other Australians.
Shortly after the National Apology, I took great pride in introducing amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 which appropriated funding for the first of our election commitments to close the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous outcomes – an initiative to provide an additional 200 teachers in the Northern Territory. Today, during Reconciliation Week, I introduce further amendments to the Act to appropriate funding for another two initiatives aimed at closing the gaps.
The primary purpose of this bill is to amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 by appropriating additional funding of $8.353 million in the 2008 calendar year to improve educational outcomes for Indigenous students. This amount, when indexed under the provisions of the Act, will amount to $9.050 million in 2008 prices and is part of a four year $85.3 million package.
This funding will be used for the expansion of intensive literacy and numeracy programs for Indigenous students, professional development support to assist teachers to develop Individual Learning Plans for their Indigenous students, and the provision of three new boarding college facilities for Indigenous secondary school students in the Northern Territory.
In 2006, a 13%-32% gap existed between the proportion of Indigenous students who achieve years 3, 5 and 7 reading, writing and numeracy benchmarks and the proportion of all students who achieve the same benchmarks.
The Australian Government places great importance on achieving better educational outcomes for Indigenous students and has made a commitment to assist education providers to halve the literacy and numeracy achievement gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students through the Building Strong Foundations program. To achieve this goal, new investment is necessary to further develop the capacities and talents of Indigenous people so they have the necessary knowledge, understanding and skills for a productive and rewarding life.
Indigenous students will benefit from the expansion of literacy and numeracy programs through a $56.4 million national Building Strong Foundations program. This program will assist education providers to ascertain which intensive literacy and numeracy programs are demonstrating the best results with Indigenous students so that what is working in one school can be tried in other schools.
Funds will be used to establish an evidence base around innovative literacy and numeracy projects which will contribute to a national menu of best practice. Education providers will be able to choose programs from this menu to suit the needs of their systems, schools or Indigenous students. Education providers will be expected to systematise approaches that work. Numeracy and mathematics programs will be an early focus of the measure.
This measure will complement the National Action Plan on Literacy and Numeracy with resources to assist education providers to halve the gap in literacy and numeracy outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students over the next decade.
The Building Strong Foundations program will also provide teachers with extra materials and support to assist them to prepare and maintain Individual Learning Plans for every Indigenous student for each year of schooling up to year 10. The plans will be updated twice each year.
The proportion of young Indigenous people living in remote areas who reach Year 12 is approximately half that of their metropolitan peers, and only one in ten actually completes Year 12. Approximately one in four 15-19 year old Indigenous people lives in a remote area.
In order to assist Indigenous young people to access educational opportunities that are equivalent to their non-Indigenous peers, the government will provide additional funding of $28.9 million over four years to construct and operate three new secondary boarding facilities to cater for 152 Indigenous students from remote areas in the Northern Territory. One 40 bed boarding facility will be completed in 2009, with the remaining two (72 bed and 40 bed facilities) to be completed in 2010.
An additional capital contribution of $15 million will be provided from the Indigenous Land Corporation which is committed to establishing student hostels to enable Indigenous young people from remote areas to obtain secondary school education.
Agreement on the siting of boarding facilities and their construction will be negotiated with Indigenous communities, the Indigenous Land Corporation and Northern Territory education providers. Management options for these facilities will be developed in consultation with relevant education providers, local communities, Aboriginal Hostels Limited and other interested parties.
The increased funding for this program will provide support for Indigenous young people to relocate from remote and regional areas to access high standards of education, training and employment opportunities not otherwise available to them.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
LAW OFFICERS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
The Law Officers Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will provide Solicitors-General with an entitlement to long service leave.
Until 31 December 1997, the salary and leave entitlements for the person holding the office of Solicitor-General were the same as those of a Judge of the Federal Court. Section 16 of the Law Officers Act 1964 provided the Solicitor-General with a non-contributory pension under the Judges’ Pension Act 1968, while section 16A provided a payment to the Solicitor-General on retirement in lieu of long service leave.
In accordance with the former Government’s wish to break the nexus between the terms and conditions of the Solicitor-General and those applying to a Judge, the Law Officers Amendment Act 1998 amended the Law Officers Act to vary the terms and conditions of service for the office of Solicitor-General. After 31 December 1997, the terms and conditions of the Solicitor-General became similar to those of senior members of the Australian Public Service. The Act terminated the Solicitor-General’s entitlements to a Judge’s pension and payment in lieu of long service leave. It also provided for the Solicitor-General’s remuneration to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
By 2003, it became apparent that the changes made by the 1998 amendments to the Solicitor-General’s employment conditions had not taken account of the previous long service leave entitlement. With the amendment of section 16A of the Law Officers Act, the entitlement to a Judge’s pension and payment in lieu of long service leave no longer applied to the office of Solicitor-General after 31 December 1997, leaving the Solicitor-General with no coverage for long service leave. It was never intended, nor is it now, that the holder of the office of Solicitor-General should not have access to long service leave entitlements.
The current bill will amend section 10 of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 to ensure that Solicitors-General will have such an entitlement and the Law Officers Act will be amended to make it clear that sections 6 and 7 of that Act have effect subject to the Long Service Leave Act.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL AND OTHER BENEFITS—COST RECOVERY) BILL 2008
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits - Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 amends the National Health Act 1953 (which I refer to as the Act) to provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the exercise of powers for listing medicines, vaccines and other products, or services, on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and designation of vaccines for the National Immunisation Program (NIP).
The aim of the PBS is to ensure that Australians have affordable access to high quality medicines in the community. An initiative of a Labor Government 60 years ago, the PBS is now accepted by both sides of politics as a success story. Access to high quality medicines is maintained by subsidising the cost of PBS medicines and limiting the amount that people pay for prescriptions at the point of sale. Medicines that are listed on the PBS are assessed by experts to be clinically safe and cost effective. The PBS serves Australians well and is justifiably regarded as one of the best systems of its kind in the world.
Similarly, the Government is dedicated to ensuring that all Australians can continue to receive fully funded vaccines under the NIP. The NIP is a joint program of Commonwealth and State/Territory governments which provides fully funded vaccines for major preventable diseases. NIP funding is provided through grants from the Commonwealth to the States and Territories. The States and Territories provide vaccines free of charge to health providers for them to administer to the community.
The cost of providing subsidised medicines and fully funded vaccines to the Australian community is a significant financial outlay to the Commonwealth and tax payers. In 2006-07 the Commonwealth paid $6.4 billion to approved pharmacists, hospitals and medical practitioners for the subsidised supply of medicines under the PBS. A further $280 million was provided by the Commonwealth to the States and Territories for the fully funded supply of vaccines under the NIP within their respective jurisdictions.
The Government was in opposition when the previous government sought to introduce cost recovery of services associated with listing on the PBS and NIP and, in fact, banked the savings despite never introducing the legislation. We shared some of the reservations of some stakeholders about the model proposed by the previous government. It was arguable that the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) could be threatened if it was reliant upon the pharmaceutical industry for its funding.
However, in the model reflected in the bill I introduce today, the independence of the PBAC is guaranteed. The Government will continue to directly fund all the activities of the PBAC and its subcommittees. The PBAC will have no role in setting fees and it will not receive any revenue from industry. All revenue collected from cost recovery will be paid directly into consolidated revenue.
I would like emphasise that the expertise, integrity and sense of propriety that PBAC members bring to their task will not change as a result of cost recovery. The PBAC will continue to provide expert advice on medicines, independent of Government and industry. Cost recovery will not affect the structure or the operation of the PBAC, nor will it compromise the independence of the Committee’s decisions. There are other notable examples of agencies, such as the TGA – which regulate in the public interest and where that regulation necessarily results in commercial gain – where cost recovery has been implemented successfully and without a loss of independence.
In implementing a cost recovery fee for Commonwealth services, it is important to note that the Australians accessing the PBS and NIP will not be required to pay any extra for PBS listed medicines or vaccines as a result of this measure.
Cost recovery is not a new policy. Cost recovery arrangements have been applied with success to many departments and agencies at state and federal level, including for example, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority.
The pharmaceutical industry is familiar with cost recovery – the industry has been paying for the pre-market evaluation of products by the Therapeutic Goods Administration since 1991.
Achieving a product listing on the PBS provides a high level of commercial certainty to a company in relation to that product’s sales.
In this context, it is not unreasonable to recoup taxpayer incurred costs associated with new listings, or changes to existing listings of medicines on the PBS or vaccines designated for the NIP.
Australian pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors with medicines or vaccines listed on the PBS and designated for the NIP receive considerable financial benefits via the PBS from the supply of their products to the Australian community. For example, in 2006 - 07 the top 20 pharmaceutical companies (by total cost of payments), each received, on average, $223 million from the Commonwealth via the PBS subsidy.
The Productivity Commission has commented that by ensuring that those who use regulated services bear the costs, cost recovery can promote economic efficiency and equity by instilling cost consciousness among agencies and users. In this case, it is expected that cost recovery will provide benefits to both Government and the industry; for example, potentially increasing the compliance of submissions with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) Guidelines and reducing time and costs associated with resubmissions.
As I mentioned earlier, the PBAC is an independent expert body, established under the Act. Its members are selected from consumers, health economists, practising community pharmacists, general practitioners, clinical pharmacologists and other specialists. This remains unchanged. The functions of the PBAC include making recommendations to the Minister on products which they consider should be made available under the PBS or NIP. In deciding whether to recommend products for listing, the PBAC is required under the Act to give consideration to the cost-effectiveness of treatment, including by comparing alternative options. This is also unchanged.
In fact, the whole process remains unchanged. The PBAC makes recommendations for listing and changes to those listings three times a year. In conjunction with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority (Pricing Authority), the Department of Health and Ageing undertakes price negotiations for brands listed on the PBS and for designated vaccines. The Schedule of PBS Benefits is updated and published twelve times a year to reflect new and changed listings.
The evaluation, pricing and listing of products, and changes to those listings, involves activities undertaken by various parties, including the PBAC, its subcommittees, the Pricing Authority, Departmental officers, and contractors and subcontractors to the Department.
Currently, the cost of these activities is borne by taxpayers. This bill changes only this part of the PBAC’s current function and structure.
The government supports the principle of cost recovery in appropriate circumstances to alleviate the burden on taxpayers and, consistent with responsible economic management, is proceeding with the previously announced intentions of the last Government.. The bill is to commence on 1 July 2008, and cost recovery will begin following commencement of regulations prescribing the necessary fees and arrangements.
These proposed amendments to the Act will provide the necessary legal authority for the charging of fees, which will be prescribed in regulations under the Act. The bill is not a taxing Bill and the fees may not amount to taxation.
Cost recovery will include the costs of submissions to the PBAC and all processes that arise from those submissions in relation to new, or changes to existing listings of medicines on the PBS or designated as vaccines for the NIP.
Although any person may lodge a submission, in practice, the fees will generally be payable by pharmaceutical companies. The bill does, however, provide for regulations to be made for exemptions and waiver of fees so that, when it is in the public interest, no fees will be payable.
The trigger for fees will be the lodgement of a submission, which, in the case of pharmaceutical companies, is a purely commercial decision. Pharmaceutical companies are free to market their products in Australia independently of the PBS or NIP subsidies. However, financial returns from the PBS and NIP, especially in relation to high sales “prescription only” items, are significantly increased by PBS listing.
The desired scope of the regulation-making power for cost recovery is broad in order to allow for the flexible, efficient and transparent administration of the cost recovery arrangements. The regulations will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
Without limiting the scope of the regulation-making power, the regulations may include, but are not limited to:
-
the administration processes surrounding the making of submissions,
-
prescribing of fees,
-
the timing and manner of payment of fees,
-
penalties and refusals to provide services for late and non payment,
-
exemptions from fees and the waiver, remission and refund of fees, and
-
the review of administrative decisions made in relation to cost recovery.
During consultations with stakeholders by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007 there was general agreement on a fees-only model with two payment points: the first for the receipt and evaluation of a submission, and the second for pricing and listing activities following a positive PBAC recommendation. A simple fee structure is proposed, in line with the existing submission categories with which industry is already familiar. Each passage through the PBAC will be treated as a single event – a drug that is resubmitted on several occasions, following refusal by PBAC to make a positive recommendation, will be liable for an evaluation fee on each occasion. This reflects the fact that a complete evaluation is required each time a submission is made, and is a disincentive for poor quality submissions. A further payment point will apply for an applicant seeking an independent review of a negative PBAC decision.
The regulations may allow for exemptions from fees. For example, it is expected that Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) designated orphan drugs and drugs approved for temporary supply will be automatically exempted.
The regulations may also provide for the refusal to provide services until a fee is paid. If fees go unpaid, a simple ‘tools down’ approach is envisaged, involving no further consideration until payment is received. Furthermore, this bill clarifies that the Minister may refuse to exercise certain powers (under section 9B or a provision under Part VII of the Act) if prescribed fees are not paid. The regulations may also allow for the recovery of unpaid fees as a debt due to the Commonwealth.
The Government is very committed to ensuring that there is a due process to ensure that fees and charges are levied in a fair and equitable way. For that reason we will be ensuring that there is a system in place to allow drug companies and others who may make submissions to the PBAC to have their medicine evaluated, or to the Department of Health and Ageing to have their medicine listed will have a right to ask for a review of the charges that have been imposed.
In the first instance, and if the matter cannot be resolved through discussion, the Department will ask a Departmental officer who has not been a part of the original decision to review the case and make a fresh decision. And if this still does not satisfy the company, they will have a right to take their case to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
This will be an important feature of cost recovery and will provide assurance that fees and charges are being applied consistently fairly and equitably. There will be no additional fee charged for this process.
In making preparations for implementation, my Department is liaising with the Department of Finance and Deregulation and following the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines. The Department has consulted with key stakeholders, including peak industry, consumer and healthcare provider bodies. In addition, a Cost Recovery Impact Statement will be finalised to report on consultations and document compliance with the Government’s Cost Recovery Policy.
In accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines, The Department will introduce ongoing monitoring mechanisms to ensure fees remain based on efficient costs, and will continue to liaise closely with key stakeholders.
Revenue from PBS cost recovery will depend on the number and type of submissions brought to the PBAC for consideration. As a general rule, the more complex and time consuming the evaluation and price negotiation, the higher the fees. Once fully operational, annual revenue from fees is expected to total about $9 million in 2008-09 rising to around $14 million a year in following years.
It is expected that fees will be indexed annually and a full review undertaken within five years, in accordance with the Cost Recovery Guidelines.
The recovery of costs incurred by the Department for the assessment of submissions made to the PBAC and subsequent evaluation, pricing and listing processes is an extension of an already established cost recovery model operating for the TGA. In that case applicants pay a fee for the work undertaken by the TGA in assessing their drug for use within Australia. Applicants are familiar with this process and have accepted its introduction.
Cost recovery within the PBAC process will be a simple system recovering costs from parties that are in a position to gain financial benefit from the listing of their drugs or changes to listings, within the PBS subsidy framework and from the designation of their vaccines for funding under the NIP.
It is all about ensuring that the PBS continues to be able to provide reliable, timely and affordable access to a wide range of medicines for all Australians.
PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 2008
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of the Passenger Movement Charge (the charge) by $9, to $47, with effect from 1 July 2008. The increase was announced by the Treasurer in the 2008-09 Budget and will partially fund national aviation security initiatives that are funded by the Australian Government.
Since 2001 the Australian Government has spent approximately $1.2 billion implementing a significant number of aviation security measures. This spending is expected to total over $2.2 billion for commitments the Government is making up until the 2011-12 financial year. Currently these costs are not recovered as part of the charge.
The $9 increase recommended by the central economic agencies has been accepted by Government as broadly consistent with the amount the charge would have grown by had it been indexed over the period since it was last increased in the 2001-02 Budget.
The charge, which is imposed on the departure of a person from Australia, is collected by airlines and shipping companies at the time of ticket sales and then remitted to the Commonwealth in accordance with arrangements entered into under section 10 of the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978. These arrangements are extremely beneficial to all stakeholders, not the least being the passenger whose departure from Australia is unimpeded through a seamless process which does not require the payment of taxes at Australian international airports.
It is worth while remembering that this fee is collected by the airlines and shipping companies. Because of the nature of the airline industry, where tickets for travel are sold up to 12 months in advance the increase will only apply to tickets sold on or after 1 July 2008.
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008
The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 and relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, the Insurance Act 1973, and the Insurance Contracts Act 1984.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Private Health Insurance Act and associated legislation. Amendments proposed include private health insurers being required to become a ‘company’ under the Corporations Act, restricted access insurers being able to include statements about requirements for membership in their constitutions or rules, provisions relating to the regulation of health-related business, clarification in relation to corporate products offered by health insurers and provisions to allow pilot projects. Enactment of the proposed amendments will occur at the date of Royal Assent of the Bill.
Regulation of Health-Related Business
Proposed amendments will remove the requirement for dual regulation of health-related business conducted through health benefits funds by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council (PHIAC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). Under the Private Health Insurance Act and the Health Legislation Amendment Act 2007, PHIAC regulates health insurance business and health-related business conducted through health benefits funds until 30 June 2008. From 1 July 2008, health-related business conducted through health benefits funds was to be subject to dual regulation by PHIAC and APRA. Consultation with industry and PHIAC has revealed that dual regulation will be burdensome and potentially costly.
Consequently, the Bill seeks to amend the Corporations Act, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act, the Insurance Act and the Insurance Contracts Act to ensure that health-related business that is conducted through a health benefits fund remains solely regulated by PHIAC. The changes will carve out health-related business operated through a health benefits fund from being regulated under these pieces of legislation.
Restricted Access Insurers
Another provision of the Bill concerns restricted access insurers. Restricted access insurers are private health insurers that limit their membership based on employment, profession, union membership or being part of the Defence Force. The proposed amendments alter the existing technical requirements, in s126-20(6) of the Private Health Insurance Act for restricted access insurers to specify their eligibility requirements in their constitutions, to allow these requirements to be specified in their constitutions or their operational rules. The proposed amendment will mean that there is greater administrative ease in complying with the Private Health Insurance Act.
There will also be consequential amendments to other provisions including ss185-5(e),
s200-1(1) and s163-15(2) of the Private Health Insurance Act to include the term ‘rules’ after the term ‘constitution’, allowing restricted access insurers to provide statements relating to their restricted access group in their constitutions or rules.
Health Insurers becoming a ‘company’ under the Corporations Act 2001
At present, the Private Health Insurance Act allows registration of a private health insurer as a company, or registered body, within the meaning of the Corporations Act. However, registered bodies only need to meet limited director’s duties, making it more difficult for PHIAC to regulate the industry. The amendment will require all private health insurers to be companies under the Corporations Act. This measure will mean all insurers are under similar accountability standards and governance requirements, improving equity in the regulation of the industry.
Of the 38 currently registered health insurers, four are not presently companies.
All private health insurers must be companies by January 2010 or their registration as a private health insurer will be cancelled. There is also a transitional provision which provides that, in the unlikely event that a body which is not a company applies to be a private health insurer before the commencement of the Bill, the application ceases and a new application which complies with the requirement to be a company must be made after commencement.
In order not to impose an undue taxation burden on those private health insurers applying for registration as a company, those insurers will be exempted from stamp duty tax or other taxes relating to things done solely for the purposes of registration.
Corporate Products
The principle of community rating, as defined in Division 55 of the Private Health Insurance Act, ensures everybody has equitable access to health insurance. Private health insurers cannot discriminate based on people’s health or for other reasons including gender, race, or sexual orientation.
It has been put to Government that it is arguably a breach of community rating for insurers to offer corporate products at a discount aimed at employees and contractors.
The Bill clarifies that offering corporate products is not a breach of community rating, provided these products comply with the discounting provisions in the Private Health Insurance Act. It also makes it clear that a private health insurer may not remove persons from a corporate product when they, or another person on the policy, are no longer a member of the corporate group.
There is no obligation on the insurer to offer a corporate product, at the discount applicable to a corporate product, to a person who is not a member of the corporate group.
Pilot Projects
The government is keen to ensure that private health insurers are well placed to offer “broader health cover” in their products and policies. However, concerns have been expressed that the community rating provisions of the Private Health Insurance Act may prevent the operation of pilot projects. In order to clarify that these projects are permitted, the Bill proposes that the Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Rules could permit pilot projects as specified in those rules.
QUARANTINE AMENDMENT (NATIONAL HEALTH SECURITY) BILL 2008
I am pleased to introduce the Quarantine Amendment (National Health Security) Bill 2008. This is the second Bill to come before the Parliament to implement Australia’s international obligations relating to public health security - obligations that this Government takes extremely seriously.
The entry into force of the International Health Regulations (also known as the IHR) in June 2007 was a public health landmark for the World Health Organization and for all member States, including Australia. It provided the global community with a new legal framework to better manage its collective defences against public health risks that can spread internationally and with devastating effect.
The Bill I am introducing today gives effect to these IHR in three important ways.
Firstly, the proposed amendments to the Quarantine Act 1908 will require travelers who are subject to quarantine (or people performing quarantine) to submit themselves to vaccination or other prophylaxis if this is necessary for the prevention of the spread of a quarantinable disease, or if the vaccine or other prophylaxis is specified in the IHR, or recommended by the World Health Organization.
While Australia has had, for some time, the capacity to require vaccination, this has not extended to other prophylaxes, nor to diseases recommended by the World Health Organization that are not quarantinable diseases. Other forms of prophylaxis include antivirals to treat influenza or antibiotics to treat bacterial infections.
Secondly, the amendments also provide for the issuing of health certificates proving vaccination or other prophylaxis in accordance with the requirements set out in the IHR for standardised certifications.
At this time, yellow fever is the only disease specifically designated under IHR for which proof of vaccination or prophylaxis may be required for travellers as a condition of entry to a country. However, there is a real prospect that new vaccines or other prophylaxis will be developed for other existing, or new, diseases. It is therefore critical that Australia, along with our international neighbours, has the capacity to require any necessary prophylaxis, and to issue all essential paperwork in line with international standards.
Thirdly, the amendments take the existing provisions in the Quarantine Act relating to charges for certain health measures and align them with the requirements of the IHR.
The amendments provide that, except for persons seeking temporary or permanent residence, charges will not be applied for certain health measures administered to international travellers to protect public health. This includes measures such as medical examinations to ascertain the health status of a traveller, certain vaccinations or other forms of prophylaxis, and restrictions on travel that may be necessary to prevent the spread of a disease.
Charges for such measures will not be levied on travellers who are Australian citizens, or who are in transit to another destination.
Charges will, however, be able to be levied on persons seeking temporary or permanent residence in Australia. The Bill authorises the Minister to set, by legislative instrument, fees for the provision of health measures in these cases. Such fees will be limited to the actual cost of the necessary health measures, and must be published 10 days before they come into effect.
The Commonwealth may also seek reimbursement of expenses from insurance companies or, in the case of crew members travelling to Australia, from the master, owner or agent of the vessel.
In addition to the amendments giving effect to the IHR, the opportunity has been taken to make some minor, technical, ‘housekeeping’ amendments to the Quarantine Act. One example is to clarify the status of certain documents under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
I stress the importance of this Bill in ensuring that we deliver on both our international commitments as well as the national imperative to actively improve our capacity to respond to public health risks.
RESERVE BANK AMENDMENT (ENHANCED INDEPENDENCE) BILL 2008
Today I move the Reserve Bank Amendment (Enhanced Independence) Bill 2008.
The Rudd Government is committed to relieving the financial pressure on Australian working families by modernising the economy, raising living standards, and keeping inflation in check.
Inflation pushes up interest rates, eats away at family budgets, and threatens future prosperity – that’s why we’re so determined to beat it.
We have taken responsibility for modernising our economy, so we can sustain growth, create jobs, and get inflation back in check.
That means tackling the skill shortages and capacity constraints that are pushing up costs and threatening growth.
It means boosting our productive capacity – lifting productivity and encouraging more people into work.
By boosting capacity we allow our economy to grow further and support job growth, without fuelling inflation.
We moved from day one to tackle the inflation legacy left to us.
As part of this effort, on 6 December 2007, the Prime Minister, the Governor and I outlined the measures we would take to strengthen the independence of the Reserve Bank and enhance the transparency of the conduct of monetary policy in Australia.
The Rudd Government committed to enhance the independence of the Reserve Bank, by raising the positions of Governor and Deputy Governor to the same level of statutory independence as the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician.
This is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing to the Parliament today.
The Rudd Government also committed to improving the transparency of future Reserve Bank Board appointments and to remove political considerations.
Accordingly, the Secretary to the Treasury and the Governor of the Reserve Bank will maintain a register of eminent candidates of the highest integrity from which the Treasurer will make appointments to the Reserve Bank Board.
The Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy, which the Governor and I agreed to in December last year, also incorporates transparency measures including the publication of Board minutes, and a statement of reasons for the decision following each monthly meeting irrespective of whether there is an adjustment in the cash rate.
Increased transparency helps business people and working families understand the reasons behind monetary policy decisions which have such a real impact on their lives.
These reforms that the Governor and I agreed to last year herald in a new era of independence and transparency in monetary policy in Australia.
The introduction of this Bill into the Parliament today is a key step to delivering this.
Under the current legislation, the Treasurer has the sole authority to appoint, suspend and terminate the appointment of the Governor and or Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, without reference to Parliament.
This, for example, gives power to the Treasurer to appoint if they so wish, partisan political candidates or those who have serious questions hanging over their character.
This circumstance could seriously jeopardise the standing of the Reserve Bank and reduce its effectiveness, thereby lowering Australia’s long‑term economic prospects.
This is not something this Government will allow to happen.
Under the legislation being introduced today, the positions of the Governor and Deputy Governor will have their level of statutory independence raised to that of the Commissioner of Taxation and the Australian Statistician.
As such, their appointments will be made by the Governor General acting in Council.
At the moment, they are simply appointed by the Treasurer.
In addition, and more importantly, the termination of the Governor and Deputy Governor may now only occur if each House of the Parliament, in the same session of the Parliament, requests the Governor General to do so.
Grounds on the basis of either incapacity, external employment or bankruptcy must be submitted.
Presently the Treasurer is able to carry out the termination of either of these positions, on the set grounds, without reference to Parliament.
The present situation could leave the Governor and Deputy Governor in a potentially vulnerable position.
Alternatively the Governor General may still suspend the Governor or Deputy Governor on the specified grounds for a temporary period, after which the Parliament may decide to either allow reinstatement or to terminate.
At the moment, the Treasurer may make an open ended suspension without reference to Parliament.
These reforms will enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy.
But we on this side of the house, will not leave the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank and higher interest rates.
Our predecessors lacked the foresight to deal with the inflationary pressures before they gathered pace.
They left the RBA to shoulder all the responsibility – they failed to invest in our productive capacity and compounded the problem through reckless spending.
They left Australian families facing the full brunt of their policy failures – the highest underlying inflation in 16 years and 12 rate rises on the trot.
That is why in January the Prime Minister outlined the Government’s five point plan for fighting inflation.
Disciplined fiscal restraint, with the aim of delivering a surplus of at least 1.5 percent of GDP in 2008-09;
Encourage private savings through initiatives like the First Home Saver Accounts;
Tackling the chronic skills shortages including 450,000 new training places;
National leadership to tackle infrastructure, including broadband and Infrastructure Australia;
Encourage workforce participation through initiatives in Child Care Tax and tax reform.
Inflation has taken a long time to build in our economy and it will take a long time to deal with it – but that is why we started from day one.
This is a Government that in its first weeks of office released a joint Statement with the Reserve Bank, strengthening its independence.
Together, this bill and the measures the Governor and I have announced represent a new era in the operation of monetary policy in Australia.
This legislation is an important element in our fight against inflation.
A fight we intend to win on behalf of Australian families who have worked so hard to make our economy strong.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS (EQUAL TREATMENT IN COMMONWEALTH LAWS—SUPERANNUATION) BILL 2008
Introduction
The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws – Superannuation) Bill 2008 introduces the first part of historic reforms to amend Commonwealth laws that discriminate on the basis of sexuality.
It is with immense pride that I introduce this bill, marking a new chapter in Labor’s commitment to promoting and protecting human rights in Australia – a commitment that is based on the belief of the fundamental equality of all persons.
The bill will amend the Acts which govern the Commonwealth Government (defined benefit) superannuation schemes and related taxation legislation and Acts that regulate the superannuation industry.
Discrimination on the basis of sexuality has largely been removed from State and Territory laws. This bill will take equality for same-sex couples and their children to the next level by introducing long overdue Commonwealth reforms, removing discrimination from superannuation laws as the first step.
HREOC report
I want to acknowledge the important role of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s inquiry which focused on discrimination in financial and work related entitlements and benefits.
HREOC found that same-sex couples do not enjoy the same entitlements as couples who are either married or in opposite-sex de facto relationships.
On coming to office, we commissioned a whole-of-government audit of Commonwealth legislation building on HREOC’s report.
The audit confirmed HREOC’s findings. The audit further identified that discrimination in the legal treatment of same-sex couples and their children occurs in a range of non-financial areas, such as administrative and evidence laws.
The audit also identified a number of statutory regulations and instruments which include possibly discriminatory terms. The Government will review, and where necessary, amend these instruments to remove any differential treatment of same-sex couples.
This bill marks the first stage of the Government’s commitment to address this inequitable treatment in a wide range of laws.
Superannuation
This bill will amend Acts governing Commonwealth Government (defined benefit) superannuation schemes. It will also amend related taxation and superannuation regulatory Acts.
The superannuation schemes covered by this bill are:
-
the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme
-
the scheme under the Superannuation Act 1922
-
the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme
-
the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme
-
the Judges’ Pensions Scheme
-
the Federal Magistrates Disability and Death Benefits Scheme
-
the Governor-General Pension Scheme, and
-
the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme.
The reforms in this bill are time critical. This is because it will allow reversionary death benefits to be paid to de facto same-sex partners and their children where they currently have no entitlement.
For example, until these Acts are amended, were a scheme member to die, his or her same-sex partner would not be entitled to receive a reversionary death benefit.
This is discriminatory.
A child of such a relationship does not benefit unless they can meet the current requirements under the relevant Acts, such as being the natural child of the deceased member.
This again is discriminatory.
Further, superannuation legislation generally refers to a spouse, which currently excludes same-sex partners. While same-sex partners may be able to access some superannuation concessions as ‘dependants’—for example, concessional treatment of death benefits—this bill will make sure there is equal treatment of same-sex couples and their children in this area.
To quote HREOC’s report of the inquiry:
One of the main purposes of superannuation schemes is to encourage savings during life which will support a person’s family after he or she dies … [s]uperannuation is often a person’s largest asset apart from the family home. Most people expect that their superannuation entitlements will be inherited by a partner, children or other dependants. But for people in same-sex couples and families, this not always the case.
This bill will remedy these injustices by allowing same-sex couples and their children to access the benefits and entitlements they have been denied for so long.
‘Partner’
The amendments in these acts revise the existing definitions of ‘spouse’ and ‘child’, creating new definitions that equally recognise opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and partners, and the children they produce.
The bill will expand the notion of de facto relationship by adding the new concept of a ‘couple relationship’, which includes same-sex partners.
The bill will enable a relationship registered under prescribed State laws to be evidence of the existence of a same-sex relationship when considering who may be entitled to a death or pension benefits. Regulations for this purpose will be made under the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968, which I administer, and for ease of administration are applied to the other Commonwealth schemes amended by the bill.
The preparation of this bill, which relates only to Commonwealth (defined benefit) superannuation schemes, has highlighted certain issues regarding the framing of amendments. For example, we will further consider the way relationships registered under State and Territory laws will be recognised in other Commonwealth laws when developing the broader reforms to be introduced in the second part of the same-sex reform legislation. It will also be necessary to consider the need for consistency in Commonwealth legislation in relation to the use of terms such as ‘partner’ and ‘spouse’.
‘Child’
The bill also allows for the equal recognition of children who are the product of same-sex and opposite-sex relationships.
A child for this purpose is the product of a couple relationship, where one partner is linked biologically to the child or where one partner is the birth mother of the child. By applying this definition, opposite-sex and same-sex families are treated equally.
Furthermore, the new definition will solve the problems arising from some surrogacy arrangements where even children of an opposite-sex relationship may currently fail definitional requirements and be denied benefits.
This approach imports a new standard of fairness and consistency into the law in this area and provides functional recognition of same-sex families in the community.
The reforms in this bill recognise real family situations. Recognition is necessary if we are, as a community, to remove discrimination against same-sex families and their children.
Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
The bill will also amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, which establishes the superannuation regulatory framework for regulated superannuation funds. This will mean that superannuation funds, should they wish to do so, will be able to make allowance for same-sex couples and their children in the same way that Commonwealth (defined benefit) superannuation schemes will be able to.
If this bill is passed, I encourage all superannuation funds across Australia to make provision for same-sex couples and their children so that this discrimination is completely removed from the superannuation industry.
Conclusion
This bill marks the first step in removing discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in Acts governing Commonwealth (defined benefit) superannuation schemes and related Acts that have not moved with the times.
The reforms in this bill will make a practical difference to the lives of a group of fellow Australians who for far too long have suffered discrimination in superannuation at a Commonwealth level. It is fair and equitable and it is the right thing to do.
I commend the bill.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (EMPLOYMENT ENTRY PAYMENT) BILL 2008
Consistent with its theme of responsible economic management, the Government identified a number of programs that were inefficient or wasteful, or were largely duplicated elsewhere. The employment entry payment is one such scheme.
The employment entry payment was initially introduced in 1989 to assist with costs associated with taking up employment. Since then, three other schemes have been introduced which provide similar or better assistance and which are more flexible in their application. These are the special employment advance, job seeker accounts provided via the Job Network, and the working credit. Further improvement will be implemented under the new employment services model.
This bill will repeal the employment entry payment, effective from 1 July 2008.
Removal of the payment will simplify the assistance available to those commencing work, particularly in relation to the complex interactions now in place between the employment entry payment and the special employment advance and will realise savings of $60.8 million over 5 years and delivers on the Government’s commitment to responsible economic management.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
SYDNEY AIRPORT DEMAND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL
Background
Sydney Airport is Australia’s major international and domestic airport, and its operational efficiency is critical to Australia’s national economic performance. On average, about 29 million passengers and about 550,000 tonnes of airfreight worth around $33 billion are processed through Sydney Airport every year. International visitors entering Australia through Sydney Airport inject about $2.6 billion a year to the economy.
The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 is an important piece of legislation for Sydney Airport and ensures it operates effectively while also protecting the interests of the local community. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 first saw light as a private member’s Bill that I introduced in 1996, and it led to the former government then putting in place the legislation as it is now.
The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill I introduce today seeks to improve the current legislation. The Bill will also enable changes to be made to the subordinate legislation to improve the operation of the Slots regime and the enforcement of the movement limit at Sydney Airport. A key objective of the current Act is to put in place a cap on the number of movements on the runway of 80 in a regulated hour.
The Act established a regime intended to control the scheduled movement times of airlines so that no more than 80 movements occurred on the runways in any hour.
The Act was also designed to encourage efficiency of operation through the allocation of ‘slots’ which stage the scheduling of aircraft movements and avoids the congestion that was occurring when airlines clustered their scheduling times.
The Bill I introduce today makes no changes to the objectives or intent of the existing Act. The Bill makes technical changes to support the improved administration of the cap and Slot Management Scheme.
Since the inception of the demand management scheme at the airport, there have been almost 3 million aircraft movements over approximately 260,000 regulated hours.
ANAO Report
Over 2006, the Australian National Audit Office conducted a performance audit of the demand management system established under the existing legislation. The ANAO Report was finalised on 7 March 2007 and it found that, since the inception of the slot management system, there have been 61 occasions when the maximum movement limit was exceeded. Aircraft movement reports tabled in Parliament show that the last incidence was at the end of 2001 but increases in traffic are likely to lead to more pressure on the limit.
Airservices Australia has advised they have put in place procedures to strengthen the collection and reporting of data on the movement limit.
The ANAO report highlighted the complex nature of aircraft operations at a busy airport like Sydney. In this context, consideration must be given to:
-
the need for flexibility in order to maintain certainty for airline schedules,
-
the importance of maximising the efficiency of the airport,
-
the need to avoid unnecessary disruption of scheduled services for passengers, and
-
the importance of achieving this while implementing arrangements to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the community around the airport.
Key policy objectives
The overriding objectives of the existing Act remain the same. Those objectives are:
Firstly, to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the community by enforcing a limit of 80 aircraft movements per hour. This was first proposed in a Private Members Bill titled “Sydney Airport (Regulation of Movements) Bill 1996” which I moved on 18 November 1996.
Secondly, to provide for the orderly and efficient operation of flights into and out of Sydney Airport through a slot management regime that keeps Sydney in step with international scheduling practice. The cap at 80 movements within any regulated hour, as I have mentioned, remains in place.
And the third objective of the current Act is to guarantee access for operators of NSW regional services by establishing a ring fence around the slots held by regional operators to Sydney airport at the onset of the demand management regime.
Slots previously held by Ansett Airlines at the time of its demise have also been quarantined. This will ensure equitable access to Sydney slots for airlines entering the Sydney services market for the first time. These protections will remain in place and are not affected by the provisions in this Bill.
Overall, these policy objectives are being met and the Bill does not change any of the fundamental policy settings designed to protect the local community in Sydney and regional communities that depend on access to Sydney Airport.
The amendments are essentially technical and will clarify, strengthen and tighten the regulatory arrangements.
The slot management scheme currently in place in Sydney provides a framework for the equitable allocation of planned aircraft movements within a regulated hour.
Importantly, the slot management scheme also provides a compliance framework for encouraging airlines to operate in accordance with their published schedules.
Congestion problems have been reduced with the introduction of slot management. The slot system facilitates a more even distribution of aircraft movements within hours.
Although of course there will continue to be morning and evening peak periods in response to:
-
the operational requirements of airlines,
-
curfew restrictions at Sydney and at overseas airports and, of course,
-
the travelling preferences of passengers, particularly regional and business travellers.
Passenger numbers at Sydney Airport are forecast to grow 4.2 % annually to 68.3 million passengers in 2023/24. While a significant share of the growth will be attributed to larger aircraft carrying more passengers, aircraft movements are still expected to increase by 2.4% to 377,650 movements per annum over the same period.
As the pressure builds around the availability of airport slots at peak periods, it has never been more important to clarify and strengthen the regulatory framework for managing this growth.
Given the current economic climate and the growth in global aviation activity, it is critical we manage the pressure on an inner city airport. And it is important we do that without losing sight of the key role a critical piece of national infrastructure such as Sydney Airport plays in the Australian economy.
The key change proposed by the Bill is to introduce a distinction between aircraft movements on the runway and aircraft movements at the gate. The distinction is significant because the slot management scheme is based on gate movements and the movement limit applies to runway movements.
The amendments proposed by this Bill will overcome the flaw identified in the ANAO audit that the day-to-day administration of slot allocation and compliance did not technically comply with the current Act. More particularly, the term “aircraft movement” was interchangeably used to describe the two separate but related actions.
The slot allocation regime is a vital planning tool that enables flight schedules at the airport to be managed so as to satisfy a wide range of operational demands reflecting the global nature of airline businesses.
Essentially, the bulk of slots are allocated prior to the commencement of each Summer and Winter Scheduling season in conjunction with airports worldwide.
The Slot Manager allocates slots to airlines having regard to
-
the capacity of the airport to handle particular flights,
-
the size of the aircraft,
-
the capacity of the terminal to process passengers and baggage,
-
whether there is a gate and apron available
-
and, overall, whether the slot can be accommodated within the 80 movements per hour cap.
Consistent with the practice at other slot-controlled airports overseas, slots have been granted for the time a plane is scheduled to arrive at or leave the gate. The airline’s compliance for the purposes of the current Act has, in practice, been measured against meeting those gate times. However, in strict terms of the current Act, compliance should have been measured by reference to the time of aircraft movements on the runway.
The legislation as it stands does not recognise the difference between the need to measure movements on and off the runway for the movement cap and movements on and off the gate for the slot management system. Slots have been, and need to continue to be allocated against scheduled airline movements which align with movements at the gate and not on the runway.
For each gate movement, there will be a corresponding aircraft movement on the runway - either before the gate movement (for arrivals) or after the gate movement (for departures). The Bill will formalise a requirement for the Slot Manager to have regard to the likely aircraft movement times on the runway when allocating slots, and to ensure the allocation of the slots is consistent with the movement cap.
Curfew arrangements at Sydney Airport will remain unchanged.
However, this Bill clarifies the relationship between slot allocation and compliance and movements during the curfew period. The ANAO report found that flights delayed into the curfew period were incorrectly assessed for compliance under the Act. The proposed amendments in the Bill will ensure any movement that is delayed into the curfew period is not exempt from the compliance scheme under the Sydney Demand Management Act 1997. Any penalties under the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995 would also apply.
The Bill will also allow for the Minister to vary the operation of the Compliance Scheme during exceptional circumstances. The collapse of Ansett and the aftermath of the tragic events on September 11, 2001 are illustrative examples of such exceptional circumstances.
The exercise of the power to modify the operation of the Scheme will be subject to the registration, tabling and sunset requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
The Bill also makes a number of minor technical and other administrative amendments to clarify and strengthen the slot management arrangements. With the passage of this Bill, changes will flow through to its associated Regulations and the Slot Management and Compliance Schemes. My Department is currently in the process of developing these regulations.
Changes which will further strengthen and clarify the operation of the Scheme include:
-
introduction of a regulation requiring the Slot Manager to provide improved reports and information so as to be accountable for slot allocation and gate movements
-
introduction of a regulation that will enable the Slot Manager to require operators to provide information and impose penalties for failure to comply
-
implementation of a new infringement notice regime for “no-slot” movements, and
-
increased penalties under the infringement notice regime applicable to both “no-slot” and “off-slot” gate movements
Since the Rudd Government came to office we have sought to protect the local community around Sydney Airport while allowing for growth in aviation. In particular, we have:
-
Reconstituted and reinvigorated the Sydney Airport Community Forum, making the membership more representative of those communities affected by aircraft noise;
-
Ensured Sydney Airport consults the local community on important runway safety works through a Major Development Plan process;
-
Maintained a firm line on the operation of the curfew;
-
Reaffirmed our commitment to the full implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport;
-
Reaffirmed the 80 movement cap at Sydney Airport will remain in place; and
-
Reaffirmed our commitment to ensure access by NSW Regional operators to Sydney Airport.
The Bill I have introduced today is another important reform ensuring the efficient operation of Sydney Airport while at the same time protecting the interests of the local community.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES No. 2) BILL 2008
This bill makes a number of improvements to Australia’s tax and superannuation laws.
Schedule 1 addresses a technical inconsistency in the tax law when an amount is misappropriated by an employee or agent after they dispose of an asset on behalf of a taxpayer.
Schedule 2 removes an anomaly in the superannuation guarantee system by extending the superannuation guarantee late payment offset. To reduce the incidence of employers having to pay the same superannuation amount twice, once as a penalty and once as the actual superannuation payment, the period within which an employer can make a contribution for their employee after the due date for making the payment and still be eligible to use the late payment offset is extended.
Schedule 3 amends the tax law to ensure that the market value substitution rule does not apply to certain CGT events.
The market value substitution rule ensures capital gains or losses are calculated with reference to the market value of a transaction rather than the actual amount paid. This, in certain circumstances, prevents taxpayers from manipulating the capital proceeds associated with a capital gains tax event, to either reduce capital gains or increase capital losses.
The bill ensures the rule will not apply where a share in a widely held company, or a unit in a widely held unit trust, is cancelled, surrendered or brought to an end in other similar ways when an arms length transaction has occurred.
This will provide consistency with C2 CGT events and result in fairer treatment of taxpayers who may otherwise end up with a tax bill larger than the proceeds of a cancellation of shares.
Schedule 4 provides an income tax exemption for the Endeavour Executive Award and for all research fellowships under this Award.
The amendments allow for consistent tax treatment of the research fellowships by making them all tax free regardless of the full or part time status of the recipients.
The program is an internationally competitive, merit-based scholarship program, administered by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This program brings leading researchers, executives and students to Australia to undertake study, research and professional development in a broad range of disciplines and enables Australians to do the same abroad.
Schedule 5 exempts from income tax the first $1,000 of eligible early completion bonuses paid by State or Territory governments to apprentices where certain conditions are met. For bonuses to qualify for the exemption apprenticeships must be in recognised skill shortage occupations and complete their courses within time frames specified in the regulations that will give effect to this measure.
Currently, only the Queensland Government pays an early completion bonus to apprentices.
Early completion bonuses seek to alleviate skill shortages in industries that are experiencing strong demand growth by providing an incentive to apprentices to complete their apprenticeships before time. In doing so, this measure will help reduce inflationary pressures caused by skill shortages and improve productivity.
Schedule 6 amends the list of deductible gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Deductible gift recipient status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities. Nine new organisations will be added as deductible gift recipients. Four organisations will have their deductible gift recipient status extended for an additional period of time.
These organisations provide an extremely valuable contribution in various areas of Australian society and I congratulate each of them for their fine work.
I would like to quickly acknowledge each of these organisations by listing the aims of each organisation. In doing so I believe it will become evident why these organisations deserve the support that this amendment will provide them.
The AE 2 Commemorative Foundation Ltd aims to ensure that the Australian World War I submarine HMAS AE 2, currently lying in the sea of Marmara, Turkey, is preserved and its role in the Gallipoli campaign is appropriately recognised.
The Ian Thorpe’s Fountain for youth Limited focuses on a range of activities such as:
improving the health and education outcomes of children, especially Indigenous children;
improving literacy as a step towards improving the health and life expectancy of children;
supporting Indigenous cultural education; and
supporting projects that help to establish or sustain viable business projects for Indigenous communities.
Wheelchairs for Kids Incorporated manufactures and distributes wheelchairs to disabled children in many developing countries.
The Amy Gillett Foundation aims to raise awareness of cyclist safety through the use of media. This Foundation’s efforts to raise awareness involve a range of communication strategies, conducting education, and funding research.
The Spirit of Australia Foundation is an educational organisation that encourages and facilitates research into, and the dissemination of, knowledge of Australian history and heritage.
The World Youth Day 2008 Trust is an international youth event to be held in Sydney in July 2008, and is hosted by the Sydney Catholic Archdiocese.
The Memorials Development Committee Ltd is an organisation established to develop, design and construct two separate, but complementary memorials to World War I and World War II in the Anzac Parade memorials precinct of the Australian Capital Territory.
The Council for Jewish Community Security was established to assist in the provision of security and protection for members and institutions of the Australian Jewish community.
Playgroup Australia Incorporated is an organisation which works in conjunction with the eight state and territory peak playgroup bodies to promote playgroup participation for all families with young children. It advocates learning through play and supporting parents through playgroups as an integral part of the early childhood experience.
The Dunn and Lewis Youth Development Foundation was established to assist with the building of a memorial complex dedicated to two victims of the Bali bombing. The complex will provide programs to address chronic issues affecting young people.
The Finding Sydney Foundation is an organisation formed to find the cruiser HMAS Sydney and the German raider HSK Kormoran and to ensure preservation of the war graves and to commemorate the memory with a virtual memorial.
As most would be aware, HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran were finally discovered in March this year, off the coast of Western Australia. The Finding Sydney Foundation will have its DGR listing extended to 1 July 2009 to enable it to help preserve the war graves and commemorate the memory of the men who were lost with these two ships in 1941.
The Xanana Vocational Education Trust aims to create a self sustaining vocational education system in Timor-Leste. It has initially focused on making distributions to institutions in Timor-Leste such as the Dili Institute of Technology.
Australia for United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established to raise funds in Australia for the UNHCR, and raise awareness locally about the plight of refugees.
Schedule 7 amends the law so that superannuation lump sums paid to persons with a terminal medical condition will be tax free. This change assists in relieving financial stress which terminally ill persons and their families may be suffering due to their situation. The amendments have effect for payments made on or after 1 July 2007.
Under the existing law, the taxation treatment of a lump sum paid from a superannuation fund depends on the age of the person receiving it and whether or not the benefit has previously been taxed in the fund. A lump sum paid from a taxed fund to a person below age 55 is taxed at a maximum rate of 21.5 per cent (including the Medicare levy).
Under the proposed change, a superannuation lump sum paid to a person who has a terminal medical condition will be tax free. The details of what constitutes a ‘terminal medical condition’ will be prescribed in regulations which will be made following the passage of this bill.
I note that the previous Government announced on 11 September 2007 that it would amend the tax law, with effect from 12 September 2007, so that superannuation lump sums paid from that date on to individuals with a terminal illness would be tax free. This bill, however, ensures that such superannuation lump sums will be tax free earlier from 1 July 2007. This will ensure more people with terminal illnesses will be able to withdraw superannuation tax free.
I thank the Member for Grayndler for bringing this to the attention of the previous Government and for campaigning so strongly on this issue.
Schedule 8, which like Schedules 5 and 6 was introduced by the former government in Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Measures No. 6) Bill 2007, provides a concession for the costs of establishing a carbon sink forest. This measure will encourage the establishment of carbon sink forests and, in turn, make an important contribution to carbon sequestration and deliver natural resource management benefits. Establishment costs will be immediately deductible for trees established in carbon sink forests in the 2007-08 to 2011-12 income years inclusive. After this initial period, establishment costs will be deductible over 14 years and 105 days at a rate of 7 per cent per annum.
To be eligible for the deduction, the taxpayer must be carrying on a business and the carbon sink forest must meet Environmental and Natural Resource Management Guidelines.
Separately to this bill, it is important to highlight that the Government is developing a national standard for robust and transparent carbon offsets. The standard will ensure consumer confidence in the carbon offset market and include minimum standards and appropriate verification protocols.
Unlike the opposition the Government takes the issue of climate change seriously. I am particularly proud to be a part of a Government that signed the Kyoto protocol—one of the first actions of the new government.
The measure contained in this bill is just one small step in the fight against climate change.
Schedule 9 extends the beneficiary tax offset to the Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payment.
This payment is made fortnightly to individuals who can demonstrate loss of their primary source of income, which is earned in the commercial horse racing industry, as a direct result of the Equine Influenza outbreak and its associated quarantine and movement restrictions. The amount of the payment varies depending on the applicant’s circumstances and may be equivalent to the single rate, couple rate or single with dependent child rate of the Newstart Allowance.
Extending the beneficiary tax offset to the Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payment will ensure consistent taxation treatment with the Newstart Allowance, and applies to payments of the Equine Workers Hardship Wage Supplement Payment received in the 2007-08 income year.
A number of workers and businesses in the horse racing industry have suffered financially as a result of the equine influenza outbreak of last year. Workers involved in commercial horse-dependent industries, who have lost their job or most of their income, and sole-traders whose incomes have effectively ceased such as transport operators and riding coaches, have been eligible to receive the equivalent of Newstart Allowance. This will ensure that no tax is payable on the payment if the only income received by the recipient is the Payment.
Schedule 10 provides tax free status to grants under the Tobacco Growers Adjustment Assistance Programme 2006, to tobacco growers who undertake to exit all agricultural enterprises for at least five years. The grants are being paid following the loss of a market in Australia for domestically grown tobacco. This measure assists tobacco growers to adjust to the fundamental change in their market and to develop alternative businesses.
Tobacco growers can receive up to $150,000 under the Tobacco Growers Adjustment Assistance Program to assist them to exit the tobacco growing industry and move into alternative business activities. In 2006, legal tobacco production ceased in Australia, the last state in which tobacco production ceased was Victoria. Licences to produce tobacco can only be issued by the ATO where a grower has formal arrangements to sell tobacco to manufacturers and there are currently no licences on issue.
Ensuring these payments are tax free will ensure that tobacco growers receive the full benefit of the grants to help them move into other industries.
Schedule 11 makes minor technical amendments to the early withdrawal provisions to the farm management deposits scheme. The changes will align the tax law with the current practice for declaring either all primary producers in a geographical area, or specified primary producers within a geographical area, to be in exceptional circumstances.
This amendment will improve the farm management deposit scheme by ensuring that all primary producers, who are eligible for early withdrawal due to exceptional circumstances, will retain the tax benefits.
It is particularly important to assist farmers where we can who are suffering from the drought.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2008 MEASURES No. 3) BILL 2008
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
Schedule 1 amends the income tax law to restore the original tax treatment of rights issued by companies to shareholders to acquire additional shares. This will overcome the impact of the High Court of Australia’s decision in Commissioner of Taxation versus McNeil.
McNeils case overturned long standing tax treatment in relation to put options which has caused great uncertainty in the market. The changes in schedule 1 will provide certainty to the market as to the tax treatment of put options and call options which will allow companies to continue to raise capital through the use of such options.
These amendments will ensure that no amount is included in the assessable income of a shareholder in a company as a result of acquiring certain rights issued by the company to acquire further shares.
The amendments will also ensure that an amount that is included in the assessable income of a shareholder, as a result of acquiring rights issued by the company to dispose of shares, is appropriately reflected in the cost base of the rights.
To ensure that taxpayers are not disadvantaged, these amendments will apply to rights issued on or after 1 July 2001.
Schedule 2 amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to overcome a deficiency in the scope of the restriction of GST refunds following the Federal Court of Australia decision in KAP Motors versus the Commissioner of Taxation. The restriction of GST refunds will apply regardless of whether transactions giving rise to a refund are supplies for GST purposes.
This Schedule also amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to overcome a deficiency in the four-year time limit on payment and refund of indirect taxes and ensures that it applies as intended to bring finality and certainty to the indirect tax affairs of taxpayers.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the revised explanatory memorandum.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
This bill makes a number of important improvements to the tax law.
First, it improves the fairness and integrity of the fringe benefits tax system.
Second, it restores the intent of the tax treatment of employee share scheme arrangements.
And third, it aligns the period over which taxpayers can write-off depreciable in-house software with that for computer hardware.
These measures are part of a Budget that has delivered significant reform of tax expenditures to improve productivity, fairness and integrity in the tax system.
The Government has moved with the times on this.
A major theme of the 2020 Summit was the need for a tax system that is fair, simple and efficient.
I quote the following from the initial Summit report:
‘Australia needs a tax system that supports the global competitiveness of our economy, provides incentives, minimises distortions and supports fiscal responsibility.’
Reforming tax concessions is an important step in this direction.
This bill restores the original intent of the FBT law by tightening the arrangements for eligible work related items, and property consumed on an employer’s premises.
The FBT law currently exempts certain work related items.
With the exception of mobile phones, computer software and protective clothing, there is no requirement that these items be used for work purposes in order to be FBT exempt.
The FBT exemption was introduced in 1995. At the time it was thought that generally any private use would be incidental.
Since then, changes in technology have meant that certain items are commonly acquired for personal use.
Laptops are one example.
The FBT exemption allows employees to enter into tax-effective arrangements to acquire these items out of their pre-tax income.
The amendments restore the original policy intent to restrict the FBT exemption to items used primarily for employment.
The exemption will also be limited to one item of each type per employee each FBT year, unless it is a replacement item.
The list of eligible work related items will also be updated for technological changes.
This will remove uncertainty for taxpayers, industry and the Australian Taxation Office as to whether electronic devices with more than one function are FBT exempt.
The amendments also remove depreciation for FBT exempt items purchased after 7.30 pm Australian Eastern Standard Time 13 May 2008.
This addresses a double tax benefit under the existing law whereby an employee can claim depreciation for an item that is also FBT free.
For items purchased before that time, depreciation will be removed for the 2008-09 and later income years.
The Government is also tightening the FBT exemption for the private use of business property.
With a meal card, an employer pays for employee meals provided by a third party located on, or delivering to, the employer’s premises.
An employee can salary sacrifice a meal card to purchase lunch, coffee and other consumption items out of their pre-tax income.
The amendments will exclude meals from the FBT exemption where they are provided as part of a salary sacrifice arrangement.
This restores the intended policy and improves equity in the treatment of employee remuneration.
Genuine staff canteens will not be affected.
The measure may also promote greater competition between meal providers.
This is because it removes a disincentive for employees to shop around for the best price or quality available for meals.
The bill also amends the income tax law to close a loophole in the employee share scheme provisions and address double taxation.
Amending the election requirements in the employee share scheme provisions will stop taxpayers manipulating when they have a tax liability for discounts on employee shares or rights.
This will ensure discounts are properly included in assessable income.
An employee will be required to make an election by including the value of the discount in their income tax return.
The amount must be included in the income year they acquire the shares or rights.
The second change will remove double taxation where certain employee share schemes use an employee share trust.
The amendments will ensure that the trustee or beneficiary of the trust can access CGT relief.
Schedule 2 amends the tax law to extend the write-off period for in-house software from 2½ to four years.
This is the same as the Tax Commissioner’s safe harbour period for computer hardware.
The amount deductible is unchanged, but the write-off period is extended by 18 months.
If the software is scrapped before four years, the business will still get an immediate write-off for the remainder under the existing tax law.
Small businesses are generally not likely to be impacted by the measure.
Businesses that pay an annual licence fee for their software generally won’t be affected.
The amendments in this bill help restore fairness to the tax system and contribute to funding the Government’s key priorities for the future.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE THRESHOLDS) BILL 2008
This bill will increase the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds for individuals and families.
The Medicare levy surcharge imposes a one per cent increase in Medicare levy liability on certain individuals who do not have appropriate private patient hospital cover. For the 2007-08 income year individuals with taxable income over $50,000 and couples with a combined income over $100,000 may be liable for the surcharge.
This bill increases these thresholds to $100,000 for singles and to $150,000 for couples and families.
The Medicare levy surcharge imposes an additional one per cent Medicare levy on taxpayers who do not have private patient hospital cover.
When the Medicare levy surcharge was introduced, the policy was targeted at high-income earners.
At the time, Health Minister Michael Wooldridge said:
“High income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare Levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance. These are the people who can afford to purchase health insurance.”
But the income thresholds for the Medicare Levy Surcharge have not been changed since 1997 but since 1997 average weekly earnings have increased significantly.
This measure simply increases the thresholds to an income level around which they originally applied in 1997.
However, Dr Nelson devoted a whole section of his budget reply to rail against tax bracket creep.
He said “We know that as incomes rise over time, and workers move into higher tax brackets, the value of income tax cuts will be eroded in the future. Economists call this “bracket creep”. We call it tax increase on the sly”
What Dr Nelson ignores is that more and more people on average wages have also been required to pay the Medicare surcharge. That is, bracket creep has done them in.
To put this into perspective, around 8 per cent of single taxpayers are estimated to have exceeded the Medicare Levy Surcharge threshold in 1997-98, when it was introduced.
Under the changes announced in the Budget this proportion will be restored to around 8.5 per cent (at the end of the forwards) of single taxpayers likely to exceed the new singles threshold in three to four years.
The increase in the thresholds which will help reduce financial pressure on many working families who would have previously been subject to the Medicare levy surcharge.
This measure provides real choice. Taxpayers can choose whether to take out private health insurance without the imposition of a penalty unless they are on high incomes.
The amendments will apply to the 2008-09 year of income and later income years.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend this bill.
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2008
I am pleased to present legislation that further improves the operation of Australia’s repatriation system.
This is in line with the Government’s election commitment to deliver better services to the ex-service community in Australia.
The bill will provide greater flexibility in our international agreements with other countries, to help provide appropriate care to the veterans of those nations now resident in Australia.
It will also enact measures to further align the income and assets tests under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with the social security income and assets tests and to make a number of minor technical amendments.
The bill will extend the availability of treatment for cancer for Commonwealth or Australian Federal Police officers involved in the British nuclear test program.
In addition, the bill will address potential anomalies in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to ensure that wholly dependent partners receive the correct amount of war widow or widower pension and that incapacitated members of the Australian Defence Force receive the correct amount of compensation.
Finally, this bill will make a number of technical amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The changes to international agreement arrangements will enhance the Department’s ability to provide assistance and benefits to veterans of Britain, New Zealand, Canada and other Commonwealth nations who are resident in Australia and receive entitlements under the repatriation system of their home country.
The Repatriation Commission has a number of agreements to act as the agent for other countries in providing pensions and health services for accepted disabilities.
This legislation will authorise the use of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the initial payment of benefits and assistance to eligible overseas veterans and their dependants who are resident in Australia.
These amounts will then be reimbursed by the respective foreign Governments, to the maximum extent possible.
A second measure will transfer the power to make such agreements from the Governor-General to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.
The current arrangements for making agreements with other Governments date back to the years after the First World War.
They do not take account of the significant changes in administration and policy since.
This amendment will enable the Minister to make agreements that reflect best business practices.
The third measure will remove the current restriction that limits the Repatriation Commission to providing the same benefits to a veteran that they would be entitled to receive in their own country. Veterans’ health services are provided by different countries in different ways. These also are generally different to the way that Australia provides repatriation health services.
Meeting the strict requirements of the current limitation is cumbersome and expensive. These amendments will provide much greater flexibility to offer eligible overseas veterans the care and assistance they need, in a way that is consistent with the repatriation health care arrangements.
This bill will enhance the support provided to some 6,300 overseas veterans and dependants resident in Australia.
Changes to the income support provisions will exclude certain scholarships awarded on or after 1 September 1990 and disability expenses maintenance from the definition of income under the VEA income test.
A second measure will exclude from the assets test the value of any person’s native title rights and interests and any amount that a person has retained from a payment made by the Mark Fitzpatrick Trust.
The bill will also exclude from the deprivation provisions under the income test, any amounts of rental income less than the market value which pensioners choose not to receive from family members.
The first two measures are expected to have little impact on the veteran community, but will ensure the VEA means test is consistent with the social security means test.
The third measure will make sure that Veterans’ Affairs income support recipients are not penalised if they assist their families with accommodation.
Changes to coverage for nuclear test participants will extend the period for which Commonwealth or Australian Federal Police officers may be considered to be a nuclear test participant for the purposes of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006.
This Act provides treatment, including testing, for cancers suffered by eligible participants in the British nuclear testing program conducted at locations including Maralinga.
The Act already covers Commonwealth or Australian Federal Police officers who patrolled the Maralinga Exclusion Zone up until 30 April 1965.
Scientific evidence indicates that the nature of police duties meant that these officers continued to be exposed to possible contamination at this site until 1988, when a radiation safety monitoring program began.
This bill will extend assistance for nuclear test participants to include Commonwealth Police or AFP officers who took part in patrols at Maralinga up until 30 June 1988.
It is estimated that up to 100 police personnel may become eligible for assistance as a result of this extension.
These eligible participants will be able to claim reimbursement for treatment and travel costs dating back to 19 June 2006, when assistance for nuclear test participants originally became available.
However, they will have only six months from the commencement of the amendments to claim any back-dated costs, so it will be important that they check their eligibility with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
The Department will be writing to any known Commonwealth or Australian Federal Police participants.
DVA also will contact the Australian Federal Police Association to alert other current or former members who may be eligible for this assistance.
Finally, changes to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will correct potential anomalies in the provisions applying to wholly dependent partners of deceased members and to incapacitated members eligible for compensation.
In the course of applying the Act, the Department has identified anomalies that might affect the amount of compensation paid in certain circumstances.
These amendments will ensure that widowed partners and incapacitated members receive the correct compensation payments to which they are entitled under the MRCA.
We came to Government with a commitment to provide robust services and support to Australia’s ex-service community.
That commitment includes continuing to review the operation of Australia’s repatriation and military compensation and rehabilitation systems.
This legislation will strengthen support in a number of areas, to ensure that the assistance available through the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio is efficient, effective, equitable and fair.
DEFENCE HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE SCHEME BILL 2008
I am pleased to present the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008.
The measures contained in the bill are consistent with the government’s pre-election commitment to support the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme as announced at the 2007-08 Budget.
May I point out however, that despite its title, this bill is primarily a retention initiative aimed at encouraging serving members to remain in service.
The bill does that by providing subsidy on interest payments on mortgages after four years service, with increased loan limits after eight years and again after 12 years service. For reserves the key periods are 8, 12 and 16 years service.
However, given the generosity of this new scheme it should also significantly improve home ownership levels within the ADF which have traditionally been low due to the nature of service. To some extent therefore, housing policy is also being addressed, even though it is not the central purpose of the bill.
The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008 will provide eligible Australian Defence Force members with access to contemporary and relevant home ownership assistance that reflects the current and future home loan markets.
As such it is a dramatic improvement on the current scheme which is limited to one provider and is capped at $80,000 which has long been inadequate and should have been replaced at least a decade ago. Indeed in the last few years we have seen the current scheme extended twice pending the development of this policy.
The home ownership assistance benefits provided in this bill will be available to all eligible members of the ADF who are serving on or after 1 July 2008. Former ADF members will continue to have access to benefits available to them under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990.
The provisions of this bill, despite their prime focus on the need for urgent new retention measures, should therefore be considered in the broader housing context. Members of the ADF have access to a wide range of housing and accommodation assistance
This includes generous rental assistance for high quality housing provided by the Defence Housing Authority.
It also includes benefits for the reimbursement of reasonable costs associated with the sale of a house and purchase of a new house on relocation to another base. That is, conveyancing fees, stamp duty, agents’ costs and bank charges.
These are long standing benefits provided in response to the requirement for ADF members and their families to relocate frequently in order to meet Defence capability requirements.
The policy is based on a long standing acceptance that home ownership assistance is an provided to ADF members in response to the additional difficulties that ADF members and their families have in purchasing a home as a result of the nature of their service.
This bill retains many of the eligibility criteria contained within legislation applying to the existing schemes. However, a number of significant enhancements are to be introduced.
The qualifying period for Permanent ADF members will be reduced from 5 years to 4 years while the 8 year qualifying period for members of the Reserve Force will be retained.
The bill will provide the means to maintain parity of the assistance with changing housing and home finance markets. The assistance will be based on housing price index data available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and on home loan interest rates as they vary from time to time.
Further, the interest subsidy while set for 20 years, will be extended for a maximum of five years more for warlike service over 9 months in aggregate, on a pro rata basis to that capped limit.
The deemed interest rate that will apply to the benefit will be capped by regulation under this bill at the time that the new scheme commences. The bill will provide the Minister, or his delegate, with the power to determine by legislative instrument variations in the benefit available to ADF members as a result in movement in the relevant market indicators.
I would also like to make special mention of the provisions made for those who are disabled on service or who lose their life. Members who leave the ADF as a result of a compensable condition have the qualifying period waived and are guaranteed subsidy for at least eight years with a loan limit of forty percent of the average house price. If they have served for more than eight years, the member receives a subsidy based on their length of service.
The surviving partner of a deceased eligible member can receive the same subsidy for which the member was eligible at the time of their death. In the event that a deceased member is not eligible because service was less than four years, that qualifying period is waived and the widow is entitled to the minimum 40% for eight years – where the death was compensable.
This bill also provides ADF members with flexibility and choice in regard to housing finance. Rather than one sole supplier as is currently the case with the NAB, ADF members will have access to a panel of three home loan providers selected through a competitive tender process and the full range of home loans provided by each of the selected loan providers.
The three selected providers are NAB, The Australian Defence Credit Union and the Defence Force Credit Union. Further, the products on offer are required to be equal or better than other products in the market.
I should also mention that to assist in the funding of the interest subsidy, a fee is payable to consolidated revenue by each of the selected tenderers. That has enabled the subsidy to be more generous than it might otherwise have been, utilising the bargaining power of a considerable bundle of mortgages to a relatively secure class of borrowers.
The bill also provides for the appointment of a Scheme Administrator who has been selected through a competitive tender process. The Scheme Administrator will be responsible for the day to day operation of the scheme including the determination of ADF member eligibility and entitlement.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has been selected by tender as the new scheme administrator. That Department replaces the Defence Housing Authority which administers the current scheme on contract, but which was unsuccessful in the tender process.
Subject to the criteria set out in the bill, the Secretary of the Department of Defence may issue subsidy certificates to eligible persons or cancel payment of the assistance. This bill provides the Secretary with the power to delegate authority in this regard. ADF members will have the right to seek review of decisions made by a delegate in regard to eligibility for the assistance.
This bill provides a special appropriation to the Department of Defence for the payment of subsidy to eligible persons and for related fringe benefits tax. The 2008-09 Budget provided net funding for the scheme of $988.965 Million over the period 2008-09 to 2017-18.
On-going operation of the scheme, as proposed in this bill will be subject to an implementation review after 4 years with Defence reporting on the outcome of the review within the 2012-13 Budget context.
The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008 will provide home ownership assistance to ADF members and their families that is reflective of the contemporary and future housing and finance markets and, in conjunction with other initiatives being introduced, contribute significantly to the recruitment and retention of ADF members.
Due to the complexity of this policy there has been some delay in introducing this legislation, but with an imperative that the new scheme be operational by 1 July.
This has meant that some implementation processes have been fast tracked, in particular the finalisation of agreements with the three loan providers selected after an open market tendering competition.
It has been necessary to sign deeds of agreement with each of those providers in advance of this legislation being passed and proclaimed – but subject to both those events.
To that end may I express my appreciation to the Opposition spokesman, the Member for Paterson, for acknowledging that necessity.
Finally, can I also welcome this new policy for those in the ADF wanting to buy their own home. They have been waiting a long time and I am very pleased to be able to deliver it on behalf of he Rudd Labor Government.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
DEFENCE HOME OWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE SCHEME (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
I am pleased to present the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008.
The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 deals with the consequential matters in connection with the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008, upon which I have just spoken.
The bill makes amendments to the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990 and the Defence Service Homes Act 1918, which are required as a result of the measures contained in the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008.
This bill, together with the rules under the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008, will provide for eligible persons to transition into the new scheme. It will close the scheme established under the Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act 1990 to serving members who have not yet exercised their benefits under that scheme. The bill will extend the operation of that scheme for former members until 30 June 2010.
Serving members who are eligible under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 may also apply to join and receive benefits under the new scheme.
The amendments will ensure that a subsidy is payable only under one scheme. The effect of joining the new scheme is that eligible persons cannot return to either of the existing schemes once the subsidy has become payable under the new scheme.
I commend the bill.
EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONDENSATE) BILL 2008
This bill amends the Excise Act 1901, the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987, and the Petroleum Revenue Act 1985.
These amendments are made to facilitate the policy change which will be outlined in the bill I will introduce in a moment.
The Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 amends, inter alia, the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 to facilitate setting the condensate price for excise purposes. The arrangements for setting the price for condensate are the same as the current arrangements for setting the crude oil price for excise purposes.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (CONDENSATE) BILL 2008
This bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to apply the crude oil excise regime to condensate produced in the North West Shelf project area and onshore Australia. Condensate is a light crude oil extracted from natural gas.
This measure has the effect of removing the current exemption of condensate from the crude oil excise regime.
This measure applies to condensate produced after midnight —Canberra time —on 13 May 2008.
Currently, the crude oil excise applies to crude oil produced from petroleum fields located in the North West Shelf project area—off the coast of Western Australia—and onshore Australia.
The excise is levied as a percentage of the value of crude oil produced from petroleum fields. The first 30 million barrels of crude oil produced from a field is exempt from crude oil excise. This exemption applies to cumulative production from each petroleum field.
The Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 applies the crude oil excise regime to condensate at the rates currently applied to crude oil produced from fields discovered after 18 September 1975.
The top rate of crude oil excise, which will be applied to the value of condensate production, is 30 per cent. This rate applies once annual production reaches just over five million barrels in a year.
This bill introduces provisions to exempt from excise the first 30 million barrels of condensate produced from a field. Production of condensate from a petroleum field prior to midnight on 13 May 2008 will contribute towards meeting this threshold before the crude oil excise becomes payable.
This measure allows the Australian community to share more fairly in the benefits from allowing the extraction of non-renewable energy resources located in the North West Shelf project area and onshore.
The exemption of condensate from the crude oil excise was introduced in 1977 to encourage the development of petroleum resources located in the North West Shelf project.
Since the commencement of the North West Shelf project stakeholders have benefited very substantially from this concession.
As the development of petroleum fields in this region is now reaching maturity, and the world prices for non-renewable energy resources are high, there is no need to retain this generous concession.
Given the similarity between condensate and crude oil, the two commodities should be taxed in a similar manner. It should be noted that the North West Shelf gas project participants will continue to benefit from the 2001 reduction in the top rate of crude oil excise.
Imposing excise on condensate will result in a reduction in royalties payable to the Western Australian government. This is because crude oil excise payments are a deductible expense for calculating the offshore petroleum royalty.
The Australian government will provide the Western Australian government with ongoing compensation for the loss of shared offshore petroleum royalty revenue resulting from imposing the crude oil excise on condensate.
The government will make an initial payment of $80 million to the Western Australian government as compensation for reduced revenue in 2007-08. Payments in future years will be adjusted to equal the impact of removing the condensate exemption on royalty payments to Western Australia.
This measure generates substantial annual revenue for the budget, estimated at $2.5 billion over the period to 2011-12. It makes a significant contribution to the government’s fiscal discipline.
Moreover, it increases the return to the Australian community for allowing private interests to extract non-renewable energy resources located in the North West Shelf project area and onshore Australia.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
NATIONAL FUELWATCH (EMPOWERING CONSUMERS) BILL 2008
Introduction and overview
It is with great pleasure that I rise to introduce this bill to create a national Fuelwatch scheme.
The creation of a national Fuelwatch Scheme will finally put power back into the hands of Australian motorists.
This bill will introduce a National Fuelwatch (Fuelwatch) scheme to address the existing retail fuel price transparency imbalance between retailers and consumers. It will empower consumers in, and improve the operation of, the retail petrol market.
The stated object of the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill is to provide intra-day price stability and decrease search costs for consumers. The Act contains a number of provisions to enable the effective and efficient operation of Fuelwatch and to provide consumers with greater information at the bowser.
Background to the bill
For too long the motorists of Australia have been disadvantaged in their purchasing decisions by the actions of petrol retailers.
For too long the motorists of Australia have lacked the tools necessary to make informed choices as to where to buy the cheapest fuel on any given day.
For too long the big petrol retailers have held all the cards. No longer.
Today, the Government introduces a Bill to assist motorists in buying the cheapest petrol, at the cheapest petrol stations, at the cheapest times.
Fuelwatch will give motorists highly detailed and up-to-date information about local petrol prices to help motorists avoid being ripped off.
No longer will motorists drive past a petrol station in the morning only to return in the afternoon to find a 10 cent per litre jump in the price of petrol.
Rather than guessing the best time and the best place to buy petrol, consumers will know where and when to buy the cheapest petrol in town.
On 15 June 2007, the former Government agreed to the holding of a price inquiry by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) into the price of unleaded petrol, pursuant to section 95H( subsection 2) of Part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act.
On 18 December 2008, the ACCC released its report ‘Petrol Prices and Australian Consumers: Report of the ACCC inquiry into the price of unleaded petrol. In this report, the ACCC concluded that there was an imbalance in price transparency between buyers and sellers in Australia. It identified three options for addressing the retail price information imbalance, including the introduction of a Fuelwatch scheme.
While the ACCC identified three options to address the relative imbalance in price transparency, the only viable option to address both the price information imbalance and price volatility in the form of intra-day movements is the adoption of increased pricing information and price commitment rules in the form of Fuelwatch.
On 15 April 2008, the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of Fuelwatch to empower consumers and encourage transparency in the fuel market.
Fuelwatch is proposed to commence nationally on the 15 December 2008.
Provisions of the bill
Fuelwatch will apply to petrol retailers that offer motor fuel for retail sale. Fuels covered by this scheme are those defined as suitable for use in an internal combustion engine. As the Government has already announced, this would include unleaded petrol, premium unleaded petrol, LPG, diesel, 98 RON and biodiesel blends.
Fuelwatch will apply to metropolitan and major rural and regional areas. The legislation provides for this initial coverage to be specified by regulation.
Furthermore, to ensure that other regional and rural areas have the opportunity to become part of Fuelwatch, the bill enables the Minister to make further declarations, to expand or adjust the coverage of the scheme as required.
In making the declaration, the bill provides that the Minister must have regard to:
the size of the locality; its population; the number of vehicles in the locality; the number of service stations; the ownership and operating arrangements for service stations; and submissions made by the relevant local government body.
This will ensure that Fuelwatch can increase price transparency, wherever it is needed in Australia.
The crux of the Fuelwatch scheme is the requirement for petrol retailers to notify the ACCC of their intended price for the next day.
This must be done by 2pm on the immediately preceding day. Commencing from 6am the following day, petrol retailers are required to maintain this notified price for a 24-hour period.
However, if a petrol retailer has not changed their price from the previous day, they will not be required to notify the ACCC of their price. The bill deems this price to be their notified price automatically.
For its part, the ACCC will be required to publish notified prices from petrol retailers on a dedicated website. This information will be publicly available each day by 4pm. The bill also enables the ACCC to approve other methods of publication of this price information.
Civil penalties will apply if a petrol retailer notifies the ACCC of a price, but does not sell fuel at all times during the fixed price period; or if a petrol retailer notifies the ACCC of its price for fuel, but sells that fuel at another price.
The requirement to sell the fuel at, and not above or below, the notified price is crucial to the design of the Fuelwatch scheme. Without it, retailers could simply notify a price well above their intended retail price, and subvert the purpose of the scheme in providing greater transparency.
The bill provides the ACCC with the ability to give a person an infringement notice, if it breaches key provisions of the bill. The ACCC has the discretion not to issue an infringement notice. The infringement notice regime provides the ACCC with sufficient flexibility to make a proportionate response in relation to breaches of the bill.
Conclusion
At a time of record world oil prices it is incumbent upon the Government to do everything in its power to assist motorists.
It is not a time for stunts or economically irresponsible gimmicks.
It is a time to introduce real initiatives to empower consumers and drive transparency.
This is a reform designed to give motorists a fair go that they’ve missed out on for so long.
Up until now motorists have been disadvantaged – they have not been able to access information on where to get cheap petrol – and if they do have access to some price service the information is out of date by the time they get to the station because the price may have changed 2 or 3 times.
Just like the woman who emailed me to complain that the price of petrol had jumped 15 cents while she was waiting in the queue.
At present the oil companies have all the information and motorists have none.
At present petrol retailers subscribe to a website known as Informed Sources where they share information every 15 minutes on their own and their competitors’ prices.
The ACCC inquiry into petrol prices had this to say about Informed Sources: “the direct exchange of price information between suppliers is conducive to anti-competitive coordination”.
Fuelwatch is designed to redress this imbalance.
With Fuelwatch, companies are obliged to sell at their best possible price or else risk being out of the market for a 24 hour period with a price which is higher than their competitors’ prices.
This means motorists benefit.
Retailers must put forward the best possible price if they are to retain business.
Motorists will be able to conveniently find the cheapest petrol via the Fuelwatch website, or by SMS or email alerts.
Just as over 30,000 West Australian motorists do receive an email every day from WA FuelWatch. In Western Australia the FuelWatch website gets approximately 200,000 hits per month proving how highly valued this system is as a consumer tool.
FuelWatch has been in operation successfully in Western Australia for 7 years and the benefits to motorists are clear.
The ACCC inquiry had this to say about the operation of FuelWatch in Western Australia: “the publication of petrol prices on the FuelWatch website and reporting of prices in the media have increased price transparency for consumers in the market for petrol in Western Australia”.
One of the key tenets of a well functioning market is the ability of all participants to have access to transparent information.
This is at the heart of Fuelwatch.
Under Fuelwatch, motorists will be able to map out their route to and from work or for any other journey and see where the cheapest petrol is for that day or the next.
Motorists will be able to decide when and where to buy petrol based on perfect, real time information.
This means, that the days of driving past a petrol station in the morning and noticing a price, and returning, perhaps on your way home from work, shocked to see a price 10 or 15 cents higher will be gone under Fuelwatch.
Price savvy motorists will stand to be some of the biggest winners from the introduction of Fuelwatch.
That’s because they like to shop around for a bargain and with Fuelwatch they will be able to do exactly that.
On any given day there is on average a 15c per litre difference between the cheapest and most expensive fuel in a city – this means that price sensitive motorists will know exactly where they can save 15c and will make their purchasing decisions accordingly.
Fuelwatch will empower motorists by giving them access to greater transparency on petrol prices.
The econometric analyses undertaken by the ACCC also indicates that Fuelwatch can have a positive effect on prices at the bowser as well.
The ACCC report found “the main finding from this econometric analysis is that the average of the price margin reduced by a statistically significant amount for Perth relative to the Eastern capitals in the time since the introduction of FuelWatch”.
The ACCC report concluded that comparing relative price levels between Perth and the eastern states before and after the introduction of FuelWatch, prices in Perth were around 1.9 cents per litre less on average for the period from January 2001 to June 2007 than for the period from August 1998 to December 2000. Using the low points of the week’s prices rather than simple weekly average prices, the price difference was around 0.9 cents per litre on average.
And as the ACCC found in relation to the low points of the price cycle, “The results are also robust to using the low points of the week’s prices”. Also a benefit to price sensitive motorists.
Fuelwatch is one the most empowering tools for consumers ever debated in this house.
It will provide the transparency and reductions in intra-day price volatility that motorists have been crying out for.
It will redress the imbalance that the big oil retailers currently enjoy over motorists.
It will allow consumers to take purchasing decisions into their own hands.
And, it will assist motorists in buying the cheapest petrol, at the cheapest petrol stations, at the cheapest times.
NATIONAL FUELWATCH (EMPOWERING CONSUMERS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
The National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 makes amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 that promote the effective operation of the National Fuelwatch regime, provided for under the National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008.
The bill makes amendments to the Trade Practices Act in relation to a number of matters. It provide an ability for the ACCC to delegate any of its powers under the bill, to assist with the efficient operation of the Fuelwatch scheme
The bill gives the Minister the ability to direct the ACCC in relation to its functions or powers under the Fuelwatch scheme.
The ACCC’s search and seizure powers, provided for under the Trade Practices Act, are specifically applied to its enforcement of Fuelwatch.
Similarly, ACCC’s powers to obtain information, documents and evidence are applied to suspected contraventions of the Fuelwatch scheme.
Finally, the important protections provided for information obtained by the ACCC through its search and seizure or information gathering powers to the bill are carried over into the Fuelwatch regime.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BUNKER OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE) BILL 2008
The Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008 will give effect to Australia’s commitment to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, generally known as the Bunkers Convention.
The Bunkers Convention will come into force internationally on 21 November 2008.
It ensures that compensation will be available for anybody who suffers damage or loss as a result of the leaking of bunker oil from a ship, other than an oil tanker.
Oil tankers will continue to be dealt with under separate legislation.
I will be introducing the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill shortly to increase compensation payable from an oil spill from an oil tanker.
Bunker oil is a heavy fuel oil that creates significant pollution impacts and is difficult to clean up.
Some large cargo ships carry several thousand tonnes of bunker oil which, in the event of a spill, risk causing serious harm to wildlife, particularly sea birds, and coastal communities.
This legislation requires ships carrying bunker oil to be adequately insured and changes the onus of proof in regard to compensation bids relating to oil spills.
It complements the high safety standards applied to ships trading on the Australian coast and entering Australian ports.
This legislation is good news for people concerned about the risk to the environment of oil spills.
The previous Government signed up to the Convention, subject to ratification, on 23 September 2002, but did not introduce legislation to give effect to this commitment.
In 2006, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that “Australia take binding treaty action” in relation to the Convention.
I am pleased to today be introducing this important legislation, joining the twenty countries that have already legislated to ratify the Convention.
These countries include the United Kingdom, Singapore, Germany, Greece and Spain.
This legislation will mean that victims of bunker oil pollution will no longer have to prove that the shipowner was at fault in order to receive compensation.
Until now, shipowners have only been liable for payment of compensation if it can be shown that the owner was at fault.
This bill will ensure that compensation is available even if the oil spill was accidental.
This provides certainty to those involved in the clean up, as well as affected industries, such as tourism, aquaculture and fishing.
At the same time, the liability of shipowners will not be unlimited.
Liability will be based on the size of the ship. The larger the ship, the more bunker oil they carry; hence their greater liability.
To ensure that shipowners are able to meet compensation costs, the bill requires owners of ships with a gross tonnage greater than 1,000 to be insured.
Compliance will be enforced through the checking of documentation at ports to ensure that they have adequate insurance.
If a ship is found to not have adequate insurance, it may be detained and may not be permitted to leave the port until it has obtained the required evidence of insurance.
Significant penalties will apply to the registered owner and master if a ship leaves port prior to being released from detention.
This bill also provides persons suffering pollution damage with a right of “direct action” against the insurer.
That is, they can seek compensation directly from the shipowner’s insurer rather than being required to submit the claim to the shipowner who, in some cases, may have no assets other than the ship.
This provides greater certainty to victims of bunker oil pollution damage that they will receive prompt, adequate and effective compensation.
Let me give an example of a recent instance in which the Convention would apply.
The most significant bunker oil spill in Australia recent years occurred on 24 January 2006, when approximately 25 tonnes of bunker oil was spilt from the bulk carrier Global Peace while it was approaching its berth at the coal loading facility at Gladstone in Queensland.
The spill occurred as a result of the collision between the Global Peace and one of its attending tugs after the tug suffered an engine failure.
Fortunately in this case damage was limited to several mangrove areas and only one bird died as a result of the spill.
However, had damage been more widespread, those impacted would have, under this bill, been able to access compensation without having to prove that the Global Peace was at fault.
Under existing legislation, they would have faced a lengthy legal process to attempt to establish that the shipowner was at fault.
For the sake of Australia’s environment, those that rely on the sea to make a living and those that live in coastal towns, this is important legislation.
It is also important from a global perspective because our participation will add to support of the Convention and will encourage more countries to participate.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR BUNKER OIL POLLUTION DAMAGE) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
The purpose of this bill is to amend three existing Acts consequential upon the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008 (the Bunker Oil Bill).
The Bunker Oil Bill will give effect to Australia’s commitment to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, generally known as the Bunkers Convention.
The Convention will come into force internationally on 21 November 2008.
Amendments to the Admiralty Act 1988 will confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court and State and Territory Supreme Courts to hear and determine matters arising under the Bunker Oil Bill.
Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 will ensure that there is no duplication of insurance requirements between that Act and the Bunker Oil Bill.
Amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 are intended to ensure that, even if the owner or master of a ship is the subject of a direction under that Act, the registered owner of the ship will remain liable for compensation costs under the Bunker Oil Bill and there will be no effect on court proceedings under the Bunker Oil Bill.
I commend the bill.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (LUXURY CAR TAX) BILL 2008
This bill increases the luxury car tax rate from 25 per cent to 33 per cent to apply on and from 1 July 2008. The government recognises that, if everyone pays their fair share of tax, and we plug the gaps in the system, we can reduce the overall tax burden imposed on working families.
This increase was announced in the 2008-09 Budget as part of the government’s package of measures to enhance fairness in the tax system. The government believes that Australians who can afford luxury vehicles have the capacity to contribute to revenue at a higher rate than other car buyers. Additionally the measure is expected to contribute to the necessary task of ensuring that the budget relieves pressure on inflation. The measure is expected to raise $555 million in additional revenue over the forward estimates.
Since 1979, successive Australian governments have imposed an additional tax on luxury vehicles. The luxury car tax was introduced on 1 July 2000 when the GST was introduced and the wholesale sales tax abolished.
Luxury car tax applies to cars whose price, including GST, exceeds the luxury car tax threshold, which is currently $57,123.
The luxury car tax rate applies to the value of the car, excluding GST, that is greater than the luxury car tax threshold.
Certain types of cars are exempt from the tax. This includes most commercial vehicles, most second hand cars, motor homes, campervans, and prescribed emergency vehicles. We are not changing these arrangements.
There are existing exemptions in the law to ensure that GST and luxury car tax do not apply to modifications for transporting the disabled.
A car specially fitted out for transporting a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair is excluded from the definition of a ‘luxury car’ provided the car is not also GST-free under the GST law.
In addition, a disabled veteran or an eligible person with a disability can purchase a car GST-free up to the value of the luxury car tax threshold.
These significant exemptions from GST and luxury car tax will remain.
While the provisions in this bill make no changes to the treatment of people with a disability, I asked the Treasury to consult with representatives of disabled persons to ensure that the exemptions were working as intended.
These discussions revealed that there is a need for a clearer explanation of the current exemptions so that people can understand their entitlements under the luxury car tax and GST laws. I have asked the Commissioner of Taxation to prepare explanatory material as soon as possible. Treasury will consult further with the sector if any additional issues arise.
I have also asked the Commissioner to release material explaining the implications for the industry and purchasers of luxury cars.
I turn now to some facts and figures about the purchase of cars in Australia.
It is estimated that around ten per cent or around 100,000 of all new car sales made in Australia in 2007 were subject to luxury car tax. The tax is applied to both imported vehicles as well as domestically manufactured cars.
Of the top 20 selling cars in 2007, which covers more than 50 per cent of the car market, less than four per cent of those sold are subject to luxury car tax. At the lower end, the increase is in the hundreds, not thousands, of dollars. The increase in the luxury car tax for the lowest cost Toyota Prado models are $39 and $98. For the Ford Territory Ghia, the increase is $496.
Of the five Toyota Tarago models, only one attracts the luxury car tax. Of the three largest selling people mover brands, this is the only model that will be impacted by the tax increase. The price increase is just over 1 per cent.
In closing, I would say again that if everyone pays their fair share, and we plug the gaps in the system, we can reduce the overall tax burden imposed on working families.
A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—GENERAL) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
This bill imposes luxury car tax to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise.
The bill also alters the applicable luxury car tax rate of 25 per cent to 33 per cent with application on and from 1 July 2008.
A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
This bill operates to impose luxury car tax to the extent that it is a duty of customs.
As a consequence, this bill increases the luxury car tax rate to 33 per cent to apply to luxury cars on and from 1 July 2008.
A NEW TAX SYSTEM (LUXURY CAR TAX IMPOSITION—EXCISE) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
This bill imposes luxury car tax to the extent that it is a duty of excise.
As a result of the increase in the luxury car tax rate this bill increases the luxury car tax rate to 33 per cent to apply to luxury cars on and from 1 July 2008.
Debate (on motion by Senator Faulkner) adjourned.
Ordered that the following bills be listed on the Notice Paper as five orders of the day and the remaining bills be listed as separate orders of the day:
-
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Bill 2008 and Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
-
Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008 and Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2008
-
National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) Bill 2008 and National Fuelwatch (Empowering Consumers) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
-
Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Bill 2008 and Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008
-
Tax Laws Amendment (Luxury Car Tax) Bill 2008, A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2008, A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2008 and A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2008
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2933
Returned from the House of Representatives
2135
Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bill.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TRUSTEE BOARD AND OTHER MEASURES) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
S618
Returned from the House of Representatives
2135
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the bill without amendment.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ONE-OFF PAYMENTS AND OTHER BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R3026
COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2921
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2916
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
S619
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) AMENDMENT BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2933
CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY BILL 2008
2135
Bills
S606
FINANCIAL SECTOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (REVIEW OF PRUDENTIAL DECISIONS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
S607
Assent
2135
Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the bills.
COMMITTEES
2135
Committees
Housing Affordability in Australia Committee
2135
Report
2135
2135
16:40:00
Payne, Sen Marise
M56
New South Wales
LP
0
0
Senator PAYNE
—I present the report of the Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia, A good house is hard to find: housing affordability in Australia, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
M56
Payne, Sen Marise
Senator PAYNE
—by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
As this report’s title says, a good house is hard to find. By ‘good’ we mean ‘affordable’, not just in the narrow sense of the mortgage repayments or rent being manageable but in terms of its location affording its occupants reasonable access to work, schools, infrastructure and basic social amenities. The common measures of affordability show that these ‘good’ houses are indeed becoming harder to find. The average house cost about three to four times the average annual wage up to the 1980s but now costs more like seven years’ wages. A typical young family looking for their first home would find only about a third of houses affordable. This assumes that the family has an average income. Low-income earners now find there are many areas where they cannot afford any homes at all, and this is forcing some key workers into very long commutes to work.
A good house is harder to find for renters. There are more households in the private rental market suffering from housing stress than there are stressed home-buying households. Of course, suffering to the greatest degree are the 100,000 Australians estimated to be homeless.
The select committee held public hearings in all mainland capitals, not just in the central business districts but also in outer suburbs like Campbelltown, in New South Wales, and Narre Warren, in Victoria. Hearings were also held in regional centres such as Ballina, in New South Wales; Geelong, in Victoria; Launceston; and the very rapidly growing area of the Queensland Gold Coast. The most dire cases, though, of unaffordable housing we encountered were in the mining town of Karratha, in Western Australia, where we saw firsthand the quite extraordinary difficulties faced by people there who do not earn big salaries or have housing provided by their employers.
After several months of this committee process, and with the tabling of the report, it is now clear that there are no simple answers to the housing affordability problem. While recent rises in interest rates are making it somewhat harder for aspiring purchasers and putting pressures on recent buyers, the problem of housing affordability is more a structural one which has been increasing for many years—some would say for decades. The report describes a range of both supply and demand factors which have given rise to it.
Among the demand factors are rising incomes and strong population growth, greater availability of credit since financial deregulation, and, in a medium-term sense, lower interest rates and incentives in the taxation system. We have recommended the latter be addressed by the taxation system review panel. Among supply factors, on the other hand, there is a lack of skilled building workers, a lack of qualified planners and, in some cases, greatly excessive red tape impeding new land becoming available for housing. A further problem comes from stamp duties. They are quite simply an inefficient tax which impedes people moving to more appropriate housing. Furthermore, as they have not been indexed, they are a growing proportion of incomes.
As well as problems with the shortfall in the number of new houses becoming available, there is quite clearly a problem with the lack of diversity in new housing, and the committee received significant evidence on this matter almost everywhere we met for public hearings. All too often new developments seemed to comprise only large houses, perhaps with four bedrooms, two garage spaces and two bathrooms. It makes it very hard for low-income families to move into these areas and it makes some people take on much larger houses than they require at the time, with commensurately larger mortgages. Moreover, it also makes it hard for so-called empty-nesters to move to more suitable accommodation while they stay within their own communities, as so many wish to do, or for their children to live close by.
We have therefore supported in this report initiatives being taken by some governments to require new developments to have a range of housing types. The committee acknowledge that the government is currently introducing some new schemes. It is important, though, that housing measures add to the supply of housing, rather than just to demand. To this end, we have suggested that the First Home Owner Grant scheme should return to giving more support to the purchase of new rather than existing housing. As I mentioned earlier, the problem of affordable housing is not restricted to homebuyers. The report therefore recommends that more resources be provided for rental assistance and that its effectiveness be improved.
A number of recommendations in the report relate to increasing the supply of social housing provided by government and community organisations. One of the very heartening aspects of the inquiry was the good work being done by a significant number of community organisations in providing housing to those on low incomes. It is regrettable that the profile of residents of public housing has changed over recent years to cope with a much larger number of deinstitutionalised Australians and that, at the same time, public housing has not been supported with significant increased funding. As a result, it therefore has much less capacity to house low-income families who would, in the normal course of events, have hoped to be accommodated in public housing and who see a future for themselves perhaps in ultimately buying that house, as was the case decades ago. In the longer term, we have also received strong evidence that Australians are more likely to find good, affordable houses if the development of mid-sized regional cities is encouraged. The only way for that to happen, though, is for a sustained effort to be made by all tiers of government to improve infrastructure, including better transport links.
This select committee report, which I am very proud to have had the opportunity to work on, has a significantly large number of recommendations as well. It had terms of reference pertaining to housing affordability in relation to homeownership, but it became absolutely evident to committee members that, in the course of the proceedings, rental pressures, pressures in relation to social and community housing and other forms of support for those on much lower incomes in Australia were issues which we most certainly needed to consider as well, and I think we have done an effective job in examining those.
I want to thank all those who gave evidence to the inquiry and who provided submissions to the inquiry. We received, I think, over 100 submissions, many going to great depth and great detail, for which we are grateful. Because of the number of public hearings we held, we also had a large range of witnesses, some of whom had travelled a long distance—particularly those who met with us in Karratha in Western Australia. I also want to thank the committee secretariat, led by John Hawkins, which, at the same time as doing its other committee work, has carried the work of this select committee absolutely excellently, and I am very grateful for its professional support.
We have produced a unanimous report on housing affordability in Australia, and for that I thank all of my colleagues, who were a very important part of the committee’s considerations. In Australia, our problems of housing affordability have grown over a long period. I do not pretend that the report’s recommendations provide quick fixes. But in commending the report to the Senate, I do argue that it forms a basis on which to build longer term solutions so that Australians can find the homes to which they aspire.
2135
16:49:00
Bartlett, Sen Andrew
DT6
Queensland
AD
0
0
Senator BARTLETT
—I would also like to speak to this report, and I start by congratulating the secretariat and all the committee, particularly the chair, Senator Payne. As some senators would know, the issue of housing affordability is one that, over the years in this chamber, I have spoken about many times and asked many questions of the previous government and indeed of the new government since they have come in. It has been an immense frustration to me that the federal level—the national parliament—has not sufficiently engaged with such an absolutely crucial, fundamental issue as housing affordability. This report does do that. It achieves that. It is comprehensive and wide-ranging, and it makes a real effort to be balanced.
Many times in the past the issue of housing affordability has been treated as a political one as much as one that is a matter of serious social and economic significance. This report and this inquiry could have gone the same way. The terms of reference, to be frank, were framed in a way that meant that it could have been used just as a vehicle for a narrow political point-scoring, state-bashing exercise. It is a real credit to the chair and the committee that it did not do that but has managed to acknowledge the wider issues—very many—that contribute to the serious problem of housing affordability, recognising the complexity of the issues and seeking to provide a wide-ranging and balanced report with a full suite of recommendations addressing all of the factors that contribute to housing affordability. It is still a matter of frustration to me that the previous government—the coalition, when they were in government—did not engage terribly constructively with this issue, despite housing affordability worsening seriously over that period of time. But we should focus on where things are at now and look at the opportunity that this report provides.
I have provided some additional comments and proposals to the committee’s overall report and recommendations, but I do support all of the recommendations that are there. I think it is very valuable that they are unanimous. A number of those recommendations address issues that I have certainly spoken about a number of times and many people in the community have spoken about for many years. In many respects my views have simply been a reflection of the concerns I have continued to hear over the years. I do think there are a few areas where it would be good to go further. I say that not just to try and always go a little further than everybody else but really because I think it needs to be recognised just how urgent and serious this issue is.
This report contains some really good proposals—not only long-term proposals but also some medium-term proposals—which I think, if they are all adopted, will go a long way. A recommendation that I think is very important is that the tax review process that the federal government has set up include examining the impacts of negative gearing, capital gains tax discounts and the land tax exemption—areas, I might say, that were proposed to be examined by the Productivity Commission, amongst others, some years ago but which the previous Treasurer, Mr Costello, refused to act on. I really hope that this time, particularly as it is a unanimous recommendation from this committee, the federal government adopts that recommendation and actually reviews those tax measures.
I also call for the government to review the capital gains tax exemption on the family home. This area was raised by a number of witnesses. Almost inevitably when I raised that area with witnesses in questions they would say, ‘Ideally, it would be good to look at this capital gains tax exemption, but politically it is never going to happen.’ Probably they are right that politically it is never going to happen. But, when you are putting forward an examination of the issues and the causes behind the housing affordability crisis, I do not think you should censor yourself in that way. I think that it is worth putting it forward, not least because—as the report demonstrates—there is very unclear data about just how much the capital gains tax exemption on the family home costs. To me, it is bizarre that we have this major measure and yet very little effort has been made at Treasury level to examine and nail down what the actual cost is as a tax expenditure.
The report contains an estimate that the capital gains tax exemption on the family home costs $20 billion a year. Contrast that to the amount spent through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which is about $1 billion a year, and rent assistance at the moment is $2.2 billion a year. So we have this massive amount of forgone revenue. It is clearly regressive. It clearly benefits those who are better off—at best, it is neutral—and quite possibly contributes to part of the reason that housing affordability is a problem. In my view, it is time to look at curtailing that tax break. At the very least, it should be examined by the review. In saying that, I should acknowledge that it was a proud boast of the Democrats for many years that we played a key role in bringing in that exemption—and, in hindsight, I do not think it is a good outcome. I would also say, though, that clearly other factors of the tax system, like negative gearing and the way it interrelates with the capital gains tax discount—both things the Democrats did oppose—also play a role and they should be examined.
I also think that, whilst the report recommends some modifications of the first home owners grant, it is appropriate for that to go further. This grant should be about trying to assist people who could not otherwise afford a home to buy one. It should not assist people who have plenty of money to get a slightly better home than they would otherwise buy. It is a significant amount of money and it should be targeted at affordability. I think it should be capped or means tested or perhaps only apply for houses that are below a certain value.
Senator Payne pointed out the role of private tenancy, and I very much appreciate the fact that the committee examined some of the issues relating to that. I think there is a real case for stronger tenancy laws to give people more security of tenure. It is in the private rental sector that the worst pain is currently being felt with regard to housing affordability, and that unfortunately also links to people who have the least security, in most cases, over their home. Those are state matters, it has to be said, but, now that we are finally taking a national approach on these issues, that is an area that should get more focus.
I again congratulate the committee. I think it is a crucial issue, and I am glad to see it getting further attention across all parties at a national level. I do hope the new federal government takes on board these recommendations in the spirit in which the committee has put them forward and considers them urgently—which is an approach to Senate committee reports that has not always happened in the past. I hope it does in the future.
2135
16:56:00
Moore, Sen Claire
00AOQ
Queensland
ALP
1
0
Senator MOORE
—It is a real pleasure to be able to work together in this place to come up with some recommendations that will go before us as a parliament—not just us as a government—to look at such an important issue as housing affordability. I want to pay particular credit to the way that the Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability was able to operate and the way that people were prepared to cooperate during the process. I know it has been a particularly difficult and busy time for many members of the Senate, and we were constantly juggling time frames and calendars to allow us to continue to operate. I want to thank the other members of the committee for allowing that to occur and for the respect that was shown to people’s requirements in that process. With Senator Hutchins, we were able to share the workload for the government in this process and we were able to meet with an amazing range of people across the country.
We had the privilege of working and meeting with people who felt that it was important to come and talk to the Senate about the issues of housing affordability. We heard from a whole range of people—people who were in the development area, people who were in the construction area, people who worked in community housing, people who were seeking some support as they were making decisions about what was the right way for them to proceed in this area, and finance providers. We are blessed—and I use the term ‘blessed’ quite deliberately—by the range of the academic researchers that we have in this country in every state. What made me particularly pleased was that the amount of research that is currently being done across the area shows that there are people with amazing knowledge and commitment and the intent that they will be able to use their knowledge, their academic ability and their research facilities to come up with solutions to the housing issues not only in Australia but also across the world, through the various research bodies. That gave us the confidence that, within our community, there are people prepared to work on this issue, people who are generous with their time and with their professional knowledge and who are also prepared to cooperate.
There are many recommendations, and I really encourage people to read the report. It is a big one. Do not be intimidated by the size. It looks a bit like a house brick, but do not be intimidated by the size or the number of recommendations—look at the value of the issue. One of the major recommendations was to look at further research. That is something that I am bringing to the attention of this chamber and the government. This is an area where the research must be maintained. The knowledge is there and the experience is there, and we need to develop genuine processes and guidance for us to move into the future.
Other people have mentioned the particular things that jumped out for them. I know Senator Siewert and other members of the committee were particularly taken with the area of community housing. I am sure that they will mention that, so I will not go into that area, though I think we will take the opportunity at other times in this place to continue our discussion of this issue. Whilst the original terms of reference looked particularly at the issues of housing, land and affordability, what came out of the range of evidence before us was the experience of people who were looking at addressing housing needs and housing availability in innovative ways and not always through the traditional models.
The model of people purchasing a house and staying in that home until they retired or moved on was mentioned consistently throughout the evidence. What we found through our evidence was that there are various models of appropriate housing. The term ‘appropriate’ came up across the board. It is not just about matching people with a house; it is actually about looking at people’s needs and their differences and coming up with appropriate models to ensure that people have dignity, respect and choice. This widens the discussion from just housing affordability. We need to ensure that people have options regarding the kind of housing that is available. That goes back to working with land developers and through the maze of different state and local government rules and regulations. A significant part of the report looks at the areas of regulation and cost. Looking at those costing areas was one of the key terms of reference for our group. When you do take the time to read the report, there is very valuable information there about how the costings are arrived at, the different trends in costings and what makes up the variation in housing affordability across our country.
No-one can run away from the point that it is more expensive to access appropriate housing now than it has been in the past. That is a given. But we cannot just let that lie without assessing exactly what those expenses are made up of and what alternatives there could be. We as a government can work effectively with the range of people who are interested in bringing their expertise to this discussion and break down those traditional models to ensure that people have choice. We need to have a look at that particularly valuable word ‘appropriate’. That is not a judgement. That is something that we can work to achieve. Your housing needs at different times in your life will vary, but the most important thing is that, in Australia, we as the government accept that people will need support to be able to make effective choices.
The Australian government has made a commitment, and it has been reinforced in the report. The budget announcement of $2.2 billion for new investments is a very valuable start to that process. We did look in some detail at the Housing Affordability Fund. I think the fact that the government has come up with a budget initiative called a Housing Affordability Fund indicates that there is a need that has been identified, and we will work towards that. What this Housing Affordability Fund—the $512 million—will do is get people involved in looking at a variety of ways that people can move into effective housing and how housing can be made genuinely affordable. ‘Affordable’ does not mean cheap; ‘affordable’ means something that you can make decisions about in your budget and be able to plan to achieve a housing solution.
The National Rental Affordability Scheme was not particularly part of our terms of reference, but we cannot have a discussion about housing in this country without looking at the issues around rental. For many people in Australia, rental housing will be their choice and it will be the best choice for them. I think sometimes there is a bit of a cultural cringe around that issue, and we talked about this idea in the committee at length. People who for various reasons have chosen to rent may well be made to feel then that they have somehow failed and that, despite their achievements through their work or providing help to their families, because they are in the rental market, they have not been successful. I think that is one of the myths we did explode in this process. There are people who will require affordable rental housing, and they range from people who have special needs all the way to people who make choices within their budget about the role of renting.
I am very pleased that our committee looked at the role of public and social housing. I understand that the terminology has now changed. What in my past life I had been led to believe was considered public housing is now talked about as social housing. But there is no doubt that there was agreement that there needs to be a major overhaul of our social housing, and that responsibility must be shared. This is an area where state governments, the federal government and, in some places, local governments will need to work together to ensure that social housing is well planned, effective consultation takes place with the people who are using it and there is a plan for the future. You do not make these plans on a 10-year basis; you make them for a lifetime. One of the things we will learn is how that is to happen.
There was significant discussion in the committee about the availability of land. I do not think anyone who was on the committee will ever look at land in the same way again. I know that now, as a result of these hearings, when I am moving through parts of Australia I am looking around at land costs and the cost of infrastructure and debating who will be able to put that land through most effectively. I hope I move through this stage of my career; nonetheless, I think it has been very valuable.
00AOT
Webber, Sen Ruth
Senator Webber interjecting—
00AOQ
Moore, Sen Claire
Senator MOORE
—I know that Senator Webber and Senator Murray will be pleased that I had to learn a bit about economics in this process, and I am working through it. The need is something that we can all agree on. How, in fact, the land will be made available is something that we can move towards. The National Housing Supply Research Council will work to improve the evidence base for housing policy. As I said at the beginning of my short comments, this issue of evidence and research is something that we all agreed must be a key plank of where we go into the future. The whole area of first home saver accounts will come up in discussion in the future. (Time expired)
2135
17:06:00
Siewert, Sen Rachel
E5Z
Western Australia
AG
0
0
Senator SIEWERT
—Housing is a basic human right and, as such, I very much enjoyed working on the Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia and looking at the extremely important issue of barriers to home ownership. When the Senate passed the motion referring the issue of housing affordability to the committee, I think some of the senators on that committee thought it would just be about housing ownership—that is, housing affordability equated to housing ownership. What is very clear from this inquiry is that, in many cities across Australia, people are facing a crisis not only in housing ownership but also in private rental—particularly in my home state of Western Australia. We need to take a comprehensive and integrated approach to housing so that we address affordability for both home ownership and rental. We need to make sure that we have a balance there. The Greens are certainly concerned about this issue, and I have made some additional comments in relation to it in the committee’s report.
While the Greens support the report, we are concerned about the influence that the first home owners grant might have on the types of homes that are bought and how that would then impact on rental affordability. The Greens have put forward a further recommendation to look at the first home owners grant as well as means testing and capping the cost of a house on which you can apply for a first home owners grant.
The shining light that came out of this inquiry, which Senator Moore also referred to, is the work being done by the community housing sector. At every place the committee went to in Australia, we found excellent examples of the community housing sector finding innovative solutions to our housing crisis—in particular, with its focus on how to provide low-cost housing to the most disadvantaged. We found through the inquiry that the states, in particular, and the Commonwealth have not been investing to the degree necessary in what used to be called public housing—which is now called social housing. People who would normally have been accommodated in social housing are no longer being so accommodated, and they are facing a real crisis in finding reliable, appropriate and affordable accommodation.
Instead of looking at ownership, we need to look at security of tenure. The things that we put onto housing in terms of the social benefits that it provides—such as financial security, stability of social networks, engagement and connectivity to community—are actually supplied through security of tenure. Governments at local, state and federal levels need to take on board the concept of security of tenure and ensure that it is supplied to people who are trying to find accommodation. Community housing organisations are looking at investing in this area and want to ensure that there is security of tenure.
Another issue that came up during the hearing was credit and its availability. People are getting into trouble with credit because they will do anything to pay their home loan. While we are not yet seeing a huge number of home repossessions, community organisations that provide emergency relief report that there is a massive increase in the number of people seeking emergency relief and financial counselling. I think this is an indication that people are starting to move into financial crisis, but they are doing everything they can to keep paying their mortgage. This situation will require a review of access to credit and advice provided to people who want to access credit. People are putting their home loans on their credit cards and are building a massive amount of debt as a result. (Time expired)
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Report
2135
2135
17:11:00
Crossin, Sen Trish
7Y6
Northern Territory
ALP
1
0
Senator CROSSIN
—On behalf of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I present the report on the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
7Y6
Crossin, Sen Trish
Senator CROSSIN
—by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I want to begin my comments on the report by acknowledging, in this chamber, Senator Bartlett. I know that he is leaving the Senate in the coming weeks, but I think this is a timely occasion to put on record my acknowledgment and the acknowledgement of quite a number of Indigenous people around this country of his efforts and the concentration of issues that he has brought to this chamber in the matter of not only stolen wages but also the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2007. I want to acknowledge that work. Quite clearly, the overwhelming evidence from the comments made by witnesses during our hearings was applause for Senator Bartlett’s initiative in introducing the bill as well as broad support for the provisions in the bill. So I think this is a timely occasion to recognise your work, Senator Bartlett.
I also want to thank the Legal and Constitutional Committee and its staff—Peter Hallahan and particularly Julie Dennett—for their work in conducting the three hearings into this bill and for the way in which they dealt with the subject matter. This has been a difficult matter to deal with, and I want to acknowledge the many stolen generations organisations that presented evidence, including in camera evidence, to our committee and the emotional stories that we heard. There is a depth of feeling concerning the still unresolved issues that members of the stolen generation have in relation to this matter. We have read about this matter, we have acknowledged it and we have listened to people in Darwin and Sydney talk about it at public hearings.
I think it is also timely to acknowledge the work of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, the Australian Human Rights Centre and of course the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In this country these three bodies keep issues such as this alive within our public awareness and keep this parliament and this chamber aware that there are still matters in relation to Indigenous people and the stolen generation that are yet to be resolved. This is one such matter.
Let me just turn now to the report, because I know that there is a lot of interest in what this report will bring and, in particular, in our recommendations. The primary purpose of the bill was to address the compensation for the stolen generation of Indigenous people and children in this country by proposing a compensation model for ex gratia payments to be made to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons found to be eligible for such payments under the bill. It is an issue that has been around since HREOC tabled the Bringing them home report in May 1997. Of course, one of those recommendations was that reparations should be made to all Indigenous people who suffered because of the forced removal policies.
Many of the people who gave evidence to the committee during this inquiry certainly supported the bill and recognised its symbolism as an acknowledgment of the harm incurred by members of the stolen generation and the importance of providing appropriate redress for that harm. It would be fair to say that every submission we received, apart from those from the federal government departments perhaps, but certainly every submission from individuals from the stolen generation and from major advocacy groups, believed that this was the next step after the formal apology that was given by the Prime Minister earlier this year. While there was absolute gratitude, acknowledgement and welcoming of that apology, people now want to see this government take the next step in relation to the treatment of the stolen generations.
To that extent, I believe that the recommendations of this report take that next step and acknowledge the work that Minister Macklin and the Prime Minister are doing in relation to the people of the stolen generations. There has now been a reference group established that consists of members of the National Sorry Day Committee and members of the Stolen Generations Alliance. That working group is now working with ministers in this government. Our report actually takes that concept and perhaps pushes the envelope a little bit further in terms of what that group could now do.
We do not recommend that the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill be taken any further. We do not recommend that the bill in its current form be endorsed or pursued by the Senate. We do acknowledge that there are many recommendations of the Bringing them home report that have not been implemented. The recommendation in relation to compensation is one of them. We do recommend that all of the outstanding recommendations need to be resolved by governments. We do recognise that in fact the working group that has been established by this government—which, as I said, consists of members of the National Sorry Day Committee and the Stolen Generations Alliance—would be the most appropriate body to pick up the Bringing them home report, examine it, possibly audit the outstanding recommendations and probably even monitor the recommendations that have been put in place. They are now the most suitable auspicing body in this country to look at what is outstanding from the Bringing them home report.
We did receive evidence suggesting that there are some difficulties relating to various aspects of this bill, which is why we have not recommended that it should not proceed. But we do not want to detract from the intention of the bill, which is that it further acknowledges the harm endured by members of the stolen generation and, in actually acknowledging that harm, that something else needs to occur through compensation, reparation, additional initiatives and incentives to address their pain and suffering. The bill is certainly a very useful starting point for future discussion on the issues of reparations for members of the stolen generation, but we do think that a holistic, nationally consistent approach is the most appropriate means of addressing the specific needs of members of the stolen generation and actually providing an effective model of healing.
We have recommended, therefore, that a national Indigenous healing fund be established. We actually believe that this would be a way in which a more holistic, broader approach to the issues of reparations can be dealt with in this country. We do believe that the Canadian Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement actually provides some models and at least a starting framework for consideration of the development of any reparations scheme. I believe a national body to implement healing initiatives would be very useful in the Australian context and that is now where we are at in this country—that is, the establishment of a national Aboriginal healing fund or a healing foundation.
I notice that in the latest edition of National Link-Up News, which came out in May, the co-chair of the Stolen Generations Alliance said she believes a healing fund should be funded by governments, churches, trusts, foundations and the Australian community. This news leaflet says that it would make available valuable information on services and would carry out research to improve those services. It would support established stolen generations organisations, enabling them to develop the vital role they play in healing. We do also suggest in our report that the parameters and framework of that healing fund would be adopted or driven by this working group. Finally, can I say that a further additional recommendation is that there be a specific and additional amount of money set aside in the Closing the Gap fund, not just as an extension of that fund but as discrete funds over and above that initiative to address the concerns of these people.
2135
17:22:00
Barnett, Sen Guy
00AUF
Tasmania
LP
0
0
Senator BARNETT
—I stand to speak in support of the report on the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008, which has been tabled by Senator Crossin, and to commend Senator Bartlett for his objectives and his ambitions with respect to the stolen generations, as it were. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee was commissioned to inquire into this bill on 12 March this year and it reported, obviously, today. The primary purpose of the report was to consider the bill put forward by Senator Andrew Bartlett from the Democrats. The bill, in essence, proposed a compensation model for ex gratia payments to be made to Indigenous Australians. It also established what was referred to as a Stolen Generations Fund from which ex gratia payments are to be made to eligible persons. It also provided for the establishment of other support services, including funding for healing centres and services of assistance for people in receipt of compensation.
We received 85 submissions and had hearings in Darwin and Sydney. I want to put on the record my thanks, on behalf of Liberal senators on the committee, for the efforts the witnesses made to take time out to present their views. I also wish to express our thanks to those who made submissions to the committee; it was very much appreciated. It was pretty full-on and, at this juncture, I would like to specifically thank, on behalf of the Liberal senators, the committee secretariat—specifically Peter Hallahan and Julie Dennett and their team—for their professionalism and the manner in which they pulled together not only the hearings and the report but also the entire program in such a way that our committee could deliberate and provide this report to the Senate today.
The Senate report is not inconsistent with the previous Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report which was commissioned in 1999—the committee at the time being chaired by Senator Marise Payne—and delivered in November 2000. That particular report was looking at similar matters and, at the time, recommended the establishment of a reparations tribunal and an independent evaluation of the Bringing them home report. As I say, the report that we have presented today and the recommendations that have been made are, I think, not inconsistent with that report. I think that shows a good deal of depth and longevity with respect to the Senate and the working of its various committees. I want to note that right up-front.
I also want to note that Dr Brendan Nelson and, of course, the Prime Minister, on 13 February 2008, just a few months ago, made an unreserved apology to those Indigenous communities that have suffered. That is on the public record. I will return to that shortly. I spoke in the Senate the following day, in full support of that apology, to say sorry and to apologise for past injustices. I noted at the time that the passing of the motion had been received with great relief by many and I said that I hoped it would provide healing and reconciliation. That remains my view.
It is worth noting that it is not just the federal government that is responsible here but, indeed, both levels of government, state and federal, which had laws and policies in place which were based on race and were discriminatory. That position has been noted, I know, by the various state and territory governments around this nation and, indeed, since February, by the Australian parliament. In Tasmania on 13 August 1997, the state parliament passed a motion which was of the following accord. It was moved by Tony Rundle, the Premier at that time. It said:
That this Parliament, on behalf of all Tasmanians, expresses its deep and sincere regrets at the hurt and distress caused by past policies under which Aboriginal children were removed from their families and homes, [apologises] to the Aboriginal people for those past actions and reaffirms its support for reconciliation between all Australians.
I note and support the motion which was moved by Premier Rundle in the Tasmanian parliament. It had unanimous support and I support it wholeheartedly.
In terms of the report that we have delivered to the Senate today, I want to also note that the Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, is on the public record explicitly stating that the federal government will not be establishing any compensation arrangements or any compensation fund. Obviously, Senator Crossin and those in the Senate in this report have a different view. The report, on page 6, quotes the Prime Minister as saying that Aboriginal people affected should be engaged in their own legal actions through the courts of their state or territory. But during the hearing we heard witnesses who expressed difficulty in pursuing that particular option. We heard about the South Australian case by Dr Thalia Anthony from SCIL, in regard to Bruce Trevorrow, who was awarded $700,000 in, I think, the Supreme Court of South Australia.
We received evidence with respect to the Tasmanian arrangements, where the Tasmanian government has created a $5 million fund to provide payments to eligible members of the stolen generation and their children. I note that former Tasmanian Liberal Premier Ray Groom advised on that particular matter. The ex-gratia payments to 84 eligible living members of that group were $58,333.33 each. That again is noted in the report. There is a reference to the Western Australian government’s announcement of a $114 million redress scheme. So this clearly is not just a matter for the federal government; it is a matter for the states and territories as well. It is noted in the report that, by working together and perhaps through the COAG process, this matter may be advanced.
However, I do want to draw to the Senate’s attention the fact that the federal government has refused to provide legal advice with respect to the impact of the apology of the parliament. Why has it done that? I asked questions in the February estimates, as did Senator George Brandis, and again more recently in the May estimates of the Senate committees. Again, the government has refused to provide that legal advice. What has it got to hide? The advice we received from the various witnesses was that there was not any direct correlation and there was not any direct necessity to provide compensation as a result of that resolution of the parliament proceeding. So I want to draw that to the Senate’s attention and express concern about that.
The committee did conclude that the issue of reparations for what has been referred to as the stolen generation needs to be addressed. The committee agreed that the Commonwealth should engage with the state and territory governments through COAG to establish a cooperatively funded national scheme that provides specific services and assistance to surviving members and the Indigenous people affected.
I want to draw to the Senate’s attention specifically the additional comments of the Liberal senators. We noted that the use of the term ‘stolen generation’ is not only in the majority report but also in a broader context. We said that we queried the use of the term ‘stolen generation’, which we consider:
… implies that past policies of separation of Indigenous children from their families involved, in all cases, forcible removal undertaken with dubious motive.
That is clearly not the case, so we wanted to make that point. We referred specifically to the quote of the opposition leader, the Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, in his speech in support of the apology on 13 February, where he outlined his views about forcible separation and that it is not in all cases a stolen generation. So that needs to be put on the record. The bill is recommended not to proceed, but again I note this report and commend Senator Bartlett for his bill. (Time expired)
2135
17:32:00
Siewert, Sen Rachel
E5Z
Western Australia
AG
0
0
Senator SIEWERT
—The Australian Greens support the intent of the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008. We strongly believe that all the recommendations of the Bringing them home report should be implemented, including the provision of financial compensation, because, as people will be aware, the Bringing them home report had a number of recommendations around reparation. One of those was financial compensation, and we believe this is essential in recognising the harm suffered by those Indigenous people who were taken from their families.
The Greens support the findings of the majority report. We think that it provided good detail of the evidence that was presented to the inquiry. However, we are disappointed that the majority report did not recommend that the bill—or, in fact, an amended version of the bill—be supported. We believe that the Prime Minister, when he gave the apology, did half the job. A very important part is saying sorry to the stolen generations, but, to complete that and to make it a whole, sincere approach, we do need to ensure that financial compensation, as well as other reparations recommended in the Bringing them home report, happens. We are disappointed that the committee did not recommend that a form of this bill go ahead. I think the Greens are already on the record as articulating our concerns about putting a $20,000 cap on compensation, which is articulated in the current bill, and we have also expressed that opinion to Senator Bartlett.
Evidence was presented to the committee from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Australian Human Rights Centre. They presented a slightly different model which we think probably improves the current bill that was before the committee and is before the Senate. They recommend a reparations tribunal which has three key functions—that is, to provide a forum for Indigenous peoples affected by forcible removal policies, to enable them to tell their story, have their experience acknowledged and be offered an apology; to provide reparation measures in response to applications through appropriate reparations packages; and to make recommendations about government and church activities that affect contemporary Indigenous child separation and measures that might be taken to heal the past. We were particularly taken with the proposal that a specific function of the tribunal would be to provide a forum for stories and the sharing of experiences, and to have those acknowledged.
We do believe, as I said, that an important part of that tribunal that we believe should be set up under legislation would be to make appropriate responses to and assessments of applications for appropriate financial reparations, so we are going to be looking at those particular suggestions very closely. It should be noted that there was a lot of consultation with the stolen generation and people affected by that series of policies; so it seems to us that that tribunal approach and those recommendations have a lot of support from the community. In the Greens’ additional comments, our recommendation was:
That the Government moves as a matter of urgency to introduce legislation providing for full reparations, including financial compensation, to members of the Stolen Generations.
The Greens will continue to pursue this matter, and we will continue to pursue the issue of financial compensation, because we will not have dealt with this issue adequately until members of the stolen generation are financially compensated and the other recommendations of the Bringing them home report are, in fact, implemented in full.
2135
17:37:00
Bartlett, Sen Andrew
DT6
Queensland
AD
0
0
Senator BARTLETT
—I welcome the Senate committee report into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008—which, as a number of speakers have mentioned, is one that I put forward, and I thank people for their kind remarks. I congratulate the secretariat and the committee on what I think is actually a positive report. Whilst it does not recommend the passage of my bill and it says that the bill should not be proceeded with, I would state that I do not think the bill should be proceeded with either. Where I depart from the majority view of the committee is that I think an amended version of the bill should be proceeded with, particularly the version put forward by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who have been working on this issue for 10 years or so, since the Bringing them home report was brought down.
I think both that the information provided in the report, which reflects the material provided to the inquiry, is valuable and that the recommendations, particularly the one that seeks to give a role to representatives of the stolen generations in their capacity as an advisory group to the government, where they would advise the government on the unimplemented recommendations from the Bringing them home report, are positive. To me that is the key issue. That recommendation, which I support, is a vital one, and I urge the government and Minister Macklin to adopt it, to give representatives of the stolen generations a clear role of advising the government and the minister on that whole area of unfinished business from the Bringing them home report, which includes but is certainly not limited to compensation. That has really been my core goal in introducing this legislation, which I first did last year on behalf of the Democrats, following on from the work of many Democrats, including former Senator Aden Ridgeway, in this area. I did that in the lead-up to the 10th anniversary of the Bringing them home report because the issues kept being repeated to me, by Indigenous Australians in particular, that this was still unfinished business and it needed to be put back on the political agenda so that people realised that the unaddressed issues from the Bringing them home report were not just about the apology. Indeed, the apology itself and the recommendation regarding that were integrally intertwined with the broader notion of reparations and with the notion of compensation. So it is important to have that back on the political agenda.
I appreciate the difficultly of the members of the committee from the major parties. The situation is quite clear: the Prime Minister has categorically ruled out any form of compensation. Clearly, the coalition in their period in government categorically ruled it out. I think the committee has taken a good approach in seeking to, if you like, go around that and seek to get the existing processes that have now being put up by the new government to consider all of the outstanding areas, which include compensation. But it does need to be emphasised that compensation can be applied. It should be provided. In that area I certainly differ from the committee and take a view similar to Senator Siewert and the Greens. It is pleasing that the Greens will continue to pursue this issue. I believe this report will provide a valuable mechanism for them to credibly maintain that pursuit.
That is not to say that there should not be a role for the states. In most cases, stolen generation practices were carried out by state governments, apart from in the Northern Territory, where the federal government then had responsibility. The Tasmanian parliament has shown that a compensation scheme can be applied, that it can operate effectively and indeed that the very process of considering those types of monetary reparations in itself can be valuable over and above the monetary outcome—or, in some cases, as occurred in Tasmania, the non-monetary outcomes, where some people’s claims were knocked back; but, nonetheless, by virtue of being heard, of having their situations examined, they have a feeling at least that they have not been ignored. That has provided a valuable process.
I would like to say in conclusion that I do not take the view that the Bringing them home report and all of its recommendations should be taken as holy writ, that they have got it 100 per cent right in every capacity, particularly that 10 or 11 years later nothing has changed that could therefore vary from what they recommended, but I do think their recommendations should be treated effectively and with respect and should not be dismissed without due consideration and explanation. That has not happened to date. All we have had is the federal government and the Prime Minister just ruling it out and saying it is not going to happen. And none of the evidence provided to this inquiry by the department, in my view, went anywhere near providing an adequate explanation of why those recommendations should be dismissed. That is why keeping the issue alive, as the recommendations of this report propose, and having stolen generations representatives themselves playing that role, is crucial. I urge the minister to take on board all of the recommendations and I urge those in the community who support this, as I do, to continue to campaign on the matter. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
WHEAT EXPORT MARKETING BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2986
WHEAT EXPORT MARKETING (REPEAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2008
2135
Bills
R2987
Second Reading
2135
Debate resumed.
2135
17:43:00
Siewert, Sen Rachel
E5Z
Western Australia
AG
0
0
Senator SIEWERT
—As I was saying in my earlier remarks, the Australian Greens have been looking at these bills in light of the fact that changes are urgently needed to the way that wheat is marketed. As a result of the changes that the previous government introduced last year, it is essential that further changes are made to the way that wheat is marketed in Australia. While we would in principle support a single desk, the Greens do not believe that at this stage it is possible, given that it has no support from the government. At this stage the evidence to the committee also suggests that the farming community is not in a position to be able to establish it without government support.
The Australian Greens are aware of the struggles of those living and working in rural Australia and the fact that, in many parts of Australia, they have been subjected to years of drought and many are very worried about the consequences of further deregulation of wheat export marketing. These concerns come on top of many pressing challenges facing farmers in this country. We strongly believe in supporting the future of rural communities in a sustainable, holistic way, and we are concerned about the depth of concern in the community about this legislation. That is why we are pleased to see that the government has adopted the recommendation of the Senate committee report to provide some information sessions and financial counselling sessions on the new arrangements, to assist farmers. There was a great deal of evidence presented to the committee about the concerns farmers have about working in the new system once it comes into place. We urge the government to expand this program if it proves necessary. As I understand it, they will be providing funding for the first year. We believe that these resources will not be adequate and will need to be expanded. We urge the government to expand the program to assist farmers in this new marketing environment.
The Greens have tried to review this legislation in light of contemporary circumstances—that is, the government will not be introducing another process around a single desk, so we believe it is important that this legislation is fully scrutinised to see what issues and problems there might be with this further deregulation of the system. As part of that, we think that the government’s approach to the accreditation system is certainly a step in the right direction. Because of the problems that we had with the former Wheat Export Authority, we are extremely concerned that their remit was not wide enough and nor did they adequately use their powers at the time. We believe it is important to have an accreditation system for exporters, with oversight by an independent body. We believe this is much better than going down the path of complete deregulation. It is a midway point between complete deregulation and a single desk.
A number of important concerns were raised in the course of the Senate inquiry about the scheme and the provisions of the legislation, notably about the accreditation system and the role of Wheat Exports Australia, access to essential infrastructure and the availability of important market information. These issues were raised during the discussion of the legislation. We are pleased to see the government has responded, at least in part, to recommendations of the majority report of the Senate committee and has made a number of recommendations to the draft bills. These are all a step in the right direction.
On the accreditation scheme and the role of the WEA, we support the approach taken in the legislation to the accreditation process and the draft accreditation scheme, and we support the amendment to allow cooperatives to be accredited. That was an important issue that came out during the discussion of this legislation. The scheme moves to balance two interests: ensuring exporters meet certain criteria to be eligible and encouraging numerous exporters to be accredited. Some of the companies who would be seeking accreditation wanted more of the scheme set in legislation but some wanted the WEA to be a light touch regulator. What we need, however, is an effective regulator—which the old one was not. It did not have adequate terms of reference, nor did it actually exercise its powers. The critical issue is that the scheme provides sufficient certainty for companies and their clients and confidence for growers and the broader Australian community in our wheat export market. We favour a level of discretion for Wheat Exports Australia in administering the accreditation system and will be watching it closely to see that the authority exercises its responsibilities appropriately. What is absolutely vital to the effectiveness of the accreditation process is the role and function of the WEA. The key lesson from the AWB oil for wheat scandal is that the WEA not only needs to have sufficient powers to investigate the activities of exporters; it also needs to use those powers where appropriate.
The WEA has a range of powers under this legislation: information-gathering powers from wheat exporters and other persons who may have relevant information, the power to direct an external audit of exporters and powers to suspend and cancel accreditations. We note that the minister said in his second reading speech:
Wheat Exports Australia will regularly review the financial conditions, and activities, of accredited exporters to make sure they are complying with the conditions of their accreditation.
We expect WEA to undertake this role actively and not merely rely on annual reports. We would urge anyone who has concerns about an accredited exporter to take those concerns to the WEA. Creating an appropriate regulatory culture within the new regulatory body will be a critical role of government. The government has an important task in choosing the WEA board to ensure there is sufficient expertise and skill to fulfil these vital oversight and regulatory functions. One of the other lessons from the AWB scandal concerns the responsibilities of the minister. There can be no more turning a blind eye to any problems that arise. The minister has powers of investigation that must be used if circumstances require it.
There was a great deal of discussion on the access regimes during the inquiry. One of the aims of the legislation is to encourage a competitive market with numerous exporters competing for wheat from farmers. Concerns about access to important infrastructure need to be addressed to ensure that that aim is met. Serious concerns were raised in the committee hearings about how to ensure non-discriminatory access to both port infrastructure and up-country storage and handling infrastructure. Without some form of regulation, there is a fear that regional based monopolies will form around the companies that own the infrastructure and will not also be exporting wheat.
The legislation as it stands provides that owners of port infrastructure must pass an access test which, after 1 October 2009, will require either an access undertaking under part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act or recognition under the Trade Practices Act of a state access regime before they can be accredited as an exporter of bulk wheat under the act. Concerns have been raised by owners of such infrastructure that the proposed access test is too heavy-handed and will create a disincentive for investment in such facilities. The Greens support the need for a strong access test for port infrastructure but are prepared to look at a process that, while maintaining strong access, may make it easier to ensure that prices and access are fair. The government has decided not to pursue a similar requirement for owners of up-country bulk handling and storage facilities. This was also an issue that came up extensively in the hearings. Non-discriminatory access to up-country storage and handling facilities was one of the key concerns raised during the committee hearings. The Australian Greens support the comments of the majority committee report on this issue, which read:
The committee believes there is a need to ensure effective competition in relation to access to up-country infrastructure. The committee supports additional measures in relation to up-country infrastructure, such as a mandatory code of conduct.
We are disappointed the government has not moved to introduce some form of regulation to ensure access to up-country infrastructure. The Trade Practices Act, while offering some protection in terms of anti-competitive behaviour, was widely seen as having too many practical problems. Small exporting companies and some farmers expressed concern that the Trade Practices Act processes were too lengthy and costly to provide adequate protections, and many such companies and individuals may be unable to mount the necessary legal actions to ensure fair and timely access—the word ‘timely’ here is crucial. We would have liked to see the bill include a mandatory code of conduct process for owners of up-country infrastructure who also wish to be exporters. The voluntary code of conduct presented by three bulk handlers to the committee was inadequate. But a code with legislative force linked to the accreditation scheme and that refers to the experience of the ACCC and includes a binding arbitration process would, we believe, support the aims of the bill.
We do note the minister’s words:
The government will, therefore, continue to monitor the ability of exporters to access up-country storage facilities.
Let me say here, if any problems are identified then the government will take steps to remedy the situation including, if necessary, the development of a code of conduct.
Let me say here, the Greens—and, I am sure, many stakeholders in the industry—will be holding the government to account for that statement. It is absolutely critical if this process is to work. We expect access issues to be a key consideration of the proposed review of the act and the scheme.
Another issue that came up extensively during the committee hearings was information. The point was made that information is essential for fair functioning markets. As the committee notes:
The committee observed that a consistent theme throughout the inquiry was the importance of the availability of reliable and timely information and effective price signals is of central importance to the success of the proposed changes ...
In partially deregulating the market, there needs to be a mechanism for all stakeholders to have equal access to essential information about wheat stocks. The government has announced such information will be available to the industry via a monthly report prepared by ABARE, based in part on information collected by the ABS. I will refrain from making extensive comments about some concerns I have about ABARE and the reliability of the information it provides. Nonetheless, this is an issue that is of vital importance to the success of these amendments and this new process. Again, the Greens will be watching the effect and the provision of this information very closely. We expect the government to be prepared to respond to any problems that arise in relation to the accuracy or delivery of the necessary information, and, as I said, we will be watching this extremely closely. The government will need to be ready to act, we believe, with a sense of urgency if the processes they put in place are failing.
As I articulated earlier, the Greens’ position, in principle, is that we would prefer a single desk—in an ideal world. That is not going to happen. We therefore have listened to all sides of the argument through the committee process and through individual representations made to us, and obviously we will also listen very closely to this parliamentary debate. We have decided, on balance, that the changes with the necessary protections will in fact be an area that will need to be carefully reviewed and agreed with the review process. We do have some concerns that the government has not adequately addressed the concerns of farming organisations and individual farmers around access and also the concerns around regional monopolies developing. We will all need to watch—and I am sure the farming community will be watching—the implementation of this particular piece of legislation very closely. The future of wheat farmers in this country is at stake here. We need to make sure that we get it right.
2135
17:57:00
Webber, Sen Ruth
00AOT
Western Australia
ALP
1
0
Senator WEBBER
—The Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 outline new arrangements and the legislation comes to this place after an extensive consultation period has been completed. This has included the release of the exposure drafts for public comment, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry and report and the Wheat Industry Experts Group’s consideration of the delivery of industry development functions.
In addition to that, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, has also had constructive discussions with all of the major state farming organisations and major bulk handling and trading companies. The government has conducted several detailed private briefings with each of the state farm organisations, as well as a significant number of non-government members and senators. There has been detailed discussion around these new arrangements. Most in this place and the other place have agreed that there is a vital need for new arrangements. The old system was broken. It had ceased to work, and it was actually a public embarrassment to Australia.
The government, after this extensive consultation process, outlined these new arrangements in the legislation that we have before us today. The new arrangements, as has been said by others in this debate, are designed to benefit the entire wheat industry—which I have got to say, as a representative of Western Australia, is a very good first step. It is designed to benefit the entire wheat industry, particularly the growers, by providing greater contestability and selling options for growers, more cost-efficient marketing services and greater transparency of price and cost information, and by reducing the risks associated with relying on a single seller.
If you had any doubt about the problems we faced under the old arrangements, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, you only had to come to our home state of Western Australia. Not only have these new arrangements been arrived at after detailed consultation but, as Senator Minchin mentioned earlier, they provide a relaxation of the regulations around the bulk export of wheat. Coming from the state that, I believe, has the most efficient and most export-oriented wheat farmers in Australia, I believe this is a reform that is long overdue. Most of the wheat production in my home state is for the export market, not for the domestic market, and we did not necessarily feel very well served by the previous regime. In fact, there were some notorious Western Australians involved in the demise of the previous regime, which was not helpful.
As has been outlined by others, this legislation establishes a new industry regulator, Wheat Exports Australia, with the power to develop, amend and administer an accreditation scheme for bulk wheat exports. Whilst WEA will be given the power to administer the scheme, it will do so under broad policy parameters set out in the legislation before us. WEA will only accredit companies that meet stringent probity and performance tests. WEA must consider criteria such as the financial resources available to the company concerned, its risk management systems and the demonstrated behaviour of the company and its executives—a reform, I would say, that no-one in this place should argue against.
In considering the lengthy consultation process that has been undertaken by the government and by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in arriving at this legislation, I would like to place on record my thanks for the hard work of the members of the committee, particularly that of my good friend from Western Australian Senator Glenn Sterle as chair of the committee. Senator Sterle came to this place with a passion for and belief in rural and regional Western Australia, but I think the issues surrounding wheat farming in rural and regional Western Australia were new ones for him. I congratulate him on the open mind that he brought to the challenge and on the conduct of the inquiry.
It is not often when considering issues in this place that I find myself on somewhat of a unity ticket with Senator Judith Adams on issues to do with social policy. And it is not often that I find myself on a unity ticket with Senator Judith Adams, the member for O’Connor in the other place and the state leader of the National Party in my home state of Western Australia. All of us agreed on the need to reform the previous regime and that the single desk arrangements were not serving the wheat farmers of Western Australia well and therefore were not serving Australia’s wheat exports particularly well. As I said, I am firmly of the belief that the Western Australian wheat farmers are the most efficient and effective wheat exporters in Australia. That we had in place under the previous regime arrangements that acted to their disadvantage is something that has needed to be addressed for a very long time. So perhaps from time to time this place does operate as a states’ house. Perhaps the unique view that those of us from Western Australia, across the various political viewpoints, bring to this place actually does have some effect and we manage to bring forward, as I said, an unusual unity ticket.
Wheat Exports Australia will have the necessary investigative powers, including the ability to require information of and audit accredited exporters to perform its regulatory, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities effectively—again, a very important reform. There will be severe penalties for breaching the conditions of the scheme or individual accreditations. Wheat Exports Australia will also be able to suspend or revoke accreditations.
This legislation contains an appropriate balance, in our view, between the need to apply strict probity and performance tests to protect the interests of growers and the need not to apply an excessive regulatory burden on accredited exporters. We can allow those who play by the rules, who are ethical and who are acting in the best interests of our efficient and effective wheat growers to get on with the job at hand, which is to get the best price possible for the product and to export as much as possible.
As I have said, extensive consultations have been undertaken both by the minister and by the Senate committee, but I accept that with any new arrangement not everyone is going to be happy. Any change to what has been an entrenched policy for a very long time can be very threatening to a lot of people, and I understand their concerns. It is my belief that these new arrangements will not act to the disadvantage of any successful, entrepreneurial, effective and efficient wheat farmers anywhere in Australia. What they will do is allow those who are the most effective, efficient and export-oriented to get on with the job in the best possible way: to market the product, to go straight to export, to export in the most effective way and to provide the good, consistent quality of export grain that we know we can in Western Australia.
For far too long for those in Western Australia who are very close to the export markets there has been the nonsense arrangement that we have been governed by the needs of wheat farmers from this side of the country, the eastern seaboard. Everyone has an important role to play in the production of wheat in Australia; there is no doubt about that. Each and every effective, efficient, hardworking farmer has an important role to play. But it is a nonsense to say that the most effective, efficient and export-oriented of all the farmers should be governed by the needs of their compatriots in New South Wales and Queensland. We do not do that in any other sector of our economy. We do not say to those involved in other export-oriented industries in Western Australia, ‘You must be cognisant of what New South Wales says before you can export anything.’ We actually say: ‘Good on you. As long as you comply with the law of the land and you have access to the market, go for it, do the best you possibly can.’ This is what this legislation is about. It is about putting in place a regulatory framework that protects the markets and makes sure we redress some of the bad image we have had in the recent past but allows those who are the most effective and efficient to get on with the task at hand. I will conclude my brief remarks by again congratulating Senator Sterle and the rest of the committee but also by acknowledging the important roles that Senator Adams and Mr Tuckey have played in bringing this matter, and the uniquely Western Australian perspective, to the parliament.
2135
18:07:00
Scullion, Senator Nigel
00AOM
Northern Territory
CLP
Leader of the Nationals in the Senate
0
0
Senator SCULLION
—Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise today with some disappointment. The Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, as you and other people in this place would be aware, have attracted a great deal of attention. Those who were in this place early this morning would have seen firsthand the passion of those people who do not support the legislation—and, I am quite sure, through some of the Senate committee hearings. I would like to add my congratulations to Senator Sterle for having had such an even-handed approach to a very difficult task.
Australia has had a single desk wheat marketing arrangement that has served the Australian wheat growers well for over 65 years. It has been a system that has in effect ensured that a proportion of profits and efficiency dividends post farm gate has ended up back with the growers. The fundamentals of any single desk system are the principal producers—those people who lie at the heart of the wheat export system. Without the growers, without the producers, the wheat export system would of course not exist.
Changes to the arrangements have been resisted every single time. Over the years there has been a great deal of change to the single desk system and it has been diluted by further elements and deregulation. Every time deregulation has occurred, I think it would be reasonable to say, from a grower’s perspective, the world has become a little grimmer. This last act of deregulation, in this legislation, will again strip any benefits that are delivered through the arrangement, and we cannot see anything in this legislation that will replace them.
I want to make sure that everybody in this place understands and I want to make it absolutely clear—and I would like to commend Senator Minchin for his words; at least he is saying it the way it is—this legislation does not create a new single desk. Let us not pretend that the Labor Party is in any way right in saying, ‘We’re honouring our obligation; we’re creating a new single desk.’ This is a special sort of a single desk: a Clayton’s single desk. It is a single desk for traders, not for wheat. But I guess it is all in the semantics, isn’t it, Madam Acting Deputy President?
This will simply and purely be a licensing regime that will allow multinational wheat traders to enter the Australian market. The creation of Wheat Exports Australia will simply triage those people who wish to enter the market. There will be some probity issues to ensure they are the right sort of people to be in the game; some financial issues will be looked at. Of course, looking at the financial issues gives absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that when someone parts with their wheat they will ever be paid for it. In terms of the probity issues, I think the new minister set quite a serious precedent when he decided that the organisation Glencorp was a really good dog straight out of the box. That was their first decision.
Unfortunately, many will rue the fact that the genesis of the scrapping of the single desk was a mistrust of those people associated with the AWB. We are all aware of the circumstances with the Cole inquiry. But, when you have that level of mistrust, why would you throw the baby out with the bathwater? It is an overreaction and we should never have ended up in this place. Anybody that read the Cole inquiry report would know there was a whole suite of other arrangements that we could have put in place that would still have managed to give a much better balance than the legislation we are looking at today. In light of that, I do not think the very first decision on a new licensee being Glencorp—who were well known to have been involved in rorts throughout, not only in the oil for food scandal but in other United Nations programs—has given anybody any comfort that anything will change in the future.
Labor would have Australians believe that the single desk has created some sort of an impediment for growers to receive the best terms for their wheat. Of course, the facts are completely the opposite. Whilst Labor believes the single desk arrangements are worthless—or, worse, a cost to industry—our international competitors in the marketplace have an entirely different view. It is interesting, because those international players, our competitors, have no reason to offer a different opinion in the media. They have no real mischief to make by offering this different reason. But it is interesting to know that, during the negotiations for the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement, the Americans fought extremely hard to ensure that the single desk arrangements in Australia were part of the currency so that we could trade these things off. I wonder why that was! Quite clearly they saw it as something that benefited Australian growers, not United States growers. That is why they wanted it there as currency—a very, very important issue. Of course, we opposed this then for the reason that the single desk allowed us to some degree to compete against subsidies and what I have to say is a less than open and free wheat trade. While the subsidies are worth millions, the single desk is a collective marketing arrangement to give us some sort of capacity to counter the trade distorting influence that the subsidies deliver.
If the single desk was worthless or a detrimental factor to Australian growers competing internationally, as described by those opposite, why was it that the US wheat trade group was one of the very first bodies to come out and welcome the abolition of the single desk and the Labor legislation? On 6 March of this year, the US Wheat Associates President, Alan Tracy, said that the Australian system will lead to a genuine opening and his group is very pleased to see that—no surprise there. They are most delighted, absolutely delighted. As you can imagine, this is their wildest dream come true: the jewel in the crown of legitimate marketing arrangements in Australia that ensure that we can compete against this distorted market and the subsidies is being taken away and, not only that, they are giving it away. This is a fire sale. No longer are they going to say: ‘Please, can you bring the single desk to the Doha Round so that we can negotiate that with you? Maybe we can trade away some of our subsidies.’ No: you can have it for nothing. There will be more corks opening in the United States tonight than there will be on the other side. It is a genuine tragedy that such a great thing for Australian growers has been let go at an absolute discount price. It is completely irresponsible. To give away such a significant concession and gain nothing in return is bad policy. It is obviously good for our competitors but very bad for Australians.
It is worthwhile pointing out a number of the historic benefits of the single desk—the way the numbers appear to be going here they will be historic. First of all there was the premium price. It does not matter where you look; a whole range of surveys have been conducted as to whether, for example, it is part of the competition policy. There is a whole suite of them. I understand from the Speaker in the other place that there is everything from $5 a tonne to $70 a tonne, but whatever it is, it is a positive number; it is a benefit in terms of the premium having a single desk. Whilst Mr Rudd is not a chap who I would often go to for economic advice, I would like to quote a letter from the then Leader of the Opposition in which he made the argument that we have to hang on to the single desk because it has a great deal of economic feedback for the growers. Mr Rudd quoted a study from Econtech and stated:
... on the premium attributed to the single desk, that indicates that on the benchmark of Australian premium white grade for wheat, the single desk captures a premium of between $15 and $30 a tonne. The total annual value to Australian growers of this premium on Australian premium white is $80 million. On all grades the average premium attributed to the single desk is $13 a tonne and the total annual value of the premium on all grades is $200 million.
That is the now Prime Minister saying, ‘Look, there is great value in the single desk. It ensures that there is a better return of premium to our growers.’ As I said, he is not someone I would normally seek economic advice from, but he certainly put that forward. And Econtech, who are a very reputable organisation, have ensured that we understand completely that when we walk away from the single desk arrangements we are taking that premium off growers. Make no mistake about it: growers will be worse off under this legislation. There is a common thread; this legislation is not about growers. Interestingly, I think the word was only used three times in the entire legislation, because this is not about growers; this is about those people who are further up in the food chain—the larger sharks. This is about looking after our mates in the United States and about looking after multinational companies. I think that is a common thread. I recommend that all other senators have a careful look at this legislation, because it is not about looking after growers; it is about looking after people who seek to make more profits out of their enterprise.
One of the principles has always been that the single desk was, in effect, a buyer of last resort. Subject to quality, Australian growers were always guaranteed that any wheat that had been harvested would be bought or sold by the single desk operator. This is most important, particularly in big harvests when there is a carryover. People can quote certain years and say that it will not really matter. Perhaps in some years it will not, but over time we are going to have large harvests, we are going to have a carryover and we are going to have new wheat in the market as well as the wheat from the year before. When we had a single desk, the single desk arrangements were able to ensure that the returns to the growers, under both of those circumstances, benefited the growers. Of course, under the new arrangements there is no requirement for any trader to take any more wheat than they have an immediate customer for, and there is no way of selling a carryover crop when there is a new grain harvest to compete with. I certainly do not think that that suits growers. Again, the common theme is that that does suit the traders because they do not have any obligation to the growers. The growers finish at the gate. ‘See you, mate. Good luck. Now we are going to go and do the business; we are going to get into the blending.’ Of course, the blending will no longer have any real benefit to the growers. If you understand wheat marketing, the blending is where the money is made. Sorry, growers; I know you used to participate in that, but this is not your business anymore. The profit business is now all about the traders, and the traders must be loving this tonight.
As I have said, a number of growers are pretty disaffected with the legislation before us tonight. They used to talk to me about security. I asked them, ‘What do you mean by security? What sort of security?’ They said, ‘Well, you don’t really think; you just go and grow a crop. With the sort of inputs you’ve got today, you’ve got to go and borrow a bit of money. We have crop financing and it’s the security of crop financing.’ With a single desk—with the circumstances today—you can actually have an estimated price in advance. You can go with that estimated price to a bank, and it is a bankable asset. The bank will say, ‘How many acres? This is the approximation; this is your estimated price, so I will be able to forward you that money with a level of confidence in a process that has a lot of convention.’ Over a lot of time it has proved to be financially and ethically decent. It is a good process that has been going for a very long time. Of course, you can imagine that today, with the skyrocketing inputs that our grain and food producers in Australia have to deal with, it makes trying to get crop financing a very complex issue. Not being able to have that absolute guarantee of an estimated price will make it a lot harder. Without that guarantee, the growers will have to bear all the risk of growing the crop, and it will place a further burden on an industry that has not been burdened in this way for some 65 years—and, frankly, today that should not be necessary.
There has been a lot of debate about the growers’ sentiment: who are you supporting? I acknowledge and we recognise and respect that our colleagues in the coalition have a different view from us on this matter. It is interesting that when you move around the community, and if you are on a committee, you recognise quite clearly that the industry and the communities are split on this matter. I respect their views on that. In the coalition, yes, we are split on it, but at least we respect the wider community’s views and values.
An overwhelming number of growers—about 70 per cent—wish to keep the single desk and the remainder do not. Whilst I wish well those who do not support the single desk, and I respect their views, it is the view of the National Party that we would always support the majority of growers. It is interesting that that is not only our view but also the view of the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. Again, in a letter to growers, on 8 February last year, he said:
Labor will continue to support the single desk while we are convinced that there is strong economic value in the single desk for growers and the Australian economy ...
And he did a very good job of pointing that out to us a minute ago through the Econtech report. He has built a very succinct argument that we have certainly got the economic value there. He also said that Labor would continue to support the single desk while ‘it retains the support of growers and the community’. The Prime Minister has built a great argument. He said: ‘There’s the economic value; we’ll hang on to it,’ and ‘Whilst it maintains the support of growers, we’ll hang on to it.’ Unfortunately, he has walked away from that. The government are on the record as saying that they are strong supporters of the single desk and that it remains Labor Party policy while ever growers support it. Growers still do support it, so I do not understand—and nor do the growers—why the Labor Party are now moving away from what was intrinsically an absolutely fundamental part of their policy.
So what has changed? Labor are refusing to poll growers. Instead, they are forcing this flawed legislation through against the wishes of growers. But I think everyone accepts that you do not have to poll them—there is no point. Everybody knows—whether it is the Ralph review or just simply the people who have turned up here today—that, right across the board, we are split. But 70 per cent of growers believe that it is very important. We cannot support a bill that goes against the wishes of growers. We cannot support legislation that is designed to allow multiple multinational companies to enter the market with the sole aim of making money out of the trade. That is a very laudable outcome. I love making money. I love to support businesses that make money. But it is all about getting a decent share. Do the growers get any benefit from efficiency dividends and profitability past the farm gate? Not from this night onwards. This money should be retained by growers or reinvested into the industry, as is the process under the grower owned and controlled single desk.
Labor said that they had a plan for Australia’s wheat marketing, but I think they just had an idea. As we often have, in this case they will learn that a thought bubble is very hard to transfer into legislation that works. There will be a great tragedy here tonight. I hope I am wrong, and I know those on the other side are hoping the same, but I think most growers in this country know that this aspect of deregulation will mean that growers will be worse off than they are today. That is why we are not supporting this legislation.
The warning bells over this legislation started to ring loudly when both the Western Australian and New South Wales ministers for agriculture said, ‘Pull up; slow down. This needs to be given more thought.’ The Wheat Export Marketing Alliance was fantastically and courageously put together by Mr Blight, but what did the minister say? He said, ‘Sorry, we’ve got a fundamental approach to this. That wasn’t a Labor election commitment.’ It does not matter what your Labor commitment was; this is bad policy. There was an opportunity for the minister to take advice from industry leaders and come up with another approach, but he gave it short thrift on the basis of, ‘That’s not part of our policy.’
Today we had the second protest rally of growers here in Canberra. I am not really sure what we are going to tell them in the future, but at least we can say that we tried. I wonder why the government does not care about them. They are not just growers. They are communities. They are women and children. We saw them here today. They are genuinely concerned about their future. Are Labor really interested in supporting the wishes and aspirations of those people who want to make money out of the growers—the traders and the bulk handlers? This legislation seems to indicate that that is the case. The Nationals will not support this bill, and we urge all senators to think long and hard about who should own and benefit from this industry. What I and the National Party want to do is maximise the return to growers—not to multinational grain traders.
2135
18:26:00
Bartlett, Sen Andrew
DT6
Queensland
AD
0
0
Senator BARTLETT
—There are only a few minutes to go before the dinner break, so I will just speak initially to the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. As I think all speakers on the legislation have noted—including Senator Scullion, who has just concluded—there are different views amongst the community. There are different views amongst growers and amongst and within most political parties. I think the fact that the Senate has been able to examine the issue in some detail and work through those differing views via the Senate committee process is a tribute not only to Senate committee processes when they work well but also to those senators who have sought to engage constructively on what is a heated and complex issue. There are a lot of different stakeholders with respect to this and it is an area where there have been significant changes and there is ongoing change—social change and economic change—at a local level, a national level and an international level.
It is certainly the case that the Democrats in the past have tended to support single desk arrangements, both in this area and in others. That is a position that I do not believe is sustainable any longer. I do not say that to criticise the position that others have taken in the past but simply to examine the situation as it stands now. I do not believe it is the case—as far as I can see from looking at all the evidence—that the majority of growers will be worse off with the scrapping of the single desk. It seems fairly clear to me that the changes that are put in place through this legislation are not likely to be the last word with regard to wheat marketing arrangements and wheat exporting arrangements. I have absolutely no doubt that there will be a very strong examination from all quarters about how these new arrangements operate, whether there are unintended consequences and whether there should be further modifications—and that is as it should be. But I think it is fair to say that, if and when these changes are passed, while there may be further changes down the track, they will not be changes that see us go back to a single desk arrangement. I say that not just because of the specifics surrounding the wheat industry at the moment or in the foreseeable future but also because, if we look at the other single desk arrangements with other products that have become part of history over the years, I think in many cases it has been shown that the sky has not fallen in.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm
DT6
Bartlett, Sen Andrew
Senator BARTLETT
—Continuing my remarks on the Wheat Export Marketing Bill and the related bill, as I was saying before the dinner break, with many other commodities in Australia in the past, we have had single markets operating. Over time, all of those single-desk arrangements have been phased out or removed, and the sky has not fallen in. I do not believe that the sky will fall in on this occasion with the passage of this legislation. As I also said before the break, I do not believe that the majority of growers will be worse off with the abolition of the single desk. Indeed, it is quite clear—it is one of the reasons why quite a significant number of growers do support this legislation—that some growers have clearly received less for their wheat as a result of the single desk than they otherwise would have. That is an arrangement that had some historical justifications for it, but I do not think it is justified any longer.
There is a diversity of views on this, as I said previously, across all political parties. Not all people in the Democrats agree with the position that I take in regard to this—that the single desk should be abolished. There are differing views undoubtedly and clearly within the Liberal Party and within the Labor Party. I am sure that there are some, indeed, within the Nationals who do not actually agree with the position that that party is taking. Whilst the scandal over the activities of the AWB may have been the catalyst for the breakdown of the single-desk arrangements, I think it is wrong to suggest that that is the only reason why the single desk is being abolished. The time had clearly come for a change in the arrangements in this area. If that was a catalyst for moving forward then so be it. But I think it is actually a positive outcome and will produce, over time, better results and better income not only for the majority of growers but also for others that are involved in the process of wheat exports and wheat trading more generally.
I think it is important to focus on the impact on growers and on all of those that are involved in and affected by the wheat industry and the impact on Australia’s export earnings rather than getting too far into being sidetracked by some of the political points that could be scored backwards and forwards. I do not seek to do that in this debate, but I do think there are some broader philosophical issues that come into play here. The situation regarding the wheat industry has changed over the years, and attitudes and views about agricultural sectors have also changed over the years. My views have changed over the years. As I said prior to the break, the position of the Democrats in this chamber has traditionally been to support not just single-desk arrangements in wheat but also other single desks and similar types of arrangements that have existed in the past. I certainly have modified my views over time and I think there are quite strong arguments for it being in the interest not just of growers but also the Australian economy and, in some significant respects, better environmental management. We actually have more opportunity for competitive markets and for the incentives for investment that come from having those competitive markets. That does not necessarily mean a laissez-faire law of the jungle arrangement, but it certainly means moving away from the sorts of constrained markets that occur under a single desk.
We have seen and at the moment are seeing—I note that Senator Joyce is following me on the speakers list; I am interested in hearing his views about this—debate about the future relationship between the National Party and the Liberal Party in my home state of Queensland. Perhaps it is just as well that this issue is out of the way before the proposed merger occurs. I saw reports of Senator Joyce talking about the nature of the Nationals, at least in Queensland, and calling them—apparently without irony—‘agrarian socialists’. I had always thought that was an ironic label, but perhaps I was mistaken. To some extent, it shows me some of the problems with what I would see as the dated approach that the Nationals are taking on this particular piece of legislation. I am not saying they are being insincere in their approach by any means, but I think it does not recognise the problems that go hand in hand with that.
Without getting sidetracked, I see Senator Mason in the chamber. I almost feel a bit of inspiration to start attacking the lefties and the socialists, as he has done year after year. As I said, I think the phrase ‘agrarian socialist’ is actually an ironic label, so perhaps Senator Mason was also being ironic in the past when he made those many speeches. But I think the broader thing that comes forward under that particular label is the inherent assumption of reducing the potential amount that can be made through the operation of a more free-flowing market and trading that off, if you like, with the safety net—people might not earn as much, but at least people will all know what they are going to earn. That, to me, seems to be one of the key issues in this particular debate. Certainly it is handy to have a clear idea of what the price is going to be; but, if that is at the cost of providing the opportunity for people to explore getting a higher price, it does not seem to me to be a particularly helpful arrangement in the longer term for an industry, for an economy and for the wider community.
We need to ensure that we do not adopt an arrangement that maximises a private approach when there are profits to be made and that maximises regulation when there is concern about losses. The arrangements that apply in most other agricultural industries should, in my view, apply in the wheat industry. There are ongoing issues that need to be sorted out as the industry makes its transition. I do not for a moment pretend that the transition will not be without pain and difficulty. My view and, I am sure, the view of all Democrats is that difficulties that occur along the way should receive a sympathetic ear from government and from all the players who are linked into the industry. The fact that there are some difficulties involved in adjusting should not be used as an excuse not to make those adjustments, particularly when the end result, as I have stated previously, will most likely be that the majority of growers will be better off as a result of these arrangements.
It is already quite clear that a significant number of growers have had to settle for less income than they would have otherwise received under previous arrangements, with the middlemen and others along the way creaming off far more than they should have. So, while these new arrangements will not be perfect in every way for all players, I think it is clearly a move towards a better set-up for wheat growers as well as for others who are involved in the process. It is a positive move for the environment. Indeed, I think it is a positive move from the majority of the opposition who are taking this step and, to some extent, making a shift away from the position they were taking in the past. In the same way, the Democrats have shifted their view on this matter. The only thing that I would urge is ongoing assessment of the operation of these new arrangements.
2135
19:39:00
Wortley, Sen Dana
E6C
South Australia
ALP
1
0
Senator WORTLEY
—I seek leave to incorporate a speech by Senator Sterle on the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008.
Leave granted.
2135
19:39:00
Sterle, Sen Glenn
E68
Western Australia
ALP
1
0
Senator STERLE
—The incorporated speech read as follows—
Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008
Mr President I rise to speak on the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008. This Bill fulfils Labor’s Election commitment to move quickly to restore the integrity of Australia’s export wheat marketing system and to improve the efficiency and performance of Australia’s export wheat marketing chain.
Let’s be brutally frank. We wouldn’t be here today debating this Bill if Australia’s export wheat marketing arrangements were not in disarray and had not become a total embarrassment to all concerned.
Australia’s export wheat marketing arrangements failed:
-
Because of policy incompetence on the part of the now departed Howard Government
-
Because of the failure by the Howard Government to ensure accountability and appropriate transparency in the operations and conduct of AWB (International) Limited and its subsidiary companies
-
Because of the descent into corruption at high levels within AWB at the time.
These failures badly tarnished Australia’s hard won international standing as a reputable wheat exporter.
These failures resulted in substantial economic damage to Australia’s export wheat sector.
Despite the signs, despite the risks to the national interest, the responsible Ministers in the Howard Government sat on their hands until maximum damage was done.
They didn’t listen, they didn’t look, they didn’t probe.
When the Howard Government did act its actions were piecemeal and indecisive.
It is recognised by all wheat industry stakeholders that an extension of the current interim arrangements past the end of June this year is not a viable option.
Failure to put into place the necessary reforms from 1 July this year would place an enormous deadweight in the saddle of Australia’s export wheat sector.
The Rudd Government is determined that this will not occur.
After the debacle of recent years brought about by the neglect and incompetence of the Howard Government, Australia’s wheat farmers deserve prompt and decisive government action so they can move ahead with confidence doing what they do best—producing high quality wheat for the international and domestic markets.
Mr President, this Bill has been drafted after extensive consultation and advice from all stake holders, including wheat growers, wheat export organisations, bulk handlers and the relevant government agencies.
The Bill has also been the subject of an enquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.
There is no doubt that there remains a breadth of views amongst individual wheat grower organisations and individual wheat growers of what should happen from this point. However individual wheat growers can’t be criticised for this situation, particularly given the way the Libs and the Nationals have been at each other’s throats over how the shambles that they presided over should be fixed.
This fact alone shows how fortunate it is that there is now a government willing to take a leadership role and to act decisively, based on the best informed advice available.
As one of the witnesses to the Senate committee inquiry hearing in Perth, Mr Douglas Clarke, a WA wheat grower, observed;
“This legislation moves the grain industry out of the 19th century into the 21st century where we have the same rights and abilities to do things as everybody in Australia has and to run our businesses accordingly”.
However I think it is fair to say that a number of those who made the time and effort to give evidence to the Committee were having difficulty in adjusting to the need for change and would prefer, if possible, to roll back the clock.
Mr President, the Senate Committee heard more than enough evidence to prove to a majority of committee members that this simply isn’t an option.
This is what makes the dissenting report of the National Party members on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport and Senator Scullion, representing the NT Country Liberal Party, so bewildering.
The stance taken by the Nationals in respect to the Oil-for-Food scandal is particularly breathtaking. In their dissenting report they had this to say about the oil-for-food scandal.
“The Oil-for-Food scandal has been used very successfully as a means of leverage to destroy one of Australia’s greatest wheat marketing advantages. The motivation for the contrived uproar was far from the protestation of an informed conscience but more of a financial opportunistic ploy for certain market players to set themselves up as regional monopolies with the windfall gain to those who had a financial interest in them”
One has to wonder what planet Senators Joyce, Nash and Scullion have been on over the past few years.
In other words, as far as the National Senators are concerned, Australia’s international reputation doesn’t matter, corporate governance doesn’t matter, transparency doesn’t matter.
Apparently National Senators believe we should all just get over it and act as if nothing happened.
Well this might be the way the National party operates but it sure is not the way this Government operates.
It is also not the way the vast majority of Australians expect their Government to operate.
Australians care about Australia’s international reputation. They know if you lose people’s trust, including in the international sphere, it’s very hard to restore it.
It is evident that the Nationals are willing to play a very dangerous game with Australia’s international trading reputation and with the livelihoods of thousands of Australian wheat growers.
Australians have the right to expect high levels of probity and performance by those given responsibility by government to represent Australia as a reputable trading nation as well as safeguarding the long term interests of Australia’s hardworking, and by world standards, highly efficient wheat growers.
This Bill provides for the establishment of a new agency, Wheat Exports Australia, to rigorously oversight export wheat marketing arrangements.
The reforms contained in the Bill have been designed to restore integrity and to significantly improve the performance of Australia’s export wheat marketing system.
The reforms will ensure that there is contestability in the provision of international bulk wheat marketing and transport services as well as providing wheat growers with greater selling options.
These were matters that were raised by individual wheat growers and representatives of wheat industry organisations during the Senate Committee enquiry.
The system of accreditation contained in this Bill will ensure that companies who engage in the international marketing of Australia’s bulk wheat sales meet clear and strict probity.
Further companies who wish to engage in Australian export wheat marketing will be required to demonstrate that they have the management skills and the systems in place to manage the risks associated with the international wheat trade and that they are well placed to deliver best returns for wheat growers.
The reforms contained in this Bill will restore the high level of trust in Australia’s export wheat marketing arrangements that Australia enjoyed prior to the Howard Government effectively handing over the international marketing of Australia’s annual multi-billion dollar wheat crop to a private “do as you like” monopoly.
The reforms will also ensure that wheat growers benefit from the incentive for high performance that will come with competition in the marketing of Australia’s export wheat.
The reforms will give individual wheat growers much greater room to move to adapt their wheat production to take advantages of new market opportunities as well as changes in overseas demand patterns.
The National Senators argue that a single desk selling monopoly delivers higher prices and revenue for the grower. However they have been unable to bring forward substantive evidence to support that claim.
It is a claim that has been thoroughly debunked on several occasions by independent analysis, a fact that has either escaped the attention or been ignored by the Nationals.
Without any prompting from the Government, the measures contained in the Bill have been widely applauded publicly by expert independent commentators and analysts.
In regular years Australia accounts for around 15% of the world wheat trade. It really stretches credibility to engage in the fantasy that this level of market share enables Australia to exert significant supplier monopoly power.
It is also important to note that real returns to wheat growers depend, not only on the export price, but also on how cost efficient the provision of all the services is, including marketing, storing and transporting of the wheat from producer to buyer.
Certainly the Senate Committee heard credible evidence of significant cost imposts incurred directly and indirectly by wheat growers that were clearly a result of the fact that AWB’s monopoly position protected it from competition from other potential suppliers of the same services.
I turn briefly to the situation in relation to my State of WA.
Western Australia produces approximately 40% of Australia’s wheat crop. More than in any other state, wheat growers in WA rely on the performance of Australia’s export wheat marketing arrangements for the long term economic security of their livelihood and the level of return for their efforts.
Unlike wheat growers in the eastern states who have ready access to a substantial and increasing domestic market, Western Australian growers rely almost exclusively on export sales.
Approximately 90% of Western Australia’s wheat production goes to the export wheat market. What this means is that in most years WA delivers approximately 50% of Australia’s wheat exports.
Therefore Western Australian wheat growers are heavily dependent on a reliable and efficient export wheat marketing system.
Mr President the evidence that was presented to the Senate committee was very convincing that the way the AWB wheat pooling arrangement worked resulted in Western Australian wheat growers subsidising eastern states growers in respect to pool costs.
Under the old system eastern state wheat growers not only had the advantage of ready access to a large and growing deregulated domestic wheat market, their export wheat returns were, in effect, being subsidised by Western Australian wheat growers.
Mr President that’s the sort thing that happens when you have a commercial monopoly.
It is also very interesting to note that a vehement opponent to the single desk, single seller monopoly in respect to export wheat is the Liberal Party Member for the Federal Electorate of O’Connor. The Electorate of O’Connor is the largest wheat producing electorate in Australia.
If ever there was a place and time to test the real feelings and wishes of export wheat growers, it was the large WA rural electorate of O’Connor at the 2007 election.
Mr Tuckey had no difficulty in sending the Nationals candidate for the seat packing in the 2007 Election.
The fact that the Nationals couldn’t get their candidate up in O’Connor demonstrated just how far the Nationals were out of step with electors who live and work in the largest wheat producing electorate in Australia.
Mr President it is important to remind senators that, depending on the year, Senator Joyce’s State of Queensland produces only 4% to 8% of Australia’s wheat crop.
To the best of my knowledge, the Northern Territory from where Senator Scullion comes from, and who has also signed up to the Nationals’ position, doesn’t produce any wheat at all.
Furthermore Queensland wheat growers have ready access to a growing deregulated domestic wheat market. Basically the export wheat trade is a marginal issue for Queensland compared to the main wheat growing states.
It is also relevant to note that, in recent times, there has been a massive increase in wheat grower participation in the non-regulated export wheat trade in bags and containers. In January this year the Export Wheat Commission reported very strong growth in non-bulk wheat exports since the deregulation of this trade in August 2007.
In fact in the seven months to March this year over 36% of wheat exports, by weight, was non-bulk with southeast Asian countries and Bangladesh accounting for the large majority of this trade – many of these countries are growing markets for WA wheat.
It is clear from this trend that Australia’s wheat growers are more than ready to embrace more flexible export wheat marketing arrangements that will be offered by this legislation in respect to bulk export wheat.
I would also like to touch briefly on another matter that came up during the Senate Committee enquiry on the Bill. The fear was expressed by a small number of witnesses that the Government’s proposed export wheat marketing reforms would lead to further rundown of wheat producing communities and wheat district rural towns.
I have to say that from the evidence given by other witnesses there was a real sense of excitement that the legislation will create more opportunities for wheat growers to expand and develop their industry.
This can only benefit the viability of small businesses in wheat growing districts that depend on a vibrant and prosperous wheat industry.
Hence I believe that the reforms rather than being a negative in respect to the future of towns in wheat growing districts will have the opposite effect.
The reforms will give wheat growers powerful incentives to develop and expand their wheat growing operations. This can only be positive for rural towns in Australia’s wheat growing districts.
Mr President the time has come to put the turmoil in Australia’s export wheat marketing system behind us.
We need to enable all stakeholders to get on with the job of consolidating and improving Australia’s position as a reliable and highly competitive supplier of a premium product that the world seems likely to need in increasing volumes in the years ahead.
This will demonstrate to the Australian Community, and not least to wheat growers, and to other stakeholders that they can be confident of the future of the industry and of the Australian Government’s determination to nurture and protect Australia’s international wheat trading reputation and the long term interests of thousands of Australian wheat growers.
The reforms contained in this Bill will provide a firm platform for this to occur. I would therefore encourage Opposition Senators, including National Party Senators to wholeheartedly support the Bill.
If National Party Senators reject this reform opportunity their action, while it is highly unlikely to prevent the reforms going ahead, will do nothing towards supporting the ongoing development of Australia’s wheat industry.
For its part the Rudd Government has committed itself to continue to work closely with the industry, particularly wheat growers, to insure that it remains attentive and responsive to the factors affecting the performance of this important and valuable agricultural industry.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
2135
19:39:00
Joyce, Sen Barnaby
E5D
Queensland
NATS
0
0
Senator JOYCE
—I would like to acknowledge the work that Senator Nash did in the committee stage of the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008. Due to circumstances in her family, Senator Nash cannot be here tonight. So, in my contribution to this bill tonight, I speak also on her behalf.
The defeat of this legislation should be a complete no-brainer. It is quite apparent that, in the current drafting of the legislation, a range of issues have not been thought through. Even in discussions with Mr Woods this afternoon regarding sections of the bill, such as the accreditation scheme, I have seen that this legislation as it stands has holes all through it. So, if on nothing else but a technical process and the competency of a government to bring forward legislation that has been thought through, especially with something as contentious as wheat exports, this legislation is lacking.
If you do not want to give competitors a free kick in front of our trade goalpost, the need to defeat this legislation is obvious. There is no question about it. We have the ridiculous concept that now, with 60 per cent of our world’s wheat being purchased by single-desk buyers, Australia will go forward. We hear that 80 to 100 people are looking at becoming accredited, while a number of other people in the same room will be selling the same product from the same area. There is only one way the price of Australian wheat will go, and that will be reflected back to the grower. Of course, they are the ones who lose. The trader picks up the margin on the way through, but the grower picks up the final result. So this legislation should be defeated on that scenario alone.
If you believe in open and transparent government that fully ventilates and gets to the end of contentious issues and that gives alternative models, such as the Wheeler model, a chance to go forward and succeed, then this legislation should be defeated. If you believe that the Ralph report should have been tabled so that its outcome could be seen and thereby give a reflection of a true and transparent government dealing with its people, then you should defeat this legislation, because the government has not presented that report. If you believe in legislation reflecting the democratic will of the people, especially those whom it will affect to the greatest extent, then this legislation should be defeated. We know that, overwhelmingly, the Australian wheat grower does not want to lose the single desk.
If you believe in removing monopolies, then you need to understand that this legislation is actually creating them. Those who vote for this legislation are going to create regional monopolies that will have a huge impact on where the marketing of one of our prime exports goes forward from this point. I am sure that there are people in the chamber tonight who know that what they are doing is not quite right. They know in the pit of their stomach that they are about to hand over something to our major trading competitors in the United States. If they are honest with themselves in their quieter moments, they will know that they should not support this legislation. But they are being driven towards it. The question that everybody is asking tonight is: driven towards it by whom?
Why do Australians want to associate with farmers and why are they proud of them? We are proud of farmers because, for very little return, they do a job that is decent and honourable. It is decent and honourable in that the efforts that farmers put into their endeavours lead to food being placed on the table. One of the key things we should look at tonight is the effect that this legislation will have in reducing the affordability of wheat and making its growing less worth while. As that reduces, fewer people will grow wheat. As fewer people grow wheat, there will be less of it on the world market. With less wheat on the world market, there will be less food to feed people, and people will starve—especially now, when we have very short supplies of grain.
We are playing with a mechanism. We are playing into the hands of monopolies and multinational organisations that will certainly extract a premium, but they will extract that premium, at the end of the food chain, from those who are most exposed. Do not think for a moment that this legislation is not going to have ramifications outside of Australia. Do not think for a moment that, with less wheat being produced, somebody in Africa or in South-East Asia will not be affected by the decisions you make in this chamber tonight.
It is peculiar in the extreme when I see people such as the Greens doing a 180-degree turn. They are now helping a multinational extract an unreasonable premium from the market to the detriment of the most vulnerable in the world community. They are supporting this. There is something that is a little bit insidious about this whole process.
We keep referring back to the AWB. This is the life raft that people attach themselves to—the disgraced AWB. That is it; that is the raison d’etre for going down this path. However, I never hear people talking about the disgraced Japanese or the disgraced Germans. People that Australia has gone to war against seem to get a fuller reprieve than an organisation that, since that point in time, has removed the people who were involved. It is an inanimate body which you have tried to place a certain conscience on, not so much to put a moral position onto that organisation but to remove yourselves from the same moral question. It is a convenient argument, but it is a shallow argument.
There are so many views that are quoted, but no-one wants to be absolutely transparent with the numbers of Australian wheat growers who want to maintain the single desk. It is their livelihood; it is their income. It was the Labor Party that went to the last election and won it on the premise of bringing a fairer outcome to working families. We learnt our lesson—they won; we lost. But it is complete insincerity and a complete change of heart which really cuts through the absolute philosophical core of what you are—that you are now going to persecute other working families that you do not identify with as much because they might be a little bit different to you. Were those working families that were out there today the wrong type of working families? Do you want another type of working family? Do you have a very specific type of working family which is the only working family you wish to help? Those working families today are obviously under immense stress and this change is going to be reflected through them.
Let us just walk through one of the events that can occur from here. Currently we are going to have the Wheat Export Authority granting licences. I have asked about this tonight and there is no mechanism in the granting of a Wheat Export Authority licence to ensure that a person has unconditional access to a port at a certain price. That is to be determined by commercial terms and by the port. So what we will have now—and this is another flaw in your legislation—is the ownership of the grain transferring to the trader upon the transferral of goods, even though the payment has not been made. So the agent takes delivery of the crop from the farmer, who is hocked up to the eyeballs and is hoping for that last crop. The crop comes under the ownership of the agent. The agent takes it to the export facility. The export facility says, ‘We will export it at these terms,’ which are obviously out of line and unprecedented. So then the agent starts going broke because it cannot export its wheat. It cannot get payment and therefore the farmer, who is back at the farm, never receives their payment. Not only do they lose their crop; they lose their place.
That is the consequence of the lack of forethought that has gone into this legislation that is currently before us, and nobody seems to be prepared to do anything about it. Tonight when I asked that question of Minister Ludwig, the answer I got back was: ‘I didn’t write the legislation. Those problems are just there.’ That is completely unacceptable and you should take it on as a moral duty to do something about it. You should have the bravery and the conviction to turn around now and say: ‘We haven’t got this quite right. Even if we want deregulation, this is not quite right and we’re going to do something about it.’ If you do not then you really have denigrated this place and obviously this is just a cathartic place of no real consequence where you march in, do whatever you are told and toddle back out the door. Your oath of office has obviously lost its conviction.
Where was the rally? We always hear about the strong views of those in favour of deregulation. Where was the rally for those in favour of deregulation? They could not even muster a football team with a free keg. Yet, leaving sowing and their debts at home with whoever had to look after the place and leaving the bank manager screaming down the phone, we managed to get 500 or 600 farmers to come out here today. That is the sort of feeling that is permeating and those people are angry. They are angry because this parliament has deserted them. They are angry because this parliament has left them on their own. They are angry because this parliament no longer reflects their views. So it becomes not just a slight on the wheat issue but a reflection on how this parliament reflects its people.
I can see the numbers stacking up with the most peculiar extremes—the Greens and a whole range of people all lining up to help Cargill, an American multinational, along with GrainCorp take control of the eastern seaboard and CBH take control of the western seaboard. CBH, which has 95 per cent of receival infrastructure and 100 per cent of ports, is trying to take control of the west; Cargills and GrainCorp are trying to take control of the east with 100 per cent of the ports and the vast majority of the receival enterprises. This is what we are voting for. After this debate, the senators will leave this chamber and they will fascinate themselves with discussions about how they actually got it right, how everybody else is confused, how the only ones in step in this squadron are themselves and how the Australian people will just have to learn to meet it. I have heard some ridiculous statements that this is only the position of the old farmers. How condescending and ridiculous is that! That is the position of the old farmers. That is how it was in the past. Things have got to move on. When you lose your sense of compassion and empathy, that is how you start talking. I find it coming from all sides. I find it coming form the Labor side and it is completely nauseating no matter where it comes from.
I am perplexed because I listened to some of the Greens senators speaking tonight and I know that, despite their disgust with Peter Garrett, they have gone out and done exactly the same thing—deserted their principles to get in line with the American multinational, Cargill, and big business. Remember that these grain traders at times can be the worst of the worst. The big, multinational grain traders have got influence in a way that no-one else has because they determine the food that people eat. They have got you over the ultimate barrel. Yet the Greens have decided that they will support them tonight.
I do not see this as the preserve of the Nationals—it is bigger than that. In fact, if that is all it is then that is very sad, because we are really hoping to show to the Australian people that we have the capacity in this chamber to listen to what is the ultimate and overwhelming view. I went to many meetings where the sentiment was overwhelmingly that they wanted to maintain the single desk. Their inherent fear is—even the people wanting to deregulate have this inherent fear—of regional monopolies coming into place. And they are going to come. I used to work for ConAgra. I know what happens next. They are going to extract an unreasonable premium and manipulate the market. And they know they can do it in a nation such as Australia because we have the weakest trade practices laws in the Western world. We are just ripe for the picking.
I find it peculiar in the extreme, listening to Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, in the United States; Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, in the United States; or Alan Tracy, director of US Wheat Associates. All these people previously had one thing in common: they hated the Australian single desk because it gave the Australian wheat farmers an advantage. They were trying to match that advantage with subsidies, but they disliked intensely our single desk. It was the first thing they would bring up in discussion. Even at the last Doha round, the first thing that Mark Vaile was confronted with were attempts to get rid of our single desk. So what do we do? Do we even get anything for handing it across? No. We just hand it in. What is the point of that? Why are we doing this tonight to Australians?
I understand that the Liberals have a different view on this, and I am disappointed about that. More to the point, I am disappointed to know that some Liberals do not have a different view to mine but are going to support handing it across nonetheless; that is even more disappointing. I am disappointed that there has been this manipulation of facts. We heard that this was all because the Western Australians wanted deregulation. Over in the West, one of the senators said, ‘We cannot find anybody who wants to keep the current system of marketing.’ That is not correct. When we went over there, the largest farming group in Western Australia wanted to keep the single desk. The group that represents the greatest number of farmers in Western Australia wants to keep the single desk.
So where is the honesty in this debate? Where are the facts and figures of this large amorphous group that apparently wants deregulation but can never form a group of more than 10 in any one place at any one time? They never turn up and mount and ventilate their argument in a public forum—but apparently they are out there somewhere! I will tell you where they are: they are sitting at boardroom tables tonight, opening bottles of Moet and cheering the Australian Senate. That is where those wheat farmers are. And the people who are going to be exploited are those who tonight are dealing with machinery that has broken down, a drought that is going on, an auger that is busted. They are the Australian people; they are the people you should be going out and talking to. But I feel that a certain group has permeated this debate and affected the outcome that is going to be delivered to the Australian people.
I hope that Australian farmers will not give up on this because, if they do, they will be giving up on their own democratic system; they will be giving up on their own proper representation in this parliament. I hope that they do maintain the rage because, if they fall over on this one, so many other issues will fall over as well and we will get a continual march of corporate interests into rural Australia, we will start to lose the family farm, we will start to lose Australians’ connection to the land they walk on and we will start to justify and moralise by reason of the overwhelming line. ‘This is the way the pure market works. We walk over the top of you’—that is how it works! And we are not even getting a pure market; we are getting the corporatisation and monopolisation of specific and centralised essential parts of production. So they will control the market.
After this goes through—and I am no fool; I know it will go through—what will we have? The person who receives the wheat will be the person who gets control of the rolling stock, who will be the person who owns 100 per cent of the export facilities, who will be the person who controls the export market. And that will be claimed as a success for the Australian grower! And, after GrainCorp, who now are in trouble, get themselves into more strife and Cargill takes a greater controlling ownership of it—because currently eight per cent of GrainCorp is owned by Cargill—our major competitor will be marketing our wheat. Doesn’t that just show the collective intellect of this chamber!
But what worries me is that I know that you know this. I know that you know it is wrong. So why are you doing it? That is the question that has to be posed to all of you—and do not go into that sort of communal confession session where you all lie to one another. Ask yourselves, in your quieter moments: the majority of the Australian wheat growers did not want this—why did we do it to them? Why did we do it, when we could have done something else, when we could have come out with a better outcome, when we even had the opportunity to close the holes that are so apparent in the legislation as it stands now?
What will be completely nauseating is that later we will see people feigning an association with this wide brown land, tearing around the countryside in RM Williams boots and Akubra hats, with earnest and sober looks on their faces as they walk through a paddock—knowing that it will look good in prime time back in Sydney. But we know that their true association, their true belief, their underlying core, is far from those people. The reason they do it, the reason they like that grab to appear on prime-time television somewhere between six o’clock and 7.30 is that they know the Australian people associate with Australian farmers—because Australian farmers inherently have always been pretty decent people.
In closing, one of the things we have to look at in this nation is food sovereignty. We talk about oil sovereignty, and that is extremely important. But we have to look at food sovereignty. We have to look at our capacity for delivering to our people one of the most fundamental aspects of what a nation does—feed itself. When you start walking away from that, you walk into all sorts of problems. When you start walking away from the multiplicity of participants at the farm level and start centralising that, you start playing a game that is extremely dangerous. That is, in essence, another reason why this is so dangerous—what this is a harbinger for.
This bill should be defeated because the majority of Australian wheat growers do not want it. This bill should be defeated because it plays straight into the hands of our major competitors. This bill should be defeated because its premise is based on people who did not tell the truth in disclosing how they would support the issues. This bill should be defeated because, even as it is drafted right now, it has holes all through it. And this bill should be defeated because you know—and I am referring to all senators—it is wrong.
2135
19:59:00
Murray, Sen Andrew
3M6
Western Australia
AD
0
0
Senator MURRAY
—I rise to speak to the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and its companion, the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I do not speak to this bill as its portfolio holder—for our party that is Senator Bartlett, who has already spoken—but I want to speak to it as a senator from Western Australia and also as the portfolio holder with respect to Corporations Law and corporate affairs generally. In my opinion, this is a great advance in both agricultural and corporate policy. The previous speaker, whom I am sometimes inclined to refer to as the ‘lion of Queensland’ because of his strong and courageous approach to matters, said that we senators know that this bill is wrong. Well, this senator does not. On the record, I say that I am going to present an alternative view.
I have spent a great deal of time with such members of the farming community, both people at the representational level and individuals, as I could, including, when the Ralph review was underway, attending a couple of mass meetings. I have said before in this chamber that I have never been convinced about the majority argument, but, even if it were true that a majority of Western Australian wheat farmers were for the single desk—there has been no survey, no headcount, ever that can attest to a majority; that is on the Hansard record of the committee hearing—and even if the majority of Western Australian wheat export farmers continued to be in support of the single desk, I would still regard this change as a desirable and necessary one in terms of a modern Australian agricultural economy.
I have not ever understood why it is good practice and good law, supported by all parties, that other grains and agricultural products are exported competitively—not on a single-desk basis—but that somehow wheat needs to be isolated in this manner. As we know, domestic wheat is sold in an open, deregulated and competitive market. As we know, the majority of eastern states wheat farmers do sell domestically—they are not export farmers. The majority of export farmers are, in fact, in my state.
But I do understand that many in the community, including their political representatives, feel very strongly about this issue, and I do not seek to diminish or devalue the strength of their feelings; they come from conviction. What I want to express in this debate is that I too have conviction and my conviction is different from yours. I am expressing that honestly, determinedly and positively. I have come to a conclusion which differs. It does not make yours invalid, but neither does it make mine invalid—unless the dangers you forecast actually emerge, and then of course I will be proven wrong. But, if the dangers you forecast do not emerge, you will be proven to be wrong, so we will have to see what the future holds.
It is Western Australian farmers who constitute the great bulk of wheat exporters. My view is that a minority want total deregulation with an open, competitive market with no controls at all—and that is a minority. My view is that another, considerably larger, minority want the retention of the single desk. My impression is that the rest in between, a more silent group, perhaps a majority, want a regulated market with a choice of a few licensed exporters. That is what they are getting. They are getting a regulated market, not an unregulated market. It is a regulated market with a choice of a few licensed exporters. It is not a laissez-faire market where you can sell to anybody on any basis you want to.
Australia is a modern, open-market, competitive economy. The National Party has stood proudly with the Democrats, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in advancing the cause of a modern, open-market, competitive economy. Australia’s farmers and the farming community in general are amongst the strongest and best exponents of a competitive industry and they certainly attract my admiration in many of the things they do. The wheat industry, as a component part of the Australian agricultural economy, has been structured remarkably differently, but other farmers do very, very well without single-desk mechanisms.
As a matter of public policy, monopolies are not desirable and they need to carry strong public interest arguments for their imposition or retention. Sometimes, of course, that argument can be made. It can be made with utilities. It can be made with things like casinos. I happen to believe that we do not need more than one in Western Australia, so I think an argument can be made in the public interest. But I do not think that argument has been made for export wheat, particularly when—I stress—all other grains and all other rural products are happily exported with a choice of exporters in normal, open-market arrangements. If a single desk is not needed for all other agricultural products and all other trade products, I have to be persuaded that it is in the public interest for it to be retained for wheat, and I have not been persuaded. So, with great respect to my National Party colleagues, whom I both like and value: I differ from you on this matter.
It comes to the question of numbers and the bills that are before us. I think there are weaknesses in the bills. For instance, one that occurs very much to me as a West Australian is that we have a state access regime that is already established and operating under law and there is a proposal in this bill to duplicate that, to double-up on regulation. That is unnecessary. Both the previous government and the present government were and are committed to doing away with overlapping and duplicated regulation. I would hope that either the National Party or the Liberal Party, or both of them, would be putting forward an amendment. In my view that amendment should say one of two things: if a state access regime already exists then they are exempted from the federal access regime; alternatively, the minister of the day should be given the power to exempt a complying state access regime. I have neither the time nor the carriage of this bill to construct such an amendment, but that is one of the amendments I would seek. And I would urge my National Party friends on the benches, if they see that they are going to get rolled with this bill, to at least put up amendments to address weaknesses that have been identified.
In the process of referring to weaknesses, I should of course compliment the chair and the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, which examined the exposure draft bills. I am aware that people like Senator Joyce attended numbers of those hearings. I only attended one, from memory. They did bring up some very cogent points. I think what I am doing is right, not wrong. I formed an opinion based on my consultations with the agricultural associations in my state, some of whom want the single desk and some of whom do not want the single desk—
YE4
Boswell, Sen Ron
Senator Boswell
—St George’s farmers or St Georges Terrace farmers? That’s the Liberal Party!
3M6
Murray, Sen Andrew
Senator MURRAY
—Stop making me laugh! Those farmers I am in touch with. I would hardly describe myself as a country lad, but I am certainly of the opinion that I have done enough consultation and observation and have involved myself in this issue enough to be making an informed opinion. And my informed opinion is that I will vote with the government on this bill.
2135
20:10:00
Webber, Sen Ruth
00AOT
Western Australia
ALP
1
0
Senator WEBBER
—I seek leave to incorporate Senator Hutchins’ speech in Hansard.
Leave granted.
2135
20:10:00
Hutchins, Sen Steve
84P
New South Wales
ALP
1
0
Senator HUTCHINS
—The incorporated speech read as follows—
Mr President, I rise to speak in support of the Wheat Export Marketing Bill.
Prior to last November’s election, the AWB Wheat for Weapons scandal drew attention to the lack of accountability and competition in Australia’s single desk wheat export marketing system. In response to this, Labor—in consultation with wheat growers and traders—released a policy to reform bulk wheat export marketing arrangements. This policy was received with open arms by many in the industry.
Since the election of the Rudd Labor Government, we have been working towards implementing these reforms and delivering on our election commitments—commitments that those opposite would do well to remember we have a mandate to deliver.
Without a doubt, the major reform measure in this bill is the liberalisation of the wheat export market—allowing for the accreditation of new bulk exporters.
The new system created by this bill will not completely deregulate the wheat export marketing system—rather it will remove the monopoly currently held by the Australian Wheat Board over wheat exports and provide for the accreditation of new bulk exporters.
In essence, this will remove the single desk system that has operated in various forms in Australia for the most part of the last fifty years.
The measures contained within this bill will improve competition within the wheat export market—providing more efficient marketing services, reducing the inherent risks associated with a single desk system, and improving accountability and transparency with respect to pricing and cost information.
With the passage of this bill—for the first time Australian wheat growers will be able to choose which accredited bulk exporter they want to conduct business with. Increased competition in this area will encourage marketing innovation and the development of existing markets.
By abolishing the single desk, this bill will remove a monopsony market structure at which growers must accept the single purchaser’s price. Instead, a new price-competitive market will be put in place where growers will benefit from multiple buyers competing for the right to export their wheat.
Australian Wheat Board Limited has indicated that it will seek accreditation under any new scheme—meaning that growers will have the option of remaining with AWB or using a competitor to export their product. Any exporter under this system will have an incentive to offer growers a greater share of the actual export price than under any past arrangements.
A system with multiple buyers will enable growers to negotiate fairer prices and spread their risk across multiple exporters—which is likely to improve the speed with which they sell their wheat.
At the centre of the new export system is a new industry regulator to develop and police an accreditations system for bulk exporters—it will be known as Wheat Exports Australia.
This authority will be empowered to develop, amend, and administer the accreditations scheme in accordance with guidelines outlined in the Bill. These guidelines include probity and performance tests, consideration of the company’s access to financial resources, risk management systems the company has in place, and the experience and past and present behaviour of the company and its executives.
Further, if the applicant corporation operates a port terminal for bulk grain exports—it must have an access arrangement in place. From October 2009 these arrangements must be agreed to by the ACCC. In order to receive accreditation, all bulk exporters will be required to sign a compliance statement declaring that the company has complied with their accreditation conditions.
However, the compliance statement and the accreditation condition guidelines are just the first step to providing a more transparent, accountable, and competitive wheat export marketing system. The provisions in this bill ensure that it is able to maintain the integrity of its accreditation scheme. It has all the necessary investigative powers to ascertain whether bulk exporters have breached the conditions of their accreditation. This includes the power to require information and audit exporters. Severe penalties will apply where breaches can be demonstrated to have taken place. Further, the legislation empowers Wheat Exports Australia to revoke or suspend accreditation where breaches of accreditation have taken place.
This bill does not, however, hand over complete control to the regulator. It maintains a degree of ministerial power to direct Wheat Exports Australia to investigate issues falling within its purview and to require bulk exporters to provide annual compliance reports and export data.
As with all major structural changes, the transition from a single desk will involve some adjustment. To help the industry adjust to the new arrangements the Government is making available up to 9.37 million dollars in assistance measures.
These will include up to 5 million dollars to help the new regulatory body Wheat Exports Australia get off the ground and fulfil its duties over the next three years. This is critical to ensure that the regulator is able to properly manage the accreditations process and police the conditions of accreditation.
Up to 2.52 million dollars will be provided to assist with collecting and distributing market data and analysis to better inform growers and buyers about the state of the wheat export market.
Up to 1.15 million dollars will be made available over the next financial year to inform growers and buyers about the new accreditation system and how it will work—including details on the reforms and the marketing options available for wheat producers.
6 hundred thousand dollars will be available to new markets to assist with creating new processes and arrangements to provide effective technical market support to customers and one hundred thousand dollars over the next financial year will go towards developing and promoting an industry code of conduct on transparent pricing practices at silos.
The government takes very seriously the impacts that these reforms will have and is committed to making the transition as smooth as possible for all stakeholders. This transitional arrangements package does just that and should make the move away from a single desk as simple and easy as possible for growers and exporters.
Mr President, one of the things that has characterised Labor’s approach to these reforms has been the consultation measures and processes that we have employed.
We have extensively consulted with stakeholders on the detail of this bill. When we released our policy prior to last year’s election Labor spoke to growers and peak industry bodies from the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia through to the Australian Grain Exporters Association. Amongst many of these stakeholders, Labor was given accolades for its policy.
GrainCorp chairman, Don Taylor, applauded Labor’s policy in a press release on the 10th of October saying the decision by Labor to dump its support for a wheat export monopoly is a major turning point and lays the foundation for a dynamic and competitive market.
The South Australian Farmer’s Federation grain council chairman, Brett Roberts said Labor had shown leadership on the issue in an Associated Press story on the 10th of October saying “Our position has been pretty well what Labor has advocated with this policy...It is a structure which is actually a mechanism that will service our customers well, service the growers well, service the industry well, and drive value chain innovation, which I think we have been lacking for the past 50 years.”
But support for Labor’s policy didn’t stop there—one of the most startling endorsements came from the Opposition’s very own Member for O’Connor. The honourable member was quoted on more than one occasion making comments like those in the West Australia on the 11th of October “We [the Coalition] have been gazumped by the Labor Party and there will be farmers and their families who will vote for the Labor Party because of it”. What a ringing endorsement—with friends like that who needs enemies!
Last year’s election itself demonstrated the level of public support for Labor position on wheat export marketing. On the 24th of November last year, Australian working families—including those in rural and regional Australian seats like Page, Eden Monaro, and Leichhardt – gave the Labor Government a mandate to implement their policy. Even those opposite recognise that! The Member for Barker, Patrick Secker, was quoted in the Financial Review saying that our reforms were sensible and the Coalition should recognise Labor’s mandate.
Nevertheless, once the bill was drafted, an exposure draft was released for public comment over a four week period and the Government referred the bill to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Trade Committee—of which I am a member—to be considered in greater detail.
Throughout this consultative process, the Government has listened and made a number of amendments to the Bill including the use of civil penalties for breaches of accreditation conditions rather than criminal penalties and making cooperatives eligible for accreditation.
But let’s contrast Labor’s consultative approach to the Coalition’s in government.
Remember the Ralph Committee that the former Government sent around Australia to find answers about the future of wheat exports? This report was never released on the grounds that it was “a report to government”. Hardly an open or accountable approach to government is it? What did they have to hide?
One only has to look at the Howard Government’s conduct with respect to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Act just last year. Where was the consultation with growers? Where was the draft bill for public comment? Where was the senate inquiry? The only consultations that took place were backroom discussions between Mark Vaile and John Howard to develop a face-saving compromise. A bit of a band-aid to keep an unhappy marriage together for the kids’ sake—just until the election.
Well Mr President, there will be no face-saving today. Those opposite have already started the bloodletting over this. You’ve got Liberal members like the Member for O’Connor and the Member for Barker publicly acknowledging that these reforms are sensible and in the national interest—and that the Government has a clear mandate to pass this legislation!
The Nationals on the other hand will no doubt do their best today to delay the passage of this bill. Just this morning Senator Nash was accusing the Liberals of selling out on farmers in the Daily Telegraph. Mr President, if Senator Nash and her colleagues want to delay or reject the passage of this bill—they will be selling out rural and regional working families who are counting on this bill to get some certainty about marketing arrangements in the 2008 harvest. Wheat growers deserve to know how they will be exporting their wheat and they deserve to know soon.
Mr President, Australia’s wheat industry has been the victim of an appalling lack of leadership under the Howard Government. The inability of the Coalition to resolve policy differences over the reform of wheat export policy continues to this day where no doubt we will see the partnership of those opposite divided on this issue.
Labor has provided leadership on this issue. We have consulted widely a developed a system that receives the broad support of stakeholders. This bill needs to be passed soon to give certainty to growers and exporters about the institutional arrangements leading into the 2008 harvest.
The Rudd Government was elected with this policy as a key part of its platform. We have a mandate to pass this legislation from the working families of Australia—including those in rural and regional Australia. This bill implements our election commitment to reform wheat export marketing arrangements and should be passed by the Senate without delay.
This bill has been put through the rigours of public and parliamentary scrutiny and consultation. Its merits and shortcomings have been debated in the media and in this place. It is with great pleasure that I commend this motion to the Senate.
2135
20:10:00
Boswell, Sen Ron
YE4
Queensland
NATS
0
0
Senator BOSWELL
—Today the Wheat Growers Action Group and the New South Wales Farmers Association rallied outside these chambers. They were protesting about the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and related bill before us. They know that the major parties have signed off on deregulation of the wheat export market. And they know that only the Nationals stand with them in opposing the deregulation that will see profits from wheat growing move away from the family farmer to the shareholders of major international buyers. They knew what was happening, yet still the wheat growers came. They were in the gallery this afternoon. They came to see their representatives in this parliament change their lives forever. When the Senate divides on the Wheat Export Marketing Bill, wheat marketing in this country will be changed forever. They know that the Nationals in government negotiated a single desk for them but, with Labor in power, all that has come to nothing. The previous PM committed to a single desk.
For some senators, this is a debate about Cole and the war in Iraq—I think that is where the Democrats and the Greens are coming from—and, for others, it is about market principles. But, for the wheat growers and for the Nationals, this debate is about what to do when the market has no principles, when overseas countries subsidise wheat growers and corrupt the world market and when major multinational corporations play growers off against each other and inevitably deliver lower returns to growers. The only factor that should weigh on senators’ minds tonight when they consider their vote is the Australian wheat grower. They have a right to say how their product should be marketed. They have a right to be listened to. They have every right to protest when this does not happen. I went around to all the rallies in Queensland. I can honestly say that I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who wanted deregulation. Perhaps they were not game to go to the rallies or perhaps they were there and were too scared to speak up, because the overwhelming majority—I would say it is 85 per cent—of Queenslanders want a single desk.
What we had outside this place today was a large group that represents the majority of Australian wheat growers. By far the single-deskers were in the majority. I would put it up as high as 85 per cent. They have spoken. They have told us, the legislators, what they need to survive and keep their industry strong. They want the single desk for export wheat to remain. It is, in the end, as simple as that. They have talked to committees and ministers and to spokespeople and the media. They have talked to MPs and senators. But the bill before us is not about listening; it is about turning away from growers and their working families. I stress ‘working families’ because, when you are on a farm—and Senator Joyce is probably the only legitimate wheat grower in this Senate that I know of—
E4Q
Adams, Sen Judith
Senator Adams
—I am sorry?
YE4
Boswell, Sen Ron
Senator BOSWELL
—I am sorry. Senator Adams is a wheat grower; I forgot about that. But Senator Joyce does represent wheat growers. We are not listening to wheat growers, because we think we know better than they do how their industry should be run. There was a perception that Western Australia wanted to abandon the single desk, and it was Western Australia that was leading this debate. The majority of farmers in Western Australia are absolutely terrified of this because they export the majority of Australia’s export wheat. And that is where it is going to hurt—in the export industry.
This legislation is about selective listening to a minority of growers and taking no notice whatever of what the majority of growers want. This legislation is about listening to what our trade competitors want and then giving it to them—serving up Australian wheat growers on a platter so that American interests will take over our traditional markets. I hope that senators are very conscious of the burden they take on today if they support this legislation. When they read in the papers that wheat growers have left the industry due to poor returns and high market volatility, senators must remember their vote. When they read of credit crunches in the wheat sector, when they read obituaries of the family farm, when they read of previously healthy wheat communities becoming unviable and putting out their hands for assistance—senators must remember that their combined vote led to that.
Already we have reports confirming what the wheat growers have been saying would happen. Two prominent market analysts have stated that the drop in pool participation will lead to much lower advances and a rise in cash sales. Grains market analyst Brett Stevenson says that smaller companies not able to loan against exclusive rights to all bulk wheat exports, like AWB could under the old system, would be less likely to be able to pay pool advances without having sold the grain prior, so pool advances would become smaller. He said:
With the old pool structures, the standard advance was 80 per cent of the estimated return … now I would suggest it will be closer to 50 per cent ...
I hope he is right about that, because I believe it could go much lower. Mr Stevenson says that many growers will be tempted to sell for cash rather than get a low advance and expose themselves to the risk of pool returns dropping. Malcolm Bartholomeus says that growers will not be fully protected, because grain buyers who are not exporters will not have to get accredited. It does not really matter if you are a grain exporter and you do get accredited; the government is not prepared to stand behind you. I do not know what the purpose of the accreditation is. Anyone can rock up and the government will give them a tick. There does not seem to be any way of seeing whether they are financially stable, and so growers are being exposed to the risk of selling their grain to an entity which ultimately may fail commercially.
Many growers say they will not be able to afford to wait longer to be paid for their grain, as it can take more than a year to sell a large crop on the world market, particularly when we do get a bonzer crop, like we may this year. As a grain grower commented on the Land website:
There will be very few pools and why would there be when there will be heaps of unsold stocks of farmers’ grain at harvest time as the market looks after its immediate needs and withdraws.
Mr Stevenson said:
Under a National Pool the operator had a AAA-rating and could borrow money to fund Pool advances in US dollars at wholesale rates. Now we face reduced cash prices, reduced first advance and higher supply chain cost.
What the hell is this government doing to us? Rudd said the new system would not leave growers financially worse off. Once the Domestic market is filling up the prices will drop back as the harvest moves south as always.
When Mr Rudd went out and solicited votes from wheat growers, he said:
The Australian Labor Party has supported the single desk wheat marketing arrangements for over 65 years since 1939. During that period Labor has been a strong supporter of the current single desk marketing arrangements and it remains Labor policy that the single desk should remain in place while ever these arrangements have support from the growers and the community as well as delivering a benefit to Australian wheat growers.
There has been a change in the Prime Minister’s view. Another person commented on the Land website:
Under crippling financial pressure from 8 years of drought and 2 crop failures growers will be forced to sell or face storing unsold grain for a long time.
There are many farmers who do not have much on-farm storage. He continues:
Wake up Australia this will be the end of many family farms. We have to have a vote on this madness. We have to have a grower owned and controlled National Pool.
The WGAG chairman, Peter Cannon—who was here today—said that the new deregulated system also removes all associated benefits, like golden rewards and national pool freight rate advantages which hardworking growers rely on. He said that the legislation will see quality standards currently set by the national pool operator replaced by the National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association, NACMA—standards that are set by traders, not by growers. Already NACMA is upsetting growers with proposed changes to quality standards, and wheat grades with a higher risk grain will be downgraded to a lower price than under the current national pool system.
Wheat growers claim that this legislation will see a sharp decline in annual wheat production in Australia, with serious implications for food security in Australia and vulnerable communities throughout the world. That only stands to reason. If you take the profit out of farming then farmers will not be there to supply food. I believe the wheat growers when they warn that this legislation threatens the livelihood of thousands of growers and removes the only advantage that Australian farmers have over heavily subsidised international competitors. This legislation will abolish the national pool and buyer of last resort, which has been an effective and orderly marketing system for the past 60 years.
I believe the growers when they say the new law favours big business and multinationals by granting them licence to export Australian wheat. Growers are worried the export companies will drive down prices as they compete against each other with Australian grain to secure overseas markets. I believe the growers who have grave concerns about the regional monopolies controlling the movement of wheat and the bulk-handling companies restricting growers’ access to up-country storage and port facilities.
The CWA also believes them. At its recent conference, the CWA called on the government to retain the present wheat marketing system for the 2008-09 cropping season. The WA Farmers Federation, that represent, I suppose, 90 per cent of the wheat growers in Australia also support the single desk. They have confirmed their support for the position taken by the Wheatgrowers Action Group.
At one stage, it seemed as though Kevin Rudd was listening to growers. As I quoted, he promised Australian wheat farmers that if Labor came to power, and if growers wanted the single desk, Labor would retain it. But the wizard of weasel words changed his tune after getting the keys to the Lodge. Kevin 07 curried favour with growers by telling them their single desk would stay. Kevin 08 gets rid of the single desk. How can anyone respect anything he says? No wonder the wheat growers feel cheated and angry. As a grower on the Agmates website commented:
How politicians that know nothing about grain production decide for us the future of our industry without adequate and proper consultation, thus putting the industry in a perilous situation is just inconceivable and ludicrous. They are leading us, like lambs to the slaughter, straight into the hands of multinationals, whose sole interests are profits and shareholders.
Another grower summarised the situation this way:
The vast majority of Australian wheat growers support the continuation of the orderly marketing of our bulk wheat exports with a single seller into world markets and national pools to minimise market risk, and maintain our excellent quality reputation. There appears to be no sound reason for dismantling the system which is the enemy of our competitors in the world market, and is our only counter to the huge government subsidies paid to growers in the USA and Europe.
I am committed to seeing that the voices of wheat growers are heard in this parliament. An executive member of the Wheatgrowers Action Group says:
We, the majority of wheat growers, are also very frustrated that our concerns are not being listened to, and we feel our democratic rights have been stripped away in favour of big business and their shareholders. After seven years of drought, two crop failures and input costs going through the roof—that is, fertiliser tripling in price within three years—government interference in our export wheat marketing system is the last straw.
Long-time wheat industry leader, Bob Iffla, describes the government’s action in the bill before us:
The government is breaking up the industry in a way that the Australian wheat grower will be hung out to dry. The bill represents the divide and conquer approach traders and our international competitors have been wanting for years. Wheat growers deserve better than what the government is proposing. The minister needs to ask himself why our competitors are so ecstatic over the proposed changes, and how he is going to prevent the takeover of the Australian wheat industry by foreign interests.
This bill is the catalyst for wholesale change to the growing, financing, transporting, storage and marketing of Australian wheat. Under the new system there will be increased pressure on port monopolies, as the system is not designed to cope with large short-term movements of grain. With the state governments’ failings with the freight rail system, most grain will have to be moved by road, which will be an impossible task, forcing increased storage and carrying costs at growers’ expense. Then the Greens and the Democrats want to talk about the environment. We are going to have an environmental nightmare with this grain pushed onto roads.
There is no financial security for growers at point of sale, or after. There is no receiver of last resort. This is necessary in a large production year, or back-to-back good harvests, and in years where quality is outside the normal receival standards. Blending grains to bring them up to a higher quality, and a better price for the growers cannot be done efficiently on a national scale without the national pool. Who handles and pays for the delays of shipments and delays because of customer complaints on quality?
Eastern and Western Australian grain ports are owned by a monopoly Australian operator. Ownership could fall into the hands of foreign interests with recent changes to GrainCorp. There is no risk GrainCorp will be a takeover target for Cargill or ConAgra—one of those; probably Cargill. In its essence there will be no sharing of risk across a national pool to share gains and diminish losses for the individuals. There will be extreme pressure to take marketing positions because of oil volatility, and the risk will now be taken by the individual farmer. Forward marketing and hedging was done by the national pool operator, which could spread the risk over all the Australian harvest. For the first time in 60 years there will be no body chartered to maximise returns to growers. We still do not know how the premiums for quality Australian wheat will be preserved. We do not know how multiple buyers will gain fair access to the storage, handling and shipping facilities which are, effectively, state based monopolies. Nor do we know how the ‘industry good’ benefits of the single-desk manager will be continued.
The core question remains unanswered in the legislation before us: how will a multitude of licensed exporters compete effectively against subsidised growers overseas, especially to single-desk buyers? Whatever the differences now between the coalition parties on wheat deregulation, the fact remains that, if the Rudd government had not won the election, we would not now be facing the dismantling of the single-desk export marketing system. Today is a terribly sad day for Australian agriculture, and wheat-growing families and communities. Let every senator cast their vote in the full knowledge of the consequences which I have outlined—as told to me by the growers. The Nationals are their voice. If only there were more of us.
2135
20:30:00
McGauran, Sen Julian
WH4
Victoria
LP
0
0
Senator McGAURAN
—In a place and a profession where momentous legislation often occurs, the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 we are now debating must rate very high in historical moments. The bills before the Senate have the effect of ending the single-desk marketing arrangements in wheat. It is the last of the significant, certainly national, orderly marketing arrangements in the rural sector. It is certainly a significant event for the rural sector, both economically and culturally. It is also the last real icon of our coalition colleagues, the National Party of Australia, that clearly defines them in politics from every other political party, and arguably it is the most endearing icon of the National Party—and like brave Mohicans they make their stand tonight.
I respect my National Party colleagues’ conviction as being one founded in their economic belief in what is best for the wheat growers and equally in what is a strong cultural and political attachment to orderly marketing, to the single desk and to the old Wheat Board. However, on all aspects I cannot agree. In short, times have changed and there is a difference between remaining true to an idea or to an ideology and clinging to an obsession.
Given all the circumstances that have prevailed over the past decade and more, in particular the findings handed down by the Cole royal commission and the advent of the Labor government, it has now become impossible to breathe life back into the single-desk arrangements. It is my firm belief that it is in the best interests of wheat growers now and into the future to proceed with the principles outlined in the legislation. I have taken a particularly studied interest in this legislation, given that in the parliament in the past I have been a strong defender of the single desk, to the point of having crossed the floor on one occasion myself. However, when this occurred there was still a wool floor price, a regulated dairy industry and high tariff barriers over agricultural products—and the Berlin Wall had not fallen. It was a different time.
Since then, every rural industry right through to the farm gate has faced some form of restructure and deregulation. Either the old arrangements have imploded, such as the wool floor price, or restructure has been brought on with the advent of the National Competition Policy, such as in the dairy industry. The National Competition Policy reform of 1995 was introduced as an imperative doctrine for Australia to meet the future challenges of an increasingly competitive global market. Factors such as the communications revolution in the latter half of the 20th century, the turning of all the formerly communist states to market economies and the establishment of the World Trade Organisation have all influenced global changes—and to Australia’s credit we were prepared to adapt to the changing world.
I add that all major parties supported the tenets of the National Competition Policy. With its introduction it was inevitable that greater scrutiny over orderly marketing arrangements would occur. In fact, orderly marketing and national competition are just about mutually exclusive. In recent decades the Commonwealth and state governments have deregulated single-desk style arrangements such as those for sugar, rice, barley, cotton, dried fruits, eggs and, as mentioned, wool. In the coalition’s time in government, the largest rural sector that experienced deregulation was the dairy industry. It was a deregulation facilitated by the coalition government through the states. It is worthy to note that the dairy industry restructure was supported by an exceptionally large restructure package.
It has always been understood by the coalition that these rural restructures do bring short-term upheaval, economically and socially, because of the predominance of family farmers and the challenges they have to meet. The Liberal Party’s position with regard to the single desk has always been up-front and honest. On 22 May 2007, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, said:
If growers are not able to establish the new entity by 1 March next year, the government will propose other marketing arrangements for wheat exports. Let me make this clear to the House. The options available would include further deregulation of the wheat export market.
In stark contrast, as other speakers have mentioned, the Labor Party’s policy platform and Mr Rudd’s own personal commitments before the last election led farmers to believe they would maintain the single desk if elected. Well, they have been elected and they are abolishing the single desk.
While this is the macro influence over the marketing arrangements, I return to an earlier point which was effectively the downfall of the single desk. The findings of the Cole royal commission utterly discredited the operations of AWB(I), particularly those that managed the public company, and from the commission’s report came the collapse in public and grower confidence in the marketing arrangements being held by AWB(I). As a consequence, the coalition government issued the power to issue export licences to the minister of the Crown. While this was necessary, it was only ever going to be short term. The changes implemented by the coalition were unsustainable. So in truth, like the wool floor price, the single desk had imploded—regrettably.
Moreover, since the election of the Labor Party to government, they have made it clear that there is no going back. Perhaps with no Cole royal commission or Labor government the single desk would still be in place, but reality bites. Equally, from the Senate inquiry into these bills, the AWB itself made it clear that it neither sought nor desired, nor believed it financially possible, to revert to a single-desk arrangement. Therefore, the Liberal Party must deal with the reality of the new government’s proposed wheat-marketing arrangements and the consequences of using our majority in the Senate to reject the bills.
Firstly, the coalition will only hold the majority vote in the Senate until 30 June 2008. The rejection of the bills will simply see the government re-presenting the new marketing arrangements post 30 June to the new Senate, which the coalition does not control. In short, the coalition’s actions could be short-lived tokenism. Secondly, a rejection of the bills in the Senate before 30 June will create uncertainty in the wheat market, to the detriment of growers, grain merchants and financiers. It was clear from the committee hearings that all parties involved in the industry believed it was critical to have certainty as to the marketing arrangements for the forthcoming harvest and beyond. It is not perfectly clear what arrangements would be reverted to should the new arrangements be rejected in the Senate before 30 June. The most likely scenario would be the Wheat Export Commission issuing unaccredited licences. This would be unsatisfactory and particularly detrimental for wheat growers.
Further, within the context of the modern economy, there is a philosophical matter that drives me to support the principles of this legislation, and that is the freedom of the individual to choose how and to whom he or she wishes to sell their wheat. This is a principle which all growers already undertake in the domestic market. It is also a principle all growers undertake when they choose to rotate their crop. For example, many wheat growers also grow canola and sell the canola into a deregulated export market. Added to this there is the abundant evidence that individual growers have taken up with entrepreneurial spirit the changes to sell their wheat in a deregulated container market, or bags and boxes market, as it is called. Figures show that this market is bursting at the seams after its deregulation a few years ago by a coalition government. This is an export market that wheat growers are selling into at premium prices. It is proof that wheat growers are capable of self-marketing and of making individual financial decisions in their best interests in international markets. In fact, the growth of this market undercuts any contemplation of a return of the single desk, which requires a near 100 per cent delivery to the pool. The new export market would have to be shut down. It would be a case of trying to unscramble the egg.
Ironically, though, all is not lost for the true believers, who I see have left the chamber. The choice to collectively bargain still exists through the Trade Practices Act. It was an amendment moved by the previous government to make it easier for small business and farmers to legally group together as sellers. Where it is deemed advantageous I am sure this will occur, as it has already been mooted by farmer representative bodies such as the Victorian Farmers Federation. Obviously a block of sellers acting in a market of many buyers will increase farmer market power.
Having outlined the principles of my support for this legislation, there is nevertheless a serious danger that the new arrangements of multilicensing, with its existing industry structure, may fail. The danger is that the grain merchants will gain undue market dominance, rendering the growers vulnerable to predatory pricing. This is the worst nightmare for growers. A central feature in the committee hearings was the question of access to ports by exporters. Given that port terminals are in the control of a few bulk handlers, industry stakeholders—in particular AWB—believe there is a distinct possibility of these bulk handlers limiting access to their port terminal facilities or undertaking other anticompetitive behaviour such as discriminatory pricing. The Senate committee hearings, in which I was a participant, bore out the potential problem, witness after witness. The only group who believed there was no problem were the bulk handlers themselves.
The Allen Consulting Group, in their submission to the committee, made the following comments, which adequately explain the serious concerns regarding access to ports:
There is no export grain terminal within Australia where there is separate ownership or management of receival, storage and ship-loading assets. At each grain terminal, these various assets are owned and managed by a single entity—
other than in one instance, which is in Victoria. They go on:
If the BHCs were to receive accreditation to export bulk wheat, and hence compete directly with AWBI, there will exist a strong incentive for them to use their market power to reduce competition in the downstream marketing of export wheat.
They go on to say:
… it is necessary to consider more broadly those factors that have the potential to limit competition in the export wheat supply chain (as discussed in Chapter 2). This is to ensure that the objective of producing a more competitive export wheat market is not stifled due to the characteristics of the export wheat supply chain itself.
In short, regional monopolies could occur unless there is a proper access to port regime. While the bills refer to an access undertaking as accepted by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, there is a distinct lack of detail and criteria relating to the objectives of the access test. Without the government addressing this matter in more detail, the new marketing arrangements are subject to failure. The wheat growers’ livelihood would be severely affected by anticompetitive behaviour at the ports. Therefore, it is critical for a fair access regime to be implemented and for the regime to be overseen by the ACCC. Added to a fair access regime must also be greater detail about the terms and conditions to be provided with respect to price, identification of wheat stored and its location, and loading times. Regulators, growers, traders, farming organisations and the Senate inquiry have expressed concern about the impact of the bulk handlers having greater access to information than other industry participants.
The benefits of providing transparent and timely data to industry participants are obvious. Growers and other industry participants, especially small to medium sized operators, will be able to use their increased access to data on wheat stocks in storage throughout the supply chain to manage both supply and risk. The reduction of market distortions is another benefit. For example, the provision of timely and transparent industry data to growers will enable them to avoid holding wheat for later sale when, had they had access to the relevant information, it would clearly have been better to have sold it earlier—in other words, transparent market signals.
In conclusion, open, transparent and monitored competition is the key to the new wheat marketing laws. It is therefore incumbent upon the parliament and the government of the day to establish a review of the arrangements in some two years so as to be assured that the intent, and indeed the objectives, of the restructure are being met. After all, the livelihoods of some 27,000-plus wheat growers and a vital export industry are at stake.
2135
20:45:00
Adams, Sen Judith
E4Q
Western Australia
LP
0
0
Senator ADAMS
—This evening I would like to take the opportunity to speak about the future of wheat marketing in Australia. I support the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 with some amendments, which were flagged by the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, in the House.
The Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 was introduced with the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. This legislation establishes a system for regulating the export of bulk wheat. It establishes a new industry regulator, Wheat Exports Australia, known as WEA—which will control bulk wheat exports by managing an export accreditation scheme—and sets out the functions, powers and membership of Wheat Exports Australia. It authorises Wheat Exports Australia to formulate a wheat export accreditation scheme by legislative instrument, which provides for the accreditation of companies as wheat exporters. It also establishes criteria for the accreditation of companies under the scheme, conditions of accreditation, cancellation and surrender of accreditation and reporting requirements. It provides for an internal review of decisions made by Wheat Exports Australia in respect of the accreditation scheme and for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It also provides for Wheat Exports Australia to maintain a register of accredited wheat exporters which is available for inspection on the internet. It provides Wheat Exports Australia with information-gathering powers and the power to order an external audit of an accredited wheat exporter. It establishes a Wheat Exports Australia special account for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. It also establishes a civil penalty regime for breaches of the act and provides for the Productivity Commission to begin to conduct a review of the act and the accreditation scheme before 1 January 2011.
The Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 is the result of longstanding and long-lasting effort. It manifests the end of monopoly policies in Australia and marks the start of a free market for wheat. Now, with the introduction of the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008, wheat growers, for the first time since 1939, have the right to decide to whom they will sell their grain and at what price. This is a major step for farmers in Western Australia and South Australia, who export some 95 per cent of their grain, due to the lack of a domestic market. As a wheat grower from Western Australia, this has been a great frustration for my family and I and for many of our colleagues. The deregulation of the domestic market in the eastern states has given them the choice as to whether they sell on a deregulated domestic market or pool their grain, as they did with the AWB. That was also the idea of the national pool, with what was really the receiver of last resorts. So, they did have choices, whereas we have not had those choices. Currently, wheat growers in WA and South Australia are almost totally dependent upon the export market for their annual income.
The new legislation is a great opportunity for wheat growers to meet the requirement of a fast-moving international market, especially in times of increasing demands and rising global food prices. Many growers are ready for change, and I have noticed a considerable shift in the views of Western Australian growers over the last two years. They have come to terms with the possibility of a deregulated market and the advantages that this can bring. I believe that the former coalition government’s appointment of the Wheat Export Marketing Consultative Committee, chaired by John Ralph, has been largely responsible for this change. The committee undertook extensive consultation with the Australian wheat industry, particularly growers, about their wheat export marketing needs. The consultation process included 26 public meetings in major wheat-growing regions of Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.
I attended five out of the eight meetings held in Western Australia and was amazed at how the growers’ views changed after hearing the evidence at these meetings. I would like to read some quotes from growers who did attend these meetings. At a meeting in Perth, a Badgingarra farmer said that it was a basic denial of his rights to force him to sell his wheat to AWB. A farmer from Cranbrook, which is in the south of the state, agreed, saying that as an individual grower he wanted the ability to choose where he sold. A Katanning farmer from the Great Southern region said that, in the interests of the industry, it was time to move on; deregulation was inevitable but not necessarily immediate. Interestingly, a farmer from the Merredin meeting said that growers who supported deregulation were selfish. An argument came against this statement, which was heard at the Perth meeting, when a farmer from the Midlands area, supporting deregulation and speaking on behalf of 34 other like-minded farmers, said that it was not his responsibility if another farmer made a bad business decision. A Calingiri farmer said that he was insulted by the insinuation that growers could not be marketers. He wanted choice. A farmer from Eneabba was bewildered as to how, in this country, the outdated system of the single desk was still in place.
The point I am making is that, all of a sudden, with information, growers have really started to think about their options and whether this legislation is going to help them. I think the main thing is the bottom line. As has been shown with the deregulation of bags and containers, farmers—especially in South Australia and Western Australia—have had a choice and have been able to make more dollars for their grain. Unsurprisingly, and as we have heard tonight from my colleagues, there are still farmers who have some reservations about whether they have the skills to market their own wheat. In my opinion, it is crucial that the grain groups and farmers continue their dialogue, sharing their ideas and concepts so that they can get the best possible deal.
I will just pause here to quote from the Countryman and the Farm Weekly, which are our two major country weekly newspapers in Western Australia. In the Countryman of Thursday, 12 June there was an article headed ‘Wheat’s new dawn: Emerald a new marketing gem’ which said:
The independent specialist grain pool manager and marketing group, Emerald, says the new wheat marketing environment will see widespread changes in the way Australian wheat is marketed and the options available to growers, although aspects of the market such as pools will remain an integral part of the new marketing landscape.
Emerald deputy chairman Mike Chaseling said while growers would have more choice and flexibility than ever before, they should not expect wholesale differences in the product on offer.
He said Emerald was ready for the new era, having already pioneered major innovations in the way pools are offered and managed.
The Western Australian Farmers Federation have gone into partnership with this company and will be providing a pool for their members. Then we have an article entitled ‘A local team you can trust’, which said:
With a strong track record of performance, Plum Grove has established itself as a pool manager that WA growers can rely on.
And we have ‘Using a pool you can trust’, which said:
When choosing your pool make sure it has
1. Clear objectives
2. A solid track record of performance
3. Strong financial backing
4. Experienced pricing managers
5. Access to premium markets
Another article is headed ‘No need to be confused’ and reads:
Growers will be faced with unprecedented levels of choice this season.
With the rapidly changing landscape of grain marketing, there are opportunities to profit from smart decisions when selling their crop.
Exciting? Yes, but with this comes the responsibility of ensuring you are in a position to handle the huge increase in information and required decision-making.
It was on this premise that DailyGrain was founded last year.
These organisations, plus a number of others, are starting to move forward and offer a service to our farmers so that they can really make an informed decision about what they are going to do when we have a deregulated market.
I believe that, by keeping the dialogue in a steady flow, a deregulated market is the best way to ensure that the wheat industry continues to prosper. An example of this was when the former coalition government deregulated bags and containers, on 27 August 2007. Since then, Australia has broken shipping records for wheat exported to overseas grain markets in containers. Figures released by the Export Wheat Commission in mid-May highlight this boom. The figures clearly show that non-bulk wheat exports continue to increase, with approximately 1.5 million tonnes exported in the eight months since non-bulk wheat deregulation to 30 April 2008, compared with 550,000 tonnes exported during the same period in 2006-07. Since last August, wheat exporters have managed to explore new marketplaces, now selling to a number of countries they could not get permits for in the past—for example, Malaysia and Indonesia, two of the largest destinations.
That is just one example of the positive benefits a deregulated market can give to individual growers—and the majority of growers are aware of these benefits. One such grower is Kim Halbert, a wheat farmer from Three Springs in WA’s midwest. He gave evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry in Perth. This inquiry undertook extensive consultation with the Australian wheat industry, and particularly growers, talking about their wheat export marketing needs. When we first set the agenda for the committee inquiry, we were to hold one hearing in Canberra, one in Sydney, one in Melbourne, one in Brisbane, one in Adelaide and one in Perth. With the submissions that came forward, we ended up doing two hearings in Canberra and one in Perth. As a member of that committee, I was quite amazed that growers, especially those very concerned growers in the eastern states, did not take the opportunity to gather their colleagues and have enough submissions in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. I was very surprised by that. Some of them did come to Canberra to give evidence, but we certainly did not have the number that we expected when we first set the agenda for the committee.
Mr Halbert said in evidence in Perth that Western Australia had a very small domestic market and, as a result, Western Australian farmers rely on the wheat export trade and have not had access to a competitive system in the past. As I said, in stark contrast to the situation in Western Australia, eastern state growers have had this choice and tend to use the single desk as a backup whenever they cannot sell their grain into the domestic market. Mr Halbert stated that deregulation is the best prospect for Western Australian growers to have a choice about how they sell their wheat and to whom they sell it. It is the best opportunity for them to maximise profits for various wheat varieties, offering the chance not to be restricted to dealing with only one company.
With the new legislation, growers will have more choice and flexibility than ever before. However, they must not expect wholesale differences in the products on offer. Many grain pool managers, as I have outlined, have already prepared for the change and have readjusted their programs to be tailored to suit the needs of growers. The benefit of deregulation will be that growers can now select products and payment options that best suit their business.
The single-desk marketing system has failed Australian wheat growers for many years. To me, there has always been an inherent conflict of interest for AWB between satisfying its shareholders and maximising grower returns. The lack of competition has led to inefficiency, high costs and substandard management, creating a situation where wheat growers are at the bottom of the food chain in terms of receiving the true market value for their grain. Single-desk marketing has failed to maximise grower returns. Many independent studies demonstrated that the costs of the system were too high, exceeding the illusionary benefits by far. As a monopoly, the AWB(I) obtained total power in controlling what deals wheat growers received if they sold their grain overseas. There is clear evidence that AWB(I) offered discounts to sell into certain markets. As a result, they accepted less than the world price and counteracted the growers’ interests, which is to achieve the best price possible.
The report released today by the Export Wheat Commission has found high-risk hedging strategies by AWB cost farmers $260 million in one year. The monopoly bulk grain exported did not maximise returns to growers from its 2005-06 national pool. Despite this, some growers still support the system which gives them the illusion of safety, offering a buyer of last resort. But, unfortunately, this is only an illusion. There is no buyer of last resort and there never has been. Under the present export marketing rules there is only a receiver of last resort, namely AWB(I), who has no obligation to pay a single cent to growers. They offer just a pool where the grain goes—nothing more. Yet the buyer of last resort is the most quoted argument to maintain the single desk. It is an argument which cannot convince me.
AX5
Evans, Sen Chris
Senator Chris Evans
—You missed some farmer in Western Australia, Judy.
E4Q
Adams, Sen Judith
Senator ADAMS
—I probably have! I now want to speak briefly about these regulations in the bill which I cannot support and I call on the government to amend. The most important change must deal with the access to the export accreditation scheme. The new marketing act will only allow companies and cooperatives to export wheat; individuals are still restricted from exporting their own wheat. It must be done through a company or cooperative. The Liberal Party wants this restriction to be lifted. The new bill must allow individuals to be exempt from accreditation if they wish to directly bulk export their wheat to an international purchaser. Such growers do not require a middleman to sell their crop. Nor should they have to resort to the use of bags and containers if they prefer to bulk export. It is crucial that individuals be exempt from accreditation costs. The bill requires grain traders to pay $12,100 to be accredited to export wheat under the deregulated market. Exporters who are accredited are then free to export any tonnage of wheat to any country in the world during the next three years for that fee. This fee must be lifted from individuals who wish to export their own grain. They need an incentive to pursue their chances in the deregulated market and should not be punished.
I also call on the government to amend the provisions that relate to bulk-handling companies. As outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brendan Nelson, these companies face a dramatic change of regulation after October 2009. Prior to this date, accredited exporters who are also providing port terminals only have to publish a statement on their website explaining the terms and conditions under which they will allow other exporters access to their facilities. The government has failed to specify the type of information that must be contained in this statement. For example, access to the whole up-country infrastructure, such as grain receival and accumulation services, is currently left undefined. This has to change.
Bulk-handling companies who own the up-country infrastructure must state that they are willing to provide access to their up-country infrastructure, as well as to ports and the shipping stem. If this is done, the Liberal Party does not understand why the regulations have to change from October 2009. Bulk-handling companies are allowed to operate entirely under their own terms for more than a year—to be precise, for 16 months. If there are no problems reported either on the access to the up-country infrastructure or on the access to ports or shipping stems, why should they have heavy-handed and costly regulation imposed upon them? Let me highlight this point to you further. From October 2009, the current bill requires accredited exporters to have a formal access undertaking accepted by the ACCC, making it a very costly— (Time expired)
2135
21:05:00
Fisher, Sen Mary Jo
HBE
South Australia
LP
0
0
Senator FISHER
—I rise with pleasure tonight to talk about the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and associated bill. As with a debate about any industry in transition, particularly an industry which involves members of the farming community, we see a debate that is necessarily not just about farmers’ livelihoods but also about their lives. Therefore, inevitably, it involves much consideration of emotional issues, such as attachments to land and produce, as well as economic and market issues. I hope that I, as many do, bring to this chamber some understanding of the tensions involved in the minds of those who have been contributing to this debate. I come from a wheat-growing family in Western Australia and from a background of representing the interests of farmers in New South Wales for a period of time. I now represent South Australians here in this place.
Farmers have lived with a single desk since World War II. It has clearly performed a very important role, but the times are changing. It is interesting that many younger farmers seem to accept or are more accepting of the need for a move to deregulation, as attitudes to single-desk marketing have evolved over time. We have been subject to strong and intense lobbying by a range of interest groups supporting a range of different proposals. The relevant Senate committee has heard evidence from many who support the legislation and, equally, from many who oppose it. In my home state of South Australia, growers are divided on the issue. The chairman of the South Australian Farmers Federation Grains Council, Peter Treloar, said:
... what growers want is to get on with some secure marketing arrangements and I honestly believe that this debate has been had, it’s been done and dusted and it’s time that our time and efforts were spent on other things.
That very valuable input can be contrasted equally with submissions by groups in South Australia, such as the Chandada Farmers Group, which vehemently oppose the legislation. I, as did many of my colleagues, asked South Australian growers to tell me what they wanted for the future of wheat marketing in Australia and to provide me with their comments on the bill. Their views were as wide and varied as those of other growers across Australia. As a result of those varied views, the Liberal Party has come to its position on the legislation and it proposes amendments which seek to address some of the concerns raised at the Senate committee inquiry and by growers who contacted members of the Liberal Party during that process.
In the Senate committee report, Liberal senators made some additional comments about the need for access undertakings to apply to up-country facilities. However, since that time, we have received further information about the cost burden that could be experienced by such access undertakings and also about some legal complications that could arise from it. As has been foreshadowed by the leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson, in another place, the party is considering some amendments to the bill. We believe that the amendments will maximise opportunities for wheat growers. The proposed amendments will include amending the objects of the legislation to make it clear that it must advance the interests of growers. The legislation must allow wheat growers who wish to individually bulk export their wheat to an international purchaser to be exempt from the accreditation system. The legislation must be amended to include a review of the system within two seasons to ensure that it is working, and this must be done before any heavy-handed regulation of bulk handlers is introduced. However, given the time-critical nature of the bill, we have put these amendments to the government for its consideration, and I look forward to its response as we proceed to the committee stage.
Many of those who are concerned about the transition of the industry argue that wheat is special and unique. With all due respect, it is difficult to see how wheat is special and unique from the perspective of other agricultural commodities—other than it is the one commodity that has remained with a single-desk marketing arrangement. In that way it is special because it is the last to make the transition. This legislation is in the best interests of wheat growers. The evidence is that, in every other area of agricultural produce where single-desk marketing arrangements used to prevail—for example, the barley market, the oil seeds market and the sorghum market—growers have demonstrated their resilience in dealing with transitions from A to B through to C. Importantly, such transitions have resulted in increased production—for example, the sorghum crop is the biggest ever this year—and in an increased value of production.
Over time, where monopoly marketing arrangements have been put in place in the various sectors, the advantages of market stability and market price, so lauded by those who support those arrangements, have gradually been eroded and, I would argue in respect of the wheat industry, captured by grain-handling authorities and grain marketers but not by growers. Some further evidence of that came to light today with the release of a report by the Export Wheat Commission. It highlighted the fact that AWB ‘shared the profit with farmers but left them all with an unacceptable level of risk’—in this case, losses of $260 million in a year. This, in my view, is a classic and unacceptable example of a monopoly marketer deliberately misusing its market power to line its own pockets when the markets rise and leaving growers to foot the entire loss when the markets go down.
To the comments of my colleagues, I want to add my acknowledgement of the genuine, diligent and determined comments and submissions made by those who oppose the bill. But I believe that the bulk of wheat growers who export wheat, or who grow wheat for the export market, are not only relieved with the imminent passing of legislation of this sort but have spent quite some time preparing for it. My expectation is that, as was the experience with the recent deregulation of the barley market in South Australia, industry will get over it and get on with it. They are ready to do so. The review of this legislation remains very important and needs to be undertaken in a timely manner to ensure that returns are maximised for growers and that any review of the legislation is geared towards that. There are great hopes for the future of the wheat-marketing industry in Australia. Indeed, I consider that it is part of my job in this place to ensure that this legislation delivers results for the wheat growers of Australia.
2135
21:15:00
Cormann, Sen Mathias
HDA
Western Australia
LP
0
0
Senator CORMANN
—As a Liberal senator for Western Australia I support the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and what it sets out to achieve. I am pleased that the government has taken on board many of the issues and recommendations identified by the Senate inquiry into this bill. Our leader, Dr Nelson, has flagged a small number of further amendments which we believe will improve the proposed system. This legislation will give wheat growers a choice on how to market their wheat. The accreditation of multiple sellers will introduce competition among those who want to sell the growers’ wheat on the export market, helping to ensure that growers get the best available price for their wheat. It will introduce competition and a greater level of transparency into supply chain arrangements, helping to put downward pressure on costs. And, of course, it will give growers certainty in terms of the arrangements that will apply to the export of their wheat from the 2008 harvest onwards.
As policymakers, our overarching objective should be to achieve a legislative framework that enables wheat growers to maximise their returns. The returns that actually matter to growers are not their gross returns but their net returns. I am sure that all senators would appreciate that. The past arrangements have failed wheat growers in that regard. The current transitional arrangements run out by the end of June and they have to be replaced by something that is both workable and bankable and will enable wheat growers to maximise their net returns.
Unlike wheat growers on the eastern seaboard, wheat growers in my home state of Western Australia rely nearly exclusively on exports. Of the wheat that is grown in Western Australia, 90 per cent plus is exported. In some years, Western Australia has made up almost all of the export pool. South Australia is in a similar, if not quite so extreme, position. Growers on the east coast are able to benefit from the advantages of a deregulated market in their main market—namely, the domestic market. In contrast, growers in Western Australia and South Australia under the past and the current systems have been restricted in how they market their wheat in what is their main market—namely, the export market. As the main contributors to the national pool over many years, the Western Australian wheat growers have carried a disproportionate proportion of the costs of the inherent inefficiencies and inequities in the single-desk arrangements.
The most recent iteration of the past system consisted of a publicly listed corporation controlling the single desk and the export of all wheat through the national pool. The system as it existed provided an inherent incentive for the corporation, through its subsidiaries, to maximise its return from the pool, rather than to maximise the net return for the pool and ultimately growers. I will just pick up on a few examples which have been covered in the 2007 Growers report by the regulator, the Export Wheat Commission.
In making an assessment of the freight charges that were applied to a sample of 39 vessels, the Export Wheat Commission found that exporting wheat growers would have been $14.5 million better off if independent brokers had been used and the services had been tendered in the open market, rather than keeping the freight services in house through one of the AWB subsidiaries. Despite this very concerning finding, to date the Export Wheat Commission has not made any further in-depth assessment, as far as I am aware, of the additional costs carried by exporting wheat growers across all of the 733 vessels. However, Western Australian industry experts estimate that the figure across all vessels is well in excess of $200 million. That is $200 million that came off the net return for exporting wheat growers and went straight into the then AWB bottom line and into a combination of dividends to shareholders and performance bonuses for then AWB senior executives.
Answers provided by the Export Wheat Commission during the Senate inquiry about AWB’s hedging activities under the old system also point to an inherent flaw in the system. Again, the incentive to maximise returns from the pool for shareholders was in direct conflict with the stated objective to ensure a maximum return for growers. To give a demonstration of that I will read some extracts of an article that appeared in the West Australian on 20 April 2007. When facing criticism for not letting the share market and farmers know about the extent of the more than $360 million in losses it was facing on the futures market, AWB’s defence was that ‘it was not material to its share price,’ that in effect it had no impact on its share price. Why? I quote the article:
... an AWB spokesman said potential futures losses were borne by the pools, and therefore growers, not the company. “It’s not material to AWB Ltd and there was no need for disclosure,” he said.
So, if there is an upside and there is a profit from futures trading, growers have to share it with AWB Ltd and AWB Ltd shareholders. But, if things go wrong, the cost is carried by the pool in its entirety. I am not even criticising AWB on this; they were operating in a flawed system. I am criticising the system that facilitated this circumstance where AWB Ltd was able to speculate on the futures market without itself facing the consequences of taking on excessive risk. Instead they were able to benefit from any gains as a result of taking on that risk. So the benefits of futures trading were shared between AWB Ltd, its management, shareholders and growers, whereas all losses were passed on to the pool and growers. How is that fair? Pursuing its shareholders’ best interests rather than the growers’ best interests is of course what AWB would do, if that is what they can lawfully do under the protection of a statutory monopoly on wheat export marketing arrangements. However, as policymakers we should not be continuing to endorse a system that allowed this to happen.
There clearly is a great diversity of views among growers, as there is a diversity of views among those who want to preserve a single desk. I have considered very carefully all views and all arguments that came forward in the course of the Senate inquiry. Naturally, I approached the issue from the perspective of someone who believes in the benefits of a free market. On balance, I believe that the majority of wheat growers in my home state of Western Australia have come to the view that the days of the single desk as it existed in the past are over. There now is an anticipation by many that they will be able to take advantage of the opportunities under this new system.
I will read out a couple of quotes from evidence given by wheat growers from Western Australia who appeared before the Senate inquiry. The first is from Mr Peacock, who is a 40-year-old farmer from the mid-west of Western Australia:
I am a fourth-generation wheat grower. I strongly support the legislation. As a young man coming into agriculture, probably one of the overwhelming sentiments that farmers talked about was that the big hassle of being a farmer is that you are a price taker. I believe that under the old legislation we were the ultimate price takers. We had no option to do anything else—to be entrepreneurial, to be a free marketer or to find a way to value-add our product. There was no incentive whatsoever to do that. I believe that under this legislation, for the first time in my life—and I did not believe I would see it in my lifetime—small growers like me have at last the opportunity to employ some of our entrepreneurial skills to try to come above the average. There is incentive now to do better than the average, to do more than just be a subsistence survivor.
And this is from Mr Halbert:
I am here in a private capacity. I am a grain grower from Three Springs, which is 300 kilometres north of Perth. ... I am strongly in favour of this legislation. In WA we have seen a cooperatively owned grain pool which held the single desk for barley, canola and lupins. The competition introduced when the GLA were introduced—and they have even admitted this themselves—forced them to sharpen their pencils. Under a legislated monopoly there is no incentive for them to seek new markets or for them to reduce supply chain costs and general marketing costs.
Even from those who have traditionally been opposed to deregulation of the single desk, there is an acceptance, albeit a reluctant one, that this new system of accrediting multiple sellers will become a reality from this harvest onwards—indeed, the Western Australian Farmers Federation have already entered into and announced a commercial arrangement with the Emerald Group to offer a special pool to members of the WA Farmers Federation in anticipation of this bill becoming law.
Even those who continue to support the single desk do not all support the same single desk. Talking to wheat growers in Western Australia, it is clear that some are talking about the statutory single desk that used to be underwritten by the Commonwealth government. Others want to see the single desk and the right of veto remain with the publicly listed AWB as a statutory monopoly. Others say we should keep the single-desk arrangements with AWB ‘with some adjustments’. Others are simply worried about the unknown. We should take those concerns quite seriously and continue to communicate with farmers, who are worried about the impact of this legislation, to ensure that they can take best possible advantage of the opportunities offered by this legislation.
The reality is that, with the end of the single desk, wheat export arrangements will move towards similar arrangements that apply to the domestic wheat industry, other grains and bagged and containerised wheat. And they will move towards the same deregulated system as operates for virtually every other commodity—including those that are often produced on the same wheat belt farms. Even the AWB under its new management is getting ready for the new world and embracing the system proposed under this legislation. During the Senate inquiry, I referred a number of times to a press release put out by the AWB Managing Director, Gordon Davis, where he said:
... the proposed wheat export accreditation scheme provided the opportunity to introduce competition and choice with appropriate regulatory protections into wheat marketing and to lower the cost of AWB’s services to wheat growers.
Some legitimate concerns were raised during the Senate inquiry, particularly regarding port access and the potential behaviour of the legacy monopolies held by CBH, GrainCorp and ABB over storage and handling infrastructure. It is very important, however, that the system be allowed to evolve commercially without being strangled by excessive regulation. I guess the point here is that we have to get the balance right. We have to ensure that we take those concerns on board and find a way of responding to them and addressing them appropriately without strangling any attempts to resolve and address some of these issues, including legacy issues, commercially. I believe that this legislation, once amended in line with the amendments floated by Dr Nelson, will get the balance right. In my home state of Western Australia, CBH has made a good start with its grain express model but, like all participants in the market, CBH will need to act honestly and commercially if it is to retain the goodwill of growers.
As I mentioned in my introduction, this legislation will give wheat growers choice in marketing their wheat. It will introduce competition among those who want to sell the growers’ wheat on the export market, helping to ensure that growers get the best available price for their wheat. It will introduce competition and a greater level of transparency into the supply chain arrangements, helping to put downward pressure on costs. And it will give growers certainty in terms of the arrangements that will apply to the export of their wheat from the 2008 harvest onwards. Most importantly of all, it offers a better system to wheat growers aiming to maximise their net returns and, as such, I believe it should be supported by all.
In closing, I would like to congratulate the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia for having pursued this issue with great rigour and integrity for some time. And I would like to congratulate my Western Australian colleagues Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, and Senator Judith Adams for their tireless efforts in helping to bring about the change that we are debating today. Wheat growers across Australia, particularly in our home state of Western Australia, will be better off as a result of their persistent efforts over a long period of time.
2135
21:29:00
O’Brien, Sen Kerry
8O6
Tasmania
ALP
1
0
Senator O’BRIEN
—It is a pleasure to be able to address the Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008 and the Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 and say that the Labor Party are doing just what we promised to do before the last election. This is not a policy that was developed after the election but one that was clearly enunciated before the election, and I repudiate the comments of Senator Minchin suggesting that that was not the case. Clearly, our policy was announced on 10 October. It was debated in the community. It has been suggested that a majority of wheat growers oppose it. But we did hear at our Senate inquiry in Perth that the member for O’Connor campaigned effectively for our legislation. He was opposed by a National Party candidate who campaigned against the legislation, and guess what? The National Party candidate ran third, the Labor Party unfortunately ran second, and the member for O’Connor was returned. That says to me that the arguments that the Labor Party put forward, which were adopted by the member for O’Connor, were supported by the electorate.
In fact, when you look at the history of agricultural policy in Australia over the last 25 years, guess who has been the leader? It has been the Labor Party. In 1989 it was Labor which deregulated the domestic wheat market. A lot of the growers who were here protesting today have been the beneficiaries of the deregulation of the domestic wheat market since 1989. And guess what? Back in 1989 or 1990, the sky was going to fall in. Deregulating the domestic market was going to destroy wheat growers. Of course, it did not. The fact of the matter is, as we have heard from Senator Cormann, Senator Adams and others from Western Australia, that the deregulation effectively advantaged the wheat growers on the eastern side of Australia relative to growers in other parts of Australia. You might ask why. The reason is that those growers had more markets to sell their wheat to. They had more buyers for their wheat. As a result, they could take the best price. They could put their wheat into the domestic market at the best price they could get, and if that was not good enough they could put their wheat in the pool. So they took the best of both worlds. It is funny trying to convince some of those growers who are receiving that benefit that a system being put forward by Labor—which actually gives growers access to more buyers—is better for them, when obviously the system that Labor implemented back in 1989 created just that circumstance for wheat growers in eastern Australia. It is a pleasure to be able to say that Labor again leads the debate on market arrangements for important commodities for Australian farmers.
We did hear that only last year the former government decided that it would deregulate containerised and bagged wheat for the first time, effectively allowing exports of containerised wheat without a permit from the Wheat Export Authority or, as it became, the Export Wheat Commission. The fact of the matter is that in 2003 Labor moved an amendment to do just that—an amendment which was opposed by the coalition, by the National Party and the Liberal Party. It was suggested when the deregulation of exports of containerised wheat occurred that we would not see a great increase in the amount of wheat sold, because there were not enough containers, because it was too difficult and because the cost of freight was too high. A whole lot of reasons were put forward as to why that was not a significant reform. But we have heard from Senator Adams what a significant reform it was in Western Australia. The reason it was significant was that it gave growers in Western Australia more buyers to sell their wheat to. And what did they do? They took that opportunity.
This legislation put forward by Labor creates the opportunity for wheat growers around Australia to have access to more buyers of their wheat and more markets—niche markets and different types of pool opportunities. There will be pool opportunities because there are many who wish to sell into the international market who will be keen to offer pools, and that indeed was the evidence that the Senate committee took when it conducted its inquiry earlier this year. So Labor has put forward yet again an important reform for an important sector of Australian agriculture.
Back in 1989, when we proposed the deregulation of the domestic market, it was the Liberal Party who decided that Labor was following the correct path, and it made the correct decision and supported Labor. It was the National Party who then said: ‘The sky is going to fall in. This will be a terrible thing for wheat farmers. It will destroy growers.’ And they led protests, particularly on this side of the continent. Of course, they cried wolf then, and we hear them now with the same arguments. What they are saying now is not exactly but in general the same as they were saying back in 1989—that a reform allowing wheat growers access to more buyers of their product will be bad for them. You only have to keep saying it to understand what a ridiculous proposition it is.
We have seen a number of areas over the last decade where some of the marketing arrangements for export of Australian products have been deregulated. Some have been at a state level and some have been at a national level. There are various views of the deregulation of the dairy industry, but let me tell you this: at the moment, the dairy industry is attracting higher prices than it ever has. Those farmers who restructured their operations and who have not been blighted by drought are doing very well, and the international market is booming. But that was not what we were told would happen when the market was deregulated.
I suggest that what is going to occur now with the reform of export-marketing arrangements for wheat is that we will see a variety of pool operations established. This legislation, I believe, will provide for the accreditation of grower cooperatives and groups. Even other smaller entities will establish themselves in the market, and farmers will club together to sell their own grain. Farmers will be looking to sell into markets that have not been exploited properly by the monopoly exporter AWB. Farmers will be looking for opportunities to get superior prices for types of wheat that can be marketed specially in certain markets that are looking for small quantities of high-quality wheat.
There will be markets where Australian wheat is purchased to be blended with wheat from other continents, as it is now. I believe that is a factor that operates significantly in South-East Asia at the moment and has the potential to be expanded where Australian farmers will be dealing with buyers from those markets who will be keen to take their wheat where they can blend it with, say, Argentinean wheat to get the qualities they want for the flour they need to make the products that they want. All of these opportunities will be developed—opportunities that have been denied to Australian farmers for many years and would continue to be denied if the National Party, the party that claims to represent the farming sector, had its way.
The Labor Party appreciates the support of the Liberal Party in this debate. I do not think it is fair of Senator Minchin to suggest that we did not flag these changes before the election, because we clearly did. I do not think the way the National Party has run their scare campaign in this debate has been appropriate, working upon the fears of what many growers see as an unknown environment that perhaps they have not developed the understanding to be able to operate in as best they can. Rather, it would have been good to see the National Party try to think of how the sector they represent can achieve the best it can in the world economy. Frankly, treading water with the sort of marketing arrangements that have stumbled along since 1997 is not in the best interests of the Australian farming community. It is a set of marketing arrangements that would doom many farmers to poverty or bankruptcy.
In travelling the country before the election, I was the beneficiary of advice from farmers in small and large properties in various parts of this country. There are a great many farmers who want to grab this sort of opportunity with both hands and get out and do the best thing that they can with their enterprises, get the best prices that they can for their product and get themselves into a position where they control their own destiny. This legislation will achieve that. I am pleased to say that I believe it will now be passed. Again, when we get past the arguments from the opposition National Party, who as usual are saying the sky will fall in over this legislation, we will see this develop the way that deregulation of the domestic market has seen opportunities develop for markets of wheat in eastern Australia.
2135
21:39:00
Parry, Sen Stephen
E5V
Tasmania
LP
0
0
Senator PARRY
—I seek leave to incorporate a speech from Senator Chris Ellison, which was circulated to the whips prior to me entering the chamber. There is one minor amendment, which does not alter the substance of the circulated speech but just clarifies Senator Ellison’s qualifications to speak on the matter.
Leave granted.
2135
21:40:00
Ellison, Sen Chris
9X5
Western Australia
LP
1
0
Senator ELLISON
—The incorporated speech read as follows—
Mr President, as a Senator representing Western Australia which is a major producer and exporter of wheat, I believe that the wheat market should have the opportunity as much as is possible to export wheat to whomever it wants. This is an issue in which I have a close involvement over the last 18 months. In the WA Division of the Liberal Party, we have long felt that West Australians did not have the opportunities that we could otherwise have were it not for the single desk.
There is no doubt that there has been considerable debate over the preferred wheat marketing arrangements between individual wheat growers.
Last year, the Coalition, whilst in government, set in train the first steps to reforming the wheat export arrangements in Australia. As the current arrangements expire at the end of June this year, there will be further uncertainty among wheat growers, grain merchants and financiers if these Bills are not passed. It was made clear during the hearings of the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport that all parties involved in the industry want certainty and that the industry is at a critical juncture without the marketing arrangements for the coming harvests and beyond.
It appears that the industry has accepted, admittedly unwillingly from some parties, that a multi-licensing system in some form will be introduced. It is clear that there is now no going back to the single desk marketing system.
If the new arrangements were to be rejected prior to the changeover on 1 July 2008, wheat growers would be left high and dry. Consequently, the proposed Bills should be supported with a number of amendments. These amendments arise from the Senate Committee which conducted a comprehensive inquiry into these Bills.
Objectives
Firstly, support needs to be provided for the inclusion of the overall objectives of the Bill. These were explained in the Senate Committee Report in brief. While the proposed objectives recognise the provision of choice improved by increased competition, transparency and security for wheat growers, the role of the regulator does not need to be specified in the overall objectives. This should be dealt within Part 5 Division 1, where there establishment of Wheat Exports Australia and its functions, powers and liabilities are defined. This is a much better place for dealing with the regulator.
Accreditation Eligibility
It is clear that the accreditation needs to provide additional choice for growers in the marketing of their wheat. It is imperative that as many participants enter the market as possible, as it is in the best interests of wheat growers to have many buyers competing for their wheat. More competition generally provides for a higher price at the farm gate.
It was therefore suggested that wheat growers should be exempted from the Act if they wish to directly export their own wheat to a third party. I believe this is an inherently sensible idea and consequently strongly support and endorse this. Wheat growers who have the expertise to establish direct links with third parties deserve to be encouraged in their commercial endeavours rather than be subdued by red tape and have their hard earn profits taken by middle men. Regardless of their incorporative status, individual wheat growers should not need to be go through the full accreditation process in order to sell their own wheat directly to a third party.
This could be achieved through a provision in Part 2, Division 1. It would exempt an individual wheat grower where the individual wheat grower:
-
Provides a statutory declaration to the WEA stating that the wheat has been solely produced by the individual wheat grower;
-
Provides supporting documentation to the WEA evidencing the contract for export sale by the individual grower to a third party, including such information that is protected by commercial-in-confidence provisions; and
-
Complies with all applicable Australian quarantine and quality requirements as ordinarily apply to exported wheat.
Minimum Standard Trading Terms
During the hearings, there were a number of calls for minimum standard trading terms, to include a number of issues. Transparent and easy to understand information is important for growers. As such, there should be a number of industry standards to include truth in pricing and minimum standard payment schedules.
One recommendation of the Committee was the provision of transitional financial education and counselling should be provided through appropriate channels such as existing farmer organisations for three to four years. This could look into a number of areas including marketing and risk management and it would help existing producers readjust their business plans in their readjustments to the new market operating environment.
The Access Test
In a more competitive market environment, it is vital that there is non-discriminatory access to the bulk storage and handling facilities that are required for all market participants. This access has to apply to a number of issues including ‘up country’ storage facilities, port storage facilities, shipping stem, and information. A bulk handler, the Co-operative Bulk Handling, has a proposed Grain Express initiative which could both provide efficiency and choice.
All the non-bulk handling company potential market participants agreed that such access is necessary for the optimal operation of the proposed new wheat marketing system. Of course any such system needs safeguards against price fixing however this can be achieved.
The three bulk handling facilities are trying to find a solution to the issues associated with the supply chain for wheat growers and this is to be commended.
Information
It is important that there is timely and accurate information on the grain stocks in any area. I believe that reporting should not be just be daily, but also weekly and monthly, run by the ABS and/or ABARE. This disseminated information would:
-
Ensure that market participants can properly price their product and/or services, so growers can access this information;
-
Be gathered from sources including growers, exporters and end-users;
-
Identify forecast crop tonnage, actual crop tonnage, tonnage available for sale and tonnage exported.
Wheat Export Marketing (Repeal and Consequential Amendment) Bill 2008
On reading of the Bill, it does appear that the WEA will not be subject to FOI legislation. This is inappropriate and thus the Bill should be amended so that the WEA is subject to FOI legislation and enquiries.
Review of Legislation
Finally, I support the Committee recommendation that there is a review of the legislation in 2010 with the report to be tabled in Parliament by the Minister. These requirements must be enshrined in the legislation, with the Productivity Commission conducting this independent economic review, with an analysis based on the costs and benefits of the system.
These Bills continue the work done last year in reforming the wheat export arrangements in Australia. These Bills will also bring to wheat growers who export wheat a greater opportunity to get the best price for their wheat.
2135
21:40:00
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
0
Senator WONG
—First, I would like to thank all senators for their contribution to the debate. We on this side were pleased to see the level of support from earlier speakers, particularly the majority of opposition senators. I thank them for that support. A common theme that has arisen with most speakers is that the current arrangements need to change and that the industry needs to face realities and move forward. As Senator Minchin noted, problems were becoming evident under the single desk, and the government also recognises these inherent problems. They have provided growers with no real choices for their export wheat and have provided little incentive, as Senator O’Brien spoke about, for market innovation and market development. At the same time there has been no protection of growers’ interests, no contestability for service provision and no transparency, and the Export Wheat Commission has had limited powers to do anything about this. A range of these failures were highlighted over the years during a range of inquiries and reviews, including the Cole commission.
The bills before the chamber deliver on an election commitment to address these problems. I want to make the point that in developing the legislation the government undertook an extensive consultation process. People did have an opportunity to have their say in relation to this legislation. This process included the release of exposure drafts of the legislation for public comment, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry and report, and the Wheat Industry Expert Group’s consideration of the delivery of industry development function. Prior to the release of the exposure draft legislation the minister also had constructive discussions with all of the major state farming organisations and major bulk-handling and trading companies. This process has given all industry sectors and the wider community ample opportunity to comment on these arrangements.
The government has considered the views expressed and has accepted arguments that have been put forward on a range of issues. Some amendments have been made to the draft legislation to address these concerns. These include making cooperatives eligible for accreditation, adding an objects clause and moving from a criminal penalty regime to a civil penalty regime. There were some claims made in this chamber during this debate that there was limited transparency and that the legislation was not thought through. As the process I have just outlined demonstrates, this is not the case. The changes to the bill followed the consultation process, and this demonstrates the government’s commitment to listening to relevant members of the community and other stakeholders on this issue.
During the debate there were a number of common issues raised. I will not hold the Senate up by traversing them in detail. There was discussion about growers not being paid and Wheat Exports Australia not being able to do anything about it. As senators would be aware, the Wheat Export Accreditation Scheme is designed to provide growers with multiple choices while making sure they are dealing only with exporters with the financial capability and reputation to meet their commitments. The scheme will be administered by Wheat Exports Australia, which will have increased investigative powers, including the ability to require information from exporters as necessary. These powers and the severe penalties that can be imposed for breaching conditions of accreditation or providing false or misleading information will give it the ability to protect growers’ interests.
At the end of the day the government believes the new arrangements in the bill represent the best balance for the future. These arrangements will give growers more choice, minimise costs, boost supply chain efficiencies, maximise incentives and lead to the development of new export markets. I commend the bill to the chamber and seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
2135
21:45:00
Senate adjourned at 9.45 pm
DOCUMENTS
2135
Documents
Tabling
2135
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number]
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act—Family Assistance (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 [F2008L01977]*.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 78—Torres Strait Regional Authority (Election of Officeholders) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01523]*.
ACIS Administration Act—Revocation of permission to make an application for registration as a motor vehicle producer [F2008L02042]*.
Acts Interpretation Act—Acts Interpretation (Substituted References —Section 19B) Amendment Order 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01843]*.
Airspace Act—Airspace Regulations—Instruments Nos CASA OAR—
68/08—Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc [F2008L02020]*.
70/08—Determination of conditions for use of air routes [F2008L02021]*.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act—Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2008 (No. 3) [F2008L01373]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2005-2006—Determination to reduce appropriation upon request—Determination No. 8 of 2007-2008 [F2008L01795]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2007-2008—Determination to reduce appropriation upon request—Determination No. 6 of 2007-2008 [F2008L01793]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2007-2008—Determination to reduce appropriation upon request—Determination No. 7 of 2007-2008 [F2008L01794]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2007-2008—Section 12 Determination 2008/01 – Flexible Funding Pool Receipts 2008 [F2008L01658]*.
AusLink (National Land Transport) Act—Variation of AusLink Roads to Recovery List Instrument No. 2008/3 [F2008L01998]*.
Australian Citizenship Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 90—Australian Citizenship Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01846]*.
Australian National University Act—
Information Infrastructure and Services Statute 2008 [F2008L02031]*.
Information Infrastructure and Services Statute 2008—Information Infrastructure and Services Rules 2008 [F2008L02032]*.
Programs and Awards Statute 2006—
Academic Progress Rules 2008 [F2008L02036]*.
Graduate Coursework Awards Rules 2008 [F2008L02033]*.
Higher Doctorates Rules 2008 [F2008L02034]*.
Research Awards Rules 2008 [F2008L02037]*.
Undergraduate Awards Rules 2008 [F2008L02039]*.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Confidentiality) Determination No. 6 of 2008—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 (2005) [F2008L01675]*.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Instruments Fixing Charges Nos—
1 of 2008—Provision of statistical information about financial sector entities to the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics during the
2007-08 financial year [F2008L02029]*.
2 of 2008—Models-based capital adequacy requirements for ADIs: 2007-2008 [F2008L02030]*.
Australian Research Council Act—Approval of Proposals—Determination No. 57—Linkage Projects Round 2 commencing in 2008.
Broadcasting Services Act—Variation to the Licence Area Plan for Bendigo Radio – No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L01951]*.
Child Support (Assessment) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 97—Child Support (Assessment) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01898]*.
Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme —New Formula and Other Measures) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 98—Child Support Reform (New Formula and Other Measures) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01897]*.
Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 99—Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01899]*.
Civil Aviation Act—
Civil Aviation Regulations—
Civil Aviation Order 82.6 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L01742]*.
Civil Aviation Order 100.66 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L01197]*.
Instruments Nos CASA—
190/08—Permission and direction – helicopter special operations [F2008L01016]*.
239/08—Authorisation, permission and direction – helicopter special operations [F2008L01166]*.
249/08—Instructions – for approved use of P-RNAV procedures [F2008L01324]*.
251/08—Instructions – RNAV (RNP-AR) approaches and departures [F2008L01327]*.
273/08—Instructions – use of RNAV (GNSS) approaches by RNP-capable aircraft [F2008L01442]*.
EX26/08—Exemption – training and checking organisation, flight check system [F2008L01365]*.
EX29/08—Exemption – refuelling with passengers on board [F2008L01441]*.
EX30/08—Exemption – navigation and anti-collision lights [F2008L01555]*.
EX33/08—Exemption – requirements for emergency locator transmitters and portable distress beacons [F2008L01695]*.
EX35/08—Exemption – from take-off minima inside Australian territory [F2008L01657]*.
Civil Aviation Regulations and Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—Instrument No. CASA EX27/08—Exemption – CASR Part 137 for aerial baiting and dropping incendiaries; Exemption – CAR 5.01 (2)(a) agricultural pilot rating [F2008L01677]*.
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—
Airworthiness Directives—Part—
105—
AD/A320/157 Amdt 2—Liquid Crystal Display Units [F2008L01650]*.
AD/A320/213—Main Landing Gear Crashworthiness Pin [F2008L01490]*.
AD/A320/214—Rear Fuselage Structure Reinforcement [F2008L01491]*.
AD/A320/215—Vertical Stabilizer Spar Box [F2008L01492]*.
AD/A320/216—IAE V2500 Engine Fan Cowl Latch [F2008L01493]*.
AD/A320/217—Emergency Exit Door 2 and 3 – Hold Open Mechanism [F2008L01500]*.
AD/A320/218—Escape Slide Failure at Doors 2 and 3 [F2008L01501]*.
AD/A320/219—Wing Rear Spar [F2008L01502]*.
AD/A320/220—Emergency Escape Slide [F2008L01504]*.
AD/A320/221—Escape Slide Door Number 2 & 3 Right and Left Hand Side [F2008L01505]*.
AD/A320/223—Electronic Instrument System Display Management Computer Software [F2008L01401]*.
AD/A330/76 Amdt 2—Electrical Power/APU Generator Inspection [F2008L01905]*.
AD/A330/87—MLG Wheel Assemblies P/N 3-1509-2 [F2008L01509]*.
AD/AS 355/91 Amdt 1—Upper and Lower Fins of Stabilisers [F2008L01510]*.
AD/AT/29—Engine Mount [F2008L01910]*.
AD/AT 600/4 Amdt 2—Engine Mount [F2008L01907]*.
AD/B727/210—Auxiliary Fuel Tank Systems [F2008L01402]*.
AD/B727/211—MLG Side Strut [F2008L01512]*.
AD/B737/319—Body Buttock Line 0.07 Floor Beam [F2008L01486]*.
AD/B737/320—Krueger Flap Actuator Support Fitting [F2008L01513]*.
AD/B737/321—Fuel Systems Airworthiness Limitations & Motor Operated Valves [F2008L01403]*.
AD/B737/322—B/E Aerospace Oxygen Masks [F2008L01404]*.
AD/B737/323—MLG Support Beam [F2008L01514]*.
AD/B737/324—Forward and Aft Water Drain Masts [F2008L01515]*.
AD/B737/325—Supplemental Structural Inspection Program – 2 [F2008L01516]*.
AD/B737/326—Engine Strut Aft Fairing Drain Tube Assembly [F2008L01517]*.
AD/B737/327—SSI Damage Tolerance Rating [F2008L01913]*.
AD/B737/328—Flight Deck Windows No. 2, No. 4 and No. 5 [F2008L01914]*.
AD/B737/329—Airworthiness Limitations and Inspections – Fuel Systems [F2008L01916]*.
AD/B737/330—Boost Pump Control Relay Ground Block Corrosion [F2008L01917]*.
AD/B737/331—Airworthiness Limitations and Inspections – Fuel Systems [F2008L01918]*.
AD/B747/349 Amdt 1—Crew Oxygen Cylinder Support [F2008L01518]*.
AD/B747/375—Main Equipment Centre Dripshield [F2008L01519]*.
AD/B747/376—Wing Landing Gear Trunnion Fork Assembly [F2008L01520]*.
AD/B747/377—Fuselage Exterior Skin at Station 488 [F2008L01919]*.
AD/B747/378—Airworthiness Limitations and Inspections – Fuel Systems [F2008L01920]*.
AD/B747/379—Airworthiness Limitations & Inspections – Fuel Tank Systems [F2008L01922]*.
AD/B767/240—Horizontal Stabiliser Ballscrew [F2008L01522]*.
AD/B767/241—Forward and Aft Water Drain Masts [F2008L01532]*.
AD/BAe 146/116 Amdt 1—Fuselage Door Frames [F2008L01924]*.
AD/BEECH 35/19—Differential Elevator Arm [F2008L01533]*.
AD/BEECH 35/29—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01534]*.
AD/BEECH 35/38—Second Row Seats [F2008L01535]*.
AD/BEECH 35/51—Front Seat Restraint Installation [F2008L01537]*.
AD/BEECH 35/54—Hatshelf Soundproofing Blanket [F2008L01539]*.
AD/BEECH 36/8—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01540]*.
AD/BEECH 36/10—Utility Baggage Door Handle Installation [F2008L01543]*.
AD/BEECH 36/15—First and Second Row Seats [F2008L01556]*.
AD/BEECH 36/25—Front Seat Restraint Installation [F2008L01557]*.
AD/BEECH 36/28—Elevator Control Push Rods [F2008L01559]*.
AD/BEECH 50/4—Rivets in Firewall Seal Plates [F2008L01560]*.
AD/BEECH 50/22—Control Wheel Adaptor [F2008L01562]*.
AD/BEECH 50/25—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01563]*.
AD/BEECH 50/31—Rudder and Elevator Trim Tab Systems [F2008L01564]*.
AD/BEECH 55/1—Elevator Assemblies [F2008L01565]*.
AD/BEECH 55/2—Rib in Area Adjacent to Rudder Torque Tube [F2008L01568]*.
AD/BEECH 55/3—Rudder Torque Tube [F2008L01704]*.
AD/BEECH 55/6—Elevator Tab [F2008L01569]*.
AD/BEECH 55/7—Grounding Outside Air Temperature Indicator [F2008L01405]*.
AD/BEECH 55/8—Dorsal Fin [F2008L01570]*.
AD/BEECH 55/11—Starter Vibrator Wiring [F2008L01406]*.
AD/BEECH 55/14—Centre Section Rear Spar Jack Pad [F2008L01576]*.
AD/BEECH 55/16—Engine Plumbing [F2008L01651]*.
AD/BEECH 55/19—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01577]*.
AD/BEECH 55/21—Fuel Line Chafing [F2008L01407]*.
AD/BEECH 55/22—Utility Baggage Door Handle Installation [F2008L01578]*.
AD/BEECH 55/24—Fuel Vent Heater Wiring [F2008L01408]*.
AD/BEECH 55/26—Electrical Cable Loom [F2008L01409]*.
AD/BEECH 55/28—Landing Gear Upper and Lower Torque Link Clevis Pins [F2008L01579]*.
AD/BEECH 55/30 Amdt 1—First and Second Row Seats [F2008L01580]*.
AD/BEECH 55/31—Fuel Vent System [F2008L01410]*.
AD/BEECH 55/35—Internally Lighted Altimeter [F2008L01411]*.
AD/BEECH 55/37 Amdt 1—Fuel Line Chafing [F2008L01412]*.
AD/BEECH 55/44—Fuel Crossfeed Line [F2008L01581]*.
AD/BEECH 55/47—Aft Cabin Door [F2008L01583]*.
AD/BEECH 55/48—Front Seat Restraint Installation [F2008L01584]*.
AD/BEECH 55/53—Engine Firewall Elbow Fitting [F2008L01413]*.
AD/BEECH 55/55—Fuel Drain Lines [F2008L01414]*.
AD/BEECH 55/56—Hatshelf Soundproofing Blanket [F2008L01585]*.
AD/BEECH 55/58—Elevator Control Push Rods [F2008L01586]*.
AD/BEECH 55/59 Amdt 1—Control Surface Trim Tab Systems [F2008L01587]*.
AD/BEECH 55/63 Amdt 1—Elevators [F2008L01588]*.
AD/BEECH 55/64—Nose Baggage Door Secondary Latch [F2008L01589]*.
AD/BEECH 55/65 Amdt 2—Fuel Boost Pumps [F2008L01415]*.
AD/BEECH 55/68 Amdt 1—Sponge Filled Fuel Reservoir Tanks [F2008L01417]*.
AD/BEECH 55/71—Hawker De Havilland Restraint System [F2008L01590]*.
AD/BEECH 56/3—Cabin Door Latch [F2008L01591]*.
AD/BEECH 56/4—Nacelle Side Brace Ribs [F2008L01703]*.
AD/BEECH 56/6—Centre Section Rear Spar Jack Pad [F2008L01592]*.
AD/BEECH 56/8—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01593]*.
AD/BEECH 56/9—Fuel Vent Heater Wiring [F2008L01418]*.
AD/BEECH 56/14—Second Row Seats [F2008L01644]*.
AD/BEECH 56/15—Fuel System – Placards [F2008L01419]*.
AD/BEECH 56/20—Elevator Control Push Rods [F2008L01594]*.
AD/BEECH 56/21—Control Surface Trim Tab Systems [F2008L01595]*.
AD/BEECH 56/23 Amdt 1—Elevators [F2008L01596]*.
AD/BEECH 56/24—Nose Baggage Door Secondary Latch [F2008L01597]*.
AD/BEECH 56/25 Amdt 2—Fuel Boost Pumps [F2008L01420]*.
AD/BEECH 56/28—Hawker De Havilland Restraint System [F2008L01598]*.
AD/BEECH 60/2—Aileron and Aileron Tab Control Rods [F2008L01599]*.
AD/BEECH 60/3—Retract Cable Actuator Arm Shear Rivet [F2008L01421]*.
AD/BEECH 60/4—Elevator and Tab Controls [F2008L01600]*.
AD/BEECH 60/5—Heated Stall Warning Switch [F2008L01422]*.
AD/BEECH 60/6—Fin Spar [F2008L01601]*.
AD/BEECH 60/7—Alternate Air Ducts [F2008L01654]*.
AD/BEECH 60/8—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01602]*.
AD/BEECH 60/10—Lower Forward Stub Wing Skins [F2008L01603]*.
AD/BEECH 60/11—Aft Facing Seats [F2008L01604]*.
AD/BEECH 60/12—Fuel Vent Heater Wiring [F2008L01423]*.
AD/BEECH 60/14 Amdt 1—Main Undercarriage Up-Lock [F2008L01652]*.
AD/BEECH 60/16—Aft Facing Chair Headrests [F2008L01605]*.
AD/BEECH 60/20—Fifth and Sixth Seat Track Travel Limiting Screws [F2008L01606]*.
AD/BEECH 60/24—Second Row Seats [F2008L01607]*.
AD/BEECH 60/26—Fuel System – Placards [F2008L01424]*.
AD/BEECH 60/33—Engine Hose Assembly [F2008L01425]*.
AD/BEECH 60/34—Fuel Drain Lines [F2008L01426]*.
AD/BEECH 60/35—Elevator Control Push Rods [F2008L01608]*.
AD/BEECH 60/37—Nose Baggage Locker Door [F2008L01609]*.
AD/BEECH 60/39 Amdt 2—Fuel Boost Pumps [F2008L01429]*.
AD/BEECH 65/1—Rudder Torque Tube Lowering Fitting – Inspection [F2008L01610]*.
AD/BEECH 65/2—Fuels System Check Valves – Installation [F2008L01964]*.
AD/BEECH 65/3—Nose Landing Gear Attachment Bolts Replacement [F2008L01706]*.
AD/BEECH 65/4—Flap Drive Assembly – Replacement [F2008L01707]*.
AD/BEECH 65/6—Aft Facing Chair Reclining Stops – Inspection [F2008L01708]*.
AD/BEECH 65/7 Amdt 1—Landing Gear Chain and Torque Shaft – Inspection [F2008L01709]*.
AD/BEECH 65/8—Control Sub-Panel Shelf – Modification [F2008L01710]*.
AD/BEECH 65/9—Automatic Pilot Shutoff Valves – Installation [F2008L01711]*.
AD/BEECH 65/10 Amdt 1—Lower Rudder Hinge Assembly – Inspection [F2008L01611]*.
AD/BEECH 65/11—Alternator Field Circuit Breaker – Inspection and Relocation [F2008L01612]*.
AD/BEECH 65/13—Starter and Battery Relay Covers – Installation [F2008L01963]*.
AD/BEECH 65/16 Amdt 1—Engine Mount Bolt Nuts [F2008L01613]*.
AD/BEECH 65/27 Amdt 1—Fuel Vent Heater Wiring [F2008L01962]*.
AD/BEECH 65/29 Amdt 1—Outer Wing Electrical Wiring [F2008L01712]*.
AD/BEECH 65/35 Amdt 1—Port Inner Wing Electrical Wiring [F2008L01713]*.
AD/BEECH 65/52—Landing Gear Torque Tube – Inspection and Replacement [F2008L01961]*.
AD/BEECH 65/53 Amdt 1—Rudder and Elevator Trim Tab Systems [F2008L01719]*.
AD/BEECH 65/58 Amdt 3—Fuel Boost Pumps [F2008L01722]*.
AD/BEECH 65/60 Amdt 1—Ansair Passenger Seats [F2008L01724]*.
AD/BEECH 76/1—Control Bearing Assemblies [F2008L01725]*.
AD/BEECH 76/2—Cowl Flap Hinge Assemblies [F2008L01726]*.
AD/BEECH 76/3—Elevator Trailing Edge Bond [F2008L01727]*.
AD/BEECH 76/4—Fuel Tank Outlet Check Valve and Fuel Selector Valves [F2008L01728]*.
AD/BEECH 76/6—Wing Spar Centre Splice Plates [F2008L01729]*.
AD/BEECH 76/14—Engine Control Rod Safety Washers [F2008L01731]*.
AD/BEECH 76/15—Woodward Governor Models L and R 210652 [F2008L01732]*.
AD/BEECH 76/16 Amdt 1—MLG Side Brace Overcentre Travel and Limit Switch [F2008L01733]*.
AD/BEECH 76/17—Wing Lower and Upper Splice Plate Bolt Installation [F2008L01735]*.
AD/BEECH 77/4—Elevator Control Arm Bushings [F2008L01736]*.
AD/BEECH 77/5—Control Column Installation [F2008L01737]*.
AD/BEECH 77/8—Horizontal Stabiliser Attach Bolts [F2008L01739]*.
AD/BEECH 77/9—Nose Landing Gear Axle [F2008L01740]*.
AD/BEECH 77/10—Nose Landing Gear Attachment Bolts [F2008L01748]*.
AD/BEECH 77/12—Engine Mount Assembly and Engine Control Linkage [F2008L01749]*.
AD/BEECH 90/3 Amdt 1—Tail Unit – Inspection [F2008L01755]*.
AD/BEECH 90/4 Amdt 3—Landing Gear Actuators – Inspection [F2008L01756]*.
AD/BEECH 90/5 Amdt 1—Landing Gear Chain and Torque Shaft – Inspection [F2008L01757]*.
AD/BEECH 90/6—Fuel Line – Modification [F2008L01758]*.
AD/BEECH 90/10—Standby Compass Deviation Placard – Installation [F2008L01759]*.
AD/BEECH 90/11—Generator Operation Placard – Installation [F2008L01760]*.
AD/BEECH 90/12—Ammeter Lead Circuit Protection [F2008L01761]*.
AD/BEECH 90/13—Fuel Heater System Shield – Modification [F2008L01762]*.
AD/BEECH 90/17—Engine Fire Extinguisher System – Modification [F2008L01959]*.
AD/BEECH 90/24—Fuel Vent Heater Wiring – Inspection [F2008L01764]*.
AD/BEECH 90/26—Outer Wing Electrical Wiring – Inspection [F2008L01765]*.
AD/BEECH 90/33—Magnetic Material Near Compass Flux Valve – Removal [F2008L01767]*.
AD/BEECH 90/35—Flap Gearbox – Inspection of Gears [F2008L01770]*.
AD/BEECH 90/37—Elevator and Rudder Trim Tab Actuator Systems – Inspection [F2008L01779]*.
AD/BEECH 90/54—Aft and Nose Hinged Baggage Door Latching – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01780]*.
AD/BEECH 90/60—Left Hand Rudder Cable Installation – Inspection [F2008L01782]*.
AD/BEECH 90/61—Pilot and Co-Pilot Seatback Pan – Modification [F2008L01783]*.
AD/BEECH 200/41 Amdt 2—Fuel Boost Pumps [F2008L01653]*.
AD/BELL 222/31 Amdt 2—Tail Rotor Blade [F2008L01656]*.
AD/BELL 430/1 Amdt 4—Tail Rotor Blade [F2008L01655]*.
AD/BELL 430/13—Removal of Air Temperature Restriction [F2008L01614]*.
AD/BO 105/16 Amdt 1—Tension-Torsion Strap [F2008L01673]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/2—Right Wing Rear Spar [F2008L01784]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/16—Safety Harness Inertia Reel [F2008L01785]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/22—Tail Wheel Steering Bellcrank [F2008L01796]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/24—Fuel Line and Cabin Door Latch [F2008L01430]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/28 Amdt 1—Aileron Mass Balance Weight Attachment Rivets [F2008L01797]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/33—Fuel Line to Elevator Control Cable Clearance [F2008L01432]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/34—Nosewheel Closure Collar [F2008L01446]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/35—Rear Seat Attachment [F2008L01798]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/39—Fuel Selector Handle Assembly [F2008L01447]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/40 Amdt 1—Main Gear Wheel Assemblies [F2008L01799]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/48 Amdt 1—Nose Gear Door [F2008L01448]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/49—Self Locking Nuts [F2008L01449]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/50—Elevator Control Travel [F2008L01801]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/52—Nose Gear Drag Strut Attach Fitting [F2008L01960]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/53—Steering Bungee Boot [F2008L01802]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/55—Ammeter Type and Position [F2008L01450]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/58—Fuel Tank Filler Neck [F2008L01804]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/65—Cylinder Head Temperature Probe [F2008L01806]*.
AD/CESSNA 180/66—King KFC 200 Flight Control System [F2008L01807]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/4—Tail Wheel Assembly [F2008L01808]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/5—Inertia Reel [F2008L01809]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/9 Amdt 1—Rudder Bellcrank Bracket [F2008L01810]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/10—Tail Wheel Steering Bellcrank [F2008L01811]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/11—Non-Return Valves in Electric Fuel Pump Bypass Line [F2008L01812]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/14 Amdt 1—Carburettor Air Box Shaft [F2008L01813]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/16 Amdt 1—Aileron Mass Balance Weight Attachment Rivets [F2008L01814]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/20—Main Gear Wheel Assemblies [F2008L01815]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/24—Fuel and Oil Leaks [F2008L01817]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/26—Fuel Line [F2008L01819]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/27—Self Locking Nuts [F2008L01820]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/31—Fuel Tank Filler Neck [F2008L01823]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/38 Amdt 1—Rudder Pedal Torque Tube [F2008L01824]*.
AD/CESSNA 185/42—Seat Rail Latch [F2008L01825]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/1—Vertical Angle and Spar Cap Interference – Inspection [F2008L01615]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/8—Main Landing Gear Side Brace Link – Inspection [F2008L01616]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/16—Nose Gear Uplock Torque Tube – Replacement [F2008L01617]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/46—Engine Mount – Inspection and Replacement [F2008L01618]*.
AD/CESSNA 310/47—Nose Wheel Well – Modification [F2008L01619]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/2—Fin Spar Attachment Bolts – Inspection [F2008L01620]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/4—Safety Harness – Installation [F2008L01621]*.
AD/CESSNA 320/27—Main Landing Gear Down Lock Pin and Set Screw – Inspection [F2008L01451]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/2—Inboard Flap Travel – Modification [F2008L01452]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/4—Rudder Bar – Modification [F2008L01622]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/12—Landing Gear Hydraulic Lines in Engine Compartment [F2008L01453]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/15—Wing Strut Fairing – Modification [F2008L01623]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/24—Forward Engine Compartment – Self Locking Nuts – Inspection [F2008L01454]*.
AD/CESSNA 337/30—Pitot Tube Installation [F2008L01455]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/1—Fuel Pressure Regulator Fitting – Inspection [F2008L01456]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/6—Pre-Certification Requirements – Modification [F2008L01457]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/10—Fuel Crossfeed Line Fittings – Modification [F2008L01458]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/13—Main Landing Gear Down Lock Pin and Set Screw – Inspection [F2008L01460]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/15—Landing Gear Emergency Handle – Replacement [F2008L01826]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/19—Upper Inner Cabin Door Handle and Locking Mechanism – Inspection [F2008L01828]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/20—Wing Locker Fuel Tank Filler Cap – Rework [F2008L01461]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/23—Elevator Balance Weight – Inspection [F2008L01829]*.
AD/CESSNA 340/36—Deice System Electrical Power [F2008L01462]*.
AD/DA42/4—Wing Stub Safety Walkway [F2008L01624]*.
AD/DAUPHIN/68 Amdt 2—Main Gearbox Base Plate [F2008L01625]*.
AD/DAUPHIN/95—Main Rotor Gearbox Casing – Corrosion [F2008L01647]*.
AD/DAUPHIN/96—CPI 503 Crash Position Indicator Components [F2008L01896]*.
AD/DHC-6/75—Wing Front Spar Adapter Assembly [F2008L01626]*.
AD/DHC-6/76—Floatplane Float to Chassis Bolts [F2008L01627]*.
AD/DO 228/14—Nose Landing Gear Strut Support [F2008L01575]*.
AD/EC 135/196—Rotor Control Bearing Attachment [F2008L01941]*.
AD/ECUREUIL/100 Amdt 2—Emergency Floatation Gear – All-up Operating Weight [F2008L01628]*.
AD/ERJ-170/4 Amdt 3—Flight Guidance Control Unit [F2008L01463]*.
AD/ERJ-190/7—Cargo Compartment Pressure Equalisation Valve [F2008L01487]*.
AD/ERJ-190/8—Escape Slide Installation [F2008L01633]*.
AD/ERJ-190/9—Wing Lower Skin Stringers [F2008L01634]*.
AD/F100/21 Amdt 1—Reverse Thrust Control Maximum Detent [F2008L01934]*.
AD/GBK 117/19—Rotor Control Bearing Attachment [F2008L01940]*.
AD/GENERAL/53—Flight Data Recorder Underwater Locating Device – Installation [F2008L01832]*.
AD/GENERAL/58—Voice Recorders – Attachment of Reflective Strips [F2008L01833]*.
AD/HU 369/108 Amdt 2—Tailboom Attachment [F2008L01635]*.
AD/P68/43 Amdt 5—Wing and Airframe – Fatigue Life Limit [F2008L01636]*.
AD/PA-11/4—Wing Fuel Tank Cap – Modification [F2008L01465]*.
AD/PA-18/10—Wing Fuel Tank Cap – Modification [F2008L01466]*.
AD/PA-20/9 Amdt 1—Exhaust System – Inspection [F2008L01648]*.
AD/PA-20/11—Flexible Fuel Hose Assembly – Inspection [F2008L01468]*.
AD/PA-20/12—Fuselage Structure, Upper Cabin – Inspection [F2008L01834]*.
AD/PA-20/13—Wing Fuel Tank Cap – Modification [F2008L01469]*.
AD/PA-20/16 Amdt 1—Fuselage Door Frame Tube Corrosion [F2008L01835]*.
AD/PA-22/4—Nose Wheel Mount – Stiffener Brace [F2008L01836]*.
AD/PA-22/5—Rivets in Aileron Hinge Bearing Blocks – Inspection [F2008L01837]*.
AD/PA-22/16—Tail Brace Clevises – Replacement [F2008L01838]*.
AD/PA-22/17—Cabin Heater Box Plate – Modification [F2008L01839]*.
AD/PA-22/18—Horizontal Stabiliser Trim Control Screw Mechanism – Stop Installation [F2008L01840]*.
AD/PA-22/21—Landing Gear Fairing – Modification [F2008L01841]*.
AD/PA-22/22—Rudder Pedals – Modification [F2008L01842]*.
AD/PA-22/24 Amdt 1—Right Hand Fuel Tank Quantity Gauge – Placard [F2008L01470]*.
AD/PA-22/26—Flexible Fuel Hose Assembly – Inspection [F2008L01471]*.
AD/PA-22/28—Automatic Pilot Roll Servo Shear Pin – Installation [F2008L01472]*.
AD/PA-22/30—Wing Fuel Tank Cap – Modification [F2008L01473]*.
AD/PA-22/34—Shimmy Damper [F2008L01844]*.
AD/PA-23/1—Flap Spar and Stabiliser Spar – Reinforcement [F2008L01845]*.
AD/PA-23/3—Main Landing Gear Forgings and Wheels – Replacement [F2008L01847]*.
AD/PA-23/5—Main Landing Gear Attachment Points – Modification [F2008L01850]*.
AD/PA-23/14—Rudder Trim Tab Control Rod – Inspection [F2008L01852]*.
AD/PA-23/19—Elevator Control Tube Bellcrank Attachment – Modification [F2008L01853]*.
AD/PA-23/20—Stabilator Tab Horn – Modification [F2008L01856]*.
AD/PA-23/23—Rudder Tab Horn Bolt – Replacement [F2008L01857]*.
AD/PA-23/24—Stabilator Tab Horn – Inspection [F2008L01858]*.
AD/PA-23/27—Wing Flaps – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01859]*.
AD/PA-23/32 Amdt 2—Cabin Door Latch – Modification [F2008L01860]*.
AD/PA-28/2—Rudder and Stabilator Control Cables, Installation of Fairleads – Modification and Inspection [F2008L01861]*.
AD/PA-28/7 Amdt 1—Magneto Radio Interference Filters – Modification [F2008L01474]*.
AD/PA-28/8—Rudder Trim Installation [F2008L01862]*.
AD/PA-28/9—Battery Lead Attachment – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01475]*.
AD/PA-28/10—Centre Safety Belt Attachment – Inspection [F2008L01864]*.
AD/PA-28/18—Wing Rear Spar Attachment Bolts – Inspection [F2008L01865]*.
AD/PA-28/24—Control Wheel Retaining Pin – Modification [F2008L01866]*.
AD/PA-28/30—Engine Mount Tubes – Inspection [F2008L01868]*.
AD/PA-28/31—Seat Frame – Modification [F2008L01869]*.
AD/PA-28/32—Pitch Trim Switch – Modification [F2008L01476]*.
AD/PA-28/36—Stabilator Hinge Attaching Bolts – Inspection [F2008L01873]*.
AD/PA-28/39—Stabilator – Inspection and Drilling of Drain Holes [F2008L01874]*.
AD/PA-28/41—Rapid Throttle Movement – Warning Placard [F2008L01483]*.
AD/PA-28/44—Rear Seat Belt Attachment – Modification [F2008L01876]*.
AD/PA-28/45—Gross Weight – Reduction [F2008L01877]*.
AD/PA-28/46—Wing Reinforcement – Modification [F2008L01878]*.
AD/PA-28/47—Automatic Pilot Roll Servo Shear Pin – Installation [F2008L01649]*.
AD/PA-28/48—Outer Wing Spar – Inspection [F2008L01879]*.
AD/PA-28/49—Air Conditioning System – Modification [F2008L01880]*.
AD/PA-28/51—Aileron Centring Cable – Inspection [F2008L01881]*.
AD/PA-28/55—Fuel Valve – Replacement [F2008L01882]*.
AD/PA-28/67—Electric Pitch Trim Switch – Modification [F2008L01883]*.
AD/PA-28/69—Engine Cowling – Drain Hole Provision [F2008L01885]*.
AD/PA-28/71—Nose Landing Gear Down Lock – Modification or Replacement [F2008L01886]*.
AD/PA-28/73—Hose Assembly – Inspection and Modification [F2008L01888]*.
AD/PA-28/74—Fuel and Vapour Return Lines – Modification [F2008L01889]*.
AD/PA-28/81—Fuel Filter Drain Valve – Replacement [F2008L01890]*.
AD/PA-28/82—Rudder Torque Tube Attachment Fitting and Hardware – Inspection [F2008L01891]*.
AD/PA-28/85—Battery Strap Installation [F2008L01892]*.
AD/PA-28/87—Stabilator Attach Fitting Corrosion [F2008L01893]*.
AD/PA-28/88 Amdt 3—Aft Centre of Gravity Restriction [F2008L01894]*.
AD/ROBIN/8 Amdt 3—Wing Structure and Fuselage Attachment [F2008L01637]*.
AD/ROBIN/28 Amdt 2—Wing Attachment Bolts [F2008L01638]*.
AD/ROBIN/32 Amdt 2—Wing Spars [F2008L01639]*.
AD/SF340/106—Forward Engine Cowl Door [F2008L01642]*.
AD/S-PUMA/75—Crash Position Indicator Water Activated Switch [F2008L01485]*.
AD/S-PUMA/76—Seat Harness Belt Buckle Blanking Plugs [F2008L01640]*.
AD/S-PUMA/77—CPI 503 Crash Position Indicator Components [F2008L01895]*.
AD/TAYLORCRAFT/2—Wing Lift Strut Attach Fittings [F2008L01701]*.
106—
AD/ROTAX/22 Amdt 1—Camshaft Hydraulic Tappet Wear [F2008L01943]*.
AD/THIELERT/9—Engine – Clutch Assembly [F2008L01702]*.
107—
AD/EMY/35—Life Vest Valise Zipper [F2008L01629]*.
AD/EMY/36—Evacuation Systems – Corroded Shear-Pin Restraints [F2008L01632]*.
AD/INST/56 Amdt 1—Avidyne Corporation Primary Flight Displays [F2008L01464]*.
AD/PARA/18—VIGIL Parachute Automatic Activation Device [F2008L01676]*.
Instruments Nos CASA—
EX25/08—Exemption – Officer in Charge [F2008L01313]*.
EX31/08—Exemption – runway end safety area non-compliance RWY 07 end [F2008L01550]*.
Manual of Standards Part 60 Amendment (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L01328]*.
Commissioner of Taxation—Public rulings—
Class Rulings—CR 2008/35-CR 2008/40.
Goods and Services Tax Determination GSTD 2008/1.
Product Rulings—
Addenda—PR 2007/70, PR 2007/102, PR 2008/13 and PR 2008/17.
Notices of Withdrawal—PR 2007/11 and PR 2007/44.
PR 2008/44-PR 2008/55.
Taxation Determinations—
Addendum—TD 93/86.
Erratum—TD 2008/9.
Notices of Withdrawal—TD 93/159 and TD 94/69.
TD 2008/13 and TD 2008/14.
Taxation Rulings—
Notices of Withdrawal—TR 94/4-TR 94/6.
Old series—
Addendum—IT 2484.
Notices of Withdrawal—IT 32, IT 2231 and IT 2328.
TR 2008/2 and TR 2008/3.
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Investment Approval 2008/01 —Dematerialised equivalents [F2008L02067]*.
Corporations Act—
ASIC Class Orders—
[CO 08/35] [F2008L01573]*.
[CO 08/171] [F2008L01574]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
93—Corporations Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01830]*.
94—Corporations Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01827]*.
Currency Act—Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determinations 2008—
(No. 4) [F2008L01660]*.
(No. 5) [F2008L01661]*.
Customs Act—
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 74—Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 3) [F2008L01400]*.
Tariff Concession Orders—
0718565 [F2008L01567]*.
0718566 [F2008L01553]*.
0718969 [F2008L02010]*.
0720912 [F2008L02011]*.
0721626 [F2008L01851]*.
0721703 [F2008L01376]*.
0721744 [F2008L01377]*.
0721745 [F2008L01484]*.
0721746 [F2008L01496]*.
0721905 [F2008L01438]*.
0721998 [F2008L01355]*.
0800156 [F2008L01498]*.
0800278 [F2008L01497]*.
0800279 [F2008L01494]*.
0800380 [F2008L01439]*.
0800658 [F2008L01440]*.
0800659 [F2008L01343]*.
0800662 [F2008L01341]*.
0800663 [F2008L01339]*.
0800664 [F2008L01345]*.
0800795 [F2008L01379]*.
0800878 [F2008L01822]*.
0800935 [F2008L01774]*.
0800982 [F2008L01338]*.
0800990 [F2008L01495]*.
0801034 [F2008L01336]*.
0801079 [F2008L01545]*.
0801096 [F2008L01849]*.
0801106 [F2008L01900]*.
0801135 [F2008L01773]*.
0801160 [F2008L01745]*.
0801248 [F2008L01344]*.
0801272 [F2008L01744]*.
0801293 [F2008L01507]*.
0801294 [F2008L01548]*.
0801346 [F2008L01786]*.
0801349 [F2008L01777]*.
0801351 [F2008L01503]*.
0801428 [F2008L01743]*.
0801436 [F2008L01536]*.
0801636 [F2008L01531]*.
0801685 [F2008L01538]*.
0801730 [F2008L01530]*.
0801762 [F2008L01528]*.
0801763 [F2008L02012]*.
0801913 [F2008L01335]*.
0801914 [F2008L01541]*.
0801919 [F2008L01544]*.
0802001 [F2008L01747]*.
0802002 [F2008L02013]*.
0802018 [F2008L02014]*.
0802051 [F2008L02015]*.
0802069 [F2008L02016]*.
0802085 [F2008L02017]*.
0802087 [F2008L01546]*.
0802090 [F2008L01901]*.
0802155 [F2008L01547]*.
0802221 [F2008L02008]*.
0802241 [F2008L02018]*.
0802281 [F2008L01558]*.
0802326 [F2008L01525]*.
0802330 [F2008L01526]*.
0802361 [F2008L01549]*.
0802362 [F2008L01529]*.
0802471 [F2008L01818]*.
0802479 [F2008L01350]*.
0802531 [F2008L01775]*.
0802532 [F2008L01349]*.
0802633 [F2008L01353]*.
0802634 [F2008L01506]*.
0802637 [F2008L01352]*.
0802703 [F2008L01527]*.
0802785 [F2008L01921]*.
0802797 [F2008L01508]*.
0802798 [F2008L01561]*.
0802859 [F2008L01789]*.
0802869 [F2008L02019]*.
0802929 [F2008L01902]*.
0802941 [F2008L01903]*.
0803011 [F2008L01982]*.
0803037 [F2008L01791]*.
0803038 [F2008L01971]*.
0803039 [F2008L01953]*.
0803084 [F2008L01511]*.
0803089 [F2008L01972]*.
0803090 [F2008L01947]*.
0803138 [F2008L01790]*.
0803403 [F2008L01954]*.
0803405 [F2008L01979]*.
0803406 [F2008L01987]*.
0803407 [F2008L01988]*.
0803408 [F2008L01989]*.
0803409 [F2008L01990]*.
0803410 [F2008L01991]*.
0803411 [F2008L01986]*.
0803412 [F2008L01985]*.
0803421 [F2008L01968]*.
0803432 [F2008L01997]*.
0803436 [F2008L01993]*.
0803478 [F2008L01994]*.
0803520 [F2008L01995]*.
0803685 [F2008L01984]*.
0803919 [F2008L01983]*.
0804540 [F2008L01499]*.
Tariff Concession Revocation Instruments—
39/2008 [F2008L01427]*.
40/2008 [F2008L01428]*.
41/2008 [F2008L01431]*.
42/2008 [F2008L01433]*.
43/2008 [F2008L01435]*.
44/2008 [F2008L01436]*.
45/2008 [F2008L01437]*.
46/2008 [F2008L02001]*.
47/2008 [F2008L02002]*.
48/2008 [F2008L02003]*.
49/2008 [F2008L02004]*.
50/2008 [F2008L02005]*.
51/2008 [F2008L02006]*.
52/2008 [F2008L02007]*.
53/2008 [F2008L02009]*.
Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations—
2008/21—Additional remuneration for star rank officers, temporary accommodation allowance, education assistance and hardship post – amendments.
2008/22—Post indexes – price review.
Defence Force Discipline Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 100—Australian Military Court Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L02026]*.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—
Adoption of State or Territory Plans as Recovery Plans, dated—
25 May 2008 [F2008L02040]*.
27 March 2008 [F2008L02035]*.
Amendment of list of exempt native specimens—EPBC303DC/SFS/2008/17 [F2008L01685]*.
Instrument Repealing Superseded Recovery Plans [F2008L02038]*.
Notice of proposed accreditation of the Statement of Management Arrangements, Coral Sea Fishery 2007, dated 16 November 2007.
Export Market Development Grants Act—Determination 1/2008—Determination of the Balance Distribution Date for Grant Year 2006-07.
Family Law Act—
Family Law (Part VII order application —Phase 2 date) Proclamation 2008 [F2008L01443]*.
Family Law (Part VII order application —Phase 3 date) Proclamation 2008 [F2008L01445]*.
Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations—Family Law (Superannuation) (Interest Rate for Adjustment Period) Determination 2008 [F2008L02028]*.
Farm Household Support Act—
Farm Help Advice and Training Scheme Amendment 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01672]*.
Farm Help Re-establishment Grant Scheme Amendment 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01674]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 77—Farm Household Support Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01665]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Act—
Determinations—
2008/19—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DEST to DEEWR) [F2008L01667]*.
2008/20—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DEST to DIISR) [F2008L01668]*.
2008/21—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from Environment to DRET) [F2008L01669]*.
2008/22—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the NWC to Environment) [F2008L01670]*.
2008/23—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DEST to ARC) [F2008L01787]*.
2008/24—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from DIISR to ARC) [F2008L01788]*.
2008/25—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DCITA to DBCDE) [F2008L01884]*.
2008/26—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DCITA to DBCDE) [F2008L01965]*.
2008/27—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DEWR to DEEWR) [F2008L01966]*.
2008/28—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DEST to DRET) [F2008L02043]*.
2008/29—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from the former DEST to ARC) [F2008L02046]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Orders 2008 [F2008L01582]*.
Fisheries Management Act—
Determination No. PT02A—Commonwealth Pelagic Fisheries Catch Disposal Record [F2008L01975]*.
Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995—
Gear Determination No. NPFGD 04 [F2008L01935]*.
NPF Directions Nos—
113—First Season Closures [F2008L01690]*.
114—Prohibition on Fishing (Prior to Seasons) [F2008L01692]*.
115—Prohibition on Fishing [F2008L01693]*.
116—Gear Trials [F2008L01694]*.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act—
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Amendment No. 98 – 2008 [F2008L01488]*.
FSANZ Application Handbook – Amendment No. 1 – 2008 [F2008L01697]*.
Health Insurance Act—Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Determination 2008 [F2008L01571]*.
Health Insurance Act and Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Act—Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation – Approved Accreditors) Determination 2008 [F2008L01572]*.
Higher Education Endowment Fund Act—Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board Directions No. 1 of 2008 [F2008L02050]*.
Higher Education Support Act—
Funding Agreements under section 30-25, dated—
1 April 2008—The University of Notre Dame Australia.
2 April 2008—The University of New South Wales.
7 April 2008—Avondale College.
18 April 2008—The University of Melbourne.
24 April 2008—Tabor College Adelaide.
5 May 2008—The University of Western Australia.
9 May 2008—The University of Adelaide.
Other Grants Guidelines 2006—Amendment No. 10 [F2008L01643]*.
VET Administration Guidelines [F2008L01958]*.
VET FEE-HELP Guidelines [F2008L01952]*.
VET Provider Guidelines [F2008L01957]*.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 81—Income Tax Assessment Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01434]*.
Migration Act—
Migration Agents Regulations—MARA Notices—
MN21-08b of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Private Study of Audio, Video or Written Material) [F2008L01679]*.
MN21-08c of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2008L01681]*.
MN21-08f of 2008—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Miscellaneous Activities) [F2008L01680]*.
Migration Regulations—Instruments IMMI—
08/013—Specification of countries [F2008L01978]*.
08/020—Regional certifying bodies and post codes defining regional Australia for certain visas [F2008L01641]*.
08/034—Migration occupations in demand [F2008L01524]*.
08/046—Working Holiday Visa – definitions of ‘Seasonal Work’ and ‘Regional Australia’ [F2008L01738]*.
Migration (United Nations Security Council Resolutions) Regulations—Instrument IMMI 08/024—Specification of United Nations Security Council Resolutions [F2008L02024]*.
Migration Act and Immigration (Education) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 91—Migration Legislation Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01848]*.
Mutual Recognition Act—Declaration under section 32—Ministerial Declaration [F2008L02044]*.
National Film and Sound Archive Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 88—National Film and Sound Archive Regulations 2008 [F2008L01870]*.
National Health Act—Instruments Nos PB—
60 of 2008—Amendment determination – pharmaceutical benefits [F2008L02049]*.
62 of 2008—Amendment – price determinations and special patient contributions [F2008L02052]*.
63 of 2008—Amendment – pharmaceutical benefits supplied by medical practitioners [F2008L02053]*.
64 of 2008—Amendment determination – conditions [F2008L02055]*.
65 of 2008—Amendment Special Arrangements – Highly Specialised Drugs Program [F2008L02057]*.
67 of 2008—Amendment Special Arrangements – Chemotherapy Pharmaceuticals Access Program [F2008L02058]*.
68 of 2008—Determination – drugs on F1 [F2008L02059]*.
69 of 2008—Amendment Determination – exempt items [F2008L02060]*.
Navigation Act—Marine Orders Nos—
1 of 2008—High-speed craft [F2008L01631]*.
2 of 2008—Ships surveys and certification [F2008L01766]*.
3 of 2008—Liquefied gas carriers and chemical tankers [F2008L01734]*.
4 of 2008—Equipment —Life-saving [F2008L01821]*.
5 of 2008—Construction —Fire protection, fire detection and fire extinction [F2008L01792]*.
Occupational Health and Safety Act—Occupational Health and Safety Code of Practice 2008 [F2008L02054]*.
Parliamentary Entitlements Act—Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations—Advice of decision to pay assistance under Part 3, dated 5 May 2008.
Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 83—Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01554]*.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
84—Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01666]*.
85—Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01662]*.
Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 86—Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01663]*.
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 92—Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01776]*.
Radiocommunications Act—
Digital Radio Multiplex Transmitter Licences (Decision-Making Criteria) Determination 2008 [F2008L01686]*.
Digital Radio Multiplex Transmitter Licences Procedural Rules 2008 [F2008L01687]*.
Remuneration and Allowances Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 76—Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01416]*.
Research Involving Human Embryos Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 80—Research Involving Human Embryos Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L00983]*.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Definition of Employee) Notice 2008 (1) [F2008L01552]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 87—Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01678]*.
Screen Australia Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 89—Screen Australia Regulations 2008 [F2008L01867]*.
Social Security (Administration) Act—
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas —Various (No. 16)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01645]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas —Various (No. 17)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01688]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas —Various (No. 18)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01689]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas —Various (No. 19)) Determination 2008 [F2008L01974]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas —Various (No. 20)) Determination 2008 [F2008L02061]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas —Various (No. 21)) Determination 2008 [F2008L02062]*.
Social Security (Public Interest Certificate Guidelines) (FaHCSIA) Determination 2008 [F2008L01976]*.
Student Assistance Act—Amendment No. 1 to Determination No. 2007/1 – Determination of Education Institutions and Courses under subsections 3(1) and 5D(1) of the Student Assistance Act 1973 [F2008L02000]*.
Superannuation Act 1976—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 79—Superannuation (CSS) Salary Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01467]*.
Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 95—Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01741]*.
Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation Reports—
05/08 [3 dispensations].
06/08 [2 dispensations].
Taxation Administration Act—PAYG withholding—
Notice exempting entities from giving a duplicate copy of a payment summary to payees for any payment [F2008L01659]*.
Notice exempting entities from giving a payment summary for lump sum superannuation benefits to certain recipients with a terminal medical condition [F2008L01999]*.
Variation to the rate of withholding from lump sum superannuation member benefits for certain recipients with a terminal medical condition [F2008L01854]*.
Withholding Schedules 2008 [F2008L01698]*.
Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act—
Telecommunications (Annual Carrier Licence Charge) Determination 2008 [F2008L01855]*.
Telecommunications (Costs Attributable to Telecommunications Functions and Powers) Determination 2008 [F2008L01871]*.
Telecommunications (Recovery of ITU Budget Contribution) Determination 2008 [F2008L01872]*.
Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act—
Australian Communications and Media Authority (Advice about Universal Service Subsidies) Direction (No. 1) 2008 [F2008L01566]*.
Telecommunications (Emergency Call Service) Amendment Determination 2008 (No. 1) Amendment Determination 2008 [F2008L01646]*.
Therapeutic Goods Act—
Medical Device Standards Order (Standards for Clinical Evidence) 2008 [F2008L01700]*.
Medical Device Standards Order (Standards for Risk Management) 2008 [F2008L01699]*.
Therapeutic Goods Order No. 69B—Amendment to Therapeutic Goods Order No. 69—General requirements for labels for medicines [F2008L02056]*.
Torres Strait Fisheries Act—Torres Strait Fisheries Management Notice No. 82—Torres Strait Prawn Fishery—Requirement for use of bycatch reduction devices [F2008L01970]*.
Trade Practices Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2008 Nos—
82—Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Cosmetics) Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01521]*.
96—Trade Practices Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 2) [F2008L01956]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act—
Instrument No. R7/2008—Veterans’ Entitlements (Treatment Principles – Transfer of Veterans from Rozelle Hospital) Instrument 2008 [F2008L01271]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 75—Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Regulations 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01260]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum – Climate Change Adjustment Program Re-establishment Grant) Determination No. R13/2008 [F2008L01973]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Income (Exempt Lump Sum – MBF and BUPA Australia Merger Payment) Determination No. R14 of 2008 [F2008L01716]*.
Workplace Relations Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2008 No. 73—Australian Industrial Relations Commission Amendment Rules 2008 (No. 1) [F2008L01394]*.
Governor-General’s Proclamation—Commencement of Provisions of an Act
Screen Australia Act 2008—Sections 3 to 45—1 July 2008 [F2008L01863]*.
* Explanatory statement tabled with legislative instrument.
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
2135
Answers to Questions on Notice
The following answers to questions were circulated:
Wetlands
2135
2135
8
2135
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
0
Senator Allison
asked the Minister for Climate Change and Water, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
-
What action will the Government take to remedy the critical situation of wetlands such as the Coorong and the Macquarie Marshes.
-
Will the Minister fast-track the return of water to these wetlands; if so, how.
-
Given the obligations of Australia under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, how will the Government explain the dire state of many of Australia’s wetlands at the Ramsar conference of the parties in October and November 2008.
-
Is there evidence of environmental water theft in Ramsar sites, such as the Macquarie Marshes; if so, what steps will be taken to protect the water supply of these sites.
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
-
The Australian Government is strongly committed to the conservation and wise use of internationally important wetlands and is undertaking a number of actions designed to improve the health of these wetlands.
We have provided $13.4 million for the New South Wales Wetland Recovery Program, and an additional $71.77 million for the New South Wales Rivers Environmental Restoration Program. This funding will support environmental water purchase and improved wetland management to improve the health of a number of important New South Wales wetlands, including the Macquarie Marshes. The programs have acquired over 24,000 megalitres of general security entitlements for New South Wales wetlands, including 11,545 megalitres for the Macquarie Marshes.
Regarding the Coorong, the Australian Government is working through the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council to monitor the state of the Coorong and Lower Lakes and seek solutions. At the 7 March 2008 Council meeting in principle support was given to a set of emergency measures to reduce the risk of environmental damage to Lake Albert.
-
To expedite the recovery of water, the Government has an election commitment to bringing forward $400 million in expenditure on water recovery and water efficiency measures in the Basin. The Government intends to purchase water from willing sellers across the Murray-Darling Basin to address the problem of over-allocation, with this water to be used to protect wetlands and other key environmental assets. On 26 February 2008, I announced a public tender process, with funding of $50 million, to purchase water this financial year. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder will manage the water acquired through this action to protect or restore environmental assets, including important wetlands.
-
The Australian Government will continue to report on its Ramsar Convention obligations through the standard Ramsar Convention reporting processes, including the triennial National Report. This report is currently being drafted in preparation for the next meeting of the Ramsar Convention Contracting Parties in late 2008.
-
There have been numerous allegations about the illegal diversion of environmental water in the Macquarie Marshes region. The Department is actively investigating a number of activities alleged to have affected Ramsar sites, to determine whether these activities have had a significant impact on any matters protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The Department has also engaged in a large compliance project in partnership with New South Wales State agencies. The project will undertake an audit of all water diversion structures in the Macquarie Marshes. The joint Australian and State Government-funded New South Wales Wetland Recovery Program is contributing $400,000 for the project.
Structures identified in the course of the audit will be assessed with regard to their compliance with the EPBC Act, and the Department will follow through with any necessary compliance and enforcement actions.
Finance and Deregulation: Media Staff
2135
2135
19
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
As at 26 November 2007, with reference to the department and all agencies in the Minister’s portfolio:
-
How many employees are engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring.
-
What are the responsibilities of these staff.
-
What are the Australian Public Service classifications of these positions.
-
For each of the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, what is the current operating budget for these media-related sections within the department or agency.
2135
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
Senator Faulkner
—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
-
- (4) Please refer to the response to Senate question on notice No. 25 asked of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation.
Finance and Deregulation: Media Staff
2135
2135
25
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
As at 26 November 2007, with reference to the department and all agencies in the Minister’s portfolio:
-
How many employees are engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring.
-
What are the responsibilities of these staff.
-
What are the Australian Public Service classifications of these positions.
-
or each of the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, what is the current operating budget for these media-related sections within the department or agency.
2135
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
Senator Sherry
—The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Finance and Deregulation (Finance)
-
There are two employees engaged in a position responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring. These duties comprise 20 and 30 per cent respectively of the total duties for these positions. There are four additional employees who assist with the department’s media monitoring, and these duties comprise 5 per cent of their total duties.
-
Responsibilities of the staff referred to in part (1) includea combination of the following duties:
-
managing the Communications and Public Affairs Section (Executive Level 2 [EL2] only);
-
managing media inquiries (EL2 only);
-
event management;
-
advising groups on departmental communications channels;
-
media monitoring for departmental issues;
-
managing a range of departmental events;
-
speechwriting for the Secretary and senior managers;
-
developing communication strategies;
-
managing the Department’s publications and style guide;
-
administering sponsorships;
-
updating departmental information, such as the Department’s organisational chart and the Government Online Directory;
-
uploading the Minister’s speeches, transcripts and media releases to their departmental websites;
-
supporting Senior Managers’ meetings;
-
arranging corporate photography; and
-
writing the Department’s internal newsletter.
-
Public affairs positions: EL 2 and EL1. There are four other employees, with some responsibility for media monitoring: EL1, APS6, and two APS5s.
-
The total budget* (including Internal Service Charges) for the areas with such responsibilities, including all activities, is as follows:
2007-08 $1,178,916
2008-09 $1,182,899 (estimate - subject to amendment)
2009-10 $1,188,042 (estimate - subject to amendment)
2010-11 $1,192,654 (estimate - subject to amendment)
*These funds are applied to the full range of activities outlined in part (2). Public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring represent less than 10 per cent of the overall work (and budget) undertaken by these staff
Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)
-
In the AEC’s national office, three officers are engaged for media related duties comprising one fulltime officer, a part-time team manager, and a director who provides oversight and manages other communication activities. In each of the six AEC state offices and in the NT office, an AEC officer is responsible for undertaking media liaison as part of their mix of duties of other operational or communication duties. The state manager or NT manager, or their nominated delegate, acts as a local media spokesperson as required, in line with the AEC’s media liaison policy. At election times an ACT manager is appointed who may also be called upon to act as a local media spokesperson.
-
In National office, responsibilities of the staff referred to in part (1) include:
-
managing media monitoring activities;
-
conducting media liaison in relation to national issues and topics;
-
media release preparation and distribution;
-
assisting the AEC national spokesperson;
-
developing and coordinating national media relations plans for electoral events; and
-
managing the media centre on AEC internet website.
In state offices and the NT office, responsibilities of the staff referred to in part (1) include:
-
media liaison including media release distribution to state and local media; and
-
implementation of state and local activities as part of media relations plans for electoral events.
-
National office position classifications are:
-
APS6 (works full-time on media duties)
-
EL1 (team manager)
-
EL2 (director)
In the state and NT offices, the position classifications are either:
-
APS5, APS6 or EL1, dependent on their full set of communications or non-communications duties, the size of the office and local staffing structures.
-
The operating budget for the AEC media related sections is $140,156 for the 2007-08 financial year. Budgets for 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 for these activities are yet to be determined.
Australian Reward Investment Alliance (ARIA)
-
There is one person employed within ARIA responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring. This duty comprises 10 per cent of their total responsibilities.
-
Communications activities.
-
Not applicable. ARIA is not an APS agency.
-
Not applicable. ARIA does not budget specifically for these functions.
National Archives of Australia (NAA)
-
The NAA has four staff responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring media and marketing.
-
Responsibilities of the above mentioned staff include:
-
coordinating all media budgets and media placements nationally;
-
marketing;
-
managing the e-newsletter and online podcasts program;
-
e-communication and advertising;
-
managing day-to-day media relations;
-
press releases;
-
speech notes;
-
communication activities;
-
event and promotions management;
-
media placements and relations; and
-
media monitoring.
-
The classifications of the above mentioned staff are:
-
one Public Affairs Officer Level 3; and
-
three Public Affairs Officers Level 2.
-
The current operating budget for the media-related sections within the National Archives of Australia is:
2007-08: $311,190
2008-09 $323, 639 (estimate - subject to amendment)
2009-10 $336, 584 (estimate - subject to amendment)
2010-11 The Budget for these activities for 2010-11 is yet to be determined.
Future Fund Management Agency (FFMA)
-
The FFMA has one staff member responsible for these activities.
-
Public affairs, media management, liaison with the media, media monitoring, stakeholder management and communication.
-
FFMA 4 (APS Executive Level 2)
-
The operating budget within the FFMA for this function is:
2007-2008 – $100,000
2008-2009 – yet to be determined
2009-2010 – yet to be determined
2010-2011 – yet to be determined
Comsuper.
-
Comsuper has one staff member that is responsible for media clipping monitoring. This duty comprises less than 5 per cent of their total duties.
-
In addition to the above, the primary role of this staff member is general corporate administration.
-
APS level 6
-
Not applicable.
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government: Media Staff
2135
2135
26
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
As at 26 November 2007, with reference to the department and all agencies in the Minister’s portfolio:
-
1) How many employees are engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring.
-
(2) What are the responsibilities of these staff?
-
(3) What are the Australian Public Service classifications of these positions.
-
(4) For each of the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, what is the current operating budget for these media-related sections within the department or agency.
2135
Conroy, Sen Stephen
3L6
Victoria
ALP
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
1
Senator Conroy
—The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The information provided below relates to the Minister’s portfolio after the machinery of government changes which took place on 3 December 2007.
-
The number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring was:
-
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government - 17.8 FTE ;
-
Australian Maritime Safety Authority – 5 FTE;
-
Airservices Australia – 10 FTE; and
-
Civil Aviation Safety Authority – 3 FTE.
-
Public Affairs staff in the Department and its agencies are responsible for media issues research and management; media liaison; development of media and public information materials; development and implementation of communication strategies; and, procuring communication services and support. The focus for CASA, AMSA and Airservices Australia is on technical, operational issues (including safety) and includes communication with the aviation and maritime industries.
-
The Australian Public Service classifications of these positions are as follows:
-
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government: Executive Level 2, Public Affairs Officer 3, Public Affairs Officer 2, APS 5 and APS 4;
-
Australian Maritime Safety Authority staff are employed under the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 and not the Public Service Act 1999. APS classifications do not apply;
-
Airservices Australia staff are employed under the Airservices Act 1995 not the Public Service Act 1999. APS classifications do not apply; and
-
Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Executive Level 1, Executive Level 2 and APS6.
-
Operating budgets are determined as part of the annual budget and business planning process for each financial year.
Veterans’ Affairs: Media Staff
2135
2135
39
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
-
How many employees are engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring.
-
What are the responsibilities of these staff.
-
What are the Australian Public Service classifications of these positions.
-
For each of the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, what is the current operating budget for these media-related sections within the department or agency.
2135
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
Senator Faulkner
—The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The information provided below relates to the Minister’s portfolio after the machinery of government changes which took place on 3 December 2007.
-
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs - 8
The Australian War Memorial – 1.5
-
All staff are engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring.
-
Department of Veterans’ Affairs
1 x Executive Level 2 (EL2)
4 x Public Affairs Officer Grade 3 (PAO3)
1 x Executive Level 1 (EL1)
1 x Public Affairs Officer Grade 2 (PAO2)
1 x APS3
Australian War Memorial
-
Department of Veterans’ Affairs - $1,893,002
The Australian War Memorial - $148,000
Forecasts for out years are not available.
Health and Ageing: Media Staff
2135
2135
46
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Ageing, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
-
How many employees are engaged in positions responsible for public affairs, media management, liaison with the media and media monitoring.
-
What are the responsibilities of these staff.
-
What are the Australian Public Service classifications of these positions.
-
For each of the financial years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, what is the current operating budget for these media-related sections within the department or agency.
2135
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
Senator Ludwig
—The Minister for Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
As the information requested cannot be disaggregated across the portfolio, I would refer Senator Minchin to the response from the Minister for Health and Ageing.
Climate Change Conference
2135
2135
90
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
With reference to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia from 3 to 14 December 2007:
-
What was the length of stay of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and any ministerial staff in Bali?
-
For the duration of the Minister’s stay, and for the stay of any Parliamentary Secretary assisting the Minister, what was the total cost of: (a) travel; (b) accommodation; and (c) any other expenses.
-
How many ministerial staff or family accompanied the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary; and (b) for these people, what was the total cost of: (a) travel; (b) accommodation; and (c) any other expenses.
-
How many officers from the department were in attendance at the conference; (b) what was the duration of attendance at the conference by these officers; and (c) for these officers, what was the total cost of: (i) travel, (b) accommodation, and (c) any other expenses
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
The Minister and one adviser stayed in Bali from 9-15 December 2007.
-
As at 25 January 2008 the Department of Finance and Deregulation had paid costs for the following:
-
Travel - $5,502
-
Accommodation - $5,832
-
Other expenses - $7,206
At that time there were further expenses that had not been charged to the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the trip had not yet been fully reconciled.
-
The Minister was accompanied by one adviser. As at 25 January 2008 the Department of Finance and Deregulation had paid costs for the following:
-
Travel - $3,005
-
Accommodation - $2366
-
Other Expenses - $1578 (other expenses still to be acquitted)
-
-
Two officers from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts attended the conference (officers formerly with the Department of the Environment and Water Resources). The rest of the delegation was made up of officers who are now with the Department of Climate Change.
-
One officer attended the conference from 9-16 December 2007. The other officer attended the conference from 9-15 December 2007.
-
The total cost for these officers were as follows
-
Travel - $5,537
-
Accommodation - $9,195
-
Other expenses - $5,412
Special Broadcasting Service
2135
2135
93
2135
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
0
Senator Allison
asked the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
-
In the lead-up to the 2007 federal election, was there any appointments or reappointments to the Board of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS); if so: (a) who; (b) on what dates was the appointment made and accepted; and (c) for what period.
-
Can the Minister confirm that SBS staff are gagged by way of a confidentiality agreement; and (b) can a copy of a typical confidentiality agreement be provided.
-
Can the Minister confirm that ordinary workers at SBS are not allowed to discuss any objections they may have about advertising on SBS with the mass media; if so, what is the reason for this ban.
-
What percentage of programming and how many hours is devoted to programs in Languages Other Than English (LOTE) in the evening prime time slot on a nightly basis on the main SBS television channel, that is, not SBS digital 2; and (b) what percentage is in English.
-
Are there any advertisements in LOTE programs on SBS television: if so: (a) how much; and (b) are such advertisements in the same LOTE as the program LOTE to air or are such advertisements placed in English language programs.
-
Does SBS television broadcast any English lesson programs aimed at new immigrants; if so, how many hours a week and in what time slots.
-
In 2007, which programs were televised with breaks inserted by SBS in the circumstances where, those programs when supplied to SBS in their original format had not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for any commercial breaks, such as British Broadcasting Corporation programs or cinema-release movies etc.
-
Given that the 2006 SBS ‘Codes of Practice’ makes no provision for a person to dispute the SBS interpretation of a ‘natural break’ by way of a formal complaint, and that section 5 of the code refers the placement of breaks to the ‘Guidelines for the Placement of Breaks in SBS Television Programs’ and also that under section 8 of the code, SBS is only required to respond to a formal complaint made under the code and not under the guidelines: how does SBS deal or propose to deal with: (a) complaints about a program being interrupted for a commercial break; and (b) objections to the SBS interpretation of a ‘natural break’.
-
Why is the definition of ‘natural break’ in the guidelines different from the definition in the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991.
-
In relation to natural breaks are there any instances where guidelines 1.1 to 1.8 and 1.10 have been over-ridden by guideline 1.9; if so, can details be provided.
-
Is it the case that complaints concerning natural breaks cannot be made to the Australian Communications and Media Authority; if so, why.
-
Can details be provided of informal and formal complaints received by SBS in 2007 that related specifically to advertising and the interruption of programs for commercial breaks; if so, in each instance, what was the response by SBS, including those lodged as formal complaints but not recognised as such by SBS.
-
For the 12 months to 31 December 2007, how much revenue did SBS receive from all television advertising.
-
How much revenue did SBS receive from federal and state government advertising on SBS television for the 12 months to: (a) 31 December 2006; and (b) 31 December 2007.
-
If SBS was to stop interrupting programs for advertisements in 2008 and run commercials between programs only, as used to be the case until late 2006, what would be the estimated decrease in revenue, if any, from the 2007 level of revenue.
-
If SBS was to stop interrupting programs for advertisements and run advertisements between programs only, as used to be the case until late 2006, how much government funding, in dollar terms and in percentages of federal government funding for SBS, would be required to maintain current SBS operations for the next 12 months.
-
How much extra funding in dollar terms and in percentages of federal government funding for SBS would be required for the next 12 months in order to drop advertising completely.
2135
Conroy, Sen Stephen
3L6
Victoria
ALP
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
1
Senator Conroy
—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
-
Yes.
-
Mr Christopher Pearson;
-
The Governor-General approved the reappointment of Mr Pearson on 26 September 2007;
-
21 October 2007 until 20 October 2011.
-
SBS staff are not ‘gagged’ by confidentiality agreements. However, SBS employees have obligations to abide by the SBS Employee Code of Conduct, which has been in place since 1996, that states:
-
See response to part 2 above.
-
For 2008 (up to 30 March), in the evening prime time (6pm – midnight) on the SBS main channel:
-
32.03% of nightly programming (167 hours) was in a language other than English.
-
67.74% of nightly programming (354 hours) was in English.
-
Yes.
-
SBS is able to broadcast a maximum of 5 minutes of advertisements in any broadcast hour including LOTE programs;
-
Nearly all advertisements broadcast on SBS are in English. However, there have been a few instances where advertisements have been broadcast in a language other than English.
-
SBS television does not currently broadcast any English lesson programs aimed specifically at new migrants.
-
SBS is not able to determine which programs supplied to it have or have not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for commercial breaks. Most programs are delivered to SBS unbroken and without markers to identify commercial breaks. A list of programs delivered to SBS in unbroken form during 2007 is at Attachment A.
-
-
SBS logs complaints concerning in-program advertising in its daily audience response logs. SBS provides written responses to complaints regarding programs being interrupted for a commercial break where it is possible and practical to do so.
-
SBS considers complaints regarding the interpretation of a ‘natural break’ on a case-by-case basis. In instances where inappropriate placement has been identified, SBS staff have been informed and procedures adopted to prevent recurrences.
-
The term ‘natural break’ is not defined in the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act).
-
All programs acquired by SBS that are delivered with pre-existing breaks are assessed according to the SBS guidelines for the placement of breaks in programs. In 2007, there were a small number of cases where:
-
programs were delivered to SBS with too many breaks, requiring the breaks to be closed up;
-
programs were delivered to SBS with too few breaks, requiring additional breaks to be identified;
-
the existing break structure was considered by SBS to be inappropriate and an appropriate break structure identified; or
-
the program was live to air and was transmitted with identified breaks.
A list of programs delivered to SBS with pre-existing breaks is at Attachment B.
-
Yes. Under s10(j)(i) of the SBS Act, it is a duty of the Board to develop codes of practice relating to programming matters and notify those codes to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, ACMA deals with complaints against the SBS Codes of Practice when referred to it by a complainant under s150(a) or (b).
Section 45 of the SBS Act outlines the powers of SBS in relation to advertising and sponsorship. Under s45(4)(b), the Board of SBS may develop guidelines on other matters relating to advertisements including the placement of advertisements. ACMA does not have the power to review guidelines created under the SBS Act.
Complaints concerning the placement of advertisements are dealt with by SBS.
-
SBS does not distinguish complaints relating to the placement of advertising and the interruption of programs for commercial breaks as either formal or informal complaints. SBS only makes this distinction with regards to complaints concerning the SBS Codes of Practice.
Complaints concerning in-program advertising received by telephone or email are noted and reported to SBS management. When SBS first introduced in-program breaks, SBS responded to email complaints where appropriate by return email with generic text similar to that indicated at Attachment C. For written complaints SBS generally responded with generic text of the type indicated at Attachment D. Where the complaint raised specific matters that warranted a particular response, SBS responded to the particular concerns identified, although this was not possible in all instances.
Due to the low number of complaints now received about in-program advertising, SBS endeavors to respond to complaints individually.
-
$43.7 million.
-
-
Federal $2.9m
State $2.7m
-
Federal $9.2m
State $2.8m
-
The estimated decrease in revenue would depend on the impact that the removal of in-program breaks had on the following:
-
Audience share due to:
-
the reduction in audience due to inability to run promotional material in programs;
-
a reduction in follow on audience numbers from longer breaks between programs; and
-
the decrease in the quality and quantity of programs resulting from a decrease in revenue from in-program breaks.
-
Advertising rates due to:
-
reduced revenue due to decreased audience share;
-
reduced advertiser premiums due to placement of advertisements outside programs;
-
a reduced rate card from placement of advertisements outside programs; and
-
reduced advertiser confidence in the SBS product and brand.
-
Other factors including:
-
differences in the schedule/program line-up between periods; and
-
reductions in consumer brand identification flowing into other revenue areas.
-
SBS estimates it would need between $29.39m to $35.72m, or approximately between 30-35% of base government funding, to maintain SBS operations for the next 12 months (i.e. the 2008-09 financial year).
SBS believes that this situation would be exacerbated over the years as SBS’s attractiveness to advertisers would be eroded and as program quality comes under pressure due to reduced funding.
Note: SBS has a number of forward contractual commitments for advertising in the next 12 months and beyond.
-
Advertising revenue grows in line with growth in the advertising market in general, industry market share and performance of individual programs. SBS also has substantial commitments to acquire sporting events (2009 Ashes Cricket and 2010 FIFA World Cup that require prepayments of rights fees) and commissioned programming (Australian drama such as second series of The Circuit and East West 101). If advertising on SBS was dropped completely, these events would have to be fully funded by the government.
SBS estimates it would require minimum extra funding of between $72.45m to $78.85m in 2008-09 to drop advertising completely.
Note: SBS has a number of forward contractual commitments for advertising in the next 12 months and beyond.
ATTACHMENT A
Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007)
Date
Time
Program Title
Comments
01-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 4 Ep.4
02-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 4 Ep.5
02-Jan-07
20:33:00
Enemy Within, The Ep.0
02-Jan-07
22:04:00
Real Dirt On Farmer John, The Ep.0
03-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 4 Ep.6
03-Jan-07
20:01:00
Veiled Ambition Ep.0
04-Jan-07
19:01:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.11
05-Jan-07
19:01:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.12
05-Jan-07
20:01:00
Australian Biography Series 10 Ep.64
05-Jan-07
22:02:00
Love Me Love My Doll Ep.0
06-Jan-07
19:02:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.13
06-Jan-07
19:33:00
Blizzard: Race To The Pole Series 1 Ep.2
06-Jan-07
21:21:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.21
07-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 6 Ep.15
08-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 5 Ep.7
08-Jan-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.20
09-Jan-07
19:00:00
Rough Science Series 5 Ep.8
09-Jan-07
20:34:00
Prisoner: Or How I Planned To Kill Tony Blair, The Ep.0
09-Jan-07
22:05:00
Born In The USSR - 21 Up Ep.0
10-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 5 Ep.9
10-Jan-07
20:01:00
Elvis Lives In Parkes Ep.0
11-Jan-07
19:02:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.8
12-Jan-07
19:01:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.21
12-Jan-07
20:00:00
Australian Biography Series 10 Ep.70
12-Jan-07
22:02:00
Penis Dementia Ep.0
13-Jan-07
19:02:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.20
13-Jan-07
19:33:00
Blizzard: Race To The Pole Series 1 Ep.3
13-Jan-07
21:22:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.23
14-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 6 Ep.16
15-Jan-07
19:02:00
Rough Science Series 5 Ep.10
15-Jan-07
19:36:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.21
15-Jan-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.21
15-Jan-07
22:59:00
Anything You Say
16-Jan-07
19:00:00
Rough Science Series 5 Ep.11
16-Jan-07
20:30:00
Big Buy: Tom De Lay’s Stolen Congress, The Ep.0
16-Jan-07
22:01:00
Life Goes On Ep.0
17-Jan-07
19:02:00
Rough Science Series 5 Ep.12
17-Jan-07
20:03:00
Policing The Pacific Series 1 Ep.1
18-Jan-07
19:01:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.19
18-Jan-07
20:35:00
Making 10 Canoes Ep.0
19-Jan-07
19:01:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.22
19-Jan-07
20:00:00
Australian Biography Series 10 Ep.65
19-Jan-07
22:02:00
Diary Of A Teenage Nudist Ep.0
20-Jan-07
19:02:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.3
20-Jan-07
19:32:00
Blizzard: Race To The Pole Series 1 Ep.4
20-Jan-07
21:21:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.25
21-Jan-07
19:01:00
Rough Science Series 6 Ep.17
21-Jan-07
24:51:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.137
22-Jan-07
17:01:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 2 Ep.7
22-Jan-07
19:32:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.22
22-Jan-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.22
22-Jan-07
22:55:00
Evil
22-Jan-07
24:52:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.13
23-Jan-07
19:31:00
Operation Babylift Ep.0
23-Jan-07
20:32:00
Battling Terrorism: The Underside Of An All-Out WA Ep.0
23-Jan-07
22:04:00
Five Obstructions, The Ep.0
23-Jan-07
23:55:00
In The Battlefields
23-Jan-07
25:29:00
Real Attilla The Hun, The Ep.0
24-Jan-07
12:32:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 3 Ep.14
24-Jan-07
20:02:00
Policing The Pacific Series 1 Ep.2
24-Jan-07
20:32:00
Living With Refugees Ep.0
24-Jan-07
22:03:00
Dogville
24-Jan-07
24:28:00
Lost And Found
25-Jan-07
19:30:00
Don Matteo Series 4 Ep.8
25-Jan-07
20:33:00
In Search Of Bony Ep.0
25-Jan-07
22:04:00
Dogville Confessions Ep.0
25-Jan-07
23:07:00
Baron Blood
25-Jan-07
24:49:00
Ptu
26-Jan-07
19:58:00
Fair Dinkum Manjit Ep.0
26-Jan-07
22:00:00
Hula Girls Ep.0
26-Jan-07
23:01:00
Late Marriage
26-Jan-07
24:48:00
Wreck, A Tangle, A
27-Jan-07
17:59:00
Give Me A Break Series 1 Ep.1
27-Jan-07
19:30:00
Blizzard: Race To The Pole Series 1 Ep.5
27-Jan-07
21:19:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.26
27-Jan-07
21:52:00
Spanish Apartment
27-Jan-07
25:02:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.18
28-Jan-07
19:30:00
Lost Liner And The Empire’s Gold, The Ep.0
28-Jan-07
20:32:00
War On Science, A Ep.0
28-Jan-07
21:30:00
Inspector Montalbano: The Spider’s Patience
28-Jan-07
23:28:00
Stealing Rembrandt
28-Jan-07
25:23:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.138
29-Jan-07
19:31:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.23
29-Jan-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.23
29-Jan-07
23:00:00
Green Butchers, The
29-Jan-07
24:45:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.14
30-Jan-07
19:30:00
Indecently Exposed Ep.0
30-Jan-07
20:36:00
Iraq’s Missing Billions Ep.0
30-Jan-07
22:03:00
Smiling In A Warzone Ep.0
30-Jan-07
23:31:00
Witnesses
30-Jan-07
25:04:00
New Al-Qaeda, The Series 1 Ep.1
31-Jan-07
20:02:00
Policing The Pacific Series 1 Ep.3
31-Jan-07
20:33:00
Power Of Nightmares, The Series 1 Ep.1
31-Jan-07
22:05:00
Under The Sand
31-Jan-07
23:47:00
Murmuring Coast, The
01-Feb-07
19:30:00
Don Matteo Series 4 Ep.9
01-Feb-07
20:33:00
Ayen’s Cooking School For African Men Ep.0
01-Feb-07
22:33:00
Better Tomorrow, A
01-Feb-07
24:16:00
Legend Of Al, John And Jack, The
02-Feb-07
20:00:00
Australian Biography Series 10 Ep.66
02-Feb-07
22:00:00
Thinking Xxx Ep.0
02-Feb-07
22:53:00
Miracle According To Salome, The
02-Feb-07
24:33:00
Facing The Truth
03-Feb-07
18:00:00
Give Me A Break Series 1 Ep.2
03-Feb-07
19:31:00
Blizzard: Race To The Pole Series 1 Ep.6
03-Feb-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.18
03-Feb-07
21:52:00
Bon Voyage
04-Feb-07
10:30:00
Music Knows No Bounds Ep.0
04-Feb-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.120
04-Feb-07
19:30:00
Metropolis: The Birth Of Cities Series 1 Ep.1
04-Feb-07
20:33:00
Inner Adventure, The Ep.0
04-Feb-07
21:32:00
Inspector Montalbano: Find The Lady
04-Feb-07
23:24:00
Fear And Trembling
04-Feb-07
25:16:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.139
05-Feb-07
19:32:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.24
05-Feb-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.24
05-Feb-07
24:34:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 3 Ep.13
05-Feb-07
25:04:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.15
06-Feb-07
19:32:00
Can Fish Make My Child Smart? Ep.0
06-Feb-07
20:31:00
Godless In America Ep.0
06-Feb-07
22:03:00
Gunner Palace Ep.0
06-Feb-07
23:38:00
Roads To Koktebel
06-Feb-07
25:28:00
New Al-Qaeda, The Series 1 Ep.2
07-Feb-07
14:31:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.1
07-Feb-07
20:01:00
Policing The Pacific Series 1 Ep.4
07-Feb-07
20:31:00
Power Of Nightmares, The Series 1 Ep.2
07-Feb-07
22:04:00
Bench, The
07-Feb-07
23:40:00
In This World
08-Feb-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.19
08-Feb-07
19:30:00
Don Matteo Series 4 Ep.11
08-Feb-07
20:33:00
Raul The Terrible Ep.0
08-Feb-07
22:31:00
Better Tomorrow 2, A
08-Feb-07
24:23:00
Jalla! Jalla!
09-Feb-07
20:00:00
Australian Biography Series 9 Ep.63
09-Feb-07
22:00:00
Stacked Like Me Ep.0
09-Feb-07
23:01:00
Concent
09-Feb-07
25:05:00
Journey Called Love, A
10-Feb-07
17:59:00
Give Me A Break Series 1 Ep.3
10-Feb-07
19:30:00
Colony, The Series 1 Ep.1
10-Feb-07
21:21:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.19
10-Feb-07
21:53:00
Secret Agents
11-Feb-07
19:30:00
Metropolis: The Birth Of Cities Series 1 Ep.2
11-Feb-07
20:32:00
Saving Venice Ep.0
11-Feb-07
21:31:00
Plots With A View
11-Feb-07
23:16:00
Bread And Tulips
11-Feb-07
25:17:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.140
12-Feb-07
19:31:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.25
12-Feb-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.25
12-Feb-07
23:03:00
Trespasser, The
12-Feb-07
24:49:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.16
13-Feb-07
19:32:00
Right Time For A Baby Ep.0
13-Feb-07
20:30:00
Living Old Ep.0
13-Feb-07
22:03:00
Murder On A Sunday Morning Ep.0
13-Feb-07
24:05:00
No Man’s Land
13-Feb-07
25:45:00
New Al-Qaeda, The Series 1 Ep.3
14-Feb-07
20:01:00
Singles Club Series 1 Ep.1
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
14-Feb-07
20:32:00
Power Of Nightmares, The Series 1 Ep.3
14-Feb-07
22:03:00
Inheritance
14-Feb-07
24:04:00
If You Were Me
15-Feb-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.20
15-Feb-07
19:30:00
Don Matteo Series 4 Ep.12
15-Feb-07
20:30:00
Kidnapped! Ep.0
15-Feb-07
22:30:00
Better Tomorrow 3, A
15-Feb-07
24:35:00
Kill, Baby... Kill!
16-Feb-07
20:00:00
Australian Biography Series 10 Ep.68
16-Feb-07
20:32:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.1
16-Feb-07
22:02:00
International Madam, The Ep.0
16-Feb-07
23:00:00
Seven Years Of Marriage
16-Feb-07
24:40:00
End Of Man, The
17-Feb-07
18:00:00
Give Me A Break Series 1 Ep.4
17-Feb-07
19:30:00
Colony, The Series 1 Ep.2
17-Feb-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.14
17-Feb-07
21:51:00
Remember Me
18-Feb-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.121
18-Feb-07
19:30:00
Metropolis: The Birth Of Cities Series 1 Ep.3
18-Feb-07
20:30:00
Saving The Twin Towers Ep.0
18-Feb-07
21:30:00
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
18-Feb-07
23:37:00
Seeking Temporary Wife
18-Feb-07
25:19:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.141
19-Feb-07
19:35:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.26
19-Feb-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.26
19-Feb-07
23:00:00
Midsummer Night Dance
19-Feb-07
25:06:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.17
20-Feb-07
20:33:00
Trial Of Saddam Hussein, The Ep.0
20-Feb-07
22:02:00
President Versus David Hicks, The Ep.0
20-Feb-07
23:32:00
Lizard, The
20-Feb-07
25:34:00
Meet The Ancestors Series 7 Ep.37
21-Feb-07
20:01:00
Singles Club Series 1 Ep.2
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
21-Feb-07
23:54:00
Forgiveness
22-Feb-07
15:30:00
School Torque Series 9 Ep.183
22-Feb-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.21
22-Feb-07
19:30:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.41
22-Feb-07
20:31:00
Henning Mankell: Sidetracked Series 1 Ep.1
22-Feb-07
23:32:00
Black Serenade
23-Feb-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.6
23-Feb-07
13:32:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.6
23-Feb-07
15:30:00
Hanging Out With Henry Ep.0
23-Feb-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.5
23-Feb-07
20:32:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.2
23-Feb-07
22:02:00
Sex ‘n’ Pop Series 1 Ep.1
23-Feb-07
23:09:00
Golden Chicken
23-Feb-07
25:06:00
Minor Mishaps
24-Feb-07
13:02:00
Death Of Klinghoffer, The Ep.0
24-Feb-07
19:30:00
Colony, The Series 1 Ep.3
24-Feb-07
22:13:00
Live Forever Ep.0
25-Feb-07
10:29:00
Sounds Of The Cities: Sydney Singing Ep.0
25-Feb-07
19:32:00
Steve McQueen: The Essence Of Cool Ep.0
25-Feb-07
21:33:00
Barbarian Invasions, The
25-Feb-07
24:31:00
Zus And Zo
25-Feb-07
26:21:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.142
26-Feb-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.7
26-Feb-07
13:30:00
Dead In The Water Ep.0
26-Feb-07
17:00:00
Beyond The Royal Veil Ep.0
26-Feb-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.27
26-Feb-07
22:01:00
Life Isn’t All Ha Ha Hee Hee Series 1 Ep.1
26-Feb-07
23:07:00
People Of Rome
26-Feb-07
24:45:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.18
27-Feb-07
13:03:00
Edvard Munch - Part 2
27-Feb-07
15:01:00
Mary G Show The - Series 2 Ep.3
27-Feb-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 2 Ep.10
27-Feb-07
20:30:00
Will Israel Bomb Iran? Ep.0
27-Feb-07
22:04:00
All Aboard: Rosie’s Family Cruise Ep.0
27-Feb-07
23:40:00
Tears Of The Black Tiger
27-Feb-07
25:31:00
Meet The Ancestors Series 7 Ep.38
28-Feb-07
13:03:00
Bab’aziz
28-Feb-07
15:31:00
Always A Visitor Ep.0
28-Feb-07
20:01:00
Singles Club Series 1 Ep.3
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
28-Feb-07
22:02:00
Osama
28-Feb-07
23:31:00
Scorsese On Scorsese Ep.0
01-Mar-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.22
01-Mar-07
19:30:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.35
01-Mar-07
20:30:00
Henning Mankell: Sidetracked Series 1 Ep.2
01-Mar-07
22:04:00
Boosh, The Series 2 Ep.9
01-Mar-07
22:36:00
Donnie Darko
01-Mar-07
24:32:00
Man Of The Year, The
02-Mar-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.8
02-Mar-07
16:02:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.6
02-Mar-07
19:32:00
Living On Ep.0
02-Mar-07
20:02:00
Australian Biography Series 10 Ep.69
02-Mar-07
20:35:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.3
02-Mar-07
22:03:00
Sex ‘n’ Pop Series 1 Ep.2
02-Mar-07
23:11:00
Golden Chicken 2
02-Mar-07
25:02:00
Wedding The
03-Mar-07
14:27:00
From Mozart To Morrison Ep.0
03-Mar-07
19:30:00
Colony, The Series 1 Ep.4
03-Mar-07
22:10:00
Oasis: There We Were, Now Here We Are Ep.0
04-Mar-07
10:30:00
Memories Of Italy Ep.0
04-Mar-07
17:59:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.122
04-Mar-07
19:31:00
Civilisation Series 1 Ep.1
04-Mar-07
20:30:00
Dreamland Ep.0
04-Mar-07
21:30:00
Salaam Namaste
04-Mar-07
24:14:00
Human Cargo Series 1 Ep.1
04-Mar-07
25:04:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.143
05-Mar-07
13:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.9
05-Mar-07
17:30:00
Testing Taklo Ep.0
05-Mar-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.29
05-Mar-07
22:02:00
Life Isn’t All Ha Ha Hee Hee Series 1 Ep.2
05-Mar-07
23:09:00
Utopia
05-Mar-07
24:53:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.19
06-Mar-07
13:01:00
Kandahar
06-Mar-07
14:30:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.3
06-Mar-07
15:01:00
Mary G Show The - Series 2 Ep.4
06-Mar-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 2 Ep.11
06-Mar-07
20:30:00
Jihad Tv Ep.0
06-Mar-07
22:02:00
Sisters In Law Ep.0
06-Mar-07
23:54:00
Alexandria... New York
07-Mar-07
15:02:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.5
07-Mar-07
15:32:00
Big Girls Dont Cry Ep.0
07-Mar-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 1 Ep.2
07-Mar-07
19:30:00
Cooking In The Danger Zone Series 1 Ep.1
07-Mar-07
20:01:00
Singles Club Series 1 Ep.4
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
07-Mar-07
22:02:00
Twilight Samurai, The
07-Mar-07
25:18:00
Class Series 1 Ep.1
08-Mar-07
15:30:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.1
08-Mar-07
15:59:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.23
08-Mar-07
19:30:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.34
08-Mar-07
20:31:00
Henning Mankell: Sidetracked Series 1 Ep.3
08-Mar-07
22:01:00
Boosh, The Series 2 Ep.10
08-Mar-07
23:34:00
This Night I’ll Possess Your Corpse
08-Mar-07
25:31:00
Third Reich In Colour, The Series 1 Ep.1
09-Mar-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.10
09-Mar-07
13:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.9
09-Mar-07
15:58:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.7
09-Mar-07
19:32:00
Sweet Paradise, A Series 1 Ep.1
09-Mar-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.4
09-Mar-07
22:01:00
Sex ‘n’ Pop Series 1 Ep.3
09-Mar-07
23:11:00
Sayew
09-Mar-07
25:15:00
Domenica
10-Mar-07
13:02:00
Barber Of Seville The Ep.0
10-Mar-07
15:57:00
Seaman Dan And Friends Ep.0
10-Mar-07
19:30:00
Colony, The Series 1 Ep.5
10-Mar-07
22:12:00
Classic Albums: Nirvana - Nevermind Ep.0
11-Mar-07
10:32:00
Tour To Malta Ep.0
11-Mar-07
19:30:00
Civilisation Series 1 Ep.2
11-Mar-07
20:30:00
Day In The Life Of A Cigarette, A Ep.0
11-Mar-07
21:27:00
Rising: Ballad Of Mangal Pandey, The
11-Mar-07
24:03:00
Human Cargo Series 1 Ep.2
11-Mar-07
24:55:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.144
12-Mar-07
13:03:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.11
12-Mar-07
13:33:00
Selling Sickness Ep.0
12-Mar-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.28
12-Mar-07
22:01:00
Life Isn’t All Ha Ha Hee Hee Series 1 Ep.3
12-Mar-07
23:08:00
Anatomy
12-Mar-07
24:52:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.20
13-Mar-07
13:03:00
Tides Of Change Series 1 Ep.1
13-Mar-07
15:00:00
Mary G Show The - Series 2 Ep.5
13-Mar-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 2 Ep.12
13-Mar-07
20:30:00
Prisoner 345 Ep.0
13-Mar-07
22:03:00
Street Fight Ep.0
13-Mar-07
23:34:00
Vento Di Terra
13-Mar-07
25:04:00
Afghanistan: Drugs Guns And Money Ep.0
14-Mar-07
13:00:00
Tides Of Change Series 1 Ep.2
14-Mar-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.6
14-Mar-07
15:31:00
Down Under Series 1 Ep.1
14-Mar-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 1 Ep.3
14-Mar-07
19:30:00
Cooking In The Danger Zone Series 1 Ep.2
14-Mar-07
20:02:00
Singles Club Series 1 Ep.5
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
14-Mar-07
22:05:00
Whisky
14-Mar-07
24:42:00
Class Series 1 Ep.2
15-Mar-07
13:00:00
Citizen Black Ep.0
15-Mar-07
15:33:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.2
15-Mar-07
16:03:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.24
15-Mar-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.37
15-Mar-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.1
15-Mar-07
22:05:00
Boosh, The Series 2 Ep.11
15-Mar-07
22:36:00
Anatomy 2
15-Mar-07
24:23:00
Third Reich In Colour, The Series 1 Ep.2
16-Mar-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.12
16-Mar-07
14:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.10
16-Mar-07
15:58:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.8
16-Mar-07
19:34:00
Sweet Paradise, A Series 1 Ep.2
16-Mar-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.5
16-Mar-07
22:02:00
Sex ‘n’ Pop Series 1 Ep.4
16-Mar-07
23:11:00
Cold Showers
16-Mar-07
24:59:00
How I Killed A Saint
17-Mar-07
13:00:00
Oz Concert 2007 Ep.0
17-Mar-07
14:31:00
Catrin Finch: Charlie’s Angel Ep.0
17-Mar-07
15:33:00
Rembrandt Inc Ep.0
17-Mar-07
19:30:00
Colony, The Series 1 Ep.6
17-Mar-07
22:11:00
What’s Going On: The Life And Death Of Marvin Gaye Ep.0
18-Mar-07
10:32:00
Mozart Plus Five Ep.0
18-Mar-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.123
18-Mar-07
19:30:00
Civilisation Series 1 Ep.3
18-Mar-07
20:31:00
Sun, The Ep.0
18-Mar-07
21:38:00
Main Hoon Na
18-Mar-07
24:41:00
Human Cargo Series 1 Ep.3
18-Mar-07
25:31:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.145
19-Mar-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.13
19-Mar-07
21:00:00
Pizza World Record Series 1 Ep.1
19-Mar-07
22:01:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.1
19-Mar-07
22:31:00
Anatomist, The: Gunther Van Hagen Ep.0
19-Mar-07
24:32:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.21
20-Mar-07
13:01:00
Family Jewels, The
20-Mar-07
14:32:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.19
20-Mar-07
15:02:00
Fine Line Series 1 Ep.1
20-Mar-07
20:29:00
Forbidden Future Ep.0
20-Mar-07
22:02:00
Guerrilla Girl Ep.0
20-Mar-07
23:01:00
My Girl
20-Mar-07
25:47:00
Soldier’s Heart Ep.0
21-Mar-07
13:01:00
Nynke
21-Mar-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.7
21-Mar-07
15:31:00
Down Under Series 1 Ep.2
21-Mar-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 1 Ep.4
21-Mar-07
19:30:00
Cooking In The Danger Zone Series 1 Ep.3
21-Mar-07
20:02:00
Prodigal Son, The Ep.0
21-Mar-07
22:00:00
Chinaman
21-Mar-07
24:33:00
Class Series 1 Ep.3
22-Mar-07
13:01:00
Mariza Concerto Em Lisboa Ep.0
22-Mar-07
15:30:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.3
22-Mar-07
15:59:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.25
22-Mar-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.42
22-Mar-07
20:32:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.2
22-Mar-07
22:08:00
Boosh, The Series 2 Ep.12
22-Mar-07
22:44:00
Rats
22-Mar-07
24:32:00
Jagoda In The Supermarket
23-Mar-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.14
23-Mar-07
14:31:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.11
23-Mar-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.9
23-Mar-07
19:33:00
Sweet Paradise, A Series 1 Ep.3
23-Mar-07
20:30:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.6
23-Mar-07
22:02:00
Sex ‘n’ Pop Series 1 Ep.5
23-Mar-07
23:10:00
So Normal
23-Mar-07
24:49:00
If I Were A Rich Man
24-Mar-07
15:23:00
Saving Jazz Ep.0
24-Mar-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.10
24-Mar-07
22:10:00
Classic Albums: Motorhead - Ace Of Spades Ep.0
25-Mar-07
10:37:00
Great Trio The Ep.0
25-Mar-07
19:30:00
Civilisation Series 1 Ep.4
25-Mar-07
20:30:00
Moon, The Ep.0
25-Mar-07
21:36:00
Don’t Say A Word
25-Mar-07
24:32:00
Human Cargo Series 1 Ep.4
25-Mar-07
25:22:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.146
26-Mar-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.15
26-Mar-07
21:01:00
Pizza World Record Series 1 Ep.2
26-Mar-07
22:02:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.2
26-Mar-07
22:31:00
Gunther Von Hagens Body Appeal Ep.0
26-Mar-07
23:15:00
Human Nature
26-Mar-07
24:55:00
Queer As Folk Series 1 Ep.22
27-Mar-07
12:30:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 3 Ep.18
27-Mar-07
13:00:00
Mon-Rak Transistor
27-Mar-07
15:02:00
Fine Line Series 1 Ep.2
27-Mar-07
20:32:00
Kill The Messenger Ep.0
27-Mar-07
22:04:00
Excellent Cadavers Ep.0
27-Mar-07
23:45:00
Hundred Steps, The
27-Mar-07
25:42:00
Company Of Soldiers, A Ep.0
28-Mar-07
13:01:00
Vaya Con Dios
28-Mar-07
15:01:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.8
28-Mar-07
15:31:00
Down Under Series 1 Ep.3
28-Mar-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 1 Ep.5
28-Mar-07
19:31:00
Cooking In The Danger Zone Series 1 Ep.4
28-Mar-07
20:02:00
Going Bush Series 2 Ep.5
28-Mar-07
22:02:00
Ninth Day
28-Mar-07
24:37:00
Class Series 1 Ep.4
29-Mar-07
15:30:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.4
29-Mar-07
15:59:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.26
29-Mar-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.40
29-Mar-07
20:33:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.3
29-Mar-07
22:07:00
Boosh, The Series 2 Ep.13
29-Mar-07
22:38:00
Once Upon A Time In China 3
29-Mar-07
24:33:00
It’s Easier For A Camel...
30-Mar-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.16
30-Mar-07
14:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.12
30-Mar-07
15:59:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.10
30-Mar-07
19:33:00
Sweet Paradise, A Series 1 Ep.4
30-Mar-07
22:01:00
Naked World Ep.0
30-Mar-07
23:27:00
Consequences Of Love
30-Mar-07
25:19:00
Behind The Sun
31-Mar-07
13:00:00
Who Gets To Call It Art? Ep.0
31-Mar-07
14:57:00
Understudy, The Ep.0
31-Mar-07
16:03:00
Judgement Day: Images Of Heaven And Hell Series 1 Ep.1
Delivered with one break, another one made
31-Mar-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.11
31-Mar-07
22:12:00
Classic Albums: Queen - A Night At The Opera Ep.0
01-Apr-07
10:30:00
Leonard Bernstein’s Chichester Psalms Ep.0
01-Apr-07
17:59:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.124
01-Apr-07
19:32:00
Mystery Of The Human Hobbit, The Ep.0
01-Apr-07
20:30:00
Lion In The House, A Ep.1
01-Apr-07
22:30:00
Pope John Paul 2 Series 1 Ep.1
01-Apr-07
24:05:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.1
01-Apr-07
24:35:00
Human Cargo Series 1 Ep.5
01-Apr-07
25:26:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.147
02-Apr-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.17
02-Apr-07
13:30:00
Seoul Train Ep.0
02-Apr-07
21:01:00
Pizza World Record Series 1 Ep.3
02-Apr-07
22:02:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.3
02-Apr-07
23:28:00
Focus
02-Apr-07
25:21:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.23
03-Apr-07
13:00:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.1
03-Apr-07
15:00:00
Fine Line Series 1 Ep.3
03-Apr-07
15:30:00
Disturbing Dust Ep.0
03-Apr-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 3 Ep.15
03-Apr-07
20:32:00
My Home Your War Ep.0
03-Apr-07
22:02:00
White Diamond, The Ep.0
03-Apr-07
23:38:00
Middle Of The World, The
03-Apr-07
25:10:00
Al-Qaeda And World War Three Ep.0
04-Apr-07
14:29:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.2
04-Apr-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 2 Ep.10
04-Apr-07
15:33:00
Down Under Series 1 Ep.4
04-Apr-07
16:04:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 1 Ep.6
04-Apr-07
19:29:00
Cooking In The Danger Zone Series 1 Ep.5
04-Apr-07
20:01:00
Going Bush Series 2 Ep.6
04-Apr-07
22:03:00
Return, The
04-Apr-07
24:54:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.1
05-Apr-07
15:30:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.5
05-Apr-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.27
05-Apr-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 3 (Re) Ep.43
05-Apr-07
20:32:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.4
05-Apr-07
22:08:00
Boosh, The Series 2 Ep.14
05-Apr-07
23:42:00
St. John’s Wort
06-Apr-07
15:59:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.11
06-Apr-07
19:30:00
Black Coffee Series 1 Ep.1
06-Apr-07
20:31:00
Sugihara: Conspiracy Of Kindness Ep.0
06-Apr-07
22:01:00
Gay Hollywood: The Last Taboo Ep.0
06-Apr-07
22:56:00
Rule No. 1
06-Apr-07
24:31:00
Strange Garden
07-Apr-07
13:01:00
Montiverdi’s L’orfeo Ep.0
07-Apr-07
15:07:00
Leif Ove Andsnes Ep.0
07-Apr-07
19:36:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.12
07-Apr-07
22:12:00
Big Brother And The Holding Company Ep.0
08-Apr-07
10:31:00
Czech Winter’s Journey, A Ep.0
08-Apr-07
19:32:00
Boudica’s Treasures Ep.0
08-Apr-07
20:30:00
Lion In The House, A Ep.2
08-Apr-07
22:37:00
Pope John Paul 2 Series 1 Ep.2
08-Apr-07
24:10:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.2
08-Apr-07
24:41:00
Human Cargo Series 1 Ep.6
08-Apr-07
25:30:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.148
09-Apr-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.18
09-Apr-07
13:31:00
Chosen Pariah: Anti-Semitism In The 21st Century, Ep.0
09-Apr-07
21:00:00
Pizza World Record Series 1 Ep.4
09-Apr-07
22:01:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.4
09-Apr-07
23:25:00
Embalmer, The
09-Apr-07
25:12:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.24
10-Apr-07
13:03:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.3
10-Apr-07
14:00:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.4
10-Apr-07
15:00:00
Fine Line Series 1 Ep.4
10-Apr-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 3 Ep.16
10-Apr-07
20:32:00
Five Ways To Save The World Ep.0
10-Apr-07
22:03:00
Planet, The Ep.0
10-Apr-07
23:35:00
Delivery
10-Apr-07
25:21:00
Shadow Play - 52 Min Version Ep.0
11-Apr-07
14:30:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.4
11-Apr-07
15:01:00
Mum’s The Word Series 2 Ep.12
11-Apr-07
15:31:00
Down Under Series 1 Ep.5
11-Apr-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 2 Ep.7
11-Apr-07
19:30:00
Eco House Series 1 Ep.1
11-Apr-07
20:01:00
Going Bush Series 2 Ep.7
11-Apr-07
22:02:00
Song For Martin, A
11-Apr-07
25:00:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.2
12-Apr-07
15:30:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.6
12-Apr-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.28
12-Apr-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 4 (Re) Ep.44
12-Apr-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.5
12-Apr-07
23:33:00
Blindman
13-Apr-07
16:01:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.12
13-Apr-07
19:30:00
Black Coffee Series 1 Ep.2
13-Apr-07
20:31:00
Great Expectations Ep.0
13-Apr-07
22:03:00
Cyborgasm Ep.0
13-Apr-07
22:57:00
Mademoiselle
13-Apr-07
24:20:00
Red Sun
14-Apr-07
13:01:00
Five Days In September: Rebirth Of An Orchestra Ep.0
14-Apr-07
19:36:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.13
14-Apr-07
22:10:00
Classic Albums: Cream - Disraeli Gears Ep.0
14-Apr-07
24:06:00
Baby Cart In Peril
15-Apr-07
10:30:00
James Morrison & Judy Bailey Ep.0
15-Apr-07
17:59:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.125
15-Apr-07
19:30:00
2057: The World In 50 Years Series 1 Ep.1
15-Apr-07
20:30:00
Cell, The Ep.0
15-Apr-07
22:03:00
Twin Sisters
15-Apr-07
24:27:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.3
15-Apr-07
24:57:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.149
16-Apr-07
20:58:00
Pizza World Record Series 1 Ep.5
16-Apr-07
22:03:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.5
16-Apr-07
23:27:00
Flashback: Murderous Vacation
16-Apr-07
25:12:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.25
17-Apr-07
13:01:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.5
17-Apr-07
13:55:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.6
17-Apr-07
14:58:00
Fine Line Series 1 Ep.5
17-Apr-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 3 Ep.17
17-Apr-07
20:31:00
New Cyberspace Worlds Ep.0
17-Apr-07
22:02:00
Yamakasi Ep.0
17-Apr-07
23:28:00
Five Disasters Waiting To Happen Ep.0
17-Apr-07
24:31:00
Spare Parts
17-Apr-07
26:02:00
My Mother My Son Ep.0
18-Apr-07
13:02:00
Baran
18-Apr-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 2 Ep.13
18-Apr-07
15:30:00
Down Under Series 1 Ep.6
18-Apr-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 2 Ep.8
18-Apr-07
19:30:00
Eco House Series 1 Ep.2
18-Apr-07
20:01:00
Going Bush Series 2 Ep.8
18-Apr-07
22:03:00
Far Side Of The Moon, The
18-Apr-07
24:48:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.3
19-Apr-07
13:00:00
Clipperton: Mystery Planet Ep.0
19-Apr-07
15:31:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.7
19-Apr-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.29
19-Apr-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.6
19-Apr-07
22:36:00
Saddest Music In The World
19-Apr-07
24:22:00
Island Warriors
20-Apr-07
14:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.13
20-Apr-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.13
20-Apr-07
19:30:00
Black Coffee Series 1 Ep.3
20-Apr-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.7
20-Apr-07
22:03:00
Perfect Fake Ep.0
20-Apr-07
23:07:00
Faust 5.0
20-Apr-07
24:47:00
Old New Borrowed And Blue
21-Apr-07
16:01:00
Collection Artistes Series 1 Ep.9
21-Apr-07
17:31:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.1
21-Apr-07
18:01:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.1
21-Apr-07
19:36:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.14
21-Apr-07
22:10:00
Classic Albums: Frank Zappa Ep.0
21-Apr-07
24:05:00
Baby Cart 6: Go To Hell, Daigoro!
22-Apr-07
10:31:00
Dvoraks Te Deum Ep.0
22-Apr-07
19:30:00
2057: The World In 50 Years Series 1 Ep.2
22-Apr-07
20:31:00
Pandemic Ep.0
22-Apr-07
22:10:00
Zookeeper, The
22-Apr-07
23:58:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.11
22-Apr-07
24:28:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.4
22-Apr-07
24:57:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.150
23-Apr-07
13:33:00
Nuclear Jihad Ep.0
23-Apr-07
21:00:00
Pizza World Record Series 1 Ep.6
23-Apr-07
22:01:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.6
23-Apr-07
23:25:00
Art Of Dying, The
23-Apr-07
25:14:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.26
24-Apr-07
13:01:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.7
24-Apr-07
13:54:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.8
24-Apr-07
15:01:00
Fine Line Series 1 Ep.6
24-Apr-07
20:32:00
Crude Impact Series 1 Ep.1
24-Apr-07
22:02:00
Crude Impact Series 1 Ep.2
24-Apr-07
22:57:00
2013: Oil No More Ep.0
24-Apr-07
23:57:00
King, The
25-Apr-07
14:30:00
Korean Anzacs Ep.0
25-Apr-07
15:30:00
Kokoda Trail: More Than Just A War Memorial, The Ep.0
25-Apr-07
19:30:00
Eco House Series 1 Ep.3
25-Apr-07
20:01:00
Going Bush Series 2 Ep.9
25-Apr-07
22:03:00
Swimming Pool
25-Apr-07
24:44:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.4
26-Apr-07
15:30:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.8
26-Apr-07
15:59:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.30
26-Apr-07
20:30:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.7
26-Apr-07
23:30:00
Monday Morning
27-Apr-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.1
27-Apr-07
19:30:00
Royal Family, A Series 1 Ep.1
27-Apr-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.8
27-Apr-07
22:01:00
Secrets: A Film About Teen Sexuality Ep.0
27-Apr-07
22:57:00
Lila Says
27-Apr-07
24:33:00
Visible Secret
28-Apr-07
15:29:00
In Search Of Yves Saint Laurent Ep.0
28-Apr-07
17:30:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.2
28-Apr-07
18:00:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.2
28-Apr-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.18
28-Apr-07
22:13:00
Punk: Attitude Ep.0
28-Apr-07
24:51:00
Baby Cart In The Land Of Demons
29-Apr-07
10:30:00
Don Hazelwood: The Concert Master Ep.0
29-Apr-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.126
29-Apr-07
19:30:00
2057: The World In 50 Years Series 1 Ep.3
29-Apr-07
20:30:00
Gulf Stream And The Next Ice Age, The Ep.0
29-Apr-07
21:30:00
Travelling Light
29-Apr-07
23:05:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.12
29-Apr-07
23:34:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.5
29-Apr-07
24:04:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 6 Ep.151
30-Apr-07
13:31:00
World War 2 In Colour Series 1 Ep.1
30-Apr-07
22:02:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.7
30-Apr-07
22:31:00
Anatomy For Beginners Series 1 Ep.1
30-Apr-07
23:28:00
Who’s Watching?
30-Apr-07
25:21:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.27
01-May-07
13:00:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.9
01-May-07
13:55:00
Elephant, The Series 1 Ep.2
01-May-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 4 Ep.19
01-May-07
20:32:00
Patent For A Pig Ep.0
01-May-07
22:01:00
So Much, So Fast Ep.0
01-May-07
23:38:00
Almost Peaceful
01-May-07
25:17:00
Dunkirk Series 1 Ep.1
02-May-07
14:29:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.5
02-May-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 2 Ep.14
02-May-07
15:30:00
Islands Ep.0
02-May-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 2 Ep.9
02-May-07
19:30:00
Eco House Series 1 Ep.4
02-May-07
20:01:00
Golden Sandals: The Art Of Reg Mombassa Ep.0
02-May-07
22:04:00
Zatoichi
02-May-07
25:00:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.5
03-May-07
15:31:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.9
03-May-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.31
03-May-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 4 (Re) Ep.48
03-May-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.8
03-May-07
23:33:00
Daybreak
04-May-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.2
04-May-07
19:30:00
Royal Family, A Series 1 Ep.2
04-May-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.9
04-May-07
22:01:00
Naked Calendars Ep.0
04-May-07
22:58:00
Idiot Love (Amor Idiota)
04-May-07
24:39:00
Aaltra
05-May-07
15:00:00
Collection Artistes Series 1 Ep.7
05-May-07
15:31:00
Misia: La Voix De Fado Ep.0
05-May-07
17:31:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.3
05-May-07
18:01:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.3
05-May-07
19:29:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.16
05-May-07
22:12:00
Metallica: Some Kind Of Monster Ep.0
06-May-07
10:31:00
Duncan Gifford The Russian Experience Ep.0
06-May-07
19:31:00
Homo Futurus Ep.0
06-May-07
20:33:00
Biometrics Ep.0
06-May-07
21:35:00
Call Me Mum
06-May-07
22:57:00
Silent Partner
06-May-07
24:26:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.13
06-May-07
24:55:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.6
06-May-07
25:25:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.101
07-May-07
13:31:00
World War 2 In Colour Series 1 Ep.2
07-May-07
22:02:00
Wilfred Series 1 Ep.8
07-May-07
22:32:00
Anatomy For Beginners Series 1 Ep.2
07-May-07
23:30:00
Plenilune
07-May-07
25:31:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.28
08-May-07
13:01:00
Mondays In The Sun
08-May-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 4 Ep.22
08-May-07
20:31:00
Waste Is Food Ep.0
08-May-07
22:02:00
Thin Blue Line, The Ep.0
08-May-07
23:49:00
Red Satin
08-May-07
25:32:00
Dunkirk Series 1 Ep.2
09-May-07
13:01:00
Land Has Eyes, The
09-May-07
14:32:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.6
09-May-07
15:02:00
Mum’s The Word Series 2 Ep.15
09-May-07
15:32:00
Little Angels Series 2 Ep.16
09-May-07
17:03:00
Big Chill, The Ep.0
09-May-07
19:30:00
Eco House Series 1 Ep.5
09-May-07
20:01:00
Short Stories Series 1 Ep.1
09-May-07
22:03:00
Bad Education
09-May-07
24:48:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.6
10-May-07
13:01:00
Celtic Woman: A New Journey Ep.0
10-May-07
15:31:00
If Only Series 1 Ep.10
10-May-07
16:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.32
10-May-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 4 (Re) Ep.49
10-May-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.9
10-May-07
22:39:00
Grand Finale, The Ep.0
10-May-07
24:18:00
Forest, The
11-May-07
14:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.14
11-May-07
16:01:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.3
11-May-07
19:30:00
Royal Family, A Series 1 Ep.3
11-May-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.10
11-May-07
22:21:00
Sperminator, The Ep.0
11-May-07
23:17:00
Blue Cha Cha
11-May-07
25:17:00
Notorious C.H.O. Ep.0
12-May-07
15:00:00
McDonagh Sisters, The Ep.0
12-May-07
15:35:00
Akram Khan Ep.0
12-May-07
17:32:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.4
12-May-07
18:02:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.4
12-May-07
19:30:00
Finland Zero Points Ep.0
12-May-07
20:30:00
Eurovision Song Contest 2007 Ep.1
12-May-07
23:09:00
Get Ready To Be Boyzvoiced
12-May-07
25:49:00
Witch From Nepal
13-May-07
17:59:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.127
13-May-07
19:31:00
Eurovision Song Contest 2007 Ep.2
13-May-07
22:26:00
You Can’t Stop The Murders
13-May-07
24:11:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.1
13-May-07
24:42:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.14
13-May-07
25:10:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.7
13-May-07
25:53:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.102
14-May-07
22:02:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.1
14-May-07
22:55:00
Anatomy For Beginners Series 1 Ep.3
14-May-07
23:52:00
Tell Me Something
15-May-07
13:01:00
Alexandria
15-May-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 4 Ep.23
15-May-07
20:31:00
Politics Of Global Warming, The Ep.0
15-May-07
22:02:00
Fog Of War Ep.0
15-May-07
23:54:00
Time For Drunken Horses, A
15-May-07
25:18:00
Dunkirk Series 1 Ep.3
16-May-07
13:03:00
Respiro: Grazia’s Island
16-May-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 2 Ep.16
16-May-07
15:31:00
Habibi Jammin Ep.0
16-May-07
19:30:00
Eco House Series 1 Ep.6
16-May-07
20:01:00
Short Stories Series 1 Ep.2
16-May-07
22:03:00
Saraband
16-May-07
24:53:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.7
17-May-07
15:31:00
Start Strong Ep.0
17-May-07
16:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.33
17-May-07
20:30:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.10
17-May-07
24:30:00
Gamblers
18-May-07
14:31:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.15
18-May-07
16:01:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.4
18-May-07
19:30:00
Royal Family, A Series 1 Ep.4
18-May-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.11
18-May-07
22:02:00
My Penis And I Ep.0
18-May-07
23:04:00
Other Side Of The Bed, The
18-May-07
24:58:00
Blind Shaft
19-May-07
15:02:00
Collection Artistes Series 1 Ep.10
19-May-07
15:31:00
Gerhard Richter Ep.0
19-May-07
17:30:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.5
19-May-07
18:01:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.5
19-May-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.19
19-May-07
21:18:00
Rockwiz Series 1 Ep.8
19-May-07
22:09:00
Wayne Anderson: Singer Of Songs Ep.0
20-May-07
10:32:00
From The Black Forest To The Black Sea Ep.0
20-May-07
17:59:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.128
20-May-07
19:30:00
Trail Of The Mummy, The Ep.0
20-May-07
20:30:00
Underwater Dream Machine Ep.0
20-May-07
21:32:00
Heaven
20-May-07
23:16:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.2
20-May-07
23:46:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.15
20-May-07
24:15:00
Knot At Home Series 1 Ep.8
20-May-07
24:45:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.103
21-May-07
13:32:00
State Of The Union Ep.0
21-May-07
22:02:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.2
21-May-07
23:01:00
Anatomy For Beginners Series 1 Ep.4
21-May-07
23:57:00
Spiral, The
22-May-07
13:02:00
Planet Of The Cannibals
22-May-07
15:58:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 4 Ep.24
22-May-07
22:02:00
Gates Of Heaven Ep.0
22-May-07
25:15:00
Chasing God Ep.0
23-May-07
13:02:00
Balzac And The Little Chinese Seamstress
23-May-07
15:04:00
Kabbarli Ep.0
23-May-07
20:01:00
Short Stories Series 1 Ep.3
23-May-07
22:03:00
I’m Not Scared
23-May-07
24:43:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.8
23-May-07
25:15:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.9
24-May-07
15:31:00
Grow Strong Ep.0
24-May-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.34
24-May-07
20:32:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.11
24-May-07
24:40:00
Butterfly, The
25-May-07
14:31:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.16
25-May-07
16:01:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.5
25-May-07
19:30:00
Royal Family, A Series 1 Ep.5
25-May-07
20:30:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.12
25-May-07
22:05:00
My 100,000 Lovers Ep.0
25-May-07
23:01:00
Beyond Our Ken
25-May-07
24:48:00
Schizo
26-May-07
15:34:00
Caetano Veloso Ep.0
26-May-07
17:31:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.6
26-May-07
18:02:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.6
26-May-07
19:31:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.17
26-May-07
21:32:00
Somersault
26-May-07
23:24:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.8
26-May-07
25:16:00
Fulltime Killer
27-May-07
10:30:00
European Experience Ep.0
27-May-07
19:30:00
Wild West Uncovered, The Ep.0
27-May-07
20:30:00
Vote Yes For Aborigines - Documentary Ep.0
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
27-May-07
21:30:00
Tracker, The
27-May-07
23:15:00
Green Bush (Dramatically Black) Ep.0
27-May-07
23:46:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.3
27-May-07
24:14:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.16
27-May-07
24:43:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.104
28-May-07
13:33:00
How To Plan A Revolution Ep.0
28-May-07
22:03:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.3
28-May-07
23:02:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.1
28-May-07
24:01:00
Festival In Cannes
29-May-07
13:03:00
My Mother Likes Women
29-May-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 5 Ep.25
29-May-07
20:31:00
Anti-Americans, The Ep.0
29-May-07
22:04:00
Vernon, Florida Ep.0
29-May-07
23:09:00
Himalaya
29-May-07
25:03:00
Black Chicks Talking Ep.0
30-May-07
13:02:00
Uzak
30-May-07
15:02:00
Albert’s Chook Tractor Ep.0
30-May-07
15:31:00
She’ll Be Right, Boss Series 1 Ep.1
30-May-07
20:00:00
Short Stories Series 1 Ep.4
30-May-07
22:02:00
Good Morning, Night
30-May-07
24:48:00
Love For Sale Series 1 Ep.10
30-May-07
25:22:00
Willing And Able: Love, Sex And Disability Ep.0
31-May-07
15:33:00
Keep Safe Ep.0
31-May-07
16:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.35
31-May-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 4 (Re) Ep.52
31-May-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.12
31-May-07
22:48:00
Safe
31-May-07
24:50:00
Goya In Bordeaux
01-Jun-07
14:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.17
01-Jun-07
15:59:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.6
01-Jun-07
19:29:00
Royal Family, A Series 1 Ep.6
01-Jun-07
20:31:00
Churchill’s Bodyguard Series 1 Ep.13
01-Jun-07
22:04:00
Footy Chicks Ep.0
01-Jun-07
23:04:00
You Bet Your Life
02-Jun-07
15:30:00
Maria Callas: Living And Dying For Art Ep.0
02-Jun-07
17:32:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.7
02-Jun-07
18:02:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.7
02-Jun-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.20
02-Jun-07
21:31:00
Rage In Placid Lake, The
02-Jun-07
23:08:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.9
02-Jun-07
25:02:00
Ghostly Vixen
03-Jun-07
10:30:00
De Coeur A Coeur Ep.0
03-Jun-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.129
03-Jun-07
19:30:00
Dangerous Liaisons: Famous Mistresses Series 1 Ep.1
03-Jun-07
20:30:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.1
03-Jun-07
21:34:00
Ran Series 1 Ep.1
03-Jun-07
21:34:00
Ran Series 1 Ep.2
03-Jun-07
23:21:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.12
03-Jun-07
24:25:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.17
03-Jun-07
24:54:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.18
03-Jun-07
25:23:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.105
04-Jun-07
13:33:00
Africa: Us Oil’s New Target Ep.0
04-Jun-07
22:03:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.4
04-Jun-07
22:56:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.2
04-Jun-07
23:58:00
Third Wave, The
05-Jun-07
13:01:00
Magic Kitchen, The
05-Jun-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 5 Ep.26
05-Jun-07
20:30:00
Jihad Series 1 Ep.1
05-Jun-07
22:03:00
Jihad Series 1 Ep.2
05-Jun-07
23:03:00
Damages Ep.0
05-Jun-07
24:10:00
Little Otik
06-Jun-07
13:03:00
Circle The
06-Jun-07
15:30:00
She’ll Be Right, Boss Series 1 Ep.2
06-Jun-07
20:02:00
Bluelist Australia Series 1 Ep.1
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
06-Jun-07
22:05:00
Don’t Move
06-Jun-07
25:06:00
Doctor, The Depleted Uranium And The Dying Childre Ep.0
07-Jun-07
13:01:00
Great Communist Bank Robbery, The Ep.0
07-Jun-07
15:31:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.1
07-Jun-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.36
07-Jun-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 4 (Re) Ep.55
07-Jun-07
20:32:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.13
07-Jun-07
22:50:00
Noi The Albino
07-Jun-07
24:29:00
Imagining Ulysses Ep.0
08-Jun-07
14:30:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.18
08-Jun-07
15:30:00
Worldly Possessions Series 2 Ep.11
08-Jun-07
19:30:00
Versailles Stories Series 1 Ep.1
08-Jun-07
20:01:00
Help Series 1 Ep.1
08-Jun-07
20:31:00
Umbrella Assassin, The Ep.0
08-Jun-07
23:06:00
Carmen
08-Jun-07
25:10:00
Three Suns
09-Jun-07
17:30:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.8
09-Jun-07
18:01:00
Nerds FC Series 1 Ep.8
09-Jun-07
21:32:00
Illustrated Family Doctor, The
09-Jun-07
23:18:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.10
09-Jun-07
25:12:00
Running Out Of Time
10-Jun-07
10:31:00
Hat Trick Of Haydn A Ep.0
10-Jun-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.130
10-Jun-07
19:31:00
Dangerous Liaisons: Famous Mistresses Series 1 Ep.2
10-Jun-07
20:33:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.2
10-Jun-07
21:30:00
Ran Series 1 Ep.3
10-Jun-07
22:31:00
Mullet
10-Jun-07
24:06:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.4
10-Jun-07
24:36:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.19
10-Jun-07
25:05:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.106
11-Jun-07
17:29:00
Me And You Ep.0
11-Jun-07
22:04:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.5
11-Jun-07
22:58:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.3
11-Jun-07
23:57:00
Bonaerense, El
12-Jun-07
13:01:00
Clay Bird, The
12-Jun-07
15:00:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.1
12-Jun-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 5 Ep.27
12-Jun-07
19:31:00
Divorce Stories Series 1 Ep.1
12-Jun-07
20:31:00
Saved By The Sun Ep.0
12-Jun-07
22:02:00
51 Birch Street Ep.0
12-Jun-07
23:38:00
Lost Embrace
12-Jun-07
25:24:00
Ghost Of Roger Casement Ep.0
13-Jun-07
13:02:00
Hop
13-Jun-07
15:01:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.1
13-Jun-07
15:31:00
She’ll Be Right, Boss Series 1 Ep.3
13-Jun-07
20:00:00
Bluelist Australia Series 1 Ep.2
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
13-Jun-07
22:02:00
Head-On
13-Jun-07
25:03:00
Betelnut Bisnis Ep.0
14-Jun-07
13:01:00
Toumai: The New Ancestor Ep.0
14-Jun-07
15:31:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.2
14-Jun-07
16:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.37
14-Jun-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 4 (Re) Ep.57
14-Jun-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.14
14-Jun-07
22:50:00
Dreamship Surprise: Period 1
14-Jun-07
24:24:00
Last Blood, The
15-Jun-07
13:31:00
Global Health Series 1 Ep.1
15-Jun-07
14:33:00
War Of The Century Series 1 Ep.19
15-Jun-07
15:31:00
Worldly Possessions Series 2 Ep.12
15-Jun-07
19:30:00
Versailles Stories Series 1 Ep.2
15-Jun-07
20:00:00
Help Series 1 Ep.2
15-Jun-07
20:31:00
Indira Gandhi: The Killing Of Mother India Ep.0
15-Jun-07
23:02:00
Demonlover
15-Jun-07
25:07:00
Yossi & Jagger
16-Jun-07
15:23:00
Bill Viola: The Eye Of The Heart Ep.0
16-Jun-07
17:30:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.9
16-Jun-07
18:00:00
Heat In The Kitchen Series 1 Ep.1
16-Jun-07
21:31:00
Love Me If You Dare
16-Jun-07
23:11:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.11
16-Jun-07
25:09:00
Making Of La Vie En Rose, The Ep.0
17-Jun-07
10:30:00
Sacred And Profound Ep.0
17-Jun-07
19:30:00
Dangerous Liaisons: Famous Mistresses Series 1 Ep.3
17-Jun-07
20:31:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.3
17-Jun-07
21:26:00
Ran Series 1 Ep.4
17-Jun-07
22:33:00
Teesh And Trude Ep.0
17-Jun-07
24:07:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.5
17-Jun-07
24:39:00
Life Support Series 2 Ep.20
17-Jun-07
25:09:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.107
18-Jun-07
13:31:00
White Terror Ep.0
18-Jun-07
14:31:00
Squatters Series 1 Ep.2
18-Jun-07
17:29:00
We Of Little Voice Ep.0
18-Jun-07
22:02:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.6
18-Jun-07
22:56:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.4
18-Jun-07
23:56:00
Astronauts
19-Jun-07
13:01:00
That Day
19-Jun-07
15:02:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.2
19-Jun-07
16:03:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 5 Ep.28
19-Jun-07
19:30:00
Divorce Stories Series 1 Ep.2
19-Jun-07
20:30:00
Gangs Of Iraq Ep.0
19-Jun-07
22:03:00
American Ruling Class, The Ep.0
19-Jun-07
23:41:00
Swing
20-Jun-07
13:05:00
I Am Emma
20-Jun-07
15:00:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.2
20-Jun-07
15:30:00
She’ll Be Right, Boss Series 1 Ep.4
20-Jun-07
20:01:00
Bluelist Australia Series 1 Ep.3
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
20-Jun-07
22:03:00
Take My Eyes
20-Jun-07
24:26:00
Like Water For Chocolate
21-Jun-07
13:31:00
Classic Albums: Simply Red - Stars Ep.0
21-Jun-07
15:31:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.3
21-Jun-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.38
21-Jun-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.101
21-Jun-07
20:32:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.15
21-Jun-07
22:48:00
Real Man, A
21-Jun-07
24:54:00
Manitou’s Shoe
22-Jun-07
13:31:00
Global Health Series 1 Ep.6
22-Jun-07
14:32:00
Celtic Woman Ep.0
22-Jun-07
15:32:00
Worldly Possessions Series 2 Ep.13
22-Jun-07
19:30:00
Versailles Stories Series 1 Ep.3
22-Jun-07
20:00:00
Help Series 1 Ep.3
22-Jun-07
20:31:00
Six Days In June Series 1 Ep.1
22-Jun-07
22:03:00
When Two Won’t Do Ep.0
22-Jun-07
23:07:00
Novo
22-Jun-07
24:50:00
Feathers In My Head
23-Jun-07
13:03:00
Eurovision Song Contest Junior 2006 Ep.0
23-Jun-07
15:00:00
Bone Ep.0
23-Jun-07
15:56:00
Broken Column Ep.0
23-Jun-07
17:31:00
Under The Skies Of Europe Series 1 Ep.10
23-Jun-07
18:01:00
Heat In The Kitchen Series 1 Ep.2
23-Jun-07
21:31:00
Kebab Connection
23-Jun-07
23:11:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.12
23-Jun-07
25:05:00
Avalon
24-Jun-07
10:30:00
Autumn Tones Ep.0
24-Jun-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.131
24-Jun-07
19:33:00
Roman Empire, The Series 1 Ep.1
24-Jun-07
20:32:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.4
24-Jun-07
21:34:00
Ran Series 1 Ep.5
24-Jun-07
22:32:00
Australian Rules
24-Jun-07
24:46:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.6
24-Jun-07
25:14:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.108
25-Jun-07
13:31:00
Bribes From Baghdad Ep.0
25-Jun-07
14:30:00
Squatters Series 1 Ep.3
25-Jun-07
17:29:00
Matthew’s Fight For Life Ep.0
25-Jun-07
22:03:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.7
25-Jun-07
22:55:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.5
25-Jun-07
23:58:00
Taste Of Others, The
26-Jun-07
13:01:00
Minimal Stories
26-Jun-07
15:01:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.3
26-Jun-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 5 Ep.29
26-Jun-07
19:30:00
Divorce Stories Series 1 Ep.3
26-Jun-07
20:31:00
Chahinaz: What Rights For Women? Ep.0
26-Jun-07
22:02:00
Sugartown: The Bridegrooms Ep.0
26-Jun-07
23:08:00
Angel Makers, The Ep.0
26-Jun-07
23:47:00
Suit, The
26-Jun-07
25:29:00
Rainbow Bird And Monster Man Ep.0
27-Jun-07
13:00:00
Story Undone
27-Jun-07
14:31:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.7
27-Jun-07
15:02:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.3
27-Jun-07
15:31:00
She’ll Be Right, Boss Series 1 Ep.5
27-Jun-07
20:00:00
Bluelist Australia Series 1 Ep.4
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
27-Jun-07
22:02:00
To Take A Wife
27-Jun-07
23:52:00
Come, Sweet Death
28-Jun-07
13:00:00
Uncovered: The War In Iraq Ep.0
28-Jun-07
15:30:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.4
28-Jun-07
16:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.39
28-Jun-07
19:39:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.103
28-Jun-07
20:33:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.16
28-Jun-07
22:49:00
Initial D
28-Jun-07
24:43:00
Mother Viper
29-Jun-07
13:32:00
Global Health Series 1 Ep.2
29-Jun-07
14:32:00
What If Man, The Ep.0
29-Jun-07
15:31:00
Worldly Possessions Series 2 Ep.14
29-Jun-07
16:02:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.10
29-Jun-07
19:30:00
Versailles Stories Series 1 Ep.4
29-Jun-07
20:00:00
Help Series 1 Ep.4
29-Jun-07
20:30:00
Six Days In June Series 1 Ep.2
29-Jun-07
22:02:00
Sexual Intelligence Ep.0
29-Jun-07
23:02:00
Body To Body
29-Jun-07
24:49:00
Boomerang
30-Jun-07
15:55:00
Rankin On The Staircase Ep.0
30-Jun-07
17:31:00
Lost Gods, The Series 1 Ep.1
30-Jun-07
18:01:00
Heat In The Kitchen Series 1 Ep.3
30-Jun-07
21:31:00
Girls On Top 2
30-Jun-07
23:05:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.13
30-Jun-07
24:56:00
Nameless, The
01-Jul-07
10:31:00
Harmonies Of The Hemispheres Ep.0
01-Jul-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.132
01-Jul-07
19:31:00
Roman Empire, The Series 1 Ep.2
01-Jul-07
20:30:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.5
01-Jul-07
21:31:00
Ran Series 1 Ep.6
01-Jul-07
22:31:00
Yolngu Boy
01-Jul-07
24:05:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.7
01-Jul-07
24:33:00
John Safran Vs God Series 1 Ep.8
01-Jul-07
25:02:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.109
02-Jul-07
13:32:00
Super Flu - Race Against A Killer Ep.0
02-Jul-07
14:31:00
Squatters Series 1 Ep.4
02-Jul-07
17:30:00
Drover’s Dilemma, The Ep.0
02-Jul-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.30
02-Jul-07
22:01:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.8
02-Jul-07
22:55:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.6
02-Jul-07
23:58:00
Vinci
03-Jul-07
13:01:00
Turn Left, Turn Right
03-Jul-07
15:00:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.4
03-Jul-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 5 Ep.30
03-Jul-07
19:31:00
Desperately Keeping Sheila Ep.0
03-Jul-07
20:33:00
Years Of Blood Series 1 Ep.1
03-Jul-07
22:02:00
Years Of Blood Series 1 Ep.2
03-Jul-07
22:58:00
Bahais In My Backyard Ep.0
03-Jul-07
24:00:00
Overture, The
04-Jul-07
13:00:00
Way Home, The
04-Jul-07
15:02:00
Mum’s The Word Series 1 Ep.4
04-Jul-07
15:32:00
Fifa Fever Series 1 Ep.1
04-Jul-07
20:00:00
Footprints In The Sand Ep.0
04-Jul-07
22:02:00
Gilles’ Wife
04-Jul-07
23:55:00
Professional, The
04-Jul-07
25:38:00
Demon Fault Ep.0
05-Jul-07
13:00:00
Unconstitutional Ep.0
05-Jul-07
15:29:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.5
05-Jul-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.40
05-Jul-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.105
05-Jul-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.17
05-Jul-07
23:24:00
Belleville Rendez-Vous
05-Jul-07
24:52:00
Traces Of A Dragon: Jackie Chan And His Lost Famil Ep.0
06-Jul-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.41
06-Jul-07
13:31:00
Global Health Series 1 Ep.3
06-Jul-07
14:32:00
Birth Rites Ep.0
06-Jul-07
15:31:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.22
06-Jul-07
16:01:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.11
06-Jul-07
19:30:00
Versailles Stories Series 1 Ep.5
06-Jul-07
20:01:00
Help Series 1 Ep.5
06-Jul-07
20:32:00
Somme: From Defeat To Victory, The Ep.0
06-Jul-07
22:09:00
Three Of Hearts: A Postmodern Family Ep.0
06-Jul-07
23:55:00
Housekeeper, The
06-Jul-07
25:31:00
Kops
07-Jul-07
13:01:00
Three Sisters Ep.0
07-Jul-07
15:00:00
Jumba Jimba Ep.0
07-Jul-07
15:30:00
Frida Kahlo: Entre L’extase Et La Douleur Ep.0
07-Jul-07
17:30:00
Lost Gods, The Series 1 Ep.2
07-Jul-07
18:00:00
Heat In The Kitchen Series 1 Ep.4
07-Jul-07
21:29:00
Demon Stirs, The
07-Jul-07
23:03:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.14
08-Jul-07
10:30:00
Young Persons Guide To The Orchestra Ep.0
08-Jul-07
19:36:00
Roman Empire, The Series 1 Ep.3
08-Jul-07
20:34:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.6
08-Jul-07
25:09:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.110
09-Jul-07
13:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.42
09-Jul-07
13:33:00
Dark Side, The Ep.0
09-Jul-07
14:34:00
Squatters Series 1 Ep.5
09-Jul-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.31
09-Jul-07
22:01:00
Submariners Series 1 Ep.1
10-Jul-07
13:00:00
Kamchatka
10-Jul-07
15:00:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.5
10-Jul-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.39
10-Jul-07
19:35:00
Four Weddings And An Execution Ep.0
10-Jul-07
20:32:00
Traders’ Dreams Ep.0
10-Jul-07
22:03:00
Submariners Series 1 Ep.2
11-Jul-07
13:01:00
Hi Dharma
11-Jul-07
15:31:00
Fifa Fever Series 1 Ep.2
11-Jul-07
20:01:00
My Brother Vinnie Ep.0
11-Jul-07
22:01:00
Submariners Series 1 Ep.3
12-Jul-07
13:00:00
37 Uses For A Dead Sheep Ep.0
12-Jul-07
15:30:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.6
12-Jul-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.43
12-Jul-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.106
12-Jul-07
20:30:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.18
13-Jul-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 3 Ep.44
13-Jul-07
13:31:00
Global Health Series 1 Ep.4
13-Jul-07
14:30:00
Global Health Series 1 Ep.5
13-Jul-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.12
13-Jul-07
19:30:00
Versailles Stories Series 1 Ep.6
13-Jul-07
20:01:00
Help Series 1 Ep.6
13-Jul-07
20:31:00
Hitler’s War On America Ep.0
13-Jul-07
22:02:00
Submariners Series 1 Ep.4
14-Jul-07
13:00:00
Eugene O’neill Ep.0
14-Jul-07
15:00:00
Black Widow Ep.0
14-Jul-07
16:00:00
Collection Artistes Series 1 Ep.2
14-Jul-07
17:30:00
Lost Gods, The Series 1 Ep.3
14-Jul-07
21:30:00
Rockwiz Series 1 Ep.12
14-Jul-07
23:35:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.14
15-Jul-07
10:30:00
Don Hazelwood: Master Of Music Ep.0
15-Jul-07
19:31:00
Voyages Of Discovery Series 1 Ep.1
15-Jul-07
20:31:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.7
15-Jul-07
26:11:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.111
16-Jul-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.45
16-Jul-07
13:31:00
Squatters Series 1 Ep.6
16-Jul-07
14:32:00
Squatters Series 1 Ep.7
16-Jul-07
19:31:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.32
16-Jul-07
22:03:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.9
16-Jul-07
22:59:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.7
16-Jul-07
24:01:00
Puppet Grave Digger, The
17-Jul-07
13:01:00
Unfair Competition
17-Jul-07
15:01:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.6
17-Jul-07
16:02:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.40
17-Jul-07
19:30:00
Art Of Picking Up In Paris, The Ep.0
17-Jul-07
20:31:00
Invisible War, The Ep.0
18-Jul-07
13:01:00
Secret Ballot
18-Jul-07
15:32:00
Fifa Fever Series 1 Ep.3
18-Jul-07
20:01:00
Footy The La Perouse Way Ep.0
18-Jul-07
22:01:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.14
19-Jul-07
15:31:00
Nest Series 1 Ep.7
19-Jul-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.46
19-Jul-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.107
19-Jul-07
20:30:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.19
20-Jul-07
15:30:00
Hard Choices QLD Series 1 Ep.1
20-Jul-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.13
20-Jul-07
19:30:00
Jfk’s Women: The Scandals Revealed Ep.0
20-Jul-07
20:31:00
Cuba: An African Odyssey Series 1 Ep.1
20-Jul-07
22:01:00
Submariners Series 1 Ep.5
21-Jul-07
14:37:00
Youkali Hotel Ep.0
21-Jul-07
15:30:00
Franz-Welser Most Ep.0
21-Jul-07
17:30:00
Lost Gods, The Series 1 Ep.4
21-Jul-07
21:30:00
Rockwiz Series 1 Ep.11
22-Jul-07
19:30:00
Voyages Of Discovery Series 1 Ep.2
22-Jul-07
20:32:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.8
22-Jul-07
25:44:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.112
23-Jul-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.33
24-Jul-07
13:01:00
Marriage Certificate The
24-Jul-07
15:00:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.7
24-Jul-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.41
24-Jul-07
20:35:00
Kidnapped To Order Ep.0
24-Jul-07
22:01:00
Wide Awake Ep.0
24-Jul-07
23:31:00
Earth And Ashes
24-Jul-07
25:21:00
Brotherhood, The Ep.0
25-Jul-07
15:32:00
Fifa Fever Series 1 Ep.4
26-Jul-07
13:01:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.1
26-Jul-07
13:30:00
Dying To Leave Series 1 Ep.1
26-Jul-07
15:30:00
World Weddings Series 1 Ep.5
26-Jul-07
15:59:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.47
26-Jul-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.108
26-Jul-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.20
27-Jul-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.48
27-Jul-07
14:33:00
Smith Family, The Ep.0
27-Jul-07
15:31:00
Hard Choices QLD Series 1 Ep.2
27-Jul-07
16:01:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.1
27-Jul-07
19:30:00
Gold Rush, The Series 1 Ep.1
27-Jul-07
20:32:00
Cuba: An African Odyssey Series 1 Ep.2
27-Jul-07
22:02:00
Submariners Series 1 Ep.6
28-Jul-07
17:31:00
Lost Gods, The Series 1 Ep.5
28-Jul-07
21:30:00
Rockwiz Series 1 Ep.2
29-Jul-07
10:33:00
Hary Janos: Musical Fairytale Ep.0
29-Jul-07
19:30:00
Voyages Of Discovery Series 1 Ep.3
29-Jul-07
20:32:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.9
29-Jul-07
21:28:00
Circuit, The Series 1 Ep.4
All Eps in this series except this one were delivered with breaks
29-Jul-07
26:40:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.113
30-Jul-07
12:57:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.49
30-Jul-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.34
30-Jul-07
22:01:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.10
30-Jul-07
22:56:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.8
30-Jul-07
23:59:00
Aragami
31-Jul-07
15:01:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.8
31-Jul-07
16:01:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.42
31-Jul-07
20:30:00
Spying On The Home Front Ep.0
31-Jul-07
22:03:00
Every Good Marriage Begins With Tears Ep.0
31-Jul-07
23:03:00
Silent Love, A
31-Jul-07
24:52:00
So Close To Home Ep.0
01-Aug-07
15:31:00
Fifa Fever Series 1 Ep.5
01-Aug-07
19:31:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.13
01-Aug-07
22:05:00
Monsieur Ibrahim And The Flowers Of The Koran
01-Aug-07
23:46:00
Burning In The Wind
02-Aug-07
13:00:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.2
02-Aug-07
13:30:00
Dying To Leave Series 1 Ep.2
02-Aug-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.50
02-Aug-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.109
02-Aug-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.21
02-Aug-07
22:17:00
Jammin In The Middle E Ep.0
02-Aug-07
23:11:00
Graveyard Alive: A Zombie Nurse In Love
03-Aug-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.51
03-Aug-07
14:30:00
Tiny Birds And Great Scientists Ep.0
03-Aug-07
15:30:00
Hard Choices QLD Series 1 Ep.3
03-Aug-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.2
03-Aug-07
19:30:00
Gold Rush, The Series 1 Ep.2
03-Aug-07
20:32:00
Fidel Castro Series 1 Ep.1
03-Aug-07
22:08:00
Escort Agency, The Ep.0
03-Aug-07
23:04:00
Unveiled
03-Aug-07
24:47:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.29
04-Aug-07
17:31:00
Lost Gods, The Series 1 Ep.6
04-Aug-07
18:01:00
Heat In The Kitchen Series 1 Ep.5
04-Aug-07
21:31:00
No Direction Home: Bob Dylan Series 1 Ep.1
04-Aug-07
23:34:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.15
04-Aug-07
25:25:00
Operation Pink Squad 2
05-Aug-07
10:30:00
Dream Of Hope: SBS Youth Orchestra In China Ep.0
05-Aug-07
19:30:00
Voyages Of Discovery Series 1 Ep.4
05-Aug-07
20:31:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.10
05-Aug-07
22:31:00
Chasing Freedom
05-Aug-07
24:09:00
Heartbreak Tour, The Ep.0
05-Aug-07
25:09:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.114
06-Aug-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.52
06-Aug-07
13:31:00
Helen’s War: Portrait Of A Dissident Ep.0
06-Aug-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.35
06-Aug-07
22:02:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.11
06-Aug-07
22:55:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.9
06-Aug-07
23:57:00
2ldk
07-Aug-07
13:00:00
Passages
07-Aug-07
14:59:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.9
07-Aug-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.43
07-Aug-07
20:31:00
News War: Secrets, Sources And Spin Series 1 Ep.2
07-Aug-07
22:03:00
Milosevic On Trial Ep.0
07-Aug-07
23:22:00
Iron Island
07-Aug-07
24:57:00
Preservation Ep.0
08-Aug-07
15:32:00
Fifa Fever Series 1 Ep.6
08-Aug-07
19:30:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.14
08-Aug-07
22:04:00
Exiles
08-Aug-07
23:53:00
Together
09-Aug-07
13:00:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.4
09-Aug-07
13:30:00
Russian Godfathers Series 1 Ep.1
09-Aug-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.53
09-Aug-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.110
09-Aug-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.22
09-Aug-07
22:17:00
Nighty Night Series 2 Ep.1
09-Aug-07
22:51:00
Severed
09-Aug-07
24:33:00
Legend Of Gingko The
10-Aug-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.54
10-Aug-07
14:30:00
Dinosaur Dealers Ep.1
10-Aug-07
15:30:00
Hard Choices QLD Series 1 Ep.4
10-Aug-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.3
10-Aug-07
19:30:00
Hoover’s Gold Ep.0
10-Aug-07
20:30:00
Fidel Castro Series 1 Ep.2
10-Aug-07
22:02:00
Here’s Looking At You Boy Ep.0
10-Aug-07
23:03:00
Devotion
10-Aug-07
24:36:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.30
11-Aug-07
15:42:00
Juan Diego Florez Ep.0
11-Aug-07
21:31:00
No Direction Home: Bob Dylan Series 1 Ep.2
11-Aug-07
23:16:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.16
11-Aug-07
25:14:00
Ring 0: Birthday
12-Aug-07
11:00:00
Themes Variations & Fusions : The Music Of Spain Ep.0
12-Aug-07
17:59:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.133
12-Aug-07
19:30:00
Voyages Of Discovery Series 1 Ep.5
12-Aug-07
20:31:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.11
12-Aug-07
22:31:00
Kanyini Ep.0
12-Aug-07
23:31:00
Surplus Ep.0
12-Aug-07
24:30:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.115
13-Aug-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.55
13-Aug-07
13:31:00
Troubled Minds: The Lithium Revolution Ep.0
13-Aug-07
17:30:00
Blaktrax Series 1 Ep.1
13-Aug-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.36
13-Aug-07
22:02:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.12
13-Aug-07
22:57:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.10
13-Aug-07
23:59:00
Arahan
14-Aug-07
14:59:00
Viva Series 1 Ep.10
14-Aug-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.44
14-Aug-07
20:31:00
Pakistan Zindabad: Long Live Pakistan Series 1 Ep.1
14-Aug-07
22:03:00
Pakistan Zindabad: Long Live Pakistan Series 1 Ep.2
14-Aug-07
23:03:00
News War: Secrets, Sources And Spin Series 1 Ep.1
14-Aug-07
24:03:00
Mongolian Ping Pong
15-Aug-07
13:02:00
Bab’aziz
15-Aug-07
15:31:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.1
15-Aug-07
19:31:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.15
15-Aug-07
22:03:00
Man’s Fear Of God, A
15-Aug-07
23:49:00
Dragonflies
15-Aug-07
25:43:00
Wee Jimmy Ep.0
16-Aug-07
13:02:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.5
16-Aug-07
13:31:00
Russian Godfathers Series 1 Ep.2
16-Aug-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.56
16-Aug-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.111
16-Aug-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.23
16-Aug-07
22:17:00
Nighty Night Series 2 Ep.2
16-Aug-07
22:52:00
Undead
16-Aug-07
24:42:00
800 Bullets
17-Aug-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 4 Ep.57
17-Aug-07
14:31:00
Dinosaur Dealers Ep.2
17-Aug-07
15:31:00
Hard Choices WA Series 1 Ep.1
17-Aug-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.4
17-Aug-07
19:29:00
Requiem For A Princess Ep.0
17-Aug-07
20:33:00
Princess Spy, The Ep.0
17-Aug-07
22:02:00
Mr Miss World Ep.0
17-Aug-07
22:58:00
Jan Dara
17-Aug-07
24:56:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.31
18-Aug-07
13:00:00
Carmen Ep.0
18-Aug-07
15:33:00
Franco Zeffirelli Ep.0
18-Aug-07
21:31:00
Amelie From Montmartre
18-Aug-07
23:36:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.17
18-Aug-07
25:33:00
My Wife Is A Gangster
19-Aug-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.134
19-Aug-07
19:36:00
There’s Something About Mary Magdalen Ep.0
19-Aug-07
20:31:00
Big Love Series 1 Ep.12
19-Aug-07
21:31:00
Very Long Engagement, A
19-Aug-07
23:46:00
Prostitution Behind The Veil Ep.0
19-Aug-07
24:46:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.116
20-Aug-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.58
20-Aug-07
17:30:00
Blaktrax Series 1 Ep.2
20-Aug-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.37
20-Aug-07
22:02:00
Epitafios Series 1 Ep.13
20-Aug-07
23:01:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.11
20-Aug-07
24:03:00
Men Suddenly In Black
21-Aug-07
13:00:00
Hana And Alice
21-Aug-07
20:32:00
Endgame, The Ep.0
21-Aug-07
22:03:00
Jonestown: The Life And Death Of Peoples Templ Ep.0
21-Aug-07
23:37:00
Delwende
21-Aug-07
25:14:00
Painting With Light In A Dark World Ep.0
22-Aug-07
15:31:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.2
22-Aug-07
19:30:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.16
22-Aug-07
22:03:00
Dark Blue World
22-Aug-07
24:01:00
Nine Queens
23-Aug-07
13:01:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.6
23-Aug-07
13:31:00
Russian Godfathers Series 1 Ep.3
23-Aug-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.59
23-Aug-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.112
23-Aug-07
20:31:00
Eagle, The Series 1 Ep.24
23-Aug-07
22:21:00
Nighty Night Series 2 Ep.3
23-Aug-07
22:55:00
Dead And Breakfast
23-Aug-07
24:29:00
One Armed Boxer Vs The Flying Guillotine
24-Aug-07
13:08:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.60
24-Aug-07
14:30:00
Faraday Lecture 2007 Ep.0
24-Aug-07
15:30:00
Hard Choices WA Series 1 Ep.3
24-Aug-07
19:30:00
Annie Oakley Ep.0
24-Aug-07
20:36:00
Inside The Mind Of Adolf Hitler Ep.0
24-Aug-07
22:02:00
Great Happiness Space, The Ep.0
24-Aug-07
23:26:00
Learning To Lie
24-Aug-07
25:04:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.32
25-Aug-07
13:00:00
Cendrillon Ep.0
25-Aug-07
15:28:00
Farafina Djarabi Ep.0
25-Aug-07
16:00:00
Hungarian Rhapsodies Ep.0
25-Aug-07
17:30:00
Dream Of Love, The Ep.0
25-Aug-07
23:52:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep.1
25-Aug-07
25:51:00
Martha’s New Coat Ep.0
26-Aug-07
23:44:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep.2
26-Aug-07
24:45:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.117
27-Aug-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.61
27-Aug-07
15:30:00
Cosenza Vecchia Ep.0
27-Aug-07
16:00:00
Missing Vietnam Ep.0
27-Aug-07
17:30:00
Blaktrax Series 1 Ep.3
27-Aug-07
23:55:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep.3
27-Aug-07
24:54:00
Terkel In Trouble
28-Aug-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 7 Ep.46
28-Aug-07
23:36:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep.4
29-Aug-07
13:01:00
Son’s Room, The
29-Aug-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.3
29-Aug-07
24:00:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep.5
29-Aug-07
25:04:00
That Old Dream That Moves Ep.0
30-Aug-07
13:00:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.7
30-Aug-07
13:29:00
Witches: Myth, Mystery And Truth Series 1 Ep.1
30-Aug-07
14:31:00
Turkey’s Tigers Ep.0
30-Aug-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.62
30-Aug-07
24:10:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep.6
30-Aug-07
25:09:00
Brothers Of The Forest, The Ep.0
31-Aug-07
14:29:00
It’s A Fat, Fat World Ep.0
31-Aug-07
15:31:00
Hard Choices WA Series 1 Ep.4
31-Aug-07
23:40:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep 7 & 8 Ep.7
31-Aug-07
24:45:00
Gingko Bed The
01-Sep-07
13:01:00
Turn Of The Screw Ep.0
01-Sep-07
14:56:00
Van Gogh, The Journey’s End Ep.0
01-Sep-07
16:00:00
Catching The Tide Ep.0
01-Sep-07
17:30:00
Lore Of Love, The Ep.0
01-Sep-07
23:41:00
Desperately Seeking Sheila Series 1 Ep 7 & 8 Ep.8
01-Sep-07
25:44:00
Lennie Cahill Shoots Through Ep.0
02-Sep-07
24:12:00
Brides Of Khan The Ep.0
02-Sep-07
24:42:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.118
03-Sep-07
13:02:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.63
03-Sep-07
14:33:00
Original Mermaid Ep.0
03-Sep-07
17:30:00
Blaktrax Series 1 Ep.5
03-Sep-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.20
03-Sep-07
22:55:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.12
03-Sep-07
23:58:00
Killing Words
04-Sep-07
15:01:00
Dolce Vita Series 1 Ep.1
04-Sep-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.47
04-Sep-07
20:32:00
Last Ghost Of War Ep.0
04-Sep-07
22:05:00
Diameter Of The Bomb Ep.0
04-Sep-07
23:36:00
My Nikifor
04-Sep-07
25:19:00
Tasty Bust Reunion, The Ep.0
05-Sep-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.4
05-Sep-07
19:30:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.17
05-Sep-07
20:01:00
Island Fettlers Ep.0
05-Sep-07
22:02:00
Broken News Series 1 Ep.2
05-Sep-07
22:32:00
My Life Without Me
05-Sep-07
24:24:00
Frozen Land
06-Sep-07
13:01:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.8
06-Sep-07
13:31:00
Witches: Myth, Mystery And Truth Series 1 Ep.2
06-Sep-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.64
06-Sep-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.113
06-Sep-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.1
06-Sep-07
22:21:00
Nighty Night Series 2 Ep.4
06-Sep-07
22:54:00
Duplicity
06-Sep-07
24:34:00
Perfect Blue
07-Sep-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.65
07-Sep-07
14:30:00
Sixty Thousand Barrels Ep.0
07-Sep-07
16:00:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.7
07-Sep-07
19:30:00
Fabric Of A Dream, The Ep.0
07-Sep-07
20:31:00
Robert F Kennedy Series 1 Ep.1
07-Sep-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.1
07-Sep-07
23:01:00
Piano Teacher, The
07-Sep-07
25:17:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.33
08-Sep-07
13:01:00
Platee Ep.0
08-Sep-07
15:35:00
Rhythms From Africa Series 1 Ep.1
08-Sep-07
19:30:00
Lonely Planet: Six Degrees Series 1 Ep.7
08-Sep-07
21:24:00
Rockwiz Series 2 Ep.27
08-Sep-07
21:56:00
La Spagnola
08-Sep-07
23:31:00
Sparky D Comes To Town Ep.0
08-Sep-07
25:04:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.1
09-Sep-07
19:30:00
History Of The Devil, The Ep.0
09-Sep-07
20:30:00
Moon For Sale Ep.0
09-Sep-07
21:27:00
Decadence Series 1 Ep.1
09-Sep-07
24:53:00
Nokia Tribe Ep.0
09-Sep-07
25:53:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.119
10-Sep-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.66
10-Sep-07
13:31:00
Swapping Lives Ep.0
10-Sep-07
14:30:00
Pioneers Of Love Series 1 Ep.1
10-Sep-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.21
10-Sep-07
22:58:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.13
10-Sep-07
24:02:00
Mango Yellow
11-Sep-07
15:01:00
Dolce Vita Series 1 Ep.2
11-Sep-07
15:59:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.48
11-Sep-07
20:32:00
Europe’s 9/11 Ep.0
11-Sep-07
22:04:00
Protocols Of Zion, The Ep.0
11-Sep-07
23:45:00
September
11-Sep-07
25:38:00
Cold Turkey Ep.0
12-Sep-07
13:01:00
Blackboards
12-Sep-07
14:29:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.10
12-Sep-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.6
12-Sep-07
22:01:00
Broken News Series 1 Ep.3
12-Sep-07
22:34:00
Strayed
12-Sep-07
24:15:00
Beijing Rocks
13-Sep-07
13:01:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.9
13-Sep-07
13:31:00
Witches: Myth, Mystery And Truth Series 1 Ep.3
13-Sep-07
15:01:00
From Here To Ithaca Ep.0
13-Sep-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.67
13-Sep-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 8 Ep.114
13-Sep-07
20:30:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.2
13-Sep-07
22:16:00
Nighty Night Series 2 Ep.5
13-Sep-07
22:51:00
Ants In The Mouth
13-Sep-07
24:31:00
Spriggan
14-Sep-07
13:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.68
14-Sep-07
14:31:00
Final Countdown: Fall Of Great Empires Series 1 Ep.2
14-Sep-07
16:09:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.8
14-Sep-07
19:30:00
Gone To A Good Home Ep.0
14-Sep-07
20:30:00
Robert F Kennedy Series 1 Ep.2
14-Sep-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.2
14-Sep-07
22:54:00
Sound Of The Sea
14-Sep-07
24:39:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.34
14-Sep-07
25:29:00
Fag Hags: Women Who Love Gay Men Ep.0
15-Sep-07
14:28:00
Philip Pullman Ep.0
15-Sep-07
15:31:00
Rhythms From Africa Series 1 Ep.2
15-Sep-07
19:30:00
Lonely Planet: Six Degrees Series 3 Ep.25
15-Sep-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 1 Ep.1
15-Sep-07
24:35:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.2
16-Sep-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.135 part 1
16-Sep-07
19:40:00
Noah’s Ark And The Mystery Of The Flood Ep.0
16-Sep-07
20:31:00
How To Masturbate An Elephant Ep.0
16-Sep-07
21:29:00
Decadence Series 1 Ep.2
16-Sep-07
22:01:00
Lovely And Amazing
16-Sep-07
23:36:00
Peace One Day Ep.0
16-Sep-07
25:03:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.120
17-Sep-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.69
17-Sep-07
14:32:00
Pioneers Of Love Series 1 Ep.2
17-Sep-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.22
17-Sep-07
22:54:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.14
17-Sep-07
23:59:00
Silentium
18-Sep-07
14:35:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.11
18-Sep-07
15:05:00
Dolce Vita Series 1 Ep.3
18-Sep-07
16:01:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.49
18-Sep-07
20:31:00
Running From Mugabe Ep.0
18-Sep-07
22:05:00
Feltham Sings Ep.0
18-Sep-07
23:02:00
Slaughterhouse: The Task Of Blood Ep.0
18-Sep-07
24:09:00
Boats Out Of Watermelon Rinds
18-Sep-07
25:52:00
Yellow Fella Ep.0
19-Sep-07
22:02:00
Broken News Series 1 Ep.4
19-Sep-07
22:35:00
Soundless
20-Sep-07
15:00:00
Last Pecheniuk The Ep.0
20-Sep-07
15:59:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 5 Ep.70
20-Sep-07
21:05:00
TV Around The World Series 1 Ep.7
20-Sep-07
22:16:00
Nighty Night Series 2 Ep.6
20-Sep-07
23:53:00
Balls
21-Sep-07
13:04:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.1
21-Sep-07
14:33:00
Final Countdown: Fall Of Great Empires Series 1 Ep.1
21-Sep-07
15:59:00
Wine Lovers Guide To Australia Series 2 Ep.9
21-Sep-07
19:30:00
Millionaire Dogs Ep.0
21-Sep-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.3
21-Sep-07
22:55:00
Ring Finger, The
21-Sep-07
24:43:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.35
22-Sep-07
13:00:00
In The Heart Of Music Ep.0
22-Sep-07
14:31:00
Ami Pissarro, L’ Ep.0
22-Sep-07
15:36:00
Rhythms From Africa Series 1 Ep.3
22-Sep-07
19:31:00
Equator Series 1 Ep.2
22-Sep-07
21:24:00
Rockwiz Series 1 Ep.10
22-Sep-07
21:55:00
Just Friends
22-Sep-07
23:40:00
Saturn’s Return Ep.0
22-Sep-07
25:12:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.3
23-Sep-07
11:31:00
Dear Bert Ep.0
23-Sep-07
18:02:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.135 part 2
23-Sep-07
19:30:00
Karakoum: A City Under The Sand Ep.0
23-Sep-07
20:26:00
Chimps Are People Too Ep.0
23-Sep-07
21:20:00
Decadence Series 1 Ep.4
23-Sep-07
24:07:00
China Blue Ep.0
23-Sep-07
25:07:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.121
24-Sep-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.1
24-Sep-07
14:31:00
Under One Roof Series 1: The Chakos Family Ep.1
24-Sep-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.23
24-Sep-07
22:58:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.15
24-Sep-07
24:01:00
Oculto
25-Sep-07
13:02:00
Like Chef, Like God
25-Sep-07
15:00:00
Dolce Vita Series 1 Ep.4
25-Sep-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.50
25-Sep-07
20:30:00
9 Star Hotel Ep.0
25-Sep-07
22:02:00
To The Other Side Ep.0
25-Sep-07
23:18:00
Subterra
25-Sep-07
25:22:00
Music And Murder Ep.0
26-Sep-07
13:01:00
Vodka Lemon
26-Sep-07
14:57:00
Tales From A Suitcase Series 1 Ep.12
26-Sep-07
15:28:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.7
26-Sep-07
19:30:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.18
26-Sep-07
20:01:00
Parent Rescue Series 1 Ep.1
26-Sep-07
24:01:00
Shanghai Spell
27-Sep-07
13:02:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.10
27-Sep-07
13:31:00
Five Seasons Ep.0
27-Sep-07
16:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.2
27-Sep-07
19:35:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.59
27-Sep-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.3
27-Sep-07
24:01:00
Football Days
28-Sep-07
13:01:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.2
28-Sep-07
14:31:00
Final Countdown: Fall Of Great Empires Series 1 Ep.3
28-Sep-07
19:30:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 1 Ep.1
28-Sep-07
20:30:00
Communism And Football Ep.0
28-Sep-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.4
28-Sep-07
22:53:00
Petite Lili, La
28-Sep-07
24:42:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.36
29-Sep-07
15:05:00
Marimekko: An Outsider’s View Ep.0
29-Sep-07
15:35:00
Rhythms From Africa Series 1 Ep.4
29-Sep-07
19:31:00
Equator Series 1 Ep.3
29-Sep-07
22:16:00
24 Hour Party People
29-Sep-07
25:19:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.4
30-Sep-07
18:01:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.136
30-Sep-07
19:30:00
Lost Kingdom Of Aratta, The Ep.0
30-Sep-07
20:30:00
Woman Who Thinks Like A Cow, The Ep.0
30-Sep-07
24:30:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.122
01-Oct-07
14:32:00
Under One Roof Series 1: The Puckeridge Family Ep.2
01-Oct-07
22:03:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.24
01-Oct-07
22:56:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.16
01-Oct-07
24:07:00
My Jealous Barber
01-Oct-07
25:27:00
Big Men; Bigger Dreams - Australian Wrestlers Ep.0
02-Oct-07
15:00:00
Dolce Vita Series 1 Ep.5
02-Oct-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.51
02-Oct-07
20:31:00
China Vs The Us: The Battle For Oil Ep.0
02-Oct-07
23:41:00
Endangered Ep.0
02-Oct-07
24:11:00
Tale Of A Naughty Girl, A
03-Oct-07
19:30:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.19
03-Oct-07
20:00:00
Parent Rescue Series 1 Ep.2
03-Oct-07
22:02:00
Broken News Series 1 Ep.5
03-Oct-07
22:34:00
Old Boy
03-Oct-07
24:37:00
Samba Chanson
04-Oct-07
16:01:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.4
04-Oct-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.61
04-Oct-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.4
04-Oct-07
22:19:00
Kings Of Clubs, The Series 1 Ep.1
04-Oct-07
23:52:00
Speaking In Tongues Series 1 Ep.1
04-Oct-07
24:21:00
Paradise
05-Oct-07
13:01:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.3
05-Oct-07
14:30:00
Final Countdown: Fall Of Great Empires Series 1 Ep.4
05-Oct-07
19:35:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 1 Ep.2
05-Oct-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.5
05-Oct-07
22:52:00
Lilya 4-Ever
05-Oct-07
24:45:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.37
06-Oct-07
13:01:00
Death And The Maiden Ep.0
06-Oct-07
13:54:00
Clint Eastwood: A Life In Film Ep.0
06-Oct-07
15:30:00
Arts In The 21st Century Series 3 Ep.9
06-Oct-07
19:31:00
Equator Series 1 Ep.1
06-Oct-07
22:17:00
Sea Inside, The
06-Oct-07
25:30:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.5
07-Oct-07
18:02:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.137
07-Oct-07
19:31:00
Homo Sapiens Series 1 Ep.1
07-Oct-07
20:29:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.1
07-Oct-07
21:30:00
Decadence Series 1 Ep.3
07-Oct-07
22:02:00
Monsoon Wedding
07-Oct-07
24:02:00
Descent Into The Ice Ep.0
07-Oct-07
25:01:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.123
08-Oct-07
13:00:00
Food Lovers Guide To Australia Series 1 Ep.5
08-Oct-07
14:30:00
Under One Roof Series 1: The Kapsalides Family Ep.3
08-Oct-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.25
08-Oct-07
22:57:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.17
08-Oct-07
23:58:00
Malefique
09-Oct-07
14:59:00
Dolce Vita Series 1 Ep.6
09-Oct-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.52
09-Oct-07
20:31:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.9
09-Oct-07
22:03:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.10
09-Oct-07
23:02:00
Political Assassinations Series 2 Ep.8
09-Oct-07
24:00:00
Woman Is A Tough Person
09-Oct-07
25:45:00
Born Into Struggle Ep.0
10-Oct-07
14:31:00
Novgorod: Letters Of The Year One Thousand Ep.0
10-Oct-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.8
10-Oct-07
19:30:00
Hairy Bikers’ Cookbook, The Series 3 Ep.20
10-Oct-07
20:00:00
Parent Rescue Series 1 Ep.3
10-Oct-07
22:33:00
Memories Of Murder
10-Oct-07
24:52:00
Certain Children
11-Oct-07
13:01:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.11
11-Oct-07
13:31:00
Tiny Birds And Great Scientists Ep.0
11-Oct-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.62
11-Oct-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.5
11-Oct-07
22:19:00
8 Women
11-Oct-07
24:16:00
Permanent Vacation
12-Oct-07
13:01:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.4
12-Oct-07
19:30:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 1 Ep.3
12-Oct-07
20:30:00
Che Guevara: The Body & The Legend Ep.0
12-Oct-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.6
12-Oct-07
22:52:00
Alila
12-Oct-07
24:57:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.38
13-Oct-07
13:02:00
Carmen Ep.0
13-Oct-07
14:19:00
Happy Birthday Oscar Wilde Ep.0
13-Oct-07
15:27:00
Arts In The 21st Century Series 3 Ep.10
13-Oct-07
22:14:00
Motorcycle Diaries, The
13-Oct-07
25:25:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.6
14-Oct-07
18:01:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.138
14-Oct-07
19:31:00
Homo Sapiens Series 1 Ep.2
14-Oct-07
20:31:00
My Pet Dinosaur Ep.0
14-Oct-07
21:29:00
Decadence Series 1 Ep.5
14-Oct-07
22:01:00
Pinochet In Suburbia Ep.0
14-Oct-07
25:03:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.124
15-Oct-07
14:31:00
Passport To Parenthood Ep.0
15-Oct-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 3 Ep.26
15-Oct-07
22:53:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.18
15-Oct-07
23:54:00
Maid, The
15-Oct-07
25:29:00
Eighth Summit, The Ep.0
16-Oct-07
15:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.1
16-Oct-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.53
16-Oct-07
20:30:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.2
16-Oct-07
22:02:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.8
16-Oct-07
23:03:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.5
16-Oct-07
24:03:00
At Five In The Afternoon
17-Oct-07
15:00:00
Gladiatrix Ep.0
17-Oct-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.9
17-Oct-07
20:01:00
Parent Rescue Series 1 Ep.4
17-Oct-07
22:33:00
Good Lawyer’s Wife, A
17-Oct-07
24:27:00
House By The Canal, The
18-Oct-07
13:01:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.12
18-Oct-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.6
18-Oct-07
24:18:00
Red Shadow
19-Oct-07
13:00:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.5
19-Oct-07
14:30:00
Who’s Afraid Of Designer Babies? Ep.0
19-Oct-07
19:31:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 1 Ep.4
19-Oct-07
20:31:00
Try Revolution Ep.0
19-Oct-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.7
19-Oct-07
22:52:00
Body Confusion
19-Oct-07
24:38:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.39
19-Oct-07
25:26:00
Why Men Pay For It Ep.0
20-Oct-07
13:02:00
Romeo And Juliet Ep.0
20-Oct-07
14:22:00
Nilsson, La Ep.0
20-Oct-07
15:28:00
Arts In The 21st Century Series 3 Ep.11
20-Oct-07
22:13:00
Edukators, The
20-Oct-07
25:31:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.7
21-Oct-07
19:36:00
Homo Sapiens Series 1 Ep.3
21-Oct-07
20:30:00
Volcano Hunt Ep.0
21-Oct-07
21:30:00
Decadence Series 1 Ep.6
21-Oct-07
22:02:00
Crime Of Father Amaro, The
21-Oct-07
24:35:00
McLibel Ep.0
21-Oct-07
25:36:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 5 Ep.125
22-Oct-07
14:31:00
My Brother’s Kosova Wedding Ep.0
22-Oct-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.27
22-Oct-07
22:56:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.19
22-Oct-07
24:00:00
Dark Horse
23-Oct-07
15:01:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.2
23-Oct-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.54
23-Oct-07
20:30:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.6
23-Oct-07
22:02:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.3
23-Oct-07
23:02:00
Hungary 1956 - Icons And Memories Ep.0
23-Oct-07
24:03:00
Unburied Man, The
24-Oct-07
20:00:00
Parent Rescue Series 1 Ep.5
24-Oct-07
22:32:00
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... And Spring
24-Oct-07
24:20:00
Carpenter’s Pencil, The
25-Oct-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.7
25-Oct-07
22:16:00
Kings Of Clubs, The Series 1 Ep.2
25-Oct-07
23:47:00
Speaking In Tongues Series 1 Ep.2
25-Oct-07
24:17:00
Happiness Of The Katakuris, The
26-Oct-07
13:01:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.6
26-Oct-07
19:30:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 2 Ep.5
26-Oct-07
20:30:00
Hitler Family: In The Shadow Of The Dictator, The Ep.0
26-Oct-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.8
26-Oct-07
22:56:00
Sex And Lucia
26-Oct-07
25:08:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.40
27-Oct-07
14:54:00
Tribute To Jacqueline Du Pre, A Ep.0
27-Oct-07
15:27:00
Arts In The 21st Century Series 3 Ep.12
27-Oct-07
22:11:00
Jimi Hendrix: Live At Woodstock Ep.0
27-Oct-07
23:14:00
Tupac: Live At The House Of Blues Ep.0
27-Oct-07
25:13:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.8
28-Oct-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.109
28-Oct-07
19:44:00
Raising The Dead Ep.0
28-Oct-07
20:31:00
Face Of Evil, The Ep.0
28-Oct-07
21:34:00
Downfall
28-Oct-07
24:41:00
Parra Ep.0
28-Oct-07
25:11:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.152
29-Oct-07
13:30:00
Big Lie, The Ep.0
29-Oct-07
14:30:00
Three Sisters Make One Baby Ep.0
29-Oct-07
22:01:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.28
29-Oct-07
22:54:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.20
29-Oct-07
23:58:00
Bichunmoo
30-Oct-07
15:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.3
30-Oct-07
16:00:00
Fork In Africa, A Series 8 Ep.55
30-Oct-07
20:30:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.7
30-Oct-07
22:02:00
Democracy Series 1 Ep.4
30-Oct-07
23:01:00
Political Assassinations Series 2 Ep.6
30-Oct-07
24:01:00
Hero, The
31-Oct-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.10
31-Oct-07
16:00:00
Fork In The Road, A Series 1 Ep.1
31-Oct-07
20:00:00
Parent Rescue Series 1 Ep.6
31-Oct-07
22:32:00
Ring
31-Oct-07
24:17:00
Godforsaken
01-Nov-07
13:00:00
Chefs Of The Great Hotels Of The World Series 1 Ep.13
01-Nov-07
19:34:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.65
01-Nov-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.8
01-Nov-07
22:21:00
Common Thread, A
01-Nov-07
23:55:00
After The Day Before
02-Nov-07
13:01:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.7
02-Nov-07
14:30:00
Vietnam Symphony Ep.0
02-Nov-07
19:30:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 2 Ep.6
02-Nov-07
20:30:00
Book That Shook The World, The Ep.0
02-Nov-07
22:02:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.9
02-Nov-07
22:52:00
Torremolinos 73
02-Nov-07
24:30:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.41
02-Nov-07
25:26:00
Madam And Company The Ep.0
03-Nov-07
14:26:00
Roberto Rossellini Ep.0
03-Nov-07
15:35:00
World In Art, The Series 1 Ep.1
03-Nov-07
19:37:00
Top Gear Series 6 Ep.15
03-Nov-07
25:04:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.9
04-Nov-07
18:00:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.110
04-Nov-07
19:35:00
Crusader Super Fort Ep.0
04-Nov-07
20:31:00
Tobacco: Hold Your Breath Ep.0
04-Nov-07
21:32:00
Last Mitterrand, The
04-Nov-07
24:01:00
Girl, A Horse, A Dream, A Ep.0
04-Nov-07
24:59:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.153
05-Nov-07
14:31:00
Danger Virus Ep.0
05-Nov-07
22:03:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.29
05-Nov-07
22:57:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.21
05-Nov-07
24:01:00
Divergence
06-Nov-07
15:01:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.4
06-Nov-07
20:31:00
Putin System, The Series 1 Ep.1
06-Nov-07
22:05:00
Putin System, The Series 1 Ep.2
06-Nov-07
23:06:00
Political Assassinations Series 2 Ep.7
06-Nov-07
23:57:00
House Of Fools
07-Nov-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.11
07-Nov-07
22:33:00
Redeemer, The
07-Nov-07
24:22:00
Placido Rizzotto
08-Nov-07
19:35:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.67
08-Nov-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.9
08-Nov-07
23:18:00
Kings Of Clubs, The Series 1 Ep.3
08-Nov-07
23:49:00
Speaking In Tongues Series 1 Ep.3
08-Nov-07
24:18:00
Best Of Times, The
09-Nov-07
13:01:00
Everyone Loves A Wedding Series 1 Ep.8
09-Nov-07
14:30:00
Shake Rattle And Roll A Journey With Parkinson’s Ep.0
09-Nov-07
19:30:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 2 Ep.7
09-Nov-07
20:31:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 1 Ep.1
09-Nov-07
22:03:00
Matrioshki Series 1 Ep.10
09-Nov-07
22:58:00
Blind
09-Nov-07
24:31:00
Queer As Folk Series 2 Ep.42
10-Nov-07
13:00:00
Bergman Island Ep.0
10-Nov-07
14:30:00
Keith Jarrett: The Art Of Improvisation Ep.0
10-Nov-07
15:36:00
World In Art, The Series 1 Ep.2
10-Nov-07
19:37:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.21
10-Nov-07
22:16:00
Dig! Ep.0
10-Nov-07
25:14:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.10
11-Nov-07
12:00:00
What Have We Done Ep.0
11-Nov-07
19:33:00
Miracles Of Jesus, The Series 1 Ep.1
11-Nov-07
20:34:00
Heart Makers: The Future Of Transplant Medicine, T Ep.0
11-Nov-07
21:35:00
Operation Valkyrie
11-Nov-07
23:45:00
Hidden History Of Homosexual Australia, The Ep.0
11-Nov-07
25:15:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.154
12-Nov-07
13:31:00
Inheritance: A Fisherman’s Story Ep.0
12-Nov-07
14:40:00
Salome The Kiss Of Death Ep.0
12-Nov-07
22:03:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.30
12-Nov-07
22:57:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.22
12-Nov-07
24:01:00
Joint Security Area
13-Nov-07
15:01:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.5
13-Nov-07
20:31:00
Enemies Of Happiness Ep.0
13-Nov-07
22:04:00
Afghan Muscles Ep.0
13-Nov-07
23:09:00
I Love Being Anorexic Ep.0
13-Nov-07
24:14:00
Petite Chartreuse, La
13-Nov-07
25:53:00
Age Of Aids, The Series 1 Ep.1
14-Nov-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.12
14-Nov-07
22:32:00
What A Wonderful Place
14-Nov-07
24:18:00
Inugami
15-Nov-07
19:35:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.68
15-Nov-07
20:31:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.10
15-Nov-07
22:20:00
Harry’s Daughters
15-Nov-07
24:12:00
Monsieur N.
16-Nov-07
14:31:00
Opera Therapy Ep.0
16-Nov-07
19:34:00
Adventure Of English, The Series 2 Ep.8
16-Nov-07
20:34:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 1 Ep.2
16-Nov-07
23:32:00
Garrincha - Lonely Star
16-Nov-07
25:23:00
Becoming Julia Ep.0
17-Nov-07
13:00:00
Glenn Gould: The Mutant Series 1 Ep.1
17-Nov-07
14:00:00
Festival In The Desert 2004 Ep.0
17-Nov-07
15:35:00
World In Art, The Series 1 Ep.3
17-Nov-07
19:35:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.22
17-Nov-07
25:22:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.11
18-Nov-07
18:03:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.139 part 1
18-Nov-07
20:00:00
Miracles Of Jesus, The Series 1 Ep.2
18-Nov-07
21:02:00
Unfolding Florence Ep.0
18-Nov-07
22:35:00
Molly & Mobarak Ep.0
18-Nov-07
24:37:00
Big All At Once Ep.0
18-Nov-07
25:36:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.155
19-Nov-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.31
19-Nov-07
22:57:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.23
19-Nov-07
23:59:00
Dracula: Pages From A Virgin’s Diary Ep.0
20-Nov-07
13:01:00
Three Wives
20-Nov-07
15:02:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.6
20-Nov-07
20:32:00
War Of Ideas Ep.0
20-Nov-07
22:01:00
Imelda: Special Edition Ep.0
20-Nov-07
23:50:00
Mars
20-Nov-07
25:36:00
Age Of Aids, The Series 1 Ep.2
21-Nov-07
15:29:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.13
21-Nov-07
22:36:00
Someone Else’s Happiness
22-Nov-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.69
22-Nov-07
22:19:00
Over-Eater, The
22-Nov-07
23:54:00
David Beckham Ep.0
22-Nov-07
24:49:00
I Couldn’t Care Less
23-Nov-07
20:32:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 1 Ep.3
23-Nov-07
22:01:00
Naked On The Inside Ep.0
23-Nov-07
23:01:00
Eager Bodies, The
23-Nov-07
24:41:00
Why Men Wear Frocks Ep.0
24-Nov-07
13:00:00
Glenn Gould: The Mutant Series 1 Ep.2
24-Nov-07
14:05:00
Tchaikovsky In Italy Ep.0
24-Nov-07
15:06:00
Lang Lang Ep.0
24-Nov-07
15:36:00
World In Art, The Series 1 Ep.4
24-Nov-07
18:35:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.25
24-Nov-07
19:35:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.25
24-Nov-07
23:35:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.12
24-Nov-07
24:35:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.12
25-Nov-07
18:04:00
Thalassa Series 2 Ep.139 part 2
25-Nov-07
19:31:00
Miracles Of Jesus, The Series 1 Ep.3
25-Nov-07
21:30:00
42 Up Ep.0
25-Nov-07
24:21:00
Kings Of Clubs, The Series 1 Ep.4
25-Nov-07
24:21:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.156
25-Nov-07
25:21:00
Kings Of Clubs, The Series 1 Ep.4
26-Nov-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.32
26-Nov-07
22:55:00
Oz Series 1 Ep.24
26-Nov-07
24:00:00
Drive
27-Nov-07
13:01:00
Everybody Famous!
27-Nov-07
15:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.7
27-Nov-07
19:30:00
Fat Chance Ep.0
27-Nov-07
20:31:00
Showdown With Iran Ep.0
27-Nov-07
22:02:00
Swenkas, The Ep.0
27-Nov-07
23:24:00
Wooden Camera, The
27-Nov-07
25:00:00
Age Of Aids, The Series 1 Ep.3
28-Nov-07
15:29:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.14
28-Nov-07
22:34:00
Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai
29-Nov-07
14:30:00
Silent Storm Ep.0
29-Nov-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.70
29-Nov-07
20:32:00
Unit One Series 1 Ep.12
30-Nov-07
13:31:00
Jew Among The Germans, A Ep.0
30-Nov-07
20:32:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 1 Ep.4
30-Nov-07
22:01:00
My Penis And Everyone Else’s Ep.0
30-Nov-07
23:04:00
20 Centimetres
30-Nov-07
25:02:00
Black Death Ep.0
01-Dec-07
15:55:00
Phoenix Rises Again, The Ep.0
01-Dec-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.23
01-Dec-07
22:15:00
I’m Staying
01-Dec-07
25:00:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 1 Ep.13
02-Dec-07
11:01:00
Ethnic Business Awards 2007 Ep.0
02-Dec-07
19:31:00
Who Do You Think You Are? Series 1 Ep.5
02-Dec-07
21:27:00
21 Up South Africa Ep.0
02-Dec-07
23:43:00
Gough Whitlam - In His Own Words Ep.0
02-Dec-07
25:18:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.157
03-Dec-07
14:31:00
Unholy Orders Ep.0
03-Dec-07
15:30:00
Bible Unearthed, The Series 1 Ep.1
03-Dec-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.33
03-Dec-07
22:55:00
Breaking News
04-Dec-07
13:00:00
Crimson Gold
04-Dec-07
15:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.8
04-Dec-07
19:30:00
Race For The Beach Ep.0
04-Dec-07
20:31:00
Temple Of Dreams Ep.0
04-Dec-07
22:05:00
Manufacturing Dissent Ep.0
04-Dec-07
23:27:00
Mirage
04-Dec-07
25:19:00
Age Of Aids, The Series 1 Ep.4
05-Dec-07
15:30:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.15
05-Dec-07
20:30:00
Bushman’s Secret Ep.0
05-Dec-07
22:32:00
Coffee And Cigarettes
06-Dec-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 5 Ep.71
06-Dec-07
22:14:00
Loser Takes All
06-Dec-07
23:53:00
Gregoire Moulin Versus Humanity
07-Dec-07
14:30:00
Days That Changed The World Series 1 Ep.1
07-Dec-07
15:30:00
Djarn Djarns, The (Dramatically Black) Ep.0
07-Dec-07
19:30:00
Diamond Road Series 1 Ep.1
07-Dec-07
20:33:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 1 Ep.5
07-Dec-07
22:02:00
Female Orgasm, The Ep.0
07-Dec-07
22:59:00
Female
07-Dec-07
25:04:00
They Filmed The War In Colour: France Is Series 1 Ep.1
08-Dec-07
13:00:00
Zafiros, Los Ep.0
08-Dec-07
14:33:00
Johnny Hallyday Ep.0
08-Dec-07
15:29:00
Mondes De Chahine, Les Ep.0
08-Dec-07
19:35:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.24
08-Dec-07
22:15:00
Janis And John
08-Dec-07
25:32:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 2 Ep.14
08-Dec-07
25:59:00
Samurai Champloo Series 1 Ep.1
09-Dec-07
11:07:00
Blaktrax Series 1 Ep.6
09-Dec-07
19:31:00
Who Do You Think You Are? Series 1 Ep.11
09-Dec-07
21:35:00
21 Up Japan Ep.0
09-Dec-07
25:05:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.158
10-Dec-07
14:31:00
Judge And The Fanatics, The Ep.0
10-Dec-07
15:30:00
Bible Unearthed, The Series 1 Ep.2
10-Dec-07
17:30:00
Ok, Let’s Talk About Me! Ep.0
10-Dec-07
22:02:00
Shameless Series 4 Ep.34
10-Dec-07
23:28:00
Koma
11-Dec-07
13:02:00
Divine Intervention
11-Dec-07
15:01:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 1 Ep.9
11-Dec-07
19:30:00
Four Ep.0
Producers provided specific t/c for breaks
11-Dec-07
20:31:00
Cheney’s Law Ep.0
11-Dec-07
22:02:00
Devil Came On Horseback, The Ep.0
11-Dec-07
23:36:00
Salamina Soldiers
12-Dec-07
15:00:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.16
12-Dec-07
15:31:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.17
12-Dec-07
20:00:00
Real Top Guns Series 1 Ep.1
12-Dec-07
20:30:00
Jesse James Ep.0
12-Dec-07
22:31:00
16 Years Of Alcohol
13-Dec-07
19:36:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 6 Ep.73
13-Dec-07
23:14:00
Kings Of Clubs, The Series 1 Ep.5
13-Dec-07
23:45:00
Speaking In Tongues Series 1 Ep.5
13-Dec-07
24:14:00
Patlabor 3
14-Dec-07
14:30:00
Days That Changed The World Series 1 Ep.2
14-Dec-07
15:30:00
SA Black Thing (Dramatically Black) Ep.0
14-Dec-07
19:30:00
Diamond Road Series 1 Ep.2
14-Dec-07
20:33:00
Two Men In A Trench Series 1 Ep.6
14-Dec-07
22:01:00
First Zionist Bunny, The Ep.0
14-Dec-07
23:24:00
Thomas In Love
14-Dec-07
25:06:00
They Filmed The War In Colour: France Is Series 1 Ep.2
15-Dec-07
15:01:00
Christmas Music From Rosslyn Chapel Ep.0
15-Dec-07
15:30:00
Gustave Courbet: The Origins Of His World Ep.0
15-Dec-07
19:37:00
Top Gear Series 7 Ep.26
15-Dec-07
22:15:00
Young Adam
15-Dec-07
25:23:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 2 Ep.15
15-Dec-07
25:52:00
Samurai Champloo Series 1 Ep.2
16-Dec-07
19:31:00
Who Do You Think You Are? Series 1 Ep.3
16-Dec-07
20:33:00
21 Up America Ep.0
16-Dec-07
25:15:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.159
17-Dec-07
14:30:00
Salvage Archaeology In Gaza Ep.0
17-Dec-07
15:30:00
Bible Unearthed, The Series 1 Ep.3
17-Dec-07
22:03:00
Shameless Series 2 Ep.18
17-Dec-07
23:23:00
Nicotine
17-Dec-07
24:59:00
Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade Ep.0
18-Dec-07
13:01:00
Durval Discos
18-Dec-07
15:02:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.18
18-Dec-07
19:32:00
Frank And Daz Take On The World Ep.0
18-Dec-07
20:31:00
Energy War Ep.0
18-Dec-07
23:49:00
True Legend Of The Eiffel Tower, The
18-Dec-07
25:32:00
Vis A Vis: Techno Tribal Ep.0
19-Dec-07
13:01:00
Our Father
19-Dec-07
14:31:00
Puccini: The Spirit Of Love Ep.0
19-Dec-07
15:00:00
Festive Ways Series 1 Ep.19
19-Dec-07
20:00:00
Real Top Guns Series 1 Ep.2
19-Dec-07
20:30:00
Summer Of Love Ep.0
19-Dec-07
22:02:00
Ae Fond Kiss
19-Dec-07
23:51:00
Emperor And The Assassin, The
20-Dec-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 6 Ep.75
20-Dec-07
22:14:00
Nausicaa Of The Valley Of The Winds
21-Dec-07
14:31:00
Days That Changed The World Series 1 Ep.3
21-Dec-07
19:35:00
Diamond Road Series 1 Ep.3
21-Dec-07
20:33:00
Great Escape, The Ep.0
21-Dec-07
22:01:00
What A Booty! Ep.0
21-Dec-07
22:52:00
Backstage
21-Dec-07
24:53:00
Dirty War Ep.0
22-Dec-07
13:01:00
Charlie: The Life And Art Of Charles Chaplin Ep.0
22-Dec-07
15:30:00
Mozart’s Courtly Operas Ep.0
22-Dec-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.30
22-Dec-07
22:24:00
Dear Frankie
22-Dec-07
25:38:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 2 Ep.16
22-Dec-07
26:05:00
Samurai Champloo Series 1 Ep.3
23-Dec-07
11:05:00
Three Tales Of Two Cities Ep.0
23-Dec-07
19:31:00
Who Do You Think You Are? Series 1 Ep.10
23-Dec-07
20:37:00
Professor Regan’s Beauty Parlour Ep.0
23-Dec-07
21:35:00
Being Married Ep.0
23-Dec-07
24:55:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.160
24-Dec-07
13:30:00
Celtic Woman: Christmas Ep.0
24-Dec-07
14:30:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.1
24-Dec-07
15:30:00
Bible Unearthed, The Series 1 Ep.4
24-Dec-07
16:29:00
Eurovision Song Contest Junior 2007 Ep.0
24-Dec-07
22:02:00
Arsene Lupin
25-Dec-07
13:04:00
Modern Times
25-Dec-07
14:33:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.2
25-Dec-07
15:24:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.3
25-Dec-07
19:30:00
Rex: A Cops Best Friend Series 7 (Re) Ep.87
25-Dec-07
21:15:00
Howl’s Moving Castle
25-Dec-07
23:20:00
Godzilla: Final Wars
25-Dec-07
25:32:00
My Kingdom For A Series Ep.0
26-Dec-07
13:04:00
Kirikou And The Sorceress
26-Dec-07
14:33:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.4
26-Dec-07
15:24:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.5
26-Dec-07
20:00:00
Real Top Guns Series 1 Ep.3
26-Dec-07
20:30:00
Shark Sex Ep.0
26-Dec-07
22:02:00
Seducing Doctor Lewis
26-Dec-07
23:55:00
Best Of Youth, The Series 1 Ep.1
26-Dec-07
25:37:00
Blood And Land Ep.0
27-Dec-07
13:32:00
Angels Ep.0
27-Dec-07
15:32:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.6
27-Dec-07
19:37:00
Rex: A Cop’s Best Friend Series 6 Ep.77
27-Dec-07
22:14:00
Laputa: Castle In The Sky
28-Dec-07
15:31:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.9
28-Dec-07
19:29:00
Claudia Cardinale Ep.0
28-Dec-07
23:02:00
No News From God
28-Dec-07
24:57:00
Solino
29-Dec-07
13:04:00
Swan Lake Ep.0
29-Dec-07
15:30:00
Looking For An Icon Ep.0
29-Dec-07
19:30:00
Top Gear Series 8 Ep.31
29-Dec-07
25:34:00
Ghost In The Shell: Stand Alone Complex Series 2 Ep.17
29-Dec-07
26:00:00
Samurai Champloo Series 1 Ep.4
30-Dec-07
19:31:00
Who Do You Think You Are? Series 1 Ep.7
30-Dec-07
20:37:00
Longest Night, The Series 1 Ep.1
30-Dec-07
21:35:00
Terra Incognita Ep.0
30-Dec-07
23:07:00
Watch The Skies Ep.0
30-Dec-07
24:10:00
Them!
30-Dec-07
25:46:00
Storm Rages Twice, The Series 7 Ep.161
31-Dec-07
13:37:00
Lost City Of New Orleans, The Ep.0
31-Dec-07
15:33:00
Solstrom: Cirque Du Soleil Series 1 Ep.8
31-Dec-07
17:00:00
Multimillionaire Sailors Ep.0
31-Dec-07
17:30:00
Ice Cream Ep.0
31-Dec-07
19:30:00
Is It Art? Ep.0
31-Dec-07
20:31:00
Longest Night, The Series 1 Ep.2
31-Dec-07
22:01:00
Choristes, Les
31-Dec-07
23:42:00
Mostly Martha
ATTACHMENT B
Programs delivered with breaks (2007)
Date
Time
Program Title
Comments
01-Jan-07
19:32:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.48
01-Jan-07
20:30:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.125
03-Jan-07
19:31:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.5
04-Jan-07
22:03:00
Vh1 Illustrated Series 1 Ep.5
05-Jan-07
19:33:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.5
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
06-Jan-07
20:32:00
Iron Chef America Series 1 Ep.7
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
08-Jan-07
19:33:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.45
08-Jan-07
20:32:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.81
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
08-Jan-07
21:01:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.7
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Jan-07
19:31:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.6
11-Jan-07
22:02:00
Daily Show With Jon Stewart Global Edition, The Ep.19
12-Jan-07
19:32:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.6
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
13-Jan-07
20:32:00
Iron Chef America Series 1 Ep.8
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
15-Jan-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.82
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
15-Jan-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.8
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Jan-07
19:32:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.7
18-Jan-07
22:02:00
Daily Show With Jon Stewart Global Edition, The Ep.20
19-Jan-07
19:32:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.7
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
20-Jan-07
13:00:00
Paladins, Les Ep.0
Scene/Act changes used as breaks
20-Jan-07
20:32:00
Iron Chef America Series 1 Ep.9
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
22-Jan-07
20:30:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.83
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
22-Jan-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.9
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Jan-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.8
26-Jan-07
19:32:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.8
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
27-Jan-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef America Series 1 Ep.10
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
27-Jan-07
25:27:00
Crank Yankers Series 3 Ep.30
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
29-Jan-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.84
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
29-Jan-07
21:03:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.10
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
31-Jan-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.9
01-Feb-07
22:04:00
Sick Tricks (Aka Magick) Series 1 Ep.1
Delivered with 1 break, we put another one in
02-Feb-07
19:32:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.9
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
03-Feb-07
20:31:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.77
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
03-Feb-07
24:52:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.19
03-Feb-07
25:17:00
Crank Yankers Series 3 Ep.31
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
03-Feb-07
25:43:00
Crank Yankers Series 3 Ep.32
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
05-Feb-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.85
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
05-Feb-07
21:03:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.11
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
07-Feb-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.10
08-Feb-07
22:04:00
Sick Tricks (Aka Magick) Series 1 Ep.2
Delivered with 1 break, we put another one in
09-Feb-07
19:32:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.10
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Feb-07
20:32:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.78
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Feb-07
24:46:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.20
10-Feb-07
25:10:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.33
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Feb-07
25:36:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.34
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-Feb-07
20:30:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.86
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-Feb-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.12
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
14-Feb-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.11
15-Feb-07
22:02:00
Sick Tricks (Aka Magick) Series 1 Ep.3
Delivered with 1 break, we put another one in
16-Feb-07
19:32:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.11
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Feb-07
20:31:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.79
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Feb-07
25:01:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.21
17-Feb-07
25:25:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.35
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Feb-07
25:52:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.36
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
19-Feb-07
20:30:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.88
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
19-Feb-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.13
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
21-Feb-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.12
22-Feb-07
22:03:00
Sick Tricks (Aka Magick) Series 1 Ep.4
Delivered with 1 break, we put another one in
24-Feb-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.6
24-Feb-07
20:32:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.81
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Feb-07
21:21:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.39
24-Feb-07
24:40:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.22
24-Feb-07
25:09:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.37
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Feb-07
25:35:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.38
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
26-Feb-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.89
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
26-Feb-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.14
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
28-Feb-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 1 Ep.13
03-Mar-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.11
03-Mar-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.82
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
03-Mar-07
21:19:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.40
03-Mar-07
24:19:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.23
03-Mar-07
25:13:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.39
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
05-Mar-07
16:59:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.203
05-Mar-07
20:32:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.90
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
05-Mar-07
21:01:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.22
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Mar-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.16
10-Mar-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.83
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Mar-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.41
10-Mar-07
24:08:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.24
10-Mar-07
25:00:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.40
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-Mar-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.204
12-Mar-07
20:32:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.91
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-Mar-07
21:01:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.15
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Mar-07
17:32:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.1
17-Mar-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.84
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Mar-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.42
17-Mar-07
24:17:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.25
17-Mar-07
25:10:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.41
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
19-Mar-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.205
19-Mar-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.70
19-Mar-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.145
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Mar-07
13:01:00
Samson Ep.0
24-Mar-07
17:32:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.2
24-Mar-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.85
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Mar-07
21:19:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.43
24-Mar-07
24:05:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.26
24-Mar-07
24:59:00
Crank Yankers Series 4 Ep.42
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
26-Mar-07
16:59:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.206
26-Mar-07
19:32:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.71
26-Mar-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.147
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
31-Mar-07
17:32:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.3
31-Mar-07
20:31:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.86
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
31-Mar-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.44
31-Mar-07
24:10:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.27
31-Mar-07
24:37:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.28
02-Apr-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.207
02-Apr-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.72
02-Apr-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.144
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
02-Apr-07
22:32:00
Autopsy: Life And Death Series 1 Ep.1
04-Apr-07
25:27:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.1
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
07-Apr-07
16:05:00
Judgement Day: Images Of Heaven And Hell Series 1 Ep.2
07-Apr-07
17:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.4
07-Apr-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.88
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
07-Apr-07
21:19:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.45
07-Apr-07
24:16:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.29
07-Apr-07
24:43:00
Chappelle’s Show Series 2 Ep.30
09-Apr-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.208
09-Apr-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.208
09-Apr-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.73
09-Apr-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.142
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
09-Apr-07
22:30:00
Autopsy: Life And Death Series 1 Ep.2
11-Apr-07
25:34:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.2
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-Apr-07
22:08:00
Vh1 Illustrated Series 1 Ep.6
14-Apr-07
16:07:00
Judgement Day: Images Of Heaven And Hell Series 1 Ep.3
14-Apr-07
17:32:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.7
14-Apr-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.89
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
14-Apr-07
21:19:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.46
16-Apr-07
17:02:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.209
16-Apr-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.74
16-Apr-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.146
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
16-Apr-07
22:32:00
Autopsy: Life And Death Series 1 Ep.3
18-Apr-07
25:22:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.3
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
19-Apr-07
22:09:00
Vh1 Illustrated Series 1 Ep.8
21-Apr-07
13:02:00
Idomeneo Ep.0
21-Apr-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.90
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
21-Apr-07
21:19:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.47
23-Apr-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.210
23-Apr-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.75
23-Apr-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.150
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
23-Apr-07
22:30:00
Autopsy: Life And Death Series 1 Ep.4
25-Apr-07
25:18:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.4
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
26-Apr-07
22:05:00
Vh1 Illustrated Series 1 Ep.9
28-Apr-07
13:02:00
Belle Helene La Ep.0
Scene/Act changes used as breaks
28-Apr-07
20:32:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.91
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
28-Apr-07
21:21:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.48
30-Apr-07
17:02:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.211
30-Apr-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.76
30-Apr-07
20:33:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.151
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
30-Apr-07
21:04:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.141
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
02-May-07
25:33:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.5
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
03-May-07
22:08:00
Vh1 Illustrated Series 1 Ep.10
05-May-07
13:01:00
San Remo Song Festival 2007 Series 1 Ep.1
05-May-07
20:29:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.92
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
05-May-07
21:18:00
Rockwiz Series 4 Ep.50
07-May-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.77
07-May-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.143
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
07-May-07
21:01:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.148
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
09-May-07
25:21:00
Drawn Together Series 1 Ep.6
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-May-07
13:00:00
San Remo Song Festival 2007 Series 1 Ep.2
14-May-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.212
14-May-07
19:32:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.78
14-May-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.152
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
14-May-07
21:02:00
South Park Series 10 Ep.149
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
19-May-07
13:01:00
San Remo Song Festival 2007 Series 1 Ep.3
19-May-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.51
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
21-May-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.213
21-May-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 2 Ep.79
21-May-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.93
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
21-May-07
21:03:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.16
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
23-May-07
19:32:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.1
26-May-07
13:02:00
San Remo Song Festival 2007 Series 1 Ep.4
26-May-07
20:43:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.94
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
28-May-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.214
28-May-07
19:32:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.18
28-May-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.94
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
28-May-07
21:00:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.17
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
30-May-07
19:30:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.2
02-Jun-07
13:03:00
San Remo Song Festival 2007 Series 1 Ep.5
02-Jun-07
20:40:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.95
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
04-Jun-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.215
04-Jun-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.26
04-Jun-07
20:39:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.95
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
04-Jun-07
21:06:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.18
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
06-Jun-07
19:36:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.3
09-Jun-07
13:01:00
Tosca Ep.0
Scene/Act changes used as breaks
09-Jun-07
19:31:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.9
09-Jun-07
20:01:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.1
09-Jun-07
20:43:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.96
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
11-Jun-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.27
11-Jun-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.109
11-Jun-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.19
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
13-Jun-07
19:31:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.4
16-Jun-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.10
16-Jun-07
20:00:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.2
16-Jun-07
20:42:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.87
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
18-Jun-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.28
18-Jun-07
20:33:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.96
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
18-Jun-07
21:01:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.20
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
20-Jun-07
19:32:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.5
23-Jun-07
19:32:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.11
23-Jun-07
20:00:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.3
23-Jun-07
20:42:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.98
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
25-Jun-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.29
25-Jun-07
20:34:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.98
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
25-Jun-07
21:02:00
Drawn Together Series 2 Ep.21
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
27-Jun-07
19:31:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.6
30-Jun-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.12
30-Jun-07
19:59:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.4
30-Jun-07
20:41:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.99
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
02-Jul-07
20:37:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.99
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
02-Jul-07
21:05:00
Drawn Together Series 3 Ep.23
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
04-Jul-07
19:30:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.7
07-Jul-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.13
07-Jul-07
19:59:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.5
07-Jul-07
20:40:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.100
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
08-Jul-07
21:30:00
Circuit, The Series 1 Ep.1
09-Jul-07
20:37:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.100
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
09-Jul-07
21:04:00
Drawn Together Series 3 Ep.24
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
11-Jul-07
19:30:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.8
14-Jul-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.14
14-Jul-07
20:00:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.6
14-Jul-07
20:41:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.60
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
15-Jul-07
21:30:00
Circuit, The Series 1 Ep.2
16-Jul-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.216
16-Jul-07
20:38:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.101
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
16-Jul-07
21:06:00
Drawn Together Series 3 Ep.25
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
18-Jul-07
19:31:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.9
21-Jul-07
13:01:00
International Ballet Gala From The Prague State Op Ep.0
21-Jul-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.15
21-Jul-07
20:00:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.7
21-Jul-07
20:41:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.61
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
21-Jul-07
23:45:00
Drawn Together Series 3 Ep.26
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
22-Jul-07
21:29:00
Circuit, The Series 1 Ep.3
23-Jul-07
20:36:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.102
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
23-Jul-07
21:04:00
Drawn Together Series 3 Ep.26
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
23-Jul-07
23:30:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.102
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
25-Jul-07
19:30:00
Vasili’s Garden Series 1 Ep.10
28-Jul-07
13:00:00
Rosenkavalier, Der Ep.0
Scene/Act changes used as breaks
28-Jul-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.16
28-Jul-07
20:00:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.8
28-Jul-07
20:30:00
Great Australian Albums Series 1 Ep.1
30-Jul-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.217
30-Jul-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.103
30-Jul-07
21:04:00
Drawn Together Series 3 Ep.27
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
01-Aug-07
20:01:00
Halal Mate Series 1 Ep.1
04-Aug-07
19:30:00
Nerds FC Series 2 Ep.17
04-Aug-07
20:01:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.9
04-Aug-07
20:30:00
Great Australian Albums Series 1 Ep.2
05-Aug-07
21:30:00
Circuit, The Series 1 Ep.5
06-Aug-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.218
06-Aug-07
20:36:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.87
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
06-Aug-07
21:03:00
Stripperella Series 1 Ep.11
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
06-Aug-07
25:17:00
Stripperella Series 1 Ep.1
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
08-Aug-07
20:01:00
Halal Mate Series 1 Ep.2
08-Aug-07
25:43:00
Stripperella Series 1 Ep.2
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Aug-07
25:33:00
Stripperella Series 1 Ep.3
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
11-Aug-07
13:00:00
Best Of Bejart: Love And Dance Ep.0
Scene/Act changes used as breaks
11-Aug-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.12
11-Aug-07
19:30:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.10
11-Aug-07
19:30:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.11
11-Aug-07
20:32:00
Great Australian Albums Series 1 Ep.3
12-Aug-07
21:30:00
Circuit, The Series 1 Ep.6
13-Aug-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.219
13-Aug-07
20:36:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.105
13-Aug-07
21:04:00
Stripperella Series 1 Ep.12
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
15-Aug-07
20:01:00
Halal Mate Series 1 Ep.3
18-Aug-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.5
18-Aug-07
19:30:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.12
18-Aug-07
19:30:00
Kick Series 1 Ep.13
18-Aug-07
20:31:00
Great Australian Albums Series 1 Ep.4
20-Aug-07
20:36:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.107
20-Aug-07
21:03:00
Stripperella Series 1 Ep.13
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
22-Aug-07
20:00:00
Halal Mate Series 1 Ep.4
24-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.1
25-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.2
26-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.3
27-Aug-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.220
27-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.4
28-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.5
29-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.6
30-Aug-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.7
31-Aug-07
18:01:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.8
01-Sep-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.9
02-Sep-07
18:00:00
Hotspell Series 1 Ep.10
03-Sep-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.82
03-Sep-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.108
03-Sep-07
21:03:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.8
08-Sep-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.21
08-Sep-07
20:36:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.52
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
09-Sep-07
12:00:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.1
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Sep-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.222
10-Sep-07
19:31:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.83
10-Sep-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.110
10-Sep-07
21:03:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.9
15-Sep-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.22
15-Sep-07
20:34:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.53
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
16-Sep-07
10:35:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.2
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Sep-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.223
17-Sep-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.84
17-Sep-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.111
17-Sep-07
21:02:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.10
19-Sep-07
17:00:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.8
22-Sep-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.23
22-Sep-07
20:39:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.62
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
23-Sep-07
10:36:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.3
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Sep-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.224
24-Sep-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.85
24-Sep-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.113
24-Sep-07
21:03:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.11
29-Sep-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.24
29-Sep-07
20:37:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.55
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
29-Sep-07
21:24:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.52
30-Sep-07
10:38:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.4
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
01-Oct-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.225
01-Oct-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.87
01-Oct-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.114
01-Oct-07
21:03:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.12
06-Oct-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.25
06-Oct-07
20:38:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.57
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
06-Oct-07
21:25:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.53
08-Oct-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.88
08-Oct-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.115
08-Oct-07
21:02:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.13
10-Oct-07
22:03:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.1
13-Oct-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.26
13-Oct-07
20:31:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.56
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
13-Oct-07
21:21:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.54
15-Oct-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.227
15-Oct-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.90
15-Oct-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.116
15-Oct-07
21:03:00
Bro’ Town Series 3 Ep.14
17-Oct-07
19:30:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.1
17-Oct-07
22:02:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.2
20-Oct-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.27
20-Oct-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.58
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
20-Oct-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.55
22-Oct-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.228
22-Oct-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.86
22-Oct-07
20:34:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.117
22-Oct-07
21:00:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.1
24-Oct-07
19:30:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.2
24-Oct-07
22:02:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.3
27-Oct-07
13:00:00
Renee Fleming And Bryn Terfel: Under The Stars Ep.0
27-Oct-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.28
27-Oct-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 3 Ep.59
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
27-Oct-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.56
29-Oct-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.229
29-Oct-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.30
29-Oct-07
20:34:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.118
29-Oct-07
21:01:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.2
31-Oct-07
19:30:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.3
31-Oct-07
22:02:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.4
03-Nov-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.29
03-Nov-07
20:30:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.1
03-Nov-07
21:23:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.57
05-Nov-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.230
05-Nov-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.31
05-Nov-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.119
05-Nov-07
21:02:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.3
05-Nov-07
25:50:00
Crank Yankers Series 3 Ep.29
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
07-Nov-07
19:30:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.4
07-Nov-07
22:02:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.5
10-Nov-07
18:00:00
Here Comes The Neighbourhood Series 3 Ep.30
10-Nov-07
20:31:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.2
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
10-Nov-07
21:24:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.58
12-Nov-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.231
12-Nov-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.13
12-Nov-07
20:31:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.120
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
12-Nov-07
20:58:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.4
14-Nov-07
19:30:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.5
14-Nov-07
22:02:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.6
16-Nov-07
22:02:00
If Awards 2007 Ep.0
program was live to air
17-Nov-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.10
17-Nov-07
20:30:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.3
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
17-Nov-07
21:23:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.59
19-Nov-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.232
19-Nov-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.9
19-Nov-07
20:34:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.121
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
19-Nov-07
21:01:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.5
21-Nov-07
19:35:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.6
21-Nov-07
22:04:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.7
23-Nov-07
19:30:00
Glamour Game, The Series 1 Ep.1
24-Nov-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.32
24-Nov-07
19:36:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.4
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Nov-07
20:36:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.4
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Nov-07
22:20:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.32
25-Nov-07
10:36:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.12
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
25-Nov-07
20:34:00
Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice To All Creation Series 1 Ep.1
26-Nov-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.233
26-Nov-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.40
26-Nov-07
20:34:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.104
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
26-Nov-07
21:01:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.6
28-Nov-07
19:30:00
Is Your House Killing You? Series 1 Ep.7
28-Nov-07
22:03:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.8
30-Nov-07
19:30:00
Glamour Game, The Series 1 Ep.2
01-Dec-07
13:01:00
Grande Duchesse De Gerolstein, La Ep.0
01-Dec-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.33
01-Dec-07
20:30:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.5
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
01-Dec-07
21:23:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.60
02-Dec-07
10:34:00
Corner Gas Series 1 Ep.13
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
02-Dec-07
20:32:00
Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice To All Creation Series 1 Ep.2
03-Dec-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.234
03-Dec-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.93
03-Dec-07
20:34:00
South Park Series 6 Ep.92
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
03-Dec-07
21:01:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.7
05-Dec-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 2 Ep.14
05-Dec-07
22:02:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.9
06-Dec-07
20:30:00
East West 101 Series 1 Ep.1
08-Dec-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.34
08-Dec-07
20:31:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.6
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
08-Dec-07
21:23:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.61
09-Dec-07
10:39:00
Corner Gas Series 2 Ep.14
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
09-Dec-07
20:37:00
Dr Tatiana’s Sex Advice To All Creation Series 1 Ep.3
10-Dec-07
17:00:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.235
10-Dec-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.89
10-Dec-07
21:01:00
Pizza Series 5 Ep.8
12-Dec-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 2 Ep.15
12-Dec-07
22:01:00
Newstopia Series 1 Ep.10
13-Dec-07
20:30:00
East West 101 Series 1 Ep.2
15-Dec-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.36
15-Dec-07
20:30:00
Long Way Round, The Series 1 Ep.7
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
15-Dec-07
21:23:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.62
17-Dec-07
17:01:00
Crew, The Series 1 Ep.236
17-Dec-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.81
17-Dec-07
21:06:00
South Park Series 8 Ep.124
19-Dec-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 2 Ep.16
20-Dec-07
20:30:00
East West 101 Series 1 Ep.3
22-Dec-07
17:31:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.47
22-Dec-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.80
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
22-Dec-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.66
23-Dec-07
11:33:00
Corner Gas Series 2 Ep.15
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Dec-07
19:30:00
Mythbusters Series 3 Ep.80
24-Dec-07
20:35:00
South Park Series 1 (Rere) Ep.10
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
24-Dec-07
21:02:00
South Park Series 7 Ep.112
26-Dec-07
19:30:00
Food Safari Series 2 Ep.17
27-Dec-07
20:30:00
East West 101 Series 1 Ep.4
29-Dec-07
17:30:00
Mythbusters Series 1 Ep.37
29-Dec-07
20:30:00
Iron Chef, The Series 4 Ep.93
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
29-Dec-07
21:20:00
Rockwiz Series 5 Ep.64
30-Dec-07
12:05:00
Corner Gas Series 2 Ep.16
Delivered with too many breaks, some closed up
ATTACHMENT C
Dear ,
Thank you for writing to SBS to express your concerns about changes to program breaks on SBS Television.
SBS has taken this course of action following a great deal of consideration and investigation. It was not an easy decision to make, but the alternative is less palatable.
SBS could continue with its past format, but its ability to commission quality Australian productions and to purchase the world’s best films, television programs and sporting fixtures would become more and more restricted and constrained by lack of funds and rising competition from Pay TV and the commercial networks.
SBS obtains about 80% of its funds from Government, and the remainder comes from advertising revenue. Even though that amount is relatively small – less than $30m last financial year – it is vitally important revenue that goes exclusively to the purchase, commissioning and production of programs.
Under its Act, SBS is obligated to operate in an efficient and cost-effective manner and, importantly, it is required to actively pursue funding opportunities independent of Government funding.
The Act also stipulates that SBS can broadcast a maximum of five minutes of ads per hour between programs and in natural breaks (much less than the 13-15 minutes typically shown by commercial networks). That five minutes restriction still applies, but the ads and program promos are now spread across the hour.
Previously, SBS has run 6-10 minute blocks of ads and program promotions between programs and this has had two effects: first, more than 50% of our viewers switch channels, and secondly, the reduced audience means that our advertising rates have to be pegged at levels far below the commercial networks.
Because SBS ads don’t return premium advertising rates, SBS’s total advertising revenue suffers. Less money from ads means less money for programs.
By placing short ads within programs when we reach peak audiences, our advertising rates (and revenue) can be increased. All of this additional revenue will go into program making and the commissioning of programs from independent Australian filmmakers.
The change has another benefit: we will be able to reach more viewers with program promotions (promos), to alert them about forthcoming programs that they might otherwise miss.
You can find the guidelines that will govern the way breaks are inserted at www.sbs.com.au and click on Codes of Practice.
Regards
Dear ,
Unfortunately, we are not able to respond to all emails due to the sheer number received and because of limited staffing resources. However, all comments about advertising are noted and brought to the attention of SBS management.
For your interest, SBS’ reasons for introducing in-program breaks can be found at: http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1214
Regards
Dear ,
Thank you for your comments, we’ll pass them on to SBS management for their information and consideration.
For your interest, SBS’ reasons for introducing in-program breaks can be found at: www.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate
Regards
ATTACHMENT D
Dear **********
Thank you for your letter concerning the introduction of advertising within SBS Television programs. The Managing Director has asked that I respond to your complaint.
SBS has taken this course of action following a great deal of consideration and investigation. It was not an easy decision to make, but the alternative was far less palatable. SBS could continue with its current format, but its ability to commission quality Australian productions and to purchase the world’s best films, television programs and sporting fixtures would become more and more restricted due to limited Government funding and the prospect of diminished advertising revenue as a result of competition from Pay TV, the Internet and other media.
SBS obtains about 80% of its funds from Government. But in the May budget SBS suffered a $3m shortfall in its appropriation for this current year (excluding digital transmission and distribution costs) and received no extra funds at all for program making.
The remainder of SBS funding comes from advertising revenue. Even though that amount is relatively small it is vitally important revenue that goes exclusively to the purchase, commissioning and production of programs.
Under its Act, SBS is obligated to operate in an efficient and cost-effective manner and, importantly, it is enabled to actively pursue funding opportunities independent of Government funding.
Since 1991, SBS Television has broadcast a maximum of five minutes of ads per hour between programs and in natural breaks in accordance with the Act. This is far less than the average 13-15 minutes of advertising permitted on the commercial television networks.
Until now, SBS has broadcast up to five minutes of ads as well as several minutes of program promotions in a single block between programs, meaning 6-10 minutes would elapse before the next program began. During this time, we consistently lost more than 50% of our viewers. They would simply change channels or switch off.
With smaller audiences, SBS’s advertising rates (already well below the commercial networks) had to be reduced still further. The result has been a curtailment of our program-making capabilities because less money from ads means less money for the commissioning and the production of original programs.
Under the new format the maximum of five minutes of ads per hour still applies, but the ads will be spread across the hour in three separate breaks, each containing 90 seconds of commercials. In half-hour programs, there will be two 60-second commercial breaks.
This will restore true commercial value to SBS’s ad breaks. By placing short ads within programs, when SBS reaches its peak audiences, our advertising rates can be increased. We estimate that this will raise at least $10m in the first 12 months of operation. All of this additional revenue will go into program making and the commissioning of programs from independent Australian producers.
With this extra revenue we will launch a one hour news program in January that will expand our coverage of international and national news. The bulk of the additional funds will go to the commissioning of quality Australian drama, documentaries and other programs.
By dramatically reducing the time between programs, we believe SBS audiences will be encouraged to stay, especially because the in-program breaks will include program promotions about forthcoming programs. It is important that information about other programs on SBS reaches the largest possible audience. Currently these messages, in the form of promos, are lost in the middle of lengthy and cluttered breaks between programs. Too often our audience tells us they would have watched a particular program “if only I had known it was on”. The placement of promos in a more accessible place helps overcome that communication failure.
I understand your concerns regarding in-program breaks, but these changes will enable us to continue to provide our viewers with the highest quality and most diverse programming available on free-to-air television in Australia.
Yours sincerely
***********************
Merchant Seamen
2135
2135
100
2135
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
0
Senator Allison
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
Will the Government consider awarding Gold Cards to allied merchant seamen who served during World War II and who currently receive a services pension with a health condition; if not, why not.
2135
Faulkner, Sen John
5K4
New South Wales
ALP
Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary
1
Senator Faulkner
—The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
At this stage, the Government has no plan to change the current eligibility provisions relating to the Gold Card.
The Australian Repatriation system is based primarily on the principle of providing compensation, including the Gold Card, to veterans and their dependants for the effects of service with Australia’s Defence Force. These provisions also apply to eligible Australian mariners and their dependants.
The veterans and mariners of other countries do not generally qualify for benefits of a compensatory nature such as the Gold Card from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. However, there are exceptions for those who satisfy the domicile provision specified in the Veterans’ Affairs legislation.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: Government Appointments and Grants
2135
2135
128
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
With reference to Senator Minchin’s letter to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, dated 1 February 2008, can the following information be provided prior to each round of Estimates and for Additional Estimates by 13 February 2008:
-
What appointments have been made by the Government (through Executive Council, Cabinet and ministers) to statutory authorities, executive agencies and advisory boards within the Minister’s portfolio; and (b) for each appointment, what are the respective appointee’s credentials.
-
How many vacancies remain to be filled by ministerial (including Cabinet and Executive Council) appointments.
-
What grants have been approved by the Minister from within the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What requests have been submitted to the Department of Finance and Deregulation to move funds within the Minister’s portfolio.
2135
Evans, Sen Chris
AX5
Western Australia
ALP
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
1
Senator Chris Evans
—The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
Senator the Hon Chris Evans as Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate will respond on my behalf.
-
As at 9 May 2008, the following positions were vacant.
Body
Position/s
Aboriginal Hostels Limited Board
3 Directors
National Disability and Carers Ministerial Advisory Council
1 Member
Indigenous Business Australia
Chairperson
-
The following table provides the details of the grants approved by the Minister from within the Minister’s portfolio as at 21 April 2008.
Program Name
Date of
Approval
Organisation Funded
Location
Total Funding 3 Years
(GST Excl)
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Families in Focus (Baptist Community Services, Centacare Sydney, Anglicare Sydney)
Bankstown NSW
$900,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Relationships Australia NSW
Bathurst NSW
$840,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Relationships Australia NSW
Brookvale NSW
$720,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Coffs Harbour Family & Relationship Services (Interrelate Family Centres, Family Action Centre University of Newcastle and Community Programs Inc)
Coffs Harbour NSW
$720,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
UnitingCare Burnside
Dubbo NSW
$1,020,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Gosford Integrated Family Services (InterrelateFamily Centres, Family Action Centre University of Newcastle, Centacare Broken Bay and Baptist Community Services)
Gosford NSW
$1,020,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Families in Focus (Anglicare Sydney, Centacare Sydney, Baptist Community Services)
Parramatta NSW
$840,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Families in Focus (Centacare Sydney, Baptist Community Services and Anglicare Sydney)
Sydney City NSW
$960,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
New England North West Family Relationship Centre Consortium (Centacare New England Northwest, Anglican Counselling Services and Tamworth Family Support Services Inc)
Tamworth NSW
$840,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Centacare Newcastle-Manning Support Service Inc (Centacare Newcastle and Manning Support Services Incorporated)
Taree NSW
$780,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
United Family Care - Lifeline, Centacare and the Indigenous Wellbeing Centre (Lifeline Community Care Queensland (LCCQ), Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Rockhampton and The Bundaberg and Burnett Region Community Development Aboriginal Corporation)
Bundaberg QLD
$900,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Relationships Australia QLD
Mackay QLD
$900,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Kinections, Spiritus (The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane, trading as Spiritus Kinections)
North Brisbane QLD
$1,170,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Centacare & Lifeline - Combined Family Services (Corporation of The Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba and Lifeline Darling Downs and South West Queensland Limited)
Toowoomba QLD
$600,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Lutheran Community Care, Lutheran Church of Australia SA/NT District Inc
Adelaide SA
$720,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Broadmeadows/Chadstone Family Works (FMC Relationship Services and Life Works Relationship Counselling and Education Services)
Chadstone VIC
$780,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Melbourne Family Relationship Consortium (Drummond Street Relationship Centre, GordonCare for Children and Family Life)
Melbourne City VIC
$300,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Shepparton FRC & EIS Consortium (CentaCare Sandhurst and Goulburn Valley Familycare)
Shepparton VIC
$720,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Warrnambool Early Intervention Services Consortium (Centacare and Brophy Family and Youth Services)
Warrnambool VIC
$750,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
South West Integrated Services Consortium (Relationships Australia (WA), South West Counselling and The Greater Bunbury Division of General Practice)
Bunbury WA
$840,000
Family Relationship Services
4-Jan-08
Perth Relationship Services Consortium (Relationships Australia (WA), Uniting Care West, Multicultural Services Centre of WA and Perth Division of General Practice)
Perth City WA
$810,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Challenge Disability Services
New England NSW
$496,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
New Horizons Enterprises Ltd
Central Coast NSW
$342,700
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
House With No Steps
Central Coast NSW
$494,833
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
New Horizons Enterprises ltd
Northern Sydney NSW
$453,173
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Kirribilli Neighbourhood Centre
Northern Sydney NSW
$922,500
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Catholic Healthcare
Northern Sydney NSW
$524,395
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
The Lorna Hodgkinson Sunshine Home
Northern Sydney NSW
$487,249
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Catholic Healthcare
Cumberland / Prospect NSW
$359,566
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Baulkham Hills Shire Council
Cumberland / Prospect NSW
$775,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Catholic Healthcare
Riverina / Murray NSW
$322,267
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Catholic Healthcare
Southern Highlands NSW
$392,198
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
WorkAbility Personnel Inc
Southern Highlands NSW
$200,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
House With No Steps
Orana / Far West NSW
$494,833
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
House With No Steps
Illawarra NSW
$494,833
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
House With No Steps
Far North Coast NSW
$494,833
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
House With No Steps
Central West NSW
$494,833
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Frontier Services
Pilbara WA
$1,590,294
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Frontier Services
Kimberley WA
$468,219
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Life without Barriers
East Metro WA
$499,934
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Intework
East Metro WA
$481,065
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Workpower Incorporated
East Metro WA
$425,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Intework
North Metro WA
$481,065
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Intework
South East Metro WA
$481,065
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Workpower Incorporated
South East Metro WA
$425,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Schizophrenia Fellowship Albany & District Inc
Great Southern WA
$441,706
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Suncare Community Services Inc
Central, QLD
$496,000
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
St Michaels Association Inc
Northern, TAS
$423,979
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Life Without Barriers
South East Country, SA
$499,934
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
Bendigo Health Care Group
Loddon / Mallee, VIC
$470,168
Additional Respite Care
21-Apr-08
St Luke’s Anglicare
Loddon / Mallee, VIC
$499,910
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
Anglicare Tasmania Inc.
Hobart TAS
$828,136
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
Kilmany Uniting Care -The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Victoria)
Melbourne VIC
$751,168
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
Mission Australia
Sydney NSW
$877,501
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
Smith Family
Sydney NSW
$1,081,823
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
UnitingCare Wesley
Port Adelaide SA
$1,018,565
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
YWCA of NSW
Sydney NSW
$413,333
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
YWCA of NSW
Sydney NSW
$855,200
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
YWCA of NSW
Sydney NSW
$1,620,000
Communities for Children
18-Apr-08
Community Health Education Groups (CHEGS) Incorporated
Lismore NSW
$600,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Adelaide Central Community Health Service
Prospect East SA
$156,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Australian Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Program Inc.
Elizabeth Grove SA
$150,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Blacktown Alcohol And Other Drugs Family Services Incorporated
Blacktown NSW
$250,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Centacare NT
Berrimah NT
$177,001
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Drug Arm Australasia
Brisbane QLD
$170,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Early Support for Parents Inc.
Hobart TAS
$180,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Fadiss Limited
Leura NSW
$150,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Glastonbury Child And Family Services
Geelong VIC
$143,520
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Grace Fellowship
Kingsley WA
$80,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Holyoake Australian Institute For Alcohol & Drug Addiction Resolutions
Perth WA
$92,102
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Kurbingui Youth Development Association
Zillmere QLD
$130,229
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Odyssey House Victoria
Richmond VIC
$250,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Odyssey House Victoria
Richmond VIC
$360,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Open Family Australia Incorporated
South Melbourne VIC
$70,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Pro-Fam Australia Counselling Services Incorporated
Clayton VIC
$215,000
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Queensland Injectors Health Network Ltd
Fortitude Valley QLD
$91,529
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
The Benevolent Society
Paddington NSW
$118,346
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Women’s Health Services
Northbridge WA
$110,009
National Illicit Drug Strategy
18-Apr-08
Youth Coalition Of The ACT
O’Connor ACT
$80,000
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Canberra & Goulburn
Watson ACT
$336,029
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Relationships Australia (Canberra & Region)
Deakin ACT
$334,247
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Catholic Diocese of Bathurst
Bathurst NSW
$322,140
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Catholic Diocese of Wagga Wagga
Wagga Wagga NSW
$338,810
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Catholic Diocese of Wilcannia Forbes
Forbes NSW
$328,645
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Interrelate NSW
Baulkham Hills NSW
$392,427
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Brisbane
Fortitude Valley QLD
$328,406
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Central QLD-Rockhampton
Rockhampton QLD
$315,146
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Toowoomba
Toowoomba QLD
$462,137
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centrelink
Townsville QLD
$283,333
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare catholic Diocese of Port Pirie Incorporated
Whyalla SA
$336,433
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Relationships Australia (SA) Inc
Adelaide SA
$354,167
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Anglican Community Care
Murray Bridge SA
$283,333
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Catholic Diocese of Ballarat Inc
Ballarat VIC
$397,747
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Diocese of Sandhurst
Bendigo VIC
$354,167
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Diocese of Sandhurst
Bendigo VIC
$330,339
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Melbourne
East Melbourne VIC
$326,995
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Relationships Australia (VIC)
Hawthorn East VIC
$354,167
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Relationships Australia (VIC)
Hawthorn East VIC
$321,953
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Community Connections
Warrnambool VIC
$425,000
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centacare Family Services Geraldton
Geraldton WA
$264,852
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Centrecare Goldfields-Esperance
Kalgoorlie WA
$276,814
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Relationships Australia (WA)
West Leederville WA
$272,867
Family Support Drought Response Teams Initiative
18-Apr-08
Relationships Australia Tasmania
New Town TAS
$283,333
-
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry as Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the Senate will respond on my behalf.
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts: Government Appointments and Grants
2135
2135
134
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
With reference to Senator Minchin’s letter to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, dated 1 February 2008, can the following information be provided prior to each round of Estimates and for Additional Estimates by 13 February 2008:
-
What appointments have been made by the Government (through Executive Council, Cabinet and ministers) to statutory authorities, executive agencies and advisory boards within the Minister’s portfolio; and (b) for each appointment, what are the respective appointee’s credentials.
-
How many vacancies remain to be filled by ministerial (including Cabinet and Executive Council) appointments.
-
What grants have been approved by the Minister from within the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What requests have been submitted to the Department of Finance and Deregulation to move funds within the Minister’s portfolio.
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
Senator the Hon Chris Evans as Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate will respond on my behalf.
-
The following boards have the following vacancies that remain to be filled.
Board of Australian Business Arts Foundation – 2
Board of Australian Film Commission – 1
Australia Council – 1
Dance Board of the Australia Council – 4
The appointment to fill one of these vacancies is currently being considered
Literature Board of the Australia Council – 3
The appointment to fill one of these vacancies is currently being considered
Major Performing Arts Board of the Australia Council – 1
The appointment to fill this vacancy is currently being considered
Music Board of the Australia Council – 1
Theatre Board of the Australia Council – 3
An appointment to fill one of these vacancies is currently being considered
Visual Arts Board of the Australia Council – 2
The appointment to fill one of these vacancies is currently being considered
Board of Bundanon Trust – 1
Board of Film Australia Ltd – 1
Board of Film Finance Corporation – 2
Committee on Taxation Incentives for the Arts – 1
Committee on Public Lending Rights – 1
Council of Australian National Maritime Museum – 3
Council of National Gallery of Australia – 1
Council of the National Library of Australia – 1
The appointment to fill this vacancy is currently being considered
Visions of Australia Committee – 4
The appointments to fill these vacancies are currently being considered.
Film Certification Advisory Board – 2
Appointments for 2 members of the newly legislated Location and Post, Digital and Visual Effects Production (PDV) Offsets are currently being considered
Old Parliament House Governing Council – 2
Indigenous Protected Areas Advisory Group – 1
This position is set aside for ‘an officer nominated by the Indigenous Lands Council (ILC) General Manager or ILC Board’.
Action is now underway to fill this vacancy.
Kakadu National Park Board of Management – 1
This board has a vacant nature conservation representative. This position was vacant prior to the change of Government.
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Board of Management – 1
Member vacancy for position to be nominated by the Minister for the Environment.
Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee – 1
NT Government representative
Alligator Rivers Region Advisory Committee – 1
NT Government representative
Booderee National Park Board of Management – 12
The make up of the Booderee National Park Board of Management was due to change by February 2008 (when current member terms expired). It was planned to change the membership following changes (in September 2007) to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council Executive Board. Approval for new board member appointments was not able to be forwarded for Ministerial decision prior to the caretaker period. The appointment of new members has been delayed as Parks Australia is waiting on fit & proper persons check to be completed by the Australian Federal Police before the proposed membership can be provided to the Minister for approval.
Point Nepean Community Trust – 1
There is no proposal to fill this position.
The Australian Maritime College withdrew its nomination for membership of the Trust as it no longer has an interest in the site.
Wet Tropics Management Authority Board – 2
Two Aboriginal Director positions were vacant at the time of the change in
Government.
The Minister has taken action to fill these positions.
Fraser Island Scientific Advisory Committee – 1
One position has become vacant since the change of Government
Fraser Island Community Advisory Committee – 1
One position has become vacant since the change of Government
-
Information on grants approved by the Minister can be found on the Department’s website at www.environment.gov.au and details of grant programs can be found in the Department’s Annual Report.
-
Please refer to the response to Parliamentary Question on Notice No 129 asked of the Minister for Finance and Deregulation.
The honourable senator is welcome to attend Estimates hearings in future and request the information sought in this Question on Notice.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs: Government Appointments and Grants
2135
2135
144 and 145
2135
Minchin, Sen Nick
JX4
South Australia
LP
0
Senator Minchin
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
With reference to Senator Minchin’s letter to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, dated 1 February 2008, can the following information be provided prior to each round of Estimates and for Additional Estimates by 13 February 2008:
-
What appointments have been made by the Government (through Executive Council, Cabinet and ministers) to statutory authorities, executive agencies and advisory boards within the Minister’s portfolio; and (b) for each appointment, what are the respective appointee’s credentials.
-
How many vacancies remain to be filled by ministerial (including Cabinet and Executive Council) appointments.
-
What grants have been approved by the Minister from within the Minister’s portfolio.
-
What requests have been submitted to the Department of Finance and Deregulation to move funds within the Minister’s portfolio.
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The Minister for Housing and the Minister for the Status of Women has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
Senator the Hon Chris Evans as Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate will respond on my behalf.
-
Nil.
-
Nil.
-
Senator the Hon Nick Sherry as Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the Senate will respond on my behalf.
The Honourable Senator is welcome to attend Estimates hearings in future and request the information sought in this Question on Notice.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: Western Australia
2135
2135
226
2135
Cormann, Sen Mathias
HDA
Western Australia
LP
0
Senator Cormann
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
-
Since 24 November 2007, what federal funding, programs and/or services to Western Australia have been cut and/or discontinued in any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies; and (b) what savings have been made from these cuts.
-
What plans does the Government have to cut and/or discontinue federal funding, programs and/or services to Western Australia in any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies in the coming period; and (b) what estimated savings would be made from these cuts.
2135
Carr, Sen Kim
AW5
Victoria
ALP
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
1
Senator Carr
—The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
-
Since 24 November 2007, no federal funding, programs and/or services to Western Australia have been cut and/or discontinued in any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies.
-
n/a
-
Updated program estimates will be announced in the 2008-09 Budget. The Government will also undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure. The Government will release the review’s findings in the 2008-09 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations: Western Australia
2135
2135
227 228 254 259
2135
Cormann, Sen Mathias
HDA
Western Australia
LP
0
Senator Cormann
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister representing the Minister for Social Inclusion, upon notice, on 12 February 2008:
-
Since 24 November 2007, what federal funding, programs and/or services to Western Australia have been cut and/or discontinued in any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies; and (b) what savings have been made from these cuts.
-
What plans does the Government have to cut and/or discontinue federal funding, programs and/or services to Western Australia in any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies in the coming period; and (b) what estimated savings would be made from these cuts.
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
-
Since 24 November 2007, no federal funding, programs and/or services to Western Australia have been cut and/or discontinued in any of the Minister’s portfolio agencies.
-
n/a
-
Updated program estimates will be announced in the 2008-09 Budget. The Government will also undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure. The Government will release the review’s findings in the 2008-09 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
General Practice Services
2135
2135
297
2135
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
0
Senator Allison
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 21 February 2008:
With reference to the plan for the establishment of ‘GP superclinics’:
-
Will there be provision for salaried general practitioners (GPs).
-
What other health professionals will be employed in the superclinics; and (b) will they be employed on a fee-for-service or salaried basis.
-
Will the superclinics employ nurse practitioners; if so: (a) what role will they play; (b) what services will they provide; and (c) how will they be renumerated.
-
What incentives will be offered to encourage the use of preventative services in the superclinics.
2135
Ludwig, Sen Joe
84N
Queensland
ALP
Minister for Human Services
1
Senator Ludwig
—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
All GP Super Clinics will involve privately practising GPs billing the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Within these arrangements there may be scope for an employment arrangement whereby a GP may operate as an employee within a private practice.
-
-
It is expected that GP Super Clinics will provide multidisciplinary care, tailored to the needs and priorities of the local community and provide services that complement and enhance existing health services in the community. The mix of health professionals providing services in the GP Super Clinic will therefore be determined in response to this. It is anticipated that it could include a range of allied health professionals and nurses, in addition to GPs; and
-
The remuneration for other health professionals will be determined by the entity that operates each GP Super Clinic, but will need to be consistent with regulatory requirements. However, GP Super Clinics will allow for privately practising allied health professionals operating on a fee-for-service basis.
-
-
The potential role of a nurse practitioner in a GP Super Clinic would be a decision for the entity that operates the clinic and would depend on the needs of the local community;
-
The possible services provided by a nurse practitioner at the GP Super Clinic would be a decision for the entity that operates the clinic and would depend on the local needs of the community; and
-
Remuneration arrangements will be determined by the entity that operates each GP Super Clinics but will need to be consistent with regulatory requirements.
-
The key objective of the GP Super Clinic is building a stronger primary health care system by providing greater focus on health promotion and illness prevention and better coordination between privately provided GP and allied health services, community health and other state and territory government funded services.
The infrastructure funded through the GP Super Clinic initiative could include facilities which would encourage the delivery of preventative services, such as group exercise sessions and other health promotion activities.
Government Vehicle Fleet
2135
2135
305
2135
Allison, Sen Lyn
1M6
Victoria
AD
0
Senator Allison
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, upon notice, on 27 February 2008:
With reference to the reduction of the Government vehicle fleet by 1,500 vehicles since 2001:
-
How was this reduction achieved.
-
Are efforts being made to achieve further reductions; if so, what are these efforts.
2135
Sherry, Sen Nick
ZW4
Tasmania
ALP
Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
1
Senator Sherry
—The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
In respect of Part (1) of the question, the Senator was unable to provide the source of the claimed reduction of 1,500 vehicles. The Department of Finance and Deregulation’s records, however, indicate that since 2001 the size of the fleet across the (then) 78 agencies in the leased fleet has decreased by more than 1,500 vehicles.
In relation to Parts (1) and (2) of the question, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 requires Chief Executives to manage the affairs of their Agency in a way that promotes proper use of the Commonwealth resources for which the Chief Executive is responsible.
In support of this requirement, the Government’s outsourced Fleet Manager is contractually obliged to provide a Fleet Optimisation Service (the Service) the purpose of which is to identify under utilised (and over utilised) vehicles within departments and agencies and to recommend remedial strategies. The objective of the Service is to establish and maintain each agency’s fleet at the optimum level. The benefits of the Service can be seen through reduced fleet numbers (and costs) and improved environmental performance.
The Service requires the Fleet Manager to provide agencies with monthly vehicle utilisation reports which identify vehicles that are varying by plus or minus ten percent from their agreed lease profile. In addition to this, the Fleet Manager is required to discuss fleet optimisation in its periodic meetings with agencies.
Where an under-utilised vehicle is identified, agencies have a range of options available to them including:
-
Review the vehicle’s administration in order to better integrate it into the agency’s business (i.e. make better use of the car);
-
Re-deploy the vehicle within the agency or to another agency (the Fleet Manager is contractually obliged to take all necessary steps to investigate redeployment options); or
-
Terminate the vehicle’s lease.
The combination of internal cost efficiency imperatives and external fleet management expertise serves to provide continuing downward pressure on the size of the fleet. Overall fleet numbers, however, will always be influenced by the range and number of services the Government is required to deliver.
Occupational Health and Safety
2135
2135
393
2135
Siewert, Sen Rachel
E5Z
Western Australia
AG
0
Senator Siewert
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, upon notice, on 3 April 2008:
With reference to inspections of occupational health and safety (OHS) in Commonwealth workplaces and workers covered under Commonwealth agreements:
-
For each of the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, by state and territory, what was the number of OHS: (a) inspections; (b) investigations; (c) fines; and (d) prosecutions.
-
What administrative arrangements are currently in place for OHS regulation in Commonwealth workplaces and workers covered under Commonwealth agreements.
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relationshas provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
-
Comcare’s regulatory model does not operate an OHS Inspectorate along the lines adopted by the state and territory OHS regulators. Given the different profile of workplaces covered by the Comcare scheme, that is, fewer and larger organisations with mature OHS management systems in place, Comcare operates with multi-skilled investigators, who investigate compliance by employers with their legal responsibilities by assessing the management systems the employers have implemented to meet their duty of care. Under Comcare’s regulatory framework compliance with OHS law takes a balance of proactive and reactive investigative interventions.
-
-
and (d)
-
Legislative Framework
The Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 (the OHS Act):
-
imposes general duties of care on employers, employees, manufacturers, suppliers, erectors and installers
-
places a statutory duty on every employer to consult with employees or their representatives on the development of health and safety management arrangements (HSMAs) which will enable effective cooperation in promoting and developing health, safety and welfare at work
-
provides for employee representation in OHS matters through the institutions of HSRs and health and safety committees.
The Act is supported by Regulations and approved Codes of Practice, both of which are legislative instruments. Guidance material and facts sheets are also available.
The Regulations set out the mandatory supplementary provisions about various procedures, responsibilities and obligations associated with the OHS Act or specified hazards or types of work. There are two sets of Regulations, the:
-
Occupational Health and Safety (Safety Arrangements) Regulations 1991 sets requirements in relation to elections of health and safety representatives, incident notification, incident investigations and other matters, and
-
Occupational Health and Safety (Safety Standards) Regulations 1994 sets out mandatory requirements with respect to specific duties such as undertaking risk assessments and meeting license requirements in relation to specific risks in the workplace such as plant safety, noise, manual handling, hazardous substances, dangerous goods, confined spaces, major hazard facilities, electrical work, driver fatigue, construction and falls from two metres or more.
Approved Codes of Practice provide practical guidance on how employers should fulfil their responsibilities on how to achieve the performance outcomes. Approved codes of practice are designed to be used in conjunction with the OHS Act and Regulations. They have a legal status of evidence in proceedings and should be followed unless there is another means of achieving the same or better safety outcomes. In the case of an alleged breach of the OHS Act or Regulations, an approved Code of Practice is evidence in legal proceedings that relevant guidance on the issue was available and should have been followed.
Guidance materials are approved by either Comcare or the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and describe activities and procedures a duty holder should follow to meet the performance outcomes set in the OHS Act and regulations. Guidance material does not have legal status, but may be assessed by the courts on an objective basis in relation to what an employer knew or should have known in regard to ensuring they meet their duty of care.
Fact sheets provide duty holders with information on OHS issues. Fact sheets are informative documents only and are not generally used as evidence in the case of a contravention of the OHS Act or Regulations.
OHS Regulation
Comcare takes a multi pronged approach to ensuring that organisations can and do comply with the OHS Act including:
-
compliance assistance, which involves Comcare in working with employers and employees in the jurisdiction to:
Burrup Peninsula
2135
2135
398
2135
Siewert, Sen Rachel
E5Z
Western Australia
AG
0
Senator Siewert
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, upon notice, on 7 April 2008:
With reference to an answer provided by the Western Australian Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for the Environment in the Western Australian Legislative Council, the Honourable Sally Talbot MLC, to question on notice no. 5913 (Western Australian Legislative Council Hansard, 18 March 2008, p 1034b) and records of determinations made by the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority, available on the authority’s website at www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/2641_ChairDets140108.pdf), and given that Western Australian mining leases M47/112, M47/29 and M47/326, two of which straddle the national heritage listed area of the Dampier Archipelago (including the Burrup Peninsula), have been given environmental approval by the Western Australian Government without any environmental assessment or advice:
-
Was the department informed of the mining applications within the national heritage listed area: (a) if so: (i) on what date, and (ii) what action or evaluation was carried out by the department in respect of the application; or (b) if not: (i) does the Minister intend to find out why not, and/or (ii) what action does the Minister intend to take.
-
Does the Minister support mining activity in, or adjacent to, the area; if so, why.
2135
Wong, Sen Penny
00AOU
South Australia
ALP
Minister for Climate Change and Water
1
Senator Wong
—The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
-
The department was not informed of the mining applications referred to by the honourable senator. I have asked the department to look into the matter.
-
The National Heritage values of the Dampier Archipelago (including the Burrup Peninsula) are recognised and protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In accordance with my obligations under that Act, I would only approve an action referred to me after carefully considering whether it would have, or be likely to have, a significant impact on the National Heritage values of the National Heritage place.